Catastrophe Looms Above: Space Junk Problem Grew 'Significantly Worse' In 2024

As if you didn't have enough to worry about, the risk of space junk causing a catastrophic chain reaction that profoundly affects life on Earth rose significantly in 2024, according to the latest annual analysis from the European Space Energy (ESA).

The numbers are mind-boggling. ESA estimates there are now more than 1.2 million orbiting objects larger than 1cm and more than 50,000 larger than 10cm. Of the enormous number of orbiting missiles, only 40,000 are individually tracked by surveillance networks. The number in that category rose by 8% last year. Part of that increase is attributable to the August explosion of China's Long March 6A rocket, one of the worst junk-generating incidents in decades. “If we extrapolate current trends into the future, as before, catastrophic collision numbers could rise significantly,” the ESA report said.

This ESA graphic depicts the mind-blowing volume of objects swirling around Earth at various levels of orbit 

Don't judge space junk's potential for destruction using your Earthly instincts: Traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour in space, even a small object has the potential to inflict major damage. In one incident that demonstrates that fact of physics, a 2mm piece of space once junk put a 5cm-wide dent in a climate satellite. A modest move up the scale brings much more power: "A one-centimeter piece of debris has the energy of a hand grenade," ESA's Tiago Soares told DW.  

In an ominous 2009 incident, a Russian Cosmos satellite collided with an Iridium satellite, creating a cloud of about 2,000 pieces of junk measuring 10cm or more. That's brings us to the nightmare scenario that should fill you with dread: The Kessler Effect. Imagine an initial major impact that creates hundreds of shards, which then start colliding with more orbiting objects, setting off a chain reaction. Actually, you don't need your imagination. While some scientists say it wasn't fully accurate in depicting the physics, Hollywood ventured to depict the Kessler Effect in the 2013 movie, Gravity: 

It would be enormously difficult to move forward from a catastrophe in which thousands and thousands of objects are shattered in orbit, as entire orbit zones could be rendered unusable. 

In a world in which satellites play an ever-increasingly important role for humanity, the stakes are high. "We depend on satellites as a source of information for our daily life, from navigation, to telecommunications, to services, to Earth observation, including defense and security," Josef Aschbacher, ESA's Director General, told DW. 

The enormous swarm of junk doesn't just include small pieces of debris, but also obsolete satellites and the bodies of used rockets. Of those two types of junk, an average of more than three of them re-enter the atmosphere every day, according to the ESA's new 2025 report. Some state actors have intentionally created thousands of shards: both Russia and India have tested anti-satellite weapons. 

When will a Kessler Effect event become a substantial, ongoing plausibility? “I think we’re not there yet, but we’re approaching the situation very quickly,” said University of Arizona Earth and space scientist Vishnu Reddy. “The debate is about when it will happen, whether it is five years from now, 10 years from now or 20 years from now.”

We'd like to tell you that a cleanup has already started. Alas, the first test of a satellite-plucking mission is still three years away. The experiment will be carried out by privately-held Swiss firm, ClearSpace, with funding by ESA. Originally slated for this year, the ClearSpace-1 mission is now scheduled for 2028, targeting being just a single, suitcase-sized ESA "PROBA-1" satellite. It will be a suicide mission of sorts: An unmanned, autonomous vehicle will deploy a "space claw" to take hold of the satellite, and then guide it into the Earth's atmosphere, where both will be incinerated on re-entry.  

Driving home the urgency, planners had to pick the PROBA-1 target after their original one was -- you guessed it -- hit by debris.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/05/2025 - 08:45

1 In 10 Say They Have Been Harmed By The NHS, Survey Finds

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

One in 10 people say they have been harmed by the NHS, according to a study published in the BMJ Quality & Safety Journal.

A general view of staff on a NHS hospital ward at Ealing Hospital in London, on Jan. 18, 2023. Jeff Moore/PA Wire

Researchers surveyed over 10,000 people across England, Wales, and Scotland between 2021 and 2022 and found that 988 of them (9.7 percent) had reported experiencing physical or emotional harm caused by the health service in the previous three years.

According to researchers at the University of Oxford’s Population Health and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), 6.2 percent said they experienced harm owing to care they had received.

The remaining 3.5 percent blamed the harm on having a lack of access to treatment.

The study, published on Tuesday, found that just 17 percent of people chose to take formal action by making a complaint, with an even smaller proportion (2.1 percent) taking legal action.

Higher Rate

The reported harm rate exceeds that of previous surveys in 2001 (4.8 percent) and 2023 (2.5 percent). However, researchers suggest this increase may be down to a broader definition of “harm” that now includes mental distress and harm caused by lack of access to health care, alongside physical harm.

Researchers found that more women had reported harm than men, with there being higher rates among the unemployed and those with disabilities or long-term health conditions.

Men were also found to be less likely to share their experiences, along with older people and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Older people were also less likely to make a formal complaint.

Some Way to Go

Helen Hogan, associate professor at the LSHTM, said: “These findings indicate that healthcare harm affects a considerable number of members of the general public.

“Our study is the first to put a number on the harm that results from people having to wait for treatment as well as the scale of harm caused by the care itself. It shows that there is still some way to go to improve safety across the NHS.”

Hogan continued that while the vast majority of NHS staff prioritise patients’ needs, there are pressures within the system—such as a lack of time or staff—which can affect the quality of care they can deliver.

Scottish Health Secretary Neil Gray responded to the report by telling reporters that patient safety is paramount and that NHS boards must be open about mistakes and learn from them.

A Welsh Government spokesperson said that they are simplifying the complaints process to ensure thorough investigations and continuous improvement in health care.

An NHS England spokesperson added that the health service was making “significant progress in strengthening patient safety – including a nationwide programme of training and education – and we recognise there is still more to do to improve care for patients by providing better access to services and reducing health inequalities.”

‘Startling Collapse’ in Public Satisfaction

The public is reporting not only increased harm but also growing dissatisfaction with the NHS.

On Wednesday, the Nuffield Trust described the “startling collapse” in satisfaction, which plummeted by 39 percentage points since before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The British Attitudes Survey (BSA) study into satisfaction with the taxpayer-funded health service found that in 2024, 59 percent of people are “quite” or “very” dissatisfied with the NHS, which is up from 53 percent on the year before and at its highest rate on record.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting delivering a keynote speech on the second day of the 2024 NHS Providers conference and exhibition, at the ACC in Liverpool, England, on Nov. 13, 2024. Peter Byrne/PA Wire

The analysis, published by the Nuffield Trust and The King’s Fund, found that only one-fifth (21 percent) of respondents were happy with the NHS, down from 24 percent on the year before and at its lowest level since this survey first polled Britons on the matter in 1983.

The part of the service which people expressed most dissatisfaction with was A&E, with 52 percent dissatisfied, rising from 37 percent in 2023. Satisfaction with GP services has also fallen, dropping from 34 percent in 2023 to 31 percent last year.

Broken NHS

“We inherited a broken NHS and this survey shows patients agree,” Health Secretary Wes Streeting told reporters in response to the BSA poll, citing long waiting lists, the rise of corridor care, and Britons struggling to see their GPs.

He said: “Thanks to the necessary decisions we took in the Budget, we’ve invested a record £26 billion over two years, ended the crippling strikes, cut waiting lists for five months in a row and delivered 2 million extra appointments seven months early.

“There’s a long way to go but we are fixing our NHS to make it fit for the future.”

In January, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) unveiled plans to create 2 million extra medical appointments next year, in a bid to bring down high NHS waiting lists.

The DHSC said up to half a million more appointments are expected to be created in total every year by expanding the use of Community Diagnostic Centres, which will be open seven days a week, 12 hours a day, so that patients can access tests and health checks closer to home and at times more convenient to them.

