Zero Hedge

Deal Or Collapse: The EU-US Deal Is Positive & The Only Realistic Alternative

Deal Or Collapse: The EU-US Deal Is Positive & The Only Realistic Alternative

Authored bv Daniel Lacalle,

The agreements the United States has signed with its main trading partners are both positive and realistic.

They demonstrate that, in 2024, the world was not a trade paradise of spontaneous cooperation among free-market companies as per David Ricardo’s ideal, but rather a statist system filled with barriers against US businesses and political efforts to pick winners and losers.

The controversy surrounding the agreement between the United States and the European Union can only be explained for three reasons: animosity toward any achievements of the Trump administration, ignorance about the only realistic alternative, or because critics of the deal were genuinely satisfied with the protectionism and European barriers in place in 2024.

Critics of the deal must answer two questions:

What was the only real alternative?

The only real alternative was a collapse in European exports, a loss of competitiveness versus Japan, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and other partners, greater offshoring of companies, and, crucially, keeping existing European trade barriers.

What would the critics have done?

Critics must explain how they would have achieved supposedly better deals when global export leaders have signed agreements like that of the European Union. They need to share with us what essential information they have that the EU negotiators do not, reportedly enabling them to achieve better conditions than Japan, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia, China, and others. Is it reasonable to think that EU negotiators were stupid or reckless and did not weigh all options to achieve a beneficial agreement?

Claiming that the agreement with the United States is detrimental is, inadvertently, to defend the trade barriers with Europe’s main global partner as if they were wonderful and should be preserved. It also stems from a fantastical vision of global trade, imagining that the US market could be replaced by others.

What’s worse is that some seem to believe all of this is Trump’s fault—a favourite in today’s economic analysis—and that in four years, a Democratic president or a softer Republican will return everything to the way it was in 2024. This is a mistaken vision. Biden kept all the tariffs from the Trump and Obama administrations and increased several of them.

Why wasn’t there a significant outcry when the EU implemented substantial trade barriers or when Democratic presidents established tariffs? The outrage frequently conceals bias against Trump and conveniently overlooks Europe’s persistent imposition of new barriers on US products. Why wasn’t there an outcry over the EU’s tariffs on US chemicals, agriculture, livestock, automobiles, and manufacturing equipment—or over the 2030 Agenda, the New Green Deal, the CO₂ tax, and all the constant excessive regulation? It took Draghi to remind us that the EU imposes more hidden tariffs on itself than the United States does.

Many claim that if the EU and others set up trade barriers, the US response should be to remove, not add, tariffs. That sounds beneficial in theory but fails to consider the full geopolitical, monetary, and commercial picture. The United States would not just lose in manufacturing and the role of the US dollar with oversized trade deficits; it would also end up absorbing the overcapacity and subsidising the working capital problems of other countries. America’s trade deficit doesn’t originate from free-market cooperation but largely from politically imposed barriers on US companies. This is why many countries would prefer a 15% tariff to removing all their non-tariff barriers.

We cannot ignore the significant tariff and non-tariff barriers that have been explicitly established to exclude US products, which are then utilised to benefit politically connected countries—such as Turkey or Morocco in relation to the EU, or even China.

The number of zero-for-zero tariff sectors is clearly positive and the list is expected to increase over time. Lifting some of the EU’s non-tariff barriers is also positive and in line with the recommendations of the Draghi report.

By accepting a 15% tariff instead of eliminating all their non-tariff barriers, America’s trading partners are admitting they would rather pay the cost than relinquish regulatory power, and they acknowledge there is no simple way to just replace the US consumer.

It’s also disingenuous to claim that buying American energy is pricier than buying Russian energy. Such arguments reveal the enormous bias and contradiction, especially given record European imports of Russian LNG in 2024. This agreement helps diversify supply and ensures security during crisis periods.

Some media outlets have misrepresented the agreement’s military equipment element. It is false that the agreement requires the EU to buy only US military equipment. These are two distinct topics, and the agreement does not reduce investment in European companies. The commitment is positive for the EU’s rearmament plans and does not undermine domestic investment projects.

European Keynesian analysts, who have quietly observed massive tax hikes and employment cost increases of over 50%, cannot credibly claim that a 15% tariff is devastating when just recently they insisted 30% tariffs would have a minor impact. The consensus estimates indicated that the impact for the EU would only be between 0.3% and 0.5% over three years. The ECB and other institutions described the effects as “manageable,” “bearable,” and having a low impact on inflation.

The Keynesian consensus can’t, on the one hand, say a 30% tariff would have a limited, bearable impact and minimal inflation effect, and a few months later insist that a 15% tariff would be disastrous. This only serves to support the narrative that anything agreed upon by Trump must be detrimental.

The EU could have negotiated for zero tariffs if it had agreed to eliminate all non-tariff barriers; however, it chose a compromise to maintain most of its regulatory framework. IIn any case, this outcome is much more favourable than losing the trade surplus and access to the US market. Therefore, the EU does not “lose”; instead, it accepts a small tariff, similar to Japan, the UK, and South Korea, because it prefers to maintain most of its non-tariff barriers.

The truly devastating alternative would have been losing market share to other countries and maintaining barriers that perpetuate European economic stagnation, not to mention missing out on a key agreement for defence, technology, and energy.

Everyone benefits from deals that establish a fairer and more open trade framework than what existed in 2024. Conservative estimates place the benefit for the EU at about €150 billion annually, assuming the fulfilment of commitments.

Both the United States and the European Union benefit from an agreement that strengthens trade ties, corrects an unfair trade deficit, removes barriers, and increases the number of zero-tariff sectors. Additionally, both sides gain a crucial alliance in defence, energy, and technology—all without limiting investment in their homegrown industries.

The only real alternative was no deal, which would ruin the EU’s economy and trade. The negotiators from the EU and the US recognised this situation and successfully reached a significant agreement that benefited both parties.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/05/2025 - 05:00

The Secret Payments That Keep Global Ransomware Attacks Going

The Secret Payments That Keep Global Ransomware Attacks Going

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Cyber attacks—usually involving ransomware—are making the news almost every day, and experts say artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed to help the attackers find their targets more quickly.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Getty Images

Ransomware is a type of malicious software—or malware—that prevents a user from accessing their computer files, systems, or networks and demands they pay a ransom for their return, according to the FBI.

Among the dozens of ransomware attacks in the United States in July included incidents at Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital in Kansas, Ingram Micro, an IT company in California, and Cookeville Regional Medical Center in Tennessee.

The number of reported ransomware attacks worldwide in 2024 was 5,289, up 15 percent on the year before, according to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But those figures do not include the vast majority of attacks, which were not reported, according to Andy Jenkinson, a fellow of the Cyber Theory Institute and author of the book “Stuxnet to Sunburst: 20 Years of Digital Exploitation and Cyber Warfare.”

“Ransomware is huge. Ransoms are being paid left, right, and center. There are two types of ransomware attacks: one that becomes public and one that becomes covered up,” he told The Epoch Times.

PurpleSec, a U.S. cybersecurity company, estimates that the average cost of a ransomware attack has risen since 2019 from $761,106 to $5.14 million.

Ransoms Paid in Crypto

Jenkinson said ransoms are almost always paid in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which are harder to trace than bank transfers.

Comparitech keeps a database of ransomware attacks around the world, and Jenkinson said cybercrime—including cyberscams that are carried out using stolen data—costs $32 billion a day globally.

A report last month by Sophos, based on a survey of cybersecurity leaders in 17 countries, found that nearly 50 percent of companies paid ransoms, and the median payment was $1 million.

Adnan Malik, a lawyer who is head of data protection at Barings Law in Manchester, England, told The Epoch Times that companies do not openly declare they have paid a ransom.

An image of a seized ransomware website is displayed during a Department of Justice press conference in Washington on Jan. 26, 2023. As artificial intelligence is increasingly used to support cyberattacks, some officials are seeking to curb the crime by limiting ransom payments, which they say fuel cybercrime. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

“They will try and brush it under the carpet. ... They will try and disguise it as some other expense.”

Malik said that companies often haggled with ransomware attackers.

“Hackers will start with a very absurd amount, and it’s not uncommon for a demand in millions to be reduced to a couple of hundred thousand. It happens all the time,” he said.

James Babbage, the director general (Threats) at the UK’s National Crime Agency, told the BBC’s “Panorama” program recently that “it is the paying of ransoms which fuels this crime.”

“We would in general discourage victims from paying ransoms, but every victim needs to make their own choice,” Babbage said.

Paul Abbott was the director of a trucking company in England, KNP Logistics Group, which had to close down with the loss of 730 jobs in September 2023, as a direct result of a ransomware attack.

Abbott told The Epoch Times that a night shift worker first noticed a problem with the company’s computer systems and called in the IT support team, which initially didn’t think it was anything malicious.

He said they carried out a controlled shutdown restart and, “During the restart, they discovered a text file which was embedded into one of the servers that was a ransom note from the Akira group, and obviously the root cause of the issue became very clear at that point.”

Akira is one of the best-known ransomware groups. “It’s easy money for people that know what they’re doing,” Abbott said.

Enforcement Efforts

The British government announced on July 22 plans to ban ministries, state-owned agencies, schools, hospitals, and operators of critical national infrastructure from paying ransom demands to cyber-criminals.

