Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on May 29 released a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across the nation that could be made ineligible for federal funding under an executive order by President Donald Trump.

The DHS list encompasses counties and cities across 35 states and the District of Columbia with policies deemed as obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

“These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. “We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”

The announcement comes after an April 28 executive order signed by Trump requested that DHS produce “a list of States and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

In their press release on the publication of the list, DHS stated: “Each jurisdiction listed will receive formal notification of its noncompliance and all potential violations of federal criminal statutes. DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.”

In some cases, entire states have been marked sanctuaries. They include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

Some of the jurisdictions fall in traditionally Republican states. These include Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta and surrounding counties; Boise, Idaho; Monroe County, Indiana; Douglas County and Lawrence, Kansas; Louisville, Kentucky and four counties in the state; New Orleans; 10 counties in Nebraska; five counties in North Carolina; seven counties in North Dakota; and Nashville and one county in Tennessee.

Other states identified as having at least one county or city in violation of the law include Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Trump’s April order calls for executive department chiefs and the director of the Office of Management and Budget to “identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.”

It also calls on the attorney general and DHS secretary to “pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance with the laws of the United States.”

The push to strip sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funds aligns with a long-held Republican objective of border security and enforcement of immigration laws.

Future actions related to Trump’s executive order are also expected.

To ensure that illegal immigrants are not accessing federal entitlements like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)—commonly known as food stamps—Medicaid, Medicare, or others, the president directed the attorney general and DHS secretary to “develop guidance, rules, or other appropriate mechanisms to ensure appropriate eligibility verification is conducted for individuals receiving Federal public benefits.”

He has also directed the same officials to “identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable, including State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens.”

Gap Inc. shares plunged in premarket trading after the retailer warned in its earnings release of a potential $300 million hit from tariffs.

The retailer sources much of its clothing from third-party manufacturers, primarily located across Asia—regions heavily impacted by the trade war—while selling the majority of its merchandise through U.S. stores. The warning comes amid a 90-day pause in the US-China trade war as both countries engage in bilateral talks to craft a trade deal. 

“If these tariff rates remain, they could result in a gross estimated incremental cost of approximately $250 million to $300 million,” Gap wrote in an earnings release. It based its guidance on tariffs of 30% on most imports from China and 10% on most other countries. 

Gap maintained its guidance from the previous quarter, noting that it has strategies to mitigate more than half of that cost: 

“The company currently has strategies to mitigate more than half of that amount. After considering these mitigation strategies, the company estimates a remaining net impact of about $100 million to $150 million to fiscal 2025 operating income, primarily weighted to the back half of the year.” 

Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, told Bloomberg that the tariff warning “spooked investors.”

Shares tumbled as much as 16% in premarket trading in New York, nearly wiping out all year-to-date gains of 18% as of the close Thursday. 

The tariff issue aside, Gap reported a solid first quarter across its brands, except for Athleta and Banana Republic:

1. Total comparable sales +2%, Bloomberg estimate +1.59%

2. Gap and Old Navy both grew market share across all income groups, marking their 8th and 9th straight quarters of gains, respectively.

3. Old Navy posted +3% comps, driven by strong full-price sell-through and a successful relaunch of its activewear line.

4. Gap brand delivered +5% comps, with strong demand in core categories (fleece, sweaters, sleepwear) and solid traction from new collaborations.

5. Banana Republic comps were roughly flat, with stabilization continuing as turnaround efforts in product and pricing gain traction.

6. Athleta remains challenged, with comps down 8% due to weak product engagement and a longer recovery timeline.

7. Operating margins expanded, supported by ROD (reduction of discounting) leverage and tight cost control, while merchandise margins remained flat year-over-year.

For the second quarter, Gap expects sales to remain flat compared to the year-ago period, in line with Wall Street analysts’ expectations. The company expects minimal tariff-related impacts in the current quarter. 

Wall Street analysts weighed in on Gap with their first takes… 

Citi analyst Paul Lejuez, who maintains a “Buy” rating on Gap, lowered his target to $30 from $33 due to the retailer’s higher tariff burden. 

