Individual Economists

California's High Costs, Low Incentives Are Scaring Away Film & TV Producers, Report Says

Zero Hedge -

California's High Costs, Low Incentives Are Scaring Away Film & TV Producers, Report Says

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Low incentives and complicated state regulations, combined with high housing and business costs, have rendered California unable to keep Hollywood from moving production to other states and countries, according to an entertainment industry report released on May 27 by the Milken Institute, a California-based think tank.

Hollywood’s in-state production has dropped in the past two years as other states and international destinations continue to increase industry incentives, according to the report’s authors, Kevin Klowden, executive director for the Milken Institute Finance, and Madeleine Waddoups, a graduate teaching assistant in the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California–Los Angeles.

The industry has contributed for more than a century to the state’s cultural and physical exports, has a huge impact on tourism, and has also boosted the fields of design, technology, and innovative manufacturing, according to the report, adding that numerous other industries depend on the movie and television business and its contribution to the state’s identity, jobs, and exports.

The industry has seen many highs and lows in California over the past 100 years or more, but has never faced the “wide ranging” threat now posed to production after television reached its peak in 2021, the authors said.

“The consequences for California have been significant,” the institute said.

The Golden State lost $4.14 billion in industry output and more than 17,200 jobs from 2019 to 2023.

“While most states other than New York cannot compete with California’s combination of skilled workers and filming infrastructure, California’s base 20 percent incentives, combined with dramatically higher housing and business costs, have left the state uncompetitive,” the institute found.

A “base 20 percent incentive” means the tax credit in California starts at 20 percent of a film producer’s in-state spending, up to a specified amount.

Previous disruptions to the entertainment industry in California have involved the advent of television in the late 1940s, a strong dollar in the 1990s, and competitive film incentives in the early 2010s, the report said.

But Hollywood has never faced several issues at the same time, as it has recently, according to Milken.

“Combined with high levels of financial strain facing the studios in the wake of the 2023 strikes, driven by stagnating streaming growth and the loss of prior revenue streams in DVDs and broadcast television, the need to find less expensive locations has never been stronger,” the institute reported.

The consequent impact on the state’s workers and businesses—inside the industry and supporting it—“has never been felt more quickly and more severely,” according to the study.

The Hollywood sign in Los Angeles on Dec. 29, 2022. Stefani Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Streaming growth has slowed nationally. From 2019 to 2023, revenue from streaming content increased by 150 percent.

That growth is expected to slow significantly, however.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), which provides professional services to the global entertainment and media industry, projects only 30 percent growth in streaming revenue from 2023 to 2028, according to the Milken Institute.

“This growth has not been enough to offset the decline in revenue and demand from movies, broadcast, television, and cable,” the report authors wrote in the executive summary.

National entertainment jobs also decreased by nearly 14 percent from 2019 to 2023. The number of productions peaked around 2016, the institute reported.

From the spring of 2019 to the spring of 2024, entertainment jobs dropped by 15 percent in California, the institute reported. Adding to the pain, working hours and wages in California’s entertainment industry did not bounce back after the 2023 writers and actors strikes during the union-driven national “summer of strikes.”

The five-month writers strike was declared over in September 2023 after they reached an agreement with major studios that included significant multi-year pay raises, more health insurance contributions, regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), and other production guarantees.

The actors settled their contract with studios two months later. The $1 billion contract also includes pay increases, AI regulations, and the introduction of streaming participation bonuses.

According to the Milken study, the entertainment industry had 28.5 average weekly hours and $30.84 average hourly earnings in 2023. In 2024, from January to November, that number dropped to 27.3 average weekly hours and $27.38 average hourly earnings.

“The problem is particularly noteworthy in filming activity within Los Angeles County,” the institute reported.

Since 2019, the number of on-location filming days has dropped by nearly 36 percent in Los Angeles, and soundstage filming days dropped by nearly 30 percent, according to FilmLA, a film office for the city and county of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions.

Outside competition for production has strengthened since 2014. Other states are increasing incentives to attract productions. New York has grown its annual incentives funding from 2022 to 2025, raising the budget to $700 million per year and increasing the base credit rate to 30 percent.

Texas is also expected to increase its biannual incentives to nearly $500 million per year by the end of 2025, according to the report.

California allocates $330 million.

The Milken Institute recommended several actions to address the lack of work before the loss of talented workers, prop houses, costume shops, catering firms, camera rentals, and other businesses “becomes irrecoverable.”

The institute recommended increasing the state’s film incentive rates to a base of 30 percent and offering at least $700 million in production incentives per year. The changes would generate nearly $3 billion in more entertainment spending in California, and nearly $6 billion in total output to the state’s economy, according to the report.

Another idea was to address gaps in productions, include shorter-form shows under 40 minutes, and increase coverage for independent films and mid-budget productions that provide consistent streams of regular local work.

An entrance to Universal Studios in Los Angeles County on May 2, 2023. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

The institute also suggested moving to a year-round schedule for allocating tax incentives and improving the state’s regulatory processes for applying for the credits.

The report also mentioned streamlining and improving local filmmaking permits and easing restrictions on the use of local buildings.

Local, state, and federal officials have responded to the entertainment industry crisis in California in the past few months.

In May, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued an executive directive to support local production and boost jobs. The order aims to lower costs, streamline city processes, and increase access to iconic city locations.

In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a plan to expand the tax credit program for the film and television industry to $750 million—more than double the current $330 million allocation.

And President Donald Trump also announced on May 4 that he authorized his administration to impose a 100 percent tariff on movies produced outside the United States as a way to protect the industry.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 14:45

Watch: American Contractors Throw Stun Grenades At Gazans Outside Aid Site

Zero Hedge -

Watch: American Contractors Throw Stun Grenades At Gazans Outside Aid Site

The United States government has distanced itself from Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) operations, after the aid group's initial attempts to distribute food in a famine zone outside Rafah in the Gaza Strip turned to chaos.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce made clear in fresh statements that "This is not a state department effort. We don’t have a plan." She added that "I'm not going to speculate or to say what they should or should not do."