Jenkinson said other issues need to be addressed first.

“Banning ransom payments without fixing the root vulnerabilities is like offering heart transplants to junk food addicts without changing their diet. The UK’s proposal risks driving cybercrime further underground while treating symptoms, not causes,” he said.

“Unless we tackle the insecure systems and poor cyber hygiene that enable these attacks, we’re applying plasters to a thousand cuts while leaving the knife untouched.”

Europol, the police force for the European Union, said it had taken part in a July 22 operation which led to the arrest, in Kyiv, Ukraine, of the alleged administrator of the XSS.is forum, which it said was one of the most influential Russian-speaking cybercrime platforms.

The alleged administrator of XSS.is, a Russian-language cybercrime forum, is arrested in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 22, 2025. XSS, short for cross-site scripting, is a cyberattack method that injects malicious code into trusted websites to steal data or hijack user sessions. Europol

XSS, or cross-site scripting, is a common form of cyber-attack in which malicious scripts are injected into trusted websites to steal data or hijack user sessions.

Europol said the XSS forum had more than 50,000 registered users and was a “key marketplace for stolen data, hacking tools, and illicit services.”

In May last year, the U.S. State Department offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Dmitry Khoroshev, who it said was the administrator of the LockBit ransomware group.

The State Department said LockBit had carried out attacks on more than 2,500 victims around the world, including around 1,800 in the United States, and had obtained at least $150 million in ransom payments, in the form of digital currency.

Britain’s National Crime Agency said Khoroshev was known as LockBitSupp, and “provided ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) to a global network of hackers or ‘affiliates,’ supplying them with the tools and infrastructure to carry out attacks.”

Russian national Dmitry Khoroshev, the alleged administrator of the LockBit ransomware group, in file images. The State Department said LockBit attacked more than 2,500 victims globally—about 1,800 in the United States—and collected at least $150 million in cryptocurrency ransom payments. UK National Crime Agency Poor Data Infrastructure

Jenkinson said false narratives suggest cybercriminals were becoming “more sophisticated” and were all based in countries such as Russia and other former Soviet republics, which were beyond the reach of the law.

Malik agrees, saying that, in reality, “The hackers are good, but some of the systems that organizations have here are very poor.”

“By and large, most organizations have very poor data infrastructure, very poor systems that allow hackers entry into their system,” he said.

Jenkinson pointed to recent attacks perpetrated by Scattered Spider, a group of U.S. and UK hackers who were believed to include a number of teenagers.

In May, one of the alleged leaders of Scattered Spider, 23-year-old Tyler Buchanan, a British national, was extradited from Spain to the United States to face charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft in California.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/05/2025 - 03:30

Russia Abandons Moratorium On Deploying Short & Medium-Range Missiles

Russia Abandons Moratorium On Deploying Short & Medium-Range Missiles

Russia on Monday made a formal declaration that it considers itself no longer bound by the terms of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the United States.

The statement said the restrictions have "disappeared" and Russia "no longer considers itself bound" by it, according a Russian Foreign Ministry statement. The agreement banned ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500–5,500km.

However, this new declaration is largely symbolic anyway, given the INF Treaty already collapsed in 2019 when the US unilaterally withdrew while complaining of violations by Moscow. Also, Russia's military has for years been using all kinds of missiles in Ukraine, including hypersonic weapons.

Getty Images

But Moscow all along said it was biding by the treaty's terms, having imposed a self-moratorium. But this is no more...

"The Russian Foreign Ministry notes the disappearance of conditions for maintaining the unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons and is authorized to state that Russia no longer considers itself bound by the corresponding self-imposed restrictions previously adopted," the statement reads.

Last week President Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to deploy "closer to Russia" - citing threatening nuclear rhetoric of former Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.

The "actions of Western countries" are creating a "direct threat" to Russian security, the ministry statement said. A few specifics instances of the US already in effect violating the treaty were highlighted: 

  • Last year the US deployed a Typhon missile launcher in the Philippines. 
  • The US Army also fired Typhon during regional joint exercises with Australia.
  • The Australian Army has  an American Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), in July, and it has a maximum range beyond 500km
  • There's been recent US missile activity in Denmark

Russian officials have long warned of an arms race being set off, harming global stability and security, if the US were to withdraw; but it fell on deaf ears and there's merely one landmark treaty left between the superpowers: New START, which regulates nuclear weapons, and has to be renewed.

President Trump has recently expressed hope that New START treaty can be renegotiated and extended. At the moment, both sides seem open to this, and talks could start soon.

Amid all the latest nuclear-related rhetoric, more arrows from Medvedev...

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/05/2025 - 02:45

EU Court Rulings 'Castrate' Nations' Asylum Control, Warns Top German Expert

EU Court Rulings 'Castrate' Nations' Asylum Control, Warns Top German Expert

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has carried out a “migration policy castration of the EU member states,” German constitutional lawyer Prof. Markus C. Kerber warned following a landmark asylum ruling that critics say strips national governments of the ability to manage their own borders.

The ruling, handed down in Luxembourg on Friday, states that a third country may only be designated as a “safe country of origin” if it offers effective protection to all population groups — and that this designation must be based on transparent, public information accessible to asylum seekers and the courts. Otherwise, fast-track returns are invalid.

The judgment has major implications for national migration policies, particularly in countries like Italy and Austria that have drawn up their own lists of safe third countries. In the specific case reviewed, two Bangladeshi migrants had been transferred to Albania under Italy’s agreement to process asylum claims outside the EU. Their claims were dismissed on the grounds that Bangladesh was safe, but the Italian law did not cite any sources, which the European Court ruled was a violation of EU law.

Prof. Kerber, a Berlin-based constitutional expert, accused the Court of overreach.

“The strengthening of the judiciary by the ECJ for all cases of reviewing asylum applications leads to the castration of EU member states’ migration policy,” he said in an interview with Austrian media outlet, exxpress.

“The public will increasingly perceive the EU as an entity acting against its own citizens.”

He warned that the court was imposing an “overly bureaucratized procedure” that would make meaningful control over migration impossible. “Social systems are bursting,” Kerber said. “And the willingness of the majority of society to accept refugees is declining drastically.”

“What will happen if suddenly 3 million people from an unsafe country of origin appear at our border? Should we then accept them all?” he asked.

Kerber is a constitutional lawyer and professor of public finance and political economy at the Technical University of Berlin. He also serves as a visiting professor at Sciences Po in Paris and has been involved in several high-profile legal cases, including a 2008 challenge to the Lisbon Treaty before Germany’s Constitutional Court. He is the founder of the Berlin-based think tank Europolis, which advocates for market-based reforms within the European Union.

The Court’s ruling is also likely to undermine similar policies elsewhere in Europe. Austria’s safe country list includes nations such as Algeria, Morocco, Ghana, and Serbia, but legal experts warn these could now be challenged if minorities within those countries are found to be at risk. Going forward, all such designations must be based on current, verifiable, and publicly available data.

Andreas Rosenfelder, editor at Welt, called the ruling an act of “do-gooder justice” that sacrifices the rights of EU citizens in the name of universal morality. “This moralized judiciary would rather negotiate the injustices of the world than defend its own population,” he wrote. “If this impression continues to harden, then the citizens will choose a different Europe with a different judiciary.”

Responding to Friday’s ruling, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed her outrage at the latest example of a supranational judiciary meddling in the domestic affairs of a member state.

Posting on social media, Meloni wrote, “The decision of the EU Court of Justice regarding the safe countries of origin for illegal migrants is surprising. Once again, the judiciary, this time at the European level, claims spaces that do not belong to it.

“This is a development that should concern everyone, including the political forces that today celebrate the ruling, because it further reduces the already limited margins of autonomy for governments and parliaments in shaping the normative and administrative direction of the migration phenomenon.

“The Court’s decision weakens policies aimed at countering mass illegal immigration and defending national borders. The Italian Government, for the 10 months remaining until the EU migration pact takes effect, will not cease to seek every possible solution, technical or normative, to protect the safety of citizens.”

Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called the ruling “another slap in the face to our country’s national sovereignty, yet another incentive for limitless landings, yet another confirmation not only of the uselessness but also of the harmfulness of European institutions of this kind, which are paid for by Italian citizens who, however, are constantly humiliated.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/05/2025 - 02:00

The Whopping Lie Behind Huge, New Pension Liability Imposed By Springfield On Chicago

The Whopping Lie Behind Huge, New Pension Liability Imposed By Springfield On Chicago

By Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

Which is worse, financial malfeasance or a flagrant lie to justify it?  Take your pick. Both are nothing short of astonishing when it comes to Gov. JB Pritzker’s signature Friday on a bill hiking benefits for two of Chicago’s pensions that already had been bled nearly dry.

A City of Chicago actuarial analysis of the bill says the change “would increase the city’s pension liabilities by more than $11 billion across the Police and Fire funds,” the Chicago Tribune reported, while dropping the funding levels of both down to less than 18%.

Those funds were already desperately underfunded, having had only 25% of the money necessary to pay out pension benefits for work already performed. They have the lowest funded ratios for local pension plans in the country.

They are so poorly funded that their combined unfunded liabilities are larger than 43 states — including New York, Michigan, and Florida, according to a recent study. If Chicago does nothing and lets its pension problem continue, then “Chicago becoming the next Detroit is not just a possibility — it’s inevitable.” That’s from an op-ed last week by a former chief financial officer of the city.