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

Tariff Turmoil Delays Nintendo Switch 2 Pre-Orders; Will This Derail Goldman's Bull Call On Mario Kart-Maker

We suspect Goldman analysts Minami Munakata and Haruki Kubota will soon update clients on today's report from The Verge. The report reveals that Nintendo is delaying preorders for the new Switch 2 due to the fallout from President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz and China's retaliatory measures, which are roiling global markets and trade. 

Nintendo spokesperson Eddie Garcia told The Verge:

Preorders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions. Nintendo will update timing at a later date. The launch date of June 5, 2025 is unchanged.

Nintendo plans to launch the Nintendo Switch 2 (the successor to the Nintendo Switch) on June 5. There's still no word from Garcia about when preorders will begin. 

There's still no word on Switch 2 pricing following the new effective tariff rate of 24% on Japanese goods, as The Verge noted.

The Switch 2 costs $449.99 and comes with several upgrades, including a larger 7.9-inch 1080p display, 256GB of storage, and a C-button for in-game chats. We don't know yet whether the Switch 2 or its accessories will go up in price in response to the tariffs. The Switch 2 is already significantly more expensive than its $299 predecessor, while its games have a steeper $69.99 to $79.99 price.

Last month, Goldman analysts Minami Munakata and Haruki Kubota were super bulls on Nintendo, noting that "the global games market re-entered a growth phase since 2024" and forecasted "the number of active consoles to continue renewing fresh highs globally from 2025."

Their bullishness in the gaming industry was mainly because Switch 2 would "unlock dormant hardware and dormant users" and send "the number of active consoles to continue to renew record highs." 

However, with tariffs in play, the Switch 2 and its accessories will likely be priced higher. That raises a key question for the analysts—likely to be addressed in a client note this weekend:

• Will the increased cost of the device prompt a revision to their active console forecast?

• And, in turn, could a downward revision in the forecast trigger a 12mo price target cut for Nintendo shares in Tokyo?

. . . 

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

Ukrainian Special Ops Using US Tactical Vehicles Undisclosed By The Pentagon

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

A combat unit of NATO-trained Ukrainian soldiers was photographed using a Flyer 72-LD tactical vehicle. The Department of Defense did not report that it had transferred the platform to Ukraine, which was previously operated primarily by American special forces. 

The Flyers’ presence in Ukraine became public when blogger Praise the Steph posted a photo of the vehicle with soldiers from Kiev’s 6th Separate Ranger Regiment. "Will and faith are our weapons. Victory is our only horizon!" the blogger reported the unit’s commander said.

Rare Flyer 72 Light Duty (Flyer F72-LD), M1297 A-GMV in US designation, made by Flyer Defense. Source: @praisethesteph/X

The Flyer is designed to be a light-weight tactical vehicle that can operate in rugged terrain.

It can be carried to the front by a number of helicopters and can carry a 5,000-pound load. The Pentagon has not previously disclosed the transfer of the Flyer to Kiev. Only a limited number of NATO countries deploy the Flyer. 

While the New York Times’s Adam Entous described the Department of Defense’s transfer of weapons to Ukraine as occurring "with remarkable transparency," this is not the first time that Ukrainian soldiers have received US military equipment before the American public became aware of the shipment. 

The 6th Separate Ranger Regiment is one of four Ukrainian military units trained by NATO troops that make up Kiev’s special operations force.

According to the Kyiv Post, they are designed to conduct "drone, reconnaissance, sabotage, and artillery targeting operations behind enemy lines."

US and Ukrainian military leaders have presented the conflict as an opportunity to test Western weapons and tactics against the Russian military. 

Back in 2023, CNN wrote that "the war in Ukraine has also offered the United States and its allies a rare opportunity to study how their own weapons systems perform under intense use – and what munitions both sides are using to score wins in this hotly fought modern war."

Ukraine is "absolutely a weapons lab in every sense because none of this equipment has ever actually been used in a war between two industrially developed nations," an official was cited as saying. "This is real-world battle testing."

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

Escobar: How Trump's Tariff Tizzy Is Burning Down The House

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Global Majority, rejoice! And step on the high-speed rail de-dollarization train.

Circus ringmaster Trump’s Tariff Tizzy (TTT), christened by himself as “Liberation Day”, is being largely interpreted around the world – Global North and Global South alike – as Slaughterhouse Day.

This de facto uncontrolled economic demolition gambit starts with the warped fantasy that launching a customs war on China is a bright idea. As bright as collecting a few trillion extra dollars in tariffs assuming the rest of the planet will be somewhat “encouraged” to sell to the Hegemon, while pretending that these tariffs will lead to the re-industrialization of the U.S.

The tragicomic mask of a self-appointed circus ringmaster of turbo-capitalism may be as pathetic as the European chihuahua rage boosting their “revenge” via Rearmament – with funds that they plan to steal from the savings accounts of unsuspecting citizens.

The indispensable Michael Hudson has configured the key problem. Allow me a little tweak: “Sanctions and threats are the only thing that the United States has left. It no longer can offer other countries a win-win situation, and Trump has said that America has to be the net gainer in any international deal it’s made, whether it’s a financial deal or a trade deal. And if America is saying, any deal we make, you lose, I win”, that Mafia extortion gambit does not exactly reflect the Art of the Deal.

Prof. Hudson neatly describes Trump’s negotiation tactics: “When you don’t have very much to offer economically, all you can do is offer not to hurt other countries, not to sanction them, not to do something that will be against their interest.” Now, with TTT, Trump is actually “offering” to hurt them all. And they will certainly invest in all sorts of counter-tactics to “get away” from that “strategy” of American “diplomacy”.

A trade war on Asia

TTT attacks everyone, especially the EU (“born to hurt us”, according to the circus ringmaster. Wrong, because the EU was invented by the Americans in 1957 to actually keep Europe under control). The EU exports roughly 503 billion euros to the U.S. a year, while importing around 347 billion. Trump is fuming non-stop about this surplus.

So a counter-measure vendetta will be inevitably in store, as already advertised by the toxic Medusa von der Lugen in Brussels – incidentally the sponsor of every weapons producer in Europe.

Yet TTT is above all a trade war on Asia. “Reciprocal” tariffs – not exactly reciprocal – were imposed on China (34%),Vietnam (46%), India (26%), Indonesia (32%), Cambodia (49%), Malaysia (24%), South Korea (25%), Thailand (36%), earthquake-hit Myanmar (44%), Taiwan (32%) and Japan (24%).

Well, even before TTT, a first has been achieved: the circus ringmaster generated a once-in-a-lifetime consensus among China, Japan and South Korea that their response will be coordinated.

Japan and South Korea will import semiconductor raw materials from China, while China will be purchasing chips from Japan and South Korea. Translation: TTT will solidify “supply chain cooperation” among this triad that so far was not exactly too cooperative.

What the circus ringmaster really wants is an iron-clad mechanism – already being developed by his team – that unilaterally imposes whatever level of tariffs Trump may come up with on whatever excuse: could be to circumvent “current manipulation”, to counter a value-added tax, on “security grounds”, whatever. And to hell with international law. For all practical purposes, Trump is burying the WTO.

Even tariffed penguins in Heard island in the South Pacific know that the certified effects of TTT will include rising inflation in the U.S., serious pain on its – delocalized – corporations and most of all the complete collapse of American “credibility” as a reliable and trustworthy trading partner, adding to its certified reputation as “non-agreement capable” – as the Global South knows so well. > Ант: A rentier FIRE Empire (financialization, insurance, real estate, as masterfully analyzed by Michael Hudson), which offshored its manufacturing industries and was gobbled up by a pile of overleveraged hedge funds, Wall Street derivatives and Silicon Valley totalitarian surveillance in the end decides to strike…itself.