Screenshot of video showing starving Palestinian crowds overrunning an aid distribution checkpoint.

There's tension and a bit of a standoff between the GHF and UN groups, with the latter fiercely criticizing the lack of experience or track record of the former, which appears to have been authorized by Israel based largely on the founder's close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The use of American mercenaries to protect GHF aid sites inside Gaza has also proven ultra-controversial. And matters aren't going to be helped by the new footage which has emerged showing US contractors throwing stun grenades at Palestinians along a security fence

"Footage circulated by Palestinian media purportedly shows members of an American security company throwing stun grenades at Gazans outside an aid distribution site in the Netzarim Corridor area," TOI reports.

It seems to have been part of a separate chaotic incident, afer we reported Tuesday: Shots Fired, American Contractors Flee, As Starving Palestinians Overrun Aid Distribution Site. Watch the below footage which has been confirmed by the Times of Israel and other regional outlets:

"Come back tomorrow!" a voice can be heard shouting from the other side of the fence in American-accented English.

The report identifies the location of the stun grenade incident as to the south of Gaza City, and it is the third compound being operated by the Israel- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. GHF did not comment on the stun grenade incident.

GHF has since said it is temporarily suspending operations "due to disorder" - in an announcement that was made Wednesday. Israel has meanwhile rejected the charge of the whole scheme being a failure, instead blaming unruly Palestinian masses, Hamas, and criminal gangs who have long looted aid stores in the Strip.

Regardless of who's to blame, the optics American mercenaries with 'boots on the ground' inside Gaza - and hurling explosive devices at starving Palestinians who've gathered at a metal fence in desert environs is some proverbial late stage Roman empire sh*t.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 13:40

Stellar 7Y Auction Sees Highest Stop Through Since 2022, Record Low Dealers

Zero Hedge -

Stellar 7Y Auction Sees Highest Stop Through Since 2022, Record Low Dealers

It's only fitting that a week of impressive coupon auctions would conclude with what was the strongest 7Y auction in years.

Moments ago, with the nervous bond market still on edge over the recent bond collapse in Japan, the Treasury concluded the week's final auction when it sold $44 billion in 7Y paper. It was spectacular.

The high yield was 4.194%, which while 7bps higher than last month, stopped through the When Issued 4.216% by 2.2bps, the biggest stop through since Dec 22.

The bid to cover rose from 2.55 to 2.70, the highest since December and well above the six-auction average of 2.64.

The internals were most remarkable, however, with Indirects surging from 59.3% to 71.5%, the highest since December's record 87.9%. And with Directs taking down 23.6%, down modestly from 25.4% in April, Dealers were left holding just 4.85%, the lowest on record.

Overall, this was one of the best 7 Year auctions in a long time...

... with stellar results even as yields hit session lows just around the time of the auction. Not surprisingly, 10Y yields dripped to fresh session lows just around 4.42 after the results hit, although they recovered some of the move in the minutes since.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 13:31

Rickards On Gold Leasing: Is It All There?

Zero Hedge -

Rickards On Gold Leasing: Is It All There?

Authored by Adam Sharp via DailyReckoning.com,

Our friend and colleague Jim Rickards has the energy and drive of a 20-year old. I try to read everything he writes, and watch all his media appearances. But sometimes a gem slips through the cracks.

Two months ago, Jim was featured on Daniela Cambone’s Youtube show. This was a gem, and luckily a reader alerted us to it.

The provocative title is “Jim Rickards: Is the Gold Gone? Did the U.S. Treasury Lease it? This Would Break the System”.

The interview took place during the beginning of the trade war tensions, so the first 7:00 minutes of the discussion can be skipped (unless you want a recap).

At the 7:40 minute mark, Daniela and Jim get deep into the fundamentals of gold. How it’s priced, delivered, and traded internationally.

Jim explains that the vast majority of gold is traded as paper contracts.

Only about 1% of gold traded on futures exchanges like the COMEX is ever physically delivered.

Mr. Rickards goes on to explain that exchanges like the COMEX can change the rules whenever they please. For example, when the Hunt Brothers cornered the silver market in 1980, COMEX did not allow them to take physical delivery.

Tampering With The “Primal Forces”

When the topic of Fort Knox gold comes up, Jim says that the gold is all there. However, his concern is whether that gold has been leased (on paper, not physically) to the bullion banks.

“You can have a hundred tonnes of paper gold transactions supported by one physical tonne that got leased by the Treasury to JPMorganChase.”

Gold bugs have long suspected that bullion banks, such as JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs, have “leased” gold from the U.S. Treasury. And it’s possible that gold has been “rehypothecated” many times, meaning that multiple individuals believe they own the same piece of gold.

Jim notes that when we ask questions about gold leasing, we are essentially “tampering with the primal forces”.

He goes on to explain the difference between allocated and unallocated gold, and how the rehypothecation process works.

This interview is a must-watch for all Jim Rickards fans.

And here is further reading on this fascinating and controversial topic:

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 13:20

Realtor.com Reports Most Actively "For Sale" Inventory since 2019

Calculated Risk -

What this means: On a weekly basis, Realtor.com reports the year-over-year change in active inventory and new listings. On a monthly basis, they report total inventory. For May, Realtor.com reported inventory was up 30.6% YoY, but still down 16.3% compared to the 2017 to 2019 same month levels. 
 Now - on a weekly basis - inventory is up 29.7% YoY.

Realtor.com has monthly and weekly data on the existing home market. Here is their weekly report: Weekly Housing Trends View—Data for Week Ending May 24, 2025
Active inventory climbed 29.7% year-over-year

The number of homes actively for sale remains on a strong upward trajectory, now 29.7% higher than this time last year. This represents the 81st consecutive week of annual gains in inventory. There were more than 1 million homes for sale last week, the highest inventory level since December 2019.

New listings—a measure of sellers putting homes up for sale—rising 8.2% year-over-year

New listings rose again last week, up 8.2% compared to the same period last year.