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mary Ross Gilbert commented, “Gap’s cautious 2Q outlook and tariff-driven margin pressure may leave room for upside,” adding, “The expected $100-$150 million profit impact from tariffs (about 65-102 bps after mitigation and $250-$300 million before) appears manageable and could be offset further.” 

JPMorgan analyst Matthew Boss, who has an “Overweight” rating and a $29 price target, called this morning’s stock selloff a “buying opportunity,” emphasizing that strong brands “can win in any market.” 

Goldman analyst Brooke Roach raised her 12-month price target to $28 from $25. 

. . .

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Ray Dalio, the former head of Bridgewater Associates, is back in the media, trying to stay relevant by claiming the “deficit has become critical.”

” “It’s like … I’m a doctor, and I’m looking at the patient, and I’ve said, you’re having this accumulation, and I can tell you that this is very, very serious, and I can’t tell you the exact time. I would say that if we’re really looking over the next three years, to give or take a year or two, that we’re in that type of a critical, critical situation.”

And this from Bloomberg:

“If you don’t do it (commit to reducing the deficit), you’re going to be in trouble. I can’t tell you exactly when it’ll come, it’s like a heart attack. You’re getting closer. My guess would be three years, give or take a year, something like that.”

Of course, the scare tactics would not be complete without a terrifying chart to back it up, like this from Deutsche Bank:

“Here we remind readers, that the Big, Beautiful Bill currently in Congress has been scored to add about $5 trillion to the debt, resulting in what we said would be Debt Doomsday for the US; this is simply a trade-off of short-term prosperity (a few extra trillion in the next 4 years) for long-term economic collapse (that 220% in long term debt.GDP).”

That is undoubtedly a horrifying chart. The “scoring” is from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO analyzes spending bills and tries to determine the impact of future spending versus revenue. Here is the calculation of the latest “deficit” scare.

The problem is that neither Dalio nor the CBO is correct in its forecasts. We will examine both to explain why.

Dalio’s History Of Faulty Predictions

It doesn’t take much to understand that Ray Dalio, a hedge fund titan, is like every other human being and is prone to error. I will not dismiss Dalio entirely, as his track record of managing money at Bridgewater is nothing to be scoffed at. However, his track record is far less enviable regarding debt crisis predictions. Here is a brief timeline.

• March 2015 – Hedge Funder Dalio Thinks the Fed Can Repeat 1937 All Over Again

• January 2016 – The 75-Year Debt Supercycle Is Coming To An End

• September 2018 – Ray Dalio Says The Economy Looks Like 1937 And A Downturn Is Coming In About Two Years

• January 2019 – Ray Dalio Sees Significant Risk Of A US Recession

• October 2022 – Dalio Warns Of Perfect Storm For The Economy (That was also the stock market low.)

• September 2023 – Dalio Says The US Is Going To Have A Debt Crisis

But you can even go further back than these when he wrote about some of his biggest mistakes about a decade ago:

“The biggest of these mistakes occurred in 1981-’82, when I became convinced that the U.S. economy was about to fall into a depression. My research had led me to believe that, with the Federal Reserve’s tight money policy and lots of debt outstanding, there would be a global wave of debt defaults, and if the Fed tried to handle it by printing money, inflation would accelerate. I was so certain that a depression was coming that I proclaimed it in newspaper columns, on TV, even in testimony to Congress.“

Even though Dalio understands his mistakes from 1981 to 1982, he has been repeating them over the last decade.

For investors who listened to Dalio’s predictions of a coming “depression” a decade ago, they missed participating in one of the most significant bull markets in U.S. history.

Again, please don’t make a mistake in what I say. Ray Dalio is a knowledgeable person. However, intelligence does not necessarily prove accuracy in predicting the future. He was wrong in the 80s and has been incorrect over the last decade.

Does that mean he will “never” be correct? No. But investors have lost more money worrying about Dalio’s predictions than they would likely have even if he had been accurate.

But what about those CBO projections?

The CBO’s Projections Are Full Of Faults

Every year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases a series of projections estimating federal deficits and debt levels over a 10-year horizon. These forecasts, often treated as gospel by lawmakers and media outlets alike, are used to shape public policy debates, inform budget decisions, and frame the long-term fiscal narrative of the United States. Yet, with striking regularity, these projections fail to materialize.

