Salvador Dali Paranoiac Woman-Horse (Invisible Sleeping Woman, Lion, Horse) 1930
My job
Do you think Trump is fed up with the Blatant Corruption and Stupidity of the Media? pic.twitter.com/eFtElnATGN
— Johnny Midnight ⚡️ (@its_The_Dr) April 3, 2025
Yield
Tariffs are not the story!
Since Trump took office in Jan 2025, the 10-year yield has dropped from 4.79% to 4.17%. Look how much it’s dropped today!
That 0.62% drop may not sound like much—until you realize the U.S. has $36.5 trillion in debt.
This is stealth refinancing on…
— Charlie Shrem (@CharlieShrem) April 3, 2025
Definitely NOT the same pic.twitter.com/uLNP31BXv3
— Blondelady2024 (@arva61138) April 3, 2025
Gracias
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1908220062496133399
Crash
Warren Buffett – Trump making the best economic moves I have seen in 50 years. #Trump #tariffs #WarrenBuffett pic.twitter.com/Ly1IgtPsTs
— TheIrishWatchdog (@WatchdogTh96012) April 3, 2025
Ratna
An extremely insightful piece on tariffs and @realDonaldTrump’s strategy. https://t.co/RZlywD39rj
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 4, 2025
O’Leary
Kevin O'Leary on President Trump tariffs:
"Trump's tariffs are described as a 'win win'…"pic.twitter.com/WaCvoYYyNm
— Department of Government Efficiency News (@DOGE__news) April 3, 2025
Dmitriev
Wondering why Putin picked Kirill Dmitriev—not a general or diplomat—to lead talks with Trump’s team?
Simple: he speaks fluent Republican.
Fox, Newsmax, prime time. First high-level Russian on U.S. TV in years—delivering Moscow's case in their language. pic.twitter.com/D7BdbN0ROo— Brian McDonald (@27khv) April 4, 2025
Fall in Line
https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/1907857369586901222
Amazing to see how many people claim to know Trump’s tariffs will lead to utter disaster. Nobody knows, it’s never been tried before. Give it time. He’s had decades to actively think about, and he’s convinced it will be fine. Why else would he do it?
Why does the press never report that the end of income tax is also part of the plan?
• Trump: This Is A Great Time To Get Rich (RT)
US President Donald Trump has defended his controversial decision to impose sweeping tariffs on the majority of America’s trading partners. The move announced earlier this week has shocked global markets and sparked a backlash from world leaders. “To the many investors coming into the United States and investing massive amounts of money, my policies will never change. This is a great time to get rich, richer than ever before!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. The president remained defiant, even as the US stock market suffered its worst crash since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, with the Dow plunging 2,231 points on Friday, according to CNN. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that it was “now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected.”
“While tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent,” Powell added. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt denied that the restrictions would hurt US businesses. “There’s not going to be any pain for American-owned companies and American workers, because their jobs are going to come back home, and again, as for prices, President Trump is working on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of Americans,” she told NewsNation on Thursday. On April 2, Trump announced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and additional “reciprocal” duties on dozens of countries he said had an unfair trade imbalance with the US. The president argued that many nations were “ripping off” American citizens through “harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes.”
China has reacted by imposing a 34% tariff on American goods, matching Trump’s levy on Chinese products. The EU has condemned the US tariffs and vowed to adopt “further countermeasures” in response. Canada said it would counter Trump’s “series of unwarranted and unjustified tariffs” with a 25% levy on cars imported from the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the head of the World Trade Organization, said that an all-out trade war would be “destructive for the global economy.” She warned that the tariffs lead to a contraction of around 1% of global merchandise trade.
“..don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?
• Why Are People So Angry About Trump’s Tariffs? (Victor Davis Hanson)
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. April 3, President Donald Trump announced it as “Liberation Day.” And by that he meant we were going to be liberated from asymmetrical tariffs of the last 50 years. And it was going to inaugurate a new what he called “golden age” of trade parity, greater investment in the United States, but mostly, greater job opportunities and higher-paying jobs for Americans. And yet, the world seemed to erupt in anger. It was very strange. Even people on the libertarian right and, of course, the left were very angry. The Wall Street Journal pilloried Donald Trump. But here’s my question. China has prohibitive tariffs, so does Vietnam, so does Mexico, so does Europe. So do a lot of countries. So does India. But if tariffs are so destructive of their economies, why is China booming?
How did India become an economic powerhouse when it has these exorbitant tariffs on American imports? How did Vietnam, of all places, become such a different country even though it has these prohibitive tariffs? Why isn’t Germany, before its energy problems, why wasn’t it a wreck? It’s got tariffs on almost everything that we send them. How is the EU even functioning with these tariffs? I thought tariffs destroyed an economy, but they seem to like them. And they’re angry that they’re no longer asymmetrical. Apparently, people who are tariffing us think tariffs improve their economy. Maybe they’re right. I don’t know. The second thing is, why would you get angry at the person who is reacting to the asymmetrical tariff and not the people who inaugurated the tariff?
Why is Canada mad at us when it’s running a $63 billion surplus and it has tariffs on some American products at 250%. Doesn’t it seem like the people who started this asymmetrical—if I could use the word—trade war should be the culpable people, not the people who are reluctantly reacting to it? Sort of like Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. Do we blame Ukraine for defending itself and trying to reciprocate? No, we don’t. We don’t blame America because it finally woke up and said, “Whatever they tariff us we’re gonna tariff them.” Which brings up another question: Are our tariffs really tariffs? That is, were they preemptive? Were they leveled against countries that had no tariffs against us? Were they punitive? No. They’re almost leveled on autopilot. Whatever a particular country tariffs us, we reciprocate and just mirror image them.
