Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

There is a social contract of sorts among all governments of the world to share economic data on prevailing conditions. Behind that practice is a collegial contest to see which nation has the healthiest system, which in turn serves the capital markets by helping to direct resources where they are needed.

Sometimes the data is inaccurate. Sometimes there are lies. But in general, there is at least an attempt to play along with the expectation. This allows agencies and investors to make better assessments and prognostications, plus assist policy makers and central bankers in particular to make better judgments.

There is a general rule in operation. The more transparent governments are with the data they collect, and the more freedom of speech that is permitted to interpret the data in different ways, the more credible it is. It is also likely that governments which share and discuss also have numbers of which they can feel pride.

Rarely do nations go entirely silent on the market, as in turning off the switches and making the data rooms go dark. It is an ominous sign.

This is precisely what has happened in China.

Starting the last several months, and, in some cases, dating back several years, China has gone dark in reporting the following: land sales, foreign investment, unemployment numbers, business confidence, numbers of investors in financial markets, real estate valuation, retail sales, and even vital data on cremations so that health authorities have no idea what is going on. The bureaus have simply stopped reporting.

With the second largest economy, and widespread doubt about the country’s economic health, this is gravely concerning.

Close watchers have long raised doubts about China’s GDP data. We are told that the economy grew 5 percent last year, which would be extremely impressive. But such huge measures are subject to manipulation in every country but especially in one that has made the promise of extreme economic growth central to the power and permanent control by the CCP. Experts have suggested that growth rates have been exaggerated by 2 to 3 percentage points.

This past December, a highly regarded Chinese economist, Gao Shanwen, was visiting Washington, D.C. colleagues at the Peterson Institute and sat on an expert panel. Thinking that perhaps he should speak his mind, he said very plainly that no one knows for sure what the growth rates in China are. He speculated that they might be about 2 percent.

“My own speculation is that in the past two to three years,” he said, “the real GDP number on average might be around 2 percent even though the official number is close to 5 percent.”

No one in the room thought anything about it. The speaker seems to have temporarily forgotten that he is not an independent actor and was in no position to offer his objective assessment.

But word got out immediately in Beijing. He was immediately disciplined and silenced. He no longer holds a job in his old securities firm. His comments have been scrubbed from any sites accessible within China. He has lost his license to speak about economic affairs. Meanwhile, the Securities Association of China has instructed all people who speak about China’s economic health only to say nice things.

We can gather from the above that the data that was once routinely reported is not saying nice things. It’s one thing to silence the economists but to silence the underlying data only ends in raising alarm bells.

And those alarms have been rung, and now observers are considering the worst. There might be a hidden real estate crisis, and a major problem with unemployment added to it. Investment might be collapsing and government finances might be in major trouble.

For decades, China has developed a stable system for economic growth that relied on five main pillars:

1. Lower-cost manufacturing to compete and ultimately displace manufacturing in the West;

2. U.S. consumers hungry to get ahead of their own falling wages and salaries with cheaper consumer products and intermediate goods;

3. Central bank credits for business development built on large holdings of U.S. denominated debt;

4. A domestic currency trading far below the trade-weighted average of the U.S. dollar, the world reserve currency, thus favoring exports over imports;

5. State-directed and funded infrastructure development that calibrated investment based on national goals.

It was never the free market that pundits imagined that it would become in the 1990s and beyond. But it was also helped by a loose regulatory environment that minimized the litigation overhang that vexes Western economies, and its agency impositions were tolerant of enterprise insofar as it never threatened political priorities.

Crucially, China was able to benefit from the presumption that the global system of trade would never raise foundational questions about low tariffs and cross-border investment.

That last presumption has dramatically changed. The first Trump administration began the process of reevaluation. This was in 2018 and the result was a documented decline in U.S. imports from China. This was reversed two years later with the pandemic onset that called upon China to provide vast goods back into the United States. Mass numbers of Americans found themselves mandated to wear masks, for example, most of which were imports from China.