So, what does the state, which makes the law for city pensions, do about it? It expanded benefits while providing no funding source. Next year alone, Chicago will have to come up with an extra $60 million on its $1.5 billion pension tab in 2027, and that increase will grow to more than $753 million for 2055. That’s according to the city’s actuarial analysis, but the state didn’t even bother do its own actuarial analysis on the cost.

What possible excuse does the state have for the new law?

According to the bill’s sponsor and Pritzker, the benefit spike was needed to bring the city’s Tier 2 pensions into compliance with federal law that essentially requires benefits at least equal to what Social Security provides. Sen. Robert Martwick (D-Chicago) was the sponsor, and that claim of his was echoed by Pritzker when he signed the bill.

Gov. JB Pritzker and Sen. Robert Martwick

Here is what Pritzker’s spokesman said: “The legislation codifies adjustments the city of Chicago has been implementing over the years to tackle pension system challenges and represents a proactive step to prevent more significant financial or legal issues in the future.”

That’s unquestionably a reference to the alleged Tier 2 problem under federal law.

But it’s a big, fat lie to claim the pension spike was required by federal law. The supposed federal problem is just a subterfuge for another benefit increase.

Not one Illinois Tier 2 state or local pensioner has ever been identified whose benefits are too low under federal law. The problem has turned out to be a theoretical one that might arise in the future, but requires no action today beyond a minor, inexpensive safeguard.

That far less expensive alternative was already blessed by the state for its own pensions, which are much bigger than Chicago’s. In recent legislation the state authorized a $75 million reserve fund to cover any additional benefits that might be required for particular pensioners if their benefits ever fell short of federal requirements. Common sense prevailed, for once, as we wrote about that measure. We’ve long been calling for that measure or something similar, with articles here, here, here, here and here.

The availability of that far cheaper alternative is one reason why every major independent voice outside of Springfield said Pritzker should have vetoed the new law. The Civic Federation, Commercial Club, Better Government Association, Chicago Tribune editorial board all wanted a veto. Even Democratic Comptroller Susanna Mendoza criticized it, and  Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski said, “This is adding to the city’s burden at literally the worst possible time,” and she called the bill an unfunded mandate foisted on the city by state lawmakers.

That’s exactly what it is – an unfunded mandate foisted on the city.

In fairness, another rationale offered by the bill’s supporters is that it will set level benefits for the two Chicago pensions with other police and fire pensions downstate.

Yes, ideally, consistency would be nice, but that’s a luxury Chicago simply cannot afford. Somebody apparently needs a lecture on what “you have no money” means. For that, I have a suggestion. Pritzker and our lawmakers should be forced to watch this wonderful clip of a financial advisor trying to explain it to Walter Matthau’s character in A New Leaf. Like Pritzker, that character is a trust fund recipient.

Gov. Pritzker and you other lawmakers, please watch it closely. Maybe you’ll eventually get it.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 23:25

DOJ To Present Russiagate Hoax To A Grand Jury For Criminal Charges

DOJ To Present Russiagate Hoax To A Grand Jury For Criminal Charges

Via Headline USA,

Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed that the Justice Department move forward with a probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, following the recent release of documents about collusion between the Obama administration and the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.

Bondi has directed a prosecutor to present evidence to a grand jury after referrals from the Trump administration’s top intelligence official, a person familiar with the matter said Monday.

Fox News first reported the development.

It was not clear which former officials might be the target of any grand jury activity, where the grand jury that might ultimately hear evidence will be located or which prosecutors — whether career employees or political appointees — might be involved in pursuing the investigation.

It was also not clear what precise claims of misconduct Trump administration officials believe could form the basis of criminal charges, which a grand jury would have to sign off on for an indictment to be issued.

In one batch of documents released last month, Gabbard disclosed emails showing that senior Obama administration officials were aware in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate the votes in Trump’s favor.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also released a set of emails last week. 

The emails were part of a classified annex of a report issued in 2023 by John Durham, the special counsel who was appointed during the first Trump administration to hunt for any government misconduct during the Russia investigation.

According to the annex, an FBI informer identified as “TI” provided the bureau in 2016 with two intelligence reports, which described “confidential conversations” between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and two people at the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundation: Leonard Bernardo and Jeffrey Goldstein.

The report said that then-President Barack Obama didn’t want Hillary’s scandal to taint his legacy.

Accordingly, “To solve the problem, the President puts pressure on FBI Director James Comey through Attorney General Lynch, however, so far without concrete results.”

The same report also said that Comey favored Republicans, and that the FBI didn’t have any evidence against Clinton—because she deleted her emails.

While the FBI informant’s intelligence wasn’t corroborated at the time, the FBI indeed closed its investigation into Clinton without recommending charges.

Republicans have particularly focused on a July 27, 2016, email in Durham’s newly declassified annex that claimed that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan during the heat of the campaign to link Trump with Russia.

Durham’s own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was “a composites of several emails” the Russians had obtained from hacking.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 23:00

Plunder Of Ghana's Gold By Chinese Criminals Continues, Authorities Say

Plunder Of Ghana's Gold By Chinese Criminals Continues, Authorities Say

Authored by Darren Taylor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

JOHANNESBURG—Thousands of Chinese citizens remain in Ghana to mine gold illegally, despite a crackdown by authorities in Africa’s largest producer of the precious metal, according to law enforcement agencies in the capital, Accra.

Illegal gold panners from Niger work in Kibi area, southern Ghana, on April 10, 2017. Cristina Aldehuala/AFP via Getty Images

They say the illegal miners appear to be taking advantage of the record-high gold price, which hit $3,500 in April, with much of the illicit metal being smuggled back to China.

Organized crime groups, sometimes headed by what appear to be Chinese businesspeople, are flooding Ghana with sophisticated machinery to mine gold at scales never seen before in some areas, resulting in widespread environmental damage and fueling unemployment, according to one expert who recently spoke to The Epoch Times.

According to several analysts, Chinese involvement in illegal mining in Ghana and across Africa reveals Beijing’s real motive for its increasingly strong presence on the continent: to exploit Africa’s natural resources.

With Ghana’s police now often arresting Chinese citizens accused of stealing gold, relations between President John Mahama’s administration and Beijing are strained.

Ghanaian officials have said the Chinese regime isn’t doing enough to prevent its nationals from committing crimes in one of West Africa’s strongest economies.

But China’s ambassador in Ghana is accusing locals of “galamsey,” as it’s known in the region, or small-scale illegal gold mining, and of drawing Chinese workers to Africa.

“The Chinese who are getting arrested are migrant workers who have come here to make a living,” Chinese Ambassador Tong Defa told The Epoch Times.

Grace Ansah-Akrofi, director of the Ghana Police Service’s Public Affairs, has a different view.

“While there are cases like those mentioned by the ambassador, it’s a bit far-fetched to say that it’s Ghanaian masterminds who are importing Chinese to commit crimes,” she told The Epoch Times. “We have our own people who are desperate enough to commit crimes.

“Our criminals are not going to call on [the] Chinese to do their work. It doesn’t make sense.”

A group of galamseyers, illegal gold panners, work on a gold field in Kibi, Ghana, on April 10, 2017. Cristina Aldehuela/AFP via Getty Images

Enoch Aikins, a researcher at South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, traces the roots of Ghana’s galamsey crisis to a period between 2008 and 2013, when he said more than 50,000 Chinese entered the country to mine gold illegally.

“Ever since then, there has been a strong Chinese element in these kinds of crimes in Ghana; they originally came here because they knew the laws were lax, and they also bribed their way out of trouble,” Aikins told The Epoch Times.

“But now that things are tightening up and they find they are being pushed out of an industry that makes them rich, they are angry.”

In 2023, the government-mandated Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining released a report that implicated several government officials in illegal mining.

The Mahama administration says its Office of the Special Prosecutor is investigating information in the report.

Ghana is Africa’s biggest gold producer, and the sixth-largest in the world, reporting an output of 151 metric tons in 2024, according to information from the Ghana Gold Board obtained by The Epoch Times.

About a third of its production comes from artisanal mining, some of it illegal, said Aikins.

Demand for gold, seen as a stable investment in times of economic uncertainty, has recently reached unprecedented highs, and costs almost $3,300 per ounce as of Aug. 1.

On the back of this, Chinese companies are investing billions of dollars in Ghana’s gold sector, said government spokesperson Felix Ofosu.

“We are grateful for the Chinese contribution to our economy, but surely this doesn’t mean we ignore abuses committed by Chinese citizens,” he told The Epoch Times.

In June, the Geneva-based Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) released a report detailing how foreign nationals, particularly from China and Burkina Faso, have introduced new technologies and machinery to Ghana that are increasing gold output while contributing to environmental harm.

The GI-TOC investigation said foreigners, including Chinese, are working in concert with traditional chiefs and political elites to “benefit from or enable illicit mining operations.”

“Criminal groups are allegedly engaging in gold smuggling and money laundering through casinos and other businesses,” said the independent policy research institute.

Ofosu said court cases and investigations have revealed that “Chinese criminals are the ones who finance locals and give them technical support” to facilitate illegal mining.

