Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Wednesday:
• At 7:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

• At 8:30 AM, Retail sales for March is scheduled to be released.  The consensus is for a 1.3% increase in retail sales. 

• At 9:15 AM, The Fed will release Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for March. The consensus is for a 0.3% decrease in Industrial Production, and for Capacity Utilization to decrease to 77.9%.

• At 10:00 AM, The April NAHB homebuilder survey. The consensus is for a reading of 38, down from 39.  Any number below 50 indicates that more builders view sales conditions as poor than good.

• At 1:30 PM, Speech, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Economic Outlook, At the Economic Club of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Waste Of The Day: Fight Continues Over California's $20 Billion Water Tunnel

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Topline: Local residents and environmental advocates have banded together to oppose California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed $20 billion water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, with various groups arguing the project will “make our town uninhabitable”   and have “terrible consequences” for wildlife. 

Key facts: California officials have debated building a tunnel for decades. The current proposal will store rainwater to prepare for potential droughts caused by climate change, and is expected to provide $38 billion in benefits: an increased water supply that would be better protected from natural disasters. In April, the State Water Resources Control Board began holding hearings to decide on granting permits for the project.

Opposition has been fierce. The Associated Press said that the tunnel is “one of the most controversial projects in recent memory.”

Some are afraid of the impact on salmon and other fish in the river delta, which CalMatters says “has collapsed from a once-thriving ecosystem into an aquatic ICU of endangered species and harmful algal blooms.” 

State Sen. Jerry McNerney is worried about the cost. He told CalMatters he believes the tunnel will actually cost $40 billion once they factor in the costs to mitigate the environmental impacts.

Construction will be based in the town of Hood, with a population of just 271. One resident told CalMatters, “This will make our town uninhabitable. There will be so much heavy equipment and traffic and people going through town that the locals will be driven out.”

California plans to address that problem by throwing even more money at it. The tunnel’s price tag includes $200 million in grants to help local communities recover from the impacts of the construction project. 

The tunnel would still not entirely offset the expected effects of climate change. The state believes its water supply will decrease by 22% by 2070, while the tunnel will provide a 17% boost, according to the AP.

There also may be other, cheaper ways to boost the state’s water supply. A new report from the University of California, Los Angeles found that California recycles just 22% of its wastewater. Nearby Nevada recycles 85%, and Arizona recycles 52%.

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com.

Critical quote: Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta, told Governing.com that “The tunnel is like dropping a bomb on the north delta … There is a body of science out there that shows that you can’t divert more than 25 percent of the fresh water from an estuary and have it survive. And we have been diverting 50 percent and 60 percent regularly now.”

Summary: A $20 billion price tag is shocking for any project, let alone one that not everyone agrees will actually benefit California.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 19:15

Congress Must Act To Stop 'Supreme Judicial Commanders' Of The Military

Authored by Elaine Donnelly via RealClearPolitics,

Former Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer recently admitted that he is responsible for confirming 235 “progressive” judges who are “ruling against Trump time after time.”  Activist judges are Schumer’s Plan B.

Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make policy for the military. But as things stand now, unelected, unaccountable federal judges are overruling President Trump’s Executive Orders and arrogating to themselves power to run the armed forces.

Unless the 119th Congress intervenes, President Joe Biden’s radical policies regarding transgender people in the military will continue indefinitely.

Self-Appointed “Supreme Judicial Commanders” Take Charge

President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order #14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” is one of several calling for an undistracted focus on military warrior ethos, not “political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.” 

Executive #14168 (January 20) defined biological reality – differentiating “sex” from subjective “gender identity” and proclaiming the existence of two immutable sexes, male and female. This EO also prohibited male access to women’s sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities and discontinued use of inaccurate invented pronouns and bureaucratic markers that reflect subjective gender identity instead of biological sex.

The reality-based principles stated above, applied to DoD policies regarding persons having a history of gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender, logically justified orders to revoke President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders and Directives accommodating persons with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender in the military.

Trump’s EOs and directives restored gender dysphoria to the DoD list of physical and psychological conditions that affect eligibility to serve, and ended Biden-era mandates and subsidies for irreversible treatments and surgeries for “transitioning” purposes that attempt to change sex.

Trump’s Executive Orders also mandated respectful treatment for persons separating with generous benefits due to gender dysphoria, and protected vulnerable children from chemical and surgical mutilation based on “junk science” recommended by discredited “experts” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Lawsuits Filed to Halt Trump Gender Dysphoria/Transgender Policies

A lawsuit titled Nicolas Talbott v. U.S., plus two more, (Shilling v. Trump in Seattle and Ireland v. Hegseth in New Jersey), are challenging the directives and premises behind President Trump’s Executive Order regarding persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender.

In the Washington, DC Talbott case, District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked implementation of Trump’s order.  Judge Reyes, a longtime Democratic/left-wing activist described as the first gay Latina U.S. District Judge, displayed extreme bias in her handling of this case.  Her behavior toward the Justice Department attorney defending the Trump policy was so egregiously hostile, the office of the Attorney General filed a formal complaint. 

Not surprisingly, Judge Reyes’ March 18 opinion in the Talbott case lashed out at Trump’s recognition of only two sexes and concerns about male/female sexual privacy. Her strident rhetoric could be the start of a Plan B campaign of judicial lawfare against President Trump and his efforts to restore sound priorities in our military.

A similar national injunction in the Shilling case, a temporary restraining order in the Ireland case, plus additional adverse rulings expected from other activist judges, could make Biden’s extreme transgender policies permanent while various lawsuits wind their way to an unpredictable Supreme Court.     

Absent Congress Action, Biden Policies Likely to Become Permanent

The 78-page Talbott opinion exploited weaknesses in the government’s case, but Judge Reyes’ intemperate language and obvious bias showed why federal judges should not be making policy for our military.

Among other things, Judge Reyes disregarded Defense Department data on the costs and consequences of Obama-era treatments for gender dysphoria. In 2018, a DoD panel of experts reported to then-Defense Secretary James Mattis that 994 active-duty service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria accounted for 30,000 mental health visits – a 300% increase per capita. 

The Mattis panel’s report also cited long-term studies highlighting the operational and human costs of gender dysphoria, including disproportionately high risks of suicide. 

Why has this data not been updated? Perhaps because Biden’s policy prohibited discussion of problems with the transgender policy without approval from high-level officials.  Now Biden-era officials are praising their own policies before Congress and the courts.

We don’t know whether the Justice Department, representing the DoD, mentioned several empirical studies that have questioned lucrative treatments for gender dysphoria.  A 2025 University of Texas study, for example, reported elevated risks of depression and suicide following “gender-affirming surgery.” 

The Reyes ruling does not mention WPATH, a prominent organization advocating for irreversible puberty blockers and mutilating surgeries for minor children, which has been charged with medical ethics violations.  Nor does the record show consideration of the 2024 Cass Review in England, which questioned the benefits of “sex change” treatments for children.

Even if the Justice Department had presented many recent critical studies in court, the judge probably would have still described Trump’s policy (twice) as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Judge Reyes’ over-the-top opinion showed zero concern about operational complications, medical ethics, and overwhelming public opinion against men entering women’s private facilities and athletic teams.  Activist court injunctions that usurp power from Congress and the Executive Branch are about reality-denying transgender ideology, not military effectiveness.

Congress Should Enact Common Sense in Defense Bill (NDAA) for 2026

Years could pass before the issue reaches the Supreme Court, which may or may not hand down a decision favoring the Trump policy. This puts the ball squarely in Congress’ court.

Without principled congressional action, accomplished in a way that can withstand judicial scrutiny, members could be held accountable for not delivering on promises made during the 2024 elections.

It would help to inscribe four essential principles in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026: Merit as the exclusive basis for personnel actions, a prohibition on non-merit factors such as race in personnel actions, clear definitions of key terms such as “merit,’ “male,” and “female,” and narrow exceptions for operational reasons.

Congress also should dismantle ideological power bases in the Pentagon.  Non-discriminatory practices and common-sense, reality-based measures would support President Trump’s efforts to end woke policies in the military, while reaffirming purposes of the military that some federal judges refuse to respect.

Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), an independent public policy organization founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 18:25

Nvidia Plunges After US Imposes License On H20 Chip Sales To China, Slaps Company With $5.5 Billion Charge

Nvidia tumbled in afterhours trading after the company said the US government will begin requiring a license to export the company’s H20 chips to China, an escalation of restrictions that the company has publicly opposed.

The government informed Nvidia on Monday that such a license would be in effect “for the indefinite future,” the company said in an 8K filing. The company now expects to report charges of about $5.5 billion during the fiscal first quarter from “inventory, purchase commitments and related reserves” tied to the H20 line, Nvidia said.