Five years later, the push to decouple the United States from dependence on China’s manufacturing sector is back on. The second Trump administration has wholesale reversed 80 years of U.S. precedent in trade policy with a turn toward tariffs. The hope is that these will help settle accounts, boost U.S. manufacturing, and provide a revenue stream to reduce reliance on high income taxation.

Whether and to what extent this dramatic shift has this effect domestically in the United States, it has likely had a major impact on China’s economic prospects, simply because it challenges a long-running assumption that the U.S. would forever serve as China’s consumer marketplace.

We should pause to consider the great irony of this whole situation. For centuries, businessmen have fantasized about the sheer size of China as a consumer, and imagined ways to invent products and services to sell.

“A pair of shoes for every Chinese foot;” “China’s market will make us rich;” “A market of 400 million customers”—these slogans were bandied about for a century.

But when it came right down to it, and herein we find the essence of the unpredictability of economic affairs, it was not China as consumer but China as manufacturer that dominated the landscape for decades following its opening.

Only now do we see full consciousness dawn in the United States concerning the implications for U.S. manufacturing.

What is to be done? A better path than protectionism is mass deregulation, a dollar more powerful at home and more competitive abroad, and lower costs of doing business through a renewal of the American entrepreneurial spirit. This will need to come one way or another. Trade barriers alone cannot hold back the tide.

Meanwhile, China suddenly faces its own grave economic challenges, which could grow so substantially as to threaten even the political stability of the country. Right now, outside observers have been largely blinded as to how serious the situation has become. We just don’t have the data.

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

In today’s environment, buying a new car has become a stretch for many households – fueling demand in the used-car market. 

But not all used vehicles are created equal, and reliability plays a major role in long-term ownership costs.

For buyers looking to avoid expensive repairs down the road, brand reputation is more important than ever.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu ranked the best used-car brands of 2025, using data from Consumer Reports.

Data & Methodology

To come up with these reliability scores, Consumer Reports asked its members to report how many problems they’ve had with their vehicles over the past 12 months.

This analysis focused only on cars from the 2015 to 2020 model year, with a sample size of over 150,000 vehicles.

From this data we can see that Japanese brands are generally the most reliable when buying used, with the lowest ranked Japanese brand being Subaru, in ninth place. Toyota and its luxury arm, Lexus, hold the top two spots, while Honda and Acura come in fourth and fifth.

Brands like Lexus and Toyota have a history of conservative redesigns, incrementally improving their entire product line rather than introducing many all-new systems. Our data consistently shows over time that cars from those brands are reliable when new, and they continue to be reliable as they age.

Steven Elek, Senior Automotive Data Analyst at Consumer Reports

Top Used-Car Picks in 2025

​Consumer Reports has released its latest list of top used-car picks, all of which offer good reliability, safety, and value across various price points. These selections are based on comprehensive road tests and owner satisfaction surveys.

For more detailed information and additional recommendations, visit the full article on Consumer Reports.

If you enjoyed this post, check out our ranking of the most reliable new-car brands based on data from J.D. Power.

By Vincent Lanci

Summary: This report explores gold’s reemergence not merely as a store of value, but as a strategic monetary tool for circumventing sanctions, supporting trade diplomacy, and conducting debt management. Drawing upon historical precedent, contemporary developments, and theoretical frameworks such as Stephen Miran’s Mar-a-Lago Accord, this essay proposes that the United States is positioned to reengage in a sovereign-level gold trading for purposes of reducing debt, rewarding trade partners, and restoring the US manufacture-export base. This mechanism, once dominated by bullion banks and now emulated by sanctioned states, enables the monetization of gold without outright liquidation. Gold-forward hedges provide the United States with an opportunity to strategically weaken the dollar as a component of its need to remain competitive in export driven global economies, reduce debt obligations, and support trade-partner allies through targeted currency support. This report argues that gold’s transformation under Basel III, coupled with a shift in U.S. monetary strategy, marks a return to gold’s core geopolitical function.

I. Introduction. Gold is a store of value; it is money. With its immutable physical properties, universal recognition, and lack of counterparty risk, gold serves as a uniquely effective asset in sovereign monetary operations. This paper explores how the U.S. can operationalize gold as a monetary instrument to manage debt, influence foreign exchange dynamics, and pursue geopolitical leverage in a deglobalizing world.