He pointed to the case of En “Aisha” Huang, known in Ghana as the “Galamsey Queen.”

Deported several times between 2018 and 2022, Huang kept returning “because she couldn’t resist the lure” of Ghana’s gold, said Ansah-Akrofi.

In December 2023, Huang was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison and ordered to pay a $4,000 fine for running an illegal gold mining syndicate.

James Boafo, an expert in the environmental effects of illegal mining at Ghana’s University of Cape Coast, told The Epoch Times that “China’s hand is far from hidden” in the “destruction” happening in his country.

“Machinery brought into Ghana from China is causing a lot of damage,” he said. “Ghana’s traditional small-scale miners use very basic tools to extract gold, so they can reach only shallow depths.

“But these days, illegal miners are able to go very deep in the earth, thanks to excavators and bulldozers supplied by Chinese partners.

“In Ghana, now we have many polluted rivers because of this. Our water quality is seriously degraded, and drinking it is a problem.”

He added that criminal operations use rivers to sift gold dust and nuggets from the sediment.

“This activity causes entire river systems, across many thousands of kilometres, to be muddy,” Boafo said. “Then the operators use toxic substances like lead and mercury to take the gold from the water. Whether they are Chinese or Africans, they just don’t care.”

He said illegal mining operations fronted by the Chinese are also threatening Ghana’s cocoa industry.

“They destroy lands and forests and plantations,” Boafo said.

Well-resourced Chinese citizens are outcompeting local artisanal miners, who are consequently falling into unemployment and poverty, he noted.

Professor Gladys Ansah, who has investigated illegal mining for the University of Ghana, said Mahama’s government “should not let up” in its arrests and prosecutions of illegal miners, no matter their nationalities.

“Over the years, we’ve had a lot of committees and programs focused on getting rid of this,” she told The Epoch Times. “But they weren’t so effective, partly because our government didn’t want to offend China; so the Chinese were treated with kid gloves.”

As far back as 2013, Ansah said, a joint task force of military and police arrested 4,500 Chinese miners.

“They weren’t prosecuted; they were deported, and we paid for it because a lot of them came back and many are still here,” she said.

South African foreign policy analyst, Sanusha Naidu, told The Epoch Times that Chinese links to illegal harvesting of metals and minerals are “cementing” a growing perception in the continent that Beijing’s “real motive for being in Africa in such a big way is to exploit natural resources, by whatever means possible.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 22:35

Australian Senate Gags Debate on Bill To Define A Man And Woman

Australian Senate Gags Debate on Bill To Define A Man And Woman

Authored by Monica O'Shea via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Labor and the Greens have blocked debate on legislation that would have provided a clear definition of a man and a woman in Australia.

Symbols for male and female in a hardware store in Western Australia on July 13, 2025. Susan Mortimer/The Epoch Times

Liberal Senator Alex Antic introduced the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Restoring Biological Definitions) Act 2025 at the end of the recent parliamentary session.

The bill (pdf) specifically repeals the definition of gender identity and omits every occurrence of the word “gender identity.”

In addition, the bill provides a clear definition for men and women and substitutes the word “different sex” with “the opposite sex.”

“Man means a member of the male sex irrespective of age. Woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of age,” the bill states.

Antic said the issue would not go away and described the situation as “absolutely unbelievable.”

“The Bill was designed to protect women’s sport and women’s spaces but Labor and the Greens wouldn’t allow it to pass into the second reading,” he said in a post to X.

Antic said the Bill’s aim was to restore the definitions of a man and a woman, which had been “deleted in 2013” by the Labor government.

“Yes, you heard that right, as presently enacted, the Sex Discrimination Act has no working understanding of what constitutes a man or a woman,” he told supporters on Aug. 1.

“My Bill also proposed to remove the concept of ‘gender identity’ from the Act altogether, which the Labor government added as a category of protected classes.”

Debate Halted

The bill was shot down before it was able to proceed to a second reading.

During parliament, Queensland Liberal Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Paul Scarr pointed out that the Senate usually does not stop discussion at such an early stage.

“While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice, the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition support these normal procedures as we have with many Greens, Labor or crossbench bills that we strongly opposed,” he said (pdf).

At the first reading stage, the title of the bill is read out and a copy of the bill is read to members of parliament, with no debate. It is only at the second reading where debate takes place.

Minister for Women Katy Gallagher raised concerns debate on the legislation would hurt children who identified as trans.

“We do not agree with the Senate being a place where individual harm can be done to young people across this country. That is what would have happened had we allowed this bill to proceed in the normal course, and we won’t stand for it. Trans children deserve better from this chamber,” she said.

Australian Greens Whip Nick McKim said they would not allow the Senate to discuss the legislation.

“We know exactly what Senators Antic and [Matt] Canavan are up to here. They are introducing a bill that they want to use to provide a platform for transphobic people in our community to punch down on transgender Australians and, in particular, on trans kids,” he said.

“Well, as far as the Australian Greens are concerned, we are never, never going to vote in this place to allow you to create that platform.”

However, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts raised concerns that Labor and the Greens were controlling debate.

“What we’re seeing here is an example of control, and, always, beneath control there is fear. Of what are the Greens and their coalition partner, Labor, afraid?”

The Coalition supported the bill progressing for debate, but this was blocked by the Labor and Greens majority, with 25 in favour of the bill moving forward and 36 against.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 21:45

Trump's Base Fragments Further As He Demands States Support Israel Or Risk Disaster Relief

Trump's Base Fragments Further As He Demands States Support Israel Or Risk Disaster Relief

Reuters reports that President Donald Trump has announced new restrictions barring federal disaster preparedness funds from going to states or cities that boycott Israeli companies, in a move which is sure to further divide Trump's base, given it's widely perceived even among many conservatives as flying in the face of America First.

Critics have long argued that Republicans have been placing the foreign nation Israel's defense and funding needs ahead of American citizens' well-being. This certainly constitutes more evidence that this is the case. Monday's controversial order has resulted in an avalanche of online commentary and angry reaction.

To receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), states must now demonstrate and confirm that there's no policy of severing business ties specifically with companies based in Israel.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's office has said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will enforce anti-discrimination laws. The US administration has long characterized the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as rooted in antisemitism. Critics have shot back that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not at all the same things.

This would impact at least $1.9 billion which FEMA distributes annually related to natural disaster and other relief. According to Responsible Statecraft:

To be eligible for $1.9 billion available in federal grants from FEMA for disaster preparation essentials, including emergency management salaries and rescue gear, U.S. states and cities must agree that they will not cut off “commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies.”

In essence, signing a loyalty oath to another country.

Reuters tallies that at least 34 US states currently have laws that prohibit boycotts of Israeli firms. For example, Governor Greg Abbott, where recent Texas anti-BDS legislation gained significant media coverage, has stated that "anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies." It seems Trump wants to see all 50 states adopt such legislation.

A move such as this - actually linking funds which would go to Americans caught in disasters and emergencies - to a litmus test of loyalty to a foreign power, is certainly unprecedented in American legal and FEMA history.

It's getting lots of reaction on social media, in circles on the Right and the Left...

And this says it all as Trump's conservative base is continuing to fragment over the support to Israel issue, and as the growing humanitarian disaster in Gaza continues to spiral, resulting in fiercer and more polarized reactions globally...

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 21:20

Against The "Impossible"

Against The "Impossible"

Authored by Josiah Lippincott via American Greatness,

Earlier this year, I was talking with a prominent libertarian economist on matters of fiscal and monetary policy. I noted that, in my view, the core problem in this unholy nexus was the Federal Reserve’s ongoing dominance over the nation’s money supply and financial industry.

It was critical, I said, that we dissolve the central bank. The inevitable consequence of credit expansion (money printing) is inflation and malinvestment. The very existence of the Federal Reserve robs savers of their purchasing power and occludes true market data, leading to investors pouring their limited resources into schemes that should not exist in a free market. In doing so, these investors did not place their funds into products that buyers actually want.

This inevitably leads to cycles of boom and bust that are ruinous for the common good.

I expected him to agree. After all, this was a libertarian economist; I assumed that ranting against the Fed, fiat money, and government interference would be his thing.

Instead, he simply shrugged. Getting rid of the Fed is impossible, he told me. We therefore had no choice but to make our peace with this system and try to make it work as well as we could.

“Impossible.” That word stood out to me.

Precision in language matters. When we use a word, we should know what it means. We should not say things cavalierly. Without clear language, there can be no clear thought.

If something is in fact impossible, then, of course, we should not spend time debating about it. It is impossible, for instance, to have the sum of the three angles of a triangle add up to any number other than 180 degrees. It is likewise impossible to drop a heavy weight from a height and expect it to float or for a human being to give birth to an oak tree.

These things are truly impossible. By the rules of logic in the world we inhabit, certain things cannot be otherwise. They simply are. These brute facts are not a subject of deliberation. Nothing is to be done about them.

We should be deeply wary, however, in assigning this status of immovable fact to things that, as it turns out, can be other than what they are.

Just because a thing is difficult to accomplish or unlikely does not make it impossible.

Political regimes can change. There are, for instance, many different kinds of governments on the earth, and they differ in crucial ways. Laws are made and unmade. People move. Governments come into being and are overthrown.

