Dollar Crashes On Powell Removal Speculation, Gold Soars To All Time High And Bitcoin Suddenly Spikes

What was a miserable shortened week for the USD has gone from bad to worse in early Asia trading, when the Dollar index suddenly collapsed to a fresh 3 year low

While there is no specific catalyst for the suddenly collapse in the illiquid early Asian session, which sees many countries on extended Easter holiday, Bloomberg quotes traders that hedge funds are selling the dollar against virtually any currencies after National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Friday that President Donald Trump is still exploring ways to remove Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, according to traders.

“The president and his team will continue to study that,” National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Friday when asked by a reporter if removing Powell was an option.

Hassett then suggested, accurately, that the Fed under Powell, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, had acted politically to benefit Democrats.

“The policy of this Federal Reserve was to raise rates the minute President Trump was elected last time, to say that the supply-side tax cuts that were going to be inflationary,” Hassett said, adding that Fed officials opted not to go “on TV and at IMF meetings and warn about the terrible inflation from the obvious runaway spending from Joe Biden, and the obvious runaway spending from Joe Biden was textbook inflationary,” Hassett continued. “And then they cut rates right ahead of the election.”

Hassett, is of course, correct, as we first pointed out two weeks ago...

Fed reaction function pic.twitter.com/80AzJlZo3h

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 9, 2025

... as Bank of America's Michael Hartnett pointed out on Friday...

Fed cut 50bps in Sept when stock market at record high, Atlanta Fed was forecasting +3% US GDP growth; Fed now determined not to cut rates after 20% market plunge, Atlanta Fed forecasting -3% GDP growth

... and as former NY Fed president Bill Dudley made crystal clear all the way back in 2019.

The day is August 27, 2019. Former NY Fed president Bill Dudley writes a Bloomberg oped saying "the Fed shouldn't enable Donald Trump" and urged the central bank not to "provide offsetting stimulus" in Trump's trade war with China.

Six years later, here we are pic.twitter.com/H6WT5O0cMD

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

But since the market is terrified of the truth, especially if it means that Trump could take monetary policy actions into his own hands, the result has been a wholesale liquidation of all main currency pairs, with the EUR jumping to 3 year highs, even though Europe's economy remains an unmitigated disaster (Germany's upcoming debt spending spree notwithstanding), and even though the surge in the euro will make Europe's modest recession into a brutal one..

... the Yen surging 11% from its January lows, and at just over 141, the highest it has been against the dollar since the summer of 2023...

... and, of course, gold which is storming to new record highs this evening, spiking above $3,373, its dip last week now a distant memory.

Yet none of these moves are surprising to anyone who read - as we repeatedly urged - the Miran Mar-A-Lago paper: yes, the plunge in the dollar is just what the admin quietly wants (they have repeatedly stated they want a strong dollar "in the long term", but certainly not in the short, when the collapse in the greenback will boost US exports). 

Ironically, if Powell will not cut rates to ease financial conditions, Trump's repeated browbeating of the Fed chair and threats to fire him will crash the dollar low enough to where Trump will get his financial easing one way or another.

Still, there was one notable outlier in tonight's Dollar selloff: bitcoin. While previously any plunge in the dollar (and by extension surge in the yen) would batter what was little is left of the carry trade, hammering tech stocks and cryptos, tonight we finally saw a regime shift, and after flatlining initially, a burst of buying pushed bitcoin almost $2000 higher, above $87000, and its biggest one day move since Liberation Day...

... and the result is that while bitcoin had generally tracked the DXY Dollar index lower for much of 2025, the last few weeks - and certainly Sunday night - have seen a very tangible snap in this relationship.

This breach in the right correlation between the two, suggests that with gold approaching ridiculous prices, the next flight to safety away from the collapsing dollar will be bitcoin - after all, it's only a matter of time before all other central banks unleash a money printing frenzy to hammer their own currencies.

And since all bitcoin needs is a little unexpected upside to spark a huge short squeeze and to get the momentum trades piling on, should today's phase reversal sustain for a few days, we may see new all time highs in bitcoin in a very short time.

But wait... because the real fun for non-fiat assets will start once other central banks - such as the BOJ and ECB - can no longer just sit and watch as the dollar disintegrates, pushing their own currencies into the stratosphere and killing their economies... and they retaliate by restarting the next round of global fiat debasement first by slashing rates and then by restarting the money printer.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 06:33

The Failure Of The Expert Class... Again

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

This past week, The Atlantic ran an excellent, helpful, and important piece by David Zweig, excerpted from his forthcoming book An Abundance of Caution, which is, at least superficially, about the coronavirus pandemic and the school closures it prompted. Zweig denies that it is about the pandemic specifically, saying that it is, rather, about “the failure of the expert class.” Whatever the case, Zweig is unsparing in his criticism:

Without sufficient acknowledgment of the harms of school closures or adequate planning for unwinding this intervention, officials showed that their decisions to close were simply reactive rather than carefully considered. The decision makers set a radical project in motion with no plan on how to stop it. In effect, officials steered a car off the road, threw a cinder block on the accelerator, then jumped out of the vehicle with passengers still in the back. No one was in the front or even knew how to unstick the pedal.

The main point of Zweig’s case is that the so-called expert class was not particularly expert in this instance, which is to say that the damage it did was predictable and therefore preventable. Those in charge, whom we were all urged constantly to “trust,” were either ignorant of existing literature warning of the consequences of the actions they were taking or arrogant enough to think that they could produce outcomes different from those previously forecast. 

In the end, the “experts” failed the nation and especially its children, who suffered disproportionately from their arrogance.

Zweig is right, almost inarguably, and I look forward to reading his book. Nevertheless, I would take his case even a step further, suggesting that the problem is bigger than an arrogant and out-of-touch expert class. The problem, rather, is the largely unique American tradition that insists that expertise and politics must be distinct from one another, and that when they clash, the narrowness of expertise must take precedence over the girth and depth of the democratic crowd.

The COVID pandemic is not the first time that the American people have been let down and dragged down a dark road by their purportedly brilliant experts. Indeed, the defining event of the Baby Boom generation is, perhaps, the greatest (though hardly the only) example of previous “failures of the expert class.”

Americans’ faith in experts and the expert class likely hit its zenith in the 1950s, a decade in which almost anything seemed possible. America had defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. It had rescued Europe from its war and the post-war destruction. It was strong and tough and, of course, it possessed the brightest scientists and the mightiest weapons in all of human history.

On his best-known solo album, The Nightfly, Steely Dan co-founder Donald Fagen reminisced about those days and the promise they held. For example, in “I.G.Y.,” he muses:

Standing tough under stars and stripes
We can tell
This dream’s in sight
You’ve got to admit it
At this point in time that it’s clear
The future looks bright
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
Well by seventy-six we’ll be A. O. K….

A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We’ll be clean when their work is done
We’ll be eternally free yes and eternally young….

The I, the G, and the Y in the title of Fagen’s song refer to the “International Geophysical Year,” which was an 18-month-long scientific exchange celebration that ran from July 1957 to December 1958. The project was meant to take advantage of a reprieve in Cold War tensions to demonstrate to the world how science could produce lasting peace and harmony. The Soviets spoiled the peace and harmony bit by launching Sputnik three months later, sooner than the Americans could launch their satellite propelled by the rockets of Project Vanguard. In a fitting twist to the utopian agitprop of the IGY project, in response to Sputnik and to Vanguard’s failures, the United States turned, at last, to one of its greatest “experts” on rocket design, the erstwhile Nazi Wernher von Braun.

Of course, most Americans didn’t know about Braun, and so their illusions about the “experts” remained unshattered. In 1960, they elected a man and an administration that would come to epitomize the hope and the faith they placed in their experts. David Halberstam put it as follows in his classic The Best and the Brightest:

We seemed about to enter an Olympian age in this country, brains and intellect harnessed to great force, the better to define a common good… It seems long ago now, that excitement which swept through the country, or at least the intellectual reaches of it, that feeling that America was going to change, that the government had been handed down from the tired, flabby chamber-of-commerce mentality of the Eisenhower years to the best and brightest of a generation.

As the Fates and Nemesis would have it, however, it was the best and brightest who, in their arrogance and insularity, eventually shattered the expertise illusion with their debacle in Vietnam. Again, Halberstam wrote:

There is no small irony here: An administration which flaunted its intellectual superiority and its superior academic credentials made the most critical of decisions with virtually no input from anyone who had any expertise on the recent history of that part of the world, and it in no way factored in the entire experience of the French Indochina War. Part of the reason for this were the upheavals of the McCarthy period, but in part it was also the arrogance of men of the Atlantic; it was as if these men did not need to know about such a distant and somewhat less worthy part of the world. Lesser parts of the world attracted lesser men; years later I came upon a story which illustrated this theory perfectly. Jack Langguth, a writer and college classmate of mine, mentioned to a member of that Administration that he was thinking of going on to study Latin American history. The man had turned to him, his contempt barely concealed, and said, “Second-rate parts of the world for second-rate minds.”

The battle between the “rule of experts” and the rule of the people dates, like most of the dreadful battles in our society, to the dawn of the Progressive Era and the musings of Richard Ely and Woodrow Wilson. The expert class they envisioned proved to be a disaster, just as the Best and the Brightest did—and just as the health and education experts did during COVID.

As I say, the problem here isn’t expertise per se. Expertise is invaluable, obviously. Rather, the problem is the belief that expertise conveys both infallibility and moral superiority and, therefore, should—always and everywhere—be considered superior to the will of the people. Again, this is an artifact of Progressivism, and as important and insightful as books like David Zweig’s may be, they will not alter the dysfunctional operation of our system until we address this original sin.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 06:20

Tesla To Offer "Company Update" With Tuesday's Earnings Report: What To Watch

Tesla has set its Q1 2025 earnings call for Tuesday, April 22, at 4:30 p.m. CT / 5:30 p.m. ET. As usual, the event will be livestreamed, with a recording available later on Tesla’s website. The Q1 Update Letter will be released after markets close that same day.