The median list price was up 0.2% year-over-year

After a brief cooling period the previous week, the national median listing price resumed its upward trajectory last week. At the same time, the median listing price per square foot—which adjusts for changes in home size—rose 0.9% year-over-year.
Realtor YoY Active ListingsHere is a graph of the year-over-year change in inventory according to realtor.com

Inventory was up year-over-year for the 81st consecutive week.  
New listings were solid.
Median list prices were mostly unchanged year-over-year.

For First Time Since 2019, Trump Invites Powell To White House To Discuss Economy

Zero Hedge -

For First Time Since 2019, Trump Invites Powell To White House To Discuss Economy

The day after we posted this on X: 

President Trump invited Fed Chair Powell to The White House for the first time since 2019.

Earlier this month, Powell indicated he would not seek a meeting with Trump, unless the president sought one.

"I've never asked for a meeting with any President, and I never will," Powell said in a news conference.

"I wouldn't do that. There's never a reason for me to ask for a meeting. It's always been the other way."

The Fed reported that at the President's invitation, Chair Powell met with the President today at the White House to discuss economic developments including for growth, employment, and inflation.

Chair Powell did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook.

Finally, Chair Powell said that he and his colleagues on the FOMC will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective, and non-political analysis.

So, they didn't discuss what's different this time and why Powell didn't cut rates?

Weak macro data (red arrow), collapse in financial conditions (orange oval), and recovery in macro surprises (green arrow)... prompted a 50bps cut in September (six weeks before the election). But this time... 'pause' is the message.

...but, but, but remember, they are apolitical!!

 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 13:00

Saifedean Ammous: "Nothing Stops This Train" – Tether, Bitcoin, & The Endgame For The Dollar

Zero Hedge -

Saifedean Ammous: "Nothing Stops This Train" – Tether, Bitcoin, & The Endgame For The Dollar

Authored by Jenna Montgomery via BitcoinMagazine.com,

At Bitcoin 2025, economist and author Saifedean Ammous laid out a bold vision for the future of global finance, asserting that Bitcoin - not the U.S. dollar - will anchor tomorrow’s economy, with Tether as the bridge...

Saifedean Ammous, CEO of Saifedean.com and author of The Bitcoin Standard, delivered a data-driven keynote at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference, warning of inevitable U.S. dollar decline and positioning Bitcoin as the only rational hedge.

“Default, devaluation, or default by devaluation are inevitable,” Ammous declared, adding pointedly, “Tether can’t fix what a century of fiat democracy ruined.”

Using projections and flow charts, Ammous argued that Tether’s Bitcoin strategy could soon outpace its U.S. dollar reserves.

“Then Tether will break the peg upwards,” he said, predicting a scenario where 1 USDT could equal 1.02 USD and continue revaluing as the dollar weakens. “Tether becomes a relatively stablecoin as the dollar declines.”

The talk emphasized what Ammous described as a self-reinforcing loop: as USDT demand rises, so does Tether’s need for BTC reserves, which drives up Bitcoin prices—leading to even more revaluation.

“This is a significant impact on the market,” he said. “Buying bitcoin is the smartest thing anybody could do.”

In a final sweeping statement, Ammous forecasted the end of the USD era.

“Eventually, USD reserves go to zero next to BTC reserves,” he said.

“USDT keeps getting revalued upward until it is redeemable in bitcoin. USDT → BTCT.”

He called Tether a “transition monetary system” and concluded, “Even the most bullish scenario for USD is much more bullish for BTC.” 

To Ammous, the dollar is locked in a downward spiral while Bitcoin, with its “number go up technology,” continues rising.

“The thing that goes up is going to overtake the thing that goes down,” he said—summarizing his entire argument in one sentence.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 12:55

Did Smoot-Hawley Cause The Great Depression?

Zero Hedge -

Did Smoot-Hawley Cause The Great Depression?

Authored by Christopher Whalen via DailyReckoning.com,

Americans are taught in school that the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation of 1930 greatly exacerbated the Great Depression and sent the world spinning off into a decade of debt deflation and economic contraction.

This seems to make sense until we remember that the history of the United States over the past century was written largely by progressives. In fact, the Great Depression began in 1920 with a decade of falling prices for farm products, a deflationary wave that eventually engulfed the real estate sector and the entire US economy.

What is missed by many discussions of Smoot-Hawley during and after that period, is the fact that the economic collapse of the 1930s was already a given with or without the new tariff law. The impetus behind the political decision to raise tariffs was a misguided reaction to the collapse of agricultural prices, but the force behind this deflationary wave was primarily “positive” factors such as new technology and innovation. The deflation that began after WWI decimated farm communities and eventually led to the collapse of real estate prices, particularly Florida real estate.

Support for protectionism was the consistent refrain from the corporate and farm lobbies in Washington in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and was supported by members of both political parties. But the real underlying cause of the powerful political push to raise the existing tariffs even higher at the end of 1929 may be found in the substantial changes that were occurring in the American economy.

Many historians and economists blame the level of tariffs after World War I and particularly during the Great Depression for making more severe the economic contraction and unemployment following the 1929 market crash. The passage of the Fordney-McCumber Tarif Act in 1922 symbolized the unique Republican penchant for trade protectionism — and currency inflation — that stretched decades back in time to the party’s inception in the 1850s.

In his 2005 book, “Making Sense of Smoot Hawley,” Bernard Beaudreau argues that the imposition of tariff protection for U.S. industry in 1930 was simply a continuation of the policies implemented by the Republican Party after they returned to power in 1920. Beaudreau cites the rising productivity of U.S. factories, the spread of electrification throughout America, and the continued influx of cheap foreign-produced food and manufactured goods as the chief cause of the deflation during this period. Bread production, for example, became automated in the 1920s, contributing to a decline in bread prices.

Imports were still perceived to be a threat by the American manufacturers of that day, despite already high tariff levels. Underemployment was the result of the lack of demand and thus falling product prices that resulted in the 1930s. American industry became too efficient too quickly, resulting in a global surplus of goods and an equally dangerous lack of demand. Air-conditioning and improved transport helped to leverage the future value of Florida swamp land into a towering speculative bubble that collapsed two years before the Great Crash of 1929.

