Zero Hedge

West Wanted To Provoke Russia Into Using Nukes In Ukraine, Putin Claims

West Wanted To Provoke Russia Into Using Nukes In Ukraine, Putin Claims

Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again made more ultra-provocative remarks aimed at the West concerning Russia's nuclear doctrine.

In a fresh interview with a Russian broadcaster that aired Sunday Putin claimed that the West "wanted to provoke us, wanted to force us to make mistakes" on a strategic level.

He described, in an unprecedented allegation, that Ukraine's Western supporters in NATO were essentially trying to bait Moscow into deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Putin emphasized that Russia exercised restraint in this matter.

Via Associated Press

"They wanted to provoke us, wanted us to make mistakes," the Russian leader asserted in the Rossiya-1 interview. "And there was no need to use the weapons that you mentioned. I hope that it won’t be necessary," he added, referencing the interviewer's question which mentioned nuclear arms.

"We have enough capabilities and means to finish what we started in 2022 with the result that Russia needs," Putin concluded. He emphasized that Russia is able to carry through with its military goals without resorting to nuclear arms.

No evidence was given for this charge; however, it's been a constant theme of the Kremlin to accuse Zelensky's NATO backers of seeking constant escalation of the conflict, and the avoidance of a peace settlement (which would result in Russian control over eastern Ukraine and Crimea).

RT also commented in featuring the fresh statements, "Russia has repeatedly confirmed its stance that the use of nuclear weapons will be its last choice. In November, Putin has approved Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine."

The West became alarmed when earlier in the Ukraine war Putin ordered tactical nuclear warheads to be stationed in Belarus. These are reportedly overseen by Russian officers in Belarus, and with President Lukashenko's permission.

Starting in late September, Russia had unveiled its expanded nuclear doctrine which proposed a lowered threshold for Russian strategic forces' use of nukes.

This was due to the "emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies" - amid fiercer drone and missile attacks coming across the border from Ukraine.

Also, Moscow has said US-produced F-16s which are now being flowing by Ukraine's air force are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov previously described that Russia's nuclear doctrine changes mean that "the Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression using conventional weapons against it and/or the Republic of Belarus." 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 02:45

Poland Slams Germany's Plans To Tighten Border Controls

Poland Slams Germany's Plans To Tighten Border Controls

Via Remix News,

Germany and Poland have been at peace for decades, yet the border between the two is still fraught, with this new dispute arising largely due to migration. Germany’s Friedrich Merz, expected to become the country’s new chancellor in just a few days, has announced that his country would tighten the external border on the first day of his chancellorship.

In response, Poland is warning Germany against this move, with Warsaw fearing that these tightened controls could make Polish commuters’ lives very difficult, reduce commerce, and potentially even increase migration pressure on Poland, according to German newspaper Welt.

Polish diplomat Jan Tombinski told Politico magazine that the current controls are already a “problem for daily border traffic and the functioning of the EU internal market. We therefore do not want to see any tightening of the border controls.”

The Polish government “naturally stands by our commitment to protecting Europe’s external borders—especially with Russia and Belarus,” the diplomat said. He also emphasized that “free movement within the European Schengen area (should) be maintained.”

Many migrants entering Poland make their way to Germany, which has become a problem for the German government. Polish conservatives accuse the ruling left-liberal government of quietly taking back thousands of these migrants from Germany, and in some cases, German police have been accused of “dumping” migrants back on Polish territory.

Tombinski, hinting that Poland may be willing to accept more of these migrants, said that his country will accept its “obligations under EU legislation,” including the new CEAS asylum policy.

The likely future head of the German chancellery, Thorsten Frei, told Spiegel: “We will intensify border controls and turn back those who have no right to enter Germany.” He said the federal police being supported at the border is “an essential point. It will have a short-term effect.”

In regard to the medium-term solution, Frei said he wants to regulate migration across the European continent so “that, on the one hand, we live up to our humanitarian responsibility and, on the other hand, prevent our societies from being overwhelmed,”

Designated German interior minister, Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), said that new measures will be used to combat illegal immigration. “There is no doubt about my determination.” said Dobrindt, however, “borders will not be closed, but they will be more tightly controlled.”

The CDU, which fears the growing popularity of the AfD, played a huge role in the current immigration crisis when Angela Merkel first allowed over 1 million migrants to enter the country in 2015 and 2016, but now the party is attempting to talk tough on the issue.

“We have strong polarization in the country,” Dobrindt stated. “We have to reduce it. We can only achieve this if we get illegal migration under control.”

The Green Party is already trashing the move, stating that it is illegal and contrary to European law.

“I’m curious to see how long it will take this time for the courts to overturn this,” warned a Green Party member speaking to Welt.

Merz is headed to meet Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Warsaw next week, where the issue will likely be discussed further.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 02:00

"Total F***ing Disgrace": Ex-Obama Officials Slam Biden's Gaza Policies

"Total F***ing Disgrace": Ex-Obama Officials Slam Biden's Gaza Policies

Via Middle East Eye

Former senior Barack Obama administration officials criticised former US president Joe Biden’s Gaza policies on a foreign policy podcast on Thursday, sparking reactions on social media. Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, both former senior Obama administration officials, co-host the foreign policy podcast, Pod Save the World. 

According to a video from the podcast shared by the Drop Site News, Rhodes, who served as deputy national security advisor, says: “Israel doesn’t want to end the war … if they were willing to end the war, they would get the hostages out. The idea that they need to continue to fight the war against Hamas in Gaza - I’m sorry, there’s no security need to do it. You’re just talking about an already traumatized people, including a lot of injured people, who are being bombed in tents with no food and medicine.”

Via AFP

Vietor, former national security council spokesperson, then says: “What a total fucking disgrace the Biden administration’s policy on Gaza was… Loyalty to Netanyahu blinded him to the carnage, the total immorality of the policy, and US complicity in that policy.” 

The excerpts from the podcast have created interest on social media this week, with many people saying that these former US administration officials speak only when it is “too late”.

Many on social media reacted to the excerpts from the podcast with anger, saying that thousands of people have been talking about the atrocities done by Israel and “the real reasons why Israel does not want to end the war”.

Social media users also pointed out the hypocrisy of these former US administration officials who have always “sided with the Zionists” but are now speaking up. 

In early January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to continue Israel's war on Gaza, in part as a bid to stop far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from exiting his coalition. Netanyahu also faces the wrath of the electorate and pending corruption cases against him once the war in Gaza is over.

Israel also allegedly unilaterally violated the Gaza ceasefire in February after refusing to proceed to the second phase, which would have secured the release of all remaining captives. Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected offers from Hamas for their release. 

Many have argued that if the Netanyahu government had genuinely prioritized bringing the hostages home, a deal could have been reached long ago. But that would mean ending the war, without which Netanyahu’s coalition would collapse. 

The ceasefire in Gaza has effectively collapsed as it transitions from one phase focused on the release of Israeli captives, which is politically palatable in Israel, to the messier question of who will govern the Gaza Strip.

An investigative report aired by Israel’s Channel 13 has alleged that the Biden administration knowingly permitted Israel’s military campaign in Gaza to persist well beyond any defined strategic objective. According to the report, senior US officials privately acknowledged the offensive had devolved into “killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying”.

Getty Images

The investigation also claims the US was complicit in political interference, diplomatic obfuscation, and the derailment of peace efforts. Drop Site News shared the translations of the findings on social media. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 23:20

Trump To Slap Foreign Films With 100% Tariff; All Eyes On Netflix

Trump To Slap Foreign Films With 100% Tariff; All Eyes On Netflix

Think Trump's tariffs are only for products, think again. On Sunday evening, President Donald Trump announced that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on films produced overseas, extending his restrictive trade policies on US imports to the entertainment sector for the first time.

In a post on Truth Social, the American leader said he was directing the Commerce Department and his trade representative to “immediately begin the process of instituting” the levy on foreign movies. “WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” Trump continued.

Films made by American studios are often shot in the United Kingdom and Canada, including this year’s highest-grossing film, “A Minecraft Movie.” Some of summer’s biggest productions including “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning” and “Jurassic World Rebirth” were also made primarily or entirely outside the U.S.

As Bloomberg notes, it was not clear how such a tariff would work, nor how foreign movies would be valued for tariff collection purposes. Many films from Hollywood studios involve global production, including shooting locations in foreign countries and post-production work that can be done anywhere in the world.

As WSJ notes, Hollywood studio executives - were given no prior warning about the tariff plan and no information about how it might work - scrambled Sunday night to determine what the announcement would mean for their business.