There was, for instance, a time in this nation’s history when the Federal Reserve did not exist. There may come a time when it will once again cease to be.

Congress brought the Federal Reserve into being by law. It could be undone by the same process. Human institutions do not possess the certitude and unchanging quality of the basic axioms at the heart of logical thinking. 2 + 2 has always and everywhere equaled 4, but the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. That government has not always existed everywhere and always.

Man has a nature. He always and everywhere has the same features. All men seek good things and avoid bad things. Men may disagree wildly about what those things are, but all of us are engaged in this fundamental pursuit. If a suicidal man thought he would be better off alive than dead, he would not kill himself.

Moreover, we see that human beings always give birth to human beings. We all need to sleep, eat, and defecate. Man is always and everywhere a being unto death. These are unchanging realities for us.

It is incorrect, however, to attribute an unchanging nature to things that are in fact changeable. I notice that on the American right, there is often a profound sense of pessimism and melancholy that stems from this error.

Many an influencer, activist, or commentator I have known will proclaim a given policy or campaign to be “impossible.” They will write it off as unfeasible with a wave of the hand. It cannot be done. Why even try?

This despairing view of reality has poisoned many great projects and prevented countless others from even getting off the ground. There are indeed many policy changes that are not wise to pursue or that require resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

Trade-offs and opportunity costs are simply part of life. They are unchanging features of human action. But to say that a thing comes at a price or is difficult is not the same as saying it is impossible.

Nor are crude references to statistics a substitute for thought. The odds of any given American becoming a billionaire are only 1 in 380,000, but those odds are not definitive statements about an individual’s ability to create a groundbreaking innovation (or utilize government regulations to monopolize a lucrative market).

At the end of the day, pointing to aggregates is not enough to understand the individuals that are part of the whole. Averages can be useful politically and can even help guide personal decisions. But an average isn’t everything. It isn’t the last word.

Precision in thought—knowledge of what we know and acknowledgment of what we don’t—is crucial for political life. Despair is a sin, and pessimism is not necessarily wisdom. You often can, it turns out, just do things. And you should!

As the American right moves forward in the coming years, we need to remind ourselves of this core truth. Real change, both for good and ill, is always possible. It is an error to presume to have knowledge that we really don’t have.

Both mindless optimism and free-falling pessimism are wrong. The latter is, among conservatives, more common than the former. It poses a greater spiritual danger. The temptation to sit on one’s hands, wishing and whining but never doing anything useful, is very powerful on the right. A whole legion of anklebiters, cranks, and dour-faced losers surrounds us.

These people are a spiritual dead end. There is nothing to be gained, in the end, from complaining or fantasizing about an apocalypse in which action will then and only then become possible. We live in this world, right here, right now. We should focus on that!

I don’t know, for instance, if we will succeed in my lifetime in eliminating the Federal Reserve. I am not certain that it should be the highest priority for conservatives in this moment. But I am certain that we cannot live in peace and freedom while the central bank burrows its way into every aspect of the American economy.

The right thing to do is to oppose tyranny wherever it is found. We should be honest, if only to ourselves, about what needs to be done. We should never pretend that slavery is preferable to liberty or defeat to victory.

We should fight. We should make a day of it. We should follow the words of Virgil’s Aeneid:

Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it!

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 20:55

Bolsonaro Placed Under House Arrest By US-Sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Head

Bolsonaro Placed Under House Arrest By US-Sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Head

Late Monday there's been more escalation in the Trump-Brazil standoff over the legal fate of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. The country's top justices have ordered him to be put under house arrest.

The Supreme Court, which is still in the process of ruling on the Bolsonaro case - as he's accused of an alleged coup attempt against his leftist rival President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva - has now said he has defied a court order banning Bolsonaro from social media.

Jair Bolsonaro and justice Alexandre de Moraes. source: Secom/TSE

They say he's attacking the nation's institutions while still on trial, and after he's already wearing a ankle monitoring brace.

Brazil has faced US sanctions (targeting among others Bolsonaro's main rival and man driving what Trump has called a "witch hunt" - Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes) as well as the highest tariff rates in the world.

Moraes himself issued the house arrest order, despite now being specifically targeted by the Trump administration.

"Moraes said Bolsonaro had violated precautionary measures imposed by the court restricting the former president’s social media usage and political messaging," according to Al Jazeera.

Moraes has said that Bolsonaro, who was president of the country between 2019 and 2022, has spread messages with "a clear content of encouragement and instigation to attacks against the Supreme Court and a blatant support for foreign intervention in the Brazilian Judiciary."

Trump's recent heightened intervention has added fuel to the fire, and the standoff has intensified, with the Lula government so far having refused to bend the knee.

Bolsonaro's family members have also been very vocal, often acting as 'messenger' - for example hailing Trump's punitive actions targeting the Supreme Court and Lula officials.

Sunday saw tens of thousands of Bolsonaro supporters in the streets, in the major cities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. They, with Trump, want a full pardon for Bolsonaro and his officials which have been persecuted with him.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 20:30

Trump Says Americans Could Get Dividends From Tariff Revenues

Trump Says Americans Could Get Dividends From Tariff Revenues

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that his administration could distribute dividends from tariff revenues to Americans with certain income levels.

US President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a reception with Republican members of Congress at the White House on July 22, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One, Trump said that a distribution of dividends to selected U.S. households is possible, even as the government works to pay down the national debt.

“We have a lot of money coming in, much more money than the country has ever seen, by hundreds of billions of dollars,” he said. “There could be a distribution for dividends to the people of our country. I would say for people that would be middle-income people and lower-income people, we could do a dividend.”

He also reaffirmed the government’s commitment to lower drug prices, in line with his May 12 executive order that requires drug manufacturers to offer American consumers “the most-favored-nation lowest price” for prescription drugs.

“We‘ll be dropping drug prices, it will start over the next two to three months, by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400 percent,” he said. “We will pay as low as the lowest nation in the world.”

Trump did not specify the potential amount of dividends he could distribute. The U.S. government collected $28 billion in tariff revenues in July, marking a record monthly high and bringing the total revenue for the fiscal year to more than $151 billion, according to Treasury data.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told last month’s cabinet meeting that tariff collections could reach $300 billion by the end of the year, as a result of Trump’s trade campaign.

Trump imposed a 10 percent baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, along with reciprocal tariffs that vary depending on their trade barriers with the United States, as part of an effort to address trade deficits. He later implemented a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tariffs, before extending the reprieve to Aug. 1 to allow time for negotiations.

The president signed an executive order on July 31 imposing reciprocal tariffs of between 10 percent and 41 percent on more than 60 U.S. trading partners. The new tariff rates, which are set to take effect on Aug. 7, were determined based on whether each nation has reached an agreement with the United States and the nature of those agreements.

In his order, Trump stated that some trading partners have agreed to or are close to making “meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States,” while others have proposed terms that he thinks fail to adequately address trade imbalances or “align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters.”

“There are also some trading partners that have failed to engage in negotiations with the United States or to take adequate steps to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters,” the order stated.

The Trump administration is working on a trade deal with China, which is subject to an extended deadline through Aug. 12, following a May 12 agreement in which the two largest economies agreed to lower tariffs and roll back certain trade restrictions for 90 days.

Joseph Lord and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 20:05

China's Grip On Critical Minerals Disrupts U.S. Defense Supply Chain

China's Grip On Critical Minerals Disrupts U.S. Defense Supply Chain

In 2023, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes warned that Beijing effectively has the US military's supply chain by the balls, thanks to America's reliance on rare earths and other materials which either come from, or are processed in, China. 

F-35 Lightning II jet (Adobe Stock)

According to Hayes, Raytheon has "several thousand suppliers in China," because of which "decoupling ... is impossible."

"We can de-risk but not decouple," he told the Financial Times, adding that he thinks this is the case "for everybody."

"Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative," he said. 

Fast forward two years later - and China’s recent curbs on the export of critical minerals are rippling through the U.S. defense supply chain, slowing production schedules and sending manufacturers on a global search for scarce materials needed in everything from munitions to fighter jets.

(And of course, last month ZeroHedge premium subs were treated to "The Coming Rare Earth Revolution And How To Profit" - full of names that have exploded higher since publication...)

In short, amid a surge in U.S.-China trade tensions earlier this year, Beijing tightened its control over rare earth exports. Those shipments resumed after the Trump administration reached a set of trade concessions in June, however China has kept a firm hold on materials destined for defense use. Accounting for roughly 90 percent of the world’s rare earth output - and dominating the supply of other strategic minerals - China has also barred the sale of germanium, gallium and antimony to the United States since December. The three metals are essential for bullet hardening, night-vision optics and other military applications, the WSJ reports.

A Ukrainian soldier using night-vision goggles during a mission in 2023. Photo: Felipe Dana/AP

Some contractors warn that their reserves are running dangerously low. Bill Lynn, chief executive of Leonardo DRS, said Wednesday that his company’s supply of germanium has fallen to “safety stock” levels. The metal is used in infrared sensors for missiles and other systems. “In order to sustain timely product deliveries, material flow must improve in the second half” of 2025, he told investors. Leonardo DRS, a U.S. subsidiary of Italy’s Leonardo, is exploring alternative suppliers and possible substitutes.