This quarter, as multiple Tesla blogs like Teslarati have pointed out, Tesla is also adding a new element: a “Company Update.”

For the first time, the term appeared in both its vehicle delivery report and on the company’s official X account.

“In addition to posting first quarter results, Tesla management will hold a live company update and question and answer webcast that day,” the company stated.

Speculation is growing that Tesla may use the update to reveal more about its upcoming projects, particularly the affordable EVs teased in its Q4 2024 report: “Plans for new vehicles, including more affordable models, remain on track for start of production in the first half of 2025...”

Tesla’s Q1 2025 earnings are expected to show a 4.4% decline in profit to $0.43 per share, with revenue holding steady at $21.45 billion, according to FactSet.

Analyst estimates range from $0.30 to $0.51 per share, but consensus has dropped over 40% since late 2024. Piper Sandler warned the results will “likely underwhelm,” with margins “probably trending near multiyear lows.”

There's five things in particular investors will be looking for in this upcoming report and/or update, IBD noted this weekend.

Investor focus is shifting to Tesla’s promised robotaxi rollout. Musk has said paid rides would begin in Austin this June, but his past claims about autonomy have repeatedly fallen short. The latest FSD update shows modest progress, but it's still far from viable as a robotaxi platform.

The Cybercab—unveiled last year as a two-seater without a steering wheel—is supposed to launch before 2027 at under $30,000.

However, Reuters recently reported that Trump’s 145% tariff on Chinese goods has halted key parts shipments, possibly delaying both the Cybercab and Semi. The Cybercab’s cost-saving “unboxed” manufacturing method also remains unproven.

Tesla’s long-teased affordable EV. Reports suggest the first lower-cost option may just be a simplified Model Y, possibly arriving in 2025 or 2026. 

Vehicle sales for Q1 fell 13% year-over-year to 336,681. Growth is expected to stagnate this year, with consensus forecasting a modest 3% increase in deliveries, though some analysts now expect fewer sales than in 2024.

China sales rose slightly but remain low-margin, while U.S. and European demand has been hit by Musk’s controversial public profile.

While Tesla’s exposure to Trump’s tariffs is limited compared to other automakers, it still relies on Chinese suppliers for battery components, including CATL and BYD. Investors will be watching for updates on how Tesla plans to respond to trade tensions and cost pressures.

Musk’s political involvement is also on watch. He has been rumored to be finishing his work with DOGE by May and people are watching for a potential full-time return to Tesla.

IBD adds that a March YouGov/Yahoo News poll found 67% of U.S. adults wouldn’t consider a Tesla, with 37% citing Musk as the reason. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, a longtime bull, cut his Tesla price target by 40%, calling the situation a “perfect storm” and estimating Tesla has lost at least 10% of its future customer base—potentially more than 20% in Europe.

Demonstrations at dealerships and reports of vandalism continue. Musk is reportedly planning to leave his White House role, but no timeline has been confirmed. Investors will be listening for any update on his level of involvement moving forward.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 05:45

The UK Is Doubling Down On Wind Energy

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• The UK is expanding its wind energy capacity, particularly offshore, with the approval of the Rampion 2 project.

• The Rampion 2 expansion will add 1.2 GW of capacity, enough to power around 1 million UK homes.

• The UK government aims to quadruple its offshore wind capacity by 2030 as part of its net-zero carbon goals.

The U.K. is already a world leader in wind energy, having rapidly expanded both its onshore and offshore wind capacity over the last decade. Now, under the new Labour government, the U.K. hopes to expand its wind power sector even further through the massive expansion of the Rampion offshore wind farm. This is expected to help the government progress towards achieving its net-zero carbon ambitions. 

In 2023, 46.4 percent of the UK’s electricity was generated using renewable energy sources, of which wind energy contributed 61 percent. Around 39.7 percent of the U.K.’s wind energy is generated onshore and the remaining 60.3 offshore. The U.K. constructed its first commercial onshore wind farm in 1991, generating 1 GW of wind capacity. In 2024, the U.K.’s wind energy capacity increased to 30GW, double that of 2017. The U.K. has 11,906 turbines, with 9,141 onshore and 2,765 offshore, consisting of 10 floating and 2,755 fixed turbines. 

Approximately 32,000 people are employed in the U.K.’s offshore wind industry, a figure that is expected to increase to over 120,000 by 2030. The government also hopes to achieve 60 GW of wind capacity by the end of the decade, which could add as much as $58.5 billion to the economy. By the beginning of 2025, the U.K. had grown its offshore wind energy capacity to become the largest in Europe and second only to China, at 14 GW. 

In early April, the government approved plans to develop Rampion 2, an offshore wind farm with enough energy to power around 1 million U.K. homes. The expansion of the Rampion offshore wind farm, off England’s south coast, would include the addition of 90 turbines to add 1.2 GW of capacity. The project is expected to create 4,000 jobs during the construction phase, which is scheduled to commence in 2026. The government decision on the expansion was expected to be delivered in February but it has been delayed while more information is collected from the project’s developer. 

The wind farm is being developed by RWE as the majority shareholder (50.1 percent), a Macquarie-led consortium (25 percent), and Enbridge (24.9 percent). The electricity produced at Rampion will be transported to land via subsea cables. An underground cable will then deliver the power inland to a new substation at Oakendene near Cowfold before connecting it to the national grid at Bolney in Sussex. The wind farm is expected to be operational by the late 2020s. 

Danielle Lane, the director of offshore wind development U.K. and Ireland at RWE, stated, “We are delighted to receive the development consent order for the proposed Rampion 2 offshore wind farm. This is a key milestone in the development of the project, as Rampion 2 can play an important role in helping secure the U.K.’s energy supplies from our abundant wind resource and play a key role in supporting the U.K. government’s clean power ambitions.”

Since coming into power last July, the Labour government has gone full throttle on the deployment of green energy, with plans to double the U.K.’s onshore wind, triple its solar power, and quadruple its offshore wind power capacity by 2030. It has also announced plans to reduce the contribution of natural gas to the country’s electricity generation to just 5 percent by the end of the decade. Thanks to the development of a more friendly investment environment, in an event in October some of the world’s largest green energy companies pledged to invest almost $31.39 billion across the U.K., demonstrating that greater public investment in the sector is attracting higher levels of private financing. 

U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said, “The U.K. has a boundless supply of wind that cannot be turned on and off at the whims of dictators and petrostates. It’s time to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, roll out clean power, protect our energy security and bring down bills for good.” He added, “This project puts us within reach of our clean power offshore wind target,” Miliband said. “Through our plan for change, we’re getting on with delivering the clean energy and jobs Britain needs.”

Last year was a record year for wind energy production, with onshore and offshore projects producing 83 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity across Great Britain, an increase from almost 79 TWh in 2023. In around 10 days in December alone, over 50 percent of Britain's electricity production came from wind. 

However, there are also less windy periods, where energy production is lower. This suggests the need for greater investment in battery storage technology to make the renewable energy source more reliable and help reduce the U.K.’s reliance on fossil fuels during low-production times.

The U.K. is already a major onshore and offshore producer of wind energy, having developed several projects over the last three decades. 

The approval of the new Rampion 2 project is expected to put the country on track to achieve its end-of-decade climate goals, by decarbonising its transmission network. 

This is one of many clean energy projects the Labour government has announced over the last eight months, with the ambitious green transition agenda expected to attract high levels of private funding in the sector.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 05:10

China Is In Economic Dire Straits And They're No Longer Able To Hide It

Official economic data from any government is always treated with suspicion by anyone with common sense.  The US, for example, witnessed some of the most egregious statistical tinkering imaginable under the Biden Administration, not to mention outright lies and propaganda from the establishment media on the health of the economy.  To this day no one has been fired (or tarred and feathered) for hiding the reality of the stagflation crisis.  Any government or corporate economist that called the threat "transitory" should be stripped of their financial prestige and banished to a cash register at Arby's.

And let's not forget Biden's misrepresentation of the labor market, portraying millions of new jobs for illegal migrants and visa holders as if they were jobs benefiting American citizens.  In the US and across the western world, lying about the economy is generally seen by politicians as a temporary solution to secure reelection.  However, in China, lying about the economy is treated as a national security imperative.  If there's anything in the world that gives communists a feeling of existential dread, it's the fear that their ideological enemies will discover proof that communism doesn't work.

The Trump Administration's tariffs on China are not the initiator of the nation's troubles, they are more a bookend to a process of decline that has been ongoing for years. 

Overall tariffs on Chinese goods currently sit at 124%, but some goods will be taxed as high as 245%.  Trump has given a 1 month exemption on electronic parts and devices, perhaps to offer manufacturers like Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft time to arrange sourcing from alternative vendors.  The problem for Chinese manufacturers is not just the tariffs but the uncertainty of timing and sudden changes to policy.  They say no one is willing to make a big move on production or shipments until the trade landscape becomes more predictable.  This means most Chinese factories are frozen in stasis.

Trump's tariff actions are widely criticized by the media as erratic or poorly planned, but what they don't understand is that uncertainty is the real leverage, not the tariffs.  What seems like a spur of the moment decision or a sudden capitulation on Trump's part can be highly effective at throwing foreign governments and corporations off balance.  Globalism requires a perpetual status quo, change of any kind is like holy water to a vampire.

Chinese shipments are on standby and orders are frozen.  Nothing is moving.

At bottom, China will not be able to survive tariffs on the current scale for long (a single year of 124% tariffs would crush China's economy beyond repair).  The US is 15% of China's export market, which may not sound substantial but their next largest trading partner (outside of Hong Kong) is Vietnam at 4% of exports.  In terms of domestic buying, China is 11% of the global consumer market which is not too shabby, but compared to the US with its 30%-35% global consumer market share there is no chance that the Chinese will be able to fill the void domestically and stay afloat.

But the situation is far worse than most people know...