If other countries imposed reciprocal tariffs, it could devastate Hollywood studios, since most big-budget event films earn the majority of their revenue overseas, and especially China.

“We’re on it,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted on X on Sunday.

It is unclear how such a tariff would work because movies aren’t physical goods that move through ports like most items subject to tariffs. The Trump administration would need to determine how to value a movie in order to apply the tariffs, as well as what the threshold would be to classify it as an import.

The action may be a retaliation for China's decision last month to “moderately reduce” the number of Hollywood films allowed in the country, which in turn was retaliation for Trump’s aggressive tariffs. The China Film Administration said in April that the restrictions would “inevitably further reduce the domestic audience’s favorability toward American films”, an outcome which Trump - who has a very unfavorable view of Hollywood himself - seems to appreciate at the time.

While the US film industry is the most influential in the world, foreign films have seen a rise in popularity in recent years, drawing award-winning acclaim. The South-Korean thriller Parasite, for instance, won four Academy Awards, including the coveted Best Picture category in 2020. The film and TV industry supported some 2.3 million jobs in the US in 2023, according to the Motion Picture Association trade group. The association didn’t respond to a request for comment on Trump’s tariffs made outside of regular working hours.

London in particular has become a thriving hub for Hollywood productions, because of its tax incentives, extensive infrastructure including large soundstages, and English-speaking crews. Disney’s Marvel Studios is shooting a pair of upcoming Avengers sequels there.

Film and TV work in the US has contracted in recent years for a number of reasons. Media companies have cut back on spending in an attempt to boost their profits as they shifted from traditional TV to streaming services. Those streaming services are expanding globally and looking to produce more films for foreign markets.

Spending on film and TV production in the US fell 28% between 2021 and 2024, according to data from the research firm ProdPro, although a large part of that has to do with the backlash among normal Americans against Hollywood's fake wokeness. Meanwhile, pther countries, such as Canada, Australia, and the UK, are seeing an increase in film and TV production, due in part to attractive tax incentives and lower production costs.

Movie and TV filming in the greater Los Angeles area declined 22% in the first quarter, reflecting California’s continued loss of business to other areas.

In January, Trump appointed actors Mel Gibson, Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone to be special ambassadors to Hollywood with the goal of boosting US jobs. Voight is expected to introduce some ideas shortly, including incentives for businesses.

“These three very talented people will be my eyes and ears, and I will get done what they suggest,” he said.

It wasn't immediately clear which companies would be hurt the most from Trump's decision, however names such as Netflix will likely be closely scrutinized as a growing number of movies made by the world's largest streaming service are now produced offshore to lower costs.

Netflix has been the best performing megatech names (a founding member of the now defunct FAANG acronym), although a sharp spike in production costs could results in a sizable drop in the stock.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 22:52

Watch: China Hit By Worker Protests Over Unpaid Wages, Factory Shutdowns Amid Trump Tariffs

Watch: China Hit By Worker Protests Over Unpaid Wages, Factory Shutdowns Amid Trump Tariffs

President Donald Trump’s hard-hitting tariffs on China appear to be taking a toll, disrupting Chinese factories and sparking worker protests over unpaid wages.

As we noted late last month based on reporting by the Financial Times, factories across all of China have begun shutting down and furloughing workers "as the trade war unleashed by US President Donald Trump dries up orders for products ranging from jeans to home appliances."

With most Chinese goods now facing US duties of at least 145%, or simply lacking the raw materials needed to process goods and sent them onward to the US, Chinese factory owners told the FT that American customers have cancelled or suspended orders, forcing them to cut production.

With about 15% of all Chinese exports last year going to the US...

... and with China increasingly transshipping billions of goods to the US using such (formerly) untariffed venues such as Vietnam... 

.... it is not all surprising that as China's largest trading partner halts most imports, pain would be pervasive. And it is: in interviews with the Financial Times and via dozens of social media posts, workers shared pictures of quiet production lines or factory suspension notices, highlighting how the tariffs are starting to bite.

Now, according to Radio Free Asia, protests are erupting across China - from Hunan’s Dao County to Sichuan’s Suining City and Inner Mongolia’s Tongliao. Hundreds of enraged workers are storming the streets, blasting unpaid wages and wrongful firings as factories collapse under the crushing force of President Trump’s relentless U.S. tariffs, the news outlet said.

One video shared to X showed angry workers shouting “Strike! Strike!” while protesting outside the Shangda Electronics’ factory in Suining city on Sunday.

Radio Free Asia also reported:

Last week, on April 24, hundreds of workers of Guangxin Sports Goods in Dao county went on strike after the company’s factory was shut down without paying employees their compensation or their social security benefits.Workers at the company’s factory, which produces sports protective gear and related accessories, said Guangxin Sports unfairly dismissed more than 100 female employees, aged over 50 years, in September 2024 on the grounds of “reaching retirement age,” without paying them their wages or guiding them on retirement procedures.

When Radio Free Asia contacted Guangxin for a comment, a male employee at the company immediately hung up the phone on hearing the word “reporter.” The Dao County Labor and Social Security Bureau told RFA that “Guangxin still has dozens of employees operating.”Elsewhere in Inner Mongolia, many construction workers gathered on the rooftops of Jincan Royal Garden Community in Tongliao city on April 25 where they threatened to jump off the building if they were not paid the back wages they were due, another video posted on the same X account showed.

Of note, Goldman Sachs warned last month that Trump’s tariffs put roughly 16 million jobs in China at risk, saying that the increases will “significantly weigh on the Chinese economy.” In April, China’s manufacturing activity plunged more than expected to a 16-month low, entering into contractionary territory, with the official purchasing managers’ index sinking to 49.0. “The sharp drop in the PMIs likely overstates the impact of tariffs due to negative sentiment effects, but it still suggests that China’s economy is coming under pressure as external demand cools,” said Zichun Huang, China economist at Capital Economics, wrote.

After Trump shocked the world by imposing a 145% tariff on Chinese imports, Beijing countered with 125% duties on U.S. goods. Trump claims negotiations with Chinese officials are underway, but China’s Foreign Ministry has rejected these assertions, dismissing them as “unfounded.” The White House has defended the tariffs as a necessary measure to protect U.S. workers and address China’s trade practices, though economists warn of rising consumer prices and potential economic disruptions. Bloomberg News reported this week that China has quietly lifted $40 billion in retaliatory tariffs on 131 U.S. import items, including pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals.

In a Sunday interview with Fox News, Trump said that he will not lower tariffs on China to entice Beijing to negotiate.

"They said today they want to talk. Look, China, and I don't like this. I'm not happy about this. China's getting killed right now," Trump told host NBC's "Meet The Press" host Kristen Welker. "They're getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing. Their unemployment is going through the roof. I'm not looking to do that to China now. At the same time, I'm not looking to have China make hundreds of billions of dollars and build more ships and more Army tanks and more airplanes."

"You're not dropping the tariffs against China to get them to the negotiating table?" Welker asked.

"No,” the president replied. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 22:45

Trump Orders Alcatraz Reopened For "America's Most Ruthless And Violent Offenders"

Trump Orders Alcatraz Reopened For "America's Most Ruthless And Violent Offenders"

President Trump on Sunday said that he's ordering the reopening of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary - the historic prison located in the middle of the San Francisco Bay that closed over six decades ago.

"For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering. When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm," Trump said on Truth Social.

"That’s the way it’s supposed to be. No longer will we tolerate these Serial Offenders who spread filth, bloodshed, and mayhem on our streets. That is why, today, I am directing the Bureau of Prisons, together with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ, to house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders," he continued.

Located 1.25 miles offshore from San Francisco, Alcatraz Island was purchased in 1846 for $5,000 - after which President Fillmore ordered it turned into a military reservation in 1850. In 1859 it was used to house soldiers convicted of crimes, transitioning into the official military prison for the US Army's Department of the Pacific.

In 1933 the US Department of Justice assumed control of the complex and designated Alcatraz a federal prison the next year - where it housed notorious criminals for the next 29 years, including Al Capone, Doc Barker, and Machine Gun Kelly. It was shuttered in 1963 over high operational costs and building corrosion caused by half a century of being located on an island exposed to saltwater and salt-laden air.

"Both the institution and the men confined within its walls reflect our society during this era," reads the National Park Service's webpage about the prison, also known as The Rock.

According to Trump, the reopening of Alcatraz is going to "serve as a symbol of Law, Order and JUSTICE."