II. Historical Foundation: The Bullion Bank Carry Trade. Beginning in the 1990s, bullion banks employed a gold carry trade model that enabled monetization without sale. This involved:

• Holding physical gold owned or on loan from another party (spot position)
• Selling that gold forward (creating a future potential liability)
• Investing the proceeds in higher-yielding assets (e.g., Treasuries, stocks, or foreign bonds)

This trade structure provided income while keeping physical reserves intact and suppressed upward pressure on gold prices. It became a cornerstone of central bank expectation management strategy and a projection tool of a stable, reliable USD.

III. The Mar-a-Lago Accord. Stephen Miran’s Mar-a-Lago Accord offered a blueprint for leveraging gold to manage U.S. debt and trade imbalances. That proposal involved:

• Selling U.S. gold reserves
• Using proceeds to purchase foreign currencies with higher yields
• Reducing the effective interest burden on U.S. liabilities

Though politically toxic, the ESF and similar tools had already historically been used in currency stabilization crises. While Miran’s Accord was publicly shelved, some of its core mechanisms remain feasible.

IV. Gold and Sanctions Evasion. The Russia-Iran Model Sanctioned states such as Russia and Iran have leveraged gold to access dollar liquidity via trusted counterparties. By holding and hedging gold through countries like China, they generate liquid proceeds in local or global currencies that are ultimately converted to dollars. This allows them to fund operations while avoiding SWIFT and U.S. financial enforcement.

The oil-for-gold arrangement between Russia and China first described by this paper’s author in 2017. set a precedent. Initially dismissed as rumor, it gained traction when later acknowledged by credible banking analysts. Most recently, an offshoot of its success was announced between China and Saudi Arabia in which the Saudis would receive payment for their oil in RMB with gold optionality attached. The gold would be held by China as it had been for Russian deals. This shows that gold can function as a sanctions-neutral reserve and transfer mechanism while simultaneously being a monetary bridge (mBridge) to the USD or other currencies if needed.

V. Structural Shifts in the Gold Market: The macro and regulatory backdrop has shifted:

• Basel III reclassifies gold as a Tier 1 asset
• Recent OCC Gold derivative reclassification at Banks
• These banks held over 90% of U.S. gold derivative exposure
• BRICS countries now prioritize gold over Treasuries for trade reserves

Together, these changes signal a revaluation of gold within both private and sovereign balance sheets.

VI. A New U.S. Strategy: Gold-Backed Trade Diplomacy. The U.S. can now pursue a sovereign gold carry trade:

• Forward-sale gold to trusted banks
• Use proceeds to buy foreign currencies or EM debt
• Prop up allied currencies, reduce dollar strength
• Execute monetary stimulus while avoiding inflation mismanagement

This framework allows integration of trade and monetary policy. As part of bilateral trade negotiations, the U.S. can offer to stabilize emerging-market currencies, reducing resistance to tariff reform and strengthening political ties.

VII. Conclusion. Gold is returning to center stage as a versatile tool for 21st-century financial statecraft. By adopting carry trade mechanisms pioneered by bullion banks and mirrored by adversarial regimes, the U.S. has the opportunity to align debt management, currency strategy, and trade diplomacy. The convergence of regulatory changes, gold repatriation, and geopolitical fragmentation makes this moment uniquely ripe for gold’s strategic reintegration.

Via Middle East Eye

Pakistan shot down Israeli-made drones launched by India into its airspace on Thursday, following a series of Indian strikes across the country on Wednesday. Pakistan’s military said it had shot down 25 Israeli Harop drones on Thursday, including in Karachi and Lahore. An Indian government source confirmed that at least one Israeli drone had been downed by Pakistan. Both sides view the military claims made by the other as propaganda.

The Indian source told Middle East Eye the drones were made in Israel and supplied to the Indian military by the Adani Group, a multinational company founded by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, who has been close to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for decades.

The Adani group shares a production line with Israeli military company Elbit, from which India provided Israel with Hermes 900 drones after the start of the war in Gaza.