And they go off anytime that country says, “It was a mistake. We’re sorry. You’re an ally. You’re a neutral. We’re not going to tariff this American product.” And we say, “Fine.” Then the autopilot ceases and the automatic tariff ends. In other words, it’s their choice, not ours. We’re just reacting to what they did, not what we did. Couple of other questions that I’ve had. We haven’t run a trade surplus since 1975—50 years. So, it wasn’t suddenly we woke up and said, “It’s unfair. We want commercial justice.” No. We’ve been watching this happen. For 50 years it’s been going on. And no president, no administration, no Congress in the past has done anything about it. Done anything about what? Leveling tariffs on our products that we don’t level on theirs.
It was all predicated in the postwar period. We were so affluent, so powerful—Europe, China, Russia were in shambles—that we had to take up the burdens of reviving the economy by taking great trade deficits. Fifty years later, we have been deindustrialized. And the countries who did this to us, by these unfair and asymmetrical tariffs, did not fall apart. They did not self-destruct. They apparently thought it was in their self-interest. And if anybody calibrates the recent gross domestic product growth of India or Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, they seem to have some logic to it.
There’s a final irony. The people who are warning us most vehemently about this tariff quote the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. But remember something, that came after the onset of the Depression—after. The stock market crashed in 1929. That law was not passed until 1930. It was not really amplified until ’31. And here’s the other thing that they were, conveniently, not reminded of: We were running a surplus. That was a preemptive punitive tariff, on our part, against other countries. We had a trade surplus. And it was not 10% or 20%. Some of the tariffs were 40% and 50%. And again, it happened after the collapse of the stock market. In conclusion, don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?
Seems a likelier prediction than mayhem in the US.
• Trump’s Tariffs Will Turn EU Economy Into ‘Decaying Corpse’ – Medvedev (RT)
The US imposition of “reciprocal” tariffs on EU exports has doomed the bloc’s economy, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. This week, US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs in an attempt to improve America’s balance of trade, accusing the country’s economic partners of exploiting access to its consumer market through protectionist policies and currency manipulation. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, remarked on Thursday that while the move seriously disrupts global commerce, Russia will be largely unaffected, as its trade with the US is virtually nonexistent.
“No need for knee-jerk reactions,” he posted on social media. “We should take a seat on the shore and wait for the enemy’s corpse to float by. In this case, the decaying corpse of the EU economy.” The expression, which advises patient inaction, has been attributed by Western authors, including Umberto Eco, to various Eastern sources and may be a misinterpretation of a remark by Chinese philosopher Confucius, which does not mention dead bodies. Outgoing German Economy Minister Robert Habeck has compared the potential impact to the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Then too, “something new was happening, and we were not prepared in Europe to cope with the challenge,” he said during a press conference on Thursday. Many other European politicians and media outlets have described the economic fallout from the tariffs as disastrous for member states. Washington, however, has warned that any retaliatory steps would be met with further measures.
Medvedev has previously called out Brussels for being incompetent and irrationally hostile toward Russia. In an effort to punish Moscow over the Ukraine conflict, Brussels has sought to cut off energy imports from the country entirely. The economic bloc has also imposed sweeping sanctions, significantly reducing direct trade. Critics of the policy, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, argue that it has led to a dramatic decline in the competitiveness of EU products, inflicting substantial economic damage.
If Trump must fight Roberts, he will.
• You Wouldn’t Want to Be Him on That Dreadful Day (Kunstler)
Do you see the pattern? Populist party leaders all over Western Civ getting undone by the law courts —Calin Georgescu in Romania, election cancelled; Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, de-railed by President Lula’s stooge judges (with CIA help); Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia shot-up with five bullets in May last year (survived miraculously); the Alternative-for-Deutschland Party de-platformed by the Scholz-Merz ruling junta; then, this week, Marine Le Pen, leading candidate (by far) for President of France, defenestrated on Mickey Mouse charges in the Paris court. And, of course, since 2015, Mr. Trump, hounded relentlessly, but not yet overthrown, due to sheer pluck and testosterone (the official hated hormone of the Left).
International lawfare is about the last remaining tool in the “Globalist” kit-bag for “color revolution,” which means regime change by underhanded means, election interference being the favorite device. The poster child, of course, was the US CIA / DOD State Department regime change operation in Ukraine, 2014, that ousted Russian-leaning elected President Viktor Yanukovych, eventually leading to the installation of coke-head Volodymyr Zelensky, and ultimately to the Ukraine War that has killed over a million people. These days, astroturf (i.e., fake) street revolution (e.g., Maidan in Kiev 2014) is out; lawfare is in.
By Globalist, let’s just say the broad alliance of the EU, the European Central Bank & friends, the WEF-and-cronies in the global corporatocracy, the US Democratic Party, billionaires such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, and sundry residual mass-formation world-savors of the crypto-communist-green-bullshit persuasion. The situation in our own country has grown particularly acute with the DC and other regional federal court judges lately arrogating the Article II executive powers of the president. You can see what the furthest strategic end-point is: the Democratic Party wants to induce President Trump to invoke a national emergency against this legal insurrection in order to force him to play the role of “fascist dictator.” Mr. Trump has been very careful to stay as much within-the-guardrails of the law as possible throughout this long campaign to destroy him and his MAGA movement to purge corruption from the government.
The hinge on the conflict now is the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is led by Chief Justice John Roberts. A whole lot of troubling info about CJ Roberts has blown up in recent days, much of it not exactly new, but buried and ignored by the likes of The New York Times, and its kindred blob mouthpieces. You’ve read in this blog recently how CJ Roberts’s chief factotum at SCOTUS, Sheldon Snook, is married to Mary McCord, involved officially in every lawfare prank against Mr. Trump since RussiaGate, when she was U.S. Assistant Attorney-General for National Security — and who then went on as counsel for Jerrold Nadler’s House Committee Trump Impeachment No. 1, and the J-6 House Committee, both actions of stupendous bad faith.