Poetic justice applies. Burning Down the House – from inside the house. As for the emerging, sovereign Global Majority, rejoice: and step on the high-speed rail de-dollarization train.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 23:25

Houthis Down Second MQ-9 Reaper Drone In 72 Hours

Yemen's Houthis have claimed another shootdown of a US MQ-9 Reaper drone. The Thursday announcement, if accurate, would mark the second such Reaper drone downing by the group within 72 hours.

The country's SABA news agency reported that the US drone was intercepted by an anti-air missile over the Hodeidah province, which has been subject of repeat US bombardment since President Trump ordered a renewed air campaign on March 15. 

Fox News' Jennifer Griffin has offered some confirmation of the latest downing, writing on X "the Houthis shoot down 3rd MQ9 Reaper drone since March 3rd; 2nd since March 15th airstrike campaign began."

US Air Force file image

"Another U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone was shot down by the Houthis in Yemen, sources tell Fox News. This is the third MQ-9 Reaper drone shot down by the Houthis in the last month," she continued.

"It is the second MQ-9 drone shot down over Yemen since U.S. Central Command began daily airstrikes on the Houthis on March 15th. The U.S. military has carried out 20 straight days of bombing, and yet the Houthis continue to fire missiles."

The Fox correspondent continued in the Thursday statement:

The first MQ-9 drone was shot down on March 3rd. Days later the White House launched airstrikes against the Houthis. The second MQ-9 was shot down on Monday. And today the 3rd one was shot down. Overnight the Houthis said the U.S. carried out 36 airstrikes on Yemen.

The Pentagon has kept silent, offering no confirmation, however. US officials have in the past acknowledged only some drone downings over Yemen, but don't announce each one lost as they likely don't want to give the Houthis any acknowledgement of a successful battlefield action.

If accurate, this would mark the 17th Reaper drone shot down by the Houthis since 2023. Still, President Trump is touting 'successful' operations in Yemen, also as a second aircraft carrier is en route from the Pacific to Mideast regional waters.

"Many of their Fighters and Leaders are no longer with us," Trump said earlier this week on Truth Social. "We hit them every day and night — Harder and harder. Their capabilities that threaten Shipping and the Region are rapidly being destroyed. Our attacks will continue until they are no longer a threat to Freedom of Navigation."

Trump added: "The choice for the Houthis is clear: Stop shooting at U.S. ships, and we will stop shooting at you. Otherwise, we have only just begun, and the real pain is yet to come, for both the Houthis and their sponsors in Iran."

Pentagon's success in destroying Houthi missile and drone arsenal has been largely limited.

Pentagon spent roughly $200 million in munitions against Houthis in three weeks.

US strikes against Houthis could exceed $1 billion by next week.

Source: NYT

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 4, 2025

The Iran-supported Yemeni militants have vowed to continue fighting so long as Israeli's military is active in the Gaza Strip. So far there's been no hint they'll back down, even in the face of overwhelming US airstrikes.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 23:00

Tolerance & Inclusivity? Leftist Mob On UC Davis Campus Destroys Conservative Group Display And Tent

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

A mob of roughly 30 masked protesters at UC Davis attacked a tent for a conservative student group, the UC Davis chapter of Turning Point USA. It proceeded to destroy the tent and displays without any intervention from campus police, who were shown standing nearby.  The police followed the rampaging mob and did not attempt to detain anyone. The mob appears to have been led by Antifa members, a violent anti-free speech group.

Dressed in their signature black with masks and umbrellas, the group tore down the tent and assaulted some of the students by shoving and grabbing them. They actually returned to finish the job. The protesters carried a large banner with the words “ACAB,” which stands for all cops are bastards.

The university said in a news release that it is investigating. 

However, the university insisted, “The event with the guest speaker took place on schedule and was completed without further incident. The university protected the free speech rights of the campus community throughout the event.”

“Without further incident” has the “other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”

One question is whether Davis will look into why the campus police stood and watched these protesters assault students and tear down a tent without trying to detain a single person. They merely walked behind the mob as it carried off the bits and pieces of the displays and tents.

The student group was about to host Brandon Tatum,  a black conservative and former police officer.

Our "Prove Me Wrong" tabling event with @TheOfficerTatum at UC Davis was completely destroyed by violent protesters.

They stole the canopy, ripped down banners, smashed foam boards, and even tried to steal the iPad and laptop of a @tpusastudents field rep.

TPUSA students were… pic.twitter.com/VlBVOxX6ZU

— Turning Point USA (@TPUSA) April 3, 2025

TPUSSA stated that the “Our ‘Prove Me Wrong’ tabling event was utterly destroyed:

“They stole the canopy, ripped down banners, smashed foam boards, and even tried to steal the iPad and laptop of a @tpusastudents field rep. TPUSA students were shoved and had objects thrown at them—while police did nothing,” the organization stated. 

“Only after the damage was done did law enforcement finally form a perimeter. This is the reality of free speech on campus.”

Political violence from the left is on the rise across the nation, fueled by the rage rhetoric of Democratic leaders and commentators.

As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Antifa began as a movement that began in Germany:

“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”

Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally.

As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association.  Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”

We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany.

Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists…  From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

The increasing political violence from the left continues on a daily basis with only cursory coverage from the media. Even a department head was shown this week destroyed a table of conservative students.

This is the sense of license that comes from an age of rage. The fact is that this video shows how these groups are enabled by the culture in higher education.

It is reminiscent of the defiance shown by arrested Antifa member Jason Charter, who declared “The Movement is winning” after his own arrest.

It is a movement that has been further enabled by government officials who rationalize their actions or offer little deterrence to their conduct. For example, molotov cocktail throwing lawyers in New York were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.

Then there was Thomas “Tas” Alexander Starks, 31, of Lisbon, N.D., a self-avowed Antifa member took an axe to the office of Sen. John Hoeven’s in Fargo on Dec. 21, 2020. Federal sentencing guidelines suggested 10–16 months in prison but he was only sentenced to probation and fined $2,784 for restitution . . . he then reportedly mocked the FBI for returning his axe.  After his light sentence, Starks posted last month that it was all effectively a joke: “Look what the FBI were kind enough to give back to me!”

Scenes like the one on the campus of UC Davis will only encourage further attacks. The police acted as mere pedestrians as a mob engaged in political violence against students.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 20:05

Sanders Leads Charge To Block Arms To Israel, Senate Votes Down Overwhelmingly

On Thursday US senators voted overwhelmingly to reject two resolutions of disapproval on Washington's massive arms transfers and other military assistance to Israel. The Trump White House has greenlit an estimated $20 billion arms so far, and this is largely a continuation of prior Biden administration policy.

In particular the resolutions sought to block the sale of $8.8 billion in bombs and munitions to Israel, and were offered by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Via Associated Press

But they received the support of only 15 out of 45 Democrats in the Senate, with the final allies being 82-15 and 83-15 in the two votes.

"The United States must end our complicity in these atrocities, we cannot be part of this any longer," Sanders said in a video statement released the day prior to the Senate vote. Liberal icon Sanders, it should be noted, is Jewish but has long criticized Israel for human rights abuses.

The "no" votes were as follows:

Among the four senators who voted in favor of Sanders’s resolutions in November and who who flipped their votes on Thursday to “No” was Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is likely to face an intense reelection challenge from Republicans in 2026.

The others were fellow Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen — who announced earlier this month she will not seek reelection next year — and Maine Senator Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.

And further, "The other fourteen Democrats who voted in favor of blocking weapons to Israel were Mazie Hirono, Ben Ray Luján, Bernie Sanders, Chris Van Hollen, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Martin Heinrich, Brian Schatz, Tina Smith, Dick Durbin, Peter Welch and Chris Murphy."