On April 9, 2025, the U.S. government, or USG, informed NVIDIA Corporation, or the Company, that the USG requires a license for export to China (including Hong Kong and Macau) and D:5 countries, or to companies headquartered or with an ultimate parent therein, of the Company’s H20 integrated circuits and any other circuits achieving the H20’s memory bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth, or combination thereof. The USG indicated that the license requirement addresses the risk that the covered products may be used in, or diverted to, a supercomputer in China. On April 14, 2025, the USG informed the Company that the license requirement will be in effect for the indefinite future. - 8K filing

As a reminder, the H20 is a scaled-down chip that was designed to comply with US export regulations and has been Nvidia's primary AI GPU legally available for sale in China after the H100/A100 were banned.

Bloomberg News reported in January that the Trump administration was exploring such a step. 

NVDA stock tumbled as much as 7% in afterhours trading as the market tried to make sense of this latest escalation in the trade war.

*  *   *

Click pic, add to cart, use code THANKYOU10 for 10% off... Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 18:07

5 Companies Sue Trump Over Tariffs

Trump's tariffs have injected a large measure of chaos into the markets - so much so that JPMorgan sees only four potential off-ramps to right the ship;

(i) Series of Trade Deals – the key being that one or more need to be completed across the G8 with a China deal being the most impactful

(ii) Another Trump Pivot – this could look like a delay/reduction for China to the 10%, perhaps with Trump’s commitment to fostering a business-friendly environment

(iii) A Legal Injunction – about 2 weeks ago a Charles Koch-backed legal group initiated a lawsuit against Trump challenging Presidential authority over tariffs (BBG)

(iv) Congress Passes a Veto-Proof Law – we have seen two initiative with Republicans crossing the aisle to join Democrats in attempting to halt the trade war but, as of now, the 2/3 necessary in both parts of Congress has not been attained.

While (i) is allegedly in the works, and (ii) could happen depending on which way the wind is blowing at Mar-a-Lago, we've now we've got (iii) in the works - as five companies have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to tariff nearly every country in the world - arguing that Trump has overstepped his authority.

President Donald Trump prepares to sign an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House on March 31, 2025. Leah Millis/Reuters

As Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times notes on April 2, Trump announced that he would impose 10 percent baseline tariffs on nearly every country and higher rates for nations with which the United States is at a significant trade deficit. A week later, the president paused the reciprocal tariffs for dozens of countries, but not for China, for which he raised the tariff rate to 145 percent.

The libertarian-aligned Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of five companies in the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging that a statute that Trump invoked “does not authorize the President to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs.”

“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination: trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency. Nor do these trade deficits constitute an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’” the group’s lawyers said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of alcohol company Vos Selections, sportfishing e-commerce business FishUSA, toy manufacturer MicroKits, pipe manufacturer Genova Pipe, and cycling apparel brand Terry Precision Cycling.

Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, Jeffrey Schwab, said in a statement that the president lacks the “power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences.” The plaintiffs argue that only Congress, not the executive branch, can set tax rates.

Trump said in an April 2 executive order that the initial swath of tariffs is needed to bolster national security with regard to supply chains and because U.S. trading partners have engaged in “economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits.”

Trump’s announcements have caused fluctuations in the stock market this month, with indexes dropping before the partial tariff pause. On April 14, the three major stock indexes saw increases. By 3:30 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up by more than 400 points, while the Nasdaq increased about 1 percentage point.

On April 13, Trump said that he would be announcing tariffs on imported semiconductors over the next week, adding that there would be flexibility with some companies in the sector.

“We wanted to uncomplicate it from a lot of other companies, because we want to make our chips and semiconductors and other things in our country,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled back to Washington from his estate in West Palm Beach.

Trump declined to say whether some products, such as smartphones, might still end up being exempted.

“You have to show a certain flexibility. Nobody should be so rigid,” he said.

Earlier on April 13, Trump wrote in a post on social media platform Truth Social, “We are taking a look at Semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN in the upcoming National Security Tariff Investigations.

“What has been exposed is that we need to make products in the United States, and that we will not be held hostage by other Countries, especially hostile trading Nations like China.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told ABC News on April 13 that Trump will set up a “special focus-type of tariff” on smartphones, computers, and other electronics within several weeks alongside tariffs for semiconductors and pharmaceutical drugs.

The Trump administration has not responded to the group’s lawsuit in court. The Epoch Times contacted the White House for comment on April 14.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 18:00

Crypto's Debanking Problem Persists Despite New Regulations

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

The crypto industry’s inability to access banking services still concerns many industry observers despite recent policy victories.

In past years, financial services firms and banks concerned about fiduciary risk, reporting liabilities and reputational risk often would refuse to offer service to crypto firms — i.e., “debanking” them. 

Legislative efforts in the United States and Australia are attempting to remove these barriers for the crypto industry. In the former, legislators repealed guidelines that made it difficult for banks to custody crypto assets, as well as those stating that crypto carried “reputational risk” for banks. In the latter, the Labor Party has introduced a bill to create a legal framework for crypto, giving banks the clarity they need to interact with the crypto industry.

Despite these tangible efforts, some crypto industry observers say that the crypto’s debanking problem is far from over.

US crypto execs say debanking is still an issue 

The crypto industry has long decried “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” its nickname for a suite of policies that they claim constrained the crypto industry from growing under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Among these were measures making it more difficult for crypto firms to access banking services. 

The early days of the second administration of President Donald Trump have seen many of these repealed or changed. One of the first was the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required banks offering custody for customers’ cryptocurrencies to list them as liabilities on their balance sheets — this made it very difficult for banks to justify offering such services.

The administration also appointed a new head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Rodney Hood. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Bitcoin-focused policy organization Satoshi Action, told Cointelegraph that under Hood’s tenure, the OCC has already said banks can offer crypto-related services like custody, stablecoin reserves and blockchain participation.

“This opens the door for broader adoption of digital asset technology and custodial services by traditional financial institutions, signaling a major shift in how banks engage with crypto,” he said.

Despite these victories, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, said on March 21 that debanking is likely to remain a problem for crypto firms into 2026.

Long said the non-partisan board of governors of the Federal Reserve is “still controlled by Democrats,” alluding to Democrats’ more skeptical stance on crypto. Long claimed that “there are two crypto-friendly banks under examination by the Fed right now, and an army of examiners was sent into these banks, including the examiners from Washington, a literal army just smothering the banks.”

Long noted that Trump won’t be able to appoint a new Fed governor until January, meaning that, while other agencies may be more crypto-friendly, there are still roadblocks. 

Australia’s Labor Party to create crypto framework

Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto advocacy organization started by Coinbase that has spread to the US, UK, Canada and Australia, said that “in Australia, debanking is quietly shutting out innovators and entrepreneurs — particularly in the crypto and blockchain space.”

In a post on X, the organization claimed that debanking results in “reputational damage, loss of revenue, increased operational costs, and inability to launch or sustain services.” It also claimed that it forces some companies to move offshore. 

In response to these concerns, the ruling center-left Labor Party in Australia has proposed a new set of laws for the cryptocurrency industry. The changes to current financial services law seek to tackle the issue of debanking in the country’s cryptocurrency industry.

Australia’s Treasury says its new crypto regulations have four priorities. Source: Australian Department of the Treasury

Edward Carroll, head of global markets and corporate finance at MHC Digital Group — an Australian crypto platform — told Cointelegraph that in Australia, debanking decisions were “not the result of regulatory directives.”

“Rather, they appear to stem from a more general sense of risk aversion due to the current lack of a clear regulatory framework.”

Carroll was optimistic about the Labor Party’s proactive stance. The major political parties were “showing a shift in sentiment and a shared commitment to establishing formal crypto regulation.” 

“We are hopeful that this will give banks the confidence to reengage with crypto businesses that meet compliance standards,” he said.

Canada unlikely to relieve crypto firms

In Canada, “debanking remains a serious and ongoing challenge for the Canadian crypto industry,” according to Morva Rohani, executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council.

“While some firms have successfully established relationships with banking partners, many continue to face account closures or denials with little explanation or recourse,” she told Cointelegraph. 

While debanking actions aren’t explicit, financial institutions’ interpretation of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations “creates a risk-averse environment where banks weigh compliance and reputational concerns against the relatively low revenue potential of crypto clients.”

The end result, per Rohani, is a systemic debanking problem for the digital assets industry.

But unlike in the US and Australia, the Canadian crypto industry may not find relief anytime soon. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose more crypto-skeptic Liberal Party is surging in the polls ahead of the April 28 snap elections, is himself a crypto-skeptic.

Polls show Carney firmly in the lead. Source: Ipsos

Carney has stated that the future of money lies more in a “central bank stablecoin,” otherwise referred to as a central bank digital currency.

Rohani said that “no comprehensive legislative solution has been implemented” with regard to debanking. “A more structured approach, including mandated disclosure of reasons for account termination and regulatory oversight, is needed,” she said.