For others, the bottleneck has already meant missed deadlines. One drone-parts maker supplying the U.S. military delayed orders by as much as two months while hunting for non-Chinese sources of magnets, which are produced from rare earth elements. Traders say prices for some materials have multiplied several times over; samarium, used in high-temperature magnets for jet engines, has been offered at 60 times its typical price.

The Pentagon has instructed defense contractors to phase out magnets containing Chinese minerals by 2027. While some firms have stockpiled magnets, most carry only months of supply for other critical materials. Smaller drone manufacturers — often startups with limited resources — are considered especially exposed.

Dak Hardwick, vice president of international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, said the problem is discussed constantly within the industry. “I can tell you…we talk about this daily and our companies talk about it daily,” he said.

A recent analysis by defense software firm Govini found that more than 80,000 components used in U.S. weapons systems contain minerals now under Chinese export controls. Nearly all such supply chains depend on at least one Chinese source.

Western buyers say Chinese authorities have begun demanding detailed disclosures - including images of products and production lines - before approving shipments. In May, New Hampshire-based ePropelled received such requests from a Chinese magnet supplier, along with a list of questions about its customers and assurances the magnets would not be used for military purposes. “Of course we are not going to provide the Chinese government with that information,” said Chris Thompson, the firm’s vice president of global sales. When the company refused, shipments stopped, extending delivery times to twice their usual length.

The firm turned to suppliers in the United States, Europe, Japan and Taiwan, as well as to emerging producers Vulcan Elements in North Carolina and USA Rare Earth in Oklahoma. Those new sources are not expected to deliver until later this year and will need to develop non-Chinese supply chains of their own.

Washington has begun to respond. The Pentagon has invested in expanding domestic output, including a $14 million grant last year to a Canadian firm producing germanium substrates for defense satellites and a $400 million stake in MP Materials, which operates the largest rare-earth mine in the Americas. On an earnings call, Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet described the MP Materials deal as “groundbreaking” for securing magnets needed in F-35 fighters and cruise missiles.

Nicholas Myers, CEO of Massachusetts-based Phoenix Tailings, said large defense companies are now moving aggressively to secure their own mineral supplies. “They recognize that they’re just not going to get the magnets… unless they get involved,” he said.

Beijing’s hard line is also affecting shipments in transit. Earlier this year, United States Antimony Corporation attempted to route 55 metric tons of Australian-mined antimony to its Mexican smelter via the Chinese port of Ningbo, a process it had used before without incident. In April, Chinese customs officials held the cargo for three months, eventually releasing it only on the condition it be returned to Australia. When it arrived, company CEO Gary Evans said the seals had been broken. “The shipping company, everyone who was involved, they’d never seen this happen before,” he said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 19:40

Huge Drug And Weapons Haul In French Polynesia Echoes Kash Patel's Warnings

Huge Drug And Weapons Haul In French Polynesia Echoes Kash Patel's Warnings

Authored by Rex Wilderstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

While countering Beijing’s influence in the Pacific was chief among the reasons given by FBI Director Kash Patel when he opened the agency’s new office in Wellington last week, both he and New Zealand’s security ministers also spoke of rising transnational crime affecting the region.

The 11 Glock pistols and 22 magazines seized from the intercepted ship. OFAST/Comgend Polynésie Française

In a statement, the U.S. Embassy in Wellington described the purpose of the new office as working “to investigate and disrupt a wide range of threats and criminal activities, including terrorism, cybercrime and fraud, organised crime and money laundering, child exploitation, and foreign intelligence threats.”

The latest seizure of drugs and weapons in the region bears out the reality of that threat. Comgend Polynésie Française—the national police force of French Polynesia—has announced that it has seized a “historic” quantity of drugs with a total street value of €331 million (US$382.66 million) from a yacht caught in the Marquesas Islands, about 1,400 kilometres north of Tahiti.

After towing it to Pape'ete, the capital of Tahiti, and dismantling it, over 700 kilograms of drugs were found concealed in the boat’s structure. In total, 1,646.8 kilograms of cocaine and 232.4 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized from the boat.

They also discovered 11 Glock semi‑automatic pistols and 24 magazines.

Shipment Believed to be Bound For Australia

The yacht was believed to have left Mexico and to be headed to Australia via Tonga. The three men onboard, a German skipper and two Dutch nationals, remain in custody, local Public Prosecutor Solène Belaouar said in a statement on Aug. 2.

The head of French Polynesia’s Customs Department, Serge Puccetti, told local media the shipment was not destined for French Polynesia.

He said French authorities regularly share intelligence with law enforcement agencies in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

Echoing Patel’s warning, he said the Pacific is now a major transit area between narcotic production in South America and users in Australia, which has emerged as a major market, as well as to New Zealand and Asia.

Organised crime syndicates from Southeast Asia are also using the Pacific Islands, including Papua New Guinea, as transit points to ship opium-based drugs and methamphetamines to the U.S. market.

Smugglers were now using all kinds of transport modes: air, sea, onboard containers, and sailboats, Puccetti said. “On each of these vectors, we are vigilant,” he said.

New Caledonia’s Divisional Head of Customs, Hervé Matho, told local media, “In terms of cocaine consumption, the U.S. market is now saturated. That’s why traffickers are searching for new markets, [in] Europe and, in the Pacific region, Australia and New Zealand.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 19:15

Hey Canada, Your Failed Wildfire Management Is Poisoning America's Skies

Hey Canada, Your Failed Wildfire Management Is Poisoning America's Skies

Representative John James, a Republican from Michigan, penned a blistering letter to Canadian leaders, warning their out-of-control wildfires are "poisoning the air and threatening the health of millions across Michigan and the Midwest."

Now, that toxic smoke is pouring into the Northeast, and soon, into New York City. Just when many thought Justin Trudeau's leadership was disastrous, the beginning of the globalist Mark Carney era suggests things can and will likely get even worse.

Canada is experiencing its second-worst wildfire season on record. Government data shows 4,00 wildfires have been recorded so far this year.

"Despite the clear public health crisis, Canadian officials have shown alarming disregard," Rep. James wrote in a press release, informing his constituents about the letter he fired off to Canadian leaders, urging immediate action to contain the growing wildfire crisis that is poisoning America's air. 

If Canada's globalist 'green' leaders actually cared about the planet, they would have practiced proper forest management. But they didn't, and they failed miserably. Rep. James noted that the 2023 wildfire season in Canada was equivalent to "running over 500 million cars for a full year."

At the moment, smoke from 740 Canadian wildfires is spreading south and degrading air quality over a massive stretch of North America. New York City is under air-quality alerts...

"This lack of urgency undermines decades of cross-border cooperation and damages the U.S.—Canada relationship," Rep. James said. 

The bigger question is whether these forest fires are truly natural ... or part of a broader form of hybrid warfare.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 18:50

VDH: Trump's Unknown Frontiers

VDH: Trump's Unknown Frontiers

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Donald Trump’s far-ranging counter-revolution, to quote the old Star Trek mission statement, seeks “To boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Because no conservative president has dared to question the last 70 years of progressive cultural, social, economic, and political dominance, all traditional wisdom, all our renowned “experts,” and all the self-described “authorities” have no real credibility in their mostly flawed analyses and wrong prognoses.

Read what our legacy media predicted in March for this summer’s economy, or in January for the future of the border, or what would happen should the U.S. Air Force enter Iranian airspace.

Take the border.

“Comprehensive immigration reform” (a euphemism for rolling amnesties and a still-open border) was the establishment’s answer to 10,000 foreign nationals storming the border during peak surges of the Biden administration.

But no president had ever simultaneously:

1) pressured Mexico to close its borders and patrol ours,

2) announced a plan to complete a border wall along the entire US-Mexico boundary,

3) stopped catch-and-release,

4) ceased refugee applications after illegally entering the U.S.,

5) introduced policies encouraging voluntary self-deportation, and

6) prevented all illegal entries at the border.

The result is that we do not know the full effects of these combined border policies.

So far, one million foreign nationals have lost jobs, and 2 million Americans have gained them since Trump’s inauguration. How much money will be saved in local, state, and federal entitlements if illegal immigrants return home?

How much trauma and costs will be avoided if 500,000 criminal aliens are deported?

How many serious and lethal hit-and-run accidents will be prevented?

To what degree will the idea of citizenship be reenergized once it is not reduced to the equivalency of mere residence?

How many emergency rooms will have more space for U.S. citizens?

No one knows, but the consequences could be enormous.

The U.S. has never applied so many tariffs in so many ways upon so many goods from so many countries. As a result, economists have sworn since March that we are headed to a recession, stock collapse, stagflation, and high unemployment.

But do they really know the profit margins of our mercantile importers, who tariff our goods but expect easy entry for their exports to the U.S.?

Can importers pay a 15% tariff, still make a handsome profit, and not raise costs excessively on the U.S. consumer? If trade surpluses do not matter and tariffs hurt those who implement them, why do sophisticated Europeans, adroit Japanese, and smart Chinese prefer surpluses and tariffs to our deficits and zero or low tariffs? Are they on to something?

Do moderate tariffs encourage rather than retard American enterprise, on the theory that it will not be undercut by dumping and exchange manipulation and can also compete with far cheaper energy and transportation costs?

No one really knows these answers because the U.S. has never tried the current policy in quite the present way before.