The reason is that, just as with Dalio, the CBO projections are often biased or one-sided estimations, data is excluded, and various other issues impair future accuracy, both good and bad. Furthermore, the agency’s forecasting methodology has structural flaws, ranging from rigid assumptions to exclusions of dynamic economic feedback to blind spots in fiscal behavior and policy change. The result is a set of projections that often mislead more than they inform. The following is a brief explanation of these flaws.

• The Static Nature of CBO Models – The CBO’s analytical framework is based on a static scoring model. This approach assumes that future policy, such as tax rates, spending levels, entitlement programs, etc., will remain unchanged over the 10-year forecast horizon unless new legislation is ALREADY enacted. In practice, this is rarely the case. For example, if a tax cut is scheduled to expire, the CBO assumes it will expire, even if the likelihood of an extension is high. The same goes for discretionary spending caps, Medicare payment reductions, and defense outlays. As a result, CBO projections often include future “deficit cliffs” or sudden fiscal contractions that lawmakers later avoid, all rendering the projections obsolete before they’re even useful.

• Ignoring Dynamic Economic Feedback – Perhaps the most significant shortcoming of the CBO’s model is its limited use of dynamic scoring—the idea that fiscal policy can influence broader economic outcomes, affecting tax revenues and spending. Instead, they rely heavily on baseline economic forecasts that assume a smooth trajectory of growth and inflation, often borrowed from consensus private forecasts. However, those assumptions are backward-looking, calibrated to historical averages rather than adaptive to current or projected conditions.

• Unrealistic Assumptions About Growth and Interest Rates – One of the most baffling elements of CBO’s debt projections is their unwillingness to incorporate realistic future economic growth rates. Over a 10-year horizon, even minor adjustments to GDP growth assumptions can dramatically alter debt-to-GDP ratios. However, the CBO defaults to a long-run real GDP growth rate of about 1.8% to 2.0%—a figure derived from trend productivity and labor force growth, rather than cyclical or structural changes in the economy.

This baked-in pessimism ignores potential upside scenarios such as demographic shifts, productivity surges due to technology, or policy-induced economic acceleration. Conversely, it fails to adequately model downside risks like recessions, geopolitical shocks, or credit events. The result is a misleading “middle path” that rarely reflects actual outcomes.

Similarly, the CBO assumes a gradually rising interest rate environment, where borrowing costs increase alongside debt issuance. However, history shows that interest rates can remain low, even as debt increases. As shown, rates decline with larger deficits as unproductive spending slows economic growth. The recent rate surge resulted from inflation from sending checks to households while shuttering the economy. As the remnants of that infusion fade, economic growth and rates will decline. However, Dalio and the CBO forget the cause of the rate surge and assume the rise was organic when it was not. As growth slows further, Central Bank interventions will challenge the CBO’s recurring narrative that rising debt will inevitably lead to a fiscal crisis via soaring interest payments.

The Future Is Highly Uncertain

To be clear, the CBO is vital in bringing fiscal transparency to government operations. But its forecasts should be treated as scenarios, not certainties. Some economists have argued for including range-based projections—a band of possible debt and deficit paths under varying assumptions for growth, interest rates, and fiscal policy. Others have called for more aggressive use of dynamic scoring to account for behavioral and economic feedback.

One thing is for sure. The future is highly uncertain. As such, any forecast that looks 10 years into the future will be wrong, for better or worse. For example, the U.S. is most likely on the cusp of the next industrial revolution. Such will transform the economy, work, and labor in ways we can not imagine currently. The impact of Artificial Intelligence on employment, productivity, and wage growth could be transformational. However, we must also consider the impact of AI on highly capital-intensive infrastructure needs. As we explored in “Electricity May Cure Debt Concerns.”

“Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to automate many work tasks and eventually boost global economic growth. AI will start having a measurable impact on US GDP in 2027 and begin affecting growth in other economies worldwide in the following years. The foundation of the forecast is the finding that AI could ultimately automate around 25% of labor tasks in advanced economies and 10-20% of work in emerging economies.”