Critics claim crypto is “hijacking” the debanking issue

There is another side to the debanking debate, which claims that crypto’s debanking “problem” is a non-issue or a vehicle for crypto firms to get what they want in terms of regulation. 

Molly White, the author of Web3 Is Going Just Great and the “Citation Needed” newsletter, has noted that, in the US at least, crypto firms have claimed to be victims of debanking while lauding Trump’s efforts to end protections for debanking at the same time.

In a Feb. 14 post, White stated that the crypto industry had “hijacked” the discussion around debanking, which contains legitimate concerns regarding access to financial services — particularly regarding discrimination due to race, religious identity or industry affiliation. 

She claims the crypto industry has used debanking as a means to deflect legitimate regulatory inquiries into crypto companies’ compliance efforts. 

Further of note is the fact that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has applauded the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk at the helm, to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

One of the CFPB’s responsibilities is to investigate claims of debanking. But when DOGE instructed the agency to halt all work, Armstrong said it was “100% the right call,” in addition to making dubious claims about the agency’s constitutionality.

In the meantime

Whether the industry’s debanking concerns stem from legitimate discrimination or an attempt at regulatory capture, crypto firms are developing solutions in the interim. 

Porter said that, as an alternative to banking services, “many crypto companies have leaned on stablecoins as a primary tool for managing finances,” while others have worked with “smaller regional banks or specialized trust companies open to digital assets.”

Rohani said that this kind of “patchwork of relationships” can increase operational costs and risks and are “not sustainable long-term solutions for growth or to build a competitive, regulated industry.”

Porter concluded that the banking workarounds could actually strengthen the industry’s position, stating that they may “continue evolving into fully integrated relationships with traditional financial institutions, further cementing crypto’s place in mainstream finance.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 17:40

No Such Thing As Free Trade

Authored by Christian Milord via The Epoch Times,

For as long as trade has existed, there have been duties, fees, levies, tariffs, or taxes that have been applied in all shapes and sizes on goods entering a country. Some folks continue to promote the idea that free trade exists, but it has never truly existed.

Fair and free trade might be an ideal vision worth working toward, but it is common knowledge that nations operate in their own interests and often bend trade agreements. 

Up until the 1940s, the United States utilized a range of tariffs to grab a major portion of world trade.

For decades, the United States has helped to subsidize much of the world both economically and through its broad security umbrella. 

This was part of an attempt to forge more global allies as well as assist with economic development. However, many nations came to depend on the American gravy train, yet at the same time protected their own markets through tariffs and other barriers to foreign businesses that wanted to compete in their markets. This imbalance has become unsustainable.

President Donald Trump’s threat of slapping tariffs on a whole host of nations was carried out for a number of reasons. 

Trump is zeroing in on the worst trade barrier offenders, most of which are in Asia. They enjoy trade surpluses due to high fees charged on imported foreign goods, currency manipulation, government-subsidized industries, and the dumping of cheap products abroad. These actions distort fair and free market forces.

In order to recalibrate trade and reduce our trade deficit, reciprocal tariffs will be paused for 90 days on nations that are actually opposed to free trade but are willing to change course. Uncertain times create market gyrations, but the stock market is often driven by events, investor sentiment, and speculation. It represents only partial aspects of the overall economy, while small businesses are a large portion of the economy.

Feigned outrage emanating from many capitals regarding America’s “bullying” tactics is ironic, because for decades, foes and “friends” alike have already targeted U.S. goods with taxes and subsidies. Some countries, such as China, have also used a Value Added Tax (VAT), while their goods work their way through a number of countries before arriving at a final destination. China has victimized both its adversaries and allies for decades with unfair trade.

For many years, America has allowed foreign nations to take us to the cleaners by protecting their own markets as they charge exorbitant fees on very specific American goods. However, while the United States has allowed an array of cheaper products to be imported, many nations make it almost impossible for our companies to penetrate their economies.

This has adversely affected American workers as well as consumer and government debt. Moreover, many products from developing nations lack the labor standards and quality control mechanisms that are taken for granted in the West.

However, there might be some good news on the horizon. 

We have an administration that finally has acted to place the national interest first instead of accommodating nations that practice predatory trade through barriers and obscene levels of taxes on American goods.

Threatening reciprocal tariffs on high-tariff nations can have a number of effects. 

• First, more pliable nations will be eager to negotiate to either eliminate their trade barriers or reduce them so that supply chains can continue with the United States. These events are beginning to unfold as over 70 nations are willing to come to the table.

• Next, some developed countries will also be open to bargaining, while others might retaliate with targeted barriers to American goods and investments. China, along with several European Union nations, is the main culprit in protectionist trade while claiming to practice free trade. The Trump team could arm-twist resistant Asian and European allies to lower barriers, or else our military security presence will be diminished, and they will have to fend for themselves against adversaries.

• Third, the application of stiff tariffs on China is likely the opening salvo in eventual decoupling from the country in trade that affects our national security. The United States needs leverage against a nation that bribes, cheats, and deceives in the global economy in a form of economic warfare. China has never truly kept the promises it has made as a recipient of our “most favored nation” status and under World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements.

Nations that abide by the WTO’s rules of commerce can also start to distance themselves from trade with China in favor of friendlier markets and perhaps achieve greater self-reliance in manufacturing. If particular nations slash or drop their tariffs and trade walls, the United States can pause on tariffs in the coming months. That could set in motion genuine competition minus market distortions. However, there must be “trust but verify” protocols in place to ensure that any barriers and tariff loopholes don’t rise again like a phoenix. Consequently, fairer and freer trade could possibly ensue over the long term.

According to transactional Trump, who often turns on a dime with decisions, deals are always possible even with recalcitrant nations. 

If tariffs are lowered across the board and key manufacturing can make a comeback here at home, real prosperity is a strong probability.

Combine that with domestic deregulation, government downsizing, and long-term tax cuts, and economic growth will accelerate. This, in turn, can increase tax revenues, which can help to tackle the national debt and yearly deficits—and unleash the proverbial golden age.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 17:00

Trump Admin Moves To Defund Left-Leaning PBS, NPR

The Trump administration is moving to eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS and NPR, while also cutting billions in foreign aid, according to a draft memo from Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. The New York Post reports the plan would strip $1.1 billion from CPB and $8.3 billion from USAID, pointing to CPB’s “consistent anti-conservative bias” as a driving factor.

The memo, part of a “rescissions” strategy to rescind previously approved funds, was requested by GOP congressional leaders. Once delivered to Capitol Hill, the Republican-led Congress will have 45 days to approve or reject the proposal. White House officials are confident it will pass.

The plan also solidifies foreign aid cuts led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, aligning with efforts to slash federal spending.

“Since day one, the Trump Administration has targeted waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending through executive action, DOGE review, and other efforts by departments and agencies. Congress has expressed strong interest in supporting those efforts, and requested the Administration transmit rescissions to the Hill for swift approval,” the memo reads, according to the NY Post. “OMB recommends the Administration respond with two proposals to cut $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 memo also highlighted examples of coverage of President Donald Trump, noting that NPR CEO Katherine Maher previously referred to Trump a “fascist” and a “deranged racist.”

Trump has long demanded that NPR and PBS be stripped of federal funding, writing last month on Truth Social: “NPR and PBS, two horrible and completely biased platforms … should be DEFUNDED by Congress, IMMEDIATELY.”

On March 28th, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) introduced legislation to to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS, labeling them “chronically biased” following a DOGE hearing.

“For decades, radical Democrats have funneled taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS under the guise of 'serving the public,' despite both organizations abandoning their founding missions to provide non-biased content and instead promoting the same radical-left propaganda as any other fake news outlet,” Jackson said in a statement. “If these organizations want to push partisan agendas, they do not deserve another dime of federal support.”

Cosponsors of the bill include DOGE Subcommittee Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Reps. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Michael Cloud (R-TX), Mike Collins (R-GA), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Chip Roy (R-TX), Keith Self (R-TX), and Randy Weber (R-TX).

“I’m proud to cosponsor Ronny Jackson’s bill to defund PBS and NPR,” said Greene. “As my DOGE subcommittee hearing showed, these taxpayer-funded PR arms of the Democrat Party don’t deserve the American people’s hard-earned money. NPR and PBS hate President Trump, his supporters, and the majority of Americans who sent us a mandate in 2024. They can hate us on their own dime.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 16:40

On Tax Day, Never Forget IRS Culture Bingo

Submitted by Jim Bovard

On Tax Day, politicians and mainstream media will hector Americans to be grateful for the opportunity to pay their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service website touts a moth-eaten quote from a dead Supreme Court Justice: “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” But recent history is the best antidote to groveling in gratitude to the federal agency that commandeers a lion’s share of your income.