China has been suffering from a deflationary crisis since 2023.  An uptick in exports during the pandemic was offset by the CCP's draconian lockdowns.  This was, essentially, fiscal suicide on the part of the government and China has been struggling ever since.  Their property market has imploded, partially due to overbuilding through government subsidized infrastructure programs that flooded the market with poorly constructed homes and buildings that were then left to rot.  Corporate defaults have run rampant and left investors with nothing.

There was some optimism that the government’s measures to end the crisis had been working to reinvigorate the market, but on Mar 31st, government-linked developer Vanke reported a record 49.5 billion yuan (S$9.1 billion) annual loss for 2024.  It’s the company’s first full-year loss since its initial public offering in 1991, reigniting concerns about the sector and showing just how deep the problem runs.

When these projects do finally see some progress it is often due to dangerously poor construction standards and subpar workmanship; what many now refer to as "Tofu Dreg" buildings.

The deflationary spiral has been eating away at employment and has also resulted in numerous factories refusing to pay their workers on time (or at all).  Unpaid wages are leading to frequent protests and a disturbing trend of factory fires.  The government is limited in how it can respond to the problem.  Stimulus is an option, but China's overall non-financial debt is well over 300% of GDP already. 

China's attempts to hide the decay from the outside world are becoming less and less effective.  With Chinese citizens able to access the internet beyond the "Great Firewall", more and more videos are being leaked by people within the country who are tired of the misinformation.  Again, the CCP views negative economic data as a national security threat and any citizen caught leaking this info could be subject to harsh punishment.  Chinese citizens have taken substantial risks to get the truth out there.  

It cannot be stressed enough that the global economy is largely a farce, but China is closest to the edge of the cliff in terms of consequences and crisis.  The interdependency of globalism has left many nations without the ability to weather a trade dispute and China's survival is almost entirely based on steady exports to the west and the US in particular. 

Don't let high paid TikTok and YouTube influencers fool you with videos of Chinese skyscrapers caked with LED lights or lavish parties with dancing robots.  This is not the true China.  Underneath the facade is a nation on the brink of disaster.   

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 04:35

Minerals In Hand, Africa's Trade Envoys Head For The US

Authored by Darren Taylor via The Epoch Times,

Mcebisi Jonas doesn’t usually suffer from nerves. If he did, he wouldn’t have survived a brutal guerrilla campaign against South Africa’s apartheid foot-soldiers in the 1970s and 1980s.

“As a cadre for the ANC [then-banned African National Congress], I was fighting for freedom from racism, for black people’s right to vote, for human rights,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Now, I am about to fight another, very different battle. I am a bit nervous, but I am ready to talk with any and all representatives of the U.S. president, and I trust we will treat one another with respect,” said Pretoria’s eloquent former minister of finance and now successful businessman.

Jonas is part of a recently created exclusive club of special envoys appointed by most of Africa’s 54 countries to negotiate better export terms they hope will allow them to sell their goods for “reasonable profit” in the world’s most lucrative market.

This followed U.S. President Donald Trump’s April 2 announcement of tariffs on goods exported to the United States by its economic partners. Trump has said the duties would correct trade imbalances he said are unfair to America.

A week later, Trump paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days—except for those on China—indicating that many countries had reached out and that the United States was open to negotiations.

If nothing were to change after the 90-day pause, some of the highest tariffs—between 30 and 50 percent—would be for products imported from Africa.

Africa’s envoys are now rushing to meet the deadline in July when the raised duties are scheduled to come into effect.

A man melts pure gold fragments coming from different mines in the region, at a gold market in Geita, Tanzania, on May 28, 2022. Luis Tato/AFP via Getty Images

“Most African countries export much more to the United States than they import from the United States, so the Trump administration calculated that trade between the regions is unfairly weighted towards Africa and that the United States is losing out,” explained Morné Malan, deputy head of policy at South Africa’s Free Market Foundation.

Besides trade deficits, Trump also looked for other signs of trade barriers as criteria for imposing tariffs.

Kenya, with which the United States enjoyed a trade surplus, is an example.

According to the United States Trade Representative, East Africa’s largest economy exported goods—mainly textiles, coffee, tea, and fruit—to the value of $737.3 million to the United States in 2024.

That year, Kenya imported goods worth $782.5 million from the United States, primarily petroleum products, aircraft and related parts, machinery, and pharmaceuticals, giving the United States a trade surplus of $45.2 million.

Despite this, President William Ruto’s government had anticipated that Trump would hit Kenya with a higher tariff, as Nairobi charges a 10 percent tax on American imports.

So, said Trade and Industry cabinet secretary, Lee Kinyanjui, the country went into “damage control mode,” dispatching a team of negotiators to the White House a day before Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement.

Although the Kenyan government’s main objective of securing duty-free or “very favourable duty access” for its goods into the U.S. market is still the subject of talks, Trump levied a reciprocal tariff of only 10 percent on Nairobi.

“We believe it helped us a lot to speak to Trump’s people ahead of his announcement, and directly afterwards,” Kinyanjui told The Epoch Times.

“We are considering a free trade agreement with the United States, and that will mean the scrapping of the tariff on American goods entering Kenya, and we will hopefully still export duty-free to the United States. That is reciprocity.”

Steven Gruzd of the South African Institute of International Affairs described Kenya as a “bit of an anomaly.”

“I am no fan of the African governments that steal their countries’ resources and keep their people poor, but I must also agree that it’s a bit of a stretch to expect nations with low GDPs and tiny budgets and huge debts and low manufacturing bases to import at large scale expensive goods, products and services from the wealthiest economy in the world,” he told The Epoch Times.

It is in this context that the African envoys will visit the White House.

“He’s about to enter a lion’s den,” Malan said of Jonas, the South African diplomat.

Artisanal miners collect gravel from the Lukushi river searching for cassiterite in Manono, Democratic Republic of Congo, on Feb. 17, 2022 Junior Kannah/AFP via Getty Images

The United States’ 31 percent tariffs on South Africa—which was included in a list of 60 nations Trump said had traded with his country unfairly during his announcement on April 2—is just the president’s latest salvo against the continent’s largest, most industrialized economy.

The country featured prominently in the series of executive orders Trump has signed since re-entering the White House on Jan. 20.

In one of his first executive orders, the U.S. leader accused Pretoria of implementing racist laws aimed at discriminating and encouraging violence against white Afrikaners.

Trump subsequently withdrew $440 million in annual funding to South Africa, resulting in a slowdown of the country’s HIV treatment and prevention program.

He said South Africa is a threat to U.S. national security as its ANC government has military and economic alliances with some of Washington’s primary geopolitical foes, including China, Iran, and Russia.

Trump also criticized Pretoria for launching a case of genocide in the Gaza war against Israel at the International Court of Justice. The war was triggered by terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, the ANC’s Ebrahim Rasool, after the diplomat described Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and his administration as “supremacist.”

Jonas grimaced and said, “Yes, recent history between South Africa and the United States is not good.

“But I am convinced we can cooperate going forward and we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement that will foster the flow of American goods into our country, and vice versa.”

Steven Gruzd of the South African Institute of International Affairs said that, in communications within the Trump administration, “it has become clear that they consider Pretoria to be the enemy, giving the [President Cyril] Ramaphosa government the same status as Beijing and Moscow and Tehran.”

Like many in Africa, said Gruzd, Pretoria has “good cards to deal” to convince the U.S. president. Its cards are beaming the allure of the continent’s vast resources, which include precious metals like gold and platinum, and critical minerals essential to energy security and defense, as they’re major components of weapons and military equipment.

In a paper analyzing Africa’s potential responses to the U.S. tariffs, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington said 24 of Africa’s 54 countries are dependent on mining and minerals for income.

Africa holds a third of the world’s critical minerals, according to a study by U.S. think-tank The Atlantic Council.

South Africa already supplies almost all of America’s chromium and provides a quarter of its manganese requirements.

Manganese is a diverse mineral, used to produce steel and rechargeable batteries.

Chromium features prominently in weapons manufacturing, including missile systems and fighter jets.

Other minerals produced at a large scale by African countries include lithium, used in electric car batteries, and coltan, used in communications equipment like cell phones and computers.

Although Trump has exempted critical minerals from tariffs, Gruzd said South Africa’s mineral wealth still has a role in possibly lowering the U.S. levies on South Africa, considering the Trump administration’s wish to reduce U.S. dependency on Chinese supplies.

“China dominates Africa’s minerals sector, and it has mines all over the place, from DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo] to Zambia to Guinea,” Gruzd said.

“Beijing’s harvesting of the continent’s minerals and metals and processing them has placed the United States at an immense disadvantage in terms of making sure it has a reliable supply of these critical items well into the future.

Gruzd said if the United States and South Africa can strike a deal on critical minerals, “that would be a big win, politically and economically, for the Trump administration.”

“If Trump is offered mining rights in certain African countries, this would go a long way in persuading him to lower tariffs and perhaps even drop them because it would give the United States a big foothold in global supply chains,” he said.

The CSIS said that Trump should revoke tariffs on African countries and that the African Union and African leaders “should seek to demonstrate that preferential trade with the continent, in fact, overall serves U.S. national interests.”

“Just like Canada and Mexico were exempt from the reciprocal tariffs due to the United States’ national interest, a similar case can be made for Africa in terms of market access and critical minerals supply chain security,” wrote economic development experts Hannah Ryder, Trevor Lwere, and Ovigwe Eguegu.

“As tariffs are set to hit U.S. firms in the automotive, aerospace, and chemical sectors, which are heavily dependent on critical minerals, the bulk of which Africa has, it is not in the U.S. interest to impose tariffs on African goods.”

Ryder, Lwere, and Eguegu highlighted that one of the Trump administration’s aims is to gain greater market access for American firms and products abroad.

“This requires the existence of purchasing power amongst foreign consumers. By imposing tariffs on African exports to the United States, however, the United States makes it difficult for Africa to obtain the purchasing power necessary to demand U.S. products,” they said.