Turns out that CJ Roberts has been “besties” with Lawfare field marshal Norm Eisen, and for quite a long time, as far back as 2005. Eisen was special counsel on Impeachment No. 1, and chief strategist behind the janky cases staged last year against Mr. Trump by New York AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County (GA) DA Fani Willis. You can bet that Eisen was at least an unofficial strategic advisor in the Special Counsel Jack Smith prosecutions, too, along with Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann of Mueller Commission infamy — Eisen, McCord, and Weissmann, the three Nosferatus of Lawfare. Eisen is coordinating most of the current lawsuit action against Mr. Trump in the federal courts.
Several alt-news outlets are reporting that CJ Roberts made two trips to visit Norm Eisen in Prague between 2011 and 2014 when Eisen was Barack Obama’s ambassador to the Czech Republic. The longest visit, a week, entailed a global conference on “American and European rule-of-law issues.” Hmmmm. . . what could that possibly mean? Revolver News, Mike Benz on “X”, and a character styled as “The Researcher” on “X” have all reported on the Roberts-Eisen close friendship. Also turns out that CJ Roberts is a club member at an elite, invite-only club for legal poohbahs called the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court, which is indirectly associated with an international Inns of Court network centered in London. (“Rule-of-law,” anyone?) Other members of the EBW Inn of Court in DC. include Judges James (“Jeb”) Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, all of the DC District — all involved in current lawfare suits — and SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Do you suppose they have discussed any of these matters at their meet-ups, especially after the pass-around of legal beverages? Perhaps even strategized about them?
Doesn’t that make you a little queasy about CJ Roberts’s role presiding over cases coming any day before SCOTUS that have been designed and propelled by his good pal, Norm Eisen? Should CJ Roberts consider recusing himself from any of these pending cases on the SCOTUS docket? Oh, yes, one other interesting sidelight: John Roberts has been found listed on the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs of the “Lolita Express” bound for Little St. James Island in the US Virgin Islands, Epstein’s supposed party shack for the celebrity elite. The allegation that the “John Roberts” listed in the flight log is the same as the Chief Justice is officially unsubstantiated. But here it is FWIW. Of course, no flight log would be required for a jaunt to Epstein’s New York City townhouse, in case CJ Roberts ever ventured up there from our nation’s capital, an easy car trip.
It is established fact that Epstein was busy recording the various doings in the many bedrooms of these establishments, arguably not merely for his private entertainment. Is CJ Roberts perhaps under blackmail for any such activity recorded? Lord only knows, just now. But it’s possible that FBI Director Kash Patel and his Deputy Director Dan Bongino know the answer to this abiding mystery, since weeks ago they assigned a thousand agents in the New York City FBI office to sort out the thousands of pages and other articles of evidence that the office had been suppressing for years until US AG Pam Bondi fired the top agent there, James Dennehy, for withholding it so long. It’s been awfully quiet over at the FBI and DOJ home office in DC since then. Of course, if any referrals are being considered, or any grand jury bound cases being prepared, you wouldn’t want that to leak out, would you?
Roberts can try to wait out the clock 677 times, but the Trump team are not fools.
• John Roberts Needs to Do His Job Already (Skeet)
We are in the midst of a judicial coup. In the past three months, there have been at least 79 nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts against the legal orders issued by President Trump. That’s more than half the total number of nationwide injunctions ever issued. Furthermore, these injunctions can ignore and overrule rulings on the same issue made by other district judges. If 50 district judges rule that a presidential order is constitutional, and the 51st district judge rules that it isn’t, that single district judge can overrule and violate the separation of powers not only of the president and Congress, but also of the rest of the judiciary. Just in the past couple of weeks, a federal judge blocked President Trump from firing federal probationary workers. Bosses and managers in every company in America, including unionized companies, have the right to fire probationary workers at any time for any reason.
But Judge James K. Bredar unilaterally declared that President Trump cannot. In the same vein, District Judge Anthony Trenga blocked President Trump from firing 19 CIA and DNI employees. District Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes, handling different cases on opposite sides of the country, both blocked Trump’s transgender military ban. Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville declared an ICE agent in contempt for taking an illegal into custody during the latter’s criminal trial (for charges of falsifying information on a government document, a charge the judge dismissed). Judge Summerville then ordered the local district attorney’s office to investigate the ICE agent. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the American government to somehow force the return of an MS-13 gang leader from a prison in El Salvador. The judge said he must be returned before this upcoming Monday before midnight. (Or?)
District Judge Edward Chen blocked President Trump from revoking deportation protections from Venezuelan illegals, decrying Trump’s order as racist and blathering on about the “social and economic contributions” of the 350,000 illegals flooding the labor market and straining social services, as if their economic impact (even if it were positive) should have any bearing whatsoever of the constitutionality of Trump’s order. As Bonchie over at RedState pointed out, this case is particularly egregious in that Judge Chen disregarded the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously ruled that the Temporary Protection Status (which Judge Chen ordered reinstated) is not subject to judicial review. This is the appeals court under whose jurisdiction Judge Chen operates. So, he basically just told his supervisors that they’re wrong, he’s right, and they can go pound sand.
And of course there is District Judge Boasberg, who infamously ordered planes carrying foreign terrorists to turn around midair and return them to American soil, where they’d be freed to rape, murder, and vote Democrat. Any common-sense reading of the Alien Enemies Act clearly demonstrates that President Trump is well within his rights in deporting foreign terrorists and gang members. But Boasberg singlehandedly and arbitrarily claimed authority to negate the law. Boasberg’s blatant disregard of the law and his usurpation of executive authority led to calls from conservative circles, Congress, and the president himself for Boasberg’s impeachment. But shortly after these calls for impeachment, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented statement denouncing such an approach. Roberts’ statement read, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Justice Roberts is not so dumb as to confuse “disagreement concerning a judicial decision” with a blatant usurpation of authority and the willful violation of the separation of powers as enumerated in the U. S. Constitution. Roberts’ intention is to protect and expand the unchecked power of the judiciary at the expense of the other co-equal branches of government. The abuse of legislative and executive power regularly leads to censure, party expulsion, and impeachment. The abuse of judicial power suffers from no such checks, limitations, or consequences. And when such constitutionally documented remedies are pondered by members of the supposedly coequal branches, Justice Roberts harangues them for their audacity.