We do know that the radical free trade and asymmetrical tariffs of the last half-century empowered China to world power status with a dangerous military and hollowed out the U.S. industrial interior.

Is the $2 trillion budget deficit, as predicted, set in stone? Will the national debt only grow to unsustainable levels? However, federal agencies have never announced annual cuts of nearly $200 billion—along with a ten percent reduction in the budget deficit.

Never has the government promised to deregulate and fast-track permits for construction, energy development, and manufacturing from 2-3 years to mere months. What will the financial results be?

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggests that $15 trillion in new foreign investments are now promised. If accurate, what will such influxes do to employment? To federal revenues? To the economy in general?

Is it possible that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could be right that $300 billion in federal income will come from new tariffs—if true, that might reduce the deficit by another 15 percent?

What is the effect on the economy of cheaper energy costs when production is slated to rise without draining the strategic petroleum reserve on the eve of elections?

No one has ever questioned universities before so systematically.

We do know that student loan debt has spiraled to $1.7 trillion. Graduation rates have dropped to about 50-60 percent of those who enroll. The average student now takes six—not four—years to graduate. Today’s graduates, by all accounts, leave universities with fewer analytical skills, less language fluency, and reduced general knowledge than in past decades. Faculties have never been more weaponized, with 90-95 percent reportedly holding progressive views.

If universities are taxed on their endowments, will that not force them to reconsider their efforts to maintain their non-profit status?

Will 15 percent limits on overhead charges on federal grants force researchers to watch their budgets and universities to curb their bloated administrative legions?

What is so wrong with curbing the tuition gouging and profiteering off foreign students, and limiting their numbers to ensure access to underserved, deserving Americans?

Will the end of segregated dorms, safe spaces, and “affinity” graduations lead to more integration and assimilation than do the current tribal fixations on race and ethnicity? Historically, does tribalism or assimilation best serve a nation?

Will meritocratic admissions improve student skills, rewarding those who study hard and encouraging those who do not to emulate those who do? Will minorities who are admitted under meritocratic criteria be seen as more or less qualified?

Are far fewer administrators, more emphasis on instruction and less on politics, and more students from the heartland and fewer from communist China or the illiberal Middle East such bad things?

In the last 50 years, affirmative action transmogrified into DEI racial separatism, chauvinism, and a system of reparatory spoils, played and manipulated by grifters, opportunists, and fakers, from Elizabeth Warren-style phonies and Jussie Smollett-like con artists to opportunists like Zohran Mamdani who game the system.

Has any chauvinistic multiracial democracy—like Brazil or India—or any multiethnic or multireligious confederation—such as Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq—ever succeeded by prioritizing caste, race, religious sectarianism, or ethnic tribalism?

Can any top-down imposed policy ever be successful when 70 percent of the electorate opposes it?

Can any government that institutionalizes bias and preferences succeed while ignoring class in favor of race—without ever clearly defining which racial criteria justify the entire spoils system, or why?

In our postmodern 21st-century system, no one knows exactly what will happen when race becomes incidental rather than essential. But we do know from history where we were headed under the current aberrant system.

Abroad, in the last 30 years, NATO was voluntarily hollowed out—largely praised in the abstract by European grandees and shorted and ignored in the concrete by Euro budget technocrats. Yet since the days of the Cold War, NATO members had not met their defense expenditure promises.

Now, most NATO members have met those commitments. Frontline NATO states like Sweden, Finland, and Poland are far better armed and prepared than legacy Western members like Belgium, Spain, or Italy. If there follows a rearmed and recommitted NATO, will not the world become a safer place?

We were told for a half-century to steer clear of Iran, the supposed unhinged, lethal bully of the Middle East. Their henchmen blew up barracks and embassies, took and executed hostages, and sowed terror throughout the Middle East with their killer surrogates Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

But Iran had never really fought, much less won a war, since it pleaded with Saddam Hussein for an armistice from the catastrophic Iran-Iraq conflict.

What will be the effect on the Middle East with a currently impotent Iran, an inert Hezbollah, and a subterranean Hamas in hiding? More importantly, what is the current regional role of Iran without a nuclear program, air defenses, a navy, or expeditionary terrorist forces? Again, no one knows.

Finally, we have never seen anything quite so radical as the new Democratic Party, at least not since the McGovern blowout of 1972. In its 24/7, 360-degree fixation on hating Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda, rarely has a party embraced signature policies that are so despised by the American people. As a result, we have no idea what the result will be other than a national implosion at the polls.

Why would any political party embrace open borders, the influx of 12 million illegal aliens, 600 sanctuary cities, biological men dominating women’s sports, dismantling the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries, prosecutors who release rather than indict and convict violent criminals, defunding the police, tribal fixations and racial spoils systems in defiance of the Supreme Court, the terrorists of Hamas over democratic Israel, and overt campus anti-Semitism?

We are in the middle of a counter-revolution, whose fate will likely be decided in 15 months by the midterm elections and the status of the late 2026 economy.

Structural changes across the economy, culture, and politics of the country are underway. Our bicoastal experts and authorities are mostly predicting a multifaceted systems failure—without explaining why or how.

Yet the only constant in their predictions is that when and if they prove wrong, they will not pivot, correct, or apologize, but simply move on to their next flawed prognosis, fortified by their titles and letters after their names—but otherwise little else.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 18:25

Eric And Donald Trump Jr. To Help Launch New U.S. Manufacturing SPAC

Eric And Donald Trump Jr. To Help Launch New U.S. Manufacturing SPAC

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are spearheading New America Acquisition I Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) targeting a $300 million initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange, according to a securities filing reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The SPAC seeks to acquire businesses with a combined enterprise value of at least $700 million, prioritizing the revitalization of U.S. manufacturing and the strengthening of domestic supply chains.

The filing highlights New America’s strategy to target companies that “play a pivotal role in rejuvenating domestic manufacturing, fostering innovation ecosystems, and securing critical supply chains.” The venture will be led by Kevin McGurn, a seasoned technology executive, with Kyle Wool serving as an adviser. The offering is underwritten by investment banks D. Boral Capital and Dominari Securities, the latter a subsidiary of the firm where Wool holds a leadership role.

This marks the Trump brothers’ latest foray into the SPAC market, building on prior ventures. Last year, Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, went public via a SPAC merger. More recently, GrabAGun, an online firearms retailer backed by 1789 Capital—where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner—also completed a SPAC deal.

The move aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies, which emphasize reshoring critical supply chains from China to enhance U.S. economic and national security. The administration has implemented sweeping tariffs, including a 10% baseline on imports from all countries and rates up to 125% on Chinese goods, to make foreign products costlier and encourage domestic production. These measures, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, aim to address trade imbalances and bolster U.S. manufacturing.

In May, U.S. and Chinese negotiators reached a 90-day tariff truce in Geneva, easing trade tensions. The agreement reduced U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% and China’s duties from 125% to 10%, providing temporary relief to businesses navigating global trade disruptions.

The tariff policies have drawn support from U.S. industries, particularly steel. Nucor Corp., a leading steel producer, endorsed the measures.

“Nucor strongly commends the actions taken today by President Trump to reimpose tariffs on all steel imports,” said Leon Topalian, president and CEO of Nucor Corp. “America’s national security depends on a robust and healthy American steel industry, which continues to be harmed by massive global steel overcapacity and the resulting surge of illegally dumped and subsidized imports from around the world.

"Many of our trading partners have taken advantage of our open market for far too long and have intentionally circumvented our trade laws or allowed other bad actors to transship illegally dumped and subsidized steel," Topalian added. "The President’s actions will help level the playing field for American steel producers and the more than 24,000 men and women who work in our industry.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 18:00

Dead? Or Just 'Mostly' Dead?

Dead? Or Just 'Mostly' Dead?

Authored by Madelynn McLaughlin via RealClearPolitics,

Until recently, anyone who believed there was anything fishy about the U.S. organ donation system was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Yet now the old adage: “What’s the difference between conspiracy and truth? About six months,” rings true again, as so-called conspiracy theorists have been proven right by none other than the federal Health and Resources Services Administration (HRSA) itself.

The “conspiracy?” That organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and hospitals declare living individuals dead in order to harvest their organs.

The truth? In March 2025, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration reported in its investigation of a procurement organization called Network for Hope that there had been dozens of instances where organ retrieval was nearly begun despite the donors exhibiting signs of life. 

The investigation was started in response to the infamous case of T. J. Hoover. Hoover, a resident of Kentucky (which along with parts of Ohio and West Virginia is exclusively served by Network for Hope) had overdosed on drugs in October 2021 and been declared brain dead. His body was being prepped for organ retrieval when he regained consciousness on the operating table, banging his legs and crying. Thankfully, the process was halted, but not without significant pressure to continue by the OPO representative in the room, according to doctors who testified. 

Hoover’s story is apparently one among many. HRSA reviewed 351 donation-authorized cases and found that 73 patients showed neurological activity and at least 28 patients may not have been deceased when the procurement process began. 

These shocking revelations led to a hearing last week by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Dr. Raymond Lynch, chief of the organ transplant branch within HRSA, testified to Congress regarding the safety and efficiency of the organ donation process.

Lynch admitted that the current method of operation has serious issues, but argued that the root cause is a system that grants a quasi-monopoly to individual procurement operators. Only a single contractor per region can service the OPTN, which is the federal Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network that connects donated organs with patients needing transplants. Over-reliance on the OPOs has impeded “meaningful government oversight,” according to Lynch.