The smiley face IRS should have been banished forever after revelations in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

Former IRS district chief David Patnoe observed in 1998, “More tax is collected by fear and intimidation than by the law. People are afraid of the IRS.” In 1996, an IRS instructor in the Arkansas-Oklahoma district was caught on videotape lecturing collection agents on how to treat taxpayers:

“Make them cry. We don’t give points around here for being good scouts. The word is enforced. If that’s not tattooed on your forehead, or somewhere else, then you need to get it. Enforcement. Seizure and sales. That’s our mind set…If you’ve got an assessment, enforce collection until they come to their knees.”  

One confidential IRS document uncovered in 1997 revealed that IRS auditors in the San Francisco region were expected to assess at least $1,012 in additional taxes for each hour they spend auditing a taxpayer’s return. IRS revenue officers ignored regulations and guidelines before seizing property. In one case in the Arkansas-Oklahoma region, the only effort an IRS agent made before confiscating two cars “consisted of driving to the taxpayer’s house, honking his car horn, and noting that no one came out of the house in response,” according to an IRS audit.

IRS agents have been indoctrinated to see taxpayers as a class enemy. This attitude is epitomized by “Culture Bingo,” a game used to train IRS agents and auditors. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants complained that Culture Bingo and other “economic reality training modules” encouraged examiners to think the worst of taxpayers. Culture Bingo sought to help employees recognize “an IRS organizational culture regarding the audit process.” The game encouraged IRS agents to recognize or practice the following:

• “I use summons to get third party records.”
• “Fraud referrals help an examiner get promoted.”
• “Taxpayers can skim $20,000 and we’ll never find it.”
• “Most taxpayers deposit unreported receipts in their bank accounts.”

After an IRS agent got enough other agents in the class to sign onto his “bingo” card, he shouted out “I’ve got culture!” and the class launched into a discussion of the reasons why these beliefs and practices were true and necessary. One of the most damning “lessons” of the training was the doctrine, “Taxpayers seem to live better than I do.” The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants said of the course materials, “Every ethical issue presented finds the ethical result to be pro-IRS and anti-taxpayer. There is not one scenario where an IRS agent might act unethically against a taxpayer’s interest.”

Culture Bingo was especially perilous to IRS targets because IRS auditors sometimes simply make up income—and then demand that the person pay additional taxes based on the IRS allegation. Bruce Strauss, a private tax preparer who worked for IRS collections for over thirty years, testified to Congress, “The IRS now has the authority to assign additional income to a taxpayer at its discretion, without any basis in fact.” Any IRS assertion about a person’s income—even if there is no evidence to support it—automatically receives a presumption of correctness in the Tax Court and in federal district courts. The IRS can impose crushing legal costs on someone merely by asserting that they owe an extra  $10,000 in income—which the person then must fight and disprove in court.

The federal tax code creates far more pitfalls than Americans realize. During Mark McGwire’s rush to break Roger Maris’s major league home run record, a reporter asked an IRS spokesman what would happen if someone caught the baseball that broke the record and returned it, gratis, to McGwire. IRS spokesman Steven Pyrek announced that “the giver is responsible for paying any applicable tax on any large gift.” If the record-breaking baseball was valued at $1 million, the person who returned it to McGwire could face an IRS bill of $140,000 or more. After a hailstorm of criticism, the agency backed off its interpretation. However, if the case had been less publicized, the donor might well have been gouged.

President Joe Biden sought to expand the IRS budget and IRS power more than any American president in the preceding half-century. Biden sought a new army of IRS agents to hound Americans and corporations to pay far more taxes. The Washington Post reported that “the single biggest source of new revenue in the plan comes from dramatically expanding the clout of the nation’s tax agency.” Slate reported, “Biden wants to fund a massive upgrade to the American welfare state by making the IRS great at audits again.”

In 2022, Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act. This Biden-backed legislation boosted the agency’s budget by $80 billion over a decade and authorized hiring 87,000 new IRS agents and employees. “Only 4% of the additional funding will be devoted to improving taxpayer service, while 58% will go to escalating enforcement efforts,” the New York Post reported. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) estimated that the law would result in more than a million new audits per year, including more than 700,000 targeting Americans earning less than $75,000 a year.

The Biden administration and its media allies were outraged at suggestions that vastly expanding the number of IRS agents could result in bad things happening to innocent people. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) observed, “The IRS has never pointed a gun at a billionaire or his employees, so why does the IRS need 87,000 new agents, AR-15s, and 5 million rounds of ammunition? They’re not gunning for billionaires or their bank accounts.” Massie helped publicize a film clip of an IRS recruiting program showing Utah students putting on flak jackets and readying toy guns and handcuffs for a raid “taking down a landscape business owner who failed to properly report how he paid for his vehicles.” (“First they came for the tulip bulbs…”)

President Donald Trump is reportedly seeking to reduce by 50% the number of IRS employees. If that happens, The New York Times fretted, “Americans may have to wait longer to receive refunds or speak with I.R.S. employees in future filing seasons.” Some reductions in staffing have already occurred but it remains to be seen how much cutting will occur.

Regardless of the number of IRS employees, Americans remain in peril thanks to federal tax law, federal regulations, and endless court decisions entitling the IRS to sweeping deference. Unless Congress repeals a hefty stack of revenue laws and nullifies a shelf full of regulations, the IRS will continue to have far too many penalty flags to throw at hapless citizens.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 16:20

IRS Extends Tax Deadline For Entire State Of Arkansas

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The IRS on Monday said that all residents and businesses in Arkansas now have until Nov. 3 to file their income taxes due to severe storms, tornadoes, and floods that hit the state earlier this month.

Starting on April 2, severe storms that spawned tornadoes and flash flooding hit the state, with Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signing an executive order over the past weekend to provide relief to parts of the state impacted by the weather.

The IRS extension postpones deadlines for tax filings and payments between April 2 and Nov. 3 of this year, according to a statement.

“As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until Nov. 3, 2025, to file returns and pay any taxes that were originally due during this period,” the IRS statement said.

Specifically, the extension applies to individual income tax returns and payments that are due on April 15, contributions to health savings accounts and individual retirement accounts in 2024, quarterly estimated taxes between the aforementioned dates, quarterly payroll taxes due in that time period, calendar-year corporation and fiduciary returns and payments due on April 15, and calendar-year tax-exempt organization returns due on May 15.

“In addition, penalties for failing to make payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after April 2, 2025, and before April 17, 2025, will be abated if the deposits are made by April 17, 2025,” the IRS said.

Also on Monday, the IRS announced an extension for the entire state of Tennessee due to the storms, tornadoes, and flooding for businesses and individual taxpayers.

The IRS this year already announced filing extensions for Americans in multiple states due to weather-related incidents. Some individuals’ and businesses’ taxes are due by May 1, and people in three states have deadlines in the fall to submit their taxes.

The May 1 deadline applies to taxpayers impacted by disaster declarations issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) last year, including taxpayers in the entire states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and in Juneau, Alaska; Chaves County, New Mexico; and dozens of counties in Virginia.

The IRS also said that taxpayers in Los Angeles County, California, who were impacted by devastating wildfires in the Pacific Palisades area in January can file their taxes by Oct. 15.

Aside from those locations, taxpayers in all of Kentucky and taxpayers in the West Virginia counties of Boone, Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming can submit their taxes by Nov. 3, the IRS also said.

For everyone else, the deadline to file their individual income taxes is April 15, or Tax Day.

People filing their taxes electronically will typically see their refund deposited within three weeks, or 21 days, after the return has been accepted, the IRS says.

The agency has warned that taxpayers should not rely on getting their refund back by a certain date, namely when paying bills or making significant purchases.

“Some returns may require additional review and may take longer. Also, remember to take into consideration the time it takes for a financial institution to post the refund to an account or to receive it by mail,” the IRS said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 15:25

Walmart's Presence At China's Biggest Trade Show Raises Supply Chain Decoupling Doubts

China's largest trade show kicked off on Tuesday in Guangzhou, located in South China’s Guangdong Province. According to state-run media, the event features 31,000 exhibitors and so far attracted 200,000 overseas buyers—including mega US retailer Walmart—despite ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. 

Amid global trade frictions, the 137th Canton Fair has opened in Guangzhou with a mood of resilience. Businesses worldwide are showcasing cutting-edge innovations, adapting to shifting market dynamics. CGTN’s Li Shuang explores how exhibitors find opportunities. #CantonFair2025 pic.twitter.com/LBKL5M85Hu

— China Takeaway (@China24Official) April 15, 2025

Global Times said 255 top global retailers, including Walmart, Carrefour, Tesco, and Metro, are attending the 137th China Import and Export Fair (Canton Fair) to search for the latest and greatest products.

The 137th Canton Fair unveiled its Service Robots Zone in Area D to meet buyers’ expectation. At Booth 21.2B61-64, Hangzhou Yushu Technology Co., Ltd. showcased its humanoid robot, the G1. pic.twitter.com/543TrKD47Z

— Canton Fair (@cantonfair) April 15, 2025

One US supplier told the state-run media outlet that American buyers remain dependent on Chinese products. 