Over the last decade, India has imported military hardware worth $2.9 billion from Israel, including radars, surveillance and combat drones, and missiles.

The Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Harop drone launched by India into Pakistan is an unmanned “suicide” or “kamikaze” aircraft, also known as a loitering munition. It is 2.5 meters long and has a three-meter wingspan. 

The drone has been used in the Syrian war, by Israel, India and by Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war with Armenia.  

Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, said that aside from the drones shot down above Lahore and Karachi, Pakistan’s largest cities, one drone had been downed over the garrison city of Rawalpindi, home to the army’s headquarters.

One drone hit a military target near Lahore and four Pakistani army personnel were injured in this attack, Chaudhry said. “Indian drones continue to be sent into Pakistani airspace… [India] will continue to pay dearly for this naked aggression,” he said. 

This latest round of hostility between the nuclear-armed neighbors comes after India said it had hit “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in the early hours of Wednesday, two weeks after it accused Pakistan of involvement in an attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir in which 26 people were killed.

After the Rafale, Israeli Harop drones are falling like flies. pic.twitter.com/zg0rhqe6oa

— Defence Pakistan (@Defence_PK99) May 8, 2025

The Indian defence ministry said Pakistan had attempted to engage military targets in northern and western India on Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, and that they were “neutralized” by Indian air defense systems.

While fears of an all-out war between Pakistan and India are growing, sources on both sides described the current situation as a “rhetoric war” that would not escalate further.

As of just 100 days into his term, Trump had already signed 130 executive orders—more than some presidents issued over their entire time in office.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist’s Julia Wendling in collaboration with Inigo, offers a visual look at the presidents who made the most prolific use of executive orders throughout American history.

A Closer Look at Orders

Using data from UC Santa Barbara, we’ve broken down how many executive orders each president issued in their first 100 days.

Data as of April 30, 2025.

President Trump and President Biden are the only presidents from the last 50 years to hit the top 10 list.

Trump’s Executive Orders

Trump’s rapid-fire use of orders underscores his intent to drive change and disrupt the status quo on an unprecedented scale. On his first day in office alone, he signed a record-breaking 26 executive orders—nearly triple the next-highest first-day total, set by President Biden with 9.

These orders span a wide range of issues, including boosting American industry, cutting government inefficiencies, and addressing topics like foreign aid, border security, discrimination, innovation, and trade policy.

Executive Activity of Past Presidents

Upon taking office in January 2021 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden directed his early efforts toward anti-discrimination measures and pandemic containment. Obama, on the other hand, prioritized labor rights and ethics reforms during his early days in office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who assumed the presidency during multiple national crises, including the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II, centered his early executive actions on securing economic stability and recovery.

Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearWire.com,

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s speech in New Hampshire last week was greeted by the media as yet another stirring call to arms for the rudderless Democratic Party.

“Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption – but I am now,” Pritzker thundered.

“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box.”

Republicans protested that the governor came close to inciting political violence – and they have a point, given the attempts to assassinate Donald Trump, the dangerous attacks on Tesla, and the near-kidnapping of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

However, what Pritzker had to say in his speech before channeling Maxine Waters’ infamous call to harass Republicans should not be overlooked. It raises an important question: Is Pritzker delusional, a liar, or merely hyperbolic?

Hyperbole, lies, and delusions are all forms of falsehoods, but of different magnitudes. 

• The first are exaggerated claims not meant to be taken literally. Trump himself is no stranger to this oratorical device.

• Lies are exaggerations or falsehoods the speaker wants others to believe – and, while shameful, are a too-frequent feature of modern political discourses. 

• Delusions are false beliefs at odds with observable reality.

Jerry Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” is an example of hyperbolic name calling. Seinfeld and his audience understood it was an exaggeration so grotesque that it was funny. No one thought the soup guy was actually a member of the SS. Jussie Smollett’s claim that MAGA bros assaulted him was a lie, albeit a calculated, elaborate, and harmful hoax. The Salem witch trials were the terrible consequence of a mass delusion.

So, is Pritzker channeling Seinfeld, Smollett, or Cotton Mather?