The experts said the United States should support preferential access for African goods to the American market as a market-building strategy.

This is critical, they wrote, especially considering that Africa has the youngest population and will be home to over 25 percent of the global population in the next few decades.

Bamidele Ayemibo, lead trade policy consultant at Nigeria’s 3T Impex Consulting Limited, said African governments’ response to Trump’s tariffs should be to sign preferential trade agreements with the United States—and with other partners.

“The last thing they should do is retaliate with higher tariffs on U.S. products; they do not have the economic power to do so and they will only hurt themselves,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Now, more than ever, it is time for talk and for bargaining.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/21/2025 - 04:00

Defund The Cartels: A Smarter Plan For The Border

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

I don’t fit neatly into a political box, especially when it comes to immigration. I’m a wife to a man who came here illegally at 16. I’ve taken legal guardianship of an unaccompanied minor and folded him into my family. I work in both hospitality and agriculture—industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor. My views on the border don’t align with any party line, and I’m aware that people on both sides of the aisle might find something in this article to disagree with. But that doesn’t make the conversation less necessary. It makes it more urgent.

America needs labor. That’s not up for debate. We’ve raised a few generations of kids who are not equipped for hard, uncomfortable work—especially those who came of age during the pandemic. I’ve had over 350 employees at any one time in my businesses, and I’ve watched the workforce shift dramatically in just 10 years.

At the same time, I believe a border wall is not racist.

A wall, like a fence or a locked front door, doesn’t carry moral weight. Strong borders make good neighbors. But let’s be honest: the southern border is already secured—just not by us. It’s secured by the Mexican cartels. 

Every person crossing is paying $10,000 to $13,000 to make that journey—not including the pre-planned robbery that happens to nearly every person along the way, and sometimes additional financial extortion afterward. 

We’re not just turning a blind eye to this—we’re funding it. 

Our labor shortage—our need for labor—is creating a massive revenue source for the cartels.

Many commentators scream, “Come legally!”—but the reality is, there are almost no viable legal pathways for Mexicans to do so.

Unlike people from other countries, Mexicans cannot easily claim asylum. Citizens of many Central and South American nations can claim asylum and stay in the United States while they await trial—a process that often takes five to 10 years. Even if their claim is denied, most never leave. Mexicans do not have this option. We are effectively prioritizing other nations over our immediate neighbor, and it makes no sense. We should be prioritizing Mexico first, and then Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

The humanitarian crisis is not what the media portrays. The real crisis is what happens before these people arrive - the women and children abused, trafficked, and disappeared in cartel territory.

It’s the man who hasn’t seen his mother in 20 years, or the woman who has children on both sides of the border and cannot return to see her children or grandchildren. She may never see her children here again. These are real stories. I live with them in my family and in my community. My husband didn’t see his mother for 12 years prior to marrying me and becoming an American citizen.

Yes, America is a melting pot. Yes, we welcome the tired and the poor. But no, we cannot take everyone. It’s not sustainable. And pretending otherwise only perpetuates suffering.

Let’s create a 10-year low-skill work visa. It would cost $10,000 - money that currently goes to cartels. Workers would be permitted to come and go, visit family, and live with dignity. Employment would be mandatory; workers could not remain unemployed longer than three months. Applicants must have no criminal history. This visa would never lead to citizenship, even through marriage. The best case would be a green card, but not a vote. Workers would pay taxes and contribute $10 per paycheck to Social Security, which they would never draw from. After 10 years, the visa could be renewed once—or the worker could return home.

We would prioritize Mexico, and then Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras—because a strong neighbor is national security. If your neighbor’s house is burning down, your own home is at risk. 

A strong, thriving Mexico makes for a safer America. 

A healthy economy and stable society in the countries closest to us reduces pressure on our border and increases mutual prosperity.

This plan would dismantle the cartels’ business model, reunite families, end the incentive to bring children as props for border entry, and redirect billions of dollars from crime syndicates to the U.S. government. Migrants could fly directly into cities where jobs await—no more treacherous desert crossings or predatory smugglers.

One side of the aisle screams that we don’t want them—but still enjoys the literal fruits of their labor. The other side screams “humanitarian crisis” and “racism”—but takes no meaningful action, even when in power.

In closing, I believe there’s a solution that supports integrity for our border, for our businesses, for our families, and for our neighbors. 

But both sides of the aisle have not been interested in real solutions for a long time—and that begs the question: why? 

What is the benefit of the gray? What is the benefit of a system that is clearly broken and leads to drugs, rape, murder, and chaos?

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 23:20

Japan Posts Record Population Drop, Shrinking For 14th Year, As Demographic Crisis Deepens

Japan's already collapsing population just posted its biggest annual drop on record, falling by 898,000 people as of last October compared to a year earlier, Kyodo News reported.

This marked the 14th consecutive year of population decline in the country, according to a government estimate. The previous record drop was 861,000, reported in July 2024.

This was the largest demographic drop since 1968.

Some more details: according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan’s total population was 123,802,000, as of October 1, 2024, down by 550,000 or a 0.44% year-on-year decrease.

The population of only Japanese citizens was 120,296,000, plunging by 898,000, or a 0.74% YoY drop.

The IMF projects that the total population will shrink by a further 3.5 million by the end of the decade.

The natural population decline, calculated by subtracting births from deaths, reached a record high of 890,000, rising for the eighteenth year running. This decline was 437,000 for women and 453,000 for men. 

The silver lining: for the third straight year, there was a net increase in immigration, with 340,000 more people entering than leaving Japan. Which is good news for globalists: if they are so worried where to put all those African and Middle Eastern refugees who have swept across Europe sparking unprecedented blowback against establishment politics, there is always Japan... assuming the locals accept the flood of foreigners.

The data underscore the country's unprecedented demographic crisis amid a rapidly aging society and collapsing birthrate.

Japan's total fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime -- fell to its lowest level in 2023 since records began in 1947, while the death/birth ratio at over 2.2, is the highest on record.

The figures, released by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, show that only Tokyo and neighboring Saitama prefecture registered population increases.

By age group, the working population, consisting of people aged 15 to 64, stood at 73,728,000, a year-on-year decrease of 224,000, while the population aged 65 or older (red and orange in the figure below) increased by 17,000 to 36,243,000. Those 75 or older (red) increased by 700,000, to 20,777,000, and this age bracket now accounts for 57.3% of those aged 65 or older.

In response to the demographic crisis, the Japanese parliament passed a law in June 2024 aimed at reversing the falling birthrate. Measures under the law include expanded child allowances and enhanced parental leave benefits.

And beginning this month, the city government of Tokyo started offering its employees a four-day workweek, hoping to increase the population and create a healthier work-life balance in a country notorious for long hours at the office.

Officials have warned that the period leading up to 2030 represents a critical window to address the trend. Late marriages, financial insecurity, and limited support for working parents are commonly cited as contributing factors.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 22:45

Visualizing America's $19 Trillion Consumer Economy In One Chart

To no one’s surprise, the world’s largest economy is also the world’s largest consumer economy.

But how much do Americans collectively spend on the goods and services they need? And what items draw the largest share? 

Visual Capitalist's Pallavi Rao visualizes data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for further analysis.

Where Americans Spend Their Money

America’s consumer class spent nearly $19 trillion on goods and services in 2023.

For context, this was about 68% of the U.S. GDP that year. It was also larger than China’s overall GDP that year as well ($17.8T).

Housing and utilities ($3.3T) and health care ($3.1T) were the top household expenditure categories overall.

Meanwhile, Americans spent the most money on groceries ($1.4T) in the goods category.

In case these numbers seem too big to comprehend, we’ve also broken down household expenditure by year and by month.

Comparative figures may vary as insurance expenditure can sometimes be included within a broader category (housing, transportation), or spun-off on its own.

In a similar vein, another graphic from eight years ago provides some other useful insights: how the share of each category’s expenditure has changed since the 1940s.

While the data isn’t as recent, other trends are visible: health care and housing expenditure have been trending up, clothing and food have been coming down.

The Pros and Cons of the Service Economy

Tellingly, services account for nearly 70% of America’s personal consumption expenditure.

This is matched by the supply side as well: nearly 80% of America’s jobs are in the service sector.

America’s transition away from manufacturing into services—both as producer and consumer—is a story with many episodes and arcs. While it has driven the growth of high-value technology and financial companies, it has also resulted in the loss of blue-collar jobs in America.

This context is particularly relevant in the Trump administration’s second-term.

Broad-based tariffs on imported goods have been declared to reduce trade deficits and to incentivize companies to move their manufacturing back into the country. However, modern manufacturing is built off global supply chains and just-in-time shipping, and economists worry that the disruption will only raise prices for Americans.

Wondering what China’s economy looks like broken down by sector? Check out: China’s $18.6 Trillion Economy in One Chart for a quick overview.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 21:35

US Housing Market May Finally See Relief As Foreign Buyers, Illegals And Airbnbs Disappear

One of the most detrimental consequences of the stagflationary surge in the US since 2020 was the meteoric rise in housing prices, from rentals to purchases to mortgages, across all markets.  At present the cost of housing stands at around 30% of the average American's income, with home prices and rentals seeing at least a 60% increase in only 5 years.  In high traffic markets the prices have jumped far higher. 

Inflation in fixed expenses like housing, utilities, gasoline, food, etc. directly reduce disposable income which forces consumers to cut back on retail and recreational purchases.  Higher prices in retail goods can be weathered through savings and spending adaptation, higher prices in fixed expenses is much more difficult to deal with and the results are hard to miss.

There may, however, be a light at the end of the tunnel with new developments suggesting a decline in housing costs is on the way. 

The US Existing Home Inventory is back on the rise after hitting rock bottom in 2022, with a considerable jump occurring in the year (February numbers indicate a 17% jump since 2024).  This is partially because incredibly high prices driving down purchases, but recent events indicate that the inventory trend is going to accelerate in 2025.

