London Is Losing Its Millionaires

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

London is losing its richest residents.

The British capital has seen more than 30,000 millionaires vanish over the past 10 years.

A person sits on a bench next to the River Thames backdropped by the City of London financial district and Tower Bridge in London on Feb. 13, 2025. Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images

It has now dropped out of the top 5 cities for millionaires around the world, with New York, the Bay Area, Tokyo, Singapore, and Los Angeles all ranking higher, according to a report commissioned by Henley and Partners, a United Kingdom-based investment migration consultancy.

The firm found that London had lost 11,300 dollar millionaires in just 12 months, including 18 individuals with a net worth of $100 million or more, and two billionaires.

London, which now has 215,700 millionaires, is one of only two cities in the top 50 — the other being the heavily sanctioned capital of Russia, Moscow—that has fewer rich individuals than a decade ago.

In total, the British capital has lost 12 percent of its wealthiest residents since 2014, while Moscow has lost 25 percent.

Many millionaires fled Moscow in the wake of Western sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Though the Russian capital has lost more millionaires as a percentage over the past decade, with 10,000 leaving, in terms of sheer numbers, London has lost three times that number in the same time frame.

The majority of departures have been to other European countries such as Italy and Switzerland, as well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Dubai, in particular, has seen a huge growth in the number of millionaires over the past decade, increasing by 102 percent.

So what is driving the super-rich out of what was once one of the premier playgrounds of the rich and famous?

Andrew Amoils, head of research at New World Wealth, who carried out the report for Henley and Partners, told The Epoch Times there were numerous factors for London losing some of its wealthiest residents.

He said that rising concerns about crime and safety were the big factors putting the rich off the British capital.

“Safety is one of the key drivers of long-term wealth growth,” Amolis said. “Women and child safety is especially important—the recent child grooming scandal highlighted this crisis.”

Crime and Safety

A number of billionaires in recent months have made similar statements about crime being an issue.

Devin Narang, an Indian entrepreneur, said in a meeting attended by David Lammy, then shadow foreign secretary, that fear of crime in London was one of India’s elite’s biggest concerns about the city.

“People are being mugged in the heart of London–in Mayfair,” Narang, a member of the executive committee of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, said at a meeting in New Delhi in February 2024, the Financial Times reported.

“All CEOs in India have had an experience of physical mugging and the police [in London] not responding.”

Manchester United owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe also said that he had stopped wearing luxury watches in the capital.

“I can’t wear a watch in London, and I just need to be a bit wary, a bit careful,” Ratcliffe told The Sunday Times.

Ratcliffe, one of Britain’s wealthiest people, cited the story of a murder over a Rolex picked up on one of his company Ineos’s CCTV cameras at its headquarters in Knightsbridge.

“He died in a pool of blood because somebody tried to take his Rolex, and he resisted. About a year ago, we had three guys in hoodies, with machetes, right outside the office, opposite Harrods.”

More than 6,800 watches were reported stolen in 2023, the latest year for which figures are available, an increase from more than 6,000 in 2022.

Taxes a Turnoff

High taxes are another one of the prime reasons the rich no longer call London home.

Amoils said: “Capital gains tax and estate duty [inheritance tax] rates in the UK are amongst the highest in the world, which deters wealthy business owners and retirees from living there.

“The recent tax rises from the October 2024 budget have exacerbated this issue as they pulled non-doms, farms, and small businesses into the UK estate duty net.”

Non-dom, short for non-domicile, describes a person who lives in the UK, but whose permanent home for tax purposes is outside the country.

It refers to a person’s tax status and has nothing to do with their nationality, citizenship, or resident status, although it can be affected by these factors.

A non-dom previously only paid UK tax on the money they earn in Britain and did not have to pay tax to the British government on money made elsewhere in the world.

In October, the Labour government confirmed plans to abolish non-dom status from April 2025, and to replace it with a residence-based regime, which will also bring foreign earnings into the UK inheritance tax system.

Dwindling Importance

Another factor spurring the movement of millionaires is the fact that the city itself is becoming less globally significant.

“The London Stock Exchange (LSE) was once the largest stock market in the world by market cap, but it now ranks 11th globally,” Amolis said.

“The past two decades have been particularly poor, with a large number of delistings and relatively few new IPOs.

“The continued ascendance of rival financial hubs such as Dubai, Paris, Geneva, Milan, Lugano, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam has eroded London’s status as Europe’s top financial center.”

He added that growing American and Asian dominance of the global space has also prompted several wealthy tech entrepreneurs in the UK to reconsider their base location, with many moving to tech hubs in North America and Europe.

“A lot of the new wealth that has been created in the last decade has mainly been from the tech sector, so if you miss out on that, you are missing out on a huge amount of wealth,” Amolis said.

Amolis also said that the historic appeal of London and the UK was its use of English, which remains either the first or second language of most millionaires globally.

“However, over time, this has become less relevant as the economies of the other major English-speaking countries like the United States, Australia, and Canada have grown,” he said.

“Furthermore, there are now several other high-income markets globally where one can get by only speaking English, including the likes of Singapore, the UAE, New Zealand, and Malta.”

Another factor is that part of the drop in the number of wealthy people in London is not necessarily that they left the city; they just became less well off due to the drop-off in the stock market and a worsening exchange rate of the pound against the dollar.

“A lot of them have just got less money,” Amolis said. “So, for instance, if someone was worth $1.2 billion and then their investments have gone down and they are now worth $900 million, they are no longer a billionaire.”

Despite this drop in wealthy residents, London remains one of the most expensive cities to live in, with property prices per square meter higher than anywhere else on the planet—other than Hong Kong, New York, and Monaco.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/29/2025 - 05:00

Bezos-Backed Startup Debuts Pickup Truck Reminiscent Of 1980s Toyota Hilux

A Jeff Bezos-backed startup unveiled on X a cheap electric truck priced at roughly half the cost of the average new American pickup. The catch: it lacks power windows, infotainment screens, and self-driving features.

"The people spoke. We built. Meet the radically simple, radically affordable Slate," Slate Auto wrote in the post on X on Thursday.

The people spoke. We built. Meet the radically simple, radically affordable Slate. Reserve yours at https://t.co/Y5RkOIFCRo pic.twitter.com/uvSZVpdkWv

— Slate Auto (@slateauto) April 25, 2025

"A radically simple electric pickup truck that can change into whatever you need it to be — even an SUV," the Slate Auto website says, adding, "Made in the USA at a price that's actually affordable (no really, for real)."

At 14.5 feet long, the customizable EV is more akin to a Toyota pickup (Hilux) from the mid-1980s.

The range of the EV truck is abysmal, at 150 miles - or 240 miles with a longer-range battery pack - the vehicle in our minds is not a serious truck - instead, similar to mini trucks Americans are importing from Japan to run around town.

Any serious work, whether towing or hauling actual weight, in the EV space will be done by the Tesla Cybertruck or the Rivian truck, or a diesel-powered truck by Dodge, Ford, or Chevy for long-haul towing.

Again, the Slate Auto vehicle isn't a serious pickup truck, but it does look like fun to run around town.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/29/2025 - 04:15

Eco-Extremists Should Be Tried Under Terror Laws, Sweden Democrats Say

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Sweden Democrats have called for climate activist groups to be convicted under terrorism laws, arguing that sabotage by eco-extremists is making life miserable for ordinary citizens and must be stopped immediately.

Fed up with repeated disruptions from groups like Restore Wetlands, which have recently blocked rush-hour traffic, interrupted parliamentary debates, and even stormed the Royal Ship Vasa, the Sweden Democrats are calling for harsher measures to arrest the ongoing civil disruption.

Pontus Andersson Garpvall, a member of the Riksdag’s Justice Committee, told Aftonbladet that voters and citizens are exhausted by the relentless activism.

“Voters and citizens are very tired of this type of action,” he said.

“We believe that it should be examined whether current terror legislation is applicable to this type of action. If that is not possible, we must look at changing the terror legislation.”

He emphasized that the goal is to introduce such severe penalties that socially disruptive sabotage will be eliminated altogether.

The Sweden Democrats intend to negotiate with the government to advance this proposal.

The right-wing populist group currently props up the center-right government led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson following the Tidö Agreement, which confirmed SD support for the current administration in exchange for certain policy proposals, particularly on migration.

Now, the party has eco-warriors in its crosshairs, with Garpvall accusing a small group of extremists of hijacking the lives of ordinary citizens by believing in apocalyptic scenarios and taking increasingly aggressive actions to spread their message.

“An ordinary worker who is on his or her way to work is not very happy if he or she is late because people have sat down on the road. There is irritation from the common man against this, so it is up to the politicians to come up with measures,” he told the Swedish newspaper.

He acknowledged that some level of civil disobedience should be tolerated in a democracy, but stressed that actions targeting protected sites such as airports must be dealt with much more severely.

“If it had been a foreign power that, for example, flew drones at Swedish airports to stop flights, they might have had a completely different view of it than they have now,” he said of the government.

Adding to their concerns, Garpvall pointed out that many of these activist groups have international ties and that it remains unclear who is financing their operations.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/29/2025 - 03:30

Citi Closing Málaga Office That Once Offered "Better Work-Life Balance"

The good news is that without the work, former employees are going to have plenty of time to spend on their lives. The bad news is that they're not going to have much more money to spend. 

Citigroup is shutting down its Málaga office less than three years after opening the hub, cutting a few jobs and relocating others to London and Paris, according to FT.

Opened in 2022 during a fierce post-pandemic talent war, the Costa del Sol office offered junior bankers eight-hour days and work-free weekends, a sharp contrast to the grueling hours typical in New York and London

Citi said the closure is part of its plan to “simplify the firm and make improvements to how we operate.”