Justice Roberts is also not so dumb as to not realize exactly what the Left is doing. It’s obvious to everyone that they’re trying to jam Trump up in the red tape of a judicial bureaucratic nightmare to slow down or stop his agenda. It doesn’t matter if every single case reaches the Supreme Court and every single case results in the Supreme Court siding with Trump. Such a process can take months or years to adjudicate each case. That’s the point. The process is the punishment, and the Left is using it as an unconstitutional veto. They’re hoping to string Trump along until the midterms, where they hope to regain control of Congress and launch a few dozen or so impeachment proceedings against him (about which Roberts will make zero statements about the abuse of impeachment powers).
His defense of the integrity of the court system, or against the abuse of impeachment, is quite selective. Did he speak out during the first two sham impeachments against President Trump? Did he speak out when President Biden brazenly ignored and defied the Supreme Court ruling on student debt? On a side note, John, any progress on that internal investigation as to which justice’s aide leaked the Dobbs decision to the press? To the extent that Justice Robert concedes that there is a blatant judicial coup being attempted in real time at district level (for which there have been no consequences and, hence, no incentives to refrain from such abuse, which has clearly accelerated in recent weeks), the legal and constitutional solution must be wide ranging and comprehensive.
[..] Suppose a rogue judge ordered the New York Times and the Washington Post to cease operations based on that judge’s twisted understanding of the First Amendment. Would Justice Roberts tell everyone to calm down and go through the appeals process? Would these newspapers be expected to abide by the ruling for the months and years it would take to reach the Supreme Court?
If police across the country started entering whatever homes they wanted to conduct warrantless searches, and a rogue judge passed a nationwide injunction giving them legal cover to do so, would Justice Roberts expect this abuse to continue while the appeals courts heard the cases? Would American citizens be expected to submit to warrantless searches at the whim of the authorities until SCOTUS finally got around to reviewing them?
Justice Roberts, you have judges ordering how the executive is to administer the military. You have justices acting as de facto air traffic controllers, demanding the executive branch order aircraft maneuvers over other nations’ airspace without any regard or knowledge of the safety and logistics thereof. You have judges handcuffing executive action based not on the constitutionality of said action, but on how that particular judge thinks its economic impact would be. You have judges ordering district attorneys’ offices to launch investigations. You have judges ordering our government to tell other governments what to do.
“Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,”
• Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? (Adams)
“How should I determine who the contemner or contemners are?” federal District Court Judge James Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign. A contemner is someone said to be in contempt of court. In an at-times contentious hearing on Thursday, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the Justice Department lawyer that he thought the Trump administration had disobeyed his verbal court order to turn around three planes heading to El Salvador carrying more than 238 illegal migrants accused by the Trump administration of being members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs. “It seems to me there’s a fair likelihood that that is not correct; in fact, that the government acted in bad faith throughout that day,” Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in court.
The Trump administration, for its part, maintained that it had followed the judge’s written order on 7:27 p.m. on March 15 that halted what the administration viewed as the enforcement of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. However, Boasberg also gave an oral order earlier in the day that is the subject of the dispute between the judge and the Trump administration. The Trump administration contends that the judge’s verbal command to turn the planes around “did not amount to a binding injunction.” The 1798 Alien Enemies Act was passed during the administration of John Adams, the second president. The law stipulated that when the United States is at war or facing “any invasion or predatory incursion,” the president can remove males who are 14 years of age or older from the United States “as alien enemies.”
Boasberg asked who had made the decision to not turn the planes back or not disembark the illegal immigrants, for which the government lawyer did not have an answer. “You, standing here, have no idea who made the decision to not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival? As we proceed with potential contempt proceedings, that may become relevant,” the judge said. Members of Congress have taken issue with Boasberg’s actions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has vowed to hold hearings on some of the judicial rulings against the Trump administration. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and five other House Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Boasberg.
“Chief Judge Boasberg usurped the executive’s constitutional authority, going so far as to order midair flights to turn around and return violent foreign gangsters back to American soil. Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,” Gill said in a press statement. To remove a federal judge from office would require some Democrats’ support in the Senate, which House Republicans are unlikely to get. Boasberg is expected to rule on whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court next week. The federal D.C. appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift Boasberg’s order, and the administration has subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Not complete.
• Supreme Court Shuts Down Activist Judge (ZH)
The Supreme Court on Friday overruled an activist judge in Boston, allowing the Trump administration to slash $250 million for more than 100 teacher training grants for DEI and other woke programs. In a 5-4 decision nine days after the request, the Supremes sided with the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay the court order by judge Myong J. Joun of the federal District of Massachusetts – who had ordered the Trump administration to “immediately restore” the “pre-existing status quo prior to the termination.” According to the ruling – which is likely to narrow the ability of district courts to halt agency actions involving grant function, Joun lacked authority to order the Trump admin to restore the funding.
https://twitterr.com/bykatiebuehler/status/1908255070291996992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1908255070291996992%7Ctwgr%5Ee5efef6d959ddcbb739d9a2382749cea9bba9ea0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fsupreme-court-shuts-down-activist-judge-lets-trump-cut-250-million-dei-training-teachers
In his ruling, Myong sided with California and eight other blue states that argued that the cuts were likely driven by efforts by the Trump administration to gut DEI programs (duh). The cuts were announced on Feb. 17, following findings by DOGE that taxpayer funds were being used to “train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies” that were “inappropriate and unnecessary,” including “critical race theory,; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); social justice activism; ‘anti-racism’; and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” And of course, dissenting in the Supreme Court decision were Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Chief Justice Roberts.
“Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”
That is the idea, yes.
