SignalGate Archives - The Automatic Earth

TERROR: The Biden administration released 600 terrorists into the interior as they awaited asylum hearings. In the meantime they were given SSNs, driver's licenses, work permits, and state and federal benefits including stipends, housing allowances, and groceries. pic.twitter.com/vcwVG23oXL

— @amuse (@amuse) April 30, 2025

90%

Elon Musk: My prediction is that long-term, 90% or more of all power on Earth will be solar panels with batteries.” pic.twitter.com/7RB5FTk1Ym

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) May 1, 2025

100

pic.twitter.com/U6tI9pdin6

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 30, 2025

Dolls

Trump on China: "They made a trillion dollars with Biden selling us stuff. Much of it we don't need. Somebody said, 'oh, the shelves are gonna be open.' Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more." pic.twitter.com/6gVbGQ6oJ2

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 30, 2025

Tulsi Fauci
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1917957407323705752
https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1917961395238309903

Waltz UN Ambassador, Secretary of State Rubio takes over National Security Advisor as well. Not perfect, but doable.

• Trump Acts on Signalgate, Fires Mike Waltz (Margolis)

The Trump White House just sent a clear message: accountability matters. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, are out at the National Security Council, Fox News confirmed Thursday. Additional departures are expected, and President Trump is slated to speak on the matter himself. Waltz, a former Green Beret and Florida congressman, came under scrutiny after The Atlantic published a report detailing how Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was erroneously included in a Signal group chat with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, discussing counterterrorism strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Though no classified information was divulged in the chat, Democrats pretended like the world had ended because of it and sought to use it to force the resignation or firing of anyone remotely connected to it. Their top target, of course, was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Waltz took responsibility for the inclusion of a journalist in the group chat, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, “I take full responsibility. I built the group,” he said. “It’s embarrassing. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital earlier Monday when asked about reports claiming Waltz and others would be shown the door, “We are not going to respond to reporting from anonymous sources.”

Trump held a meeting with members of his cabinet on Wednesday following his 100th day back in office Tuesday, with Waltz attending the meeting. Following confirmation of Waltz’s ouster, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Fox News, “The National Security Advisor Waltz is out. He’s the first. He certainly won’t be the last.” Neither Hakeem Jeffries nor any other Democrat leader ever demanded accountability from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—or anyone else—for the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021. The deaths of 13 American service members apparently weren’t a big enough deal to merit accountability in the Biden administration. Nor was there accountability later, when Austin vanished for a week in a hospital without telling the White House. Silence. No outrage. No consequences. Just business as usual in Biden’s unaccountable administration.

Wong served as Waltz’s principal deputy national security advisor, who was detailed in the Signal chat leak as the staffer charged with “pulling together a tiger team” in Waltz’s initial message sent to the Signal group chat in March, the Atlantic reported at the time. […] Trump told the media April 3 that a handful of other National Security Council staffers had been let go following the Atlantic’s report on the Signal chat leak, which characterized the Trump administration as texting “war plans” regarding a planned strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Whether you agree with this development or not, the Trump administration is willing to hold its people accountable. Compare that to Joe Biden’s disastrous handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. In addition to the service members killed, billions in equipment were left for the Taliban, and our allies were blindsided. Yet not a single person in the Biden White House lost their job. No resignations. No demotions. No accountability. In fact, they patted themselves on the back and called it a success. That’s the difference. When President Trump sees a problem, he acts. He doesn’t protect insiders just because they’re part of the club. Accountability isn’t just a buzzword—it’s the standard. The swamp may not like it, and the media will no doubt spin it, but this is what leadership looks like.

“..predict that formal talks will not be announced until after the US and China agree on the terms of a tariff deal privately.”

• China Assessing’ US Tariff Talks – Commerce Ministry (RT)

China is “assessing” US overtures to begin tariff negotiations, the Commerce Ministry said on Friday. According to the ministry, senior US officials recently reached out to Beijing through third parties with proposals to start talks. Tensions between the world’s two largest economies have risen since US President Donald Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese imports last month as part of a wider effort targeting over 90 trade partners. Most of the new tariffs were paused for 90 days – excluding China – while a baseline 10% remains in place. Beijing responded with 125% tariffs on US goods and export restrictions. The ministry said China has taken note of recent US messages and is evaluating the possibility of negotiations, adding that while Washington has expressed interest in talks, trust would be undermined if unilateral tariffs remain.

“The US has recently sent messages to China through relevant parties, hoping to start talks with China. China is currently assessing this,” the ministry stated. Trump previously suggested that the tariffs could “come down substantially” and spoke about the potential for a “fair deal with China.” He also claimed that his administration was “actively” engaging with Beijing and that he had spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping by phone. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed on Fox News last week that Beijing was “reaching out” to Washington. China has denied this and accused the US of misleading the public.

In its statement on Friday, the Commerce Ministry reiterated that the US must show “sincerity” by canceling the tariffs if it wants meaningful dialogue. It added that China remains open to talks, but will not be pressured: “If we fight, we will fight to the end; if we talk, the door is open.” It stressed that Beijing will only agree to negotiations in good faith. “Saying one thing and doing another, or even trying to coerce and blackmail under the guise of talks, will not work with China,” the statement read. Analysts expect negotiations will begin soon, citing recent market volatility and the IMF’s downward revision of global growth forecasts due to trade uncertainty. Some observers, however, predict that formal talks will not be announced until after the US and China agree on the terms of a tariff deal privately.

“..possesses enormous resources and a vast domestic market –factors that will enable its economy to withstand any amount of pressure..”

I don’t think so.

• Trump ‘Blundered’ On China Tariffs – Medvedev (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s misplaced tariff policies are hurting America’s allies but will fail to tank the Chinese economy, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday. In early April, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on most of America’s trading partners, citing what he said was an unfair trade imbalance. After backlash overseas and a negative response from the stock market, he suspended most new duties for dozens of countries – except China – for 90 days pending negotiations.In a tongue-in-cheek post on Telegram on Labor Day, Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, argued that Trump deserved an “exemplary labor” award for “starting the tariff battle.”

The US’s neighbors, as well as its allies in Europe, were “suffering” and “crying” from the duties imposed by Washington, he wrote. “They are all in a really bad position, facing the need to bow down in a ritual known as ‘kiss my ass,’” the ex-president quipped. “China, on the other hand, possesses enormous resources and a vast domestic market –factors that will enable its economy to withstand any amount of pressure. This is where Trump made a blunder,” he added. “Trump’s approval ratings have dipped, while the ‘deep state’ is vigorously resisting him,” Medvedev wrote.

Beijing responded to tariffs of up to 245% on its goods by imposing tit-for-tat duties on American imports. “Bowing to a bully is like drinking poison to quench thirst – it only deepens the crisis,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said this week, warning that China “won’t kneel down.” Trump has defended his policies, doubling down on claims that Beijing was engaged in unfair trade practices. “They deserve it,” he said, responding to a reporter’s question about whether his tariffs were tantamount to an embargo.

“President Trump has a very different view of Russia from his predecessors.”

• Trump Seeks Cooperation With Russia Instead of Confrontation (Sp.)

The first 100 days of US President Donald Trump’s second term in office have marked a profound shift toward searching areas of cooperation with Russia instead of confrontation, Rhode Island University Professor of Political Science Nicolai Petro told Sputnik. Trump officially took office as the 47th president of the United States on January 20. Upon entering the White House, the president and his team resumed direct contact with Moscow that has been cut off by their predecessors from ex-President Joe Biden’s team after the start of the conflict in Ukraine. “President Trump has a very different view of Russia from his predecessors. Rather than assuming that Russia’s interests must clash with American interests, he assumes that the two can find areas of cooperation, and that such cooperation has the potential to expand,” Petro said.

The expert described this as a “very profound shift” that is not shared by most of the American political elite and media, who continue to portray Russia as a threat to the United States. During the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, he had phone conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Russian and US officials held meetings in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Part of the renewed diplomatic push also includes visits by US Special Envoy Steven Witkoff to Russia and by Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev to the United States. So far, the sides have been actively working on resuming the normal operation of their respective embassies while also discussing the issue of resumption of direct flights between the US and Russia.

“We’ve got the peace proposal out there and issued, and we’re going to work very hard over the next 100 days to try to bring these guys together.”

• US Ready To Spend Another 100 Days On Russia-Ukraine Peace – Vance (RT)

The Trump administration is prepared to dedicate another 100 days to mediating a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, US Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News in an interview published on Wednesday. He said the US has made progress by getting both sides to present their ideas for resolving the conflict. “We’ve got this first step,” the vice president said, reflecting on the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. “We’ve got the peace proposal out there and issued, and we’re going to work very hard over the next 100 days to try to bring these guys together.” Vance noted that before the Trump administration got involved, Moscow and Kiev “weren’t even talking – not to each other, not to anybody. They were just fighting.”

He added: “Now, the work of diplomacy is to try to sort of bring these two sides closer together,” pointing to the “very big gulf between what the Russians want and what the Ukrainians want.” During last year’s election campaign, Trump vowed to end the conflict “within 24 hours” of entering the White House – which he later described as an “exaggeration.” Since taking office in January, he has pressed both sides to reach a ceasefire and has recently shown frustration over the lack of progress. Although Russia praised Trump and his team for better understanding its position than the administration of former President Joe Biden, Moscow insisted that any comprehensive ceasefire must include an end to Ukraine’s mobilization and a halt to foreign weapons deliveries.

Both sides accused each other of violating the month-long energy truce brokered by Trump in March, as well as last month’s 30-hour Easter truce. Moscow has demanded that Ukraine drop its claims to Crimea and four other regions, and abandon its NATO ambitions. On Thursday, Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, said Kiev had agreed to acknowledge Russia’s control over what it considers “occupied territories,” while stopping short of officially recognizing Russian sovereignty. However, Kiev has repeatedly stated that it will not cede any land to Russia.

“According to Lavrov, “a [30-day] ceasefire in this situation is considered a precondition that will be used to further support the Kiev regime and strengthen its military capabilities.”

• US-Ukraine Deal ‘Important Step To End War’ – Rubio (RT)

The natural resource deal signed between Washington and Kiev is an “important step” toward ending the Ukraine conflict, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has claimed. The long-awaited agreement, which allows Washington to tap into Ukraine’s extensive mineral reserves in return for assistance with the country’s economic recovery, was signed on Wednesday. Notably, the document does not include any provisions for the US to offer security guarantees to Ukraine, despite this being “one of its initial goals,” as reported by Reuters. The New York Times indicated that the concept of security guarantees was dismissed by the US “early in the process.” In an X post on Thursday, Rubio thanked US President’s Donald Trump leadership, under which the deal was signed. Rubio called it “a milestone in our shared prosperity and an important step in ending this war.”

Negotiations for the agreement stretched on for several months, although both parties intended to finalize it during Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to the White House in late February. The televised meeting led to a tense confrontation during which Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III.” This comes as Washington is in talks with Moscow over a possible peace deal that would end the Ukraine conflict. Multiple media sources indicate that the agreement put forward by Washington entails the US recognizing Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea. Additionally, the proposal reportedly includes a “freezing” of the conflict along the existing front line and an acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over significant portions of four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a halt to all military operations against Ukrainian forces from midnight on May 7 until midnight on May 10, stating that this is being done for “humanitarian reasons.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out that Russia considers the ceasefire “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Zelensky branded Moscow’s three-day truce declaration a “manipulation attempt,” saying he wanted an immediate 30-day ceasefire instead. According to Lavrov, “a [30-day] ceasefire in this situation is considered a precondition that will be used to further support the Kiev regime and strengthen its military capabilities.”

“When America is your friend and your partner, your nation is going to be better off. And there is a security component just in our presence..”

• US Rejected Ukraine’s Security Guarantee Demands – NYT (RT)

The US has rejected Ukraine’s request for security guarantees as part of a newly signed mineral resources agreement, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing sources familiar with the talks. The nine-page deal, signed the same day after months of negotiations and published on Thursday by the Ukrainian government, gives Washington preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral projects, including rare-earth metals. It also establishes a joint investment fund to support Ukraine’s post-conflict reconstruction. Despite its scope, the final agreement contains no formal pledge of future US military support, a key demand from Ukraine during negotiations. Instead, it vaguely mentions a “long-term strategic alignment” and promises US backing for Ukraine’s “security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks.”

One source told the NYT that the US dismissed the idea of providing Kiev with explicit security guarantees early in the talks. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce defended the agreement, suggesting that US involvement alone offers implicit protection. “When America is your friend and your partner, your nation is going to be better off. And there is a security component just in our presence,” she told Fox Business. Analysts told the NYT that the deal could help secure US President Donald Trump’s continued interest in Ukraine now that he is directly invested, and will potentially open the door to further discussions on military aid and a ceasefire with Russia. Still, critics argued that without binding guarantees, the deal’s impact may be limited if the conflict continues.

Ukraine’s parliament is expected to ratify the agreement within two weeks. The US has framed the deal as a way for Ukraine to repay past military aid – estimated at $350 billion by Trump, though Kiev claims the figure is closer to $100 billion and that the support was unconditional. The debt repayment clause, however, was dropped from the final text. After signing, Trump said the US could “in theory” recover “much more” than $350 billion through the deal. Commenting on the deal, deputy head of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said the US has essentially “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid with minerals,” warning that all future military supplies will have to be paid “with the national wealth of a vanishing country.”

“Now they will have to pay for military supplies with the national wealth of a disappearing country,”

• Kremlin On Minerals Deal: ‘Trump Has Broken The Zelensky Regime’ (ZH)

The Kremlin has said that what the newly signed minerals deal between Ukraine and Washington does is effectively force Kiev to pay for all future military aid. “Trump has broken the Kyiv regime to the point where they will have to pay for U.S. aid with mineral resources,” Medvedev, a former Russian president and current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, stated on Telegram. “Now they will have to pay for military supplies with the national wealth of a disappearing country,” he said of the Ukrainians. As of yet, the full contents of the newly inked deal, finalized and signed late in the day Wednesday, have not been revealed, but it gives the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and its natural resources like oil and gas, and will fund investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction.

But the Zelensky government was able to get something crucial dropped at the last minute. As CNN details, “Compared to earlier drafts, the final agreement is reportedly less lopsided in favor of the US and is not as far-reaching. It stipulates that future American military assistance to Ukraine will count as part of the US investment into the fund, rather than calling for reimbursement for past assistance.” President Trump’s initial reaction after the signing was seen in the following: Speaking Wednesday in a call with NewsNation, Trump said he made the deal to “protect” Washington’s contribution to the Ukrainian war effort. “We made a deal today where we get, you know, much more in theory, than the $350 billion but I wanted to be protected,” Trump said. “I didn’t want to be out there and look foolish,” he continued, voicing the administration’s longtime complaints that Zelensky only asks for “more and more” – and yet is still losing the war.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire process is still basically stalled, as neither side has backed off of their demands and conditions. President Zelensky has recently reiterated that he can’t even legally give up Crimea. However, Trump presidential special envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg has told Fox News that Ukraine is ready to make territorial concessions, but wouldn’t see any ceded territory as a permanent situion. “Not de jure forever, but de facto, because the Russians actually occupy that and they’ve agreed to that. They know that if they have a ceasefire in place, which means you sit on the ground that you currently hold, that’s what they’re willing to go to,” the envoy said. “You have your line set, and they’re willing to go there,” Kellogg emphasized. But it’s clear the Kremlin sees this as an issue of sovereignty and permanence, given President Putin has described the four annexed territories and Crimea as “ours forever”.

“Trump has finally broken the Kiev regime into paying for American aid with minerals..”

• Trump Has Forced Ukraine To Sell Itself For Aid – Medvedev (RT)

US President Donald Trump has forced Kiev to sell off Ukraine’s mineral wealth for continued military aid, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. Washington and Kiev signed a long-anticipated deal on the joint extraction of Ukrainian natural resources on Wednesday, after months of contentious negotiations. Trump has advertised the agreement as a way to get back the roughly $350 billion he claims Washington has spent on support for Kiev in the conflict with Russia. The agreement does not mention security guarantees, which Ukraine previously insisted on. Instead, it focuses on future US aid, rather than paying back assistance provided to Ukraine in the past.