The vote happened the same day that President Trump previewed a coming visit by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the US. It would mark his second visit since the The Hague's International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for him.

"I think he’s going to be coming to the country some time in the not-so-distant future. Maybe next week," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

It has now been 30 days with NO humanitarian aid getting into Gaza.

No food, no water, no medicine, no fuel.

That is barbaric. The U.S. must end our complicity in these atrocities. pic.twitter.com/Ix3IVrDHNg

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 3, 2025

Netanyahu has been in Hungary this week, which just pulled out of membership in the ICC, despite the country being a founding member. Prime Minister Viktor Orban complained that the court has become a "political tool" - a perspective which non-member Washington shares.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 19:40

Creation Of Abundance Is A Corporation's Purpose

Authored by Terrence Keeley via RealClearPolitics,

Does capitalism need to be fixed? Is it no longer fit for purpose in this modern era, given our environmental ecosystems are under self-evident strain and income gaps are widening to levels not seen since the “robber baron” era?

This was the question I was called to answer at David and Philippa Stroud’s inspiring and expanding Forum last weekend. I rephrased the question slightly: Can capitalism promote the common good? Joining me in the discussion were Rand Stagen, Doug Rauch, and Steve Hall – successful entrepreneurs who have coached CEOs to greatness, led iconic Trader Joe’s from near irrelevance to triumph and lifted a marginal automotive company to multi-billion dollar heights. All three of these remarkable entrepreneurs have since graduated to running Conscious Capitalism, an advocacy group that believes business can benefit everyone, most especially when purpose meets profit.

Over Q&A, the discussion turned as it inevitably does to Milton Friedman’s 1970 article “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Friedman’s New York Times classic has been credited with spawning Gordon Gekko’s ignominious claim that “Greed is good,” as well as oligarchic tyranny theories which Bernie Sanders effectively promotes and derides. Capitalism’s undeniable negative externalities are why a majority of millennials and Gen-Zers today have concluded socialism would be a superior socio-economic framework.

And that’s when controversy ensued. Nobel Laureate Friedman never said businesses should promote profits without guardrails. What he actually wrote is that it is the responsibility of business “to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” These two addendums about rules and customs are crucial. And they allowed me to highlight something Adidas has recently done that millennials, Gen-Zers, and Gordon Gekko alike can all rightly applaud.

Working with Parley Ocean Plastic, Adidas has committed to replacing all the virgin polyester in their products with recycled polyester derived from oceanic plastic waste. This program has been remarkably successful, and it is not all Adidas is doing to rejuvenate the planet. Through their “Made to Be Remade” program, once you’ve had your full run with their shoes and apparel, instead of tossing them in the trash you can send them back to Adidas to be recycled, meaning much less garbage ends up in landfills. Proof of the success of this environmentally mindful strategy comes from the market, however. Since embarking upon their ambitious recycling journey in 2015, Adidas’ stock has risen nearly 400% – meaning they have tapped into new consumer demands, opened new markets, and dramatically benefitted their bottom line. Planet protections have handsomely fattened Adidas shareholders’ wallets.

So, is this an example of stakeholder capitalism – or merely capitalism as Milton Friedman defined it? I would argue it is the latter, perhaps inspired by the former. Like Milton Friedman, I would further argue it is the type of capitalism all public companies should strive for.

Consumer attitudes evolve. Farsighted companies like Adidas find ways to change with them. Adidas’ consumer strategy was met with commercial success. This means it can be sustained. Other nobly-minded public corporate officials evolved faster than consumers did – like Emmanuel Faber at Danone or Bud Light’s marketing team. They misunderstood the market and ultimately saw their sales and profits plummet. They are no longer making corporate decisions. Too many stakeholder capitalist instincts are like these: well-intended but unsustainable. If enduring impact is a public company’s goal, its bottom line must remain black. If growing impact is part of a public company’s calling, growing profits and rising stock prices are essential.

So what should we conclude about the future of capitalism and its role in promoting the common good? For stakeholder capitalism to succeed, it must remain capitalistic – and for a society to succeed, ubiquitous public virtue is needed. Business’s potential role in propagating such virtues is circumscribed. Greater public mindfulness spawned by the universal principles of human dignity, subsidiarity, and solidarity would undoubtedly promote broader social inclusivity and lasting environmental sustainability, aspirations largely enunciated by the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Great companies may well find ways to reinforce these virtues and benefit from their broader acceptance – but they must also find ways to persevere when we humans fail to be all we can and should be, something we invariably seem to do.

The ultimate purpose of a corporation is to mindfully generate the material abundance society needs to make our way, as John 12:35-36 and Isaiah 42:16 suggest, through the darkness to the light. If business can further amplify light along the way, all the better. We humans will likely to get the future we work towards. My hope is that greater mindfulness will lead to greater inclusivity, sustainability, and economic growth. Within profit’s constraints, business can and should make all three of these goals more attainable – and within prevailing rules and social customs, should not actively thwart them.

Terrence Keeley is CEO of the Impact Evaluation Lab and author of Sustainable by Columbia University Press.

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

Putin Envoy In D.C. Hails Trump's Tariff Strategy: 'Shift Toward Economic Sovereignty'

Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s Direct Investment Fund and special Putin envoy who was sent this week to meet with top US officials in Washington, has said his two-days of meetings went well and that positive steps were made.

"I would say that today and yesterday, we made three steps forward on a large number of issues," Dmitriev said after meeting with Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East envoy, who has also been deeply involved in Ukraine negotiations.

TASS/Zuma Press

It was Witkoff who met last month with President Putin in Moscow. As for Dmitriev's visit, it marked the first official trip of a top Russian official to the United States to meet with US officials since the Ukraine war began.

Dmitriev told CNN in a fresh interview that he conveyed to the Trump administration that Moscow is ready to do business again with American companies.

"At this point, we are not asking for any sanction relief. We are just discussing that if America wants to have more business with Russia... then of course US can do so," he said.

He warned that both sides must overcome the lack of communication which marked the opening three years of war in Ukraine. "Therefore, the process of dialogue, the process of resolution will take some time, but it is definitely positive and constructive," he described.

Dmitriev was in the US during the 'Liberation day' tariff rollout, praising a policy that reflects "a growing shift toward economic sovereignty and national interest."

President Trump’s tariff strategy reflects a growing shift toward economic sovereignty and national interest. By prioritizing domestic industry and correcting structural trade imbalances, the U.S. sets a precedent for self-reliant growth and sustainable job creation. https://t.co/sXp7mVMCUU

— Kirill A. Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) April 3, 2025

"I think there is an understanding for how we can move to finalize the agreement. And there have been lots of discussion in that realm, lots of differences still remain, but I think there are several passes to try to address all those issues and only diplomatic solution can be possible," Dmitriev said further to CNN.

He additionally stated in a separate interview while in D.C., "If President Putin commits to something, it gets done. Putin is a historic leader. Trump is a historic leader. They can work together to make history happen. If they cannot achieve major progress, few leaders can."

Despite these positive diplomatic engagements, the question of where overall negotiations to end the war in Ukraine stand remains the same: slow-moving and even perhaps stalled. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Tuesday that current US proposals on ending the war can't be accepted in their current form. He complained they don't address the "root causes" and that Kiev doesn't appear ready to get serious about pursuing peace.

Good weather in Washington D.C. pic.twitter.com/gZ8OrELDhV

— Kirill A. Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) April 3, 2025

"What we have today is an effort to find a framework that would make it possible to ensure America’s vision for a ceasefire. The idea is to then move on to some other models and frameworks, which, as far as we can see, leave no room for Russia’s core demand, that is, the need to resolve the issues stemming from the root causes of this conflict," he said, as quoted in TASS.