They currently estimate a growth boost to GDP from AI of 0.4 percentage points in the US. Such would undoubtedly reduce the impact of rising debt levels.

The CBO’s debt and deficit projections have value, but they are deeply limited by the assumptions they rest on. Their forecasts ignore how politics evolves, how economies adapt, and how unpredictable the future truly is. They exclude meaningful liabilities, fail to account for economic feedback loops, and assume a rigidity in fiscal policy that doesn’t exist in the real world.

Conclusion

For investors, policymakers, and citizens alike, the key is not to discard the CBO’s work, but to understand its limitations. Notably, consider the following for those like Dalio, pontificating on the rising debt levels as a percentage of GDP.

Japan is a relatively small country compared to the U.S.

• It is not the world’s reserve currency issuer.

• Does not have the economic growth capacity or resources of the U.S.

• Lacks the military strength to defend its sovereignty.

• Has a pressing demographic issue.

Do both countries have financial concerns? Absolutely. Yet, despite all of Japan’s shortcomings, they have not fallen into bankruptcy or faced economic devastation. In other words, as an investor, betting on the demise of the U.S. at 120% of debt to GDP, in the face of the rise of Artificial Intelligence and its potential impact, will likely be a losing bet.

It is also crucial for investors to understand the data they view and use to build investment assumptions. As with Dalio, assuming a “debt crisis” is looming, has severely impaired individuals’ wealth-building process. Will the CBO and Dalio eventually be correct? Will a debt crisis finally happen? Maybe. Anything is possible. You must answer whether that will occur during your investment time frame. More crucially, what will you do after it happens?

The choice is yours to make. However, a wrong decision can severely impact your wealth-building process and the pursuit of your financial goals.

For more in-depth analysis and actionable investment strategies, visit RealInvestmentAdvice.com. Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights tailored to help you achieve your financial goals.

The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – fell once again in April to its lowest since April 2021 at +2.5% YoY…

Source: Bloomberg

Services inflation is slowing rapidly…

Source: Bloomberg

Headline PCE fell to +2.1%…

Source: Bloomberg

The downturn was triggered by a large deflationary impulse in non-durable goods…

SuperCore PCE also tumbled to four year lows with its first MoM decline since April 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

SuperCore PCE was driven down by a big drop in Financial Services & Insurance costs…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, for all the terror of tariffs in the soft survey data, spending continues to increase and incomes are growing strongly…

Source: Bloomberg

On the income side, both govt and private workers saw compensation accelerate…

Source: Bloomberg

Given the outperformance of income over spending, the savings rate rebounded strongly to its highest since April 2024…

Source: Bloomberg

…it’s gonna be hard for Powell to justify the ‘pause’ now.

Following earlier comments by TsySec Bessent that trade talks with China had “stalled”, President Trump took to social media to explain his position:

Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger!

The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World.

We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them.

Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, “civil unrest.”

I saw what was happening and didn’t like it, for them, not for us. I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen.

Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual.

Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!!

The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!

The reaction was swift – US equity futures dumped…

And crude crashed…

So much for ‘TACO’! No more Mr Nice Guy does not sound like “chickening out”.

Will PCE rescue the markets?

U.S. non-residential construction is expected to soften through the second half of 2025, but UBS analysts project a meaningful reacceleration beginning in 2026. Structural tailwinds—including investment in data infrastructure, energy, life sciences, and public-sector projects—are expected to drive the next phase of growth, even as commercial construction remains pressured by high interest rates and broader macro uncertainty. The anticipated rebound in activity has Goldman analysts forecasting upward pressure on machinery pricing later this year. 

According to UBS analysts Steven Fisher, Amit Mehrotra, and others, the latest industry outlook for construction spending is expected to remain soft through 2025, with nominal growth projected at just .8%, while real growth is anticipated to decline by 3%. The weakness is primarily attributable to a slowdown in manufacturing project starts over the past year, as well as continued headwinds facing commercial projects across retail, office, and warehousing.

“More slowing before reacceleration in 2026,” Fisher wrote in a note, adding, “We expect stimulus and structural forces to drive the rebound, while cyclical factors remain weak.”