"Even when sourcing from other countries, the goods are often still manufactured in China. Whether the tariff is included or the goods are imported from elsewhere, American importers and consumers will ultimately bear the costs.

"In appliances like air conditioners, Chinese products' price-to-performance ratio has no global rival. While imports may be paused for a month to monitor tariff policies, we'll return to Chinese manufacturers." 

Global Times cited other global suppliers that boasted about China "possessing the world's most comprehensive supply chain" to build low-cost electronics, home goods, and all other items. 

Another buyer—this time from Germany—told the media outlet that "Chinese goods are hard to replace," adding that the trade war has unleashed uncertainty across global markets. 

Global Times made it clear:

The main reason for global buyers to stick to Chinese products is the favorable price-to-performance ratio.

One key challenge in restructuring global supply chains—whether through friend-shoring or reshoring—is that such transitions take time. In the interim, top suppliers will continue relying on China (or other Southeast Asian countries) for specific goods.

Walmart's attendance at China's largest trade show highlights just how unlikely a complete decoupling between the world's two largest economies truly is. Instead, the U.S. is expected to prioritize reshoring critical supply chains—such as semiconductors, rare earths, drones, and robotics—that are essential to national defense.

Meanwhile, China can continue dominating soft-line manufacturing, such as footwear and luxury handbags. If America intends to dominate the 2030s, it must focus on expanding the capacity of advanced production lines at home, including ones for drones, robotics, and chips.

 

 

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 14:45

From the Las Vegas Visitor Authority: February 2025 Las Vegas Visitor Statistics

With the combined factors of a tough comparison to last year when Super Bowl LVIII was held in the destination, a net decrease in the convention segment tied to rotation cycles, and one fewer day on the calendar compared to the 2024 leap year, visitation fell below 3.0M for the month, down ‐11.9% YoY.

Las Vegas convention attendance reached roughly 615k in February, down ‐19.5% YoY, reflecting in part the calendar impact of World Market Center's Winter show (38k attendees) and Total Product Expo (8k attendees) ending in Jan this year vs. Feb last year, plus show rotations of Int'l Roofing Expo (15k attendees) and National Automobile Dealers Assn (22k attendees) which were held elsewhere this year.

Occupancy reached 80.5%, down ‐3.4 pts with Weekend occupancy of 86.4% (down ‐3.9 pts) and Midweek occupancy of 77.7% (down ‐3.3 pts.) ADR for the month reached $186 (‐25% YoY) with RevPAR of $150 (‐28% YoY).
emphasis added

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows visitor traffic for 2019 (Black), 2020 (dark blue), 2021 (light blue), 2022 (light orange), 2023 (orange), 2024 (dark orange) and 2025 (red).

Visitor traffic was down 11.9% compared to last February.  Visitor traffic was down 6.8% compared to February 2019.
The second graph shows convention traffic.
Convention traffic was up 19.5% compared to January 2024, and down 17.8% compared to January 2019.  

OpenAI Building "X-Like" Social Network After Grok "Made Everyone Jealous"

With OpenAI continues to battle lawsuits from news outlets and authors over materials used to train ChatGPT, the company has decided to build its own X-like social network so, we presume, they can scrape the opinions of their own users to train their models - something Elon Musk's Grok has been doing with posts on the X platform.

According to The Verge, the project is still in early stages - but the company does reportedly have a prototype focused on ChatGPT's image generation that has a social feed. It's unknown whether the plan is to release the social network as a separate app vs. integrating it into ChatGPT - which was the most downloaded app worldwide last month. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been asking for feedback from outsiders.

The plan would put OpenAI in direct competition with both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg;

Launching a social network in or around ChatGPT would likely increase Altman’s already-bitter rivalry with Elon Musk. In February, after Musk made an unsolicited offer to purchase OpenAI for $97.4 billion, Altman responded: “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.”

Entering the social media market also puts OpenAI on more of a collision course with Meta, which we’re told is planning to add a social feed to its coming standalone app for its AI assistant. When reports of Meta building a rival to the ChatGPT app first surfaced a couple of months ago, Altman shot back on X again by saying, “ok fine maybe we’ll do a social app.” -The Verge

One idea behind the OpenAI plan would be to use AI to help people better share content.

"The Grok integration with X has made everyone jealous," said an anonymous employee of another big AI lab. "Especially how people create viral tweets by getting it to say something stupid."

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 14:05

China Limits Stock Sales To Maintain Impression Of Stability, As Bessent Hints At Boosting Treasury Buybacks If Fed Does Nothing

Last week we explained how the escalating trade war between the US and China has gradually transformed into a theatrical war of who has the upper hand on any given day. And since it takes a long time for trade obstructions to hit the underlying economy, investors are keenly eyeing the stock, and especially FX, markets for any and every (early) indications of who has the upper hand (even if they are, as we show below, completely false).

Meanwhile in China, it's all about the optics of not appearing to lose the trade war:

China state firms vow to boost share purchases to stabilize plunging markethttps://t.co/BkliKGFTIW

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 8, 2025

Yet so far in the trade war, there has been one notable difference: while US stocks have tumbled (and rightfully so, as Trump institutes shock treatment to ween the US out of its debt-funded reserve currency, trade deficit addiction) and the US dollar has been in freefall, Chinese stocks have been surprisingly resilient and barely dropping, while the yuan reversed its losses last week, which pushed it to a record low only to rebound sharply higher.

There is just one problem: like everything else out of China, it's market reaction has also been 100% fake. 

While the US reaction is understandable, since the political Fed is doing everything it can to tarnish Trump's approval rating and rugpull the market, and economy, from under him... and for those who say this is nonsense, may we remind you this is precisely what Bill Dudley told the Fed to do during the first Trump trade war...

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

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

... China, whose central bank is directly controlled by the CCP Politburo, has no such qualms, and as we reported last week, in order to stabilize the stock market China's Plunge protection team, aka the "National Team", unleashed a record buying spree of ETFs, which has prevented an all out rout. 

At the same time, China has also clearly intervened in the FX market, ordering local banks to sell dollars and buy yuan after last week we saw the offshore yuan plunge to a record low against the dollar. To be sure, China wants devaluation, but not chaotic, uncontrolled devaluation which would spark the mother of all capital runs (Chinese banks have $63 trillion in assets (and by extension deposits), almost triple the US total).

Context: US commercial bank assets ($23.5 trillion) vs China commercial bank assets ($62.6 trillion). pic.twitter.com/6mYaVI2ORJ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 19, 2025

As an aside, China's FX intervention would fully explain the bizarre concurrent weakness in both the dollar and TSYs, which some overeager commentators are ascribing to the death of US dollar reserve currency status...

... when in reality it was just a few days of China dumping US bonds and selling the proceeds (US Dollars) to buy yuan.

what if pic.twitter.com/34mLPz8FAC

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

So going back to the core thesis, namely that in China it's all about the optics of not appearing to lose the trade war at least through day to day indicators meant for simplistic, first-order indicator observers (which these days is pretty much everyone in the market), Beijing's core prerogative remains to prevent a crash in either Chinese stocks or the yuan. And while we described above how China is defending the yuan (at the expense of Treasuries and the dollar, if only up to a point - the point being when China runs out of US reserves to sell), preserving stock market calm is just as important.

Which is why we weren't at all surprise to read that Chinese bourses have set daily restrictions on net share sales by hedge funds and large retail investors, Reuters reported noting that Beijing has stepped up support for its stock markets in an intensifying trade war with the United States.

Two investor sources said a soft limit on daily net sales by individual hedge funds and big retail investors - implemented through verbal warnings from brokerages - had been set at 50 million yuan ($6.83 million).

Failure to comply risked a suspension of trading accounts by the stock exchanges, which have issued the directive, the Reuters sources added.

Echoing everything we have said in the past week, Reuters also adds that "China has taken a slew of measures to stabilise its domestic stock markets, reeling from an escalating trade war with the U.S." and notes that "the moves have largely shielded stocks in China from the massive selling seen on global markets."

Brokerages have been asked to closely monitor transactions by private funds and big retail clients, according to a notice issued late on Thursday and seen by Reuters.

The current 50 million yuan daily limit on net sales by investors could be lowered further if the market slumps again, the notice said.

It stands to reason that if you can't sell, you will- drumroll - buy, and sure enough China and Hong Kong stocks reversed early declines on Friday and narrowed the week's losses.

"Such a restriction is understandable as you don't want to act against state will," said one of Reuters' brokerage sources. It's also understandable since China can not afford to give the impression that Trump has leverage in the escalating trade war. Instead, since Chinese stocks are stable, it afford Beijing the optics of being treated almost as an equal, or someone who can match Trump's tariff escalation blow by blow... when in reality China's economy is disintegrating below the calm surface.