It added, “Unfortunately, this decision means that six of our colleagues in Málaga will be leaving the firm, and we will provide support to them during this process.”

FT writes that the initiative, which selected 27 analysts from over 3,000 applicants, was originally praised by Citi’s global co-head of investment banking, Manolo Falcó, who said it was “not a gimmick” and that there would be no “stigma” for those opting for better work-life balance.

The closure comes amid a wider retreat from pandemic-era perks, as a prolonged dealmaking slump forces investment banks to tighten office policies.

We've come a long way since Covid, when work-life balance came into focus after disgruntled Goldman Sachs junior bankers made the infamous PowerPoint presentation that forced banks on the street to at least pretend and posture like they cared about their lower-rung employees' mental health. 

We reported last summer that junior bankers on Wall Street were already back to working 100 hour weeks. Interviews with current and former junior bankers revealed that 100-hour work weeks had resurged as banks pursued a modest deal flow. Employees, speaking anonymously, said that workloads were testing promises to protect trainee health. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/29/2025 - 02:45

The Next Pope: Kerygma Or Catechism?

Authored by Amir Taheri via The Gatestone Institute,

In 2013 when a little-known cardinal from Argentina was elected the Pope of the Catholic Church, taking the title of Francis, many wondered in which direction he might walk in Saint Peter's shoes.

The election came as a surprise in the wake of the unprecedented decision of Pope Benedict XVI to abdicate the pontificate. Benedict, a German, had been revealed as a conservative pontiff focused on the doctrine in what he called "a time of upheavals." That was the time when globalism was in the ascendancy and all religions appeared to be on the defensive in the face of political and cultural forces advocating multiculturalism and secularism.

In his book Values in a Time of Upheavals, Benedict spoke of "the three myths" that threaten mankind: science, progress and freedom which, transformed into absolutes, pretend to replace religious faith.

Once elected, Pope Francis turned out to be at the other end of the spectrum from Benedict as far as their respective world views were concerned. In a sense Benedict, steering away from the quotidian of politics, focused on the core doctrine of his faith, powerfully spelled out in his other book, Jesus of Nazareth.

Pope Francis, however, quickly showed that he wished to play a political role in the hope of injecting his religious values into the global debate. Leaving the doctrine to his predecessor, he used catechism or the flexible rituals of the faith as the template for his political positions which he spelled out in a book formed by interviews with two Italian journalists.

Because Francis was the first Jesuit priest to become Pope, it was not surprising that, true to his evangelist mission as a "soldier for Christ," his emphasis was on securing the largest possible audience for the Catholic Church rather than defending the strictest form of doctrine in an age of cultural relativism.

He learned much from his most recent predecessors: John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The former emphasized the political dimension of his mission, especially in the struggle to help central and Eastern Europe bring down the Iron Curtain. When the Cold War ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Empire, John Paul II was among history's victors, his doctrinal conservatism conveniently pushed aside.

In contrast, Benedict XVI, a theologian by training and temperament, put the emphasis on doctrinal issues in a brave attempt to save the Catholic Church from the ravages of political correctness, wokeism and multiculturalism.

As a result, many Catholics did not warm to him, while non-Catholics found him anachronistic. Francis decided to look to John Paul II rather than Benedict XVI as a model. The difference was that John Paul II was a political Pope on the right of the center while Francis turned out to be left of center. That encouraged some of Francis's critics on the right to portray him as a fellow traveler or even a communist.

In his book, Francis admitted that he was attracted to communist themes, if not actual policies. In fact, the only political book he cites is "Our Word and Proposals" by the Argentinian communist writer Leonidas Barletta. "It helped my political education," Francis said in his book. Francis deepened his "progressive" profile with a list of his favorite authors, including German poet Friedrich Hölderlin, Italian novelist Alessandro Manzoni, Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Belgian mystic Joseph Maréchal, and, last but not least, Argentina's own literary icon, Jorge Luis Borges, none of whom could be branded as leftists.

Francis regarded "liberal capitalism" as immoral and said he found some sympathy for the "liberation theology" of the Latin American guerrilla-priests of the 1960s, while insisting that he was "never a communist."

In fact, he included communism, along with unbridled capitalism, Nazism and liberalism in his list of totalitarian ideologies. And, yet, he points at secularism as the principal enemy of faith. "There is a denial of God due to secularism, the selfish egoism of humanity," he asserted. Throughout his pontificate, Francis wrestled with the "social issues" that have dominated the public debate in the West in recent decades, among them abortion, birth control, divorce, gay and lesbian marriages, sexual abuse by church staff and prelates, and celibacy for priests. Here, Francis faced a real difficulty.

If he had simply reaffirmed the traditional positions of the Church, as Benedict XVI did, he would have weakened his status as a "progressive Pope." If, on the other hand, he had adopted the "progressive" position, he would have antagonized many in his flock.

Francis dealt with this dilemma in the classical Jesuit style of seizing the bull by both horns.

Echoing Benedict, he asserted that what mattered was the core narrative of Christianity, the technical term for which is kerygma. Beyond that we have what Francis called "catechism," which, in the sense he used it, concerns behavior and social organization.

Interestingly, he seldom mentioned dogma, the bridge between kerygma and catechism. Thus, issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and the Eucharist for divorced individuals, do not affect the kerygma. As for celibacy for priests, it is "a discipline, not a matter of doctrine," he asserted, and thus could be abandoned in the future.

A year before his death, Francis published a pamphlet on literature, advising his flock to read as much as possible, even works by non-believers or adversaries of the faith. This was a bold move by a man who had inherited the office that created the infamous Index of books to ban and burn, which had remained in force until 1966. In addition to being a "progressive," Francis was also an optimist.

"The moral conscience of different cultures progresses," he asserted, reminding us how such "evils" as incest, slavery, exploitation, for example, were once, in different phases of human history, tolerated by all cultures and even religions but are now rejected with revulsion by all. But is human "moral progress," if it exists at all, as linear as the Pope Francis seemed to believe? Francis' intellectual landscape was dominated by ideas that could be traced back to ancient Athens rather than Jerusalem. He was more comfortable in the company of Aristotle than the Church Fathers. The only one he quotes is the quasi-Aristotelian St. Augustine, ignoring the contrasting positions of Jerome and Tertullian, among others. Is the church, indeed any formal religious organization, necessary for salvation? Francis couldn't but answer with a resounding "yes."

However, he weakened that "yes" by recalling that, as a young man, he dreamt of becoming a missionary to Japan, where Christianity had managed to survive and to some extent even prosper without any priests and no organization for over two centuries. I don't know whether Francis had read Japanese novelist Shūsaku Endo's fascinating novel "Silence", which deals precisely with that subject. Endo shows that, even under the worst conditions of torture and despair, human beings look to religious faith for a measure of certainty about right and wrong and good and evil. Today, the problem is that religion, in most of its forms, is trying to imitate philosophy, which is the realm of doubt, or replace ideology as a means of organizing political action.

Francis repeated the assertion by André Malraux, that the 21st century will be "religious or it will not at all."

The question is: religion in which of its many forms?

There are those who see kerygma as a poetic conceit, focusing on catechism, or its Islamic version the Shari'a, as a means of social and political control and domination. Then there are those who, having asserted the kerygma, allow the elastic to be pulled in the opposite direction as far as possible. The problem is that, at some point, the elastic might snap.

Will the next Pope continue Francis's "progressive" agenda or return to Benedict's "traditional" path? An Italian proverb says "morto un papa, se ne fa un altro" (Death of a Pope, makes another).

Since a majority of the 135 cardinals of the conclave mandated to elect the next Pope were appointed by Francis, one might assume that they would choose someone to continue his "progressive" legacy. However, taking Saint Mathews' advice to "neither presume nor despair", one cannot be sure.

The global mood has changed from the time Francis was chosen, and Benedict's zeitgeist seems to be making a comeback in a world disappointed with the empty promises of progressivism.

So, don't be surprised if the cardinals will have a tough time choosing between kerygma and catechism.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/29/2025 - 02:00

Iran Says Port Blast Was 'Negligence' Amid Reports Missile Fuel Stored Improperly 

As of Monday an Iranian official in Bandar Abbas has said that the major Iranian port fire is 90% extinguished, which means emergency crews have been battling the blaze for over 40 hours. The death toll has since risen to at least 46 amid the ongoing emergency. Over 1,000 injuries have been reported.

The massive, deadly explosion which shocked Iran two days prior is the largest at an Iranian commercial port. The resulting fire ball, partly the result of missile fuel reportedly having detonated, was so large that there was initial widespread speculation that the Israelis were behind it. 

Via Associated Press

Certainly it wouldn't have been the first Israeli sabotage attack against vital Iranian infrastructure in recent history. And so it is somewhat of a surprise that the Iranians on Monday have not alleged any kind of external sabotage or interference, but are instead calling it an accident due to negligence

Iran’s Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni described the blast at the nation's largest commercial port two days earlier as caused by "negligence" and failure to comply with established safety measures. There is an ongoing investigation.

"Some culprits have been identified and summoned… There were shortcomings, including noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence in terms of passive defense," Momeni told state TV. He suggested that some materials should not have been kept at the port.

Drone closeup footage from aftermath of Iran port blast released by an IRGC linked outlet. pic.twitter.com/2eGPaMW1rw

— Khosro K Isfahani (@KhosroIsfahani) April 28, 2025

According to The NY Times, a volatile component was improperly stored:

A person with ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that what exploded was sodium perchlorate, a major ingredient in solid fuel for missiles. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss security matters.