A century before the invention of such things as “artificial intelligence” or AI, American workers worried about technology taking their livelihoods. Senator Reed Smoot (1862-1941), Republican of Utah, said of Smoot-Hawley: “To hold the American tariff policy, or any other policy of our government, responsible for this gigantic deflationary move is only to display one’s ignorance of its universal character. The world is paying for its ruthless destruction of life and property in the World War and for its failure to adjust purchasing power to productive capacity during the industrial revolution of the decade following the war.”

The onset of the Great Depression from the summer of 1929 on brought the unemployment rate from 4.6 percent in 1929 to 8.9 percent in 1930. Congress sought to correct this imbalance by limiting imports via the Smoot-Hawley tariff. While there is little doubt that higher tariffs made the Great Depression worse, higher levies on imports may not have been the primary factor. Indeed, the introduction of electricity and other innovations drove strong growth in many sectors of the economy, but not on the farm.

This alternative view of the role of Smoot-Hawley in turning the market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression of the 1930s is important to understanding the narrative of the 1920s. Following the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. position regarding tariffs changed dramatically, in part because much of the industrial capacity of Europe and Asia was destroyed by the conflict.

Under the rubric of rebuilding the postwar world, America embraced a policy of open markets and free trade. This policy created enormous wealth and prosperity in the first several decades after the end of the Second World War. Later it sacrificed American jobs and industrial capacity to other nations. With the election of President Donald Trump in 2024, the US has embarked upon an explicit policy of rebalancing America’s trade relationship with the world by using the threat of tariffs to compel negotiations.

Far from being a detriment to Americans, the threat of tariffs wielded by President Trump is a mechanism for ensuring that other nations embrace reciprocity – “fair dealing” in classical American terms – to ensure that predatory behavior by modern mercantilist superstates such as China does not injure American workers and industries. In this sense, President Trump is inheriting the traditional, pro-labor political mantle of the Democratic Party following World War II.

Mainstream histories of this period make it seem that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a prime factor behind the worsening economy, but the currency devaluation by Roosevelt and his refusal to lower tariffs that were already in place after decades of enlightened Republican rule were more significant. Progressive researchers pretend that the devaluation of the dollar and gold-backed securities somehow led to increased income and demand, but these assertions ignore the massive liquidation of debt and equity that occurred in the 1930s. It is closer to the mark to say that tariffs did not help, but the seizure of gold and devaluation of the dollar were systemic events manufactured by Roosevelt and his New Dealers that seem to have been the larger negative factor for the economy.

In his memoirs, President Herbert Hoover noted that the dollar devaluation by FDR was effectively an increase in the tariff from the perspective of the cost to American buyers: “The Democrats have made a great issue out of the disasters they predicted would flow from the modest increases in the Smoot-Hawley tariff (mostly agricultural products). The fact was that 65 percent of the imported goods under the tariff were free of duty, and that legislation increased tariffs on the 35 percent dutiable goods by somewhere around 10 percent. But the greatest tariff boost in all our history came from Roosevelt’s devaluation.Hoover goes on to illustrate that both imports and exports per capita declined in the United States between 1935 and 1938 due to the regressive, anti-business policies of the New Deal.

*  *  *

If you enjoyed this article, Christopher just released a new version of his best-selling book, Inflated: Money, Debt and the American Dream. Here’s what the legendary James Grant, founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, has to say about it:

“Who says that the sequel never stacks up with the original? The new edition of Inflated brings Christopher Whalen’s marvelously accessible history of American finance right down to the present day. Securities analyst, central banker, investor, deal-doer and author, Whalen is no mere recounter of the past but also an informed and provocative critic of the present. His ideas about the future will likely save his readers some large multiple of the price of his book.”

This highly anticipated new version of Inflated is hot off the presses and can be ordered on Amazon.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 12:33

White House On Tariffs: "Nothing's Really Changed"

Zero Hedge -

White House On Tariffs: "Nothing's Really Changed"

The White House on Thursday downplayed the implications of a court ruling that blocked some of President Trump's tariff measures, and suggested they will win on appeal.

Photographer: Chris Kleponis/CNP/Bloomberg

"If anybody thinks this caught the administration by surprise, think again," Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told Bloomberg TV. "Nothing’s really changed."

Navarro was responding to a late Wednesday ruling by a 3-judge panel on the US Court of International Trade, who found that President Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify some of the tariffs.

"The big picture here is we’ve got a very strong case with IEEPA," said Navarro. "But the court basically tells us, if we lose that, we just do some other things."

According to Navarro, US Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer will speak to the tools available, and "you'll be hearing from him soon."

Navarro floated Section 122 tariffs, which would involve levies of up to 15% for 150 days.

Wednesday's ruling gives the administration 10 days to carry out its order, which applies to Trump's global flat tariff, boosted rates on China and others, and his fentantyl-related tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. It does not affect other levies imposed via other methods, such as Section 232 and 301 levies.

Meanwhile, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said they aren't pulling the trigger on any alternative options just yet - telling Fox Business that the administration is confident that the court ruling is wrong and will be overturned on appeal.

"There are different approaches that would take a couple of months to put these in place and using procedures that have been approved in the past or approved in the last administration, but we’re not planning to pursue those right now," said Hassett.

As we noted Wednesday evening following the ruling, Goldman Sachs deemed it a nothingburger - writing;

Bottom Line: The Court of International Trade blocked the tariffs the Trump administration imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling blocks 6.7pp of tariff increase since the start of the year, including the tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, and the 10% baseline tariff, but does not affect sectoral tariffs. As the administration can impose an across-the-board tariff and country-specific tariffs under other legal authorities (e.g., Sec. 122 and Sec. 301) this ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners.