Analysts forecast construction growth to reaccelerate to 4% in 2026. They noted some of those growth drivers:

• Structural changes are driving spending on Manufacturing, Power and Data centers/Telecom; potential upside from tax incentives/bonus depreciation

• Stimulus funds are flowing and should contribute to spending growth in 2025 -26

• State finances in stable to good condition for now; sets up for modest Public growth

• Still high interest rates likely continue to drag on housing, developer-led and related construction areas for some time

The reacceleration in construction spending is expected to begin in the second half of 2026. 

What will drive the reacceleration? It’s very easy: Power, Data Centers, Infra, Semis… 

We’ve laid out multiple themes for readers to capitalize on this:

• The Next AI Trade

• Trump’s “Nuclear” Order And How To Profit: All You Need To Know About The Coming Nuclear Energy Transition

And a new theme: 

• Golden Dome Unleashes U.S. Hemispheric Defense Theme – And Goldman Finds One Firm Stands Out

Trump has secured commitments for $1.8 trillion in investments from major corporations, with projects either shovel-ready or nearing that stage. This pipeline of development is expected to generate significant construction tailwinds next year.

Top themes in the construction world for next year:

One senior executive at an asset management firm backing a major data center project in Texas described the anticipated pace of construction during Trump’s second term as a “sprint.”

“The market in 2025 and 2026 will continue to be reliant on large projects,” the analysts noted. 

Separately, Goldman analysts have issued a note describing how the tightening of used equipment inventories will send prices higher over the next 6 to 9 months. This aligns with UBS’s view that a surge in construction activity is expected to begin next year. 

Great news for the Trump administration: construction tailwinds are expected to build momentum in the economy next year. However, a lag is anticipated before the full impact materializes. 

Authored by Andrew Topf via OilPrice.com,

• A resurgence in nuclear energy is now underway, fueled by rising energy security concerns, climate goals, and soaring uranium prices.

• The U.S. and parts of Europe are embracing a nuclear revival, with President Trump targeting a quadrupling of U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050.

• European nations such as Denmark, Spain, and Germany are signaling renewed openness to advanced reactor technologies.

The Fukushima disaster soured the world on nuclear energy and the uranium industry after tsunami waves inundated Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex on March 11, 2011.

The tsunami, triggered by a major offshore earthquake, disabled the plant’s cooling systems, causing three reactors to overheat and partially melt down, with subsequent releases of radioactive materials into the air and ocean.

As the world watched in horror, public and government confidence in nuclear power plummeted, leading some countries to phase out or halt nuclear power development plans.

Germany, Belgium and Italy decided to phase out nuclear power or halt planned expansions, while Spain and Switzerland elected not to build new plants.

The accident led to stricter safety requirements and more thorough assessments of existing nuclear plants.

In Japan, nuclear power’s contribution to electricity generation dropped dramatically, with coal-fired plants filling the gap.

The accident spurred increased focus on alternative energy sources like gas, coal, and renewables, as well as a push for new reactor designs with improved safety features.

The event also took its toll on the uranium market and companies that explore for and mine the nuclear fuel. Post-Fukushima, the slump in demand cratered uranium prices, with the market bottoming out near $30 a pound in mid-2014.

Fast-forward to 2022, and the story changes. Spurred by renewed demand for nuclear energy and a leap in yellowcake prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, uranium miners began reviving mothballed uranium projects.

Uranium hit a 10-year high of $105.49/lb on Jan. 29, 2024, and closed out last year with a spot price of $72.63 and a long-term price of $80.50, according to Canadian uranium miner Cameco.  

Uranium futures rose to $72 per pound in late May, the highest in nearly three months, and extending the rebound from 18-month lows in March as the possibility of political support for the nuclear sector outweighed the view of ample supply, said Trading Economics.

Despite skepticism from some quarters on the safety of nuclear, there are just as many who believe it is a relatively benign form of baseload power that is necessary for the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Nuclear, the argument goes, is emissions-free but does not suffer the intermittency problem of wind and solar.

One of the more recent cheerleaders of nuclear is Donald Trump.

Last Friday the US president signed executive orders pledging to expand American nuclear energy capacity from approximately 100 gigawatts in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.