“Trump has finally broken the Kiev regime into paying for American aid with minerals,” Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said in a Telegram post on Thursday. “Now military supplies will have to be paid for with the national wealth of a disappearing country.” In February, Trump and Zelensky had a public spat in the Oval Office just as a deal was widely expected to be signed. After the meeting, the US president temporarily froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Kiev for around a month. The full text of the agreement signed on Wednesday has not been published, but available details suggest it is centered on a joint reconstruction investment fund. Ukraine is to contribute 50% of the revenue for new licenses for future resource extraction projects into the fund.

One potential difficulty with this deal is that as of now, Ukraine’s much-discussed rare-earths – highly sought-after metals used in high-tech production – are still largely untapped and need billions in investments to mine, the Washington Post wrote on Thursday, citing analysts. Additionally, a significant portion of the resources – according to old data from when Ukraine was a Soviet republic – is located in the Donbass region, a large part of which is now part of Russia, the WaPo said. In 2023, Forbes estimated Ukraine’s mineral wealth at roughly $15 trillion, with nearly half of this in Russia’s Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

“Three Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting the tariffs”,

..and Trump still wins. Forget beating him in the Senate.

• Senate Republicans Block Rebuke Of Trump’s Tariffs (Pol.)

Two absences in the Senate left supporters of the resolution short of a majority. A Democratic effort to rebuff President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs failed Wednesday, thanks to two absent senators. Senators voted 49-49 to reject the national emergency Trump used to impose tariffs of between 10 and 50 percent on many of the United States’ largest trading partners. It came on the same day the Commerce Department revealed that the economy shrank in the year’s first quarter, largely due to Trump’s trade policies. Three Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting the tariffs: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul was a cosponsor of the resolution with Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were missing from the vote, leaving supporters of the resolution short of a majority. Whitehouse was absent because he was returning from the Republic of Korea, where he represented the U.S. at a conference on protecting the ocean from threats like climate change, pollution and overfishing. McConnell, the former Republican leader, missed several votes Wednesday. “The Senator has been consistent in opposing tariffs and that a trade war is not in the best interest of American households and businesses,” said David Popp, a spokesperson for McConnell. “He believes that tariffs are a tax increase on everybody.” The vote was largely symbolic: The House has approved a rule to block a vote on the resolution and Trump has threatened to veto such a measure if it makes it to his desk.

And after the resolution failed, Republican leaders immediately forced a vote to table, or kill, it for good, and this time they brought in reinforcements: Vice President JD Vance arrived on Capitol Hill to break the tie. Still, the resolution’s failure hands Trump a victory as his administration tries to maintain support for the aggressive tariff platform among increasingly nervous Republicans. Paul said he felt the vote was more about the debate than the result, because he knew it wasn’t likely to clear Congress. “Most Republicans are just going along with it, but many of them are quietly still on the other side of this,” Paul said. “They just aren’t willing to say anything yet. But I think if we went through another quarter of negative growth and or another scare in the marketplace, I think there will be more visible voices against the tariffs.”

Yet even lawmakers who defended Trump’s tariffs acknowledged the uncertainty that has come with Trump’s attempts to upend the global trading order, an effort that has tanked consumer sentiment in the U.S. and spooked many businesses and investors. “I appreciate that many of us in this chamber have heard from constituents concerned about the economic impact of the tariffs,” said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee that oversees trade policy. “All of us are watching this issue closely and working with the administration to find ways to minimize its impact on Americans. We should also be working with the administration to address a shared objective: more opportunities for Americans in foreign markets and an end to discriminatory actions in foreign markets.”

“..the media has taken it upon themselves to use the only strategy that the Democratic Party can come up with. And that is to attack Donald Trump..”

• Trump’s Opposition (Victor Davis Hanson)

At the end of the 100 days of the Trump administration, let’s just review for a moment the opposition to it. And it’s actually, if you think about it, a tripartite, a threefold opposition: pollsters, the media, and the Democratic Party and the institutionalized Left. The pollsters have President Donald Trump down four or five points. But when you actually look at the Rasmussen poll or Mark Penn’s poll, a Democratic centrist, Trump is almost even. And then when you look with greater clarity at The New York Times poll that has him way down, you see that only 37% of the people polled voted for Donald Trump. But Donald Trump won by almost a point and a half. Don’t you think it should have been, I don’t know, 51%-49%? So, they were deliberately, in the case of The New York Times, under-polling Trump supporters.

The same was true with The Washington Post. They polled over 2,000 people, but only 840 were identified as Trump voters. Shouldn’t that have been half? So, what am I getting at? We’re getting right back to what happened in 2016 when the polls were completely wrong. The same thing happened in 2020 when they overestimated former President Joe Biden’s strength by four or five points. And then, even in 2024, the NPR poll had—on the last day of the election—they had then-Vice President Kamala Harris winning by four points. The Des Moines Register had Iowa lost to Trump by three points. He won it by 12. So, what the pollsters are doing—not that Trump hasn’t lost some to the controversy over the trade wars—but the pollsters are trying to create momentum, fundraising, and jazz up opposition.

Then we turn to the media. The media’s in a fight with the Democratic Left now because of the scandal of Joe Biden. The Democratic Left is saying, “Well, you were a journalist. If you thought he was demented or cognitively challenged, why didn’t you report it?” But the journalists are saying, “We couldn’t get close to him. He looked OK for us because you had him in such a guarded environment.” In truth, they’re both guilty. Do you remember those press conferences by then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre? Did anyone ever hear one question on those daily or three or four times a week press conferences? “Miss Jean-Pierre, is Joe Biden cognitively able to navigate himself to the podium? What is the nature of his cue cards? Have you had a Montreal Cognitive Assessment of him?” There was nothing. It was a combination of the Democratic Party, the Biden insiders, and the media.

And here’s another point, very quickly. The media has gained a lot of influence and power in the opposition because there is no opposition on the Democratic Party. So, in lieu of an alternate agenda, the media has taken it upon themselves to use the only strategy that the Democratic Party can come up with. And that is to attack Donald Trump. Now, what do I mean by that? If you look at the Democratic Party and the Left in general, they have boxed themselves in. On the one hand, they have no institutional power; no ability to pass legislation, losing the House and the Senate; no presidency, White House; no executive orders. Ultimately, all of the cherry-picked district and circuit judges will be overturned by a largely conservative Supreme Court.

In lieu of actual power, then you look at what is the alternative. Maybe the alternative is a 1994 Newt Gingrich Contract with America, an alternate agenda: Yes, we can do better on the border than you can. Yes, we have a better foreign policy with Iran. There’s nothing. There’s no shadow government. There’s not a young Bill Clinton ascendant. There’s no young Barack Obama. There’s nobody. There’s no leaders. There’s no agenda. Nothing. It’s nihilism. And so, let’s look at the third element. Do they have a good old days? Can they say, “Donald Trump ruined things”? “They were so good under Biden. The border was—we liked it open. Twelve million, we could have got 20 million illegal aliens. Let’s go back to that. We had a wonderful retreat from Afghanistan. Picture perfect. We can do it again. The Iran—the theater war in Ukraine and Iran, that wasn’t our fault. Maybe it was inevitable. We had a really good inflation—we had a little hyperinflation of 9%.”

So, there is no alternative good old days. They can’t say Donald Trump wrecked something because they had wrecked the country. So, what are we left with? We’re left with Donald Trump wore a blue suit at the Vatican funeral. Donald Trump is a fascist. No. According to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, he is a Nazi. No. According to former Vice President Al Gore, he is a Nazi. No. According to members of the Congress, is he deserving a polite conversation? You have to use the F-word. Or maybe it’s the S-word. It’s smutty mouth, potty mouth video. What is the one principle that ties them all together? We’re gonna talk about that in the next video. But it’s about fear that Donald Trump’s first 100 days are not as chaotic and bad as they tell us. But we might be on the cusp of something that will be very, very successful and will ensure Donald Trump has a successful presidency.

“..Europe “would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine”…”

• Europe Just Proved Trump Right About NATO (Green)

In a shocking-not-shocking exclusive report in The (UK) Times, Europe “would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine” as part of a postwar peacekeeping force. Defense Editor Larisa Brown “was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a ‘coalition of the willing’ force,” and the results are as disappointing as they are sobering. And you know how much I hate sobering. British defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin asked European defense ministers “if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to [Ukraine] in the event of a peace deal.” Britain offered up to 10,000 personnel, but even then, “defence ministers across Europe said there was ‘no chance’ they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would ‘be a push for a joint effort.'” This is not your father’s NATO.

During the Cold War, the British Army of the Rhine stood watch in West Germany for half a century with a force of 50,000 men — and the promise of swift reinforcements almost as quickly as the balloon went up. Today, all of European NATO couldn’t put a peacekeeping force in Ukraine of half that size without wheezing like an asthmatic with a sinus infection hiking up Kilimanjaro. NATO was always a little fractured and weaker than it should have been. Unlike the Warsaw Pact on the other side of the Iron Curtain, NATO members were independent nations, each with its own priorities and needs. Paris could complain about American “hyperpower” all it liked, but we didn’t send in the tanks — like Moscow would have — when France withdrew its forces from NATO command and ordered NATO troops out of France in 1966. We just made do.

And while Washington was correct to ask for more “burden-sharing” from our allies during the Cold War, it wasn’t as though they didn’t take the Soviet threat seriously. The West German Bundeswehr consisted of 10 battle-ready heavy Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, plus another division each of airborne and mountain forces — for a total of 38 combat brigades. That was just the Field Army. The Territorial forces consisted of reserve troops — older men called up to defend their cities, towns, and homes — amounting to another 450,000 soldiers. But here’s the rub. West Germany raised those forces from a population of 60 million with a GDP of $1.6 trillion in today’s dollars. Unified Germany has 80 million people, a GDP of $4.7 trillion, and a military of three divisions that are understaffed, under-trained, and unfit for combat.

The balloon went up more than three years ago in Ukraine, and yet the only substantial-sized NATO member seriously rearming is Poland. Milblogger CDR Salamander nailed it yesterday: “Europeans expect hundreds of thousands of Americans to immediately deploy to Europe to defend them against a nation with the GDP of Texas and a population 1/4th the size of European NATO.” This is from countries that admit they could barely muster 25,000 troops for Ukraine, even if their national survival depended on it. So when President Donald Trump complains that European NATO isn’t pulling its weight, he isn’t trying to destroy the alliance, as his critics claim. He’s warning of an existential threat to the alliance’s purpose and its members’ existence — and that America’s patience with perennial laggards is not unlimited. Nor should it be. And Europe’s defense ministers just admitted that, too.

“..zero growth and recession for 3 years running..”

• Why a Strong Euro is an Economic Disaster for the EU (Sp.)

The euro has jumped in value almost 10% against the dollar since January. But before cheering at the thought of cheaper imports of Skippy peanut butter and Jim Beam whiskey, here’s what EU residents should know.
1. Stronger Euro = Weaker Exports
“For any country (or zone in the case of the euro) that is a strong exporter,” a strong currency “contributes to slowing exports and increasing imports, to the detriment of domestic production,” explains Jacques Sapir, veteran economist and director of studies at the Paris-based School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences.
2. Monetary Union Trap
Unlike ordinary nations, which can depreciate their currencies at will to restore exports’ appeal, eurozone members are trapped by the monetary union, which offers “quite limited” room to maneuver for big producers or tourism-based earners benefiting from depreciation vs everyone else.
3. Another Hit to Eurozone Economy in Rough Shape
The euro’s growing strength is bad news for a bloc already:
• facing zero growth and recession for 3 years running
• cut off from the source of its export competitiveness: cheap Russian energy
• facing brutal trade competition from the US and China.
4. Tariff-like Effects
“With the dollar depreciating by around 10% since mid-January, it is as if the US has imposed 10% customs duties on European products while subsidizing their exports to the eurozone by 10%,” Sapir says.
5. Tariff Wars Add to Uncertainty
“Major economic players abhor uncertainty…As long as these negotiations last, no one knows what the tariff levels will be and therefore how attractive the American market will be, whether for production or investment,” the economist says.

If there are elections, he’ll run. If they let him.

• Zelensky Sanctions Arestovich (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has announced sanctions against his former top adviser. Alexey Arestovich has frequently criticized both Ukraine’s leadership and its military strategy in its conflict with Russia. Arestovich was among several Ukrainians mentioned in a decree released by Zelensky’s office on Thursday. Penalties imposed include asset freezes, restricted trade and financial transactions, travel, and the revocation of state awards. Arestovich served as an adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine between 2020 and January 2023. He resigned in controversy after claiming that a Russian missile hit a residential building in the city of Dnepr only because it had been downed by Ukrainian air defenses. Following public outrage and accusations that he had discredited the Ukrainian army, Arestovich backtracked, apologized, and submitted his resignation.

He has since become a prominent commentator on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, often presenting views that diverge from the official Ukrainian narrative. Last month, he suggested that Kiev should agree to cede land to Russia as part of a potential US-brokered peace deal, warning that any attempts to reclaim lost territories would only backfire. “Why should we give up four regions? So that in six months or a year we don’t lose another six or eight,” he said, referring to four former Ukrainian territories that in 2022 voted in public referendums to join Russia. Kiev has consistently refused to acknowledge any territorial losses, however..

Arestovich has also accused the Ukrainian leadership of corruption. He has claimed that Zelensky is personally involved in numerous graft schemes and that Kiev’s Western backers are well aware of his activities. He has also signaled that he wants to run for president of Ukraine. Zelensky, whose term expired last year, has refused to call new elections, citing martial law, which has been extended more than a dozen times. Addressing the sanctions, the ex-adviser predicted that the Ukrainian authorities would now try to limit his media reach by cutting off access to his YouTube channel from the country’s territory.

War princess.

• EU Will Never Recognize Crimea As Russian – Kallas (RT)

The EU has reaffirmed its refusal to recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea, the bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated. Officials in Brussels are reportedly concerned that a possible peace deal negotiated by Washington and Moscow to end the Ukraine conflict would entail the US recognizing Crimea as part of Russia. The peninsula voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation shortly after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. Speaking to the Financial Times on Thursday, Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, stated unequivocally, “Crimea is Ukraine,” underscoring that “no EU country would accept recognition of Crimea as Russia.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s suggestion that lifting sanctions imposed on Russia could be part of a peace deal has also alarmed EU officials, who fear it may prompt divisions within the bloc over maintaining its own sanctions regime, according to the FT. Kallas has warned EU states against following a US policy shift toward Moscow. She told the outlet that the EU is preparing a contingency plan to sustain economic pressure on Russia, should Hungary follow through on its threat to veto an extension of sanctions in July. She noted that this could include allowing national governments to adopt the sanctions individually or for Belgium to issue a decree to seize over $200 billion worth of Russian central bank assets frozen on Belgian soil.

Moscow has warned that seizing its assets would amount to “theft,” hinting at possible retaliatory measures against Western investments in Russia. The diplomat also emphasized that the EU could offer Ukraine financial support if the US withdraws, though military backing would be harder to replicate. “We are still working with the Americans and trying to convince them why the outcome of this war is also in their interest,” Kallas said. Last week, Moscow accused Brussels of obstructing US-Russian diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine conflict, working instead to prolong the hostilities. “Europe wants war, not talks,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

“WSJ’s Glazer and her co-authors chose to publish the story—despite receiving a denial from Tesla’s board before publication..”

• Elon Musk Blasts Wall Street Journal’s CEO Search Report (ZH)

Tesla Chairwoman Robyn Denholm denied a Wall Street Journal report claiming the board had begun searching for Elon Musk’s successor, calling the story “absolutely false.” Musk echoed the rebuke, slamming the story as an “EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS” by the legacy media outlet. “Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla Board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company,” Denholm wrote in a statement published on X via Tesla.

She emphasized, “This is absolutely false (and this was communicated to the media before the report was published),” adding, “The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead.” Musk chimed in, calling the WSJ story by Emily Glazer, Becky Peterson, and Dana Mattioli “an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the WSJ would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board of directors.”

It is an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the @WSJ would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board of directors! https://t.co/9xdypLGg3c

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2025

WSJ’s Glazer and others cited anonymous sources to indicate that slumping vehicle sales and DOGE-related backlash had damaged the brand, prompting the board to search for a new CEO. Here’s an excerpt: “Board members reached out to several executive search firms to work on a formal process for finding Tesla’s next chief executive, according to people familiar with the discussions. [..] The board narrowed its focus to a major search firm, according to the people familiar with the discussions. The current status of the succession planning couldn’t be determined. It is also unclear if Musk, himself a Tesla board member, was aware of the effort, or if his pledge to spend more time at Tesla has affected succession planning. Musk didn’t respond to requests for comment.[..]