Foreign Buyers Exiting The US Market

One of the first actions of the Biden Administration in the face of the housing crisis should have been to enact a moratorium on foreign purchases of US properties.  This didn't happen, of course, but the tides may be shifting in favor of US buyers in the near term/ 

Canadian real estate investors and "Snow Birds" using secondary properties in the US as vacation homes are now reportedly selling off their holdings in light of the Trump Administration's tariff blitz.  America's socialist neighbors to the north are apparently cashing out at record pace.  Oddly, Canadian property owners say they're "afraid of anti-Canadian sentiment" in the US as the reason for dumping their second homes.  The US and foreign media have these people terrified that there's a wave of "Canadian hate" rolling through the American heartland.

This isn't happening, but on the bright side this frees up a considerable number of homes for the US market and will ultimately help to lower prices.  Canadians are the largest foreign property buyers, taking up at least 13% of all home purchases in the US in 2024.  

It's not just Canadians exiting, though. Chinese and European buyers are backing off with some states moving to block property purchases by foreign interests and hysteria over America-first nationalism frightening prospective investors.  Ultimately, this is a net positive for Americans desperate for some relief in a home market that the vast majority of citizens cannot afford.  

Deportations And Falling Rental Prices

It may be true that most illegal aliens don't buy houses, but they certainly take a massive bite out of available rentals.  With an estimate 17 million to 20 million illegals in the US at the time Joe Biden left the White House and a shortage of at least 11 million houses as of 2024, the obvious solution would be to kick out as many migrants as possible to free up the rental market.  

This may have already begun.  Trump border restrictions and changes to immigration policy have been wildly successful in cutting illegal border crossing.  In March, Border Patrol reported a 95% drop in encounters on the southern border, an epic decline from the Biden Administration.  ICE also reports that they have deported at least 100,000 and arrested 13,000 others since Trump took office.  Some skeptics might argue that this is nowhere near enough, but it does not account for the millions of migrants that are self deporting.       

At least 900,000 migrants that entered the US under Biden's CBP One App have been ordered to self deport are or be arrested in the coming months.  US rental prices have been cooling for the past year, but much too slowly.  The drop in housing demand by illegals is expected to create a larger availability pool by the end of 2025, though some leftist media outlets assert that the loss of illegals will cause a decline in home construction and hurt the market instead.

Airbnb Bonanza Fizzles And Opens The Market To 2 million Homes

The Airbnb craze has been dying for at least the past two years.  High property taxes, declining revenues, skyrocketing insurance rates and a drop in tourism means the potential for profits is getting slimmer by the month.  With over 2.4 million homes listed as Airbnb rentals in the US right now, there's a good chance these properties will end up for sale or as long term rentals by the end of 2025. 

The overall trend is deflationary, which is likely to scare a lot of people, but without this is necessary for any return to affordability in housing. Supply must increase in order to offset demand. Unless there are some dramatic changes soon, millions of Americans may be priced out of a home entirely. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 20:25

ACLU Sues Trump Admin Over Revocation Of International Student Visas

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Four American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) affiliates filed a lawsuit on April 18 asking a federal court to reinstate the legal status of international students who have had their visas revoked.

Multiple ACLU affiliates and the law firm Shaheen & Gordon filed a federal class action lawsuit representing more than 100 foreign students in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico who they say had their F-1 student immigration status “unlawfully and abruptly terminated with no specified reason as to why.”

The students include several at Brown University and the Rhode Island School of Design, who had their student status revoked in recent weeks. The lawsuit asks the court to reinstate their F-1 student status, which would allow them to continue their studies.

“International students are a vital community in our state’s universities, and no administration should be allowed to circumvent the law to unilaterally strip students of status, disrupt their studies, and put them at risk of deportation,” Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a statement.

Several students have already sued, arguing they were denied due process. In New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Montana, federal judges have granted temporary restraining orders to shield the students from deportation.

According to the April 18 lawsuit, which was filed in New Hampshire federal court, the affected students said they were not notified before their F-1 student statuses were canceled, opening them up to deportation and preventing them from finishing their studies.

The complaint states that one of the students, Manikanta Pasula of India, was close to finishing his master’s in computer science at New Hampshire’s Rivier University and was working to apply for an international student work program that would allow him to stay in the United States.

Another student, Hangrui Zhang of China, was in a Ph.D. program in electronic and computer science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, and says he now can no longer work as a research assistant, his only income source, the complaint said.

The lawyers representing the students said the government did not give the required advance notice, informing the foreign students that their legal status would be terminated.

On March 27, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the State Department may have revoked more than 300 visas so far.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” Rubio said. 

He said the reason is ”because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa.”

Rubio said he is canceling visas for those who were acting in opposition to national interests, such as those who had protested Israel and its military action in Gaza or others facing criminal charges.

One high-profile case included former Columbia University graduate student and activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was slated for deportation after leading several pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

*  *  *
ZeroHedge Store is on fire thanks to your support.

Grab a ZeroHedge Multitool, add 2 bags of coffee & get free shipping + ZH Tumbler!

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 19:50

Inflation Risk Is Subsiding Rapidly

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Inflation risk has been a significant topic of discussion in the mainstream media for the last few years. Such is unsurprising given that inflation spiked following the pandemic in 2020 as consumer spending (demand) was shot into overdrive from stimulus payments and production (supply) was shuttered. To understand why that occurred, we need to revisit “Economics 101.”

“In economics, inflation is a general increase in the prices of goods and services. Changes in inflation are a function of fluctuations in actual demand for goods and services (also known as demand shocks, including changes in fiscal or monetary policy or recession), changes in available supplies such as during energy crises (also known as supply shocks), or changes in inflation expectations, which may be self-fulfilling. Note that supply and demand are key facets of the inflation equation.

Basic economics states prices will be set at a level where the supply of goods or services meets consumer demand.”

The economic illustration shows this basic principle taught in every “Econ 101” class. As noted, in 2020, inflation was the consequence of restricting supply and massively increasing demand.

That massive surge in stimulus sent directly to households resulted in an unprecedented spike in “savings,” creating artificial demand. As shown, the “pig in the python” effect is evident. Over the next two years, that “bulge” of excess liquidity has reverted to the previous growth trend. Given that economic growth lags behind the reversion in savings by about 12 months, we should continue to see economic growth slow into 2025. Notably, the “lag effect” is critical to the “inflation risk” thesis.

Understanding that inflation is solely a function of supply and demand, the ongoing reversal of monetary liquidity is continuing to erode economic activity. Notably, what caused the inflation spike post-2020 was not an increase in the debt or the Federal Reserve but rather the temporary increase in the money supply caused by sending checks to households. Therefore, the inflation risk will continue to subside unless the government passes a new infrastructure spending bill of massive proportions or sends another stimulus to households.

“But Lance, tariffs are inflationary.”

They aren’t for two reasons, and it all starts with consumer confidence.

Consumer Is The Key To Inflation Risk

I understand the basic assumption that if you impose a tax on a product, good, or service, then the “cost” of that product, good, or service will increase, hence the inflation risk. While that is perfectly logical, it excludes two crucial factors: 1) Only producers pay the “tax” from tariffs, and 2) we measure inflation (in terms of CPI) from the consumer side of the equation.

In “Tariffs Aren’t An Inflation Risk,” we discussed tariffs’ impact on the production side of the equation.

“Post-pandemic demand surges, supply chain disruptions, and massive fiscal and monetary interventions supported those elevated margins. As evidenced by the chart below, the correlation between economic growth rates and corporate profits is high. Note that outliers of the correlation are historically related to events such as the “Financial Crisis” and post-recession economic recoveries.”

Corporations react to cost increases in their business (i.e., wages, benefits, commodities, utilities, etc.), which must be factored into the selling price to maintain profitability. Crucially, corporations can only pass on higher input costs to consumers if demand remains higher than the available supply of those goods or services. In 2020 and 2021, corporations could pass on most of the inflationary increase to consumers as they were willing to spend the Government’s money. However, as excess savings run out, inflation declines as consumers decrease spending; corporate profits weaken as the ability to pass on higher input costs to customers fades. As shown, as inflation declines, the rate of change in corporate profits also weakens.”

Read that bolded sentence again.

When discussing inflation risk, consumer activity drives inflationary pulses in the economy. If we use a two-year average of corporate profits minus inflation, we can visualize that impact. As shown, inflationary increases, like tariffs, are only inflationary in the economy if they can be passed onto the consumer. Inflation surged in 2020 as corporations could pass on the bulk of the cost increases to consumers flush with cash. Today, to consumers. Today, inflation is declining due to declining demand. As such, the percentage of cost increases corporations must absorb is increasing, which reduces corporate profitability but shows up in the economy as slowing inflation.

Here is the crucial point:

“Corporations don’t create inflation. They merely react to changes in demand and adjust pricing and supply to maintain profitability. When the consumer slows down, corporations cut prices to reduce supply.”

As we should expect, consumer actions, which is how we measure inflation through the consumer price index (CPI), drive inflation risk. Consumer confidence is the key to understanding whether inflation risk is present in the economy.

Consumers Lack Confidence

Despite all the commentary about tariff-related inflation risk, inflation is hard to achieve if consumers are unwilling or, more importantly, unable to pay higher prices. As noted in this past week’s commentary, “Consumers Are Tapping Out,” consumers show signs of deep financial stress.

“At the heart of the problem is the collapse of household balance sheets in the lower-income and middle-income brackets. These groups have depleted the excess savings accumulated during the pandemic and are turning to high-interest borrowing to bridge the gap. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve reported that the share of active credit card accounts making only minimum payments surged to 10.75% in Q3 2024—a record high. This statistic isn’t just a warning about credit health; it points to widespread cash flow stress.“

Furthermore, consumer confidence in finding employment continues to erode as the economy slows. Given that employment creates income for consumption, it is difficult to expand consumption (demand) if consumers do not have a job, fear losing their jobs, or wage growth stagnates.