The state-run Islamic Republic News Agency quoted an official as saying the explosion was likely set off by containers of chemicals, but did not identify the chemicals. What caused them to detonate was not clear, but the Iranian authorities did not suggest it was sabotage or a deliberate attack.

Reddish-orange clouds over the area have further suggested a significant chemical component to the blast, and Iran's health ministry has declared a state of emergency in the impacted Hormozgan province.

On-the-ground video of the still-smoldering aftermath...

❗️Iran’s LARGEST port looks apocalyptic — craters, smoke everywhere, 10,000 containers destroyed, fire still raging, 40 DEAD, 1,000+ injured https://t.co/97e7BuuD5X pic.twitter.com/rtoMSiqa2G

— RT (@RT_com) April 27, 2025

The ministry is warning of airborne toxic pollutants and is urging people to stay indoors and to keep windows closed and wear masks. The fact that the port will have to be halted for a significant amount of time is expected to unleash harm and uncertainty on the already isolated Iranian economy.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 19:40

Leftism Is Killing Chocolate

Authored by Andrew Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

After years of writing about politics, I’m a pretty hardened character. I’m cynical, pessimistic, and, while I’m often disgusted, I’m seldom shocked or panicked. But what I read at the JoNova site was so terrible I’m reeling: “Price fixing kills the cocoa farm.” It turns out that, thanks to price controls in Ghana, one of the world’s primary chocolate-producing countries, chocolate farmers aren’t even bothering to plant new crops. Honestly, I feel quite ill.

I love chocolate at a level that comes close to (but I hope never crosses into) being idolatrous. It is one of the greatest pleasures in my life. Every day, I nibble at my Guittard Extra Dark Chocolate Chips, which, to my mind, are the best around: not too sweet, with a perfectly balanced fruity, vanilla undertone. Also, when the spirit moves me and the freezer isn’t too full, I make what is quite possibly the best chocolate ice cream around, using Droste Cocoa (worth every penny), along with hints of caramel and almond.

When I say I take chocolate seriously, I am not exaggerating. I consider it essential. So, when I read that socialist price-fixing policies in Ghana (as opposed to the leftists’ delusional bugaboo of anthropogenic climate change) are threatening the world’s cocoa supply...well, I’m getting ready to place a big chocolate order, that’s all I can say.

Jo Nova, one of Australia’s top real science writers (as opposed to the faux, leftist science writers), has the story:

There has been a wicked price spike in cocoa beans which the usual suspects are blaming on “climate change” as if your air conditioner was ruining cocoa crops in West Africa. 

Instead African governments have fixed the price of cocoa for decades, forcing poor farmers to work for a pittance, and keeping the big profits for themselves. 

Not surprisingly, even though there is a wild price spike, farmers in Ghana are leaving the industry, smuggling crops out (because they get a better price).

They didn’t plant new trees, they ran out of money for fertilizer, and didn’t try new varieties. 

Their children don’t want to farm cocoa, and the yields are falling on old sickly plantations.

So, surprise, socialist government controls wrecked the industry and they are now scrambling to put the pieces back together. 

Things are so desperate, the government of Ghana raised the price of cocoa by 58% last April and then raised the price of cocoa by another 45% last September, to try to reduce the smuggling. 

(The government was losing too much money). 

At one point last year it was estimated that a third of the national crop was lost to smugglers.

A few months after this, the farmers were hoarding their beans in expectation the government would have to give them another price rise. Just chaos for everyone.

Of course, that’s just the top note of an excellent essay that isn’t just about chocolate but, instead, uses the chocolate debacle as a springboard to discuss how socialism perverts markets, diminishing available supplies and impoverishing ordinary people. It’s worth your time to check it out.

So, next time you hear a chocolate lover bemoan the price of chocolate and, naturally, blame climate change for that situation, be sure to direct your friend to Jo Nova’s article. Your friend might learn something. Indeed, because every person has his or her truth, the one thing that matters most to him, your friend might suddenly decide that the free market is a good thing.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 19:15

"ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE": Trump Rages After Negative Polls, Demands Investigations

President Donald Trump on Monday said that pollsters reporting a recent slide in approval ratings should be investigated for "election fraud" over how wrong they were during his reelection campaign, as the country approaches Trump's 100th day in office and markets continue to pivot over chaotic messaging.

Citing recent polls from the NYT, WaPo, ABC News, and Fox News, Trump wrote on Truth social on Monday: "They are negative criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I win elections big, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse," adding "These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you’re at it."

"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone, or anything, can do about it. THEY ARE SICK, almost only write negative stories about me no matter how well I am doing (99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!), AND ARE TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! I wish them well, but will continue to fight to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump continued.

That said, Trump's approval rating hasn't slipped that much according to a recent WaPo-ABC News poll - which found that 55% of adult Americans disapprove of the way he's handling his job vs. February at 53% disapproval.

The same poll found that Trump's approval rating is the lowest for any past president at the 100-day mark in their first or second terms.

Fox News, meanwhile, found that voters are displeased with Trump on just about every issue aside from border security.

Overall approval of Trump’s job performance comes in at 44%, down 5 points from 49% approval in March. That’s lower than the approval of Joe Biden (54%), Barack Obama (62%), and George W. Bush (63%) at the 100-day mark in their presidencies. It’s also lower by 1 point compared to Trump’s 45% approval at this point eight years ago.

Some 59% of voters are unhappy with how things are going in the country. That’s an improvement since the end of former President Biden’s term (68% dissatisfied), but worse than four years ago at the beginning of Biden’s term (53% dissatisfied). It’s also worse than the 100-day mark of Trump’s first term (53% dissatisfied). Since his inauguration in January, satisfaction among Democrats has turned to dissatisfaction and vice versa among Republicans. Dissatisfaction remained steady among Independents.  

There were 4 national polls released today. All of them show the same thing. Trump’s approval is crashing and it’s directly tied to how Americans feel he is handling the economy, and particularly tariffs.

The economy went from his strongest issue to his weakest due to tariffs. pic.twitter.com/Wb9Ar1LO33

— AG (@AGHamilton29) April 28, 2025

What say you?

First 100 days for Trump

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) April 28, 2025

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 18:50

"The Federals Are Coming!"

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Americans were taught about Paul Revere’s ride in school. He was said to have ridden from his home in the North End of Boston, to Lexington and Concord, to warn the people there that Federal troops had landed in Boston Harbour and would soon reach the townships.Of course, the story was tarted up a bit for the history books. First, it’s unlikely that he shouted, “The British are coming,” since, at the time of the ride, in 1775, he was in fact British – a British colonial – and would have regarded himself as British, as would the townspeople.

It’s also unlikely that he galloped through the towns shouting, “To arms! To arms!” since a major portion of the British colonists, particular those who were older and had a lot to lose, were loyalists, and taking up arms would be treasonous. (At that time, treason was one of only two capital crimes.)

So, what did he shout on his ride… or did he in fact shout anything? It’s more likely that he simply went to the back doors of select sympathisers and asked them to spread the word that the Federal troops were on the way. But, of course, that would have made for a far less colourful story.

It is likely, though, that the ride itself did actually take place and that he did succeed in rousing the townspeople. Amongst them were the minutemen, who later did quite a good job of picking off the Federal troops.

At that time, this practice was looked upon by armies as cowardly. It was considered honourable for columns of troops to march toward each other and fire. Those with the most troops to sacrifice usually won. The colonists could not have prevailed, had they followed this method of battle.

But the colonists’ cause was a laudable one, even if they were far outnumbered and not as well-trained or well-armed as the Federals. Under the circumstances, they succeeded because they swallowed their pride, used their wits and, fighting guerilla style, prevailed against a greater opponent.

In creating the United States, the founding fathers of the US endorsed the concept of a republic – a conglomerate of states in which the individual right was tantamount. They were deeply suspicious of sliding into becoming a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson said,

“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Quite so. And yet, from the very first presidential cabinet, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton pushed for a move away from a republic toward a stronger federal government. (In 1789, he formed the Federalist Party and the contest began.)

Since that time, the US has moved away from being a republic and has become more of a federalist state.

This progression continued fairly steadily until 1913, at which time two major changes occurred. The banking interests in the US had become powerful enough to push through two bills that would serve to enrich them for generations. The source of that wealth would be the American taxpayer.

• First, income tax (which had been attempted previously, but never gained full acceptance) was introduced. 

• Second, to add insult to injury, the Federal Reserve was created. It was neither a federal body, nor was it a reserve. However, in addition to having the power to create all currency for the US, it had the power to set interest rates.

Through this control, it was possible to create steady annual inflation (defined as an increase in the currency in circulation). This had the effect of diminishing the purchasing power of the dollar by slow measures, effectively robbing the population incrementally through inflation.

Had Paul Revere been around in 1913, he might well have wished to get on his horse to warn the people that the Federals were coming. Only this time, it wasn’t the Federal troops, it was the Federal Reserve.

The Fed’s power made it possible to create large amounts of money out of thin air, to be loaned by banks. With this easy money, investors could borrow heavily and buy into the stock market a level previously regarded as impossible. This cornucopia was so forthcoming that, by 1929, a level of debt was reached that was unsustainable. If even a small increase in the interest rate was advanced, a stock market crash would occur, as debtors, who were up to their teeth in debt, would be underwater overnight.

What’s interesting here is that the very body that had taken over the economy in 1913 – the Federal Reserve – had created the artificially low interest rates, supplied the money, created the bubble, then, by raising interest rates in 1929, provided the pin to prick the bubble.

Not very sporting.