Why WSJ’s Glazer and her co-authors chose to publish the story—despite receiving a denial from Tesla’s board before publication—underscores how legacy media spreads misinformation and disinformation. This is the landscape Musk—and top officials in the Trump administration—are navigating: a hostile leftist corporate media environment that pushes endless streams of misinformation and disinformation.

In case you wonder what we — and President Trump — are up against.

100% NEGATIVE coverage from so-call “mainstream” press in the first 100 days. PERFECT SCORE.

(Come on @RobertKennedyJr & @elonmusk , you guys can do better!) pic.twitter.com/uYi2ebI0RG

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) April 30, 2025

“It’s as if the Anglo-Zionist axis is using Kashmir as a volatile lab for a series of live tests – including pushing nuclear powers to the brink of confrontation..”

• Going to Kashmir…Just To Find Alice in Wonderland (Pepe Escobar)

Two overarching taboos reign on the – now shattered – collective West:
• Can’t define the Ukraine regime as Nazi.
• Can’t condemn the psychopathological Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The taboos happen to be inextricably linked to the Forever Wars deployed non-stop by the Empire of Chaos/Zionist axis. Lesser Hybrid Wars though – even carrying the horrifying prospect of turning nuclear – are allowed to come and go. Especially if they are part of the current war on BRICS, a sub-section of the war of factions of the West against the Global Majority. So let’s go to Kashmir – to the sound of Jimmy Page’s hypnotic riff. Both India and Pakistan are escalating the war of decibels. Turkey is offering weapons – to Pakistan. Iran offered a mediator role: no takers. The motive for the war is as dodgy as they come. An all-male tourist bus packing a bunch of merry tourists is roaming around Indian-held Kashmir. Passengers include a just married 26-year-old lieutenant of the Indian Navy – but without his wife (what kind of honeymoon is that?)

Another passenger is Nepalese. The bus is attacked by shady splinter goons loosely affiliated with the Salafi-jihadi Lashkar-e-Taiba outfit. The Empire has been all over the Indian front. The current US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard was previously fully funded by Prime Minister Modi’s circles. Eyeliner-loaded VP J.D. Vance recently visited India – complete with family Taj Mahal photo op. Then Modi went to visit Saudi Arabia – invited by MbS. After the Kashmir bus terror attack, Hindutva fanatics went on a cyber-attack spree. The crude tactics spell out classic Divide and Rule. Double whammy: revamped weaponization of India, and destabilization of a key Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) China front: the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). A thing of beauty: splitting BRICS from the inside.

None of that, of course, legitimizes the ghastly Pakistani military, which have thrown in jail, on spurious charges, the man who was trying to bring Pakistan to respectability: Imran Khan. It’s up, once again, to the adults in the room, any room – Russia – to de-escalate. This could be ideally performed inside the SCO – where both India and Pakistan are members, side by side with Iran. Moscow chose to take the initiative, by itself. Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko met with both India’s Ambassador to Russia, Vinay Kumar, and Pakistan’s Ambassador to Russia, Muhammad Khalid Jamali. Russian terminology is essential: not only there was a call for both parties to “engage in constructive dialogue”. Moscow stressed, “we are ready to counter the global terrorist threat together.” The operative word is “global”. Delhi and Islamabad don’t seem to be getting the message – yet.

Kashmir as a volatile war lab An infernal machine is predictably on. It’s as if the Anglo-Zionist axis is using Kashmir as a volatile lab for a series of live tests – including pushing nuclear powers to the brink of confrontation. And all that dealt with casual insouciance – practically as a sideshow. Nothing coming from Sultan Erdogan and his intel apparatus could possibly be seen as trustworthy. In Syria, the MIT’s assets – the Headchopper Inc. congregated in Greater Idlibistan – ended up being installed in power in Damascus with their Zionist-friendly gang leader now posing as President. The comprador Yankee junta in Islamabad, for its part, may be facing the abyss – which in itself qualifies as auspicious news. In parallel, suspense accrues on whether Modi will show up for the Victory Day parade on May 9 in Moscow – and what he will tell his Russian hosts.

BRICS members Russia and Iran want the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) running smoothly to India sooner rather than later. The game gets even more complex when we see that the Iranian investigation is finally starting to consider that the horrendous explosion at the Shahid Rajaee port may have been an act of sabotage or an FPV strike. Extra pressure on China is a real motivator for setting up this war lab. Now Beijing not only needs to start worrying about an explosively renewed India-Pakistan front but also extra CIA/MI6 mischief pushing the Pak connection to Uighur Salafi-jihadis. There’s no chance in hell Delhi will really understand Beijing’s geopolitical predicaments. A perfect scenario for the Hybrid War gang. Meanwhile, at the BRICS front, at least there are some signs of rationality – coming, once again, from Grandmaster Lavrov.

https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1917807982898725100

Timeline of the presidents of the United States of America. pic.twitter.com/5fTCUCtvCt

— Civixplorer (@Civixplorer) April 30, 2025

Turns
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1917896792856727785

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1917586303337562559

Ice cream

Elon Musk on what it's like to be friends with President Trump and run DOGE:

“We’ll be on Air Force One or Marine One and [Trump] will be like, ‘Hey, do you want to stay over?’ I’m like, ‘sure.’ But I didn’t request it, to be clear,” Musk said, sharing with reporters that… pic.twitter.com/oyzN9wXwG1

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 1, 2025

Moore

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore:

"I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication." pic.twitter.com/8Ozb5y0MnV

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 1, 2025

Owl
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1917882423162896621

Ants
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1917999523122622651

What a difference 5 weeks makes for Bianca. No move living on a chain 🔓

She can’t stop dancing 🥰🙏 pic.twitter.com/pJhVTUuftT

— Niall Harbison (@NiallHarbison) May 1, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 30 2025

Mar 302025

March 30, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:00 am Finance Tagged with: Charlie Foxtrot, eurobonds, Iran, loyalty, Musk, SignalGate, tariffs, Tesla, Trump, Vance, VOA, Waltz, X 33 Responses »

David Hockney A Bigger Splash 1967

• How Donald Trump Is Reshaping America in Just 7 Weeks (Victor Davis Hanson)

• It Wasn’t a Leak, It Was a Devious “Charlie Foxtrot” (Larry Johnson)

• Vance Asked Trump To Fire Waltz – Politico (RT)

• Why Did Jeffrey Goldberg Leave The ‘Bomb Yemen’ Signal Chat? (Max Blumenthal)

• Trump Puts the System on Trial (RCW)

• The Best Response For Developing Countries To US Tariffs: Sell US Debt (Proud)

• xAI & X Merger Defuses Musk’s Tesla Share Liquidation Risk (ZH)

• Iran ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Trump’s ‘Threats’ – Senior Commander (RT)

• Federal Judge Halts Shutdown of Voice of America (ET)

• Ex-Italian PM Reveals ‘Secret Mission’ For Zelensky (RT)

• Zelensky Is a ‘Demon’ – Ukrainian MP (RT)

• EU To Reject Russia-US Black Sea Deal – von der Leyen (RT)

• The EU Wants to Use War as an Excuse for More Debt (Andreen)

• Joe Rogan Guest Completely Shatters the Vaccine Narrative (VF)

1994

Hillary started it. pic.twitter.com/j69Ma8Mw61

— MERICA MEMED (@Mericamemed) March 28, 2025

Birth rate

pic.twitter.com/kslsp7pgWO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 29, 2025

Painful homework
https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/1905912268111360510

Details

How small details can change your whole perspective

📹hergun1insaat

pic.twitter.com/8T6HrN56af

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 29, 2025

Not
https://twitter.com/Sassafrass_84/status/1905679457160925611

No. 4

Vladimir Putin: Russia🇷🇺 ranks 4th in the world in terms of GDP @ PPP

1. China🇨🇳
2. USA🇺🇸
3. India🇮🇳
4. Russia🇷🇺

‘All the rest including Japan, Germany and so on are all lower. I’m not even talking about Great Britain. They all jump around here, behave aggressively, but their… pic.twitter.com/DhzONaB79b

— Going Underground (@GUnderground_TV) March 28, 2025

“.. it’s a revolutionary achievement. There’s nobody going across the border illegally, or at least, it’s statistically insignificant.”

• How Donald Trump Is Reshaping America in Just 7 Weeks (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. How should we characterize the first seven weeks of the Trump administration because we get so much information and misinformation? Almost a day doesn’t go by where The Wall Street Journal is predicting that we are headed for a recession, that our allies are furious at us, that the economy is on the brink. So, what are we gonna make of all this? I think it’s time to take a deep breath and envision the first seven weeks is something like the following: President Donald Trump is in a race. He’s in a race to enact fundamental, disruptive change, a counterrevolution, and it’s going to be rough for a while, as he pointed out. But the things that he has already done are going to have, shortly or maybe even midterm, fundamental advantages for the United States. The question is, can he message and can he explicate and explain what he’s doing so people hang on? Because the eventual reward will be great.

Now, what do I mean? We’re talking about tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, but even the mere mention of tariffs for all of these countries that have not been reciprocal and have imposed tariffs on us in a way that we would never think of imposing on them, that idea that we might return to parity, it’s had an enormous effect. Some $4 trillion of announced investment from the Europeans, from the Saudis, from the Chinese, from the Mexican government, from the Canadians even. That will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And that is in the process of working out. When Donald Trump entered office in 2017, we were only pumping about 9 million barrels. When he left, we were pumping 12 million. The Biden administration immediately cut back. And then it decided, before the midterms, “Hey, Americans like affordable oil.” So then they continued the Trump plan and got up to 12, almost 13 million barrels.

Already in just seven weeks, we have increased the amount of oil produced per day in the United States by about a third of a million barrels. And we’re on schedule to get up to about 14 million barrels by the beginning of the year. And that is coordinated with an increase in Middle East production as well. So, we’re going to see a moderation of energy prices, which may explain, already, why the inflation rate was not nearly as high as was predicted. If we look at the border, it’s amazing. We were told that the border problem was unsolvable without comprehensive immigration reform. And there were 10,000 people swarming up per day. We don’t even—nonchalantly, nobody talks about it anymore. But it’s a revolutionary achievement. There’s nobody going across the border illegally, or at least, it’s statistically insignificant.

The big issue right now is the Left is cherry-picking judges to prevent, not the deportation of somebody who’s working, who’s never been arrested, who’s been here for five or six years, but criminals and people who already have been ordered out of the country or pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist supporters. But the point I’m making is, what we’re doing now is Phase Two. The border is essentially solved, as far as security, and in seven weeks. Now, we’re having a difficult task of trying to find out who these 12 million people were that former President Joe Biden deliberately and with intent—malicious intent—allowed to come into the country. But the point I’m making is this is an incredible success.

There’s a final point that I want to make. We hear about Elon Musk is not authentically American. He is a nepo baby. And we hear Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, threatening his person, along with threatening Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. All of this chaos and nihilism coming about Elon Musk and what he’s doing, but what he’s finding out, almost every day, in the Treasury, in the IRS, in the Department of Energy, in the intelligence communities, is a vast unreported siphoning off of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to favorable and mostly left-wing entities, both abroad and here in the United States.

And already, he has cited areas where the Cabinet officers can cut $200 billion. That’s a fifth, only after seven weeks. He’s got a fifth of the way to go. He thinks he can cut a trillion dollars without touching entitlements. I don’t know if he can. But let me just sum up. If Donald Trump is able to fulfill this promise of commitment by foreign entities of $4 trillion in investment—$4 trillion—if he is able to cut a trillion dollars within a year or two, if he’s able to solve the Ukraine war, and if he is able to have a general peace in the Middle East, that will be the most substantial presidency—if he does nothing else—that we’ve seen in 50 years. Final word, everybody, keep calm. There’s events in process that if they are brought to fulfillment and fruition, this country will be a radically different and radically better place.

They come off as a platoon of newbie nitwits. Run by Israel. Not pretty.

• It Wasn’t a Leak, It Was a Devious “Charlie Foxtrot” (Larry Johnson)

Charlie Foxtrot is a polite euphemism for a crude military term — Clusterfuck. That describes the first scandal of the Trump Administration. Somehow, whether deliberate or accidentally, a Zionist journalist by the name of Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a Signal chat by Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, or by someone who worked for Waltz. Goldberg suddenly found himself part of a group chat of Trump’s top defense, diplomatic and intelligence officials. The group included CIA Director Ratcliffe, DNI’s Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, among other luminaries.

If you are not familiar with Signal, you create a group chat by naming a group and then adding members from your list of contacts. This tells us that Goldberg was part of Waltz’s list of contacts. Goldberg is a particularly slimy character, not because he published portions of the chat, but because he behaved as a political hack instead of a journalist. A journalist with that unexpected access, would have written an immediate story announcing that the US was going to start bombing Yemen just to make an example of it. What did Goldberg do? He waited till the bombing happened and then hoisted the Trump gang on its own petard. He made the story about Charlie Foxtrot, which he published on Monday in The Atlantic magazine.

This was not a leak. This was a gift to Goldberg. While the contents of the chat are not officially classified, the information being discussed was operationally sensitive. The chat exposed most of the Trump team as shallow and dismissive of the military and diplomatic implications of the decision to start bombing Yemen. If Waltz and company wanted to discuss the pros and cons of bombing Yemen, he should have convened a Secure Video Conference, aka SVTC (pronounced, CIVITS). Pete Hegseth’s remarks to the press, responding to the Goldberg article, makes a solid case that he is not qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense. Instead of admitting that this was a fuckup on the part of Waltz, he decided to attack Goldberg. Moreover, he pretends that the US was hitting hardened, military targets. That is a lie:

While I agree with Hegseth that Goldberg is a partisan hack, Goldberg did not insinuate himself into the chat or steal the material. Waltz, or one of his staff, did that. We will have to wait and see if the Trump team has learned anything from this debacle. I suspect Signal will no longer be used for sensitive topics. The portion of the chat that Goldberg published shows that JD Vance is not a Zionist crazy. He at least had reservations about the plan to bomb Yemen. The same cannot be said for the others — Pete Hegseth in particular. The following snippets from Goldberg’s article makes it clear that the decision to bomb was not based on some actual provocation or attack by Yemen. Nope, it was a malevolent symbolic gesture:

“The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.” The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. . . . Hegseth’s counter to Vance’s concern that the American public won’t understand why were bombing the shit out of another faraway country is this: “Nobody [in America] knows who the Houthis are, so [we can just say] Biden failed and Iran funded them.” Well, guess what, boys and girls? Trump failed, just like Biden. The bombings over the last nine days have not deterred the Houthis from renewing their attacks on ships and Israel. And it has put US naval vessels in harm’s way without a good reason. Hegseth gives the game away… this is about blaming Iran.

It is incumbent on Goldberg to release the entire electronic conversation. Maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard or John Ratcliffe or the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency raised some objections. But it appears that everyone was supportive of the proposed operation. Shameful.

“Like hell he’d give the liberal media and pearl-clutching Democrats a win..”

Trump’s no. 1 task right now is to stand up for his team. Loyalty.

• Vance Asked Trump To Fire Waltz – Politico (RT)

Vice President J.D. Vance and other senior officials “gently offered” President Donald Trump to fire National Security Adviser Mike Waltz during a private discussion about the blunder in which Waltz accidentally included a reporter in a confidential chat about US military strikes in Yemen, according to anonymous insider sources cited by Politico. Two individuals allegedly familiar with the closed-door meeting at the White House on Wednesday night told Politico that Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and personnel chief Sergio Gor advised Trump that it might be time to cut Waltz loose. The president reportedly agreed that Waltz had “messed up,” but ultimately decided against a dismissal.

“Like hell he’d give the liberal media and pearl-clutching Democrats a win,” Politico wrote on Friday, citing one insider as saying the administration “don’t want to give the press a scalp.” The leak, first reported by The Atlantic on Monday, revealed that Waltz had inadvertently invited editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a confidential Signal chat where senior administration officials were discussing upcoming airstrikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. Waltz has taken “full responsibility” for the incident, calling it “embarrassing” in a Fox News interview and attributing the inclusion to a technical “glitch.”

President Trump has largely downplayed the controversy, dismissing the media response as a “witch hunt” and questioning the reliability of Signal. He also emphasized that no classified information was compromised and praised the military operation as “unbelievably successful.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt voiced the administration’s stance, stating on Monday that “President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.” Vance, for his part, has publicly aligned himself with the president’s decision. On Friday, he brought Waltz along for a high-profile trip to Greenland, where he dismissed media speculation and defended the national security team.