We can investigate this further by examining Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), which comprise nearly 70% of the economic equation. Historically, when consumer confidence is declining, consumption also slows.

As such, it is unsurprising that inflation is tied to consumer confidence. As consumer confidence declines, the demand for goods and services also declines. The reduction in economic activity shows up in the current inflation risks.

Conclusion

Lastly, Consumer stress isn’t limited to anecdotal indicators—it shows up in corporate earnings and executive commentary. During the company’s earnings call, Doug McMillon, CEO of Walmart, stated that many customers are under “budget pressure.” They also exhibit “stressed behaviors,” including spending reductions across general merchandise. Specifically, he warned that “For many customers, the money runs out before the month does.”

Similarly, Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos painted an equally concerning picture. He described his customers as “struggling more than ever before.” Todd added that some are now forgoing non-discretionary items, like medication or hygiene products, to afford groceries and fuel. He said, “These customers are making trade-offs we haven’t seen in years.” Concurring with that warning was Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup. She observed that consumers are “becoming more cautious” and focusing spending on smaller, lower-cost purchases. While this signals a growing defensive posture, often associated with recessionary conditions, they are also deflationary. When consumer behavior shifts en masse from aspirational to survival-based, the ripple effects are inevitable.

The bottom line is that inflation risks are extremely muted given the rapidly slowing economic backdrop and disruption in the stock and bond markets, which also impact consumer confidence. Could that change? Yes, but such a change would require a reinstatement of stimulus checks, a surge in Government spending, and the Federal Reserve increasing monetary policy. For now, none of those are available.

The most significant risk to the economy is not the return of inflation risks but rather the collapse in consumer confidence that leads to a recession.

We may have that data showing up sooner than later.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 18:40

China Tests Novel Non-Nuclear Hydrogen Bomb - Generates Intense Fireball

Chinese scientists successfully detonated a powerful and innovative non-nuclear hydrogen-based bomb that produced an enduring, intensely-hot fireball, the South China Morning Post reported on Sunday, citing a research paper describing the experiment. 

The new technology centers on the use of magnesium hydride (MgH2), a white or silvery crystalline powder that's capable of storing an outsize amount of hydrogen. The material and its extraordinary solid-state storage potential originally piqued scientists' interest for a peaceful purpose: transporting hydrogen to off-grid locations for use generating clean energy and heat by way of fuel cells. Magnesium hydride's storage capacity is far superior to pressurized tanks, SCMP explains. The material is also of interest to scientists in the field of spacecraft propulsion. 

Naturally, scientists recognized that densely-packed hydrogen offers extraordinary explosive potential, and set out to build explosive devices to measure the destructive force. China's pioneering evaluation started small, with a test bomb weighing just 4.4 pounds (2kg). The resulting fireball impressed researchers, producing heat exceeding 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius). More importantly, the fireball lasted more than two seconds, which is 15 times longer than a comparably-scaled TNT explosion. No nuclear materials were involved.  

A Chinese magnesium hydride test-bomb awaits detonation (705 Research Institute via South China Morning Post)

The test bomb was produced by the the 705 Research Institute, a subsidiary operation of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC). Among its many scientific endeavors, the 705 Research Institute is a leading force in China's development of underwater weapon systems. However, the bomb test was conducted on land and SCMP's summary of the paper didn't address any naval-kinetic-warfare implications; however, magnesium hydride is being eyed for possible use in submarine fuel cells. The peer-reviewed paper on the innovative bomb appeared in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. 

“Hydrogen gas explosions ignite with minimal ignition energy, have a broad explosion range, and unleash flames that race outward rapidly while spreading widely,” the research team in a peer-reviewed paper published by the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. “This combination allows precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.” In addition to that use, the 705 Research Institute's scientists also evaluated the bomb's potential use in confined attacks on high-value targets.  

The fireball from China's new magnesium hydride bomb endured 15 times longer than a comparable TNT explosion, researchers say (705 Research Institute via South China Morning Post)

Producing magnesium hydride is no easy feat, as the process of binding of hydrogen and magnesium necessitates high pressures and high temperatures. If air manages to infiltrate the production chamber, the facility and its workers could be incinerated in the blink of an eye. Given the demands, it can take a laboratory a full day just to generate a few grams. 

Now, however, China is shifting magnesium hydride production from the micro-scale of laboratories to the industrial scale of a factory in the Shaanxi province in the country's northwest. Aiming to pump out a jaw-dropping 150 tons per year, the plant is the work of the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics. It completed its one-year pilot phase on January 10. 

China's new plant in Shaanxi province aims to produce 150 tons of magnesium hydride per year (CUI Yajun and CAO Hujun via Chinese Academy of Sciences)

For our more science-oriented ZeroHedge readers, here are more details on China's magnesium hydride bomb test: 

Under constrained detonation, peak overpressure reached 428.43 kilopascals at two metres (6ft 7in) from the bomb – about 40 per cent of TNT’s blast force, but with a far greater heat projection range... 

The chain reaction begins when detonation shock waves fracture magnesium hydride into micron-scale particles, exposing fresh surfaces, according to the study. Thermal decomposition rapidly releases hydrogen gas, which mixes with ambient air. Upon reaching the lower explosive limit, the mixture ignites, triggering exothermic combustion.This liberated heat further propagates magnesium hydride decomposition, creating a self-sustaining loop until fuel exhaustion – a synergistic cascading of mechanical fracturing, hydrogen release, and thermal feedback -- SCMP

How long until our military-industrial complex is pointing to the Chinese magnesium-hydride menace to help justify Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth's fever dreams of a trillion-dollar military budget?

*  *  *
ZeroHedge Store is on fire thanks to your support.

Grab a ZeroHedge Multitool, add 2 bags of coffee & get free shipping + ZH Tumbler!

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 18:05

Alito Calls Supreme Court Block Of Venezuelan Gang Deportations "Legally Questionable"

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito filed a strongly worded dissent from the court’s order issued early April 19 that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua.

The dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was posted on the court’s website early on April 20.

“In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote.

“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.”

“Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J.G.G., and this Court should follow established procedures,” Alito wrote.

The justices acted even though “it is not clear the Court had jurisdiction,” or authority to hear the case, he wrote.

“The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation,” Alito wrote.

In Trump v. J.G.G., the Supreme Court on April 7 granted the president’s request to pause a federal district judge’s orders preventing his administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of Tren de Aragua but determined that detainees must be given an opportunity to challenge their removal.

The unsigned one-page administrative stay issued early April 19 to which Alito referred directed the federal government “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

An administrative stay gives the justices more time to consider the emergency request to block the deportations. That order did not provide an explanation of why the court acted.

The order was issued after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency request on behalf of two Venezuelan nationals late on April 18, asking the Supreme Court to immediately block their deportation.

The emergency application in A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. v. Trump challenges President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants who are alleged or confirmed criminal gang members. A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. are the initials of two of the detained men.

The ACLU also sought a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, as well as a stay of removal order from the Fifth Circuit, according to the application.

On March 14, Trump signed Proclamation 10903, in which he officially declared that Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.”

The group is using mass illegal immigration to the United States to harm U.S. citizens, undermine public safety, and support the goal of the Venezuelan socialist regime with which it is associated to destabilize “democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States,” the proclamation said.

The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act to authorize the “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” of members of the group who are Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older and who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States.

The application said the ACLU’s clients are challenging the Trump administration’s use of the federal statute to deport them. The clients “are in imminent and ongoing jeopardy of being removed from the United States without notice or an opportunity to be heard, in direct contravention of this Court’s order in Trump v. J.G.G.”

“Many individuals have already been loaded on to buses, presumably headed to the airport,” and are at risk of being sent to a prison in El Salvador, according to the April 18 application.

On March 15, the Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act to deport at least 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they are now incarcerated “possibly for the rest of their lives” at the Salvadoran Terrorism Confinement Center, which is “one of the most notorious prisons in the world,” the application said.

The application alleged that many of those deported since March 15 were not members of Tren de Aragua.

“Such false accusations are particularly devastating given the present Applicants’ strong claims for relief under our immigration laws,” the application said.

The application came one day after U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas denied the ACLU clients’ request for a temporary restraining order halting removal efforts.

Hendrix rejected the ACLU’s claim that its clients were “at imminent risk of summary removal” because the government denied the allegation.

Late on April 19, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to deny the application.

“At a minimum, if the Court keeps its administrative stay in place, the government respectfully requests that the Court clarify that it is administratively staying removals only under the [Alien Enemies Act], and that its order does not preclude removal pursuant to any other immigration authorities,” Sauer wrote.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 17:30

Japan Considers Easing Car Safety Standards As Part Of Potential New Trade Deal

It looks as though trade progress is being made with Japan, as concessions about automobiles were reported on this weekend, signaling that Trump administration could be heading towards a revised agreement with the key ally nation. 

Japan may loosen auto safety rules for U.S. imports to address President Trump’s concerns over the low number of American cars sold there, Nikkei reports. With differing safety standards between the two countries, Tokyo is eyeing crash test regulations as a possible trade concession, according to Nikkei.

During a White House meeting, Trump criticized Japan’s trade surplus and poor U.S. auto sales. Cabinet-level talks focused on non-tariff barriers, particularly in the auto and agriculture sectors.

Japan, a signatory to a 1958 U.N. pact on unified auto standards, maintains its own certification process, requiring separate approval for American imports—a process that can take months. While the U.S. participates in discussions under the U.N. framework, it uses its own safety rules and lets automakers self-test.

The Nikkei report says that the U.S. Trade Representative recently flagged Japan’s crash test requirements as a non-tariff barrier, citing them as overly burdensome and unfair to U.S. carmakers. These safety standards—especially for frontal and side collisions—have long been a sticking point in trade talks.