• Canada Will Lead The World – PM (RT)
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has condemned US President Donald Trump’s new slate of tariffs, declaring that Ottawa stands ready to become the global economic leader in place of Washington. He delivered the remarks on Thursday as he unveiled retaliatory measures for Trump’s claimed “reciprocal” tariffs, which include an additional 25% automobile industry tariff on Canada. Ottawa has responded by tariffing all cars and vehicle content imported from the US that is not compliant with USMCA, a cornerstone free trade pact between the US, Canada, and Mexico. The sweeping new wave of tariffs ranging from 10% to 49%, affecting most countries in the world, was rolled out by Trump on Wednesday on what he called “liberation day” in an effort to rectify America’s import-export imbalance. Carney said the move was bound to “rupture the global economy,” which has already become “fundamentally different today than it was yesterday.”
“The system of global trade anchored on the US [is one] that Canada has relied on since the end of the Second World War. A system that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for our country for decades is over. Our old relationship of steadily deepening integration with the US is over,” the prime minister announced. Carney described the development as a “tragedy” that has become “the new reality,” but claimed that Ottawa was ready to take “global economic leadership” instead of Washington. “Canada must be looking elsewhere to expand our trade, to build our economy, and to protect our sovereignty. Canada is ready to take a leadership role in building a coalition of like-minded countries who share our values,” he said. “And if the United States no longer wants to lead, Canada will.”
Canada has become one of the prime targets for Trump’s attacks on the global trade status quo, with the US president alleging that Washington has been “subsidizing” Ottawa in the amount of about $200 billion a year. The best way to resolve their economic disagreements would be for Canada would be becoming the “cherished” 51st state of the US, he has suggested on multiple occasions. While Canadian leaders have firmly rejected the annexation idea, opinion polls have indicated it is also extremely unpopular among the public as well. A recent YouGov poll suggested that up to 77% of Canadians firmly oppose it, with only around 15% in favor of a merger with the US.
We escaped this at the last minute.
• Trump HHS Slashes Hundreds of Millions in Woke LGBTQ Grants (DS)
The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Department has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants dedicated to researching illegal sexual behavior in children, pregnancy prevention for “transgender boys,” and so-called sleep inequality affecting black sexual-minority men. In March, HHS canceled at least $530 million of funding for LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to a grant tracker from Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. HHS previously provided more than $990 million of grant funding to LGBTQ+ health research programs, according to the tracker. The National Institutes of Health’s newly sworn-in director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said that under his tutelage, the agency would shift its priorities toward “research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and many others that cause so much suffering and deaths among all Americans, LGBTQ individuals included.”
The shift “away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies” is in “accordance with the president’s executive orders,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Daily Signal. The priority shift included cutting funding for studies focused on radical gender ideology, critical race theory, and other topics that polls show to be wildly unpopular with Americans, according to The Daily Signal’s review of terminated grants. For instance, the Trump administration cut off $10,000 of promised funding to a conference Feb. 25-27 at the University of Oklahoma called “Be Curious Not Judgmental: The 4th National Symposium on Sexual Behavior of Youth.” “Professionals and parents continue to use myths and misunderstandings as the base of decisions on problematic and illegal sexual behavior of children and adolescents,” the symposium’s website reads. “Adults worry about addressing sexual topics, and yet youth continue to be inundated with graphic sexual images and messages.”
“We need to better equip professionals and parents to understand and support healthy sexual development and to identify problematic sexual behavior early and intervene with all children and caregivers impacted,” the description continues. One breakout session at the conference focused on “The Help-Wanted Prevention Intervention for Minor Attracted Individuals,” a euphemism for pedophiles. On March 21, Trump’s NIH terminated a $2.9 million grant to the University of Minnesota for research on “adolescent health at the intersections of sexual, gender, racial/ethnic, immigrant identities and native language.” The study aimed to determine “what positive and negative experiences are particularly relevant to the overlapping, simultaneous production of inequalities by [sexual and gender minority] identity, race/ethnicity, immigration experiences, and native language?”
The pre-Trump NIH promised the Research Triangle Institute $100,507 to study “social influences on sexual health among Latinx adolescents and emerging adults who identify as LGBTQ+ in an agricultural community.” NIH ended a $1.5 million grant to Urban Health Partnerships for “leveraging a community-driven approach to address the impact of social determinants of health on structural inequities among Miami-Dade County’s intergenerational LGBTQ+ Community.” Hunter College lost its $211,100 grant to study “development and feasibility of a psychosocial intervention for sexual and gender minority autistic adults.” On March 18, NIH cut off Virginia Commonwealth University’s $205,308 grant focused on “using youth-engaged methods to develop and evaluate a measure for disordered eating behaviors in transgender and gender-diverse youth.”
“Transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse (TNG) youth face stigma due to the marginalization of their gender identities,” the study says. “TNG youth also have increased vulnerability to body dissatisfaction due to pubertal changes and development of secondary sexual characteristics that might be misaligned with their gender identity, which may be exacerbated by a youth’s inability to access gender-affirming medical care (i.e., puberty blockers, gender-affirming hormones).” Yale University lost government funding for a program, “Training in Behavioral Design Interventions to Address Stigma Among Men Who have Sex with Men.” “This study will explore relationships of different discrimination experiences and sexual health among young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM),” the project narrative says. “This study aims to better the sexual health of YBMSM throughout their lives by informing future interventions that help decrease new cases of HIV and other poor sexual health outcomes.”
The NIH terminated its $2,368,492 contract with Brown University to study “improving mental health among the LGBTQ+ community impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.”NIH had committed more than $1.3 million to Princeton University to study “Views of Gender in Adolescence.” “Gender diverse children often experience disparities in mental health and well-being,” the project narrative says. “Further questions concern the stability of their gender, as that has implications for medical transitions. The proposed work would examine the role of gender beliefs and self-categorization in predicting mental health and well-being, as well as provide better estimates of rates of stability and change across time in the identities of both cisgender and gender-diverse youth.” Trump’s HHS terminated a $1.3 million grant to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research to study “Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen-pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys.”
Publius Helvius Pertinax.
“There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily..”