“If you think you’re going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody, you’ve got another thing coming,” Vance told reporters. Yet Politico claimed that Waltz’s position remains tenuous, citing one Trump ally who said, “They’ll stick by him for now, but he’ll be gone in a couple of weeks.” Other unnamed sources described longstanding personal and political tensions, alleging that Waltz has alienated colleagues by overstepping boundaries and acting more like a principal than a staffer. A spokesman for Waltz, Brian Hughes, pushed back against the narrative, calling the reports “gossip from people lacking the integrity to attach their names.” He emphasized that Waltz “serves at the pleasure of President Trump” and continues to have the president’s support.

“..a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza..”

• Why Did Jeffrey Goldberg Leave The ‘Bomb Yemen’ Signal Chat? (Max Blumenthal)

Atlantic Magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has won the admiration of his Beltway peers for the conduct he displayed after being accidentally invited into a smoke-filled “bomb Yemen” Signal chat with Trump’s national security honchos and top advisors. “Props to Jeffrey Goldberg for his high standards as a professional journalist,” declared Ian Bremmer, the trans-Atlanticist foreign policy pundit on his Bank of America-sponsored GZero podcast. “When he realized the conversation was authentic he immediately left, informed the relevant senior official, and made the public aware without disclosing intelligence that could damage the United States.” But what exactly did Goldberg do to deserve such high praise?

With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view and report on high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining such unparalleled access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin’s war planning – a vantage point that would have yielded countless scoops and a bestselling book for any adversarial journalist – Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation.

From there, the story became a palace intrigue over an embarrassing failure of “opsec,” or operational security, and not one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza. In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg’s Atlantic article about the principals’ Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war’s objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an “Iran-backed terrorist organization” which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Given Goldberg’s admission that Waltz first reached out to him at least two days prior to mistakenly adding him to the Signal group, it appears the NSC director had been leaking to the Atlantic editor on behalf of the neocon faction in the Trump White House. And it seems clear why Waltz would have sought to cultivate Goldberg.

During the run-up to to the Iraq war, then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited Goldberg’s bunk reporting alleging deep ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda during multiple media appearances hyping up the coming invasion. Under Obama, Goldberg served as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s errand boy, churning out tall tales about Tel Aviv’s imminent plan to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – unless the US did it first. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the once-failing Atlantic has suddenly turned a profit, as Goldberg unleashed a firehose of propaganda against the keffiyeh-clad enemies of the magazine’s Upper East Side donor base. This month, with momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was summoned once again move to the neocon message, and wound up with more access than he bargained for.

When asked in a March 24 interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why he left the Trump principals’ Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg ducked the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggested, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that’s considered a laudable trait.

“..the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.”

• Trump Puts the System on Trial (RCW)

President Trump’s supporters have denounced the federal judges seeking to stall or stop this administration’s government overhaul. But there is at least one person who, despite a show of outrage and condemnation, is neither surprised nor intimidated: Trump himself. The politically appointed judges have ordered, among other actions, that federal agencies reinstate thousands of fired probationary employees; that billions of taxpayer dollars be paid to questionable USAID projects and contractors; and that foreign-born criminals deported to their native countries be returned and granted due process. Regardless of the legal merits, the American people recognize these orders as obstructions to what Trump said he would do if elected, and what voters elected him to do. Yet the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.

Two-thirds of Americans believe the “system” is broken, but for years progressive politicians and their mouthpieces posited that the system couldn’t be fixed. Intellectuals on the Left, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, said America’s flaws were “systemic” in nature: systemic racism, systemic sexism, and systemic injustice. They whined and preached but offered no solutions for the millions of Americans of all races and both genders struggling and failing to unlock their potential to succeed. When Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he too claimed the system was broken, but not because we are racist or sexist by nature, but because the system itself is old, soft, and corrupt, with leaders grown unresponsive to the people they are supposed to serve. That core belief guided his first term and remains unchanged at the start of his second.

For decades, politicians failed to respond to real problems because their agendas, even their identities, were phony, crafted by consultants and pollsters who aimed not for the truth, but for whichever lies or provocations were most efficacious in winning the next election. But one need not resort to craven and conspiratorial explanations of this sort, which hint that elected officials deliberately ignore the public will. The truth is simpler. They have to ignore voters, if only because they have no idea how to fix the problems we face. In one sense, the elites’ ineptitude is understandable: we have a highly complex society that has undergone a recent, rapid, destabilization brought on by technological advance. But to admit that they simply don’t know how to address any contemporary issue would be to concede that it is only their mere status as “elites” that qualifies them to rule.

Thus, to conceal their befuddlement, they explain their inaction by a vague demand that we address the “root causes” of every issue – which further justifies them in doing nothing. The bad faith inherent to the “root causes” strategy was nowhere more obvious than at the border. For years, establishment voices told us that border security measures would fail without addressing the “root causes” of the problem: central American poverty and climate change. These appeals allowed the political class to avoid doing what they didn’t want to do (securing the border) and to manufacture a duty to do the things they did want to do (diverting American revenue to foreign aid “relief programs” and enacting more restrictive environmental policies). Aside from those interventions, they assured us, there was nothing we could do about the illegal immigration crisis.

Speaking about politicians in 2015, Trump said: “I hear their speeches. They don’t talk jobs. [They] have no competence. [They] don’t know what’s happening.” His message of “America First” was clear and authentic, and it implied real action and solid outcomes: protect jobs, livelihoods, and futures of Americans. The hapless politicians had nothing to counter. “The Resistance” to the first Trump administration was advanced by the machinations of bureaucrats in the vast regulatory state. But with the president rapidly dismantling that apparatus, a new strategy was needed. For the Resistance 2.0, it seems the establishment will depend on the courts to thwart the democratically-expressed will of the people. But there is a higher court in this land, where American voters serve as judge, jury, and executor.

Earlier this month at the Department of Justice, Trump warned of the “violent, vicious lawyers” who persecute the president and bully the American public to get their way. Expect these lawyers to “play the ref,” Trump said, weaving in a story about former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once threw a chair across the court and screamed like a madman at the referees for a call to be overturned. The referee wasn’t going to change the first call, Trump said of Knight’s rationale for throwing the tantrum. “But he’s going to change for the next play. And sure as hell, he did.” Trump understands that activist lawyers and progressive pundits will put heat on the judiciary, and that, on occasion, they’ll get their way.

For 10 years, Trump has confronted the political class, calling out their incompetence and dishonesty, and the voters continue to reward him. Federal judges, egged on by the politically-motivated legal establishment, may try to frustrate the president in his pursuit of long-held promises to build a better country. But Trump is building his case outside the courts – and he’s betting on a sympathetic hearing with the American people, who will note the overt evidence of bias, corruption, and incompetence, whether it occurs in the media, executive branch, or the judiciary. Judges will rule on procedure and technicalities, but the people will evaluate the legitimacy of our institutions and credibility of our leaders.

In 2028, the jury will render its verdict.

In theory perhaps. But how much US debt do you have to spare?

• The Best Response For Developing Countries To US Tariffs: Sell US Debt (Proud)

As President Trump threatens the world with sweeping tariffs, he is trying to change the fundamental laws of economics through force of will. He won’t succeed. Rather than fighting back with reciprocal tariffs, developing countries should sell off U.S. debt. The Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises once said that ‘the balance of payments theory forgets that the volume of trade is completely dependent on prices.’ The United States has such a gigantic trade deficit, at over $1 trillion each year, because it can buy foreign goods more cheaply than it can produce them domestically. Some countries may subsidise production to lower prices, others might export goods that are further down the value chain compared to what American producers will make.

But, stepping back, the U.S. dollar is so powerful, that it renders American exports more expensive, irrespective of any distortions created by its trading partners. This is part of the exorbitant privilege in which the U.S. dollar acts the world’s leading reserve currency, amounting to 58% of total reserves. Foreign countries put their capital into the U.S. because it is a stable and safe, increasing the price of the dollar on foreign exchange markets because demand is always high. A strong exchange rate makes foreign imports cheaper and that helps to manage inflation in America.

President Trump clearly wants to boost his support in the blue collar heartlands of America, driving job creation in traditional American industry that has been undercut by foreign imports over many years. But he can’t have two cakes and eat them both. He can’t simultaneously slash the huge U.S. balance of payments deficit – helping blue collar workers – while at the same time maintaining the U.S. as the destination of choice for foreign capital. That would be to defy the logic of economics. To oversimplify slightly, America has built its bloated Federal apparatus on the back of cheap imports. The huge current account surpluses that exporting powerhouses like China, India, European and ASEAN countries have built up has produced a torrent of easy capital to prop up the U.S. state.

The U.S. has a debt mountain of around $35 trillion which is roughly the equivalent sum of debt held by foreign investors. Of that debt, around $8.5 trillion is in the form of U.S. Treasuries, literally loans to the U.S. government, with a similar amount invested in corporate debt and the rest largely in equity. That’s why Trump is going in so hard with Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative. He’s desperate to reduce the size of the U.S. state apparatus because he knows that the Federal house of cards is built on fiscal quicksand. He also probably figures that there’s a greater propensity among federal workers – who are facing massive job cuts – to lean democrat, than among factory workers.

That’s why the idea of a BRICS currency is so terrifying to Trump, because BRICS now accounts for 41% of the global economy by purchasing power parity. A BRICS currency poses a longer-term risk of making the dollar less appealing and, therefore, weaker, driving up inflation. Because the real challenge to the U.S. is not the federal debt itself but its ability to service its debt. The exorbitant privilege, coupled with the massively disinflationary tidal wave of the global financial crisis, ushered in a period of historically low inflation and low interest rates.

That era has ended, as ratings agency Moody’s pointed out this week. U.S. interest rates are now higher, at 4.25-4.5% driving up the costs of servicing the country’s enormous debt mountain. The threat to the U.S. right now is inflation and what that means for its debt servicing bill, if interest rates are held or, even, forced higher. There are parallels here for the 1970s, when rampant inflation, triggered by a number of factors including the oil crisis and America’s move to a fiat currency, led U.S. interest rates to soar at one point to 20%. During this period, foreign countries withdrew their investments, and the dollar slumped to 45% of total global foreign exchange reserves. And herein Trump’s challenge. He can’t export more without a weak dollar, and a weak dollar will make U.S. debt harder to service.

“The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion..” Is that $80 billion together or $133 billion?

• xAI & X Merger Defuses Musk’s Tesla Share Liquidation Risk (ZH)

Elon Musk secured a multibillion-dollar margin loan using Tesla stock as collateral to finance his acquisition of Twitter (now rebranded as X). In recent months, Tesla’s share price has been cut in half due to a confluence of factors—slowing EV demand amid high interest rates, shifting electric vehicle policies under the Trump administration, market volatility driven by trade tensions, and pressure from a coordinated NGO-driven color revolution known as “Tesla Takedown,” aimed at crashing the stock to trigger loan repayment obligations tied to Musk’s pledged equity. In short, volatility in Tesla shares left Musk heavily exposed to potential loan repayment thresholds being triggered – which was set to occur at or below $114 according to reports – until now.

On Friday evening, Musk announced the merger of X with his AI startup, xAI, in an all-stock transaction that strengthens his financial position, protects Tesla shareholders, and renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution largely ineffective in achieving its intended goal. Musk outlined xAI’s acquisition of X: “xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction. The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt). Since its founding two years ago, xAI has rapidly become one of the leading AI labs in the world, building models and data centers at unprecedented speed and scale. X is the digital town square where more than 600M active users go to find the real-time source of ground truth and, in the last two years, has been transformed into one of the most efficient companies in the world, positioning it to deliver scalable future growth.

xAI and X’s futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent. This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach. The combined company will deliver smarter, more meaningful experiences to billions of people while staying true to our core mission of seeking truth and advancing knowledge. This will allow us to build a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress. I would like to recognize the hardcore dedication of everyone at xAI and X that has brought us to this point. This is just the beginning.”

@xAI has acquired @X in an all-stock transaction. The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt).

Since its founding two years ago, xAI has rapidly become one of the leading AI labs in the world, building models and data centers at…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 28, 2025

Musk privately owns and controls both xAI and X. The transaction is structured as a stock swap, with X investors receiving xAI shares in return. Both companies share overlapping investors, including Fidelity Management, Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Co, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, and Vy Capital. Musk, also the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, purchased Twitter in a $44 billion deal in 2022. X CEO Linda Yaccarino wrote on X last night: “The future could not be brighter.” Musk’s X post announcing the acquisition stated that the deal was about “blending” the AI startup and social media platform to create “a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.” However, the move also eliminates the risk of Musk undergoing a forced liquidation of the $12.5 billion margin loan backed by his Tesla shares.

As we previously described at the beginning of the note, Tesla shares were halved for a number of reasons: Goldman Trading Desk Views “Trump As Bearish For US EV Market”. “Weak Demand”: Goldman Lowers Tesla Vehicle Delivery Estimate For Quarter. And this…”Tesla Takedown Revolutionaries Prepare Mobilization Nationwide, Tesla Takedown Organizers Plan Color Revolution To “Kill” Brand & “Death Spiral” For Investors. Last week, the Democratic Party and their Communist revolutionaries spelled out their sinister plans… “If we kill the Tesla brand” and “drive down the stock price low enough. We can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt he took on to buy Twitter.

“This will drive Tesla into a death spiral,” Micah Lee, The Intercept’s former Director of Information Security, explained on a recent Tesla Takedown teleconference with other far-left revolutionaries. Musk’s indebtedness from leveraging Tesla shares to fund the X deal is no longer a concern for Tesla shareholders. This strategic move also renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution funded by rogue Democrats less likely to force a liquidation.

Irann Doesn’t think the US would be stupid enough. But Israel?!

• Iran ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Trump’s ‘Threats’ – Senior Commander (RT)

Iran will not bow to US pressure to resume talks over its nuclear program, a top naval commander has said, stressing that Tehran is ready to strike back in the event of an American attack. In an interview with al-Mayadeen TV channel on Saturday, Alireza Tangsiri, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, pushed back against US President Donald Trump’s recent ultimatum urging the country to enter new nuclear talks. “I have no knowledge of Trump’s message, nor do I care to analyze it,” Tangsiri said. “I hear his threats, I observe his actions, and I prepare myself to counter them. We have the capability to strike all enemy bases, wherever they may be… No one can strike us and escape. Even if we have to chase them to the Gulf of Mexico, we would.”

Tangsiri also rejected any negotiations over Tehran’s missile arsenal or its backing of groups in the region. “Iran will never negotiate over its missiles or the capabilities of the Resistance Front,” he said. He also emphasized that the Islamic Republic seeks peaceful relations with its neighbors: “We always extend a hand of friendship to the countries in the region. As Muslims, we do not pose any threat to our neighboring countries.” The remarks came in response to Trump’s comments on Friday, in which he confirmed sending a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeking to negotiate a nuclear deal. “You’re gonna have to make a decision one way or the other,” Trump said. “We’re gonna either have to talk and talk it out, or very bad things are gonna happen to Iran. And I don’t want that to happen.” He added that if the US has “to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that while the letter seemed threatening, it still contained “some opportunities” for Tehran. The standoff follows years of tension over Tehran’s nuclear program. In 2015, Iran signed a deal with the US, the EU, Russia, and other world powers in which it agreed to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the landmark agreement, calling it “a horrible one-sided deal” that had failed to achieve its goals. Iran has not ruled out indirect talks on the matter but has refused to do so under duress. It also maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

$1 billion a year for a woke relic.

• Federal Judge Halts Shutdown of Voice of America (ET)

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America (VOA), the government-funded international news service whose 1,200 reporters and employees were placed on paid leave earlier this month. The judge, J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York, on Friday issued a temporary restraining order in favor of VOA employees and their unions. The order prevents the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees VOA, from shutting down the broadcasting network and its associated radio programs. VOA employees filed the lawsuit against USAGM, its acting Director Victor Morales, and special adviser Kari Lake on March 21.

The complaint accused the agency of failing to fulfill its legally mandated missions and violating both press freedom and the separation-of-powers doctrine when it took a “chainsaw” to the outlet, ordering the entire staff not to report to work, turning off the service, and locking the agency’s doors. In his ruling, Oetken stated that VOA was likely to succeed on its claims, noting that USAGM’s actions appeared unconstitutional. He said that Lake lacked legal authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds or terminate USAGM staff, programming, or contracts. “By withholding the funds statutorily appropriated to fully administer USAGM, VOA, and its affiliates … the executive is usurping Congress’s power of the purse and its legislative supremacy,” he wrote.