“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” Pritzker said.

“Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history,” he said before adding, “Today it’s an immigrant with a tattoo, tomorrow it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Donald Trump.”

He went on in this vein for a while:

• “Our retirees don’t deserve to be left destitute by a Social Security Administration decimated by Elon Musk.”

• “Our citizens don’t deserve to lose health care coverage because Republicans want to hand a tax cut to billionaires.”

• “Our federal workers don’t deserve to have, well, a 19-year-old DOGE bro called Big Balls destroy their careers.”

• “Autistic kids and adults who are loving contributors to our society don’t deserve to be stigmatized by a weird nepo baby who once stashed a dead bear in the back of his car.”

This is all absurd.

Activists have brought hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of illegal migrants, as Democrats fight to keep criminals and gang members from being deported. 

Long-standing immigration laws set forth the process that’s due to non-U.S. citizens before they are deported – processes pursuant to which prior presidents of both political parties deported millions of non-citizens.

There’s not the slightest suggestion that Republicans (who have been fighting Big Tech censorship) support criminalizing Facebook posts. 

To the contrary, Vice President J.D. Vance was widely criticized by Democrats for condemning Britain and Germany for criminalizing Facebook posts.

Not a single person receiving Social Security payments legally is losing their government pension. 

Improving efficiency, eliminating waste, and rooting out fraud protects retirees and strengthens the system.

No American receiving health care legally will lose health care coverage. 

And preventing states (like Illinois) from providing health care to noncitizens under Medicaid will result in more funding to cover health care for U.S. citizens. 

There will be no tax cut for high earners in the budget reconciliation; the existing rate structure will be maintained.

Trump is reducing federal employment through buyouts, layoffs, and dismissals to improve government efficiency (i.e., doing more with fewer workers) and to redirect government policy (i.e., eliminating DEI).

In his speech, Pritzker also accused Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.  Kennedy Jr. of nepotism. 

That’s rich coming from the heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune who used inherited money to buy his way into office. In any case, it’s the opposite of nepotism for the scion of Democrat royalty to become a Republican leader. And Kennedy is trying to stop the autism epidemic, not shame autistic people.

So, everything Pritzker said in New Hampshire was obviously false. What’s interesting to consider is: What does he, and what does his audience, actually believe about these topics?

When asked by Jen Psaki on MSNBC about his speech, Pritzker replied with yet another apocalyptic fantasy: “We are in a perilous moment in this country,” he replied. “There is, I mean, tumult around everyone in this country. We have had our economic rights taken away, we have had our civil rights taken away, and it’s only been a hundred days.”

Consider further that in February, Pritzker – who helped build the Illinois Holocaust Museum – compared the new Trump Administration to the Third Reich, volunteering that he didn’t make the comparison to Nazis lightly.

Put it all together, and it sounds like Pritzker is channeling Jussie Smollett, not Jerry Seinfeld. He’s not trying to entertain, and I think he knows better. He wants to frighten and anger people. He wants outrage, not knowing smiles.

There’s a worst-case scenario, however. What if the governor of Illinois, and apparent 2028 presidential candidate, is delusional and believes his falsehoods?  He wouldn’t be alone – and that’s even more scary. 

In a world in which many progressives believe Luigi Mangione is a hero, Pritzker’s lies in the cause of his ambition to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president are more outrageous – and more perilous – than Smollett’s lies to make himself a civil rights icon.

The world of nuclear energy and small modular reactors – which we believe is the next obvious secular bull market in energy – keeps moving forward. 

Ontario officials have granted final approval for the construction of a small modular reactor (SMR) developed by GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, according to new reporting from Axios.

This reactor, known as the BWRX-300, is anticipated to be the first SMR to become operational in the Western world. The 300-megawatt unit will be located next to the existing Darlington Nuclear Station, operated by Ontario Power Generation. Once completed, it will generate enough electricity to power approximately 300,000 homes.

The successful implementation of this reactor at the Darlington site is expected to serve as a model for the feasibility and benefits of SMR technology.