See if any of this sounds familiar: a great nation, indeed, the world’s only superpower, is beset by turmoil, as a corrupt political class grows more interested in enriching itself than in performing any actual public service. Finally, a new leader emerges who has a long and distinguished record in other fields, but is not a career politician. Citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction of the country put their faith in this unlikely reformer and manage to secure the top spot for him, but the corrupt elements are supremely powerful and deeply entrenched. They refuse to accept the new leader and fight back fiercely against his efforts to restore competence and honesty to the government. I am, of course, speaking about Publius Helvius Pertinax, who was the emperor of Rome from Jan. 1, 193, to March 28, 193. In his all too brief reign at the helm of the magnificent empire, Pertinax tried to turn around the mighty ship of state and draw it out of the morass of corruption into which he had fallen.
One of his contemporaries, the historian and Roman Senator Cassius Dio, said that Pertinax was “an excellent and upright man” and a fine emperor as well, who during his three-month tenure demonstrated “not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administrations, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare.” Writing over thirteen centuries later, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in his notorious manual of power politics, “The Prince,” that Pertinax was one of three Roman emperors of his time who were “men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant.” This did not, however, play well in the empire of his day. The soldiers of the Roman Empire, “being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus,” who was Pertinax’s free-spending predecessor, “could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them.”
This was understandable. The thing about corruption is that it, well, corrupts. Once soldiers get accustomed to getting lavish amounts of money under the table for various favors, it is difficult to compel them to be content with their relatively meager official salary alone. And it wasn’t just the soldiers. The Roman Emperors site notes that “Pertinax’s reign was characterized by his attempts to reverse the excesses and corruption of Commodus’ rule. He immediately set about reforming the administration, cutting down on the extravagance that had characterized the previous regime.” Shades of DOGE. Pertinax also “sought to restore discipline within the Praetorian Guard and the broader military, which had become increasingly unruly under Commodus. Pertinax also attempted to implement financial reforms, aiming to replenish the depleted imperial treasury through austerity measures and the sale of Commodus’ extravagant possessions.”
While anyone who was aware of the empire’s former glory welcomed these reforms, the beneficiaries of the corruption were less happy: “Pertinax’s reforms were met with resistance from multiple quarters. The Praetorian Guard, in particular, had grown accustomed to the bribes and favors they had received during Commodus’ reign. Pertinax’s attempts to impose discipline and reduce their influence were deeply unpopular. The Guard, which had played a key role in the assassination of Commodus, was now wary of any emperor who might threaten their privileged position.” Making matters even worse was the fact that “Pertinax’s efforts to restore financial discipline alienated many in the Roman elite. His attempts to collect overdue taxes and recover state property from wealthy individuals who had benefitted under Commodus made him enemies among the Senate and the aristocracy. These powerful groups saw Pertinax as a threat to their wealth and influence and began plotting against him.”
Yeah, you’re right, this could be a terrific movie. Cast Trump as Pertinax, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi as his enemies among the Senate and aristocracy, Old Joe Biden (or maybe Barack Obama) as Commodus, and Mark Milley as the angry head of the Praetorian Guard. The worst part, however, is that Pertinax did not succeed; the Praetorian Guard assassinated him on March 28, 193, and the empire descended into chaos. The imperial throne was sold off to the highest bidder, Didius Julianus, who was himself murdered on June 2, 193. Of course, the effort to reform the American government may not have the same sad ending. There is no doubt, however, that those who have fattened at the public trough in the U.S. for so many decades are not giving up easily, and will continue trying to throw every possible roadblock in Trump’s path as he attempts to restore honest government. May he succeed where Pertinax failed.
He’ll make the call.
• Trump’s Inner Circle Opposes New Putin Call – NBC News (RT)
US President Donald Trump’s advisers are urging him to not call his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, before Moscow commits to a full ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, NBC News reported on Thursday citing two anonymous officials. The US leader previously told the media outlet that he intends to talk with Putin again, potentially as soon as this week, following their previous conversation on March 18. Trump, who is trying to mediate a truce between Moscow and Kiev after more than three years of hostilities, stated on Tuesday that Putin and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky are “ready to make a deal” thanks to his efforts.
Putin has said he supports a full suspension of the fighting, but is concerned with the specifics of how it would be arranged. He has suggested that a pause would become possible if the US ensures comprehensive monitoring along the frontline and if Kiev suspends mobilization of reinforcements. During his previous call with Trump, the Russian president agreed to a moratorium on attacks against energy infrastructure, which Zelensky also publicly endorsed. However since then the Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported Ukrainian strikes breaching the partial ceasefire, including against internationally-owned infrastructure on Russian soil. Moscow has said that it remains committed to its end of the bargain. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Friday that no contacts between Putin and Trump are scheduled for the “next several days” and downplayed the NBC report, warning about “speculation and outright lies” in the press.
This week, Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, who advises President Putin on international economic cooperation, visited the US to meet White House officials. Following the talks, he said more progress has been made towards resolving the Ukraine conflict, but that third parties are seeking to derail the normalization of US-Russian relations initiated by Trump in February, when he phoned Putin for the first time since assuming office.Politico has reported an expectation in the UK and Germany of a third Putin-Trump call within days, following Dmitriev’s visit.
Putin will demand a final solution.
• Zelensky Contradicts Trump On NATO Membership (RT)
Ukraine could still become a member of NATO despite opposition to the idea from the administration of US President Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelensky has insisted. Trump lashed out at the Ukrainian leader earlier this week, saying “he wants to be a member of NATO. Well, he was never going to be a member of NATO. He understands that.” However, during a meeting with the heads of territorial communities of Chernigov Region, Zelensky made it clear that he has not yet given up on his long-standing ambitions of joining the US-led bloc. “You know who does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO so far, but in any case, no one is removing this issue from the table for the future,” Zelensky said, as cited by the Ukrinform news agency.