The judge did not require VOA to resume broadcasts, but made it clear that employees must not be terminated while the court determines whether the shutdown violates the Constitution or other federal administrative laws. Friday’s order echoed a similar ruling by another district judge earlier in the week, which granted a temporary restraining order to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, blocking its funding freeze. The Trump administration has since stated in court filings that it has resumed funding for these outlets. President Donald Trump and his supporters have been critical of VOA for years over alleged bias against conservative Americans and in favor of America’s adversaries.

In 2020, the White House sent an email accusing VOA of spending taxpayers’ money to “speak for authoritarian regimes.” It took issue with, among other things, a VOA social media post featuring a video of a light show celebrating the end of the lockdown in Wuhan, the Chinese megapolis where the COVID-19 virus first emerged; as well as the agency’s characterization of China’s effort to control the outbreak as a “model” for other nations. “VOA too often speaks for America’s adversaries—not its citizens,” The White House said. “Journalists should report the facts, but VOA has instead amplified Beijing’s propaganda.”

The VOA first began broadcasting in 1942 in German-occupied territories as part of the Allies’ effort to engage Axis propaganda broadcasts with counterpropaganda. In the following decades, it became a staple in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union and other communist regimes. Over time, it evolved into a global news organization, now operating in more than 40 languages. Elon Musk, a tech billionaire and Trump’s top adviser for downsizing the federal government’s spending and workforce, has echoed calls to shut down VOA and its sister networks, arguing that they have outlived their purpose. “Yes, shut them down. Europe is free now (not counting stifling bureaucracy). Nobody listens to them anymore,” he wrote on X, accusing the outlets of being “radical left” and “torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.”

“You know, you are the first European who came to talk to us about this. The others are just asking us not to support Russia.”

• Ex-Italian PM Reveals ‘Secret Mission’ For Zelensky (RT)

Former Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema has claimed that he undertook a secret diplomatic mission to Brazil and China on behalf of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to garner international support, amid fears that Kiev would be abandoned by its Western backers. The revelation was made during a conversation with Italian politician Gianfranco Fini published by La Repubblica on Thursday. According to D’Alema, Zelensky approached him sometime in 2024, expressing fears of a potential catastrophe as Western support waned. “I happened to speak with Zelensky on the sidelines of an initiative on the Balkans. And he told me clearly that his country was at risk of disaster because ‘the Americans will withdraw sooner or later, and the Europeans are not reliable,’” the former prime minister told Fini.

“He asked me to go to Brazil and Beijing to find out if Lula and Xi Jinping could do something,” D’Alema claimed. Neither Brazil nor China has publicly confirmed any visits by the former Italian official. In Brasilia, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reportedly dismissed the initiative outright, insisting that Ukraine is an “American problem.” “I went there, but Lula almost showed me the door, telling me that Ukraine was a problem for the Americans and that, according to him, I should be interested in Palestine instead,” D’Alema said. In China, D’Alema reportedly met with one of the Communist Party’s top foreign policy officials, and discussed the idea of an international peacekeeping force for Ukraine. At the end of the meeting, the Chinese official is said to have remarked: “You know, you are the first European who came to talk to us about this. The others are just asking us not to support Russia.”

The former prime minister also criticized the EU for fueling what he described as unrealistic expectations about the conflict. “Europe has done nothing but repeat that Russia could be defeated, when it was clear to everyone that the war could not be won by anyone,” he said.

“They want to inspect the holy relics of our saints. They plan to carve them up, to open them up, to break them into pieces. To perform this sacrilege over them. It’s a huge tragedy for the entire Orthodox world..”

• Zelensky Is a ‘Demon’ – Ukrainian MP (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is waging a campaign of terror against his own people by signing off on a crackdown targeting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), particularly the iconic Kiev Pechersk Lavra monastery, lawmaker Artyom Dmitruk has said. In an interview with RT on Friday, Dmitruk responded to reports that Ukrainian officials and police have entered the catacombs of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the nation’s most significant monastery and the final resting place of several Christian saints. During the raid, authorities unlocked doors, broke into the caves, and changed locks. Dmitruk described their actions as sacrilegious and suggested that Zelensky was directly complicit.

“Zelensky is perpetrating genocide of the Ukrainian people. What we are seeing now and what we are witnessing now is the continuation of terror policies of Zelensky’s against [the] Ukrainian people. Zelensky is a demon in the body of a human being. You can call him whatever you want, a godless person, a terrorist, and so on and so forth. The gist of his actions is the same. Zelensky is following a demon’s will,” he asserted. According to the legislator, who claims to have fled the country over the persecution of the UOC, the stated goal of the “inventarization” of the monastery’s possessions is nothing more than a pretext. “They want to inspect the holy relics of our saints. They plan to carve them up, to open them up, to break them into pieces. To perform this sacrilege over them. It’s a huge tragedy for the entire Orthodox world,” he said, recalling that the results of the review would be classified.

“They are raiding the Lavra. They are trying to seize the property of the Lavra… If we speak from a legal point of view, it’s a crime,” Dmitruk stressed. The Ukrainian government has been cracking down on the UOC for months, which it views as having ties to Russia. This effort has included attempts to take over the Lavra, as well as church raids and arrests of clergy. The UOC, the largest religious institution in the country, severed ties with the Moscow Patriarchate following the start of the conflict. Zelensky has defended the move, insisting on the need to protect Ukraine’s “spiritual independence” from Russia. Moscow has condemned the measures, accusing Kiev of suppressing the canonical Orthodox faith and alleging that the West is encouraging these efforts.

Nobody cares.

• EU To Reject Russia-US Black Sea Deal – von der Leyen (RT)

The EU will not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said. During talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday, Russia and the US agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. In her interview with French broadcaster LCI on Friday, von der Leyen made it clear that Brussels will not support the idea of a maritime truce between Moscow and Kiev put forward by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

“The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever,” she said when asked about the possibility of the EU fulfilling Russian demands to lift some of the curbs. According to the head of the European Commission, the restrictions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.” However, she noted that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.” Von der Leyen also said that for the conflict to end, “security guarantees for Ukraine” are needed as well as “a solid defense industrial base and a deterrent force” in the EU. The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports.

Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. The Americans and Russians now see its revival as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict altogether. Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies. According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%. Putin previously urged the Russian business circles against expecting the sanctions to be fully lifted, describing them as a mechanism of strategic systemic pressure on the country that the West intends to keep using.

Eurobonds are a huge threat to every European: “The EU Debt Plan is About Centralizing Financial Control.”

• The EU Wants to Use War as an Excuse for More Debt (Andreen)

The European political and financial elite knows that the war in Ukraine is lost but wants to use it as an opportunity to reach strategic independence from the United States. As the future chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz said right after his electoral win on Feb 23: “It will be an absolute priority for me to strengthen Europe as soon as possible so much that it gradually really achieves independence from the United States.” Such strategic independence needs money and investment—a lot of it—not only to boost defense but much else, like energy and innovation; areas in which Europe is lagging behind the US and China. In order to have the pretext to implement this spending plan, the idea among the EU elite is to make sure that the war in Ukraine does not end too quickly. That way the conflict can be used to justify artificially injecting much needed money into the moribund EU economies.

First, there was a question of providing €20 billion euros of additional military support for Ukraine and that the EU self-imposed fiscal rules to be loosened using the existing “escape clause” in the event of “exceptional” circumstances, such as the bogus “defense of Ukraine” excuse. As Bloomberg stated, “under this plan, EU nations would be exempt from debt and deficit limits when financing military expenditures. This marks a fundamental shift in EU financial policy, as such exemptions have previously been impossible under EU rules.” Indeed, the EU elite does not want to follow the arbitrary EU fiscal rules: for Paris, the 3 percent limit of budget deficit to GDP is politically painful, and for Berlin, the limit of max 60 percent of GDP in terms of federal public borrowing seems like an artificial constraint.

Then there was a talk of a €700 billion euro defense package. Newsweek stated that: “Baerbock said the package could be worth some 700 billion euros ($732 billion).” French President Emmanuel Macron also confirmed this on March 2, 2025. “We will give a mandate to the European Commission to define our capacity needs for a common defense,” Macron said in an interview published in several French newspapers. “This massive funding will probably reach hundreds of billions of euros.” The official slogan of “help Ukraine defend itself” will give the EU political and financial elite an excuse to turn on the spigots of the European Central Bank at full thrust again; to shower the entire European economy with “free” money, and shore up its fragile economies, like it did after the euro crisis of 2011, with the enormous covid recovery fund in 2021, as well as with the Green New Deal.

This time, the idea seems to be to use joint EU bonds. Reuters writes: “The bigger amounts will have to come from some type of centralized funding, because most budgets in Europe are relatively stretched, particularly in Italy and France.” As was stated in the infamous Draghi Report from Sept 2024: “the EU should move towards regular issuance of common safe assets to enable joint investment projects among Member States and to help integrate capital markets.” Therefore, “common issuance should over time produce a deeper and more liquid market in EU bonds.”

Joint EU bonds are essentially bond issuances against the whole euro economy and would thus entail a low risk and a lower interest rate than country level EU bonds. This is perceived as necessary in order for the EU to hold its own in competition with the US and China that already have unified capital markets, as a speech Draghi gave to the EU Commission last year made clear. There are three main sources of war financing: printing money, increasing taxes, and borrowing. Making available “hundreds of billions” for the EU would likely be based on debt issued from joint EU bonds. Bloomberg noted that, if the spending were funded with tax increases, or cuts in other areas, that could wipe out any positive impact—or worse. Any immediate spending on the military would not help Europe because it would be mostly spent buying US weapons.

Therefore, what the EU elite has in mind now is likely to put in place what F. Merz said; a strategic independence from the US through a huge investment by joint EU bonds, released and used over the long term in order to slowly build up Europe’s industry, not only in the defense sector but also in other sectors. In a sense, this would-be debt plan is just the European Union emulating the United States playbook of using war for crony capitalist benefits, finally “understanding” how to cynically exploit the Ukraine war, just as the US has been doing since 2022 by feeding its military-industrial complex. But, in order for this to happen, the war must not end too soon for the European elite, which is why efforts are made in order to—outrageously—spoil any US peace plans and get the war to continue for now.

All of a sudden, everybody knows Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Her X followers went from a few hundred to 62,000 overnight.

• Joe Rogan Guest Completely Shatters the Vaccine Narrative (VF)

Everything you’ve been told is a lie—especially when it comes to polio. Dr. Suzanne Humphries reveals what really made all those polio cases disappear after the vaccine was introduced. Dr. Suzanne Humphries, former board-certified nephrologist and co-author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, just made a bombshell appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience and what she shared will completely change how you think about vaccines. Most people are told vaccines are “safe and effective” with no real downside. But Dr. Humphries pulled back the curtain on decades of deception, starting with a major turning point in 1986—when President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act into law.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905055320449442103

Before that, vaccine manufacturers were getting hammered with lawsuits. Humphries explained that after the 1976 swine flu vaccine disaster, Guillain-Barré cases were piling up. It got so bad that the companies couldn’t even get insurance. They ran to the government and basically said: “Bail us out, or we’re done making vaccines.” So the government stepped in. First, it agreed to cover the lawsuits. Then came the 1986 law—sold to the public as a way to help injured families get compensation faster, but in reality, it became a kangaroo court system that rarely paid families deserving of vaccine injury claims. Companies like Wyeth (now Pfizer) admitted their vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe,” yet instead of making them safer, they were handed blanket immunity.

Humphries explained that this opened the floodgates for “creativity” by the vaccine makers. They could now play with adjuvants without fear of being sued. Profits soared, and the childhood vaccine schedule expanded rapidly. That freedom also meant cutting corners in safety testing. Most people assume vaccines are tested like other drugs—with placebo controls. But that’s not the case. Instead, vaccines are actually tested against other vaccines, which obscures negative outcomes. “The few studies that exist with saline placebos show how bad the vaccine actually is and how it makes you not only not respond to the disease when it comes around, but more susceptible to it in many cases,” Dr. Humphries explained.

When the conversation turned to polio, Dr. Humphries blew just about everyone’s mind on the internet. She challenged one of the most sacred beliefs in modern medicine: that vaccines eradicated polio. The truth is that polio wasn’t actually eradicated. “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well,” Dr. Humphries declared. It’s just that a few sleights of hand made the world believe otherwise. The real change that happened, according to Humphries, wasn’t the vaccine’s impact—it was the definition. “Polio is called different things today,” Humphries explained. “Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts—everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it. After the vaccine rollout, cases that would’ve been diagnosed as polio were now labeled as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or chalked up to lead or mercury poisoning.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905055665367986241

She also pointed to another key factor: environmental toxins. The rise in polio diagnoses, she said, mirrored the use of toxic chemicals like DDT. When the conversation turned to polio, Dr. Humphries blew just about everyone’s mind on the internet. She challenged one of the most sacred beliefs in modern medicine: that vaccines eradicated polio. The truth is that polio wasn’t actually eradicated. “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well,” Dr. Humphries declared. It’s just that a few sleights of hand made the world believe otherwise. The real change that happened, according to Humphries, wasn’t the vaccine’s impact—it was the definition. “Polio is called different things today,” Humphries explained. “Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts—everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056072642998351

After the vaccine rollout, cases that would’ve been diagnosed as polio were now labeled as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or chalked up to lead or mercury poisoning. She also pointed to another key factor: environmental toxins. The rise in polio diagnoses, she said, mirrored the use of toxic chemicals like DDT. As use of neurotoxic pesticides like DDT, arsenic, and lead declined, so did toxic exposures that mimicked polio symptoms. Fewer kids were bathing in poisons that caused spinal nerve damage, so naturally, paralysis decreased. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio,” Dr. Humphries explained. Even today, she added, “The countries that still make DDT… are where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

And when it comes to the poliovirus itself? It’s not quite as harmful as people think. Humphries explained that polio is actually a “commensal”—a virus that lives in most people without causing harm. “95 to 99% of all polio is asymptomatic.” Dr. Humphries described a study of the Javante Indians, where “98 to 99% of every person they tested… had evidence of immunity to all three strains of polio,” yet none of the children were crippled. “They were like, ‘We don’t have any of that problem,’” she recalled. Dr. Humphries also cited a chilling story in history. In 1916, a Rockefeller lab in Manhattan set out with “the specific stated goal… to try to create the most pathological, neuropathological strain of polio possible.” Researchers injected monkey brains and human spinal fluid into monkeys.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056279409651724

And that experimentation came with devastating consequences. “There was a big problem with that, which was [polio] released into the public by accident,” Dr. Humphries explained. “And the world experienced the worst polio epidemic on record. 25% mortality.” In short, Humphries argued that polio didn’t vanish because of vaccines. It disappeared under a mountain of redefinitions, environmental triggers, manmade disasters, and a lot of propaganda. Dr. Humphries also raised concerns about a link between vaccines and food allergies. “It’s very well known that the vaccines that have aluminum in them skew the immune system,” she said. Aluminum is added to many vaccines to make the immune system react more strongly. But when that reaction happens, the immune system can mistakenly target other things in the body, like food proteins.