Members of both parties peppered Lynch with questions about the practices of OPOs and the OPTN. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, referenced a New York Times article revealing the growing use of “circulatory death,” which is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, even though in some cases circulatory death is reversible through proper resuscitation. Nonetheless, using this definition to determine the end of life allowed hospitals to harvest organs faster, leading to concerns about a grim conflict of interest.

Compounding this issue is pressure from OPO representatives, who are required to be present for donation. DeGette asserted that doctors may look to OPO representatives as “experts” and feel pressured to certify death. While Lynch did not affirm DeGette’s concerns, he conceded that “increased emphasis on performance in any area of medicine is not an excuse for noncompliance.”

Lynch stressed that it is possible that a “good faith” assessment of death could be wrong, and that often, doctors are doing their best in a difficult and fast-paced environment. Rep. Gary Palmer  wasn’t having it. “There’s clearly things that happened that I think could count as euthanasia,” said the Alabama Republican. In response, Lynch stressed that the HRSA has a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in place for OPOs and the OPTN, with its authority stemming from Congress.

The renewed interest in Congress follows passage of the Securing the OPTN Act, signed into law by President Biden two years ago. This new law the OPTN turns a single-vendor system into a multiple-vendor system, meaning that  multiple OPOs can now service the same region. It also establishes a separate OPTN board from any other contractors to ensure transparency, removes the $7 million HRSA funding cap and allocates more money for modernization, and requires a GAO review of the OPTN’s financial history.

The HRSA created its CAP to better implement the terms of the act. The CAP lists several important reforms: Any staff member will be allowed to halt procedures due to safety concerns; the OPTN must now monitor and report safety-related halted donations; the HRSA now has authority to decertify OPOs not meeting its standards; and the Network for Hope and any other implicated OPO must implement minimum safety standards, better documentation, clearer donor eligibility criteria, and family communication plans within six months.

While the reforms listed in the CAP are unquestionably needed, a big question remains: Will they truly solve the problem? It will be an uphill fight. The CAP doesn’t address the issue of ambiguous death certification, such as circulatory death. Nor does it address the institutional incentives that push OPOs to aggressively advocate for more organ donations. CAPs tend to focus more on metrics rather than ethical gray zones, meaning that the potential of harvesting the organs of live patients is still a possibility.

What needs to change to ensure that what T. J. Hoover endured – or worse – never happens again? Those pushing for further reform believe that the Uniform Determination of Death Act should be further strengthened so that that hospitals in this country operate by uniform and widely accepted standards for certification of death. Independent third-party certification of death might be a brake on misplaced priorities. Finally, some believe that harvesting organs should not be allowed until all brain activity has ceased.

Madelynn McLaughlin is an intern at RealClearPolitics. She graduated from Liberty University in 2025 with a degree in Government: Politics and Policy.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 17:40

Tyson Foods Confirms Protein Switching Underway Amid Record High Beef Prices 

Tyson Foods Confirms Protein Switching Underway Amid Record High Beef Prices 

Mega meatpacker Tyson Foods surged 4% in early New York cash trading after posting a surprise quarterly profit and raising its full-year revenue forecast. A boom in chicken demand offset deepening losses in its struggling beef unit, as sky-high beef prices continue to push consumers toward cheaper alternatives.

Tyson Foods reported third-quarter adjusted EPS of .91 cents, beating Goldman Sachs and consensus estimates of 85 cents and 78 cents, respectively. Revenue rose 3.6% year-over-year to $13.88 billion, also topping estimates of $13.61 billion (GS) and $13.50 billion (consensus), driven by strong performance in chicken, offsetting losses in the beef unit.

Tyson Foods (TSN) 3Q Summary: Beat and Raised

EPS Beat: Adj. EPS of $0.91 vs. GS/consensus of $0.85/$0.78

Revenue Beat: Sales rose +3.6% YoY to $13.88B, above GS/consensus of $13.61B/$13.50B

Segment Performance: Strength in Chicken, Beef, Prepared Foods; Pork and International/Other underperformed

Operating Income: Adj. op income of $505M beat GS/consensus of $501M/$462M

Guidance Raised:

  • FY25 Adj. Operating Income: Now $2.1B–$2.3B (up from $1.9B–$2.3B), led by chicken strength, partially offset by beef

  • FY25 Net Sales Growth: Now +2–3% (prior: flat to +1%), above GS/consensus of 1.5%/1.2%

"Our third quarter results demonstrate the strength of our multi-protein, multi-channel portfolio and our relentless focus on operational excellence," said Donnie King, President & CEO of Tyson Foods. "Delivering our fifth consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth across sales, adjusted operating income and adjusted earnings per share underscores the resilience of our business model. Looking ahead, we are confident in our ability to meet consumer needs, capitalize on protein demand and deliver long-term value to our shareholders."

"Chicken continues to provide support to the business as the company continues to face beef headwinds," analysts at brokerage Stephens wrote in a note to clients. 

Making sense of all this is simple: rising chicken demand alongside sliding beef demand is known as "protein switching." This trend is driven by excessively high supermarket beef prices, prompting low- and middle-income consumers to seek cheaper alternatives like chicken and pork.

This comes as the latest USDA cattle report shows America's cattle and calves herd population has fallen to 94.2 million, its lowest mid-year level since 1973. The nation's shrinking herd size has pushed USDA retail ground beef prices to record highs...

Related:

. . . 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 17:20

District Attorney's Office Announces Largest Gun Trafficking Case In County History

District Attorney's Office Announces Largest Gun Trafficking Case In County History

Authored by Oliver Mantyk via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

On Aug. 1, District Attorney David Hoovler gave a press conference along with other politicians and members of law enforcement on the success of the largest gun trafficking case in county history.

Confiscated guns and narcotics on display at a press conference in Goshen, N.Y., regarding Operation Powder Burn on Aug. 1, 2025. Oliver Mantyk/The Epoch Times

The operation, dubbed Operation Powder Burn, focused on taking down an illegal gun and narcotics trafficking ring based in Newburgh.

The operation resulted in firearm, narcotics, and conspiracy charges against 20 individuals. Their ages range from 22 to 60, and they live mainly in New York, with some in Pennsylvania and Georgia.

The severity of the charges range from probation to 15 to 30 years in prison.

Ten of the individuals being charged are bail-eligible.

The trafficking revolved around an “Iron Pipeline,” a gun trafficking route moving guns between states with differing gun laws. Most of the guns were shipped from Georgia or Pennsylvania via FedEx, where they were allegedly received by the investigation’s main focus, Christopher Brown, a 40-year-old resident of Newburgh. He operated out of a closed restaurant in Newburgh called The Kitchen, allegedly selling narcotics and firearms in and outside of the city.

Investigations into Brown and people connected to him started in December 2024. What began as a small narcotics investigation by the OC Drug Task Force, over the course of eight months, turned into the largest gun trafficking bust by volume of firearms involved.

Undercover officers bought a total of 55 firearms and 700 grams of cocaine and fentanyl from Brown. The $69,000 used to make these purchases was provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The ATF also provided other resources and personnel for the investigation.

The individuals were arrested on July 30, which was dubbed “Takedown Day.” The decision to end the investigation came after law enforcement intercepted messages indicating that Brown and his associates were planning on robbing and doing potential harm to the undercover officers.

Takedown Day involved more than 20 law enforcement agencies and 300 officers in New York, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. The day ended with 19 of the 20 persons of interest in the hands of law enforcement. On Takedown Day, 12 illegal firearms, 4 ounces of fentanyl, 0.5 kilograms of cocaine, and $65,000 were confiscated. A large amount of synthetic marijuana was also taken by law enforcement. No officers were injured in the eight-month operation.

Operation Powder Burn ended with the recovery of a total of 67 illegal guns and 1.5 kilos of cocaine and fentanyl. The guns trafficked were mostly handguns, but shotguns, rifles, and other larger firearms were also trafficked. The collection included several 3D-printed guns and a Glock handgun modified to be fully automatic. That is the only known automatic weapon among the confiscated guns. The guns and narcotics were on display at the conference.

Several of the confiscated firearms are allegedly linked to shootings, including seven shootings in New York and Vermont.

Hoovler said at the conference, “There is enough fentanyl here on this table to kill 190,000 residents of Orange County. The 20 people on the boards to my immediate left are nothing more than merchants of death.”

Hoovler also wanted people to be clear that this case wasn’t about gun enthusiasts or other law-abiding gun owners; it was about people bringing guns to OC as part of the illegal drug trade.

Orange County Sheriff Paul Arteta said in a press release, “These weren’t isolated offenses; they were part of a coordinated effort to profit off addiction and violence. Our teams, including the Special Operations Group and Drug Task Force, worked with precision and persistence to shut this network down. I’m proud of the role the Sheriff’s Office played in this historic case, and we remain committed to pursuing those who threaten the safety and stability of our communities.”

A poster outlining the alleged connections between suspects involved in a firearms trafficking bust called Operation Powder Burn at a press conference in Goshen, N.Y., on Aug. 1, 2025. Oliver Mantyk/The Epoch Times Tyler Durden Mon, 08/04/2025 - 17:00

Pages