* * *

Below are some Friday geopolitical developments via Newsquawk....

Geopolitics: Middle East

• Israeli military say they have "eliminated" Hassan Farhat, a Hamas commander in Lebanon
• Israeli media reported that the Israeli army launched raids on large areas in the Gaza Strip, according to Al Jazeera
• Houthi-affiliated media reports US aggression on the Kahlan area, east of Saada city, northern Yemen, according to Al Jazeera.
• Iran reportedly abandons Houthis under relentless US bombardment and ordered its military personnel to leave Yemen, according to The Telegraph.
• US President Trump said he spoke with Israeli PM Netanyahu on Thursday who may visit the US next week, although it was separately reported that Israeli PM Netanyahu's visit to the White House will likely take place in a few weeks.
• Turkey said Israel's attacks on regional countries have made Israel the biggest threat to regional security, while it added that Israel is a regional destabiliser and is feeding chaos and terror.
• Saudi Crown Prince received a phone call from Iran's President during which they discussed developments in the region and issues of common interest.

Geopolitics: Ukraine

• US President Trump's inner circle advises against a call with Russian President Putin until he commits to a full ceasefire.
• Russian envoy Dmitriev said lots of differences remain, but a diplomatic solution is possible and there is already some progress on trust-building measures, while he sees a positive dynamic in US-Russian relations and said Several meetings are needed to sort out differences. Dmitriev also stated that a long-term solution that takes into account Russian security concerns is what is needed, as well as commented that they are not asking for a lifting of sanctions and that they can do a deal with the US on rare earths.
• Moscow's mayor said Russian air defences repelled drones approaching Moscow and specialists are examining fallen fragments.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 18:50

Here's Why Trump Will Win The Tariff Standoff

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made it clear in an interview with CNN that the era of trade imbalances is over, and under President Trump, the U.S. will no longer tolerate unfair treatment. 

During a discussion with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Bessent confidently explained the administration’s position on tariffs and trade policy, signaling that Trump’s economic strategy is deliberate and well thought out.

When pressed on how the administration’s policies could impact the auto industry, particularly regarding vehicles made with foreign parts, Bessent was blunt. 

“If half the cars coming into the United States are foreign-made, that's hard to turn around overnight, as you know,” Collins said. 

“So what would you say to people in the auto industry who are worried about that timeline and how quickly that could shift?”

“Buy American,” Bessent said bluntly. He also clarified that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) exempts certain vehicles and parts from the new tariffs.

Collins attempted to raise concerns from U.S. allies, questioning what the administration would say to countries like South Korea and Japan, which are now facing increased tariffs. Bessent’s response was direct:

“Well, I would say they’ve been doing it to us for a long time. And, if they don’t like tariffs, then why do they have them?”

His answer underscored the administration’s stance that America has been on the losing end of trade deals for too long.

As for whether the tariffs should be considered permanent, Bessent took a wait-and-see approach.

“I think we’re gonna wait and see how this plays out,” he explained, suggesting that adjustments could be made based on how the policy unfolds.

Collins also asked about the possibility of retaliation from other countries. Some foreign leaders have hinted at potential countermeasures, while others have opted to observe before making a move. Bessent urged patience. 

“One of the messages that I’d like to get out tonight is everybody sit back, take a deep breath, don’t immediately retaliate, let’s see where this goes. Because if you retaliate, that’s how we get escalation.”

When Collins pressed him on whether such escalation could turn into a full-fledged trade war, Bessent dismissed the idea. 

“Not a trade war. Depends on the country,” he said, before explaining that history favors the United States in such disputes.

“Remember that the history of trade is, we are the deficit country. The deficit country has an advantage,” he explained.

“[The others] are the surplus countries. The surplus countries traditionally always lose any kind of a trade escalation.”

His message to foreign governments was clear: Acting hastily would be a mistake. 

“As a student of economic history or a professor of economic history, I’d advise against it,” he said. When Collins sought further clarification, he reinforced the point: “I would say that doing anything rash would be unwise.”

"I think we're going to wait and see how this plays out."

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talks to @kaitlancollins about what will happen next in Trump's trade war after the President announced new tariffs tonight. Watch: pic.twitter.com/VrAA8ADW1p

— TheSourceCNN (@TheSourceCNN) April 3, 2025

Bessent’s remarks leave no doubt that Trump’s trade policies are rooted in historical precedent and strategic calculation. 

While globalists may panic, the Trump administration remains confident that America is in a stronger position than its trade partners. And history is on our side.

Bessent's message is clear: Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 18:25

Democrats Activate NGO Machine For Weekend Color Revolution Operation Against Trump

The Democratic Party's favorability among Americans has plunged to a record low. In an attempt to reverse this decline, the rudderless party of leftist lunatics has openly launched a domestic color revolution—facilitated by a shadowy network of billionaire-funded NGOs.

Initially, the operation targeted Elon Musk and DOGE; now, the leftist NGO machine is gaining momentum and redirecting total mobilization efforts at President Trump on Saturday in nationwide protests called "Hands Off!"... 

Protest Map 

Hands Off 2025's website shows that 186 NGOs, unions, and other leftist groups support the mass mobilization effort of crazed leftists.

Color revolutions have generally been used in overseas operations by US intelligence agencies for regime change purposes. The American people have seen domestic color revolutions before, such as the BLM riots, which were aimed at manipulating public sentiment, shaping perception, and controlling the emotional atmosphere during Trump's first term. 

Now, the unhinged Democratic Party is at it again, trying to build on Tesla protests and firebombings of showrooms and vehicles by using mass protests and civil disobedience to shape sentiment around Trump in his second term. 

The only problem Democrats face this time is that a taxpayer-funded color revolution—channeled through USAID into their NGO network—will be much harder to pull off now that grant awards have been frozen and USAID has been rolled into the State Department, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio providing oversight.

Summer of Love begins... 

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 18:00

Taibbi: How An Obama Executive Order Led To The Censorship Industrial Complex

Authored by Ian Schwartz via RealClearPolitics,

At Tuesday's House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing, Matt Taibbi explained how an Obama executive order led to the Censorship Industrial Complex.

MATT TAIBBI: Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, thank you. My name is Matt Taibbi, I'm the editor of the Independent Site Racket, and I've been covering digital censorship issues since 2018, the fictional ones. On March 14th, 2016, Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13721, Developing a New Integrated Global Engagement Center to Support Government-Wide Counterterrorism Communications Activities Directed Abroad.

It directed the Secretary of State to create a new body, the GEC or GEC, to quote, counter the messaging and diminish the influence of international terrorist organizations, including ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and other violent extremists abroad. Seven years later, while working on a story involving internal communications at Twitter, I found myself reading emails between GEC officials and Twitter executives about subjects ranging from COVID-19 to the 2020 election to Donald Trump. Once, Mr. Chairman, you were right to point out that they were once focused abroad, but by this time, GEC officials were largely concerned with domestic English language accounts, people with no ties to terror groups or relationships with adversary nations like Iran, China, or Russia. When I went back this weekend through those documents to find examples of GEC pressuring Twitter to remove or deamplify Americans accused of misinformation, I found an exchange that we Twitter Files reporters missed in 2023. A lawyer at the company asked several other executives if they had any, quote, appetite for writing GEC a letter to ask them to stop going to the media with sensationalist claims about epidemics of foreign bots. One of the company's senior communications executives gave a remarkably candid answer.

From my chair, it would be very helpful, he wrote. Referencing a well-known Washington reporter, he went on. The pre-briefed Ellen Nakashima article in the Post on Bernie and this coronavirus story, no heads up, are making me worry a little about how good faith these players will be through the press into 2020.

So it wasn't just conservatives, it was also Bernie Sanders. The date on that email was February 24th, 2020. Three days after the Washington Post ran a devastating feature titled Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign.