For example, if a baby is exposed to something like peanuts or eggs around the time of vaccination, the immune system might mistakenly tag those foods as threats, potentially leading to a long-term food allergy. “So that’s kind of the paradox there [with vaccines],” Dr. Humphries explained. And then there’s mercury. Did you know that if a mercury-containing vaccine drops on the floor, “the HAZMAT people have to come and take that away”? Yet we inject it into 3-month-old babies.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056642837643586

RFK vaccines
https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1905757292546462177

Bhakdi

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: “All mRNA vaccines are dangerous and are going to threaten life [and] this cannot be allowed to happen”

"Now if I am here today, it's for a very special reason. Four weeks ago, I don't know where you saw the video, released by the WHO where they proclaimed… pic.twitter.com/IfxkAXGA8b

— Camus (@newstart_2024) March 28, 2025

Cows
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1905842442693186021

Maruay
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905998384189854189

Lovebird

Lovebird collecting flowers
pic.twitter.com/yTasxOOQTa

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 29, 2025

Ninja

Ninja dog on a mission..🐕🐾😅 pic.twitter.com/Z0pGYs2ldH

— 𝕐o̴g̴ (@Yoda4ever) March 28, 2025

Coral forest
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1905674058189975930

Tartaria
https://twitter.com/wakenminds/status/1905352502939099184

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 27 2025

Mar 272025

March 27, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:57 am Finance Tagged with: Atlantic, Big Pharma Ads, Crossfire Hurricane, Fetterman, Grenell, Kallas, Moody’s, SignalGate, SWIFT, US intel 41 Responses »

Henri Matisse Woman with a hat 1905

• Trump Admin Hit by Record Number of Injunctions From Partisan Courts (McCarthy)

• When Judges Violate the Constitution (Joecks)

• President Trump Unleashes 25% Tariffs On Foreign-Made Auto Imports (ZH)

• Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump’s Auto Tariffs (ZH)

• Goldberg Accidentally Proved His ‘Signalgate’ Narrative Is a Hoax (Margolis)

• “Those Are Some Really Sh*tty War Plans”: Hegseth Ridicules ‘Bombshell’ (ZH)

• White House Selects Elon Musk To Investigate SignalGate Controversy (JTN)

• Distinguishing the Signal From the Noise (Victoria Taft)

• Might of the Living Feds: 1,500+ Cash-Sucking ‘Zombies’ (RCW)

• “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.” (Pinsker)

• Trump Declassifies FBI Crossfire Hurricane Files (RT)

• US Government is a Big Money Laundering Operation – John Rubino (USAW)

• RFK Jr. is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban – And Corporate Media is Panicking (Becker)

• EU Officials Unhappy With Kallas – Politico (RT)

• Moscow Backs Ceasefire Despite Kiev’s Breaches – Kremlin (RT)

• Russia Winning In Ukraine, Continually Gaining Leverage: US Intel (ZH)

• Ukraine Never Had Nuclear Weapons – Grenell (RT)

• US Looking For ‘Proper Way’ To Reconnect Russia to SWIFT – Bessent (RT)

• Moody’s Issues Warning On US Finances (RT)

Elon why

Ron Baron: “You're working seven days a week but people constantly criticize you. Why do you do this?”

Elon Musk: “I think what I'm working on has an important effect on the future.” pic.twitter.com/8GBuNNGyBg

— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) March 26, 2025

BREAKING: President Trump just signed an executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship on voter registration forms, revoking Biden's order turning agencies into Democratic voter turnout centers, & cutting funding to states that don't secure their elections.

-… pic.twitter.com/9EgA5tOsRA

— George (@BehizyTweets) March 25, 2025

Russian steel

Back in 2009, residents in the tough Russian steel mill town of Pikalyovo desperately called for authorities to intervene after all three factories in the town halted work and stopped paying full wages.

They were surprised when Vladimir Putin arrived and publicly humiliated the… pic.twitter.com/5xAnLgU4VJ

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) March 25, 2025

2016
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1904948216447008882

“..69 District Court judges presiding over cases involving the Trump administration..”

• Trump Admin Hit by Record Number of Injunctions From Partisan Courts (McCarthy)

Since returning to the White House on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has unleashed a storm of executive orders, a great many of which have been halted or blocked—not by the now-Republican-controlled Congress, but by federal District Courts. According to numbers compiled by the Harvard Law Review, U.S. District Courts have issued more sweeping injunctions against Trump in the past two months than they have against three former presidents over their entire terms. Since Jan. 20, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration, compared to what the Harvard Law Review recounts as six over the course of George W. Bush’s eight-year presidency, 12 over the course of Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, and 14 during Joe Biden’s single four-year term.

During his first term, Trump was subjected to 64 nationwide injunctions. If inferior courts continue issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration at the current rate (15 for every two months in office), then the second Trump administration will have accumulated 360 nationwide injunctions by the time the president leaves office—and a grand total of 424 over the course of both of Trump’s terms. However, there have been a total of over 45 rulings or more targeted injunctions leveled against the second Trump administration overall, according to The New York Times.

The Harvard Law Review’s tally (published in 2024) also noted the increased partisanship of the federal judiciary. Of the six injunctions imposed against Republican Bush, half came from judges appointed by Democrats and half from judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 12 injunctions imposed against Democrat Obama, seven (less than 60%) were issued by judges appointed by Republicans. Of the 64 injunctions Trump’s first Republican administration was slapped with, 92.2% were issued by judges appointed by Democrats. All—100%—of the 14 injunctions issued against Democrat Biden came from Republican-appointed judges.

Almost a year before Trump’s return to the White House, the Harvard Law Review also warned against the practice of “judge shopping,” essentially looking at the partisan leanings of various federal judges and bringing a complaint in a given district based on a judge’s presumed political leanings. During the first Trump administration, more injunctions were issued against the president by federal District Court judges in deep-blue California than by judges in any other state.

The second Trump term is seemingly witnessing a repeat of this effect. The Washington Stand conducted an analysis of all the lawsuits either already heard or pending a ruling or injunction at the District Court level against the second Trump administration, disregarding the handful of cases being overseen by federal magistrate judges. Of the 69 District Court judges presiding over cases involving the Trump administration, 21 were appointed by Republican presidents: two by Ronald Reagan, one by George H.W. Bush, eight by George W. Bush, and 10 by Trump himself. Already, several of those Republican-appointed judges have issued injunctions or rulings against Trump’s executive orders and actions. The other 48 District Court judges overseeing complaints against the Trump administration were appointed by Democrats: seven by Bill Clinton, 20 by Obama, and 21 by Biden.

In its analysis, The Harvard Law Review observed that “the extreme use of nationwide injunctions during the Trump Administration could reflect judicial responsiveness to the unprecedented degree to which President Trump tested the limits of presidential power.” However, the legal journal added that “in the Biden years, judges appear to be ordering vacatur in cases where plaintiffs requested an injunction.” An order of vacatur is binding only on the agency to which it is directed—as opposed to nationwide injunctions, which are, as the name suggests, binding nationwide and enforceable by holding violators in contempt—and simply vacates a rule, declaring that it shall have no legal effect.

The Harvard Law Review continued, “Whether the falling rate of injunctions from the Trump to the Biden Administration reflects a decrease in abuses of executive power, judicial responsiveness to growing criticism of the nationwide injunction, or the replacement of some injunctions with the ‘lesser remedy’ of vacatur, the decrease should not mislead: district court judges appear to be striking down executive policies of opposing administrations with unprecedented frequency.”

The growing use of nationwide injunctions by inferior courts, the prestigious legal journal warned, necessarily has a chilling effect on the development of law and precedent. When several inferior courts of different jurisdictions issue conflicting rulings, the matter often winds up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where a definitive standard is set for addressing similar issues going forward. However, nationwide injunctions halt the continued challenging of executive orders, executive actions, or laws, since, as the Harvard Law Review pointed out, various other inferior courts simply refuse to take up related cases, determining that there can be no demonstration of injury in fact while the nationwide injunctions are in place.

“..Constitution. Article II gives “executive power” to the president, who is also commander in chief of the military. Yet, according to some federal judges, the judiciary is in charge of the executive branch’s military policy, hiring, spending decisions and deportation flights. The Trump administration can’t even take down a website.”

• When Judges Violate the Constitution (Joecks)

Leftist judges want to turn President Donald Trump into a president in name only. Look at all the ways that individual judges have hamstrung the Trump administration. A district court judge recently blocked Trump’s executive order removing transgender individuals from the military. Another judge ordered the Trump administration to send two men who are pretending to be women into a women’s prison. One federal judge ordered the administration to restore government webpages that promote the Left’s transgender narrative. A different district court judge stopped the Trump administration from disbanding the wasteful United States Agency for International Development. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appointed Jeremy Lewin to a high-level position in USAID. The judge later ruled that Lewin wasn’t allowed to serve in that role.

Last weekend, another federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrant gang members. He even unsuccessfully attempted to force them to turn around flights that were already in the air. These examples are only the tip of the judicial overreach iceberg. Now, all presidential administrations face lawsuits, but what’s happening here is well beyond historical norms. In his four years in office, former President Joe Biden’s administration received 14 federal injunctions. In less than two months, judges have already hit the Trump administration with more than that. These rulings are an affront to the Constitution. Article II gives “executive power” to the president, who is also commander in chief of the military. Yet, according to some federal judges, the judiciary is in charge of the executive branch’s military policy, hiring, spending decisions and deportation flights. The Trump administration can’t even take down a website.

Contrast that judicial activism with what Alexander Hamilton laid out in Federalist 78. “The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power,” he wrote. And “it can never attack with success either of the other two.” But, Hamilton warned, while “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone,” it “would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.” That’s what some district court judges are attempting to do. These unelected, unaccountable judges are attempting to upend the constitutional order. Most people take it for granted that the executive and legislative branches will abide by judicial decisions. And despite Trump’s social media bluster, his administration has been remarkably deferential to the judicial process in its actions.

That’s likely in part due to a belief that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, will largely overrule these individual judges. That’s already happened in one case involving Trump’s push to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion. Republicans in Congress are also working on potential solutions, such as requiring a three-judge panel to rule on injunctive relief. The judiciary is more vulnerable than many activist judges seem to realize. As Hamilton wrote, the judiciary “may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” In other words, if Trump tells the court to enforce its own rulings, the court can’t. It can only hope there would be a political price to pay for openly defying a court order.

Public support for the judiciary, however, could collapse quickly. The Left has been attacking it for years. Biden openly disregarded a Supreme Court decision on student loan forgiveness. Some Democrats pushed to pack the Supreme Court, while others have wrongly smeared conservative justices as corrupt. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts needs to stop rogue district court judges from violating the Constitution–and quickly. If he doesn’t, support from the right could evaporate quickly. A diminished court isn’t ideal, but neither is one that flagrantly violates the Constitution.

There are hardly any American cars in Europe. But the US is full of Mercs and Beamers. The issue is quite obvious.

• President Trump Unleashes 25% Tariffs On Foreign-Made Auto Imports (ZH)

Update (1600ET): President Trump has announced a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the US. “This will continue to spur growth,” Trump told reporters. Trump confirmed that these new tariffs are in addition to existing tariffs and are expected to result in $100 billion in revenues. To underscore his seriousness, Trump said, “This is permanent.” In addition to the tariffs, Trump discussed his plan to allow Americans to deduct interest payments on cars that are made in America. If the car is built in the US, there will be no tariffs. “We are going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they have been taking over the years.” GM and Ford shares are tumbling further on the news…

European and Canadian officials have already thrown their teddy-bears out of the stroller. Ontario Premier Doug Ford (who folded like broken deckchair on his last threat to hike electricity costs to Americans), warned that: “…he’ll “encourage Carney to target US automobiles… and will inflict as much trade pain as possible.” Canadian PM Mark Carney commented that US tariffs are a “direct attack” on Canadian auto workers, adding that the Trump tariffs “will hurt us.” “We will defend our workers, our companies, and our country.” European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen immediately posted her disappointment on X:

“I deeply regret the US decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports. The automotive industry is a driver of innovation, competitiveness, and high quality jobs, through deeply integrated supply chains on both sides of the Atlantic. As I have said before, tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers equally in the US and the European Union. We will now assess this announcement, together with other measures the US is envisaging in the next days. The EU will continue to seek negotiated solutions, while safeguarding its economic interests. As a major trading power and a strong community of 27 Member States, we will jointly protect our workers, businesses and consumers across our European Union.”

“Our automobile industry will flourish like it’s never flourished before,” Trump commented, seemingly unflapped by the possibility of retaliation.

“..about 46% of all new cars sold in the US are imported.”

• Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump’s Auto Tariffs (ZH)

As the fallout from Trump’s tariff plans comes into relief, a harsh truth is emerging for the automotive industry: there are lots of losers and not many winners. But foreign automakers, those without US facilities, will be hit especially hard. As Bloomberg notes, from South Korea’s Hyundai to Germany’s Volkswagen, and to a lesser extent America’s own General Motors, many of the world’s most prominent carmakers will soon face higher costs from Trump’s new levies on auto imports and key components. That’s because about 46% of all new cars sold in the US are imported.

“There are very few winners,” Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting for AutoForecast Solutions, said in a phone interview. “Consumers will be losers because they will have reduced choice and higher prices.” One notable winner in the tariff chaos is Elon Musk. His Tesla, which has large factories in California and Texas, churns out all the electric vehicles it sells in the US, although as Elon noted late on Wednesday, the company will also not remain unscathed.

Important to note that Tesla is NOT unscathed here. The tariff impact on Tesla is still significant.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 27, 2025

Ford could also face a less-severe impact than some rivals, with about 80% of the cars it sells in the US being built domestically. Others will be less lucky: starting April 2, the new 25% tariffs will apply to all imported passenger vehicles and light trucks, as well as key parts like engines, transmissions. Not surprisingly, the tariffs give automakers that heavily source parts in the US an edge, and Trump also allowed an exemption: the new levies will only apply to the non-US share of vehicles and parts imported under a free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. That may soften the blow for vehicles whose supply lines zig-zag across the continent. Tariffs on parts from Canada and Mexico that comply with the trade deal also won’t take effect until the US sets up a process to collect those levies. The US neighbors could use that window to try to stave off full implementation, even if it’s a long shot.

There are whole lists of Goldberg’s anti-Trump articles.

• Goldberg Accidentally Proved His ‘Signalgate’ Narrative Is a Hoax (Margolis)

The Democrats’ latest effort to manufacture a Trump administration scandal blew up in their faces this week after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported that he was somehow included in an encrypted Signal chat group with top administration officials discussing a planned attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen. According to Goldberg, officials discussed classified and/or top-secret war plans. No one disputes that Goldberg was erroneously included in the chat, but the real issue is whether classified or top-secret war plans were actually discussed. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard testified that nothing classified or top secret was discussed in the chat. Others in the administration have said the same thing. Goldberg had been given the opening to release the chats in their entirety to prove them wrong. But he insisted that he wouldn’t.

During an interview on The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller, Goldberg repeatedly evaded calls to produce evidence, raising serious questions about the credibility of his claims. Miller directly challenged Goldberg, pointing out that top Trump administration officials had accused him of lying. “Now, the Secretary of Defense and the White House Press Secretary have said you’re lying, have said there are no war plans there, have said there’s no classified information,” Miller stated. “So the obvious question is, shouldn’t you now demonstrate it? Shouldn’t you publish the text?” Goldberg flatly refused. “No, because they’re wrong. They’re wrong,” he insisted, offering no proof to back up his claims.

Here’s the problem with that claim: In the encrypted chat, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz explicitly mentioned the participants’ “high side” inboxes, a reference to the classified system. This made it clear they knew certain topics couldn’t be discussed on the Signal platform. Miller pressed Goldberg further in the interview, asking whether he would at least provide the alleged messages to congressional intelligence committees. Instead of responding substantively, Goldberg deflected with sarcasm. “Wow. What? You wanna become my lawyer?” he quipped with an annoyed tone. He clearly wasn’t comfortable with the line of questioning, and I got the sense he was hiding something.

As the conversation continued, Goldberg struggled to justify his refusal to produce evidence, resorting to vague justifications. “Just because they’re irresponsible with material doesn’t mean that I’m gonna be irresponsible with this material,” he said. He further attempted to cast doubt on the administration’s credibility, suggesting officials were merely trying to “get out of a jam.” In a final attempt to defend his decision, Goldberg framed it as a matter of principle. “I have a pretty clear standard in my own behavior of what I consider… information that I consider to be in the public interest, even if it’s technically classified or not,” he said, adding that he was “sticking to my principles.”

“No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.” ..”some really shitty war plans.”

• “Those Are Some Really Sh*tty War Plans”: Hegseth Ridicules ‘Bombshell’ (ZH)

Update(1326ET): Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to the growing calls among Dems for him to step down. This is hours after The Atlantic published the fuller chat logs, alleging that he’s discussing ‘war plans’ in an unsecure and unclassified setting – also with a journalist inadvertently added to the group chat. Hegseth emphasized on X that there were No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.” And he said sarcastically these these make for “some really shitty war plans.”

So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic released the so-called “war plans” and those “plans” include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.

Those are some really shitty war plans.

This only proves…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 26, 2025

Still, this is unlikely to appease the Trump White House’s enemies, who are also now claiming that national security officials ‘lied’ before the Senate yesterday.

* * *
The Atlantic has published the fuller chat thread from the Signal group that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was ‘inadvertently’ included in. This comes after the top Trump officials involved denied that they shared secret “attack plans” in an unsecure, unclassified setting. The President has downplayed it, defending both national security adviser Mike Walz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for both Hegseth Waltz to either resign or be fired from their top national security posts. “When the stakes are this high, incompetence is not an option,” Warner wrote on social media Tuesday. “Pete Hegseth should resign. Mike Waltz should resign.”And in a a letter to President Trump, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries has urged Hegseth’s termination, calling him “unqualified” and a national security risk.