And the punchline:

As it seems unlikely that the administration could win an appeal in the 10 days it has under the CIT order to remove the tariffs, we would expect the White House to announce a similar across-the-board tariff using Sec. 122. This would then provide the administration time to launch a series of Sec. 301 cases against larger trading partners, potentially opening the door to imposing tariffs higher than 10% in some cases. However, it seems unlikely that the administration could complete Sec. 301 investigations on every US trading partner within the next several months. If the court’s ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs remains in effect, this could mean that smaller trading partners and/or countries with smaller trade surpluses with the US might not face a baseline tariff when Sec. 122 tariffs roll off after 150 days (assuming the Trump administration cannot find a legal means to extend them).

"There’s no question that there’s an economic emergency," said Navarro, adding that there's also an emergency "in a world where China has killed over a million Americans with fentanyl poison, and we took this step to stop that."

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 11:20

DOJ Investigating Whether California's Law Letting Males Join Girls' Sports Violates Title IX

Zero Hedge -

DOJ Investigating Whether California's Law Letting Males Join Girls' Sports Violates Title IX

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a civil rights investigation into California’s enforcement of a state law that allows male students who identify as female to compete in girls’ sports, warning that the policy may violate Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination.

In a May 28 statement, the DOJ announced it was opening a formal inquiry into whether California, along with its senior legal, educational, and athletic organizations, is “engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on sex.”

At the heart of the probe is AB 1266, a 2014 California law that permits students to participate in school sports in accordance with their gender identity.

The DOJ contends this policy may unlawfully allow males to displace females from podium finishes, scholarships, and even team rosters—outcomes that DOJ officials argue run afoul of Title IX, the landmark federal civil rights law.

“Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education. It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in the statement.

“This Division will aggressively defend women’s hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.”

U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli added that his office and the rest of the DOJ “will work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone–public officials included–from violating women’s civil rights.”

As part of the investigation, the DOJ said it had sent a series of letters of legal notice to California state officials and organizations. In a letter to the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), the DOJ said it had found reasonable cause to believe that CIF, which oversees high school athletics across the state, is engaged in a pattern of discrimination against female athletes by enforcing policies that permit male students to compete in girls’ events.

The letter singled out CIF Bylaw 300.D, which instructs member schools to allow students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. DOJ officials argue that this directive effectively compels schools to allow male athletes into girls’ competitions, “thereby depriving girls and young women of equal athletic opportunities.”

As evidence, the DOJ cited a recent CIF-sanctioned track meet where a transgender athlete—identified in media reports as AB Hernandez—won the girls’ triple jump and long jump titles and qualified for the state finals in three events.

“California’s top-ranked girls’ triple jumper, and second-ranked long jumper, is a boy,” the DOJ letter stated, adding that female athletes have alleged they were similarly “robbed of podium positions and spots on their teams” after they were forced to compete against males.

President Donald Trump condemned Hernandez’s victories in a post on Truth Social, threatening to withhold federal funding from California if the state does not act.

“This week a transitioned Male athlete, at a major event, won ‘everything,’ and is now qualified to compete in the ‘State Finals’ next weekend,” Trump wrote.

“As a Male, he was a less than average competitor. As a Female, this transitioned person is practically unbeatable. THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS.”

Trump warned that federal funding would be withheld, possibly permanently, if his presidential decree on the subject matter is not followed. The president was referring to a Feb. 5 executive order—titled Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports—which rescinds all federal funds from state educational programs that “deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy.”

U.S. President Donald Trump, joined by female athletes, signs the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order in the East Room at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

CIF, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times on the DOJ investigation, said in a May 28 statement that it is adopting a temporary rule change that opens up its track-and-field championship to more girls after AB Hernandez’s win drew backlash.

Under the change, “any biological female student-athlete who would have earned the next qualifying mark for one of their Section’s automatic qualifying entries in the CIF State meet, and did not achieve the CIF State at-large mark in the finals at their Section meet” will be given an opportunity to participate in the upcoming state championship. Further, if a transgender athlete wins a medal in the high jump, triple jump, and long jump competitions, their podium spot will not displace that of a “biological female.”

“The CIF values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code,” the federation added.

The DOJ’s investigation into AB 1266 follows a lawsuit filed earlier this year by a group of female high school athletes who say they were displaced by male competitors under the current CIF and state policies. The DOJ has filed a statement of interest in the case, siding with the plaintiffs and arguing that AB 1266 is incompatible with federal law.

“The presence of a biological male-transgender female competing on a girls’ cross-country team upsets the level playing field, interfering with the equal opportunity for females to fully participate in and enjoy the educational benefits of athletics,” reads the May 28 filing in the case, which was brought by two girls cross-country athletes and their guardians, along with the Save Girls’ Sports organization.

The plaintiff students named in the suit are T.S., a junior cross-country runner and team captain at a California high school, and K.S., a ninth-grader at the same school. According to the lawsuit, T.S. lost her varsity team spot and missed key recruitment opportunities after a male athlete was allowed to compete in her place, despite reportedly failing to meet team eligibility standards.

Attorney Robert Tyler, who represents the plaintiff students, issued a statement calling on Trump and lawmakers in Congress to take action to “restore women’s sports and stop the mockery of women” by a “radical and ignorant ideology.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 11:00

Are We Going To War With Iran?

Zero Hedge -

Are We Going To War With Iran?

Just yesterday, President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he personally was behind the push urging Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran. War averted, for now… but as Trump said, “that could change at any moment.”

Debating what Trump should do tonight at 7pm ET on the ZeroHedge homepage will be Libertarian Institute founder Scott Horton and Dr. Meir Javedanfar, professor at Reichmann University in Israel. To avoid moderator biases, the debate will be co-moderated by Clint Russell and Ami Kozak.

Dr. Javedanfar is Iranian-born but escaped and now resides in Israel where he teaches about Israel-Iran policy. He has long warned about Iran’s nuclear advancement and is an advocate for containment and aggressive sanctions.

Horton is a native Texan and Libertarian through-and-through who says “our anti-Iran policy is born in Tel Aviv,” pinning the blame on Israel and Netanyahu.

This should be a fun one. We’ll see you at 7pm ET.