“At least, we are talking about the fact that even if now someone does not want to support [Kiev joining the bloc], we will see what happens in the future,” Zelensky added. According to the Ukrainian leader, until Kiev becomes a member of the bloc it should be provided with “NATO-like security guarantees” by its Western backers. Ukraine will be able to achieve “a just peace” with Russia, but in order to do so “it has to be strong when getting to the negotiating table,” he insisted. Russia cited Kiev’s ambitions to join NATO, which Moscow views as a hostile bloc, as among the main reasons for launching its military operation in February 2022.
Ukraine’s neutrality remains one of the key demands by Moscow for achieving a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, along with the demilitarization and denazification of the country and recognition by Kiev of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as Russian territory. Last month, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said “yes” when asked by Bloomberg if Trump had already taken the question of Kiev joining NATO off the table in efforts undertaken by the US and Russia to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict. Rutte also suggested that once the fighting stops, the West could “step by step… restore normal relations with Russia.” However, he added that “we are absolutely not there yet, we have to maintain the pressure” on Moscow.
“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,”
• ‘Free Le Pen’ – Trump to France (RT)
US President Donald Trump has accused the French political establishment of employing lawfare against right-wing figure Marine Le Pen, urging Paris to “free” her. On Monday, a Paris court sentenced Le Pen to four years in prison and imposed a five-year ban on her eligibility for public office, effectively preventing her from running in the 2027 presidential election. In a post on Truth Social late Thursday, Trump declared Le Pen a victim of a “witch hunt.” He asserted that the prosecution of Le Pen was orchestrated by “European Leftists using Lawfare to silence Free Speech, and censor their Political Opponent.”
“It is the same ‘playbook’ that was used against me by a group of Lunatics and Losers, like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Lisa Monaco,” he remarked, referring to attorneys who were involved in litigation against him since his first term as president. Trump claims those proceedings were politically-driven. Although Trump admitted he did not personally know Le Pen or the specifics of her case, which he assumed stemmed from a “bookkeeping” error, he expressed admiration for her resilience. He concluded, “It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on. FREE MARINE LE PEN!” Le Pen and several other senior members of her National Rally (RN) party were found guilty of misappropriating EU funds intended to support European Parliament members for domestic party activities.
The offenses occurred between 2004 and 2016, when she was the leader of RN. Several foreign political leaders criticized the ruling as a blow to democracy in France. Trump previously described it as “a very big deal.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni contended that the sentence “takes away representation from millions of citizens,” while her Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orban, expressed his solidarity with Le Pen by posting “Je suis Marine!” Le Pen characterized the ruling as “political,” asserting that it reflected a “lower court judge” depriving French voters of the opportunity to back their preferred presidential candidate.
Can’t get elected three times, but you can serve.
• Yes, Trump Could Serve a Third Term. Law Professor Explains How (Allen)
President Donald Trump could not run for a third term, but he could be president a third time, according to Cornell law professor Bill Jacobson. The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear that no one can be elected to the office of the president “more than twice.” “But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits someone from serving a third term,” said Jacobson, founder and publisher of Legal Insurrection. If another candidate won the presidential election, and Trump was his or her vice presidential running mate, that candidate could step aside after winning the race and allow Trump to take over, according to Jacobson, who was quick to add he doesn’t endorse such an action. While a deal made with a running mate for Trump to serve a third term “does not violate the Constitution,” Jacobson says, it “might violate the spirit of the Constitution.”
The intent of the 22nd Amendment is “that we not have a permanent president,” Jacobson said, adding that because of that, serving a third term “might be subject to challenge,” adding: “It might be subject to what was the original meaning of these terms. But on its face, there’s no barrier. “The conversation of Trump serving a third term recently landed in headlines when a number of reporters started asking the president if he wanted a third term. “I’m not looking at that, but I’ll tell you, I have had more people asking me to have a third term,” Trump said while speaking with reporters on Air Force One at the end of March. This isn’t the first time the idea of a former two-term president serving another term has been floated.
In October 2023, Howard J. Klein of Lakewood Ranch, Florida, wrote in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal that former President Barack Obama could run as the vice presidential candidate with then-President Joe Biden. “Mr. Obama would constitutionally succeed to the presidency—without election—if Mr. Biden were to vacate the office,” Klein wrote. The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1951 in the wake of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election to four terms in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Congress approved the 22nd Amendment on March 21, 1947, then submitted it to the state legislatures for required ratification. The ratification process was completed on Feb. 27, 1951, when the required 36 of the then-48 states (before Hawaii and Alaska joined the union) had ratified the amendment.
Buy TikTok, Larry.
• Larry Fink Believes He Will Win Over Control Of The Panama Canal (Gasparino)
Larry Fink is playing the long game. With a little time, a possible nudge from President Trump and some on-the-ground lobbying of his contacts in mainland China, BlackRock’s billionaire boss believes he will win approval from the Mainland’s apparatchiks to take control of the Panama Canal, On The Money has learned.Specifically, Fink is looking to close a $23 billion deal with Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison to buy 43 ports worldwide — including the two ports that are strategically located on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal.Until recently, most people didn’t know much about CK Hutchison, which is headed by the mercurial, 96-year-old billionaire Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest tycoon.
That was until The Donald began talking up the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, one of the busiest waterways for global trade because it easily connects both oceans through a 51-mile deepwater runway. Hutchison holds long-term leases there and at dozens of others including on the Suez Canal. Its stock traded cheaply, and when Trump began to mouth off about the need to exert US eminence at the Panama Canal (the US, after all, built it and controlled the zone until the 1970s), Blackrock saw a way to make some money and get into Trump’s good graces. The other side of the deal wasn’t so happy. And I’m not talking about Hutchison, but its overlords in the Chinese Communist Party who began to “investigate” the tie-up for God knows what other than to prevent the US from gaining a foothold at this vital waterway. The CCP is now threatening to throttle the entire deal.