Furthermore, as we also reported last week, China's state fund Central Huijin has vowed to increase stock holdings, a growing number of listed companies are buying back shares, and Chinese brokerages have pledged to steady the market amid higher tariffs and global recession risks.

And just to make sure there is no selling at all, on Tuesday Chinese press reported that certain China banks have cut deposits rates below 2%. Why? To push depositors into risk assets of course.

Needless to say, without the moves, Chinese stocks would be in freefall - just like its economy in a month or so - and the yuan would be plunging, while the narrative that Trump is flip-flopping or otherwise "losing" to China, would be DOA. Yet, since the Fed has so far refused to counter its Chinese peers, Trump indeed finds himself at a disadvantage.

But that may soon change, because while the Fed may pretend it has no choice but to wait until the hyperinflation from the tariffs manifests itself (some time in 2035, especially since tariffs are actually deflationary as we have explained for the past year) before easing, Bessent may take matters into his own hands, and without waiting for the Fed, ramp up the amount of treasury buybacks the US Treasury currently conducts every other day or so, in the open market (see full Buyback schedule here).

In fact, the Treasury secretary hinted at this himself in an interview with Bloomberg, when asked if he has contingency plans if the selloff becomes "more unnerving" (for example if foreign countries, i.e. China, may be selling US Treasuries in response to the trade war). 

His answer: “we are a long way” from needing to take action, but “we have a big toolkit that we can roll out” if so, and included in that toolkit is the department’s buyback program for older securities, Bessent said. “We could up the buybacks if we wanted" (15'40" in the view below).

And that's precisely what will happen in a few weeks (or even days) if China's selling of Treasuries persists, sending yields plunging. The good news, is that this "soft QE" wouldn't have to be in place too long: only long enough for China to run out of reserves... mostly via Belgium's Euroclear...

Belgium (mostly China via Euroclear) Treasury holdings are where they were... just before China devalued its currency in 2015 and sold $1TN in US paper ($250BN via Belgium) to contain yuan collapse pic.twitter.com/DUYWqtUl60

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

... to sell. Which at the current pace of liquidations should be done by the end of the month.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 14:04

Ethereum Co-Founder Vitalik Buterin: "Privacy Is Freedom"

Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said privacy should be a top priority for developers, warning that assumptions about transparency and good intentions in global politics are overly optimistic.

In an April 14 blog post, Buterin argued that privacy is essential to maintain individual freedom and protect against the growing power of governments and corporations. He criticized the idea that increased transparency is inherently beneficial, saying it relies on assumptions about human nature that are no longer valid.

“These assumptions include believing that global political leadership is generally well-intentioned and sane, and that social culture continues to progress in a positive direction,” Buterin wrote. “Both are proving to be increasingly untrue.”

Buterin claimed there was “no single major country for which the first assumption is broadly agreed to be true.” Furthermore, he wrote that cultural tolerance is “rapidly regressing,” which is reportedly demonstrable by an X post search for “bullying is good.”

Buterin’s personal privacy issues

Buterin said that he found his lack of privacy unsettling at times. He added:

“Every single action I take outside has some nonzero chance of unexpectedly becoming a public media story.”

Covertly taken photos of Vitalik Buterin. Source: Vitalik.eth

While this may appear as a suggestion that privacy is an advantage only for those who venture outside the social norms, he highlighted that “you never know when you will become one of them.”

Buterin only expects the need for privacy to increase as technology develops further, with brain-computer interfaces potentially allowing automated systems to peer directly into our brains. Another issue is automated price gouging, with companies charging individuals as much as they expect them to be able to pay.

There is no privacy with government backdoors

Buterin also argued strongly against the idea of adding government backdoors to systems designed to protect privacy. He said such positions are common but inherently unstable.

He highlighted how, in the case of Know Your Customer data, “it’s not just the government, it’s also all kinds of corporate entities, of varying levels of quality” that can access private data. Instead, the information is handled and held by payment processors, banks, and other intermediaries.

Similarly, telecommunication companies can locate their users and have been found to illegally sell this data. Buterin also raised concerns that individuals with access will always be incentivized to abuse it, and data banks can always be hacked. Lastly, a trustworthy government can change and become untrustworthy in the future, inheriting all the sensitive data. He concluded:

“From the perspective of an individual, if data is taken from them, they have no way to tell if and how it will be abused in the future. By far the safest approach to handling large-scale data is to centrally collect as little of it as possible in the first place.“

Authorities have more data than ever

Buterin raised the issue of governments being able to access anything with a warrant “because that‘s the way that things have always worked.” He noted that this point of view fails to consider that historically, the amount of data available for obtaining through a warrant was far lower.

He said the traditionally available data would still be available even “if the strongest proposed forms of internet privacy were universally adopted.” He wrote that “in the 19ᵗʰ century, the average conversation happened once, via voice, and was never recorded by anyone.”

Buterin’s proposed solutions

Buterin suggested solutions based mainly on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK-proofs) because they allow for “fine-grained control of who can see what information.” ZK-proofs are cryptographic protocols that allow one party to prove a statement is true without revealing any additional information.

One such system is a ZK-proof-based proof of personhood that proves you are unique without revealing who you are. These systems rely on documents like passports or biometric data paired with decentralized systems.

Another solution suggested is the recently launched privacy pools, which allow for regulatory-compliant Ether (ETH) anonymization. Buterin also cited on-device anti-fraud scanning, checking incoming messages and identifying potential misinformation and scams.

These systems are proof of provenance services for physical items using a combination of blockchain and ZK-proof technology. They track various properties of an item throughout its manufacturing cycle, ensuring the user of its authenticity.

The post follows Buterin’s recent privacy roadmap for Ethereum. In it, he highlighted the short-term changes to the base protocol and ecosystem needed to ensure better user privacy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 13:45

Rabobank: Just What Does A World In Which The Dollar Isn't Reserve Currency Look Like?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The US has opened two new Section 232 trade actions likely to lead to 25% tariffs on semiconductors and pharma, as already flagged. Obviously, both industries will reel, and Ireland is likely to take a particularly large hit.

President Trump also suggested he may temporarily pause auto parts tariffs for firms shifting production to the US. Expect other industries to ask for the same, and to get the same response: only for a while, and only if you are moving production Stateside.

US Treasury Secretary Bessent has a shortlist of countries for trade deals: Japan, South Korea, Australia, the UK, and India - plus Canada and Mexico. Vietnam and ASEAN are loitering outside the door, being deeply entwined with China’s economy, but mostly running huge trade deficits with it and equally huge surpluses with the US. President Trump is unhappy with Vietnam’s recent state visit from China’s Xi --with calls for a joint stance against “bullying” and 45 deals signed-- but Hanoi boosting its defence budget 30% could mean it buys US F-16s, and more, to narrow the bilateral trade deficit. However, that’s almost certainly not going to be all the US demands. From a statecraft perspective, it will want countries to mirror what it is doing vis-à-vis China, creating a new closed trade/finance/energy/defence loop.

As the US snaffles up those trade partners, plus the Middle East (more on which shortly), who would that leave for Europe to deal with if it didn’t join that gang? Micronesia and those penguins who are facing a 10% US tariff? Naturally, there are reports the EU and US are to start trade negotiations too, even if visiting EU officials now take burner phones for secrecy. Here, Europe again thinks just buying more US LNG will be a solution; but those China terms and conditions are not going to go away. That’s as Chinese social media is showing its consumers how luxury European brands are actually made in China, encouraging them to opt for local alternatives.

$28000 Birkins bag can be bought from China by the same factory at $1000 (sans logo)

Chinese suppliers have flooded American TikTok with cost breakdown of luxury products from Gucci, LV, Hermes & the 3000-5000% markups of brands pic.twitter.com/f8gIPEjeJQ

— Ayoosh (@ayooshveda) April 14, 2025

In the UK, ‘Senior Labour figures call for review of Chinese investment in UK infrastructure’, and the “Government’s rapprochement with Beijing may risk national security in wake of British Steel crisis, party members say”. Also, household and business refuse may start piling up in the streets outside just Birmingham as unions reject a pay deal ahead of May 1 local elections. So, lots of things that came in nice boxes last week now risk being publicly dumped.  

Former Treasury Secretary Yellen says the Trump admin is undermining the status of the US dollar: the same former Fed Chair who borrowed vast sums at the short end of the yield curve and didn’t refinance US debt cheaply at the long end when she had the chance. Yellen also says onshoring manufacturing jobs is “a pipe dream” and not desirable after presiding over tariffs on China and the CHIPS Act and IRA subsidies aimed at bringing industry and jobs back to the US.

speaking of self-inflicted wounds, US debt increase while Janet Yellen was in charge of Fed or US Treasury : $15 trillion https://t.co/2j3kHOdwIB pic.twitter.com/Uf1SA9RCRU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 14, 2025

A Financial Times editorial argues Trump has no cards and will lose the trade war, because the pro-globalisation Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) says so. For them, despite being wrong for years, this is still an auto-(pharma & chips)-da-fe, an act of faith requiring public penance and the burning of heretics by the Inquisition. This religious view on trade is the latest in a series of with-us-or-against-us bifurcations – and it’s not helpful to those trying to look at the matrix of potential outcomes and the risks involved either way. After all, what ‘cards’ are the PIIE looking at? Yes, China makes stuff and the US doesn’t. But a larger trading bloc without China can, after a period of adjustment, leave China with vast excess production to absorb.