This was an extremely impactful story that opened the floodgates on a conspiracy theory that Sanders was the recipient of Russian help. It claimed bots helping Bernie online were part of, quote, Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections. In response to this odd sequel of claims about Russian bots aiding Donald Trump, the company's head of trust and safety, Yul Roth, gave an unflattering description of GEC's methods.

Quote, they use Brandwatch to monitor a handful of openly Russian accounts, for instance RT, and an unspecified number of accounts that they baselessly assert are inauthentic. This is the exact formula we previously found behind another often used online tool called Hamilton 68, whose founders were also quoted in the Post piece. Hamilton 68 mixed a smattering of real Russian accounts with a crowd of mostly American, mostly anti-establishment accounts to create a dashboard that synthesized falsely the appearance of Russian social media backing for everything from the Devin Nunes memo to the Parkland shooting.

Although many of the most controversial stories about GEC involved their funding of commercial media scoring operations that downranked conservative news outlets, the GEC also pressured Twitter about left-leaning figures like Sanders, anti-war accounts, libertarians, and independents, as well as conservatives. They managed this by using a trick that gave domestic propaganda the appearance of a counter-terrorist operation. GEC sent out reports that would first identify a few social media accounts with real ties to Russia or China or Iran.

Then it would separately list accounts they called highly connective to that country's propaganda ecosystem. These would be American or European citizens with inconvenient views. For instance, GEC identified the Twitter accounts of former Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and former Italian Democratic Party Secretary Nicola Zingaretti, who was often compared to Bernie, as being highly connective to Russia.

All he had to do to get on the list was retweet what they called anti-US propaganda, or GEC's subjective definition of pro-Russian propaganda. No actual connection was required. Through this means, the GEC exactly rehabilitated the fellow-traveler concept used by infamous smear artists and witch hunters from history, from Leon Trotsky to the House Un-American Affairs Committee.

It was a way to accuse someone who hasn't done anything wrong of guilt by ideological association. And I'll just wrap up, I've gone over my time, but they weren't looking for misinformation and disinformation, they were looking for orthodoxy and unorthodoxy, obedience and disobedience. The idea behind GEC in particular was finding a way to propagandize American citizens and encourage acceptance of official policy the way we've always done to foreign populations.

It's a flagrant violation of First Amendment ideals and should be eradicated from the government completely. No one should have this tool, not Democrats, not the Trump administration, nobody. Gentleman's time has expired.

Thank you.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 17:40

Trump Extends TikTok Deadline By 75 Days As Trade War With Beijing Erupts  

In the hours before President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz on Wednesday afternoon, several corporate media outlets reported that a TikTok deal was nearly finalized ahead of the weekend deadline. One report even claimed the new U.S. entity set to acquire TikTok's algorithm from Chinese parent company ByteDance would be named "TikTok America."

Fast-forward to early Friday morning: China launched a counter-offensive tariff strike—a volley of levies between the superpowers—in response to Trump's 54% effective tariff rate on Chinese imports. Beijing's effective tariff rate on U.S. imports now stands at the same level. 

Great chart from Goldman.

Trump's tariff war with China is like a giant game of chess. The board? Well, the global economy—specifically, trade relations between the world's two largest economies. That's why, last week, Beijing delayed the strategic deal involving the Panama Canal. Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings had been preparing to sell BlackRock a portfolio of global ports, including two critical ports near the Panama Canal—ports that would have strengthened Trump's effort to bolster Western Hemispheric defense. 

That's why, despite all the reports that Trump was preparing to approve a deal with U.S. investors behind TikTok America and ByteDance, the president found no reason for the deal to go through this week as he signed an executive order to keep the deal open-ended for 75 days. In a game of chess, why give up leverage - or rather positional or strategic advantages that a player can use to pressure or outmaneuver their opponent... 

"My Administration has been working very hard on a Deal to SAVE TIKTOK, and we have made tremendous progress. The deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed, which is why I am signing an Executive Order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days," Trump wrote on Truth Social in the late afternoon. 

The president continued: "We hope to continue working in Good Faith with China, who I understand are not very happy about our Reciprocal Tariffs (Necessary for Fair and Balanced Trade between China and the U.S.A.!). This proves that Tariffs are the most powerful Economic tool, and very important to our National Security! We do not want TikTok to "go dark." We look forward to working with TikTok and China to close the deal. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Trump's decision to extend the timeline for the TikTok deal by another 75 days is part of his broader tariff war strategy.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 16:40

Have You Said "Thankyou" Once?

By Benjamin Picton, senior macro strategist at rabobank

US equities tanked yesterday in their most savage one-day selloff since the early days of Covid in 2020. The NASDAQ was hardest hit, down 5.97%, while the S&P500 and DOW gave up 4.84% and 3.98% respectively. European stocks were also savaged. The CAC40 fell 3.31% and the DAX was down 3.01%. The sharp fall in stock prices leaves US equities well in the red for the year to date, while European equities remain in the black. When asked about the market moves President Trump said: “It is to be expected, this is a patient that was very sick. We inherited a terrible economy.”

Bonds rallied across the board yesterday with US 10-year yields falling by 10bps and 2-year yields dropping by 18bps to cause a dramatic bull-steepening of the Treasury curve. The OIS implied path of the Fed Funds Rate now has four further 25bp cuts priced in by January 2026, compared to three at this time on Wednesday.

Gold prices continued to moderate after hitting fresh all-time-highs of $3,166/oz yesterday, and Brent crude is down 6.42% to $70.14/bbl as markets surmise that sweeping US tariffs spell doom for prospects of global growth. Bitcoin - perhaps the best barometer of pure financial risk - sank by almost 4% to be trading just over $82k.

Of course, the price action over the last 24 hours is all about the ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcements made on Wednesday. Critics are complaining that the method used by the United States to determine trade barriers faced by US producers is simplistic and doesn’t reflect reality. The Administration counters that everyone else has had plenty of time to address trade imbalances and that the duties that are now being imposed are actually the “kind tariffs”. Have you said “thankyou” once?

The United States pursuing US policy goals to the detriment of friend and foe alike has set off outrage around the world. Emmanuel Macron called for a halt on investment into the United States and Ursula von der Leyen said that the EU will first seek to negotiate down the tariffs, but if that fails the EU will impose “countermeasures” and seek to protect its own industry from cheap goods being dumped into the European market by others (read, China). Limitations have already been enacted on imports of duty-free steel.

Von der Leyen said that she “agree[s] with President Trump that others are taking unfair advantage of the current rules”, but she seems to think that the Americans shouldn’t have done anything about it, and should have opted instead for another round fruitless talks. Presumably, ‘others’ does not include the EU in von der Leyen’s eyes, but try selling agricultural products into the European market from abroad and see how far you get.

China has also vowed retaliation. Trump hit China with a 34% reciprocal tariff rate that will stack on top of the 20% tariffs that are already in place. This is a big problem for China, because their economic model is based on subsidising (over)production and then exporting the surplus into the world’s biggest consumer market: the USA. Europe is now understandably terrified that China’s exportable surplus, having been effectively barred from the USA, is going to end up in their market and add to the existing woes of European manufacturers.

The PBOC allowed the CNY to drift lower yesterday to offset some of the pain of the new tariffs. Could we see more currency weakness to come? And would that incur another step up in tariffs from the USA if it were to happen? You can see how a path is being laid for tit-for-tat trade strikes that could all but close bilateral trade between the world’s two largest economies. That will really be curtains for globalization.

The reaction has been different in the antipodes. Australia and New Zealand are grumbling about their exports (principally beef, wine, dairy and sheepmeat) now being subject to a 10% tariff, but there seems to be a grudging acceptance that the outcome could have been worse and that product will still flow into the US market, albeit at less attractive prices than might have been the case otherwise.