Ontario’s energy ministry emphasized the significance of the project, noting that it will be the first SMR of its kind among G7 nations. GE has stated that early site preparations have been completed and full construction will commence soon, with the reactor projected to begin operations by 2030, the report says. 

The Darlington site is planned to host a total of four SMR units, all of which are expected to be operational by 2035. The entire project is estimated to cost 20.9 billion Canadian dollars, which is about 15.06 billion USD. According to Stephen Lecce, Ontario’s energy minister, this initiative is a crucial part of the province’s strategy to meet an anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050.

“Ensuring that we have reliable, affordable energy is essential to the economic sovereignty of our province and country,” Lecce said. 

Recall just days ago nuclear names popped on news that The White House is poised to issue executive orders aimed at accelerating the deployment of nuclear reactors across the United States.

The White House actions are expected to leverage the Departments of Defense and Energy to expedite reactor deployment, potentially circumventing delays from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

This initiative aligns with the administration’s strategy to meet the surging energy demands driven by sectors like artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing.

Publicly traded companies positioned to benefit from this nuclear expansion include our favorite, Oklo, formerly backed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The company is among eight companies selected to provide microreactors for U.S. military bases, aiming to supply 100% of critical energy needs at these sites.

The ADVANCE Act of 2024, signed into law in July, aims to streamline the licensing process for advanced nuclear technologies, reduce regulatory costs, and promote the development of next-generation reactors.

Additionally, in a rare show of bipartisan agreement, the Biden administration had formerly expressed intentions to triple the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050, recognizing nuclear energy’s role in achieving carbon-free electricity goals.

For those who missed it, in our note “The Next AI Trade” from April 2024, more than one year ago, we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, most of which have dramatically outperformed the market since then.

Authored by Nancy Brinker via RealClearPolitics,

DOGE is saving billions and it’s doing what voters asked for.

As someone who has represented the United States abroad, first as ambassador to Hungary and later as U.S. chief of protocol, I’ve seen how American leadership is measured not just by strength or ideals, but by functionality. Our allies watch how we govern ourselves. And too often, what they’ve seen in recent decades is an increasingly bloated federal government, mired in duplication, inefficiency, and bureaucratic inertia.

That’s why the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, deserves serious consideration. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has taken on a task that most administrations have promised but failed to achieve: modernizing how our federal government operates. It has consolidated overlapping offices, canceled wasteful contracts, sold underutilized properties, and implemented data-driven reforms, all aimed at reducing cost, improving performance, and saving taxpayer money. 

Since it began in January, DOGE has either cut or reduced grants, leases, and contracts in over 176 departments or agencies. On its website the department reports saving $160 billion. For comparison, that’s more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Transportation. Even according to independent data and analysis, DOGE efforts have already generated billions in savings. This is not a theoretical exercise in reform. It is tangible, measurable, and aligned with what the American people have repeatedly said they want: a government that delivers more by doing less.

Polling backs this up. A February Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 72% of Americans support the existence of an agency focused solely on eliminating waste and inefficiency in government. A clear majority (60%) said they believe DOGE is helping to rein in unnecessary federal spending. That’s not a left-wing or right-wing perspective; that’s a mainstream one.

DOGE’s creation may have sparked controversy, particularly among those uncomfortable with Musk’s unconventional approach and public persona. But we shouldn’t allow style to eclipse substance. If government is functioning more effectively and at a lower cost to taxpayers, then we must look seriously at how those outcomes are being achieved, and what lessons can be responsibly applied more broadly.

Having served in federal roles that demand strict compliance with law, protocol, and tradition, I know firsthand that reform must operate within the boundaries of our values. Rule of law and adherence to institutional norms are non-negotiable. Yet so, too, is the need for honest appraisal: Much of our federal bureaucracy has become outdated, sprawling, and resistant to change. Streamlining is not an assault on government. It is, in fact, an affirmation of it – an attempt to make public institutions worthy of public trust.

Of course, DOGE’s approach is not without flaws. Musk himself has candidly admitted as much. Critics have questioned whether all reported savings are fully verified, and transparency around decision-making needs improvement. Oversight is not only appropriate – it’s essential. But the existence of imperfections should not be a pretext for dismissing a bold, productive effort to modernize government. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of progress.