 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 10:45

US Pending Home Sales Plunge Most In 30 Months, Back Near Record Lows

Zero Hedge -

US Pending Home Sales Plunge Most In 30 Months, Back Near Record Lows

US Pending Home Sales plunged 6.3% MoM in April - far more than the 1.0% MoM decline expected (below all estimates) - and the biggest MoM drop since September 2022...

Source: Bloomberg

Dragging the Index of Pending Home Sales back down near record lows...

Source: Bloomberg

Sales fell in all four regions with the West experiencing the biggest drop of 8.9%.

"At this critical stage of the housing market, it is all about mortgage rates," said NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun.

"Despite an increase in housing inventory, we are not seeing higher home sales. Lower mortgage rates are essential to bring home buyers back into the housing market."

As a reminder, pending home sales are often looked to as a leading indicator of existing-home purchases given properties typically go under contract a month or two before they’re sold.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 10:09

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Suspending Biden-Era Migrant Parole Programs

Zero Hedge -

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Suspending Biden-Era Migrant Parole Programs

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to resume processing applications from foreign nationals living in the United States under Biden-era humanitarian parole programs who are seeking work permits or more permanent immigration status.

In handing down her order, District Court Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the Trump administration that the secretary of homeland security has broad discretion to direct immigration policy.

However, she rejected a claim that suspending the parole programs was within that broad discretion, writing that “their conclusion that the Secretary’s actions are wholly shielded from judicial review is incorrect.”

The judge agreed with two organizations that sued the Trump administration—the Justice Action Center and Human Rights First—saying they were likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that any such suspension of the programs was arbitrary and capricious.

Talwani also said it was not in the public interest for hundreds of thousands of immigrants to lose their legal status in the United States.

“This court emphasizes, as it did in its prior order, that it is not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country, such that these individuals cannot legally work in their communities or provide for themselves and their families,” Talwani wrote in her order.

Talwani’s decision grants a reprieve to thousands of beneficiaries of humanitarian parole programs, including Uniting for Ukraine, Operation Allies Welcome, Central American Minors Parole, Family Reunification Parole, Military Parole in Place, and the process available to Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans known as CHNV humanitarian parole.

Under those programs, individuals from Afghanistan, Latin America, and Ukraine were granted a two-year parole to live in the country on humanitarian or public benefit grounds.

The Trump administration has sought to end the use of the parole program, arguing the Biden administration abused it to “indiscriminately allow 1.5 million migrants to enter our country.”

In August 2024, the Biden administration put the parole program on hold after authorities discovered fraudulent information in thousands of application forms filed by sponsors.

After taking office in January, President Donald Trump terminated the CBP One app service, which was established under the previous administration to allow migrants outside the United States to schedule appointments at U.S. ports of entry.

Following Trump’s order, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive ending what he described as “the broad abuse of humanitarian parole,” returning the program to a case-by-case basis.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials subsequently stopped processing new parole applications.

In her ruling, Talwani said federal law still requires agencies under DHS to follow a lengthy process for granting or denying parole and other immigration relief.

One of the Trump administration’s orders “gives no reasoned explanation for its decision and thus no basis for the suggestion that such action is ‘consistent with applicable statutes, regulations and court orders,’” she wrote.

Another directive ordering an examination of certain parole programs to determine if they were strictly in accordance with law was “unclear” and included “no findings that the Parole Programs are not strictly” in accordance with law, she said.

Human Rights Group Welcomes Ruling

Anwen Hughes, director of legal strategy for refugee programs at Human Rights First, welcomed the decision. She said the ruling “reaffirms what we have always known to be true: our government has a legal obligation to respect the rights of all humanitarian parole beneficiaries and the Americans who have welcomed them into their communities.”

“We are pleased that the court has again rightly recognized the harm the government’s arbitrary decision-making has inflicted on innocent people, and we share the judge’s hope that the government will adhere to this order and immediately resume adjudicating our clients’ applications for relief,” she said.

Last month, Talwani blocked the Trump administration from revoking the parole status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

The administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause her decision, arguing it prevents the executive branch “from exercising its discretionary authority over a key aspect of the Nation’s immigration and foreign policy and thwarts Congress’s express vesting of that decision in the Secretary, not courts.”

The Epoch Times contacted DHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 10:05

NAR: Pending Home Sales Decrease 6.3% in April; Down 2.5% YoY

Calculated Risk -

From the NAR: Pending Home Sales Declined 6.3% in April
Pending home sales decreased 6.3% in April, according to the National Association of REALTORS®. All four U.S. regions experienced month-over-month losses in transactions. Year-over-year, contract signings rose in the Midwest but descended in the Northeast, South and West – with the West suffering the greatest loss.

The Pending Home Sales Index (PHSI)* – a forward-looking indicator of home sales based on contract signings – dove 6.3% to 71.3 in April. Year-over-year, pending transactions retracted by 2.5%. An index of 100 is equal to the level of contract activity in 2001.

"At this critical stage of the housing market, it is all about mortgage rates," said NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun. "Despite an increase in housing inventory, we are not seeing higher home sales. Lower mortgage rates are essential to bring home buyers back into the housing market."
...
The Northeast PHSI decreased 0.6% from last month to 62.1, down 3.0% from April 2024. The Midwest index condensed 5.0% to 73.5 in April, up 2.2% from the previous year.

The South PHSI sank 7.7% to 85.9 in April, down 3.0% from a year ago. The West index degraded 8.9% from the prior month to 53.3, down 6.5% from April 2024.
emphasis added
Note: Contract signings usually lead sales by about 45 to 60 days, so this would usually be for closed sales in May and June.

US Cancels $700 Million Moderna Bird Flu Vaccine Contract

Zero Hedge -

US Cancels $700 Million Moderna Bird Flu Vaccine Contract

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via Substack,

In what could be a massive shift away from bird flu pandemic orchestration, the Trump administration has canceled its contract with Moderna for developing an avian influenza “bird flu” vaccine for humans, including purchase rights.