“Swift and decisive action is required to jumpstart America’s nuclear energy industrial base and ensure our national and economic security by increasing fuel availability and production, securing civil nuclear supply chains, improving the efficiency with which advanced nuclear reactors are licensed, and preparing our workforce to establish America’s energy dominance and accelerate our path towards a more secure and independent energy future,” World Nuclear News quoted from the executive order ‘Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base’.

A Fox News article posted on the White House website states:

Through a series of executive orders signed this week, President Trump is taking action to usher in an American nuclear renaissance. For the first time in many years, America has a path forward for quickly and safely testing advanced nuclear reactor designs, constructing new nuclear reactors at scale, and building a strong domestic nuclear industrial base…

This week’s executive actions will help us reach that goal in four ways.

First, we are going to fully leverage our DOE national laboratories to increase the speed with which we test new nuclear reactor designs. There is a big difference between a paper reactor and a practical reactor. The only way to bridge that gap—understanding the challenges that must be surmounted to bring reactors to the market, and building public trust in their deployment—is to test and evaluate demonstration reactors. 

Second, for our national and economic security, we are going to leverage the Departments of Defense and Energy to build nuclear reactors on federally owned land. This will support critical national security needs which require reliable, high-density power sources that are invulnerable to external threats or grid failures.

Third, to lower regulatory burdens and shorten licensing timelines, we are asking the NRC to undergo broad cultural change and regulatory reform, requiring a decision on a reactor license to be issued within 18 months. This will reduce regulatory uncertainty while maintaining nuclear safety. We will also reconsider the use of radiation limits that are not science based, impossible to achieve, and do not increase the safety of the American people. 

There are currently 54 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, with 28 states having at least one reactor. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), Unit 3 at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia entered serviced on July 31, 2023 as part of a two-unit expansion project. It has 1,117 megawatts (MW) of net summer electricity generation capacity.

Unit 4, a Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized light water reactor, began commercial operations in April 2024. It is now the largest nuclear power plant in the United States, with four reactors and a total of 4,536 MW net summer electricity generation capacity.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the birthplace of the anti-nuclear movement, there has also been a rethink of nuclear power as countries pursue more energy independence.

As CNBC reports, In just the last few weeks, Denmark announced plans to reconsider a 40-year ban on nuclear power as part of a major policy shift, Spain reportedly signaled an openness to review a shutdown of its nuclear plants and Germany dropped its long-held opposition to atomic power.

Denmark banned the use of atomic energy in 1985. It is important to point out that the Danish government is not considering a return to traditional nuclear power plants. Rather, The renewables-heavy Scandinavian country said in mid-May that it plans to analyze the potential benefits and risks of new advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors, to complement solar and wind technologies.

Spain’s Environmental Transition Minister said in late April that, while the government is proceeding with plans to retire nuclear reactors over the next decade, extensions beyond 2035 could not be ruled out.

The statement by Minister Sara Aagesen followed a catastrophic power outage affecting much of Spain, Portugal and southern France.

Germany, which closed the last of its three remaining nuclear plants in 2023, recently dropped its objection to French efforts to ensure that nuclear power is treated on a par with renewables in EU legislation, the Financial Times reported on May 19, citing French and German officials.

Authored by Felix Abt via VoiceFromRussia.ch,

Why Hitler Never Invaded Switzerland: The Power of Armed Neutrality

Switzerland’s survival during World War II was no accident—it was the result of a deliberate and calculated strategy of armed neutrality. While Hitler conquered most of Europe, Switzerland remained independent, unoccupied, and defiantly neutral, despite being surrounded by hostile Axis forces.

Nazi Germany had an invasion plan (Operation Tannenbaum), and Hitler despised Switzerland’s democracy. Yet, the invasion never came. Why? Because Switzerland masterfully balanced defiance with pragmatism, ensuring that the cost of occupation far outweighed any potential gains for the Third Reich.

This was not passive neutrality—it was active, armed, and uncompromising.