It’s a time-honored tradition in Washington for good ideas to wither under partisan suspicion. But government reform should not be the property of any one party. For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have campaigned on promises to cut waste, modernize services, and rein in unnecessary spending. 

DOGE is doing what many in both parties have failed to do: take those promises seriously.

The real question is not whether DOGE is controversial – it is. The real question is whether it is effective. So far, the evidence suggests that it is. The challenge ahead is to preserve that momentum, institutionalize the best of what DOGE is doing, fix mistakes, and ensure it is guided by transparency, accountability, and legal rigor.

This moment presents a rare opportunity: the chance to reshape how government operates in a way that is more responsive to the people it serves. Instead of vilifying reformers, we should come together around a shared goal that transcends politics: building a government that works.

If DOGE continues to help us get there, it deserves not derision, but support.

Nancy Brinker served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary and as chief of protocol during the George W. Bush administration. She is the founder of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and the Promise Fund.

Amtrak is cutting roughly 20% of its senior management positions, aiming to reduce expenses amid uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s infrastructure investment plans, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.

The federally-owned passenger railroad – which operates as a for-profit entity, is targeting $100 million in annual cost reductions through these cuts, a source disclosed anonymously, sharing details not publicly announced.

In an official statement, Amtrak confirmed the elimination of roughly 450 management roles, reiterating the goal of achieving $100 million in yearly savings. The company emphasized these layoffs only impact corporate-level positions and assured that operational railroad jobs would remain unaffected. As of 2024, Amtrak employs approximately 22,700 people. (what!?)

“Amtrak identified opportunities to better align resources with the important work we are doing for America,” the statement reads.

Amtrak President Roger Harris communicated the details of these layoffs to employees in a recent letter, indicating that impacted staff would receive notifications in the first half of May. Additionally, the railroad has implemented a hiring freeze and halted promotions for management roles, Harris wrote.

“Amtrak is making a full review of our cost structure, which includes evaluating the size of our management staff,” reads the letter, adding that leadership plans “to notify impacted employees in the first half of May.”

Planning for these cuts reportedly began months ago, driven by uncertainty following Trump’s presidential victory and his subsequent moves to withhold previously approved grants. This has cast doubt over future infrastructure funding.

Significant projects potentially impacted by the management layoffs include new multi-billion-dollar rail tunnels in New York City and Baltimore, as well as a replacement of the Susquehanna River Bridge and other major initiatives along the Northeast corridor.

While construction on these major projects is currently ongoing, future financing—particularly funding initially expected from the fifth year of former President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill—is now uncertain.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

California is home to some of the widest gaps between mortgage payments and rental costs in the nation, meaning it is increasingly harder to buy a home compared to renting one, according to analysts.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported on April 21 that the gap between monthly costs of buying a bottom-tier home versus renting a bottom-tier home has reached levels not seen since the mid-2000s housing bubble, with the growth attributed to higher home prices and higher mortgage rates.

“Historically, people would rent, save money, and then buy a house. But, if the rents are high and the prices of houses are even higher, then there’s really no hope,” Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University, told The Epoch Times.

“Buying is becoming more and more difficult, unless you have inherited wealth, or if you have money from overseas.”

A study by Bankrate published on April 23 highlighted the growing affordability challenges in the state’s largest metropolitan areas, where coastal cities lead the country in cost disparities between owning and renting.

Bankrate compared average monthly rent to average monthly mortgage payments across the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and revealed that cities in California are at the top of the list when it comes to expensive home ownership, especially when compared to rents.

San Francisco has a buy-rent gap of 190.7 percent, making it home to the largest gap nationwide. The typical monthly mortgage payment in San Francisco was around $8,882, up 4.7 percent year-over-year, while the typical rent is $3,055, down 1.7 percent year-over-year.

San Jose comes in a close second on the list, where homeowners fork over mortgage payments that are 185.6 percent higher than rent. The typical mortgage payment is $9,438, up 10.5 percent year-over-year, with rent coming in around $3,305, down 1.3 percent year-over-year.