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 21:35

Supreme Court's Ketanji Jackson Says Criticizing Judges Is 'Attack On Democracy'

Supreme Court's Ketanji Jackson Says Criticizing Judges Is 'Attack On Democracy'

People who criticize activist judges (who often refuse to recuse themselves amid wide-ranging conflicts of interest while ruling against Donald Trump's agenda) are 'attacking democracy,' according to US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks in Birmingham, Ala., on Sept. 15, 2023. Butch Dill - Pool/Getty Images

On May 1, Jackson - who was apparently referring to recent comments by Donald Trump, though not specifically naming him - told an audience at the First Circuit Judicial Conference in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, "The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity."

"The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law," the Biden appointee continued, referring to "the elephant in the room."

As the Epoch Times notes further, several federal judges have said the Trump administration has not complied with various court orders on federal spending, the firing of government employees, and foreign aid. The administration denies that it disobeyed the orders and has criticized judges who have halted its policy actions, in some cases calling for the judges to be impeached.

Jackson’s comments followed a public statement by Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 after Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who was confirmed in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.

Boasberg issued orders forbidding the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act and then said the Trump administration disobeyed those orders. The Trump administration denies it flouted the orders and said some deportation flights had already left U.S. airspace before the initial written order was issued.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Later that month, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution in the House to impeach Boasberg.

“We cannot stand by while activist judges who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected President of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people,” Biggs said in a statement on March 31.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled on May 15 to hear oral arguments on lower court orders blocking Trump’s policy of limiting birthright citizenship for certain individuals.

Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

In the court filings, the Department of Justice did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, although it acknowledged that the birthright citizenship question raises “important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.”

Instead, the department made what it called a “modest” request to contain the coverage of court injunctions within the parties in the lawsuits.

“While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person ... in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” it wrote.

Nationwide injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy for the entire country. Such injunctions issued by judges have become controversial in recent years as they have become increasingly common.

On April 9, the House passed a bill on a 219–213 vote in an attempt to curb the barrage of district court rulings that have blocked or delayed Trump’s executive actions on multiple fronts.

Wielding national injunctions in that way “undermines the system of government,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said on the House floor on April 8.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 20:25

Chinese-US Imports Being Diverted To Canada Amid Trade War

Chinese-US Imports Being Diverted To Canada Amid Trade War

Many Chinese exports bound for the U.S. have been rerouted to Canada to skirt tariffs as the trade war continues to escalate between the U.S. and many of its international partners, Truenorth wire reports.

This means that, just like Europe which is facing a deflationary tsunami as Chinese dumping is unleashed on its now largest trading partner, Canadian consumers will soon have an abundance of discount goods as warehouse storage reaches its capacity.

As much as 50% of consignments from China were diverted to Canada in mid-April as many industries look to stockpile their inventory north of the border instead of in the US. 

Third-party sellers for companies such as Amazon and Walmart have also begun to hoard goods in Canada so that their items may be held in a country where they won’t face any immediate payment of duties.

The long term strategy of these companies is to hope that they will outlast the Trump administration’s tariffs, some of which are currently as high as 145%, while warehousing their products just north of the world's largest source of demand for products and services: the US consumer.

The US has long been the world’s largest consumer market, taking in roughly 15% of global imports last year. This was largely due to its previously low tariffs, which averaged around 3.3%, the lowest among all developed nations.  That, however, is now over.

One year ago, realizing that China would quietly decimate its own domestic producers, Canada slapped hefty tariffs on imports of Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminum, positioning itself with allies including the U.S. to protect domestic manufacturing. Then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland unveiled a range of measures she said are aimed at leveling the playing field for Canada’s EV industry and steel and aluminum producers to protect them from unfair competition from Chinese companies.

More recently, in late March, China retaliated by imposing 100% tariffs on Canadian agircultural products, including rapeseed oil, oil cakes, and peas. Canada is among the world's top producers of canola -- a rapeseed crop that is used to make cooking oil, animal feed and biodiesel fuel -- and China has historically been one of its largest customers.

"New tariffs from China on Canadian canola oil and meal will have a devastating impact on canola farmers and the broader value chain at a time of increased trade and geopolitical uncertainty," said Chris Davison, President of the Canola Council of Canada. "We urge the federal government to immediately engage with China, with a view to resolving this issue," he said.

While the jury is still out on how Canada's EV industry is doing, it is certain that unless Ottawa imposes similar tariffs on all other imports from China, its local manufacturing base will be decimate in the coming weeks as China unleashes a historic dumping wave in the Canadian market, sparking all-out deflation.

Separately, China is now importing record amounts of Canadian crude oil after cutting its purchases of U.S. oil by nearly 90%. The Vancouver port saw an unprecedented 7.3 million barrels shipped to China in March and that number is only likely to grow.

While China still primarily imports oil from the Middle East and Russia, Canadian oil provides a source of relatively cheap crude that is high in sulfur, which can be refined using some of China’s most-advanced equipment.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 19:15

Policies, Deals And Vibes

Policies, Deals And Vibes

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

U.S. stocks finished the week up around 3% (which was in line with markets globally). 10-year Treasury yields finished 7 bps higher, while the 2-year Treasury gyrated from 3.75% to 3.6% and all the way back to 3.83% to finish the week. Much of the move is because we had some clarity on topics discussed in last weekend’s Deep Breaths, and Dealpalooza prior to that.

Before we update where we stand, we just wanted to highlight this month’s Around the World, where Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group focuses on Israel/Hamas, U.S. and Iran, Ukraine and Russia, tensions with China, and fighting in the Congo. The last one brings back memories of Academy’s version of We Didn’t Start the Fire from October 2023, which actually fits in the “vibes” section quite well.

Policies

There are three policies that matter the most right now:

  • Tariffs. Market is pricing in ongoing reductions and delays in implementation. Hoping/waiting for deals. They may come, but it is possible that the theme of “tariffs as a source of revenue” retakes the lead in the constantly evolving game of what tariffs are meant to do. DOGE hasn’t delivered the savings expected, and with budget negotiations coming up, we might see a shift in focus from the administration (which had been clearly backtracking on the tariffs and global trade war since April 2nd). We may start to see the impact on shipping, freight, and most importantly, store shelves, in the coming weeks as well as some hints about who is expected to pay the tab for the tariffs. Those potential effects do not seem fully priced in here (and might be avoided with deals).
     
  • Federal Reserve Interest Rate Policy. After Friday’s jobs report (Instant Reaction) it would be shocking if the Fed cut rates (market is pricing in 3%). I think the report was likely flawed primarily due to the enormous impact of the birth/death model on the report (and the ongoing issue of low survey response rates). Could the Fed be a little more dovish, pushing the June meeting from a 35% chance to something higher? That would make some sense, as June is probably my base case. But in the end, expect the Fed to stand still and focus on jobs, selective inflation data (GDP Core PCE, ISM Prices Paid), and policy uncertainty backing their decision. Expect some angry responses from the administration which can easily select some inflation measures that show a different story and can insist that the policies are all working to lower inflation.
     
  • The 2026 Budget. This will become increasingly important in the coming days and weeks, as it will become actual legislation as opposed to executive orders. On the surface it is “heavy on austerity.” Unlike in Trump 1.0 (and pretty much in every other administration which all claimed to be somewhat cautious on the deficit but then spent on everything), there is austerity here. That should help interest rates if it looks like the budget can progress without the austerity measures being dramatically reduced (always a possibility in D.C.). It will add some fears about the health of the economy which has become dependent (even overly dependent) on government spending. While Tax Cuts are included, only additional or new tax cuts will really be stimulative. The extension of existing cuts put in place during Trump 1.0 won’t be a boost to the economy since virtually no one is adjusting their spending on the assumption that those won’t be extended. If they don’t get them extended, it will be a big hit, but extending them will not be a big stimulus – so they need to get some new measures incorporated. Early in the process, but negotiations will start to move markets in the coming weeks.
Dealz

So far, no official outlines of any deal have been announced.

  • India still seems to be a front runner for first deal. We will be looking to see how aggressive the terms of any deal are in order to get a sense of likely future deals as well as their impact. Larger trading partners are the key here and markets will likely ignore deals with smaller or low per capita GDP nations.
     
  • Potential talks with China helped turn weak futures on Thursday night into strength that only grew after the payroll data hit the tape. A deal with China is key and the market seems optimistic about progress. I am increasingly concerned that the optimism is becoming too great, versus what is likely. I could be wrong, but the headlines coming out of D.C. seem to be going above and beyond the call of duty to make everything seem positive on that front. That might be the case, but it doesn’t ring completely true to me.
     