Likewise, Bloomberg commentary says the US dollar will soften as its reserve currency appeal fades; then provides zero commentary on what the follow-on consequences of not having a global reserve currency are for everyone who still has dollar debt to repay:

The total collapse of the dollar? The total collapse of the dollar-based financial system as everyone defaults on trillions in debts they can’t get the bucks to service through trade? The inflationary debasement of said debts? Global bifurcation into different currency (or commodity), trade, clearing, energy, and defense blocs – within which the dollar may remain primus inter pares at gunpoint despite a narrower trade deficit?

After all, the US can use its legacy financialized weakness as a strength if it opts to. Bessent just stated the White House is thinking about who replaces Powell at the Fed next year – and in an age of economic statecraft it’ll surely be someone who understands the power of dollar swap lines (see "The "Nuclear" Button For The Dollar: The Fed's Swap Lines".)

That’s as the Japanese 30-year yield is just shy of its highest level since early 2004 and not far from its highest ever going back to 2000. How will deeply indebted Japan do: more rate hikes? Equally, how will the Eurozone cope with the flip side of EUR being the new ‘global reserve shmurrency’: trade deficits, deindustrialisation, and polarisation, not unity and remilitarisation? So much is unclear on so many fronts: market volatility reflects this rather than masking it.

The RBNZ just attacked the mainstream media for its op-eds on how it operates(!), while separately announcing a new set of coincident forecasting inputs similar to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow, neither of which have any idea about what is going to happen next as tariffs hit.  

In the hit-hard power sphere, Trump refused a Ukrainian offer to buy $50bn of US arms, saying of President Zelenskyy: “He's always looking to purchase missiles. Listen, when you start a war, you gotta know you can win a war. You don't start a war against somebody that's 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles." Clearly, hopes for a ‘peace’ deal and an inverse Nixon —Noxin— linger there.

US nuclear talks with Iran are also set to continue in Oman, not Rome, with threats of attack if no deal is struck; as a parallel US nuclear fuel processing agreement with the Saudis looms - “They are allowed to process uranium just like you. So, you both better behave!” That’s a very high risk, high reward statecraft gamble. Moreover, Arab press reports have it that, with Saudi help, 80,000 troops are massing in Yemen in preparation for a move on Houthi-held territory. As noted, this can all be taken as a sign that the Saudis and the UAE are in the US camp having seen neither China nor Russia can project serious power into the region.

Meanwhile, Australia’s federal election shows how little some Western democracies grasp about our shifting tectonic plates. Aussie media says both major parties’ policies will push up house prices by another 15%: clearly, making something more affordable can never mean its price going down, and Aussie GDP is ‘for’ even higher asset prices. Which is what the PIIE would be happy with the US going back to.

But it won’t. The US is now into an auto-da-fe of another kind and globalisation is on the pyre, and perhaps Wall Street with it until it reflects what’s happening on Main Street.

So, volatility now: but there is another world to come. Are your deeds preparing you for it?

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 13:05

Federal Judge Halts Trump Admin's Deportation Of Half A Million Biden "Parolees"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The intense struggle between the Trump Administration and federal judges continued this week with another court ordering a halt to a nationwide program. In Massachusetts, District Judge Indira Talwani is preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Judge Talwani’s order would require individual hearings for the half of a million individuals allowed into the country under this program by President Joe Biden.

Under the announcement published in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security officially moved to terminate the CHNV Program.

The announcement followed an Executive Order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, entitled “Securing Our Borders,” directing the DHS to end the CHNV program.

Under the notice, DHS said that the parole status would expire in 30 days “unless the Secretary makes an individual determination to the contrary.” It further mandated that parolees who had not obtained a legal basis to be in the United States, such as a green card or other visa, must depart the United States before their parole expires.

In the prior hearing, Judge Talwani indicated that she would not allow that to happen, stating that the Administration’s interpretation of the law was “incorrect” and that “[t]he nub of the problem here is that [Homeland Security Secretary Krisit Noem], in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision.”

In her opinion, Judge Talwani wrote:

“If their parole status is allowed to lapse, plaintiffs will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings. If plaintiffs leave the country on their own, they will face dangers in their native countries, as set forth in their affidavits.”

The court also noted that leaving would cause family separation and jeopardize their ability to seek a remedy based on the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Administration argued that it did have a “reasoned decision” to end the CHNV program and weighed the cost to the parolees. It noted that the parolees were always going to face family separation and costs since this was just a temporary, two-year program. It asserted that it did weigh alternative periods for winding down the program. While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.

There was another pressing reason for the change. If the parolees were allowed to run the course of the full period, those who did not obtain legal status could force formal removal proceedings rather than the expedited removal under the program.

The Justice Department maintained:

“DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program and existing grants of parole under that program is within this statutory authority and comports with the notice requirements of the statute and regulations,” they wrote. “Additionally, given the temporary nature of CHNV parole and CHNV parolees’ pre-existing inability to seek re-parole under the program, their harms are outweighed by the harms to the public if the Secretary is not permitted to discontinue a program she has determined does not serve the public interest.”

All of this presents another novel legal question. Parole is not a legal status under immigration laws. It is a status created by executive action and is now being curtailed under that same authority. However, these individuals came to the country under the promise of a two-year period. The question is whether a temporary program created by executive fiat can be treated as creating a type of vested right.

If Judge Talwani prevails, individual determinations of half a million cases would be an overwhelming burden on the Administration and easily run out the time granted under the program for these individuals. 

Indeed, for many of the individuals, the appellate process could exceed that period.

The court is not weighing the harshness of the decision but the president’s discretion in making such a decision. 

Judge Talwani suggests that, once created by President Biden, the program cannot be curtailed or shortened by President Trump.

That question could very well find itself on the Supreme Court’s ever-lengthening docket.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 12:25

US Import Prices Tumble Despite China Tariffs

The (establishment) world and his pet rabbit has been screaming at you for weeks that the American consumer is about to suffer the worst hyperinflationary hell ever (according to UMich survey respondents) as President Trump attempts to even up the score among its 'allies' over trade policies.

The last 24 hours have thrown a couple of curve balls at the established view - supporting the Trump administration's presumption that ultimately other countries will eat the tariffs... and that companies selling into the US will not want to piss off their biggest customer with demand-sucking price-hikes.

First we saw Sony decide NOT To hike prices on US consumers (while piling price hikes on select markets in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), Australia and New Zealand). 

A "tough decision" apparently for management but its the first anecdotal evidence that Trump's view may be right - firms wont scupper their market share or biggest customer demand unless they really have to (forcing margins lower or offsetting US price stability for non-US customer pain).

Second, and more systemic, we saw US import prices DROP 0.1% MoM in March - the first decline in import prices since September 2024...

This decline comes a month after US imposed 10% tariffs on China (at the start of February)

Goldman summarizes the details:

Import prices declined 0.1% in March, against consensus expectations for a flat reading. 

Import prices ex-petroleum were flat, also below expectations.

Prices declined for industrial supplies (-0.6%), consumer goods ex autos (-0.2%), and autos (-0.1%), and rose for food and beverages (+0.1%) and capital goods (+0.3%). 

The airfares component, which serves as source data for core PCE, edged down 0.2% (SA by GS).

That's not supposed to happen - prices are supposed to soar for American consumers, right?

Based on the details in the import prices report, Goldman estimates that the core PCE price index rose just 0.08% in March (vs. our expectation of 0.08% prior to today's import prices report), corresponding to a year-over-year rate of +2.67%. 

Additionally, they expect that the headline PCE price index were unchanged in March, or increased 2.32% from a year earlier. We estimate that market-based core PCE rose 0.02% in March.

Ultimately this supports (for now) what Trump has been saying:

Yes, tariffs will raise actual input purchase prices BUT to avoid losing market share, the underlying prices - which are captured by import prices - will have to drop to offset the surcharge.

So you have two dynamics: import price (pre-tariff) dropping as tariffs are layered on top of that 'lower' price.

In Trump's ideal world, its a wash with US pocketing the upside and Chinese exporters getting hit on margins.

Finally, as we explained previously, a 50% tariff doesn't mean a 50% rise in prices for American consumers. 

Will Sony's decision be copied by Nike, others? Who knows. But for now China (and/or its companies) is eating the initial tariff charge by Trump... not the American consumer.