Los Angeles and San Diego have seen a similar trend. Mortgage payments in Southern California’s largest metro areas are 88.5 percent and 79.9 percent higher than rent, respectively, landing them sixth and ninth compared to other U.S. metros included in the study.

Bankrate’s study attributes high cost gaps between renting and owning a home to skyrocketing home prices because of low housing supply, as well as high mortgage rates, which average nearly 6.90 percent for a 30-year fixed loan nationwide as of April 24.

“ If you’re in the coastal markets, you have to consider this home as a very long-run solution,” Skylar Olsen, Zillow’s chief housing economist, said in a statement. “In California, people famously leave their homes to their children. There are very long tenures in these really expensive markets for that reason.”

California Housing Costs

California homes are around twice as expensive as the typical American home, reported the California LAO, citing Zillow data. A mid-tier home in California costs around $789,000 in 2025, compared to the U.S. average of $361,000.

According to the California Association of Realtors (CAR), the median California home price in March 2025 was $884,350.

In a July 2024 report from Zillow, for 117 cities across California, a typical starter home costs $1 million or more.

Los Angeles’s median home price is just over $1 million, reports Redfin. Meanwhile, San Francisco and San Jose report higher median home prices, at more than $1.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

Mid-tier home monthly payments reached nearly $5,900 a month in March 2024, making for an 82 percent growth in prices since January 2020, reported the California LAO. Bottom-tier home payments reached more than $3,500 per month, representing an 87 percent increase since January 2020.

CAR reports that a mere 17 percent of households could afford a median-priced home in early 2024. California home prices are forecasted by CAR to increase 4.6 percent in 2025.

Homeownership rates have fallen in California, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, where the current home ownership rate is 55.9 percent, compared to the national average of 65.2 percent. Homeownership in the state peaked at 60.2 percent in 2006.

Meanwhile, according to the LAO, the monthly rent for a two-bedroom home in California in 2024 was $2,225 compared to the $1,400 national average.

The California Housing Partnership found in 2024 that renters in Los Angeles need to make $48.04 per hour—2.9 times Los Angeles’s minimum wage—in order to afford the average rent of $2,498.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported that renters comprise a 44 percent share of households in California compared to 35 percent in the rest of the country. Save for two other states, more California renters spend over half of their income on rent than any other state.

Lack of Homeownership

Amid the rising prices, 70 percent of Californians believe children today will fare worse than their parents financially, according to a 2024 PPIC statewide survey.

The survey found 29 percent of Californians skipped meals or ate less food in order to save money within the prior year, while 17 percent used CalFresh (food stamp) benefits. Moreover, 20 percent put medical care on hold as a result of financial constraints.

According to Mark Schniepp, director of The Economic Forecast, the main issue is housing.

“But there’s not much we can do about it outside of building more of it,” Schniepp told The Epoch Times in an email. “However we are unlikely to be able to build enough, given current regulations in place and current zoning.”

“The Coastal Act, CEQA, land costs and many local regulations prevent developing housing,” he added.

Kotkin agreed state policies have contributed to a lack of affordable housing, which makes it difficult to build in places that would otherwise be cheaper.

“What essentially is approved is increasingly high density and expensive in the inner city,” Kotkin said.

The bottom line, he said, is that home ownership is an important part of preparing for retirement. If you own a house, then you can stay there once you retire, because you probably have paid it off.

“The house is an asset,” he said. 

“[Owners] can borrow against it, they can sell, and then they can have a comfortable retirement.”

However, if an increasing number of people are forced to rent, “people will generally look to the state, or some other institution, to take care of them, because they have nothing of their own,” Kotkin said. 

“They’re going to rent for life, which means that when they retire, they’re not going to have any assets. They’re going to be dependent on state transfer payments.”

He sees such dependency as incompatible with democracy.

“Democracy is built on the fact that there’s some degree of independence on the part of a large part of the population,” he said. “If you own a house, you have a certain degree of autonomy that maybe you can think in a different way than if you are dependent on the fact that your landlord may decide to increase the rent 50 percent.”