During past Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, Japan agreed to ease some requirements for U.S. imports, such as skipping certain tests like fire retardancy. It also expanded exemptions for low-volume American car sales. However, those TPP concessions faded after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the pact in 2017.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 16:55

A Conspiracy Theory That Is Being Pushed By The Left Claims That Something Really Big Is Going To Happen Today

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Most people on the right have no idea just how crazed many people on the left have become.  Right now, a conspiracy theory which claims that President Trump is preparing to declare martial law in the United States is spreading like wildfire on social media. 

 According to that conspiracy theory, a report will be submitted to President Trump on April 20th which will recommend that he should invoke the Insurrection Act to help deal with the border crisis.  That would allow U.S. troops to help secure the border, but many leftists are convinced that President Trump will also use U.S. troops to round up political activists and send them to prisons in El Salvador.  I realize that this may sound really bizarre to many of you, but this is what many of them actually believe.

Early last month, an article that was published by the San Francisco Chronicle got the ball rolling by highlighting the fact that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security will soon submit a report to President Trump recommending whether or not to invoke the Insurrection Act…

The clock is ticking down on a crucial but little-noticed part of President Donald Trump’s first round of executive orders — the one tasking the secretaries of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to submit a joint report, within 90 days, recommending “whether to invoke the Insurrection Act.”

Many of us are now holding our collective breath, knowing that the report and what it contains could put us on the slippery slope toward unchecked presidential power under a man with an affinity for ironfisted dictators.

That is not exactly an honest characterization of what that executive order says.  I have reproduced the relevant portion of that particular executive order below…

Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807.

The Trump administration wants to use U.S. troops to help secure the border, and that is probably what we are going to see.

But many leftists are absolutely convinced that we are also about to see martial law in this country.

An article that was authored by an anonymous leftist known as “Aletheisthenes” that was entitled “Part 1: On April 20th, 2025, the United States may Cross the Point of No Return” has created a firestorm of panic among far left radicals.  According to that article, once President Trump officially invokes the Insurrection Act it will set a “larger plan in motion”…

And as his two months in office has already shown, he won’t stop at just a legal opinion.

Expect an executive order even that same day or the next, officially declaring the Insurrection Act, restricting freedoms in the name of restoring control of the border and perhaps in blue-state cities, and setting the larger plan in motion.

Of course, this won’t be framed as an attack on democracy. It will be packaged as a necessary response to crisis — as authoritarian takeovers always are.

But once it happens, there’s no going back.

This will be the point of no return.

Aletheisthenes believes that the plan to implement martial law in this nation will unfold in eight stages…

1. “Resist!” Demonstrations Grow — Just As Planned

2. The False Flag Crisis: Turning Protest into “Terror”

3. Trump Declares Expanded Martial Law — And Calls for Militia to assist the police and Military

4. Mass Arrests of Opposition Leaders

5. Military & National Guard Take Over Major Cities

6. Press Censorship & Total Media Control

7. Borders Close & Dissidents Are Trapped Inside

8. Elections Are “Postponed” Indefinitely

Needless to say, this is not what Trump intends to do.

But I do believe that anti-Trump protests funded by very deep pockets on the left will continue to grow, and every time President Trump does something to try to keep those protests under control it will fuel their delusions even more.

Aletheisthenes followed up his original article with another very popular article in which he claimed that Trump’s ultimate goal is to “fully overthrow the United States government”…

On or slightly after April 20th, 2025, Trump will most likely sign an executive order invoking the Insurrection Act.

The excuse will be to secure the border and deport violent gang member illegal aliens, and possibly bring order to out-of-control cities, but it will actually be the first step to eventually fully declare martial law across the United States, and suspend civil liberties, and the US Constitution.

To most it will come without warning. The press might not even report on it until the last minute. When it happens, expect confusion, misinformation, and panic. Many will be caught off guard.

(But a few of us won’t be, at least not entirely — because we saw this coming.)

The ultimate purpose is to eventually fully overthrow the United States government, put Trump, his billionaire co-conspirators, and people who share the values of his very fuzzy reactionary political coalition fully and permanently in control.

This is nuts.

But this is what they actually believe, and they are going to act accordingly.

The narrative that President Trump is some sort of a dictator will motivate leftists to show up at protests, and when some of those protests inevitably turn violent and authorities are forced to respond it will cause even more easily fooled people to embrace that narrative.

You should see what leftists are already saying on social media.  Here is just one example…

“As a veteran, if martial law is declared in the U.S., it means the Constitution is suspended. Civilian government Gone. Freedom of speech, assembly, the press? Gone. Curfews. Checkpoints. Arrest without warrants. No due process. I believe the military would stand with the people & Constitution”

They are openly talking about civil conflict, and this has been going on for months.

But most people on the right have no idea this is happening.

The conspiracy theory that I have discussed in this article has gained so much traction that Snopes was even forced to address it…

One reader emailed Snopes, “I am seeing many posts on Facebook that on April 20, Trump will declare martial law.” Another person referenced an executive order issued on Jan. 20, the first day of Trump’s second term, and asked, “I have seen a variety of posts suggesting that an early executive order signed by the president has set the stage for the imposition of martial law, and that this will be triggered by a report on the state of the border that will be released on April 20. Any truth here?”

At this point, Snopes considers this conspiracy theory to be more of “a prediction than a provable claim”…

As of this writing on April 9, this rumor existed more as a prediction than a provable claim. Searches of the websites for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and the White House yielded no announcements, statements or demonstrable evidence that might help to shed light on the unproven matter.

I actually think that there are many on the left that would love to see President Trump declare martial law, because they are convinced that would give them justification for what they have been intending to do all along.

We have never been more divided as a society than we are right now.

Civil disorder on a scale that we have never seen before is coming, but even after all of the political violence that we have already witnessed in recent weeks a lot of people still don’t want to believe it.

But sticking our heads in the sand won’t make the threat go away.

Our society is reaching a boiling point, and it won’t be too long before events spiral completely out of control.

*  *  *

Michael’s new  book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 16:20

Explosion Rocks Northrop Grumman Solid Rocket Facility In Utah

Northrop Grumman's mission to design and build the world's largest and most advanced solid rocket motors may have been derailed last week after an explosion rocked its Promontory, Utah, facility.

Local media Fox 13 reported that one of the aerospace and defense technology company's buildings at the Promontory test facility was destroyed in an explosion last Wednesday morning. When emergency responders arrived at the incident area, they found one building destroyed. 

"Initial reports indicate that there are no injuries or fatalities at this time. However, as with all ongoing investigations, details may change. There is no further information available for release at this time.  We advise the public to avoid the area," the Box Elder County Sheriff's Office wrote on a Facebook post hours after the explosion. 

Northrop Grumman told Fox 13 that the building destroyed was used to "produce an ingredient in solid rocket motor propellant and is one of many in its production network," adding that no solid rocket motors were destroyed or damaged in the blast.

Here's more context on the explosion and its potential impact, via Space.com:

Northrop Grumman's Utah facility manufactures and tests solid rocket engines, like those used to launch NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for the Artemis Program. Their campus spans over 10 miles (16 kilometers) of Utah desert, northwest of Promontory, with two central hubs of facilities.

Wednesday's explosion destroyed a building in the northwest portion of Northrop Grumman's northernmost collection of site infrastructure, about 8.5 miles (13.5 kilometers) north of the company's test stand for the SLS solid rocket boosters. 

Northrop Grumman did not provide insight into what caused the explosion at the solid rocket motor factory.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 15:45

The Numbers Behind The Government's Anti-Misinformation Explosion

Authored by Greg Collard via Racket News,

You likely already know from reading Racket that the Biden administration was very active in targeting misinformation and disinformation, even as it engaged in those practices.

Illustration by Daniel Medina/Racket News

Racket’s Twitter Files and other reporting have extensively documented many of the anti-disinformation and misinformation programs and organizations that the federal government supported, like the Election Integrity Project, Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI League), and the Center on Narrative, Disinformation and Strategic Influence at Arizona State.

But the number of grants? We didn’t know that. Now we do.

The Free Press reports that since 2017, the federal government has awarded about 800 grants to counter mis/disinformation — and the Biden administration is responsible for more than 600 of them. The 800 grants amount to more than $1.4 billion.

The findings by reporters Gabe Kaminsky and Madeleine Rowley are based on a new database of anti-mis/disinformation programs. The database was created by the free speech advocacy group liber-net.

“A large number of these projects cynically employed the ‘misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation’ framework to counter their political adversaries, with U.S. government funding making it possible,” liber-net’s director, Andrew Lowenthal, told the Free Press.

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that accused the Biden administration of violating free speech rights “under the guise” of combatting misinformation, disinformation and malinformation.

But Kaminsky and Rowley found that several of the programs were continuing under the Trump administration — at least until they started asking about the grants, as Kaminsky explains to Racket.

We reached out to agencies to understand if these programs would continue under President Trump. What we found was a groundswell of federal officials taking the information and letting us know that they were either terminating the programs, investigating them, or adjusting internal policies as to how they characterize some of these programs to ensure alignment with the President's executive order on “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” that he signed on his first day in office. Some agencies, however, didn't respond, or, in the case of the National Science Foundation, declined to comment.

In one example the Free Press cites, NIH director Jay Bhattacharya sent an email marked “URGENT” to employees to investigate grants and contracts related to “fighting misinformation or disinformation.”

The Free Press found several dozen grants that have since been canceled, such as $683,000 awarded to UC-Irvine in December. The money would have gone toward studying the influence of social media and “misinformation on vaccine acceptance among black and Latinx individuals.” The study would have done that by enrolling 500 people who follow vaccine-hesitant influencers on X.

Although most mis/disinformation grants occurred under Biden, they started with some regularity during the first Trump administration. Here’s a graphic from liber-net that shows how the number of grants ballooned from Trump to Biden:

The organizations that receive grants typically dole out portions of the money to other organizations. Kaminsky explains how they work:

Gabe Kaminsky: Like many federal programs, there are often subgrantees or subcontractors. So, while Maddie Rowley and I found that the Biden administration had awarded north of 600 grants and contracts to outside organizations, that number only accounts for primary awards. Take the $2 million that the Department of State awarded in 2023 to the Vermont-based NGO World Learning to, in its telling, “support the Armenian media sector's overall resilience to disinformation.” For that program, which ended in February 2025, World Learning dished out a sub-award of $275,219, or 13% of the primary award, to the Poynter Institute.