The ‘best response’ being countenanced by Australia and New Zealand is to do nothing, because retaliation would likely achieve nothing aside from antagonizing their security guarantor and pushing up prices for consumers. The US has enormous leverage over both countries by virtue of not only their dependence on the US Navy, but the dependence of their banking sector on US capital markets for funding. Close that funding channel down and watch the richly-valued housing markets in both countries implode and take their economies down with it.

Aussie and Kiwi OIS curves are now implying more rate cuts (4.5 in Australia and 4 in New Zealand), but the US administration might take a dim view of any devaluation of the AUD or NZD that results from more aggressive monetary policing easing. Currency manipulation is on the USA’s list of grievances, but so long as devaluation doesn’t result in a structural trade surplus with the USA it may not be a problem, especially since the USA would like Australia and New Zealand to help it contain Chinese ambitions in the South Pacific.

Conspicuous among the tariff rates announced by President Trump was the low numbers for many South American economies. This appears to be further evidence of a reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine in US foreign policy designed to pull Latin America deeper into the USA’s economic orbit. Relatedly, Marco Rubio recently met with his counterpart from Argentina to discuss trade and security ties aimed at countering Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, and the Pentagon just announced a series of arms sales to Ecuador.

Rubio has also been speaking with counterparts in Europe, who he says need to plot a trajectory towards increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP(!). He assured Europeans that the United States remains committed to NATO, and suggested that the USA would need to increase its own spending on defense. That seems sensible given the geostrategic challenges that the United States faces, but it is also at odds with Trump’s previous direction to Pete Hegseth to find ways to reduce defence spending by 8% each year.

So, while in many respects the US policy renovation of recent days is a throwback to past ways of doing things, the policies being embraced pre-date the institutional settlement that has mostly prevailed since the end of WWII. The Washington Consensus appears to be on its last legs and the policy goal of “GDP for GDP’s sake” is being replaced by “GDP for the sake of state aims”. Making America great again entails a shift from a consumption-driven economy to a production-driven economy. The logical corollary here is that American living standards are going to have to be lower as consumption is taxed (via tariffs) to provide an implicit subsidy to domestic producers. There are winners and losers in this process, but overall this is unlikely to be bullish for American living standards in the short run, especially if your living standards are derived from the financialized economy that has been the ‘winner’ from the policy framework of the last 45 years.

Unnamed Senior White House officials are now being quoted as saying that the post-World War Two institutions are “no longer fit for our times and our economic situation”. If there was any doubt before that Trump meant what he said when he claimed “the future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots”, there can be no doubt now.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 15:40

Copper Posts Biggest Weekly Drop Since Covid Crash As Tariff War Hammers Commodities

President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz—centered on reciprocal tariffs—followed by China's retaliatory bazooka has triggered a growth scare in markets. Commodities are tumbling, reflecting concerns over deteriorating macroeconomic conditions as the tariff war escalates. 

"Commodities taking a cue from the macro with WTI -9% to $61 (had to change this 3x to reflect lower prices) … copper down 5% and natural gas gas hovering around flat … yields break through 4% with the 10 year standing at 3.87%, dollar & Bitcoin flat," Goldman analyst Michael Nocerino wrote in a note earlier. 

For the week, the Bloomberg Commodity Index—a commodities benchmark tracking 23 exchange-traded futures contracts across energy, metals, agriculture, and livestock—is on track to record its largest weekly decline (-4 %) in over a year. 

More specifically, Citigroup head commodity analyst Max Layton provided more color on how tariff wars will produce increasing macroeconomic headwinds that will pressure commodity prices lower. 

Layton, speaking earlier in an interview on Bloomberg Television, expects copper prices to slide an additional 8% to 10% in the coming weeks. 

He said the tariff war is set to "bring down the cost of production, whether it's through lower oil or through just producers taking margin hits" in the next 6 to 12 months. 

On the week, CME Copper futures are set to record their worst five days since the early Covid crash, down around 11%. 

"This is a pretty amazing opportunity to be bearish and be short over the next two to three months," Layton said.

Goldman analyst Thales Arruda told clients earlier: "As a result, we expect that the US reciprocal tariffs' impact on commodities will largely come from their indirect negative economic growth impact."

"We're pricing a global recession. The tariffs are going to cause global trade barriers," Goldman analyst Rich Privorotsky noted. 

Meanwhile, all the copper bulls who boasted their price targets in record-high territories have been forced to hit pause. That entire theme has been placed on the back burner—for now 

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 15:20

Republicans May Override Senate's Nonpartisan Referee To Pass Trump's Agenda: What To Know

Authored by Joseph Lord and Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

Republicans have set the stage to potentially override the Senate parliamentarian as they move ahead with President Donald Trump’s policy proposals.

Republicans are seeking to pass Trump’s entire agenda—including tax cuts, energy policy, border policy, defense, and other areas—using the reconciliation process.

While this process allows the party to bypass the 60-vote filibuster threshold, which kills most partisan bills on arrival in the Senate, it’s heavily restricted. Rules governing its use prevent these types of bills from having a long-term impact on the deficit.

Ultimately, it’s up to the parliamentarian—the little-known referee in the Senate who interprets Senate rules—to decide what provisions make it into the final bill, and how long those provisions can last.

After Republicans released their resolution on April 2, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) reported that Elizabeth MacDonough, the current parliamentarian, had given an initial green light to move ahead with the proposal under the Budget Act of 1974, which enables the reconciliation process.

Other questions linger that could still slow the legislation if the parliamentarian rules against Republicans. As Republicans move forward, leaders have given some indications that they won’t necessarily rely on the parliamentarian’s ruling about how to calculate the total financial impact of the bill.

Technically, the parliamentarian’s rulings aren’t binding on what the Senate does, and can be overridden by a simple majority of senators.

But historically, lawmakers have been hesitant to do so. The Senate operates largely on the basis of established customs, traditions, and guardrails—and the parliamentarian’s role has been established for decades.

Thus, should Republicans challenge any ruling from the parliamentarian—or the parliamentarian’s right to make a ruling—Democrats could interpret this as Republicans effectively “nuking” the filibuster, and could similarly disregard the rulings of the parliamentarian themselves in the future.

Here’s what to know about the burgeoning dispute—and the possibility that Republicans will “go nuclear” to override the parliamentarian.

Who Is the Parliamentarian?

A post established in 1935, the parliamentarian primarily serves to advise senators, staff, and others on the Senate’s arcane rules and procedures.

In recent decades, their most important role has involved refereeing reconciliation bills, which both parties often use when they have a trifecta in Washington.

Appointed by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2012, MacDonough is the first woman to occupy the post—and she’s shown herself willing to defy both parties’ wishes at times.

MacDonough, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has described her view of her role as above partisanship.

“While serving its 100 members on a day-to-day basis, I still represent the Senate. … I represent the Senate with its traditions of unfettered debate, protection of minority rights, and equal power among the states,” she said in a 2018 commencement speech at Vermont Law School, which she attended.

In 2021, during the Biden administration, MacDonough ruled against the Democrats’ plan to include a $15 minimum wage and a pathway to citizenship in reconciliation bills.

Now, she’ll have a key role in making another decision that could put her in the majority party’s sights.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough (C) provides assistance during the certification of Electoral College ballots in the presidential election, in the House chamber at the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

‘Tax Baseline Question’

Since the beginning, Senate Republicans have made clear that they hope to make any tax cuts included in their reconciliation package permanent, which would primarily include permanently extending the components of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts due to expire this year.

Under the rules of reconciliation, making any provision permanent requires compliance with the Byrd Rule—a restriction on reconciliation bills which requires that they not impact the deficit beyond a 10-year window.