  • Ukraine Deal. The deal was finally signed. One thing missing from the U.S. perspective is that the money/profits will be used towards paying for future aid and are not being used to pay for aid already given. That had been a feature of the deal that did not get incorporated. It seems highly likely that any country negotiating with the U.S. will notice that important shift and negotiate harder than they would have otherwise. With no troops on the ground and presumably a lag between getting this deal signed and any serious presence in the region trying to extract these resources, there is plenty of “opportunity” for Russia to continue to attack. Yes, once American companies and workers are there, it will be a deterrent, but that could take some time (especially since I have yet to find a commodity person overly excited about the deal – it could be that I haven’t looked hard enough, or it could be that this is similar to what is in Greenland and the commercial viability is limited). It will be interesting to see how the deal plays out over time, but for now, it is difficult to get too excited about it from either side’s perspectives.

Expect more deal headlines, and hopefully, the outline of an actual deal. I do think that we need to be cautious about “China deal progress” headlines. While I’m not sure what to make of it, the fact that Japan seemed to threaten Treasury holding reductions was also interesting (not in a good way).

Vibes

The U.S. has now apparently impacted elections in Canada and Australia. Not sure what that means, but it is curious to think about as we all try to figure out what the world will look like in the coming years. I do think it is another warning about the American Brand (which will affect sales of American products overseas, and not in a good way).

Israel ramping up in Gaza and the Houthis launching successful attacks after being pounded by the U.S. for the past few weeks is also concerning. A nuclear deal with Iran would be great, but much like the situation between Russia/Ukraine, the risk of more violence in the region seems to be increasing even as talks are ongoing.

China is interfering with the Philippines’ territorial claims. It seems crazy that things could escalate over reefs and shoals, but crazier things have happened.

While I look at a lot of data, I think I can safely say, in my 30+ years in the business, I have never looked at the Taiwan dollar – well, now I have.

An extreme move. It has had other large moves (though nothing quite as aggressive), but the fact that it is happening in the midst of a growing trade war, and heightened tensions, makes me nervous.

India and Pakistan, which wasn’t high on our risk radar last week, is becoming increasingly so.

The People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) is something I fear we will all learn a lot more about this year. It completely fits into the Gray Zone of warfare that Academy has been harping on (cyber, cable cutting, etc.). This fleet could be used to disrupt trade in and around the South China Sea. It could be used as a way to increase the chances of an “accident” occurring that risks escalation.

Lots of weird things going on that, at least for me, create this unpleasant vibe (almost like when the sky turns a weird color and the wind dies down right before the storms rages in intensity).

Bottom Line

Rates and risk assets will continue to be headline driven. Policies and deals will take their turns driving markets.

On the bright side, the pivot from less aggression on tariffs, the indications of some cooling with China, and getting the budget going are all positives (I’d like to see more aggressive measures taken to help the chip industry, biotech, and the processing/refining of commodities).

But with the Fed unlikely to help, a lot has already been priced in.

We’ve argued since the start of Trump 1.0, that Trump is willing to pivot and shift his direction. But that also tends to mean that whenever things are really good, be cautious (like in January), and whenever things are really bad, they can change (like in April).

I wish we had more clarity on the direction of policy and deals and weren’t surrounded by all of these “vibes,” but we are. I’m less optimistic than at the start of last week (markets moved and more is being priced in), but have to remain nimble as the headlines could come out in any direction (I’m leaning towards the negative, but am by no means convinced) and we have to respect what seems like a complete lack of liquidity out there.

With everyone trading the same headlines, the moves are abnormally large, and I just don’t see that changing yet.
Guess that is a long way of saying that I am “neutral” with a slight negative bias on risk and bonds.

I do think that everyone, and every corporation, will have to remain slightly cautious in their decisions which will put pressure on the economy, especially if we start seeing real signs of disruption from the tariffs that have already been implemented.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 18:40

'Egregious': Senate DOGE Caucus Leader Uncovers Federal Employees Cashing Taxpayer Checks While Doing Union Work

'Egregious': Senate DOGE Caucus Leader Uncovers Federal Employees Cashing Taxpayer Checks While Doing Union Work

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), chairwoman of the Senate DOGE Caucus, slammed the U.S. government this week for shelling out taxpayer dollars to employees who are busy doing union work instead of serving the American people.

Sen. Joni Ernst discusses DOGE

In fiscal year 2019, the Office of Personnel Management reported that federal employees spent 2.6 million hours on union activities, costing taxpayers $135 million. The Biden administration temporarily halted OPM's data reporting, but the Trump administration resumed it after a request from Ernst.

“Through the course of the past 10 years and studying government efficiency and fraud, waste, and abuse, we have uncovered the issue of taxpayer-funded union time. It’s where we see federal employees—and they can legally do this right now—work during their regular workday, and do that as taxpayer-funded dollars going to their paycheck, but they’re not actually working on their duties as a federal employee,” Enrst said during a panel discussion on government bureaucracy at the The Hill & Valley Forum this week. “What they’re doing is working for their union, maybe to increase their wages or increase their benefits, on the taxpayers’ dime."

Ernst also sounded off on "egregious" examples of federal employee misconduct. “Federal employees who were caught, you know, one taking a bubble bath when he was on a Zoom call with other employees—he got ratted out, of course. Those that are on the golf course, we get those all the time,” senator said. Even more shocking cases included a HUD employee who was in prison for driving drunk during work hours, unbeknownst to her supervisor, and a remote worker who ran a full-time business while his mother answered his work emails.

“Somehow her supervisor did not know she was in jail,” she explained about the HUD employee, adding, “And one of the most egregious was one federal employee that was working remotely that had started his own business, full-time business, and during the work hours, his mother was responding to his emails.”

Last month, Ernst introduced the Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Transparency Act to revealed just how much federal employee unions are subsidized by tax dollars after the Biden administration paused the public release of the figures. Rep. Scott Franklin (R-FL) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

"Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for empty federal office buildings or for federal employees to unionize on the clock. It’s just common sense — Americans deserve a full, detailed account of how bureaucrats use both their official time and office space for union-related work,” said Rep. Franklin. “This is exactly the kind of waste and abuse my friend, Senator Joni Ernst, and I are fighting to root out alongside the Trump Administration. The President was right to order federal employees back to the office —but if taxpayers are footing the bill, workers must be accountable for how they spend their official time."

As Ernst and her DOGE caucus colleagues continue in exposing waste and abuse across the federal government, the success of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting initiative hinges on whether Congress will approve President Donald Trump’s budget, which aims to make these reductions permanent.

In March, President Donald Trump threw his support behind a rescission package to implement major spending cuts spearheaded by DOGE. “It would be great. I think we’re going to do that,” Trump told reporters.

According to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) obtained by the New York Post, the administration is pushing two proposals to slash $9.3 billion. “The first includes a rescission of $8.3 billion in wasteful foreign aid spending (out of $22 billion) that does not expire in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The second is a separate rescission of all Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — which funds the politically biased public radio and public television system,” the Post said.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 18:05

Escobar: China Steps Up Its Game In The Global AI Race

Escobar: China Steps Up Its Game In The Global AI Race

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Late next month, Huawei will be testing its new powerful AI processor, the Ascend 910 D, even as by early May the previous 910C will start to be mass-delivered to scores of Chinese tech companies.

These serious breakthroughs are the next chapter of Huawei’s drive to counter Nvidia’s global monopoly in GPUs. The Ascend 910D is supposed to be more powerful than Nvidia’s extremely popular H100.

Huawei is pulling no punches in its race to manufacture a new generation of processors. Huawei has collaborated with SMIC – China’s largest semiconductor foundry – to apply Deep Ultraviolet Lithography (DUV) on what was previously only possible on EUV (Extreme Ultra-Violet technology). Once again, Huawei and SMIC defied the proverbial American “experts” with creative engineering solutions.

Huawei arrived at fabricating 5nm chips with DUV even as the process is more expensive than with EUV. If Huawei had access to EUV they would be already manufacturing 2-3nm chips. That will come, in short time, as both China and Russia, under permanent US high-tech blockade, must by all means develop their own EUV technology.