And for Poynter, that's nothing new. For example, I reported last year that Poynter had received a sub-award from the State Department's since-shuttered Global Engagement Center—which Republicans accused of censoring conservatives in the United States. Poynter received the GEC funding via the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, a London-based entity.

Greg Collard: Although most grants were during the Biden administration, they were also awarded during the first Trump administration. Was there a difference in the types of grants that were awarded?

GK: Post-2017 is really when these programs were kicked into gear, speeding up dramatically under Biden. The same grantees and contractors that ended up receiving large amounts in funding under Biden often had initially received some during the first Trump administration. As to why that was is I think a mix of Republicans being in the dark as to the programs, and—as was evident broadly across the first Trump administration—there being agencies that sort of operated how they desired irrespective of Trump's stated policies. Trump did not know how Washington worked.

However, I would say that the descriptions of programs on federal documents under Biden was a notable difference—as some appeared to more specifically align with the ideological priorities of the Democrats: using terms like “racial equity,” “Latinx,” or other left-leaning terminology championed by the Biden administration. Under Trump 1.0, in other words, the anti-misinformation circus quietly gained a foothold in the U.S. by advertising itself in broad strokes that, in theory, many might agree with: countering extremism or online harassment, for example.

But in practice, the programs were far more complicated and often partisan.

Active Grants

Although many anti mis/disinformation programs have been shut down, many remain active — including the largest grant: a $979 million award to military contractor Peraton, courtesy of the Department of Defense. Peraton landed the grant in 2021 to help the U.S. Central Command “counter misinformation,” liber-net’s Lowenthal writes in a Substack post about the database.

That grant alone easily makes the Defense Department the largest funder of mis-disinformation grants from 2016 to 2024. USAID was the second-largest funder at $149 million.

Smaller grants also remain active. One the Free Press cites is $6.8 million in multiple grants to the University of Washington for literary resources that help “rural communities and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities” identify misinformation. The grant description says misinformation is a “growing threat to American democracy,” and that “Solutions must not only provide the public with skills for determining the truthfulness of claims, but must also provide resources for addressing the social and emotional impacts of misinformation.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 11:40

LA County Quality Of Life Index Stuck At A 10-Year Low; New Survey Finds

Los Angeles County residents have plenty to worry about amid a wildfire recovery effort, federal immigration crackdowns, and persistent homelessness, but what most concerns them is the cost of living, according to an annual UCLA survey released on April 16.

The 10th Annual Quality of Life Index (QLI) survey polled 1,400 county residents between Feb. 23 and March 9, and found widespread frustration with the high cost of living, including increasing prices of groceries and household items.

The survey, conducted by UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs, found that concern over the high cost of living has kept the QLI at a lowly 53, the same as last year. 

That number represents the lowest level in the survey’s history. In 2016, the QLI came in at 59.

“Meanwhile, the salience of [the cost of living category] has risen to its highest-ever point in this index, and is joined by a growing concern about jobs and the economy,” said the survey, which was prepared by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research). 

“The combination represents fundamental bread-and-butter issues that are the biggest explainers of the longer-term lukewarm attitudes toward life in Los Angeles County.”

As Kimberley Hayek reports for The Epoch Times, more than two-fifths of respondents claimed to know someone who lost a home or business in the January wildfires. 

An additional 23 percent, including those who live relatively far from the burn areas, such as the northern part of the county and the South Bay, claimed to know someone affected. Meanwhile, 14 percent of respondents said they lost significant income due to the fires, while another 13 percent said they incurred a nonsignificant loss.

More than half of respondents said they wore a mask to avoid smoke, volunteered or donated to help victims, and feared having to evacuate.

“While the percentage of residents who lost income is lower than the percentages of those who experienced other impacts, it still represents millions of Angelenos,” said the survey, which found that Latinos, younger residents, lower income earners, and those working part-time jobs were disproportionately affected.

Eighty-nine percent of county residents agree that homeowners who lost their property in the fires should be permitted to rebuild at the same locations. In 2019, when residents were asked the same question in the wake of the Woolsey Fire near Simi Valley, 76 percent agreed.

“Both numbers are high, but suggest that the geographic breadth of the [January] fires, the extent of the destruction and the collateral impacts they had on a wide swath of the county significantly influenced this year’s results,” the survey said.

The Palisades and Eaton fires this year destroyed more than 16,000 structures; the Woolsey fire destroyed 1,600, according to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Fifty-two percent of county residents said they would generally be OK with increased taxes for improved wildfire response. Younger residents, Latinos, and Asians were most open to the proposal. Whites and African Americans were evenly split on the idea, which did not include specifics.

Attitudes toward the Los Angeles mayor were affected by the wildfires, the survey said.

For example, just 37 percent of respondents view Mayor Karen Bass favorably, with 49 percent viewing her unfavorably. That’s a reversal from 2024, when 42 percent viewed her favorably and 32 percent unfavorably.

“The wildfires that raged in Altadena and Pacific Palisades in January are the story of this year’s survey,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Luskin School’s Los Angeles Initiative.

“These catastrophic events have left devastating physical and psychological impacts in their wake,” said the former county supervisor.

“Although the primary victims are those who lost their lives, homes and possessions, millions of other Angelenos have been touched by these terrifying events in myriad ways. These impacts cross geographic, economic and racial lines that can only be described as a shared trauma across Los Angeles County.”

Cost of Living

The county’s high cost of living has become a major source of frustration for residents. Three-quarters of respondents chose it as the most important category affecting their quality of life. Among the subcategories, the cost of housing remains the leader, but the costs of groceries and household items rose in importance, as did taxes.

“The overall satisfaction score on our QLI index is stuck for one main reason—the impact of the high cost of living,” said Paul Maslin, a public opinion and polling expert with FM3 Research. 

“Those concerns were the highest in terms of importance of any category we’ve measured in the last decade. And cost of living continues to be the lowest rating category in terms of satisfaction.”

Immigration and deportation

Forty-four percent of county residents fear that a member of their family or a friend could face deportation by federal authorities.

In 2017, 37 percent expressed such a fear at the start of Trump’s first administration.

Latinos are most likely to feel this way at 54 percent. By age group, residents aged 18-29 and 30-39 are the most likely to fear a member of their family or friend could be deported at 57 percent and 52 percent, respectively. They are also most likely to believe that the city and county governments should not cooperate with the federal government’s current deportation policies.

“The new administration in Washington has once again brought the question of immigration and deportation to the fore,” Yaroslavsky said. 

“This is very much an issue that is front and center on the minds of a large part of our county’s population.”

Homelessness

Homelessness remains at or near the top of concerns for residents, though for the first time in a while, the portion who believe the homelessness problems are worsening has declined by 8 percentage points. In 2024, 60 percent thought the problem was growing worse. In the 2025 survey, 52 percent thought so. Yet only 10 percent believe the situation is getting better. That number was the same in 2024.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 11:05

The Family Home: From Shelter To Asset To Liability

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable.

With the rise of financialized asset bubbles as the source of our "growth," family home went from shelter to speculative asset. This transition accelerated as financialization (turning everything into a financial commodity to be leveraged and sold globally for a quick profit) spread into the once-staid housing sector in the early 2000s. (See chart of housing bubbles #1 and #2 below).

Where buying a home once meant putting down roots and insuring a stable cost of shelter, housing became a speculative asset to be snapped up and sold as prices soared.

The short-term vacation rental (STVR) boom added fuel to the speculative fire over the past decade as huge profits could be generated by assembling an STVR mini-empire of single-family homes that were now rented to tourists.

Now that housing has become unaffordable to the majority and the costs of ownership are stair-stepping higher, housing has become a liability. I covered the increases in costs of ownership in The Cost of Owning a Home Is Soaring 11/11/24). Articles like this one are increasingly common:

'I feel trapped': how home ownership has become a nightmare for many Americans: Scores in the US say they're grappling with raised mortgage and loan interest rates and exploding insurance premiums.

The sums of money now required to own, insure and maintain a house are eye-watering. Annual home insurance for many is now a five-figure sum; property taxes in many states is also a five-figure sum. As for maintenance, as I discussed in This Nails It: The Doom Loop of Housing Construction Quality, the decline in quality of housing and the rising costs of repair make buying a house a potentially unaffordable venture should repairs costing tens of thousands of dollars become necessary.

Major repairs can now cost what previous generations paid for an entire house, and no, this isn't just inflation; it's the result of the decline of quality across the board and the gutting of labor skills to cut costs.

Here's the Case-Shiller Index of national housing prices. Housing Bubble #2 far exceeds the extremes of unaffordability reached in Housing Bubble #1:

Here's a snapshot of housing affordability: buying a house is now an unattainable luxury for those without top 20% incomes and help from parents.

The monthly payments as a percentage of income are at historic highs:

Property taxes are rising in many locales as valuations bubble higher and local governments seek sources of stable revenues:

Home insurance costs vary widely, but all are skewing to the upside.

As I often note, the insurance industry is not a charity, and to maintain profits as payouts for losses explode higher, rates have to climb for everyone--and more for those in regions that are now viewed as high-risk due to massive losses in fires, hurricanes, wind storms, flooding, etc.

All credit-asset bubbles pop, and that inevitable deflation of home valuations will take away the speculative punchbowl. What's left are the costs of ownership. As these rise, they offset the rich capital gains that home owners have been counting on for decades to make ownership a worthwhile, low-risk investment.

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable. The ideas that have taken hold in the 21st century--that owning a house is a wellspring of future wealth, and everything is now a throwaway destined for the landfill--are based on faulty assumptions, assumptions that have set a banquet of consequences few will find palatable.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/20/2025 - 10:30