“The Company had previously expected to advance the program to late-stage development with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); however, today Moderna received notice that HHS will terminate the award for the late-stage development and right to purchase pre-pandemic influenza vaccines,” according to a Wednesday press release from Moderna.

Moderna in January was awarded $590 million by the Biden admin to advance the development of its bird flu vaccine, in addition to $176 million awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last year to complete the late-stage development and testing of a pre-pandemic mRNA-based vaccine against the H5N1 avian influenza, Reuters pointed out.

Is the Moderna cancellation a signal that the administration is moving away from escalating bird flu pandemic orchestration?

It’s difficult to tell right now.

The unprecedented cancellation comes just after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) quietly confirmed the federal government’s plans to launch clinical trials for a “universal vaccine” for influenza in 2026—a synthetic injection built by fusing together parts of multiple virus strains into a single dose.

It also comes after the Trump admin’s recent announcement of the development of a $500 million “next-generation, universal vaccine platform” called ‘Generation Gold Standard’ that will focus on bird flu jab creation.

This website has been sounding the alarm since early 2024 on the government’s orchestration of a coming bird flu pandemic, when we reported the USDA was simultaneously performing gain-of-function experiments on purported bird flu viruses (the problem) while developing an mRNA shot against the pathogens (the solution).

The news is welcome for those opposed to government pandemic planning.

But Moderna isn’t giving up.

“While the termination of funding from HHS adds uncertainty, we are pleased by the robust immune response and safety profile observed in this interim analysis of the Phase 1/2 study of our H5 avian flu vaccine and we will explore alternative paths forward for the program,” said Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel. “These clinical data in pandemic influenza underscore the critical role mRNA technology has played as a countermeasure to emerging health threats.”

Earlier this month, we reported how Moderna just opened a new 290,000 sq ft facility in the U.K. that will produce up to 250 million vaccines per year.

According to Moderna’s new press release, the pandemic profiteer “will explore alternatives for late-stage development and manufacturing of the H5 program consistent with the Company’s strategic commitment to pandemic preparedness.”

It could be that the administration is still moving forward with bird flu orchestration and merely looking at different vaccine platforms, like those utilizing “self-amplifying mRNA” (sa-mRNA) technology.

For example, Arcturus Therapeutics announced in November that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had granted approval for its Investigational New Drug (IND) application for ARCT-2304, a self-amplifying mRNA injection targeting the H5N1 bird flu virus.

So is this the end of bird flu pandemic orchestration—or just a pivot from Moderna’s mRNA to a new wave of even more experimental, self-replicating genetic platforms?

Time will tell.

 

And we will be watching.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 09:25

Q1 GDP Revision Reveals Big Deterioration In Personal Spending In "Kitchen Sink" Report

Zero Hedge -

Q1 GDP Revision Reveals Big Deterioration In Personal Spending In "Kitchen Sink" Report

Of all the economic reports, the BEA's periodic update of US GDP is the most useless because not only is it politically motivated, but it gets constantly revised so much that by the time we get a somewhat accurate description of how strong the economy is, it is already one - if not two quarters - later. Today's second estimate of Q1 GDP - a quarter which ended almost two months ago - is just such an example. 

Moments ago the BEA reported that in Q1, US GDP shrank at a 0.2% annualized pace, a modest improvement from the -0.3% initial print which was also the median consensus.

According to the BEA, GDP was revised up 0.1% from the advance estimate, reflecting an upward revision to investment that was partly offset by a downward revision to consumer spending. 

While there were few notable changes between the initial report and the revision, the most notable revision was in personal consumption which was cut by a third from 1.7% increase in the first print to  just 1.2% in the latest, making this the weakest quarter for personal spending since Q2 2023.

Here are some other notable changes:

  • Personal consumption contributed just 0.8% to the bottom line GDP print, down from 1.21% in the first estimate and down sharply from 1.21% in Q4.
  • Fixed Investment came at 1.34%, unchanged from the preliminary print, and largely driven by major data center investments
  • The change in private inventories largely offset the drop in personal consumption, adding 2.64% to the final GDP print - the largest contribution by far - from 2.25% initially.
  • Trade or net exports (exports less imports), was generally in line, subtracting a whopping 4.9% from the GDP number, a modest deterioration from the 4.84% original print.
  • Finally, government subtracted 0.12% from the GDP number, an improvement from the -0.25% original decline.

And visually:

The sharp revision in personal consumption meant that Real final sales to private domestic purchasers, the sum of consumer spending and gross private fixed investment, often viewed as a much more accurate indicator of actual growth, increased 2.5% in the first quarter, revised down 0.5% point from the previous estimate.

While the GDP data was stale, the inflation data was especially so, even if there were even fewer changes here:

  1. GDP price index rose 3.7%, unchanged from the original number and in line with estimates
  2. Core PCE (ex food and energy) was 3.4%, a fractional drop from the 3.5% originally reported.

Overall, the report painted an uglier picture of the US economy in Q1, although it is likely a "kitchen sink" because in Q2 we expect that the bullwhip from the jump in imports (a boost to GDP) coupled with the deferred surge in personal consumption to propell Q2 GDP to 3% if not higher.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 09:09

DOGE Is Working: Continuing Jobless Claims In 'Deep TriState' Surge To 4 Year Highs

Zero Hedge -

DOGE Is Working: Continuing Jobless Claims In 'Deep TriState' Surge To 4 Year Highs

The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits for the first rose to 240k last week - the most in a month and more than expected...

Source: Bloomberg

The 240k print was 6 standard deviations above expectations (and above the highest estimate)...

Source: Bloomberg

Michigan (and an estimated California) saw the biggest jump in initial claims while Illinois and Texas saw the biggest drop in initial claims last week...

Continuing claims rose further to 1.919 million Americans - the most since November 2021...

Source: Bloomberg

It seems like DOGE is working as continuing jobless claims in the 'Deep TriState' continues to surge

Source: Bloomberg

And initial claims remain elevated in the DC, VA, MD region...