Shanghai geeks are convinced that Huawei will switch on 6G networksbefore the end of the decade. Their current breathless drive is not just aimed at the smartphone front – where Huawei is peerless; the new Huawei Mate 70 Pro + is by far the absolute top smartphone in the world, running on Harmony OS. Huawei is looking at cloud computing, AI and enterprise servers – and to become no less than the core player in the AI infrastructure race.

Ditching Any Reliance on American Technology

Earlier this month, Huawei introduced the CloudMatrix 384, a system connecting 384 Ascend 910C chips. The tech word in Shanghai is that this configuration, under certain conditions, and of course consuming much more power, already outperforms Nvidia’s flagship rack system – which is powered by 72 Blackwell chips.

Meanwhile, Huawei’s Kirin X chip is targeting the PC market, offering stiff competition to Apple, AMD, Intel and Qualcom while Harmony OS plus removes the necessity of using US software such as Microsoft and Android.

Shanghai geeks swear that China essentially doesn’t need to beat Nvidia or other US chips developers. After all, China already has the largest consumer market in the world - by volume and by value. If a parallel tech universe is the likely result of the Trump Tariff Tizzy (TTT), so be it. China already controls over 60% of the global gadget consumer market.

Kirin X may not - yet - match the power of Nvidia’s H100 GPUs. But Huawei chips are already the real deal for every Chinese company which is following the new Beijing-defined direction to reduce any reliance on American technology.

All of the above naturally brings us to the enormous AI elephant in the (digital) room: Nvidia.

A recent book, The Thinking Machine: Jensen Huang, Nvidia, and The World’s Most Coveted Microchip, is quite helpful to track not only the personal story of CEO superstar Huang, a Taiwanese who played the American Dream to the hilt and became a tech multi-billionaire, but Nvidia’s enviable tech accomplishments.

Huang does not interpret AI as emergent machine superintelligence, and firmly dismisses any direct analogy to biology. For this all-round pragmatist, AI is merely software – running on hardware that his company sells for a fortune.

Still, Nvidia has ventured into virgin territory way beyond the American biz-tech Valhalla, complete with holding the most valuable stock on the planet: arguably, when it comes to AI, Nvidia unveiled a new phase of evolution.

It’s crucial to understand how Huang sees China. It is indeed a key market for his AI chips – and he wants to keep selling them in droves. Trump’s tariffs though make sure that won’t happen.

And that’s what moved Huang to ditch his proverbial leather jackets and don a crisp business suit for a strategic visit to Beijing, where he affirmed the sacred importance of the Chinese market, whatever the new Trump-dictated gimmicks.

By 2022, the China market represented 26% of Nvidia’s business; this year, it has fallen to 13%, because of euphemistic “technology export controls”.

The problem is the US government, already by 2022, under the previous automatic pen administration, had blocked sales to China of advanced A100 and H100 chips. Nvidia started selling modified versions – and even after the ban chips continued to arrive in China. By June 2023, it was easy to find A100s for double their price in the black market in Shenzhen.

Huang is convinced that “no AI should be able to learn without a human in the loop” – even as he admitted, two years ago, that “reasoning capability is two or three years out”. Translation: according to Huang AI will start thinking for itself within the next few months.

Even as Nvidia prepares to invest billions of dollars to build AI supercomputers in Texas, the Chinese essentially are not losing any sleep on “thinking AI”: their focus is extremely practical, to conquer not only the Chinese market but also the supply chains of most of Eurasia.

The US National Security Council has concluded that it’s too dangerous for China to buy Nvidia’s high-end chips, even the H20 – designed for the Chinese market. Huawei, anyway, already produces chips somewhat comparable to the H20.

Huang is losing his sleep because, essentially, Nvidia is losing the immense Chinese market to Huawei – with Trump’s direct input. Nvidia has tens of thousands of H20s specially designed for China which they simply cannot sell. Each chip cost between $12,000 to $20,000.

How China Is Opening a Digital “Pandora’s Box”

Huawei’s new drive is yet another example of Chinese will capable of staring down any challenge – based on indigenous talent, tech expertise and national pride. The record, even before Trump 1.0 sanctions, shows that Huawei does eat massive uphill battles for breakfast. In fact Ascend in many aspects was ahead of Nvidia as early as in 2019 – and that's why two different US administrations banned it.

China is already light years ahead of the US on chip research. Chinese universities amass most places in the global Top Ten for published papers on semiconductors and on citations – a distinction shared, among others, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (number one), Tsinghua University (one of China’s top two universities), the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (number four), and Nanjing, Zhejiang and Pekin Universities.

Two weeks ago in Shanghai I first heard that Huawei would catch up with US semiconductor giants in maximum two years. Now, after the announcement of the Ascend 910D, the buzz shifted to only one year for China to overtake Nvidia and develop better lithography machines than the ones currently produced by ASML.

And the debate is fast switching to how far Huawei will be able to go within the next 2 to 3 years.

In several aspects we are already in the early stages of a US-China tech decoupling. For years Nvidia has dominated the AI hardware space. Their GPUS are the brains behind most contemporary advanced AI. The H100 chip is the gold/platinum standard for AI infrastructure worldwide. Nvidia’s chips had huge demand from Chinese tech giants – Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Bytedance.

Soon that may not be the case – and that goes way beyond Nvidia’s certified loss of market share in China. China is now all out focused on building a successful, self-sufficient AI hardware ecosystem. The coup de grace will be to restrict the export of all rare earth minerals to the US. Huaweii then will pull up in no time.

Everyone remembers how DeepSeek R1 wiped out over $1 trillion from Wall Street only three months ago. DeepSeek R2 will be released soon; training was a whopping 97% cheaper than OpenAI. And training happened on Huawei’s Ascend. No Nvidia.

Quantum Bird, a world-class physicist formerly with the CERN in Geneva, puts everything in much needed context. He stresses how indigenous chip development by China – and in a near future, Russia and probably India – is “multi-faceted; what we are observing are the initial stages of a redefinition of the notion of recognizing patterns and machine learning, technologies that are popularly referred to as ‘AI’ by the media.”

Nvidia chips, Qantum Bird remarks, are indeed “computational beasts”, but they work better around “processing models and workloads typical of ‘AI’ models developed by Western scientists.” DeepSeek’s development, on the other hand, showed a transgression of established models: “The possibilities opened for performance leaps are huge, even using relatively modest hardware, with alternative approaches based on advanced math and different calculus flows.”

In a nutshell: “This is the Pandora’s box that Nvidia now fears the Chinese may have opened”. And that totally ties in with Huang’s red alert, prompting his visit to Beijing.

We may be heading indeed towards a serious tech decoupling. Or as Quantum Bird frames it: “A technological and scientific divergence medium and long-term. If the architectures that emerge from these developments are incompatible when it comes to their usage on specific ‘AI’ models, Nvidia will lose its global monopoly and will become just a company reduced to a corporate/scientific Western niche.”

Even as Huawei, from its privileged base in the Chinese market, will go on to win most markets across the Global Majority – from BRICS to BRI.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 14:00

DOJ Settles Wrongful Death Suit Filed By Jan 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt's Family

DOJ Settles Wrongful Death Suit Filed By Jan 6 Rioter Ashli Babbitt's Family

The Department of Justice has reached a settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, the Jan 6 rioter who was unjustifiably shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer's pistol shot, despite her being unarmed and posing no threat of significant harm to anyone in the vicinity. The news comes weeks after President Trump promised to look into the Department of Justice's effort to defeat the claim. As of a few months ago, the case had been expected to reach trial phase in July. 

On Friday, lawyers representing the DOJ and Babbitt's family notified a Washington DC judge that they'd reached an agreement in principle. When filing suit early last year, Babbitt's surviving loved ones sought $30 million in compensation for her being killed by officer Michael Byrd. The value of the pending settlement has not yet been revealed, and family attorneys say precise details are still being worked out. Beyond a potential monetary reward, there's also the question of to what extent the federal government will acknowledge Byrd's wrongdoing. Babbitt family lawyer Robert Sticht said he expects a signed agreement within three weeks. 

Byrd killed then-35-year-old Babbitt as she attempted to climb through a broken window that was part of an interior doorway close to the House chamber. Though the unarmed, 5'2", 115-pound Babbitt posed no imminent threat of inflicting death or serious injury as she awkwardly navigated the narrow space -- with a furniture barricade still ahead of her --  Boyd opted against using any type of nonlethal force, and instead shot her from an ambush position, killing her with a bullet that perforated her trachea and lung. 