Today, the value of the dollar has been eroded by over 97% of its 1913 purchasing power and is due for replacement. If the owners of the Federal Reserve are to continue to regularly scalp the hoi polloi, the best approach would be to engineer a second major buildup of debt, trigger a crash, then introduce a new currency to “save the economy.”

This, they will most assuredly do. The debt has already been created. A crash can be triggered in many ways, including the tried-and-true method of raising interest rates.

And, after the predictable crash, the public will most assuredly cry out for those in power to “do something.” The warning signs have been in view for some time that that “something” will be digital currency – a currency that will make it necessary for virtually all economic transactions to pass through the hands of banks. Person-to-person transactions will virtually end, except for the possibility of barter, which would be likely to flourish as soon as the public have realized that they’ve been hoodwinked.

Unfortunately, our friend Paul Revere is nowhere to be seen on the horizon, but the Federals are indeed coming and the American people, in the not-too-distant future, will need to learn to survive the onslaught from the digital currency system that will take the place of the bullets of the late eighteenth century.

Once again, Americans will need to understand, as did their late eighteenth century forebears, that their only hope against a more powerful opponent is to use their wits – to adopt the minuteman approach and implement the economic equivalent of guerilla warfare.

*  *  *

Excessive money printing and misguided economic ideas have created all kinds of distortions in the market. All signs point to this trend continuing until it reaches a crisis… one unlike anything we’ve seen before. That’s exactly why Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video that explains how and why this is happening… and what you can do to protect yourself and even profit from the situation. Click here to watch it now.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 18:25

The Great Spillover Hoax

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

Why precisely were Anthony Fauci and his cohorts so anxious to blame SARS-CoV-2 on bats and later pangolins in wet markets? It was not just to deflect attention from the possibility that the novel virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan doing gain-of-function research. There was a larger point: to reinforce a very important narrative concerning zoonotic spillovers. 

It’s a fancy phrase that speaks to a kind of granular focus that discourages nonspecialists from having an opinion. Leave it to the experts! They know! 

Let’s take a closer look. 

For many years, there has been an emerging orthodoxy in epidemiological circles that viruses are jumping from animals to humans at a growing rate. That’s the key assertion, the core claim, the one that is rarely challenged. It is made repeatedly and often in the literature on this subject, much like climate claims in that different literature.

The model goes as follows. 

Step one: assert that spillover is increasing, due to urbanization, deforestation, globalization, industrialization, carbon-producing internal combustion, pet ownership, colonialism, icky diets, shorter skirt lengths, whatever other thing you are against, or some amorphous combination of all the above. Regardless, it is new and it is happening at a growing rate. 

Step two: observe that only scientists fully understand what a grave threat this is to human life, so they have a social obligation to get out in front of this trend. That requires gain-of-function research to mix and merge pathogens in a lab to see which ones pose the most immediate threats to our existence. 

Step three: in order to protect ourselves fully, we need to deploy all the newest technologies including and especially those which allow for fast production of vaccines that can be distributed in the event of the pandemics that are inevitably coming, probably just around the corner. Above all, that requires testing and perfecting mRNA shots that deliver spike protein through lipid nanoparticles so they can be printed and distributed to the population widely and quickly. 

Step four: as society breathlessly awaits the great antidote to the deadly virus that comes to us via these vicious spillovers, there is no choice but to enact common-sense public-health measures like extreme restrictions on your liberty to travel, operate a business, and gather with others. The top goal is disease monitoring and containment. The top target: those who behave in ways that presume the existence of anachronisms like freedom and human rights. 

Step five: these protocols must be accepted by all governments because of course we live in a globalist setting in which otherwise no pathogen can possibly be contained. No one nation can be permitted to go its own way because doing so endangers the whole. We are all in this together. 

If that way of thinking strikes you as surprising, ridiculous, and scary, you have clearly not attended an academic conference on epidemiology, a trade show for pharmaceutical companies, or a planning group feeding information to the United Nations and the World Health Organization. 

This is conventional wisdom in all these circles, not even slightly unusual or strange. It is the new orthodoxy, widely accepted by all experts in this realm. 

The first I had heard of this entire theory was the August 2020 article in Cell written by David Morens and Anthony Fauci. Written during lockdowns that the authors helped shepherd, the article reflected the apocalyptic tone of the times. They said humanity took a bad turn 12,000 years ago, causing idyllic lives to face myriad infections. We cannot go back to a Rouseauian paradise but we can work to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence.”

I was obviously stunned, reread the piece carefully, and wondered where the evidence for the great spillover – the crucial empirical assertion of the piece – could be found. They cite many papers in the literature but looking at them further, we find only models, assertions, claims rooted in testing bias, and many other sketchy claims. 

What I found was a fog machine. 

You see, everything turns on this question. If spillovers are not increasing, or if spillovers are just a normal part of the complicated relationship between humans and the microbial kingdom they inhabit alongside all living things, the entire agenda falls apart. 

If spillovers are not a pressing problem, the rationale for gain-of-function evaporates, as does the need for funding, the push for the shots, and the wild schemes to lock down until the antidote arrives. It’s the crucial step, one that has mostly evaded serious public attention but which is nearly universally accepted within the domain of what is called Public Health today. 

Who is challenging this? A tremendously important article just appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health. It is: “Natural Spillover Risk and Disease Outbreaks: Is Over-Simplification Putting Public Health at Risk?” by the Brownstone-backed team at REPPARE. It’s something of a miracle that this piece got through peer review but here it is. 

They present the core assumption: “Arguments supporting pandemic policy are heavily based on the premise that pandemic risk is rapidly increasing, driven in particular by passage of pathogens from animal reservoirs to establish transmission in the human population; ‘zoonotic spillover.’ Proposed drivers for increasing spillover are mostly based on environmental change attributed to anthropogenic origin, including deforestation, agricultural expansion and intensification, and changes in climate.”

And the observation: “If a genuine misattribution bias regarding spillover risk and consequent pandemic risk is arising, this can distort public health policy with potentially far-reaching consequences on health outcomes.”

Then they take it on with a careful examination of the literature generally footnoted as proof. What they find is a typical game of citation roulette: this guy cites this guy who cites this guy who cites that guy, and so on in spinning circles of authoritative-seeming apparatus but fully lacking in any real substance. They write: “We see a pattern of assertive statements of rapidly rising disease risk with anthropogenic impacts on ecology driving it. These are cited heavily, resting largely on opinion, which is a poor substitute for evidence. More concerningly, there is a consistent trend of misrepresenting cited papers.”

We’ve seen this movie many times before. What’s more, there does exist a largely ignored literature that closely examines many of the supposed causal factors that drive spillovers that reveals grave doubts about any causal connection at all. The authors then place the skeptical papers against the opinion papers usually cited and conclude that what has emerged is an evidence-free orthodoxy designed to back an industrial project. 

“There are several potential reasons for this tendency to reference opinion as if it is fact. The field has been relatively small, with authorship shared across many papers. This risks the development of a mechanism for circular referencing, reviewing and reinforcement of opinion, shielding claims from sceptical inquiry or external review. The increased interest of private-sector funders in public health institutions including WHO, and its emphasis on commodities in health responses, may deepen this echo chamber, inadvertently downgrading or ignoring contrary findings while emphasizing those studies that support further funding.”

See the pattern here? 

Anyone who has followed sociology of “the science” over these last five years can. It’s groupthink, the acceptance of doctrine believed because all their peers believe it. In any case, the gig pays well. 

Now we can better explain why it is that Fauci and the rest were so emphatic that the coronavirus of 2019 did not originate in a lab for which they had arranged the funding but instead leapt from a bat or something else from a wet market.

“Sadly, it appears we have a leak from a lab.”

“No worries. We’ll find some scientists and steer some grant money to prove the pathogen in question originated from zoonotic spillover, thus proving the point that we need more funding.” 

“Brilliant Dr. Fauci! Do we have contacts in the media?”

“We do. We’ll get on that.”

The wet market narrative was not only designed to cover up their scheme and avoid blame for a global pandemic of any level of severity. It was also to deploy the potentially catastrophic consequences and resulting public panic as a rationale for continuing their own biological experimentation and funding grift.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 17:40

House GOP Gears Up For Trump's "Big, Beautiful" Budget Brawl

House Republicans have returned to Washington after a two-week break, laser-focused on assembling the “big, beautiful bill” that’s set to carry President Trump’s legislative agenda, and they’re wasting no time getting to work.

Six of the 11 House committees tasked with piecing together the massive package are holding markups this week, with the others gearing up to join the push in the coming days. The plan is to stitch the various proposals together in the House Budget Committee before sending the final monster bill to the floor.

The Republicans are banking on the budget reconciliation process to ram the legislation through without needing a single Democrat vote, bypassing the Senate filibuster - which of course assumes the GOP can stay united. With a razor-thin margin, just four Republican defections could sink the entire package.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had circled Memorial Day on the calendar as the deadline to get the bill on President Trump’s desk. But even getting it through the House within the next month looks dicey, thanks to intraparty squabbles over spending and tax cut details.

The action kicks off Tuesday with three committees, Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Education & Workforce - meeting at the same time.

The Armed Services Committee is proposing a staggering $150 billion in defense funding, including $34 billion for shipbuilding, $25 billion for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system, and $21 billion to restock America’s munitions. “President Trump has a visionary strategy of peace through strength, and this investment is how we begin to execute it,” said Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL).

Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Committee plans to shovel $46.5 billion into completing Trump’s border wall and boosting border security tech. There’s also $5 billion earmarked to upgrade Customs and Border Patrol facilities, $4.1 billion to hire over 8,000 new agents, and $2 billion to keep and recruit staff with bonuses.