Whether or not Republicans can meet this requirement depends in part on the baseline used to calculate the net impact on the deficit. There are two options: a “current policy” baseline and a “current law” baseline.

Republicans believe the current policy baseline will enable them to make their cuts permanent, and Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) used this standard in calculating the financial impact of the resolution.

While MacDonough has given approval to move the proposal forward in the reconciliation process, questions linger about whether Graham can make this call on his own. Republicans say he can.

Republicans Hesitant to Overrule

On the whole, Senate Republicans seemed hesitant to make any commitments to overruling the parliamentarian, though leaders have raised questions about whether they need MacDonough’s advice on this issue.

Following the April 1 Republican lunch, Thune and Majority Whip John Barasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters that the Budget Committee chairman could unilaterally make the legal determination on whether to use the current policy baseline.

“We think the law is very clear, and ultimately the budget committee chairman makes that determination,” Thune said. “But obviously, we are consulting regularly with the parliamentarian.”

Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) (C), accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), left, speaks to reporters after a Senate policy luncheon at the Capitol in Washington on Feb. 25, 2025. Ben Curtis/AP Photo

When asked about the possibility of overruling MacDonough, Senate Republicans expressed confidence that the current policy baseline would be chosen.

“There’s clear and unequivocal precedent on current policy as the baseline,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times, citing President Barack Obama’s use of the current policy baseline to extend Bush-era tax cuts in 2013. “I have every confidence that will be the conclusion here.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told The Epoch Times that Republicans have “no choice” but to respect the ruling, and was skeptical that her decision would be overridden.

Ultimately, the stage is set for a potential testing of the parliamentarian’s authority. It’s unclear whether Republicans intend to wait for her to make a ruling before moving forward, when that ruling could come, or what the final ruling would be.

Should it go against Republicans, it’s unclear whether they would go ahead anyway, as such a move could set a precedent for Democrats to use later.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 14:40

JPM's Longtime Mega Tesla Bear Warns About Brand Damage

JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman has earned the crown as Tesla's most stubborn bear. For nearly a decade, his coverage has been a broken record of bearish calls—and as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Just before Tesla shares went parabolic in 2019—ultimately soaring 1,700% over the next several years—Brinkman still pounded the table with repeated bearish calls. Now, the analyst—who seemingly holds a grudge against Elon Musk—is at it again.

Around 1Q15, Brinkman maintained a "Hold" rating on the stock, but his stance shifted shortly after that, holding a bearish outlook ever since. 

Brinkman's pessimism continued Friday in a note to clients, telling them that Tesla has undergone "unprecedented brand damage we had earlier feared." He noted that the sales report from earlier in the week "causes us to think that — if anything — we may have underestimated the degree of consumer reaction."

Ahead of Wednesday's vehicle delivery data from Tesla - Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and UBS cut estimates for 1Q deliveries between 351,000 and 375,000. The prediction market Kalshi expected 353,000, marking a 9% drop. The actual number was in the 330,000 region. 

The company reported 12,881 deliveries of its other models, including its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X. 

"Tesla delivered 336,681 vehicles in the first three months of the year, its worst quarterly total since 2022," Bloomberg noted, adding, "In addition to changing over production lines at each of its assembly plants to build the redesigned Model Y, the automaker was contending with Musk, its chief executive officer, becoming a more polarizing figure due to his interventions in global politics."

As of the latest Wall Street consensus (data via Bloomberg), 55% of analysts covering Tesla maintain a "Buy" rating, 23.3% rate the stock as "Hold," and 21.7% assign a "Sell" rating.

The clock strikes again for Tesla bears (TSLAQ crowd). But was a decade of bearishness really worth it—while missing out on gains of thousands of percent?

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 14:00

"It's Un-American" - 19 Democratic State AGs Sue To Stop Trump Blocking Non-Citizen Voting

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

A group of 19 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on April 3 disputing President Donald Trump’s executive order that requires voters to verify they are U.S. citizens and prevents states from counting mail-in ballots they receive after Election Day.

Filed in Boston federal court, the lawsuit follows two others that challenge the order. The plaintiffs say the order “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.”

“The president’s attempt to control our elections, intimidate voters, and limit Americans’ right to vote is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and frankly, un-American,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat.

On March 25, Trump signed an executive order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” mandating voters to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. The order also aims to stop states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day for presidential and congressional elections.

Last year, the states joining in the lawsuit had allowed late ballots that were postmarked ahead of Election Day to be counted if they arrived within a specific window established by state law.

In his order, Trump cited Denmark and Sweden’s policies of not accepting late-arriving mail-in ballots regardless of when they are postmarked and said the United States should follow the same policy.

California and Nevada led the group of 19 states in arguing that Trump lacks the sole power to amend states’ election procedures. Congress, they said, has the power under the Constitution to preempt state laws for federal elections.

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress authorize the president’s attempted voting restrictions,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement.

The Democratic National Committee and Democratic congressional leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), are already challenging Trump’s order in court.

In their lawsuit, the 19 states argued that the rule violates the Constitution and the National Voting Rights Act, which allows voting as long as a person attests to their citizenship under the threat of perjury.

While Democrats have said it’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote, Republicans have raised concerns about how the lack of verification may allow some noncitizens to lie in order to register.

The attorneys general also accused Trump’s order of violating states’ constitutional authority over elections by using the loss of federal funding and potential Justice Department investigations as threats in order to compel them to comply.

In his order, Trump argued that states “fail adequately to vet voters’ citizenship, and, in recent years, the Department of Justice has failed to prioritize and devote sufficient resources for enforcement of these provisions” and alleged the Biden administration allowed illegal immigrants on state voter rolls.

When he announced the order, the president said it was required to “straighten out our elections.”

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

Click pic... add to cart... (buy 2 for free shipping)... enjoy Multitool! Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 13:25

"Who's The President Of Syria Right Now, Roy?" Horton Blasts Regime-Change Narrative

In the Biden Administration’s dying breath, they managed to help overthrow one last country in the Middle East: Syria, another notch in the neocon “7 country” wet dream General Wesley Clark revealed long ago. On December 8th of 2024, Assad was ousted.

The new leader is Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, head of the Al Nusra Front which, as Horton pointed out during the debate, was deemed simply an alias for Al Qaeda by none other than Victoria Nuland:

Last night, ZeroHedge hosted antiwar.com’s Scott Horton and Pulitzer winner Roy Gutman to debate whether ousting Assad was wise and how to deal with the new regime. Hosted by Viva Frei, the debate got a bit fiery (as is common with Horton) but covered a lot of ground and is worth listening to.

Here are some highlights for those short on time:

Is Syria run by Al Qaeda?

Gutman attempted to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian civil war, saying it was “mostly peaceful” protestors and rooted in the Syrian people’s urge to rid themselves of a dictator.

To which Scott replied bluntly: “Who’s in charge of Syria right now, Roy?”

pic.twitter.com/0n7pgw6pH7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 4, 2025

Jolani: Terrorist or Reformed?

Gutman said that the new Syrian regime is a “work in progress” and can possibly be dealt with diplomatically, emphasizing that “[Jolani is] from the middle class in Damascus.”

If that’s the case then why couldn’t we have worked with Assad, Horton asked.

“Oh, [Jolani] was a middle-class guy, huh? Yeah, so was Mohammed Atta… This is the enemy. This is treason.”

pic.twitter.com/qalqAbTcET

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 4, 2025

Gutman has decades of on-the-ground experience in the Middle East while Horton has an encyclopedic mind and photographic memory. We highly recommend watching to the entire discussion below or listening via Spotify:

https://t.co/80NM9CNIXE

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 3, 2025

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/04/2025 - 13:05