“The so-called secretary of defense recklessly and casually disclosed highly sensitive war plans — including the timing of a pending attack, possible strike targets and the weapons to be used — during an unclassified national security group chat that inexplicably included a reporter,” Jeffries wrote. “His behavior shocks the conscience, risked American lives and likely violated the law.” The newly published messages were sent on March 15 and purport to be from an account identified as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Amid the ongoing controversy, Golberg and The Atlantic are seeking to present a ‘smoking gun’ of sorts. The messages include times of strikes and the types of aircraft being used in attacks on Yemen’s Houthis, who have for many months been sending drone and missiles against Red Sea shipping, including American warships and even at times a carrier.

The “chat” group is invite only. It should be simple to see who invited, and then added, the journalist.

• White House Selects Elon Musk To Investigate SignalGate Controversy (JTN)

The White House on Wednesday asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk to lead a probe into the so-called SignalGate scandal, which refers to the accidental addition of a journalist to a national security chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, reported on Monday that he was added to a chain last week containing messages from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and 15 other senior national security officials. The discussion regarded the Defense Department’s strike plans on the Houthis. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters that Musk had been asked to help lead the investigation, along with his team at the Department of Government Efficiency, per The Hill.

“Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat, again to take responsibility and ensure this can never happen again,” she said. The White House Counsel’s office and the National Security Council are also helping with the investigation. President Donald Trump said a staffer on Waltz’s team was responsible for Goldberg’s inclusion, and Waltz has denied ever meeting or talking to Goldberg. The journalist’s invitation allegedly came from Waltz’s account. Waltz has accepted “full responsibility” for the scandal.

“I won’t make excuses for the security breach, for that’s what you call it when Jeffrey Goldberg is on the text chain hiding under the name “Jeffrey Goldberg.”

• Distinguishing the Signal From the Noise (Victoria Taft)

After the hypersonic quickness and near-flawlessness of the first few weeks of the Trump 47 presidency, the mediacrats have seized upon a Signal chat between 17 high-level administration officials and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg. They’ve attempted to turn a discussion about attacking Houthis into the theft of the Manhattan Project. It won’t work, but it doesn’t mean that between applauding the Tesla showroom fire bombings and threatening the drivers of those cars, the left won’t keep trying to make this fetch happen. The Morning Joe gadflies, endless CNN panels, even Hillary Clinton and everyone at the Trump White House agree on one thing: Jeffrey Goldberg shouldn’t have been on that Signal text chain because no one can trust him.

Financier, Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary, often says, “To be effective you must be able to distinguish the signal from the noise.” The way this issue has been discussed by mediacrats, it’s been all noise. Endless noise. First, Goldberg hates Trump. His wife works for Hillary Clinton, for goodness’ sake. Goldberg is “The Atlantic’s” Bob Woodward: the guy that comes up with all kinds of uncorroborated stories that no one has ever heard of, much less seen evidence for. If it’s true, why is it only stated in front of Bob or Jeffrey and never reported or even alluded to by anyone before or since? Even actor Bill Murray worked out that puzzle. Goldberg put the words “suckers and losers” into Donald Trump’s mouth at the same time he allegedly petulantly refused to go to a World War II cemetery in Normandy. Yeah, that’s totally on brand for Trump. Not.

Of course, it had nothing to do with the weather making it impossible to fly over the French countryside and near the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc to get to the cemetery. I mean, there are never weather problems there. Take the Normandy invasion as an example, the reason why Trump was there. That whole Normandy invasion thing wasn’t beset by weather problems. Dwight Eisenhower had no problems with the weather. He parked those Higgins Boats without an issue, and everyone got to Omaha without a scratch — in Jeffrey Goldberg’s imagination, anyway. Also, do you think a president, especially one who owned his own aircraft, might take the word of a helo pilot when things are too dangerous? Naw. Never happen. The whole thing’s absurd. Matt’s got a nice round-up of the rest of the boneheaded things Goldberg has said about Trump over here.

This isn’t a bash Jeffrey Goldberg session; there are plenty of pieces around here doing that because he makes it so deliciously easy. I must mention, however, that “The Atlantic” editor reported that they discussed war plans on the Signal text chain. Or maybe that’s what he thought this discussion was. Let’s ask Jeffrey. Jeffrey, how did this compare to the last time you were privy to “military plans”? Did you get all the troop movements, LZs, and weapons packages the last time? Were you included in further communications when members of the national security team said on the Signal chat, “we need to move to the high side” to continue the discussion on a more secure apparatus? I won’t make excuses for the security breach, for that’s what you call it when Jeffrey Goldberg is on the text chain hiding under the name “Jeffrey Goldberg.” But who had Goldberg in their contacts, anyway? What the actual hell?

The noise continued with the hilarious and beside-the-point reactions by former Obama and Biden officials. They are pure irony. Honestly, who thought it was a good idea to get Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice’s reactions? That is comedy gold. What, no Tony Blinken to discuss his expertly executed Afghanistan pullout that included an agreement not to kill the terrorists killing innocents in front of American soldiers? Or was it the bug-out at Bagram, giving China a home base? The woman who destroyed documents, emails, phones under preservation orders, and also had her own server, which even Mike Morrell, one of the 51 spies who lied, said was certainly spied on by the ChiComs and Russians, and worse, weighed in. Goldberg’s wife’s boss, Hillary Clinton, said:

Hillary Clinton reacted to The Atlantic’s claim that Trump officials “accidentally” texted war plans, saying, “You have got to be kidding me.”

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/Gx1pjDlEwX

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 24, 2025

1,500+ organizations that haven’t been (re-) authorized by Congress for 45 years, but should have been. And have kept functioning, and received funding, as if they have been.

• Might of the Living Feds: 1,500+ Cash-Sucking ‘Zombies’ (RCW)

In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to connect lower-income Americans involved in civil disputes with free legal help. The law that established the agency stipulated that authorization for its funding would expire in 1980, when lawmakers were required to vote on whether to keep it alive. They never did. Still, Congress has funded LSC every year since. In fiscal 2025, its 51st year, LSC’s 135 employees will spend 95% of its now $560 million annual budget paying legal groups to represent Americans in cases such as eviction, domestic violence, and disputes over government benefits, according to Ron Flagg, the agency’s president since 2020. “LSC would welcome reauthorization,” Flagg said. “We haven’t hidden from it. Every budget cycle, we go through an exhaustive process before Congress appropriates funds — dozens of meetings with leaders of both parties. We demonstrate our return on investment, how we help 2 million Americans get life-saving legal help.”

The Legal Services Corp. now stands as America’s oldest “Zombie” program, but it’s far from unique. At a time when the Trump administration is moving aggressively to scale back government, including eliminating the entire Education Department, it’s sobering to note that 1,503 agencies or programs live on despite expired authorizations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Another 155 will expire on Sept. 30. The Zombies, nearly half of which have been officially dead for more than a decade, persist in a budgetary netherworld. In a deep dive last year, CBO analysts were able to find dollar amounts for 491 of the programs, with total expenditures of $516 billion. They don’t know how much funding the other programs received.

The total federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion, meaning expired Zombie programs take up at least 8% of the budget, and likely much more. “A lot of programs don’t get reauthorized because Congress is okay with how they’re operating,” said Josh Huder, former congressional staffer now at the Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute. “They continue to get annual appropriations because most members think they’re worthwhile.” Many Zombie programs now soak up far more funding than lawmakers originally envisioned. The Federal Election Commission, for example, was expected to spend $9.4 million per year before its authorization expired in 1981. Yet the agency continued to receive funding and spent $95 million in 2024, auditors at government watchdog Open The Books found. The Federal Communications Commission was originally allocated $339.6 million per year. Its funding authorization expired in 2020, yet it spent $28.4 billion last year.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency hasn’t addressed the Zombies that are prowling the federal spreadsheets. Given DOGE’s headlong push to first root out alleged waste, fraud, and abuse and ask questions later, experts say, Zombies may offer a ripe target. “One could imagine that if DOGE is clued into the notion of expired authorizations, they’ll think a program is defunct,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at Brookings and professor of political science at George Washington University. She said this would be a mistake. “If Congress is still appropriating money to the programs, they’re not Zombies. They’re living, breathing agencies.” Binder says the fault lies not with the agencies, some of which have become important enough to be household names, but Congress. Lawmakers have made it so difficult to accomplish their most fundamental tasks, such as funding the government for another year, that they hardly ever get around to doing other important things, such as reauthorizing existing programs.

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, for example, expired in 2003. Yet in 2024, Congress spent $38.4 billion on 24 of the law’s programs, allowing legislators to influence the White House’s foreign policy and security assistance to other nations. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now led by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), supported the funding of 346 expired programs, more than any other committee, the CBO found. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, now chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), spent more identifiable money than any other group: $153.5 billion. “Congress’ job doesn’t stop when they allocate the money,” said Casey Burgat, professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

“They have to oversee it. And when they fail to do that they open themselves up to somebody else doing that. In this case, an aggressive executive branch in the form of DOGE.” Of the 1,503 agencies or programs, 22 remain alive that required a reauthorization vote as long ago as the 1980s, according to the CBO. In addition to the Legal Services Corp., whose authorization expired in 1980, and the FEC (a 1981 reauthorization deadline), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees the country’s power grids (1984) and the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, whose data informs U.S. policymaking (1984), are among the Zombies pushing middle age.

Fetterman.

• “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.” (Pinsker)

He might be dead, but George Carlin is having a career year on social media. Seems the 20-something liberal crowd has discovered his standup material, and short clips of him lambasting the establishment are still going viral. Of course, Carlin was also waaaay to the left: In one of his books, he wrote, “Property is theft. Nobody ‘owns’ anything. When you die, it all stays here.” Liberals love that. (Interestingly, clips of his 1990 “Doin’ It Again” HBO concert, where he condemns euphemistic language, censorship, PC gibberish, and even defends the use of the N-word, are seldom shared online. Can’t imagine why.) Whenever Carlin’s clips are uploaded, the youngsters all seem to have the same reaction: “Wow, this guy was REALLY ahead of his time!” And in some ways, he absolutely was. But perhaps he was most notably ahead of his time with his 1984 book, “Sometimes a Little Brain Damage Can Help.”

Because, 40 years later — which sounds almost biblical, an irony Carlin would probably appreciate — an enormously large, brain-damaged Pennsylvania senator named John Fetterman is having a career year, too. I mentioned his size because it’s striking: At six foot eight, he’s the only man left in D.C. who can look Barron Trump in the eye. With his shaved head and “gym bro” sweats, he’s one of a handful of Democrats who wouldn’t be out of place on the set of the “Joe Rogan Experience.” In fact, he’s already recorded one episode with Rogan and will probably be taping more. (Over two million views on YouTube and Spotify.) Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is just beginning to realize that it’s lost an entire generation of young male voters. As we discussed two days ago, “75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris at a significantly higher rate than 20-year-old white men.”

As Newsweek described it: “This is the thing I am the most shocked by in the last four years—that young people have gone from being the most progressive generation since the Baby Boomers… to becoming potentially the most conservative generation that we’ve experienced maybe in 50 to 60 years,” Shor [the head of data science at the pro-Democratic polling firm Blue Rose Research] stated. It’s quickly becoming an existential problem for the Democratic Party. This is still a closely divided country; neither party can afford to lose key members of their constituencies. It’s all hands on deck! As professor David B. Cohen told Newsweek: Young voters compose a crucial part of the Democratic base, and if that is eroding, where do they make up for that? Going forward, Democrats will have to figure out how to bring young voters back to the fold — particularly young men — if they want to be competitive nationally.

Enter John Fetterman. He’s been candid about his mental health struggles — something which disproportionately afflicts young men, by the way. When pro-Hamas hoodlums protested outside of his home, he took to the roof and waved the Israeli flag. And he’s had it with the wackjobs in his own party: “I was really the first Democrat to refuse to shut our government down, and my party was so desperate to pander to shut the government down,” Fetterman said. “Absurd, absolutely absurd. Six months ago, we were lecturing the Republicans, ‘You can’t shut the government down.’ Now it’s, ‘Well, yeah, let’s do these things.’” He added, “It’s like that’s part of the problem, to pander, and they want to pander to the extreme parts of our party, to shut the government down. I said I will never burn the village down and claim that I’m saving it.”

Fetterman also pointed to Michigan as an example of political “pandering” that failed, claiming the Democratic Party tried to appeal to the left-wing Arab-American population only to lose the state to President Donald Trump anyway. He specifically called out Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., for refusing to support President Joe Biden and later Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election because of their support for Israel. Fetterman claimed that she and other far-left Democrats ultimately helped to elect Trump. [Emphasis added] But his stance came at a cost: It put him in the crosshairs of the Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez/Bernie Sanders wing of the party. They hate him! But Big John isn’t backing down:

Fight “harder”—a stunt that would have harmed millions and plunged us into chaos.

We kept our government open.

Deal with it. pic.twitter.com/B7NvcidNfa

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) March 21, 2025

It’s a power struggle. And it’s one that Fetterman won’t win: He might be big, but his “wing” of the party is puny. The Democratic Party is essentially a coalition party, where the common denominator is that everyone agrees that they’ll work together. For most of the last 50 years, the coalition has been comprised of women, minorities, liberals, young voters, and “left-leaning libertarians” — folks like Bill Maher, who generally lean to the left but mostly want to be left alone. And you could probably include John Fetterman in that group, too.

After JFK and MLK, people will be sleptical.

• Trump Declassifies FBI Crossfire Hurricane Files (RT)

US President Donald Trump has ordered the declassification of all FBI files related to the agency’s investigation into his first election campaign’s alleged contacts with Russia. The FBI launched the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation in July 2016 to examine whether Trump – then a presidential candidate – or members of his campaign were colluding or coordinating with Moscow to influence the election. In a memorandum released on Tuesday by the White House, Trump directed the Attorney General to make the materials available to the public “immediately.” Crossfire Hurricane was prompted by the ‘Steele Dossier’ – a compilation of unverified rumors about Trump and his alleged links to Russia. The dossier was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, and reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Crossfire Hurricane preceded the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose subsequent ‘Russiagate’ investigation found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In 2023, the US Justice Department’s (DOJ) special counsel John Durham – appointed to review the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane probe – concluded that the FBI and DOJ had “failed to uphold their mission” by relying on biased information to surveil Trump. Durham criticized the FBI for showing a “serious lack of analytical rigor,” particularly when handling information from politically-affiliated sources. It was also revealed that the Steele Dossier had been used by the FBI to obtain court permission to spy on Trump’s campaign. In 2019, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported that the FBI had made “basic, fundamental, and serious errors” in its warrant application.

Mike Davis
https://twitter.com/liz_churchill10/status/1904725820863578255

‘Crossfire Hurricane’ and Mueller’s Russiagate investigation cast a long shadow over Trump’s presidency, with allegations of “Russian collusion” persisting in the media even after Mueller’s report found no evidence to back them up. In a video posted on Tuesday on Truth Social, Trump said after signing the order: “This was total weaponization. It’s a disgrace…but now you’ll be able to see for yourselves.” Addressing journalists, he added: “You probably won’t bother because you’re not going to like what you see.” Trump had previously ordered a full declassification of Crossfire Hurricane during the final days of his first term, but the documents were never released. According to a 2023 CNN report, a binder containing highly classified information later went missing.

“There is a decent chance of instead of having this gigantic collapse because the dollar is basically evaporating, that this government will be smart enough to do the monetary reset. Go back to a gold standard . . . go back to some sort of commodity base standard..”

• US Government is a Big Money Laundering Operation – John Rubino (USAW)

Analyst and financial writer John Rubino warned last October that “Chaos is Coming.” With exploding Tesla dealerships, mass deportations of violent gangs, DOGE uncovering massive fraud and waste, and an out-of-control Leftist judiciary trying to stop President Trump at every turn, you could say chaos is here. Rubino contends it’s not going away anytime soon as government grifters are going to try to keep the cash flowing. Now, AG Pam Bondi says her office is going after the fraudsters ripping off America. Rubino explains, “We are finding out that the federal government is a big money laundering operation. There are so many different ways and so many different avenues that take cash from taxpayers or newly created cash . . . and it basically funnels it to political operatives, political class and the ‘expert’ class all around the world. . . . We have created this class of people who are effectively grifters . . . because they don’t do anything worthwhile at all. Do you think that think-tanks produce anything of value, or lobbyists or Washington law firms or regulators? The regulator is basically on a long job interview for the company you are regulating. You prove you are a team player and then Pfizer hires you for 10 times your FDA salary. So, everywhere you look it’s a form of money laundering.”