The Education & Workforce Committee is doing its part to find savings, touting $330 billion in cuts by overhauling student loan programs. “This plan brings accountability and holds schools financially responsible for loading students up with debt,” said Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI).

But these are the easy fights. The real fireworks are expected when committees turn to tackling safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and hammering out the details on tax cuts - areas where Republicans are eyeing even bigger savings but where internal divisions loom large.

Click picture, add to cart, be prepared...

Democrats aren’t sitting idly by. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) led a 12-hour sit-in on the Capitol steps Sunday to protest potential cuts to Medicaid and other safety net programs.

“As Democrats, we’re going to continue to stand on the side of the American people, and we will not rest until we bury this reckless Republican budget in the ground,” Jeffries vowed.

Booker chimed in, hoping enough Republicans could be pressured to “do the right thing and vote no.”

The legislative slog continues Wednesday, when the Judiciary, Financial Services, Oversight and Government Reform, and Transportation & Infrastructure committees dive into their pieces of the bill.

The Judiciary Committee's slice is packed with immigration crackdowns: $45 billion to expand detention facilities, $14.4 billion for transport and removal ops, $8 billion to hire more ICE agents, and $1.25 billion for immigration judges and staff.

Oversight and Government Reform found more than $50 billion in offsets, including $31 billion from hiking federal workers’ retirement contributions and $10 billion by axing an early retirement annuity for most employees.

Financial Services would claw back unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds for green housing retrofits, fold the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board into the SEC, and cap the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding.

The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is set to unveil its piece Tuesday.

With the clock ticking and tensions rising, the fate of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” is barreling toward a showdown — and the GOP’s unity will be put to the ultimate test.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 17:20

Trump, Tariffs, Trade... And A Taboo?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

After only a hundred days, the Trump counterrevolution has made quite miraculous progress on the border, illegal immigration, cost-cutting, curbing the DEI/woke revolution, and a historic Ukrainian War settlement.

The pushback to this multifront effort from the left has been formidable, if not hysterical. The greatest fury mostly centers around Trump’s efforts to force U.S. trading partners to adopt either reciprocal or no tariffs while obeying international trading norms—an effort aimed at vastly reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

If Trump could cut a proverbial deal in the next 100 days that, say, cut the annual $1.2 trillion trade deficit in half, coupled with multitrillion-dollar foreign investments, then stocks and bonds would settle down.

Wall Street would go back to its traditional platitudes that the trade deficit then would be no higher than the 3-percent-of-GDP red line.

Stocks would then soar in anticipation of the other news of a continuation of tax cuts, more budgetary reductions, robust energy development, and further deregulation.

The U.S. has run a half-century of trade deficits. And now the red ink has climbed to nearly $1.2 trillion, the largest in history. 

Yet for all practical purposes, only a few entities account for most of an astronomical sum. And they all have corollary concerns to the U.S. that make their surpluses part of larger problems.

The administration can accurately talk about “70 nations wanting to deal.” But, in truth, if Trump were to settle with just China, Mexico, Canada, the EU, and the ten-nation Southeast Asian trading bloc (ASEAN), then the so-called trade wars would be over.

Start with our North American partners Mexico ($171.9 trillion surplus) and Canada ($63 trillion surplus) that alone account for over 20 percent of the U.S. trade deficit.

Canada’s surplus is almost entirely attributable to its vast oil and gas sales to the U.S. Almost all its daily oil exports go to the U.S., some four million barrels—as well as half its natural gas shipments.

Canada claims that it sells oil and power at a discount to the northern U.S. It also boasts that its asymmetrical sky-high tariffs on American dairy products and poultry are rarely used if the American exports just stay below certain thresholds. But aren’t thresholds themselves a form of tariff?

Canadian oil deposits are landlocked and far from ports. Canadian crude is heavy, sulfurous, and difficult to refine for many nations’ refineries. In contrast, the huge U.S. market right across the border and the ability of American refineries to handle Canadian crude explain the “discount” better than simple Canadian magnanimity.

Moreover, Canada is one of the stingiest of NATO partners. It is underinvesting in military readiness at only 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense, stonewalling its 2 percent commitment for over a decade.

Should the Trump administration prompt Canada to invest 2 percent in defense—about $41 billion extra—and buy enough U.S. products to cut its surpluses, say, by $10-20 billion of its current $63 billion, a deal could and should be easily reached.

Mexico’s surplus is huge and growing at $171 billion. It is largely created by assembling cars, electronic goods, and appliances sent to it from other countries to enter the U.S. market with reduced taxes.

Trump could ask Mexico to cut that $171 billion in half, particularly given that Mexican cartels funnel an estimated $10 billion to $20 billion annually into the U.S. through drug smuggling. Their drug factories are designed for U.S. export and contribute to the deaths of 60,000 to 100,000 Americans through opioid overdoses.

Add in the $63 billion in untaxed remittances that Mexico’s expatriates send home. Most senders are illegally residing in the U.S. Additionally, many are subsidized by local, state, and federal American entitlements to free up their cash to be sent home.

In other words, like Canada, there are other issues with Mexico transcending trade alone. To even the playing field, Trump could either focus on the cartels, tax remittances, or urge Mexico to buy more U.S. goods in a tripartite effort to reduce the outflow by half.

China’s surplus with the U.S. is the largest at $300 billion. And it is the most difficult to address, given that Chinese global tentacles have compromised dozens of nations. Still, we retain far greater leverage on Beijing than Beijing has on us. But to use such levers—stopping visas to 300,000 students, delisting Chinese out-of-compliance companies from our stock exchanges, curbing all technological transfers that have military applications and key spare parts for their imported goods—we would then enter a veritable Cold War.

Instead, China should use its over $1 trillion trade surplus to raise the standard of living for its own 1.4 billion consumers. But redirecting its export economy would cut back on its geostatic initiatives of massively rearming, the Belt and Road imperialist adventure, and spreading billions of dollars around in the Western world to influence universities and buying up strategic property.

Unless Trump wishes an all-out trade war, he, for now, should aim at reducing the Chinese surplus by $300-500 billion and seek some trade reforms, given Chinese violations of every international commercial canon.

The EU runs up a $235 billion surplus with America—mostly from the surpluses incurred by Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, France, and Italy, which export massive amounts of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, cars, and machinery.

The EU’s socialist and highly regulated member economies grant direct subsidies to industry and agriculture and rely on contorted uses of the VAT tax and asymmetrical tariffs to gain an advantage over U.S. goods. As a rule, the EU ministers despise Trump, are closely allied with the kindred American left, and would likely do nothing to help Trump unless pressured.

In somewhat ironic fashion, the EU suffers a $315 trade deficit with China but then turns around to run up a $235 surplus with the U.S. That circular strategy helps to ensure the EU can still rely on an aggregate $171 billion surplus with the world, again largely due to the U.S.

In the EU’s case, its $235 billion surplus with the U.S. is an inseparable issue from its assumption that the United States’s strategic arsenal and oversized NATO presence have always ensured European continental security.

The U.S. spends the most of the NATO membership on defense and is largely responsible for prodding 24 of the 32 NATO members finally to meet their 2-percent obligations, and timely so given the subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Unlike the ASEAN countries that are trying to reach Western standards of prosperity by piling up trade surpluses, the EU is struggling to maintain its own wobbling prosperity. Its disastrous energy policies, wide-open borders, massive Islamic immigration, and political paranoia about the rise of populist conservative parties have impoverished Europe materially and culturally.

What can we conclude from this global labyrinth of trade?

Most nations see the U.S. market and its reserve currency as critical to their export industries. They believe America is wedded to libertarian economics and would never impose tariffs similar to their own.

They understand, as do Americans, that a $37 trillion national debt, a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, and a $2 trillion budget deficit are force multipliers of each other and not sustainable. But until those numbers hit critical mass, most nations will remain as eager to keep running up surpluses as Americans have been to borrow and spend.

So, what is the logic behind Trump’s loud art-of-the-deal trade gambits?

He wants our “friends” and “allies” to seek reciprocity defined either as symmetrical or no tariffs, some reductions in their trade surpluses, and greater investment in the U.S.—in preference, of course, to a trade war.

For belligerents like China, Trump seeks to coerce it to follow global rules of commerce that it flaunts with impunity to run a global mercantile system based on technology theft, asymmetrical tariffs, espionage, and its loan-sharking Belt and Road initiatives designed to pry away nations from the Western orbit.

Will the Trump trade and tariff strategy work?

It can if it follows some simple dos and don’ts.

1.  Trump knows that other nations privately concede they are taking advantage of the U.S. and are willing to renegotiate - if Trump shows them some deference, cools somewhat the “rip-off” language, and settles for gradualism. He has the moral high ground. 

To win his current tariff standoffs, he needs not achieve instant trade parity, but perhaps instead only prod nations to cut their particular deficits with the U.S. in half, with a schedule of more parity and further surplus reductions to come.

2.  The U.S. economy is not in recession. Job growth, stable prices, increased energy production and low prices, and corporate profits were all encouraging in March and April. News of an impending budget bill that extends tax cuts and deregulates, along with trillions of dollars in new foreign investments and budget discipline, will all fuel stock markets.

And what a funny stock market cohort—the 10 percent who own 93 percent of the nation’s stock market capitalization! From May through August of last year, investors boasted that they had hit 40,000 in the Dow Jones.

Now, less than a year later, their portfolios are back at 40,000. And yet still they moan that they lost trillions of dollars in March. These strange people apparently believe that the highest stock market peak is encased in amber as their God-given permanent profit. (They should try farming where commodity prices remain volatile and can wipe out a grower in a season if prices collapse and often do—and sometimes do not return to previous highs for years on end.)