The people at BlackRock are at least posturing in private conversations that they’re not too worried. They tell On The Money to ignore reports that the deal was set to be officially signed by Wednesday. The real due date is the 145-day “due diligence” period that began when the buyout was announced on March 4. The grace period was designed to ensure a complicated buyout involving dozens of ports in many different countries comported with various laws, including getting buy-in from the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Yes, the people at BlackRock said they saw the potential for trouble from China Inc., and they built that into the closing schedule. They believe that over this time, they can get the deal approved by the CCP overlords and put American flags back up in the canal zone.
“We are proceeding as if this deal will happen,” a BlackRock executive told On the Money as this column went to press. Of course, things could change given the volatile nature of the relations between China and the US and the frenemy dynamic between Trump and Xi. Trump is said to admire the Chinese strongman (and the feeling seems to be mutual), but wary of his obvious global ambitions. Part of Trump, I am told, will never forgive the Chinese for unleashing COVID on the planet, which on top of all the misery it caused, doomed his re-election chances in 2020. But the BlackRock deal is something Trump covets. He mentioned it in the State of the Union address, no less as proof of an American global renaissance.
And people at BlackRock believe the deal will get folded into negotiations with the Chinese over Trump’s plan to save the China-owned short-video app TikTok from being banned from US app stores as early as this weekend, and our overall trade negotiations with the Mainland. Barring some last-minute deal implosion (or a realistic new competing bid, which at this stage is unlikely), the White House is scrambling to unveil a plan for a newish US-investor-controlled TikTok any minute now, a structure, as On The Money reported, that the Trumpers believe will comport with a US law that demands the end of Chinese control.
But the Chinese will have some buy-in, as I also reported. That includes possibly a minority stake in the new company and it won’t have to part with its algorithm, the important part of TikTok that gins up user engagement and some say, has allowed the Chinese to spy on US users. To get around the ban legislation, tech giant Oracle will be part of the planned new ownership group, but more importantly, monitor the algo in its cloud. To get Xi’s buy-in, the Chinese remain a part of the app’s infrastructure, which can operate in the US and retain its value estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.
Panama and TikTok.
• Trump Extends TikTok Deadline 75 Days, As He Tries To Close Deal (JTN)
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would sign an executive order to keep the social media app TikTok running for 75 days. Trump insisted his administration had made great progress on a deal to keep the social media app running in the U.S., but that it needed more time to finalize it. “The Deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days,” Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. “We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!).”
April 6 was the deadline for the China-based ByteDance to either sell the app or face a ban on U.S. operations. The founder of OnlyFans and Amazon made offers to buy the app earlier this week. “We do not want TikTok to ‘go dark.’ We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the Deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump’s post concluded.
They risk the wrath of Trump. He’ll protect Elon.
• EU Could Fine Elon Musk’s X $1B Over Illicit Content, Disinformation (CT)
European Union regulators are reportedly mulling a $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, taking into account revenue from his other ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX, according to The New York Times. EU regulators allege that X has violated the Digital Services Act and will use a section of the act to calculate a fine based on revenue that includes other companies Musk controls, according to an April 3 report by the newspaper, which cited four people with knowledge of the plan. Under the Digital Services Act, which came into law in October 2022 to police social media companies and “prevent illegal and harmful activities online,” companies can be fined up to 6% of global revenue for violations.
A spokesman for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, declined to comment on this case to The New York Times but did say it would “continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination toward all companies operating in the EU.” In a statement, X’s Global Government Affairs team said that if the reports about the EU’s plans are accurate, it “represents an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on free speech.” “X has gone above and beyond to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, and we will use every option at our disposal to defend our business, keep our users safe, and protect freedom of speech in Europe,” X’s global government affairs team said.
Along with the fine, the EU regulators could reportedly demand product changes at X, with the full scope of any penalties to be announced in the coming months. Still, a settlement could be reached if the social media platform agrees to changes that satisfy regulators, according to the Times. One of the officials who spoke to the Times also said that X is facing a second investigation alleging the platform’s approach to policing user-generated content has made it a hub of illegal hate speech and disinformation, which could result in more penalties.
The EU investigation began in 2023. A preliminary ruling in July 2024 found X had violated the Digital Services Act by refusing to provide data to outside researchers, provide adequate transparency about advertisers, or verify the authenticity of users who have a verified account. X responded to the ruling with hundreds of points of dispute, and Musk said at the time he was offered a deal, alleging that EU regulators told him if he secretly suppressed certain content, X would escape fines.
Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner for internal market, said in a July 12 X post in 2024 that there was no secret deal and that X’s team had asked for the “Commission to explain the process for settlement and to clarify our concerns,” and its response was in line with “established regulatory procedures.” Musk replied he was looking “forward to a very public battle in court so that the people of Europe can know the truth.”
mRNA
https://twitter.com/NicHulscher/status/1908173339677397118
BlackRock
BlackRock: The Most Evil Business In The World‼️
BlackRock: the company that owns the world. They are buying up the media, they are buying real-estate, they are buying everything you can think of and it's leading to dystopian future ahead. Larry Fink's investment management is… pic.twitter.com/II5n7xjm0Z
— Sophia Dahl (@sophiadahl1) April 4, 2025
Adams
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1907868704622198948
Payne
Cecilia Payne is the astronomer who discovered that the stars were composed primarily of hydrogen and helium.
Her 1925 groundbreaking doctoral thesis about stars composition was initially rejected because it contradicted the scientific wisdom of the time.
When her dissertation… pic.twitter.com/cKQ7jDqMq2
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 4, 2025
Effects
Nature gives us better effects than cinema.
How wonderful! pic.twitter.com/WHWOvNrn8h
— The Figen (@TheFigen_) April 4, 2025
Golden Fish
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1907951899489227188
The King
The King was saved by his friends. pic.twitter.com/F3BnkcxS6M
— The Figen (@TheFigen_) April 3, 2025
Arthur C. Clarke
Arthur C. Clarke on BBC's Horizon in 1964, when he gave some astonishing predictions about the future.pic.twitter.com/oe7XpUkkzl
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 4, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
Conservative influencers leaving the White House with ‘The Epstein Files: Phase 1’, February 27, 2025. © AP / Evan Vucci