In a softball interview, Byrd told NBC News, "I showed the utmost courage on January 6…I know that day I saved countless lives.” To the contrary, he's the only person who took a life that day. The family's 32-page complaint alleged Byrd's weapon-handling violated Capitol Police Policy, saying that he:

  • Took it out of his holster before any proportionate threat had been presented
  • Didn't hold the weapon at "low ready," and proceeded to point it at a variety of people who, like Babbitt, posed no immediate threat
  • Put his finger inside the trigger guard, “tapping it on and off the trigger for at least 14 seconds before he shot and killed Ashli.” A finger shouldn't be put inside the guard until the officer has decided to fire the weapon 

While it's been little-publicized by major media or leftists who screech that Babbitt "got what she deserved," Byrd had some serious disciplinary issues before Jan. 6, with some of the incidents involving the irresponsible handling and even firing of his weapon.  Despite the damning facts of the case, leftists in and out of media have treated Byrd as a hero for fending off a nonexistent "insurrection." The left's reaction to the wrongful killing demonstrated a glaring double-standard on cop misconduct. 

"I showed the utmost courage on January 6…I know that day I saved countless lives," Capitol Police Officer Michael Boyd told NBC News

Byrd was not only officially cleared of wrongdoing, but promoted to the rank of captain in 2023. In a March interview, Newsmax's Greg Kelly asked Trump how he felt about Byrd still being on duty, with a pay raise and higher authority. The president replied: 

"I think it's a disgrace. I'm going to take a look at it. I'm going to look at that, too. His reputation was ... I won't even say; let's find out about his reputation. We're going to find out. But I watched that and I saw that. And by the way, she was killed, but nobody else was killed."

He also vowed to look into the DOJ's decision to fight Babbitt's family in court: 

"Well, I'll look into that. I mean, you're just telling me that for the first time, I haven't heard that. I'm a big fan of Ashli Babbitt. And Ashli Babbitt was a really good person who was a big MAGA fan, Trump fan. And she was innocently standing there; they even say trying to sort of hold back the crowd. And a man did something to her that was unthinkable when he shot her. And I think it's a disgrace. I'm going to look into that. I did not know that."

Hours after being inaugurated in January, Trump granted clemency to some 1,600 Americans who'd either been convicted or charged out of their actions on Jan 6. The move combined both full pardons and sentence commutations. In March, Trump entertained the possibility of a compensation fund for all of them. 

Cover your ears: the left is about to blow its collective stack in irrational indignation that the government will compensate the family of a dead woman who was clearly on the receiving end of wildly excessive force.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 13:25

New GLP-1 Survey Finds Users Cutting Restaurant Spend

New GLP-1 Survey Finds Users Cutting Restaurant Spend

Last week's GLP-1 headlines included Novo Nordisk partnering with telehealth platforms Hims & Hers, LifeMD, and Ro to offer its weight-loss drug Wegovy directly to consumers at substantial discounts, aiming to improve affordability and access. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly reported robust demand for its rival anti-obesity medication, Mounjaro.

We've occasionally highlighted key trends in the GLP-1 space and consumer sentiment around these drugs. The latest consumer pulse comes from a new survey conducted by financial website FinanceBuzz.

FinanceBuzz surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults earlier this year and asked whether they have used GLP-1 drugs and for what purpose. What they found is that more than half of the GLP-1 users (52%) dialed back their spending at restaurants. About 37% reduced spending on alcohol, and about 29% reduced supermarket spending. 

The survey provided a snapshot of top concerns about GLP-1 drugs from users and potential users...

About 20% of Americans have tried GLP-1s.

Most Americans don't plan on starting GLP-1s. However, many are considering the need to lose weight. 

In a separate survey, a KFF Health Tracking Poll of 1,500 adult participants in late April found that about 6% of U.S. adults, or over 15 million people, were taking GLP-1s. 

One key finding of the KFF poll was that 43% were diagnosed with diabetes by a doctor, 25% were diagnosed with heart disease, and a doctor told 22% that they were overweight or obese. 

The big news of affordability this past week—since that's on everyone's minds who wants to take GLP-1s—is the Wegovy addition to Hims & Hers at a very affordable price. 

What's also affordable is eating healthy and exercising. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 09:55

White House: Changing A Minor's Gender Is "Child Abuse" And "Medical Malpractice"

White House: Changing A Minor's Gender Is "Child Abuse" And "Medical Malpractice"

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller announced Thursday that the Trump administration considers it “child abuse” to be change the gender of a minor and that health professionals carrying out the procedures are opening themselves up to charges of medical malpractice.

Speaking to the press, Miller stated “The Department of Justice is coordinating with state and local law enforcement to fight child abuse in our school systems.”

“It is child abuse to change a child’s gender, particularly if you do not inform the parents,” Miller further emphasised, adding “So, if a five-year-old or a six-year-old or a seven-year-old goes to school and the teacher tries to turn the boy into a girl or the girl into a boy, that is child abuse, and this administration is treating that as child abuse, and it is a gross violation of parental rights.”

“This also includes the administration’s message to our hospital systems that they cannot and will not be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to perform chemical castrations and sexual mutilations of children,” Miller noted.

He added that “Castration surgeries, castration drugs, sterilization treatments of children are barbaric. They violate all sound medical ethics. They are completely unwarranted. They harm children for life, irreversibly. It is child torture. It is child abuse. It is medical malpractice.”

“So the Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of Bobby Kennedy, as well as the Department of Justice and other departments of this government, are making clear to our medical providers and our hospital systems that you cannot use taxpayer dollars to perform these barbaric procedures on America’s children,” Miller urged.

He further outlined that “HHS has systematically updated all and eliminated all of the junk, fake science that was produced under the Biden administration promoting sex changes on children, promoting the idea of sterilizing children.”

“That’s been cleaned out, that’s been removed, and new guidance is being issued to doctors and hospitals advising them that they cannot perform these horrifying procedures, these irreversible procedures, on our nation’s children,” he added.

Leftists in the comments of the post are claiming en mass that there are no cases of this happening anywhere in the US, and that Miller is making it all up. Yet, there have been accounts in the news, and a deep dive suggests this is happening in places.

Miller also noted that “This administration ended the Biden administration’s policy and the Democrat Party’s policy of allowing men into women’s sports, men into women’s spaces.”

“We are using every single legal and financial tool we have, at President Trump’s direction, to make it clear that schools and universities are—and will—lose federal funds, as you’ve seen in Maine, if you allow men to invade women’s sports and women’s spaces. And this applies to our whole K-12 system,” Miller added.

*  *  *

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 Sun, 05/04/2025 - 09:20

Saudi Arabia Executes 100th Prisoner So Far This Year - Majority Are For Drug Offenses

Saudi Arabia Executes 100th Prisoner So Far This Year - Majority Are For Drug Offenses

Via Middle East Eye

Saudi Arabia has executed two people on terrorism-related charges, bringing the total number of executions in the kingdom this year to at least 100, according to an AFP tally.

The Ministry of Interior said the two Saudis were executed for their involvement in acts of "terrorism", including joining a "terrorist organization" and attending training camps abroad, where they learned to make explosives.

Leaked video/screenshot shows execution in Saudi Arabia, YouTube

"After being referred to the competent court, a decision was issued confirming the charges against them and ordering their execution as punishment," it added.

Of the 100 people executed this year, 59 were convicted of drug-related offences, including 43 foreigners, according to AFP.

"While Saudi Arabia positions itself as a positive diplomatic actor, its international partners are showing they are willing to turn a blind eye to its flagrant human rights violations," Jeed Basyouni of the rights group Reprieve US said in a statement.

"The result? 100+ executions since January, more than half of them for non-lethal drug offenses."

After a moratorium of approximately three years, Saudi authorities resumed executions for drug-related crimes at the end of 2022.

According to a previous AFP tally, at least 338 people were executed last year, compared to 170 in 2023 - far higher than the previous record of 196 in 2022.

Saudi human rights defenders and lawyers have accused Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of overseeing a crackdown on freedom of expression since he came to power.

This includes the introduction of a counterterrorism law that Human Rights Watch has criticized for its broad definition of terrorism.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with Saudi FM Prince Faisal bin Farhan at the State Department in Washington, on April 9, 2025. AFP

At least 1,115 executions have been carried out under the crown prince's rule between June 21, 2017 and October 9, 2024.