3.  The world may fear China, but it hates it even more, given its commercial bullying, trade mercantilism, autocracy, and military buildup. 

For all their double-dealing, the Europeans and our Asian partners will come to appreciate that someone is finally risking it all to bridle China into following global rules while deterring its expanding military.

4.  Trump might wish to pivot to a “tragic” style of discourse. He can remind the world he inherited a $3-billion-a-day interest tab on a growing $37-trillion national debt, fueled by $2-trillion budget deficits, which are all force multipliers of the effects of an annual $1-trillion trade deficit.

In other words, he did not want to lay off employees at home, slash programs, or badger and provoke our friends abroad. But at least in the past quarter-century, no president has made any progress on any deficit and debt front. So, Trump can admit he had no choice given the magnitude and variety of the red ink and America’s impending rendezvous with financial Armageddon.

5.  There may be one important taboo.

Trump might curb talk of “revenue,” as if we can return to the pre-income tax age, prior to 1913, when federal revenue came largely from tariffs.

Today’s tariffs prior to 2025 account for only $77 billion of the total annual revenue of $5.27 trillion. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest $1-3 trillion in new Trump tariff income over the next decade, with the new proposed trade policies. That might mean some $100-300 billion more per year—a fraction of our current aggregate annual income.

But far more importantly, the American people will stick with Trump if they believe we are victimized by predatory nations whose asymmetrical tariffs deliberately run up surpluses with the U.S.

They want to see the Trump trade war as an effort to obtain either similar or no tariffs with trade partners and reduce trade deficits. But if the U.S. preempts and raises higher tariffs on those with whom we now run surpluses (like the U.K. and Australia) or brags that we can become rich from tariffs (at other nations’ expense), then the administration will lose the moral high ground, and the people will not support his cause.

In sum, Trump will win this tariff spat if he sticks to “parity” and “fairness” and downplays talking about gargantuan “profits.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 17:00

Fighter Jet Falls Overboard As USS Truman Evaded Inbound Houthi Fire

A $60 million fighter jet has been "lost" at sea at a moment American naval assets under US Central Command have been conducting bombing campaigns against Yemen's Houthis since March 15.

But as far as what's being reported from the Pentagon, the jet wasn't shot out of the sky during operations - it apparently rolled off an aircraft carrier. 

The US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet "fell overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier while it was being towed on board, the Navy said in a statement on Monday," CNN reports.

US Navy file image

Initial reports strongly suggest the mishap was caused due to the Truman carrier having to take sudden evasive action to avoid inbound Houthi fire:

A US official said that initial reports from the scene indicated that the Truman made a hard turn to evade Houthi fire, which contributed to the fighter jet falling overboard. The Houthi rebel group claimed on Monday to have launched a drone and missile attack on the aircraft carrier, which is in the Red Sea as part of the US military’s major anti-Houthi operation.

A naval crew member had been able to jump off the jet at the last minute when the accident occurred as it was being towed out of the hanger bay. One sailor reportedly sustained minor injury.

The Houthis said Monday they launched a fresh attack targeting the Truman carrier, following many other such claimed attacks. This appears to be the first time the US Navy has linked damage aboard a warship with an inbound Houthi assault (albeit somewhat indirectly). A prior incident involving 'friendly fire' against a US jet also resulted in the aircraft's loss (see below).

"The F/A-18E was actively under tow in the hangar bay when the move crew lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft and tow tractor were lost overboard," a US military statement said. "Sailors towing the aircraft took immediate action to move clear of the aircraft before it fell overboard. An investigation is underway."

Suggests Truman carrier group is under Houthi fire more frequently (and with a greater impact) than is being publicly acknowledged. https://t.co/Vs2MZYRzJt

— Gregory Brew (@gbrew24) April 28, 2025

The aircraft has sunk in the Red Sea, at a loss of at least $60 million. The US Navy sought to emphasize Monday that the strike group and its air wing "remain fully mission capable."

This is the second known F-18 jet lost at sea related to the US patrolling regional waters in the wake of the Gaza War:

The Truman has repeatedly been targeted in attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. It made headlines in February when it collided with a merchant ship near Egypt; no injuries were reported. Another F/A-18 from the Truman was also “mistakenly fired” upon and shot down by the USS Gettysburg in the Red Sea in December ; both pilots ejected safely.

All of this brings up the possibility that US warships have suffered direct hits in the past, but the Pentagon has kept it quiet...

Amid news that an F/A-18E fighter jet made a hard turn to evade Houthi fire and fell overboard, worth noting: the Houthis have claimed direct hits on the USS Truman aircraft carrier, and Hezbollah’s Al-Manar aired footage it claims shows parts of the ship damaged and draped over. https://t.co/sbTUQLpoAp pic.twitter.com/OIOKpbYseS

— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) April 28, 2025

Given these 'close-calls' and mishaps due to the chaos of the fight with the Houthis - which it should be noted is military action still not approved by Congress - it is perhaps only a matter of time until a bigger, more direct clash and incident. Thankfully, no US aviators or sailors have been killed or seriously wounded so far.

Click picture, add to cart, be prepared... Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 16:40

On Elites' Batshit-Crazy Dedication To Ideas Bent On Destroying The American Republic...

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Now You Know

"Being mean or telling the truth is indistinguishable to far too many people." 

- Mike Thompson on X

Woke liberalism is exactly what Christopher Lasch predicted in The Revolt of the Elites, published in 1995 the year after his early death at 61. Lasch saw how the juvenile idealism of Boomer hippiedom would slide into the narcissistic, sado-masochistic degeneracy of open borders, drag queen story hours, Covid-19 despotism, DEI racism, showbiz Satanism, censorship, forever wars, and now, the legal insurrection of lawfare.

In doing so, Lasch also predicted the “mass formation psychosis” described by Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, spawned by a crisis of meaning and purpose in the thinking classes of Western Civ. And now you know exactly how come a place like Boston, with its concentration of “elites” in universities, computer tech, and medical research displays a batshit-crazy dedication to ideas bent on destroying our political culture: the American republic.

The word republic derives from the Latin, res publica: the public thing, the idea of a state dedicated to the common good. By “state” you can infer both a group of people in a certain place, but also the set of conditions they dwell in. You can’t have a common good without a common culture, which means a general agreement among citizens on values in that certain place — which is our country, the USA.

You can’t overstate the importance of shared ideas and values in that enterprise of being a nation, we-the-people in our particular place. 

The juvenile idealism of Boomer hippiedom wrecked the crucial idea of a common culture, and I will tell you exactly how that happened. 

Two crusades: first, the civil rights campaign, and second, stopping the War in Vietnam, defined the era.

The first of these climaxed in twin landmark legislative acts designed to abolish Jim Crow racism: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination in public places, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited unfair obstacles to voting. 

The idealism in that moment of history was extreme. 

The dominant old-school Liberal ethos displayed a sense of triumph. Its cardinal belief in human progress was validated in the new law-of-the-land. We were supposedly entering a utopia of racial harmony.

It proved to be a huge disappointment, a failure. 

In some fundamental ways, black and white America could not agree on certain values, especially language and behavior. These matters were so hypersensitive that discussing them became taboo, and when someone dared to — such as the rogue journalist Tom Wolfe in his book Radical Chic, which made fun of the cultural elites trying to socialize with the Black Panthers — he was buried in the most extreme censorious opprobrium by the elite good-thinkers of politics, academia, and the cultural media. They couldn’t believe old Tom dove clear through the Overton Window the way he did, head first.

In fact, a big segment of black America after 1965 became much more overtly separatist and oppositional, while white America became more frantically confounded and depressed by it. The result was the elite’s solution to that quandary: multiculturalism! Which basically meant: we don’t need a common culture in the USA. (We don’t need an agreement about values, language, and behavior.) Each group in America can have its own menu of these things. This accomplished two ends: it allowed criminal behavior to explode; and it allowed the elites to excuse themselves from any serious further attempts to manage the res publica. The people of the ghettos were free to do their thing; while the elites turned their full attention to Boomer careerism and Gordon Gecko style financial moneygrubbing.

As for the crusade to end the War in Vietnam, that was also an epic failure, never properly acknowledged. In fact, no one in the USA, no party or faction, ended the war. We simply lost the War in Vietnam. We just never said so, and still don’t. It ended in ignominy, with the last remnants of US officialdom in Saigon having to be rescued by helicopter from the roof of the American Embassy. The so-called “gooks” in their black pajamas beat the giant American “grunt” army with its bottomless supply of attack helicopters and napalm. Chalk up another “L” for old school Liberalism.

You can’t overstate how demoralizing this was. And so. . . the serial reenactments of our forever wars of recent decades, mostly botches and failures despite our vaunted “defense” establishment, our glorious war technology, and our fake commitment to “spreading democracy.” We simply need to prove that we can’t possibly lose wars against more primitive people — though we have lost repeatedly, the fiasco in leaving Kabul in 2021 being even more ignominious than the flight from Saigon. This can only be understood, finally, as a species of national neurosis.

As was absolutely everything about the George Floyd riots of 2020, Wokery-in-action, with the torching of cities, the looting flash-mobs, and the tearing down of statues honoring American heroes. Try understanding that as the latest chapter in civil rights egalitarianism gone awry, starting with the sanctification of the druggie thug George Floyd, who so perfectly personified the failures of multiculturalism. (What were his values? Ever ask yourself that?)

Now, try (if you can) to understand what the election of Mr. Trump represents: the drive to restore a viable American common culture, to re-set our agreement on values, to repair the broken res publica. 