Source: Bloomberg

So, while Musk is rightly disappointed at the lack of spending cuts in the budget, he can be proud that some of the waste in employees is finally being drained from the swamp.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 08:39

Q1 GDP Growth Revised up to -0.2% Annual Rate

Calculated Risk -

From the BEA: Gross Domestic Product (Second Estimate), Corporate Profits (Preliminary Estimate), 1st Quarter 2025
Real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased at an annual rate of 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2025 (January, February, and March), according to the second estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2024, real GDP increased 2.4 percent.

The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, and a decrease in government spending. These movements were partly offset by increases in investment, consumer spending, and exports.

Real GDP was revised up 0.1 percentage point from the advance estimate, reflecting an upward revision to investment that was partly offset by a downward revision to consumer spending.
emphasis added
Here is a Comparison of Second and Advance Estimates. PCE growth was revised down from 1.8% to 1.2%. Residential investment was revised down from 1.3% to -0.6%.

Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Increase to 240,000

Calculated Risk -

The DOL reported:
In the week ending May 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 240,000, an increase of 14,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 1,000 from 227,000 to 226,000. The 4-week moving average was 230,750, a decrease of 250 from the previous week's revised average. The previous week's average was revised down by 500 from 231,500 to 231,000.
emphasis added
The following graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.

Click on graph for larger image.

The dashed line on the graph is the current 4-week average. The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims decreased to 230,750.

The previous week was revised down.

Weekly claims were higher than the consensus forecast.

Blocked?

Zero Hedge -

Blocked?

Authored by Peter Tchir via AcademySecurities.com,

Blocked?

Back to the latest tariff news impacting markets.

This seems to be a good summary of what occurred (from Bloomberg.com)

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the US Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the US border and trafficking in fentanyl.

In the coming hours and days, we will likely see this challenged, while we try and figure out what it means.

As a starting point:

  • The T-Report was skeptical but somewhat comfortable with “true” reciprocal tariffs (average trade weighted tariffs with most countries, we under 10% and 5% was probably a reasonable guestimate).

  • We were, quite frankly, horrified by the Liberation Day tariffs (which the market followed suit on over time).

  • The pauses and deals have been a pivot in the right direction, but left a lot of room for negative surprises, if the President chooses to double back down.

So, in theory we should be “celebrating” this ruling which could mean that tariffs can no longer be used in the way they have been? It has seemed strange so that so much power was concentrated in the hands of the President on this particular issue (the ability to cause massive disruptions in global trade, without any of  the usual checks and balances, seemed odd). We’ve argued that we would prefer much more to be done via Congress than via Executive Order (primarily for the staying power those policies would have, versus EO’s which can easily be reversed).

But maybe it is just the inherent contrarian in me, but I’m not overly excited about the news.

  • The tariff revenue was being used to help push the Big Beautiful Bill towards becoming law. Whether tariff revenue was a convenient tool, that would disappear after the bill passes, or a more permanent fixture of U.S. tax, spending and income policy is still up for debate.

  • The tariff revenue, did not play a major role in our recent bullish view on treasuries, but it did play a part.

  • While we have been skeptical on the “dealz” this has to be problematic for the administration’s negotiations. For all the hype about deals, and countries lining up, we had a decent one with the U.K. and struck some agreements in the Middle East, but haven’t really seen anything emerge on this front. Japan, South Korea, India, etc. were all touted as early deals and it has all gone relatively radio silent. While we haven’t liked the strategy used (damage to the American Brand), this ruling makes this strategy even more difficult to pursue. How can counterparties take any threats seriously? Again, I wouldn’t have recommended going down the path oof threats (so called “maximum leverage”), but taking the threat away (or causing doubts about if efficacy) does not help.

Then, and maybe this is more cynical, or just a deeper concern, but I cannot help but think about Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner.

Maybe not the first thing that came to mind, when the ruling hit the tape, but Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner is competing for space with Taco, Taco Man, I gotta be a Taco Man (in regards to chatter about the Trump Always Chickens Out trade).

This makes me nervous:

  • Lawfare has become almost ubiquitous in other parts of the Trump agenda, but so far, the finance side had been generally immune. Look for that to ramp up, which doesn’t seem like a positive thing for the agenda, nor the country.

  • Had Congress taken the reins, that would be something to be cheered (the process of checks and balancing working extremely). Using a “backdoor” to upend policy seems a little devious. Also, who knows what role China’s “army” of lawyers might have played in this. The legal system (especially anything tied to international organizations) might be an effective way for other nations (particularly China) to thwart U.S. policy.

  • If this tool has been blunted (at the very least, it has to have been blunted while appeals are done), and the President is getting asked about the TACO trade (not something that fits the image he curates), does he lash out?

    • While dealing with this apparent setback to their existing strategy, do they look for new ways to achieve their goals? Do they come up with something new (which might also get challenged) to take back the narrative?

    • Or, is this the ruling they secretly were looking for to complete the pivot away from tariffs? That would be ideal. They go along and fight this in the courts, as they have, but use this to fully turn their attention from tariffs and “great deals” that weren’t materializing rapidly, to things in their control?

      • The 2025 Budget.

      • Deregulation.

      • National Production for National Security.

One can only hope it is the latter (and the pivot is in full swing), but the stock market enthusiasm for the ruling may be short lived, as the ruling may have just backed a fighter into a corner, and you can say or think whatever you want about Donald Trump, but he is one heck of a fighter!

To be perfectly honest, it scares me that we haven’t seen a response on Truth Social already. A knee jerk reaction, however aggressive, would almost be the “norm”, which makes me think a much bigger storm is brewing. Ironically, that would be better for rates – what a crazy, topsy turvy world we live in.

In theory, given the T-reports evolving views on tariffs, this is something we should be viewing as a positive, but are really, really struggling to get to that interpretation for the reasons listed above.

*  *  *

This month’s Around the World with Academy Securities was published yesterday. We cover the Middle East, Iran’s Nuclear Negotiations, Russia/Ukraine Ceasefire, tensions with China, and Fighting in the Congo.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/29/2025 - 08:20

Pages