Additionally, according to Reprieve, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly lied to the UN about its use of the death penalty.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 08:10

Hope For The UK? Reform Party Dominates Uniparty In Sweeping Local Elections

Hope For The UK? Reform Party Dominates Uniparty In Sweeping Local Elections

In July of 2024, the Labour Party and Kier Starmer won general elections with the British public seeking to punish conservatives for not following through on their Brexit promises and stopping mass open immigration.  One of the primary reasons why the Brexit movement was a success was because it attempted to address growing concerns among UK natives that their ties to the European Union had trapped them in a prison of progressive politics including carbon taxation, declining personal freedom, economic crisis and mass immigration from the third world. 

Starmer would take his narrow win and go on to expand the very same policies that UK citizens voted against.  He helped to flood Britain with migrants, primarily from Islamic regions, and as the public took to the internet and the streets to complain, he enforced draconian censorship laws to silence them. 

It's amazing how quickly things can change in less than a year. In 2024, the Reform Party won around 14% of the vote share.  This week in local elections they won 30% of the vote share, crushing Labour and the Conservatives and winning 677 council seats.

Labour lost 187 seats and Conservatives were stunned with a 674 seat loss. Nigel Farage has hailed Reform UK's gains in Thursday's elections as "unprecedented" and "the end of two-party politics".  The party also won two mayoral races and added a fifth MP to its ranks in the Runcorn. 

UK voters are sending a clear message to the political elites that their progressive agenda will no longer be tolerated.

Local council elections are held every four years (though not all seats come up for a vote at the same time), and are designed to fill local government posts dealing with issues from housing to potholes.  The Reform Party upset in council seats is a sign that Farage is on his way to becoming Prime Minister. 

Conservatives and Labour, long considered a "Uniparty" alliance that never actually changes the system while they pretend to be opposed, has consistently referred to Reform as an "extremist" or "far-right" organization (much like MAGA in the US).  Writing in The Times, Keir Starmer argued that the lesson learned from the elections was not that the country needed "ideological zealotry", but that the government needs to "crank up the pace on giving people the country they are crying out for..."

Labour members claim that their losses are due to the sluggish economy and cuts to social welfare policies, such as cuts in winter fuel payments to pensioners.  In other words, their solution is to buy off voters with more benefits.  They continue to pretend as if the mass immigration problem, high taxes and censorship are not factors.

Nigel Farage, though opposed to mass immigration programs, has not come out to fully endorse deportations, which is what helped give Donald Trump his landslide White House win in the US.  Some critics say Farage does not go far enough in his solutions for saving the country.  Only time will tell, but there are certainly visible cracks in the armor of the uniparty system and this may portend much needed changes in the UK and perhaps the rest of Europe in the near future. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 07:35

Five Benefits That The US Would Reap From Coercing Ukraine Into More Concessions To Russia

Five Benefits That The US Would Reap From Coercing Ukraine Into More Concessions To Russia

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Failure to do so risks another “forever war”, an Afghan-like debacle for the US, or World War III.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent reaffirmation of his country’s goals in the Ukrainian Conflict signal that the Kremlin regards the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan as unacceptable. Ukraine must withdraw from the entirety of the disputed territories, at least partially demilitarize and denazify, and Western troops mustn’t deploy there afterwards for Russia to agree to a ceasefire. 

Here are the five benefits that the US would reap from coercing Ukraine into these and other concessions to Russia:

1. Swiftly & Sustainably End The Ukrainian Conflict

Another “forever war” or Afghan-like debacle would be averted upon swiftly ending the conflict via these means, which would lead to a sustainable peace since Russia’s security interests would be ensured. The Trump Administration thus wouldn’t have to worry about getting dragged into another quagmire via mission creep if peace talks collapse or having its reputation tarnished by a defeat. Coercing Ukraine into the required compromises for ending the conflict would be an effective and face-saving way to move on.

2. Shock NATO Into Spending 5% Of GDP On Defense

NATO’s Western European members are expected to procrastinate on Trump’s demand that they spend 5% of GDP on defense unless they’re shocked by the proposed US-coerced Ukrainian concessions. They’d jolt them into prioritizing this without further delay due to their paranoid fear of a Russian invasion. This would in turn lead to Western Europe finally shouldering more burdens for its own security and correspondingly complementing its Central European members’ existing efforts in this regard.

3. Turn Central Europe Into The EU’s Center Of Gravity

In that scenario, the Central European countries’ role as NATO’s frontline states would be reinforced, which could lead to them becoming the EU’s center of gravity if the US helps the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” implement its dual military-economic integration projects. These anti-Russian countries are expected to cling even closer to the US after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, thus enabling the US to drive a wedge between Western Europe and Russia afterwards, thereby perpetuating US influence over the EU.

4. Enter Into A “No-Limits” Resource Partnership With Russia

Expanding the nascent Russian-US “New Détente” into a “no-limits” resource partnership in the post-conflict era would lead to them jointly managing the global oil and gas industries while also unlocking valuable rare earth opportunities. Potential US ownership of Russia’s Nord Stream and trans-Ukrainian gas pipelines to Europe could further perpetuate US influence over the bloc as well as deter Russia from violating the Ukrainian peace deal. The economic and strategic benefits would truly be unprecedented.

5. Accelerate The “Pivot (Back) To Asia” For Containing China

Quickly extricating the US from the financial and military commitments that the Ukrainian Conflict entails would accelerate its “Pivot (back) to Asia” for containing China and comprehensively add to the pressure being put upon the People’s Republic by Trump’s global trade war/“economic revolution”. This outcome would advance the US’ grand strategic goal of reshaping the emerging Multipolar World Order more to its liking within the realistic limits posed by the global systemic transition.

These five benefits would be lost if the US doesn’t soon coerce Ukraine into more concessions to Russia. 

The conflict could continue indefinitely in that event, during which time the US might either largely abandon Ukraine and thus cede its influence over the EU while accepting an historic defeat or punish Russia by “escalating to de-escalate” at the risk of World War III, neither of which is preferable.

The best way to end what Trump rightly described as “Biden’s war” is therefore through the proposed means.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/04/2025 - 07:00

Americans Value Health & Family Above Everything

Americans Value Health & Family Above Everything

Amid all the distractions offered by smartphones, social media and the constant stream of information we’re all inundated with these days, it’s sometimes hard to focus on the truly important things in life. 

But what are those things? 

While the answer to that question is highly individual, Statista's Felix Richter reports that there are some core values that unite many people.

Americans Value Health & Family Above Everything | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to Statista Consumer Insights, Americans largely agree on family and health being among the most important things in life, while making money, personal growth and a career are also high on the list of thing Americans value most in life.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/03/2025 - 22:45

Nuclear Deterrence Requires Only Dozens Of Warheads - Not Thousands

Nuclear Deterrence Requires Only Dozens Of Warheads - Not Thousands

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend nearly $1 trillion on its nuclear arsenal — with the actual cost certain to run even higher than that. The huge outlay is driven in part by the sheer size of America’s doomsday-weapon collection, which comprises an estimated 3,700 deployed or stockpiled nuclear warheads, not counting another 1,500 that are purportedly “retired” and awaiting dismantlement.

Though Americans have been conditioned to think it’s reasonable to maintain such a large arsenal, the idea that thousands of warheads are required to deter nuclear aggression rests on flawed thinking about the nature of deterrence. While defense contractors and military bureaucracies enriched by the status quo will tell you otherwise, the truth is that an adequate arsenal of nuclear warheads can be measured not in thousands, but mere dozens.

During the Cold War, two successive doctrines guided nuclear war strategy. First came Massive Retaliation, which rested on the threat of a disproportionate, devastating nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear aggression. That gave way to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in which any nuclear attack was guaranteed to escalate to the point where both countries are completely destroyed.

Both doctrines shared a cornerstone premise -- that effective, credible deterrence requires the capability to completely destroy the opposing country. That’s the wrong yardstick. Deterrence is achieved by the ability to impose an intolerable level of retaliatory destruction on a country that’s contemplating a nuclear first-strike -- a threshold far lower than border-to-border annihilation.

For perspective, in World War II, Russia and China each suffered roughly 20 million total civilian and military deaths. The same unfathomable fatality counts that spanned several years in World War II can be achieved in mere minutes with only 20 modern nuclear warheads -- 15 striking Russian cities and only five hitting the more densely-populated cities of China, according to calculations by University of Maryland professor Steve Fetter.

If the United States chose to opt against the morally-repugnant targeting of population centers with little military significance (that is, cities similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki), a second-strike could instead vaporize the enemy’s economy, targeting power generation, refinery complexes and vital ports (though even these nuclear attacks would inflict civilian death on a huge scale, not only from the blasts but also the economic destruction). Here, Fetter calculates 100 detonations would suffice.