And note how wildly that is resented and opposed by this corrupt and degenerate residue of idealism gone to hell (literally), this ragtag and bobtail of Democratic Party elites, consumed in their mass formation psychosis, addicted to lying and violence, and furious that they are no longer in command.

So, now you know how all this works. An American common culture matters, and if we can’t put it together, we’re sunk. This is our chance to put it together.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 16:20

US Treasury Unexpectedly Reports Sharp Drop In Debt Borrowing Needs, Rates Slide

In our preview of today's Treasury borrowing estimate release, we said that we expect the Treasury to announce $507bn in Q2 borrowing, a "figure much higher than Treasury’s estimate of $123bn in February" and entirely due to a lower starting cash balance, which as regular readers know, has collapsed due to the debt ceiling impasse that has forced the Treasury to draw down on its TGA (cash) balance as well as use various extraordinary measures.

We were off by a tiny $7 billion, $507BN vs $514BN as per the table below:

Source: US Treasury

At 3pm ET, ahead of Wednesday's Refunding statement, the Treasury published its debt borrowing estimates for calendar Q2 and Q3 and it was just as expected:

• During the April – June 2025 quarter, Treasury expects to borrow $514 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-June cash balance of $850 billion. The borrowing estimate is $391 billion higher than announced in February 2025, primarily due to the lower beginning-of-quarter cash balance and projected lower net cash flows, partially offset by lower QT (i.e. debt redemptions) to the tune of $60 billion. 

The above was completely expected, which means it is completely distorted due to the ongoing debt ceiling standoff. This is what we said earlier:

Treasury issuance in Q2 will most likely end up short of the estimate if the debt ceiling remains unresolved this quarter. Similarly, Q3 estimate will assume a normal beginning-of-quarter cash balance, but actual issuance could end up materially higher once the debt ceiling constraint is lifted during the quarter and Treasury begins to rebuild its cash balance (and if it isn't, and the US begins to default, there will be much bigger problems at hand than termed-out debt issuance).

Translation: the Treasury drew down its cash by $444BN from $850BN to $406BN, also as we said in our preview.

What we didn't say, because we didn't know it (and neither did anyone else), is what the Treasury reported as an endnote to its borrowing needs paragraph, namely that "the current quarter borrowing estimate is $53 billion lower than announced in February" which indicates that DOGE is indeed working and the US funding needs are actually declining. 

To be sure, this also should not be a huge surprise, because as we also reported just before the Treasury press release, "fiscal flows year-to-date are coming in better than expected (thank you DOGE). Gross receipts are tracking slightly above prior-year levels (adjusted for CBO forecasts for 2025), while outlays are closer to the bottom of the historical range, although sadly nowhere near enough to make a notable impression over the long-term."

And while fiscal flows could deteriorate in the coming quarters - especially if there is a sharp recession - that risk is largely viewed as relatively low, for now. Meanwhile, DB economists estimate the deficit impact from TCJA extension and other Trump proposals could be largely offset by higher tariff revenues this year, before the deficit widens out more substantially relative to the CBO baseline next year and onward.

Looking ahead to calendar Q3, or the July – September 2025 quarter, the Treasury now expects to borrow $554 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-September cash balance of $850 billion. It remains unclear if the Treasury will be able to restore cash to its "runrate" balance of $850BN, as that will depend entirely on when the debt ceiling deal will be concluded. As a reminder, earlier we highlighted the thoughts of DB's Steven Zeng who moved
his x-date estimate from late July to mid-August, indicating that there is a modest buffer, but not enough to push the debt ceiling date into Q4 without major damage.

Finally, looking at the historical data, during calendar Q1 which ended March 31, 2025 quarter, the treasury borrowed $369 billion in privately-held  net marketable debt and ended the quarter with a cash balance of $406 billion. In February 2025, Treasury estimated borrowing of $815 billion and assumed an end-of-March cash balance of $850 billion. The $446 billion difference in privately-held net market borrowing resulted primarily from the lower end-of-quarter cash balance. However, excluding the lower than assumed end-of-quarter cash balance, actual borrowing was $2 billion lower than announced in February.

In other words, DOGE is working: in Q1, US debt funding needs were $2BN less than the Treasury forecast in February, and in Q2 the Treasury is expected to need $53 billion less than it forecast 3 months ago.

This unexpected drop in pro forma debt issuance (because one way or another, the debt ceiling constraint will go away), may be the reason why yields have been sliding all day, and at 4.21% are at session lows.

Source: US Treasury

*  *  *

Support independent media. Grab a ZeroHedge hat at the ZH Store, or buy any 2 bags of coffee and receive a free ZeroHedge Tumbler!

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 15:49

China Extends Its Suspension Of US LNG Imports

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

China has not imported any liquefied natural gas from the United States since early February, data from Kpler cited by Nikkei has shown. 

The last LNG cargo that left the Gulf bound for China set off on February 6, the data showed.

The Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods, including energy products, and the broader trade war between the world’s two biggest economies could have long-term consequences on the ability of new U.S. LNG export projects to attract anchor offtake commitments, analysts have warned.

The United States was never a major supplier of LNG to Chinese buyers, but after Beijing slapped retaliatory tariffs on U.S. energy imports, the flow ended completely.

Following the tariff exchange, Chinese LNG buyers with long-term supply contracts with U.S. producers started reselling the cargos to Europe, Bloomberg reported in March, citing sources from the trading world. What’s more, Chinese traders have grown cold towards new long-term commitments for future supply from the United States, instead seeking long-term deals with gas producers in the Middle East and the Asia Pacific.

The latest news in that space was for a 15-year supply deal for liquefied natural gas from Emirati Adnoc, at a rate of 1 million metric tons annually. 

This made the contract the largest LNG supply deal for a Chinese company, ENN Natural Gas. ENN said the agreement will boost energy supply security and diversify its sourcing.

The outlook for Chinese LNG imports in general appears to be bearish, with BloombergNEF forecasting last month that high levels of gas inventories will push demand lower for the year, leading to the first annual decline in LNG imports since 2022.

The tariff push is now affecting the U.S. LNG industry in another way as well. 

President Trump has slapped tariffs on Chinese-built ships calling at U.S. ports, aiming to stir U.S. energy companies towards using U.S.-built vessels, of which there are none yet.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 15:40

Unhinged Billionaire Democrat Gov. Calls For "Mass Protests" & "Mobilization For Disruption" Against Republicans

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker — a far-left billionaire born into wealth as an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune — has called for "mass protest and mobilization for disruption" against the Republican Party.

"Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now," Pritzker told the audience at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's annual McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner on Sunday evening. 

Pritzker continued: "These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box and then punish them at the ballot box."

Pritzker calls for mass protests and disruption - “Republicans cannot know a moment of peace,” he says, swaying their portraits will one day be put in museums “reserved for tyrants and traitors” pic.twitter.com/BBBuL1Uz9O

— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) April 28, 2025

Pritzker's fiery speech last night at the 100 Club Dinner in New Hampshire strongly suggests he is considering a presidential run and testing the waters: 

• New Hampshire is a critical early primary state, and the McIntyre-Shaheen Dinner is one of the biggest Democratic Party events in the state.

• Presidential hopefuls typically use speeches there to build national visibility, court party insiders, and gauge grassroots support. 

The billionaire Democratic governor is testing the waters after socialists Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders toured the country in private jets to campaign against "oligarchy" — a nationwide touring effort largely seen as a dud.

Pritzker, who is an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, has criticized the Trump administration's deportation efforts of illegal alien criminals, as well as Elon Musk's DOGE efforts to eliminate fraud and waste from the bloated federal government. 

Publicly available data shows the wealthy Pritzker family and their connection with Hyatt.

Pritzker might also be jumping into action after President Trump issued a presidential memorandum last week to target Democratic online donation platform, ActBlue, specifically cracking down on foreign contributions in American elections.

The rudderless Democratic Party can't win with common sense, so they are doubling and tripling down on more protests funded by NGOs. As the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 15:20

Generative AI Could Be Supercharging Freight Industry Fraud

Authored by Mark LaBrosse via FreightWaves.com,

We’ve all heard how emerging AI technologies will optimize the freight industry in ways we can only dream about. But the scary truth is that AI is already fueling our nightmares—by supercharging freight theft.

Why aren’t more people talking about the dark side of AI? For one, most of the worries are centered on job loss and plagiarism. But perhaps it’s largely because it’s so good that it’s hard to detect. Regardless, it’s clear some strategies are already in play.

What’s critical to know: Even those highly attuned to scams can fall victim as generative AI more closely mimics real business experiences and enables crime syndicates to operate at scale.

This is an arms race. It will take good-guy tech fighting bad-guy tech and a coordinated human response to protect cargo from these modern cyber pirates.

Discerning real from fake is getting increasingly difficult

Crime syndicates can already evade detection and prosecution by operating outside the United States and creating new fraudulent documentation whenever they’re discovered. 

With AI in play, these bad actors are orders of magnitude more effective.

“Generative AI makes fraud an infinitely scalable and near-automatic process,” warns BAYNCORE senior consultant Dr. Richard Paul, who earned his PhD in computer simulation and artificial intelligence.

“Anyone can now set up an AI bot to scan the internet for key fragments of information,” Paul explains. “When assembled, these simple AI tools can automatically create documents, emails, and text messages that appear legitimate.”

Monitoring a freight industry awash in phishing scams, Brittany Graft, COO of fraud prevention platform Highway, shares Paul’s concern.