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 12:10

 

I discussed much of this in my Q2 2025 RWM client quarterly call on April 5. I am sharing this now because so many questions have poured in.

 

Best Worst Cases

Last Monday, I discussed the consequences of chaos. While the purposes of the new tariff policy were not well explained – some of the goals were muddled and unclear – it seems a large part of the problem was the roll-out. It was ham-fisted, opaque, and amateurish. That amplified the initial market reaction, with a lot of volatility and a significant drawdown.

Consider how the Federal Reserve preps markets in advance for any significant change in policy: They warn that a change is coming several meetings in advance; we see shifts in the dot plot; there are discussions about their favored metrics (PCE vs CPI?). Numerous Fed Presidents fan out to speak in formal, academic environments where they discuss the coming changes. After weeks and weeks, the policy change comes. There is a press conference with the Chairman, and after a month, the meeting minutes come out—a very smooth, well-oiled process.

Whatever the final tariff situation, the White House can clearly learn from the communication strategies the Federal Reserve has perfected.

~~~

We are not privy to the discussions inside the Oval Office. We are left looking at the many false starts and feints, the on-again, off-again nature. We can only observe that the players appear to be mercurial and unpredictable. Whatever comes next seems random and driven by individual whims—or the bond market vigilantes.

Rather than try to guess the impact, I prefer to wargame various scenarios to discern potential outcomes, each with a varying likelihood of occurrence. While there are many gradations, let’s work with three: Best-, Worst-, and Middle-case scenarios.

These map out not merely a variety of outcomes but the paths taken to get there—via the impact on consumer spending, corporate CapEx, hiring, etc. Think of this as the discounting function of the markets, assessing a range of corporate revenues and profits over the next four quarters.

The market volatility has been a real-time attempt to assess those probabilities. A sudden 10% drop in the price of U.S. equities implies a significantly lowered set of revenues and profits the following year.

Let’s consider those three potential outcomes:

Best Case Scenario

We have been told to “Take the president seriously, but not literally.”

Let’s do just that, starting with the unknowns: Is this temporary or permanent? Was this an opening salvo, a negotiating tactic, or an attempt at a complete realignment of global trade? Will there be lots and lots of one-on-one side deals with individual countries? Can we reach a “reasonable set of accommodations globally?” Are we halfway or two-thirds of the way through any adjustments, or is this merely the start?

I imagine a best-case scenario as some more downside to come, but all of this turns out to be a savvy negotiating tactic, and a wide range of deals get cut.

The old regime of Pax Americana remains (mostly) in place, and some of the worst offenses of China – protectionism, theft of intellectual property, hacking corporate America, and the unfair treatment of overseas investors – get modified.

The US remains the global economic, military, and political leader. Many countries are unhappy, but it’s in their (and our) best interest to work these things out.

Everybody saves face, the markets eventually find their footing, and we avoid a recession. Later in the year, encouraged by improving CPI data and minimal economic disruption, the FOMC resumes its rate-cutting regime.

Let’s put a 10-20% likelihood this occurs.

Middle Scenario

This gets worse before it gets better.

Numerous regional alliances form – we see that already in the Pacific Rim countries. Despite their long history of animosity and regional conflicts going back millennia, Japan, China, and South Korea band together. They recognize that this upending of prior relationships threatens all of them. They negotiate a trade alliance to protect themselves against the US. Similar things happen in Europe and elsewhere (South America + Mexico?). These regional alliances develop, giving them the heft to negotiate regional deals with the U.S.

Some damage gets done to the US economy and trade relations. We’ve already seen consumers begin to freeze travel and spending plans in place. The backlash includes boycotts of the US and its goods. Travel from Canada to the US has fallen off 75% already.

On the corporate side, companies hold off on big CapEx spending, building new plants, investments, and hiring. “Hey, we don’t have any clarity as to what the new rules are gonna look like, so we will just sit tight to avoid making any big mistakes.”

Before 2025 ends, a mild recession begins. New Treasury issuance does not go great, and the cost of financing the United States’ deficits soars. Lots of good will, accumulated over the 8 decades since World War Two, is dissipated.

It’s a painful self-own, not quite as bad as the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act or even Brexit, but still an unforced error, recession, and loss of positive momentum caused by a risky undertaking with poorly defined goals amateurishly implemented.

It’s bad, but we have survived worse: The Great Depression, WW2, Watergate, the 1970s Oil Embargo, September 11, the Great Financial Crisis, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Our middle case is painful, but not as disruptive as that laundry list of annus horribilis.

Perhaps Congress finally reclaims its tariff authority. Maybe the next president, POTUS 48, can repair some of the worst of this. A lot of global ass-kissing, rewinds, and generosity, and we restore our prior advantageous trade relations and standing.

The middle scenario is a 40-60% likelihood.

Worst Case Scenario

The end of Pax Americana and the global world order have been in place since the beginning of WW2.

The consumer and corporate freeze that led to a mild recession this year turns into a deeper Stagflationary recession. Parts and materials become hard to find. Key components are missing, in many ways, it becomes reminiscent of the pandemic supply chain woes.

As the Economist magazine observed, this is the biggest economic self-error in a century, it leads to an international realignment. Europe looks inwards and towards itself and decouples from the United States as best as it can. The dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency. Financing our deficits becomes absurdly expensive.

Inflation soars, standards of livings collapse. This leads to a global recession. Employment falling, unemployment rising spending, and wages fall. We have sticky, stubborn stagflation, a very unpleasant economic scenario. Global GDP drops, as do standards of living around the world fall.

We were the military, economic and political leader around the world, only we no longer are. Think United Kingdom after the fall of British Empire – still around, but poorer and much less respected/feared than before.

We’ve frittered away so much good will: We helped stop disease around the world. We’ve. raised literacy levels everywhere, reduced poverty in so many places. We fought HIV in Africa, and Malaria all around the world. That leadership is now gone, and ultimately so much good from it simply dissipates and goes off the rails.

Bad. Things. Happen.

This is the worst case scenario, and honestly, I personally have a hard time imagining its worst repercussions. Ben Hunt is better able to go dark like that, and his take last week – Crashing the Car of Pax Americana – fleshed out the worst-case scenario better than I can.

The worst scenario is a 10-20% likelihood.

To give you an idea of how reckless this is, that’s about a single spin of a six-shooter in Russian Roulette with the entire United States $28 trillion economy…

~~~

I hate ending on such a down note, so let me share one of my favorite charts, via Batnick. The first one up top shows all of the reasons to sell the

Go back a century to 1926: There is always something to feel awful about. The worst-case scenario I laid out sounds terrible, but look at the past a hundred years there, and there has always been something God-awful going around.

Hopefully, cooler heads prevail…

 

 

See Also:
Crashing the Car of Pax Americana (Epsilon Theory, April 7, 2025)

 

Previously:
The Consequences of Chaos (April 7, 2025)

7 Increasing Probabilities of Error (February 24, 2025)

Tune Out the Noise (February 20, 2025)

 

The post What Are the Best & Worst-Case Tariff Scenarios? appeared first on The Big Picture.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett Faces FEC Investigation Over Suspicious Act Blue Donations

Via American Greatness,

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has opened an investigation into Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) over donations made to her 2024 campaign by the Democratic fundraising organization Act Blue.

The FEC began its probe after receiving a complaint from the conservative Coolidge-Reagan Foundation in late March.

The complaint alleges that Crockett received 53 separate donations of $595 from a 73 year old supporter named Randy Best through the Act Blue portal.

However, when one of Crockett’s opponents for 2026 spoke to Best’s wife, she denied that the couple knew anything about donations, raising concerns that the Act Blue donations may have been made by others with donations being given under false names.

Crockett’s campaign received more than $870,000 in donations through Act Blue.

The FEC Complaints states:

Rep. Crockett, through her principal campaign committee Respondent Jasmine for US, has received thousands of other donations through ActBlue totaling over $870,000.

It is unclear how many of these are similarly fraudulent transactions, made in the name of unsuspecting innocent people who did not actually provide the funds.

Act Blue has previously faced questions over its fundraising from Republican members of Congress and GOP state attorneys general after other elderly Democrats said that donations made in their names were not genuine.

As the 2024 election cycle drew to close, a U.S. House panel called upon the FBI, the Treasury Department and the Director of National Intelligence to provide classified briefings on whether foreign actors from China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela were using Act Blue to launder illicit funds into U.S. political campaigns.

Act Blue maintains that it is following the law and dismisses the allegations as partisan attacks.

As the respondent, Crockett will have 15 days to respond to the allegations, although the FEC may choose to grant an additional extension of 30 to 60 days for a response.

* * *

We've sold a TON of these lighter / flashlight combos...

Buy two for free shipping! (over $50)

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back

Tyler Durden Tue, 04/15/2025 - 11:50