The fatalities and destruction associated with either of those two targeting scenarios that pursue some level of societal devastation -- so-called “countervalue targeting” -- are well beyond what any foreign ruler would consider tolerable, suggesting that the anticipation of even one or two second-strike warheads would be sufficient to deter an adversary from striking first.

Note, this approach to deterrence, which focuses on the power to retaliate and inflict “intolerable” destruction, does not require adversaries with high moral character. It matters little whether an opposing ruler regards his citizens with loving empathy or depraved indifference. Rulers are ultimately driven by self-interest -- and no leader can expect his hold on power to survive a nuclear gamble that brings about the vaporization of cities or irreplaceable economic assets in his own country. (Indeed, there may be no “power” to hold on to.) As political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote in a milestone 1990 paper that promoted the peacekeeping value of nuclear weapons while making the case that small arsenals are sufficient, “Rulers like to continue to rule.”

Given these realities of deterrence, the size of an adversary’s nuclear arsenal has no bearing on the appropriate size of America’s. “So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless,” wrote Waltz. “If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant…beyond a certain level of capability, additional forces provide no additional coverage for one party and pose no additional threat to others.”

In contrast to countervalue targeting, “counterforce targeting” aims to inflict military defeat by destroying a large, diverse array of military targets, such as missile silos, bomber and submarine bases, command and control facilities, and conventional forces.

Counterforce-targeting is what led both America and Russia to amass far larger arsenals than that of any other nuclear-armed country. Beyond the elevated general risk associated with securing, transporting, maintaining and training with these large volumes of warheads, the mutual targeting of nuclear weapon delivery platforms pursuant to counterforce doctrine encourages first strikes -- launched out fear that an opponent’s first strike would render one’s own weapons unusable.

Aside from the heightened risk of miscalculations during crises and accidental explosions during peace, America’s outsized nuclear arsenal threatens national security in a way that has nothing to do with mushroom clouds -- by nudging the United States further along its path to financial catastrophe. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen warned in 2010, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” His statement came when the national debt was only about a third of its current $36.8 trillion.

Of the trillion dollars to be spent on nuclear weapons through 2034, $460 billion will be spent on a “modernization” program that encompasses warheads, missiles and silos and submarines. Of that, the Pentagon expects to spend $120 billion to replace the current generation of land-based, Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinel ICBMs made by Northrop Grumman. Last year, the Air Force notified Congress that the Sentinel program would cost 37% more than the previous estimate, and take two years longer to implement. If the history of Pentagon weapon procurement is any guide, we can count on more such announcements in the coming years.

Considered in the context of second-strike deterrence, the Sentinel program is particularly exasperating. Given their fixed locations in satellite-observable silos, land-based ICBMs represent the most vulnerable leg in the nuclear-arms triad, which also includes bombers and submarine-launched missiles. Put another way, it’s the leg that does the least to convince a nuclear adversary that the United States has a guaranteed second-strike capacity -- which is the only strike capacity that matters. At the same time, land-based ICBMs are a magnet for enemy missiles, with one study suggesting nuclear strikes on US ICBMs could kill 300 million people across North America. 

Hiding in plain sight: Land-based ICBMs -- like this one near Monarch, Montana -- comprise the most vulnerable leg in the nuclear triad (via Moose Radio 94.7)

In February, President Trump expressed dismay at the ongoing development of new nukes:

“There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

Trump’s remarks came as he expressed interest in opening new arms control negotiations with Russia and China. That’s a noble pursuit, but when a second-strike capability is all the United States needs for defense, a case can be made for blazing a unilateral path toward rational and frugal nuclear deterrence -- particularly when you consider the dangerously destabilizing nature of a huge arsenal built for counterforce targeting.

“There is no compelling military or strategic rationale for linking the size of U.S. nuclear forces to those of other nuclear weapon states,” wrote Fetter. “As long as the United States has enough survivable warheads to deter and respond to nuclear attacks, it should not matter how many weapons other countries have.” That’s not to discount the risk-reducing value of a far smaller Russian arsenal.

Ballistic missile submarines -- like the USS West Virginia -- do the most to assure an enemy of America's second-strike capability (US Navy)

Alas, any move toward a dramatically slimmer US nuclear warhead inventory will face fierce opposition from those who benefit from today’s emphasis on numerical superiority. The status quo is a prime example of the principle of “concentrated benefits and diffused costs.” Via both taxation and inflation, the $1 trillion cost of sustaining and upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years will be spread across hundreds of millions of Americans, including many who haven’t been born yet. Shuffled into the $90 trillion the US government is projected to spend over that same period, the cost flies under the radar of everyday Americans, precluding major political opposition.

The financial benefits, on the other hand, accrue to a relatively small number of stakeholders, from arms manufacturers to Pentagon and Department of Energy bureaucracies. The enjoyment of concentrated benefits incentivizes these stakeholders to fiercely defend the status quo, deploying a formidable influence arsenal that includes lobbyists, campaign contributions, the promises of jobs in 50 states and hundreds of congressional districts, and financial sponsorship of national security think tanks that steer policy.

While those who are enriched by America’s excessive nuclear arsenal have the upper hand, the status quo is so dangerous and wasteful that Americans of all political leanings should unite in challenging it.

Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more and subscribe for free at starkrealities.substack.com  

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge

* * *

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/03/2025 - 22:10

Turkish Jets Engaged In Electronic Jamming Operations Against Israel Over Syria

Turkish Jets Engaged In Electronic Jamming Operations Against Israel Over Syria

Both Israel and Turkey have long been the major regional players with a "hidden hand" in Syria - with both at times covertly leading the drive to weaken and overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

And now the scramble for the spoils have been on since Assad's exiting the country to Moscow on December 8. Israeli tanks and ground units have moved up toward Damascus from the South, and Turkey's "Syrian National Army" proxy fighters have been active in Aleppo province and in northern Syria.

Turkey has also reportedly been involved with the new Syrian government under al-Qaeda linked Jolani (Sharaa), establishing anti-air defense infrastructure at Syrian bases, particularly near Palmyra in the center of the country.

Illustrative, via EPA

But Israel has since December been busy bombing Syrian military sites and equipment out of existence. Syria once had to most advanced (Russian-supplied) air defense missile systems in the whole region, but now these batteries have been destroyed.

Further, there's no longer a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to man or operate sophisticated systems. This means Israel's air force has had free reign over Syria's skies. But Tel Aviv increasingly has a rival in Syria: Turkey's military.

With sectarian fighting this week resulting in dozens of deaths among Syria's Druze community, Israel has been sending 'warning' strikes, including near the presidential palace in Damascus.

Regional reports say Turkey is at the same time quietly engaging in anti-Israel operations:

Turkish fighter jets reportedly issued electronic warning signals and engaged in jamming operations late on Friday in an effort to deter Israeli aircraft operating in Syrian airspace, amid a new wave of airstrikes across the country.

The rare move came as Israeli warplanes launched attacks on multiple sites, including in the Hama and Damascus regions, drawing renewed scrutiny over ongoing violations of Syrian sovereignty.

"Turkish fighter jets issued warning signals and jammed Israeli aircraft during Tel Aviv's latest deadly bombing campaign in Syria," The New Arab writes.

The Netanyahu government has already been strongly warning Turkey against getting more deeply involved in Syria, but clearly Jolani and his HTS rulers have found their biggest backer in Erdogan.

There does seem to be confirmation coming from Israeli sources on the Turkish jamming story:

The Israeli Broadcasting Authority confirmed the Turkish interference, reporting that "Turkish aircraft are sending warning signals and jamming Israeli fighter jets to make them leave Syrian airspace."

Turkish officials have voiced increasing frustration at Israel's expanding operations in Syria, which Ankara regards as a threat to its interests and to regional stability.

Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned against Israeli strikes late this week. "In this context, Israel must put an end to its airstrikes, which harm efforts toward Syria’s unity and territorial integrity," a statement said.

As for Israel's support to the Druze religious minority, many Syrians see this as but a pretext for Israeli invasion and occupation of the south - where most Druze happen to be. The ruling HTS is made up of hardline Sunnis, who consider Druze to be 'apostates' and 'heretics' - given their outlier and esoteric beliefs. 

Turkey, on the other side, has long supported Sunni interests in Syria. Erdogan has long been accused of 'neo-Ottoman' policies, also as Turkey wages war against the Kurds of northern Syria.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/03/2025 - 20:25

Pages