“If we take phishing schemes, for example, we historically have been able to detect and avoid them because the English is broken, the grammar is poor, or a logo is misplaced. AI is going to help the bad guys create an experience that so closely replicates what brokers and carriers are used to,” says Graft, “that the discerning eye will have a harder time picking up that it’s a scam.”

“Already, we’re seeing phishing attempts work because the imitations are so good,” Graft continues. “If we click some of these links, they look exactly like the legitimate site.”

And once brokers and carriers enter their credentials into illegitimate login pages and websites, their accounts—even email inboxes—are immediately compromised. From there, it’s quick work for AI agents and those using the tools to insert themselves at every level, logging into load boards, capturing freight, and creating havoc.

Complicating matters further, bad actors can use generative AI to beat the numbers game by creating tens or even hundreds of fraudulent carriers or brokers—complete with cloned sites, identical documents, and perfectly written emails. 

One, two, even fifty fraudulent carriers could be caught, and it would barely be a dent in the coming cyber threat onslaught.

“At the same time, freight brokers are being held to ever-higher standards of accountability in the court of law,” according to FreightWaves Group President, Kaylee Nix. “The situation has reached a crisis, and it’s time for the industry to come together to address this critical problem and share best practices on how to mitigate it.”

In response, the logistics industry’s largest media platform is hosting a FreightWaves Fraud Symposium on May 14 to help brokers better protect their businesses and customers.

FBI raising the alarm on deepfakes

In December 2024, the FBI issued an alert, drawing attention to how criminals are using generative AI to scam the general public. These same tactics are also being deployed against freight industry businesses and their customers.

In addition to creating fraudulent credentials, the FBI specifically cites how vocal cloning, audio bots, and generative video can falsely confirm the identity of the person you’re speaking to.

Now classic verification methods, like a simple phone call to confirm identity, can be thwarted.

“They can convince you they are from someone you know,” Paul says. “Complete with intimate details about you, in a familiar tone, even convincingly cloning a voice you know well.”

Paul adds, “The content and messaging these custom AIs generate is near-perfect, even better than legitimate actors frequently create—and thus is very hard to detect.”

Graft shares these concerns.

“We go really deep on verifying the identities of motor truck carriers and the individuals who represent them,” she says. “We collect their driver’s license, ask them to take a live photo, and verify that their digital identity matches their physical identity.”

“We’re aware of the potential for generative AI to replicate that live photo step and potentially try to brute force the system by creating multiple attempts to see which one will work,” Graft continues. “We’re bringing machine learning into that process to detect the visual signals on AI-generated photos and monitor the number of attempts.”

It’s clear—we’ll need tech solutions like this to get ahead of AI-enabled fraud.

Building trust face-to-face: The freight industry’s human response

If you’re worried about strategic cargo theft, you’re not alone. A Freight Caviar poll found that double brokering was the leading fraud concern among brokers, topping outright theft and hijacking. 

In this threat landscape, it’s highly likely that every broker and carrier in the country has already been targeted—or will be in short order. It’s the worst-kept secret in the industry. Unfortunately, victimized brokers and carriers have experienced a shocking lack of action when they’ve turned to the FMCSA. This rapidly rising fraud simply hasn’t been an agency priority.

While the federal government has yet to take meaningful action, freight brokers and carriers aren’t standing idle. They are taking their own actions, adopting new tools, and opening up dialogue.

Partly in response to this chaos, they’ve banded together and launched the Broker-Carrier Summit to deliver critical education, build relationships, and open up the lines of communication necessary to strengthen the industry and help fend off scammers.

Fighting fire with fire: The freight industry’s tech response

While emerging technologies have enabled a whole new level of criminality, brokers and carriers also leverage cutting-edge tech to protect against AI-powered scammers. In fact, tech-enabled fraud prevention tools have done more to combat this increasingly sophisticated threat than anything else out there.

Graft agrees.

“We’ll have to increasingly rely on technology to help us ascertain identities because AI is going to get better at impersonating reality,” she says.

What tools do we have at our disposal?

Digital identity wallets, like the well-established ID.me, are now taking direct aim at deepfakes, leveraging biometrics for facial verification and liveness detection. (Privacy concerns aside.)

Carrier vetting platforms, including FreightValidate and Carrier411, surface an operator’s entire history—or, in the case of many bad actors, the lack of a legitimate history.

Some carrier identity SaaS systems and plugins, like Highway, feature machine learning (ML) to monitor inbound phone calls and email inboxes, looking for various fraud signals, like spoofed phone numbers and email addresses.

As this digital war rages on, some fraud detection tools are getting into a more proactive position, now executing real-time behavioral and intent monitoring—detecting increasingly subtle patterns.

It’s a lot to take in, I realize. The growing scale of strategic freight theft—up 1,500% since 2021, according to the American Trucking Association—is enough to leave you breathless.

We’ll need every human and tech-enabled arrow in our quiver to protect our supply chain.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 15:00

Putin Declares Surprise 3-Day Ceasefire In Ukraine For WW2 Victory Day

In an unexpected development on Monday Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine on the occasion of Russia's Victory Day celebrations, coming next week.

This year's observance will mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. The Kremlin published a statement calling for the ceasefire to being at midnight on May 8, lasting until midnight on May 11. The Kremlin intends for all Russian military operations to be suspended.

This full three-day ceasefire would mark the longest such pause in fighting of the war, following on the heels of this month's 30-hour Easter truce, which largely held but saw accusations of repeat violations hurled between both sides in some locales.

Prior 'Victory Day' parade, via AP

The ceasefire is “out of humanitarian considerations," the statement indicated. "Russia believes that the Ukrainian side should follow this example," the Kremlin added.

"In the event of ceasefire violations by Ukraine, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will respond appropriately and effectively."

Moscow further said it "reaffirms its readiness for peace negotiations without preconditions, aimed at addressing the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis and engaging constructively with international partners."

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, was the first to respond on behalf of Kiev, and asked why there can't be an immediate ceasefire, if Moscow is willing to declare one for May 8.

"Why wait until May 8th? If the fire can be ceased now and since any date for 30 days — so it is real, not just for a parade," Sybiha wrote on X. "Ukraine is ready to support a lasting, durable and full ceasefire. And this is what we are constantly proposing, for at least 30 days.”

One Russian source has been quoted as pointing out this is largely about signaling the Trump administration:

“We are sending a signal to the outside world: we are peace-loving, and they [in Ukraine] are terrorists — referring, for example, to the recent killing of General Moskalik,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to talk candidly about the situation.

“Another intended recipient of this signal is the U.S. president himself: ‘Look, Mr. Trump, we are trying,’” the official added.

Trump has been increasing the pressure not only on Zelensky but on Russia too, warning both sides that US patience will run out, and urging the forging of a ceasefire within days.

But in reality neither side has budged, given also just on Monday FM Lavrov set forth maximalist demands to end the war: full recognition of Russian control over the four territories, 'deNazification', and a pledge for Ukraine to never joint NATO, along with protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.

New on MoA:
Russia Rejects Trump's Freeze Of The War In Ukrainehttps://t.co/Adz8e0loFS pic.twitter.com/Gxk7JTtvZ5

— Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) April 28, 2025

However, Trump has lately suggested he thinks Zelensky is ready to give up Crimea, but there's been no official confirmation of this as of yet. The Ukrainian leader would face immense pushback from many of his own military commanders if he formally relinquishes territory.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 14:20

Trump Pinpoints Biden Operative Who Most Of All "Should Be In Jail..."

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

President Trump has called for the person who was operating the autopen that signed many documents, and pardons, while Joe Biden was in office to be jailed.

In a Truth Social post Sunday, Trump wrote “Hopefully ACTBLUE, the Democrats ILLEGAL SCAM used to raise money, including from not allowed “foreign contributions,” is being looked at by authorities. The Dems only know how to win by CHEATING, something which they do better than any group or party in history.”

He added that “now, with their terrible policies and candidates, and with people like Crooked Adam Schiff, who demanded a full Pardon from Sleepy Joe, leading the way, it is almost impossible to reach their money goals. The USA is wise to these scoundrels and crooks.”

Executive Orders were signed that Biden himself had no recollection of signing.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has talked about this at length.
It doesn't seem like Biden was actually in control of the Executive Branch ... which is concerning, to say the least.

— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) April 27, 2025

“Also, why did the Auto Pen give Schiff a Pardon?” Trump continued, adding “Biden knew nothing about it. Who operated the Auto Pen? That is the biggest question being asked in D.C. They almost destroyed our Country. They should all be in jail!!!”

The autopen scandal is a big deal. You can't have someone basically forging the President's signature on important documents.

— Red Moon (@LSDSurvivor) April 27, 2025

They weren't elected the President of the United States, and these people committed crimes that abused the elderly dementia victim Joe Biden's name plate.

— AC Cibock (@CibockAc67066) April 27, 2025

Last month, Trump declared that all of the pardons issued by ‘Joe Biden’ in the final days of his fake Presidency are void because he didn’t sign any of them.

He added that anyone who receive a pardon should not rest assured that they are immune from investigation, adding “In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden.”

“He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime,” Trump further urged.

The autopen issue was revealed in findings from The Oversight Project.

The organisation released further analysis finding that Biden’s pardons for family members, Anthony Fauci, General Milley, J6 Committee members, and Gerald Lundergan were all autopenned.

The Oversight Project also found that two different autopens were used, pointing out that Neera Tanden was the White House Staff Secretary when Biden autopenned pardons from a golf course in the US Virgin Islands.

You were White House Staff Secretary when Biden autopenned pardons from the golf course in USVI.

This you? https://t.co/26z9C6cE7m pic.twitter.com/7btD2RTX0N

— Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) March 17, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/28/2025 - 14:00