So, now interest payments are spiraling to infinity with massive amounts of debt and currency creation. Rubino says, “We have hit the death spiral point for the dollar and the other big fiat currencies, which means the cost to maintain this debt starts to spiral out of control and people lose faith in the currency or the currency collapses or you have a currency reset. What is really interesting about the Trump Administration is it contains a lot of gold bugs. . . . There is a decent chance of instead of having this gigantic collapse because the dollar is basically evaporating, that this government will be smart enough to do the monetary reset. Go back to a gold standard . . . go back to some sort of commodity base standard where we peg the dollar to something that is real and cannot be created in infinite quantities on a printing press. It could be we do that without insane amounts of pain and stress, but it would still be painful. Anybody who has dollars will watch those dollars be devalued dramatically.”

In this scenario, the dollar sinks in value. What happens to gold? Rubino says, “Everybody who runs the numbers says gold has to be $10,000 per ounce at a minimum and maybe much higher. Gold has to go way up in price in a currency reset. . . . So, your gold becomes much more valuable, and your silver gets pulled along by gold and goes up by some multiple of gold’s percentage gains. If gold goes up three times, silver will go up five to ten times.” Rubino thinks Europe is headed for war with Russia or civil war. Either way, the Euro will not survive. Rubino says the domestic violence will continue here in America but thinks the Deep State won’t stop President Trump’s agenda. Rubino also says everybody should concentrate on owning real things such as farm land, gold, silver and a good vehicle. Rubino also says some emergency food and a garden are good ideas too.

“Nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands.”

• RFK Jr. is Pushing Big Pharma Ad Ban – And Corporate Media is Panicking (Becker)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, is pushing a plan to ban pharmaceutical ads from television. He’s right to push for it—and not just because the U.S. is one of only two countries on earth that allows such advertising (the other being New Zealand). America’s health system isn’t just flawed; it’s harming public health, distorting journalism, and fueling Big Pharma’s malignant influence over our daily lives. Let’s start with the obvious: TV drug ads aren’t designed to inform—they’re designed to manipulate. The formula is always the same. Cue soft lighting and sappy piano music. A sad, listless person pops a pill and suddenly life is vibrant again. They’re running through fields, laughing with family, walking dogs across idyllic bridges. Then, in a breathless voiceover, the side effects come tumbling out like a legal disclaimer roulette wheel—stroke, heart failure, suicidal thoughts. The goal? Make viewers want a drug before they even talk to their doctor. It’s emotional coercion dressed up as health education.

This completely inverts how medicine is supposed to work. Health care decisions should be made inside the exam room, not in a 60-second marketing spot. Patients should go to their doctors with symptoms, and those doctors—armed with clinical training and knowledge of the patient’s full health profile—should decide whether a drug is even necessary. Many issues could be better addressed through lifestyle changes, diet, supplements, or preventative care. But instead, America has normalized a pill-for-everything culture, supercharged by the fact that doctors are often nudged by patients demanding whatever drug they saw advertised last night during a commercial break. This isn’t just bad medicine—it’s dangerous. And it’s no accident.

Big Pharma isn’t spending billions on advertising because it cares about your health. It’s doing it because the return on investment is enormous. Studies estimate the ROI on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads ranges from 100% to 500%, depending on the drug. In 2025 alone, pharmaceutical companies are projected to spend over $5 billion on national linear TV ads, according to iSpot.tv. That number balloons even higher when you include digital and streaming. Just a handful of blockbuster drugs—like Skyrizi, Jardiance, and Ozempic—are burning through tens of millions in TV ads every month. This revenue isn’t just padding Big Pharma’s pockets—it’s quietly buying influence in the media. Nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands.

That means a huge portion of media budgets depend on the very companies they should be holding accountable. And surprise, surprise: when Big Pharma misleads the public, many news outlets are either silent or hesitant to report critically. The financial conflict of interest is baked in. We saw the worst-case version of this during the COVID-19 pandemic. The novel mRNA shots—rushed to market under emergency use—were sold to the public as miracle solutions. Government officials and media outlets claimed these vaccines would “stop infection,” “prevent death entirely,” and “end the pandemic.” Younger, healthy individuals were told they needed them for everyone’s safety, despite already low statistical risk. None of these claims held up. As the data evolved, we learned the vaccines offered some reduction in severe disease, but not sterilizing immunity. Yet the media rarely corrected course.

Why would they? Pharma ads were paying the bills. Meanwhile, federal workers were mandated—and many private sector employees coerced—into getting injections under false pretenses. Billions of dollars flowed to Big Pharma. The American public was misled. This pattern of deception is not new. Pfizer alone has paid billions in legal penalties over the years for unethical marketing, off-label promotion, and other violations. The most infamous: a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009—the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history at the time. Yet companies like Pfizer, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson still enjoy a polished image on TV, thanks in part to relentless ad spending and regulatory leniency.

They hired her for her Russophobia. What did they think they would get?

• EU Officials Unhappy With Kallas – Politico (RT)

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has been criticized by nearly a dozen EU officials over her hawkish stance on Russia and leadership style, Politico has reported, citing unnamed sources. According to the outlet, Kallas’ challenges began on her first day in office in December, following her tweet stating, “The European Union wants Ukraine to win this war” against Russia. Several EU officials reportedly felt uneasy that the former Estonian prime minister, within a day of assuming her new role, “felt at liberty to go beyond” established language norms. ”If you listen to her, it seems we are at war with Russia, which is not the EU line,” Politico cited one EU official as complaining on Wednesday.

Kallas has been a vocal critic of Russia and an advocate for increased military support to Ukraine. Her initiative to increase EU military aid to Kiev to up to €40 billion ($43.1 million) this year faced opposition from member states like Italy and Spain, who do not perceive Moscow as an immediate threat to the EU. Kallas, however, still has her defenders among the EU’s northern and eastern states, noted Politico. Russia has openly criticized the top diplomat, labeling her statements “rabidly Russophobic,” and “undiplomatic,” and accusing her of pushing for militarization amid ongoing US-brokered peace talks on Ukraine. She’s also reportedly been criticized for continuing to act like a prime minister by failing to consult diplomats from member countries before making sensitive proposals.

Kallas’ relationship with the United States has been questioned by some officials. After the sudden cancellation of her February meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, attributed to “scheduling issues,” Politico sources suggested that Kallas had not adequately prepared by providing a clear agenda to US counterparts. After a contentious February Oval Office exchange involving US President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Kallas tweeted, “The free world needs a new leader.” The apparent jab at Trump reportedly unsettled nations eager to maintain strong ties with the US administration.

” Moscow suspects that Kiev is attempting to derail Washington’s efforts to mediate a comprehensive truce by continuing its attacks on energy infrastructure.”

• Moscow Backs Ceasefire Despite Kiev’s Breaches – Kremlin (RT)

Ukraine’s ongoing attacks on energy infrastructure are in breach of a US-mediated ceasefire but will not dissuade Russia from maintaining its commitment to the pause, Dmitry Peskov stated on Wednesday. The agreement to refrain from attacking such sites was brokered by US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during a phone conversation last week. Ukraine launched three separate assaults over two days, aimed at a natural gas reservoir and two segments of the national power grid, the Russian military reported on Wednesday; the latter two resulted in supply disruptions. At a press briefing, Peskov acknowledged Kiev’s “inability to adhere to agreements,” citing the incidents as evidence. Nevertheless, the Russian military is adhering to the suspension of strikes.

Peskov expressed the Kremlin’s commitment to the moratorium, saying it signifies progress in the improvement of US-Russia bilateral relations. He reminded journalists that Moscow has specified the types of targets protected under the partial ceasefire, which were discussed during consultations in Saudi Arabia earlier this week. Moscow suspects that Kiev is attempting to derail Washington’s efforts to mediate a comprehensive truce by continuing its attacks on energy infrastructure. The Foreign Ministry had previously warned that Russia could withdraw from the agreement in response to Ukrainian “provocations.”

Discussions in Riyadh reportedly focused on reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, a defunct security framework under which Moscow guaranteed the safety of civilian transportation to and from Ukrainian ports. Russia turned down the renewal of the agreement in 2023, citing Kiev’s misuse of the arrangement for military goals and the West’s failure to ease sanctions in order to facilitate food and fertilizer exports. Peskov assured that if past commitments made to Russia are finally honored, the initiative would be “reactivated.”

“..a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow..”

• Russia Winning In Ukraine, Continually Gaining Leverage: US Intel (ZH)

The US government in its 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community – which was just released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in conjunction with top officials’ testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday – has admitted that Ukraine’s battlefield prospects are fading amid the onslaught of superior Russian forces. Currently, Moscow has “seized the upper hand” in the war over the past year, the fresh assessment warns, and “is on a path to accrue greater leverage” as peace talks with Washington are underway. “Even though Russian President [Vladimir] Putin will be unable to achieve the total victory he envisioned when initiating the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia retains momentum as a grinding war of attrition plays to Russia’s military advantages,” the report states.

“This grinding war of attrition will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow,” it continues. This should come as no surprise to any objective observer; however, what is surprising is the huge amount of Russian losses estimated by US intelligence. While there’s no way of verifying such information, the report claims that there are over 750,000 dead and wounded on the Russian side. Still, the intel community emphasizes the Russian military machine’s ability to quickly replenish personnel while growing its industrial capacity to continually support the war.

On the prospect for achieving a quick peace settlement, the report notes that both Russian and Ukrainian leadership “probably still see the risks of a longer war as less than those of an unsatisfying settlement.” “For Russia, positive battlefield trends allow for some strategic patience, and for Ukraine, conceding territory or neutrality to Russia without substantial security guarantees from the West could prompt domestic backlash and future insecurity.” “Regardless of how and when the war in Ukraine ends, Russia’s current geopolitical, economic, military, and domestic political trends underscore its resilience and enduring potential threat to U.S. power, presence, and global interests,” it adds.

https://twiter.com/yarotrof/status/1904857430925648010?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904857430925648010%7Ctwgr%5E23ccd6fdd0351c2bcd235f92faf7645aa404b476%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Frussia-winning-ukraine-continually-gaining-leverage-us-intel-community

* * *
A note from UBS … US Intelligence On Russia Nuclear Capacity, China And Taiwan . The US annual threat assessment from the Director of National Intelligence carries warnings about Russia and China. The 2025 edition warned that Russia is developing a satellite capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. It said that China was making aggressive efforts to assert its sovereignty in the south and east China seas, and seems likely to increase its economic pressure on Taiwan. Indeed the report warned that China represented the most comprehensive and robust military threat to US security. The report claimed that both Russia and China are eyeing up Greenland for natural resources.

“..the weapons remained under Russian operational control and Kiev lacked the technical capability to launch them..”

• Ukraine Never Had Nuclear Weapons – Grenell (RT)

The nuclear weapons that Ukraine transferred to Russia under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum in the 1990s were never under Kiev’s control, US Presidential Envoy for Special Assignments Richard Grenell has said. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine inherited a significant portion of the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, temporarily making it the third-largest nuclear power at the time. However, the weapons remained under Russian operational control and Kiev lacked the technical capability to launch them. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum along with the US, Russia and the UK, under which Kiev agreed to transfer all of its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for security assurances.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Grenell wrote: “Let’s clarify the Budapest Memorandum situation: the nuclear weapons belonged to Russia and were leftovers. Ukraine returned the nuclear weapons back to Russia. They did not belong to Ukraine. That’s an inconvenient fact.” Grenell’s comments come amid renewed statements by Ukrainian officials criticizing the country’s disarmament in the 1990s. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky recently told British journalist Piers Morgan that Ukraine was “forced” to give up its nuclear weapons and described the Budapest Memorandum as “stupid, illogical, and very irresponsible.” He argued that Kiev should now either be fast-tracked into NATO or given nuclear weapons and missile systems to counter Russia.

Retired US General Keith Kellogg, who serves as Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and Russia, dismissed the proposal. Speaking to Fox News Digital last month, Kellogg said, “The chance of them getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none. Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen.”

Russia has repeatedly stated that Ukraine never possessed any nuclear weapons of its own, as the assets belonged to Moscow as the sole legal successor of the Soviet Union. Russian officials also maintain that the Budapest Memorandum envisioned Ukraine’s neutral status, which has since been undermined by NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the bloc. Moscow has cited Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO and its threat to obtain nuclear weapons as root causes for the Ukraine conflict. In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if Ukraine were to obtain nuclear weapons, Moscow would use “all the means of destruction at Russia’s disposal.”

Major step.

• US Looking For ‘Proper Way’ To Reconnect Russia to SWIFT – Bessent (RT)

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has confirmed that all options remain on the table as Washington considers lifting certain sanctions against Moscow, including the possible reconnection of Russian banks to the Belgium-based SWIFT network. The US and EU cut off major Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system as part of a decade-long sanctions campaign, which was significantly expanded following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. As part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, Moscow requested that its Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank) and other institutions involved in food and fertilizer sales be reconnected to the international payment system. “There would be a long discussion about many things in terms of the proper way to bring Russia back into the international system,” Bessent told Fox News on Wednesday, emphasizing that it was “premature to discuss the terms of a deal before we have a deal.”

“I think everything is on the table,” he added, noting that “it will be determined by the Russian leadership’s next moves whether the sanctions go up or down, and President Trump, I think, would not hesitate to raise the sanctions if it gives him a negotiating advantage.” Reconnecting Rosselkhozbank to SWIFT was part of the original Black Sea Grain Initiative, brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. A Western failure to deliver on that commitment, along with Kiev’s alleged misuse of the arrangement for military purposes, prompted Moscow to reject the renewal of the agreement in 2023. The US and Russia agreed to revive the defunct Black Sea deal following 12 hours of talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday. President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some sanctions on Moscow. “There are about five or six conditions. We’re looking at all of them,” he said.

The Brussels-based SWIFT system is incorporated under Belgian law and must comply with EU regulations and restrictions. European Commission spokeswoman Anitta Hipper stated on Wednesday that the bloc will not amend or lift its sanctions until Russia “unconditionally” withdraws all forces from the “entire territory of Ukraine.” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that Western sanctions are not a temporary measure but a long-term tool used to apply strategic pressure on Moscow, and that Russia’s rivals will always seek out ways to weaken the country. According to Putin, a total of 28,595 sanctions have been imposed on Russian individuals and entities in recent years – more than the total number imposed on all other countries combined – which have only strengthened the national economy by encouraging self-reliance.

“..without effective policy interventions, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio could rise from the current 124% to approximately 130% by 2035, with interest payments consuming about 30% of federal revenue.”

• Moody’s Issues Warning On US Finances (RT)

Ratings agency Moody’s has sounded the alarm on the United States fiscal health, warning of a continued decline due to widening budget deficits and increasing concerns over debt affordability. The warning comes as the national debt surpasses $36 trillion and annual deficits exceed $1.7 trillion, raising concerns about the government’s ability to manage its financial obligations. ”[US] fiscal strength is on course for a continued multiyear decline”, having already “deteriorated further” since Moody’s assigned a negative outlook to America’s top-notch AAA credit rating in November 2023, the agency said in a report on Tuesday, as cited by Financial Times.

US President Donald Trump has advocated measures aimed at stabilizing the nation’s finances, including implementing significant tariffs and proposing tax cuts intended to stimulate economic growth. However, Moody’s has cautioned that extending substantial tax cuts without implementing significant spending reductions could exacerbate the country’s fiscal challenges. ”We see diminished prospects that these strengths will continue to offset widening fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability,” it said, according to Reuters.

Republicans are pushing for a $4.5 trillion extension of tax cuts, which would in turn require significant spending reductions, something that may conflict with Trump’s commitment to protect social programs, the agency noted. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, tasked with reducing wasteful spending, claims to have achieved $115 billion in savings nationwide. However, according to Moody’s, such cuts are relatively minor compared to mandatory spending obligations. The agency projects that, without effective policy interventions, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio could rise from the current 124% to approximately 130% by 2035, with interest payments consuming about 30% of federal revenue.

Tucker cancer

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn’t stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers.

(0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People?
(6:16) What Is… pic.twitter.com/5QO8AWLtXx

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 26, 2025

Change