1. Neutrality as a Shield—Backed by Strength

Switzerland’s neutrality was not merely a diplomatic posture—it was a military doctrine. Unlike other neutral nations such as Belgium or the Netherlands, Switzerland did not rely on promises or treaties for protection. Instead, it deterred aggression through:

• A fully mobilized citizen army (850,000 troops at its peak—nearly 20% of the population).
• The National Reduit strategy, which turned the Swiss Alps into an impregnable fortress.
• A policy of total resistance—General Guisan declared in 1940 that Switzerland would fight to the last bullet rather than surrender.

Hitler understood that invading Switzerland would result in:

✔ A prolonged guerrilla war in the mountains.
✔ Diverting half a million troops from the Eastern Front.
✔ Losing critical banking and trade links.

Neutrality only worked because Switzerland was prepared to defend it at all costs.

2. Economic Concessions—But Never Submission

Switzerland struck pragmatic deals with Nazi Germany, but it never became a puppet state.

• Swiss banks processed Nazi gold (including looted assets), yet the country refused full integration into Hitler’s financial system.
• Swiss factories sold machinery to Germany, but never ceded direct Nazi control over production.
• Germany used Swiss tunnels for supply routes, but Switzerland strictly regulated shipments, rejecting unrestricted access.

These concessions kept Nazi Germany dependent on Swiss cooperation—making invasion economically counterproductive.

3. Diplomatic Tightrope—Mastering Strategic Maneuvering

Switzerland’s neutrality was not blind idealism—it was cold, calculated realpolitik:

• Espionage hub – Both the Allies and Axis used Switzerland for intelligence operations, yet Switzerland never openly sided with either.

• Humanitarian leverage – The Red Cross, based in Geneva, provided aid to POWs (including Germans), granting Switzerland moral influence.

• Refugee policies—a dark compromise – While Switzerland rejected many Jewish refugees, it sheltered thousands, carefully navigating Nazi pressure and international scrutiny.

Switzerland survived by never leaning too far toward either side, maintaining just enough independence to stay intact.

4. The Lesson: Neutrality Must Be Defended

Switzerland’s WWII survival proves that neutrality is meaningless without the strength to uphold it. Hitler did not spare Switzerland out of respect—he avoided invasion because:

✔ The military cost was too high.
✔ The economic benefits were too valuable to lose.
✔ Swiss resistance made occupation impractical.

Other neutral nations like Belgium, Denmark, and Norway were overrun because they lacked Switzerland’s unique combination of geography, military readiness, and ruthless pragmatism.

Fazit: Warum die Neutralität der Schweiz funktionierte

Switzerland’s survival was a masterclass in realpolitik:

1. It armed itself to the teeth—neutrality without strength is surrender.

2. It made deals but never surrendered sovereignty—economic cooperation ≠ occupation.

3. It played both sides without committing—diplomatic agility kept it alive.

Switzerland’s independence was not a gift from Hitler—it was secured through steel, strategy, and sheer stubbornness.

Neutrality is not passive. It is a battle—and Switzerland fought to win.

A Warning from History: Switzerland’s Neutrality Under Threat

Switzerland’s WWII strategy remains deeply relevant today. In an era of shifting global power struggles, small nations do not survive by hoping for mercy—they endure by ensuring that aggression remains too costly to pursue.

It is concerning that some Swiss elites appear to have forgotten the lessons of history—the very principles that enabled Switzerland, a nation shaped by adversity, to prosper despite its scarcity of natural resources, insufficient arable land to feed its inhabitants, and lack of access to the sea.

Take the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), Switzerland’s most influential newspaper. During WWII, its editor-in-chief, Willy Bretscher, was a staunch defender of neutrality, resisting both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Under his leadership, the NZZ balanced criticism with pragmatism, recognizing that Switzerland’s survival depended on rejecting ideological alignment.

Today, however, Eric Guyer, the NZZ’s editor-in-chief, has taken a sharply different stance. A fervent transatlanticist ideologue, he consistently targets Russia and China while openly dismissing neutrality—calling it a “burden” and leaning toward NATO integration. This shift is dangerous.

The Swiss people must push back!

Neutrality is not a relic—it is the foundation of Switzerland’s survival. If the country abandons its strategic independence, it risks becoming a pawn in great-power conflicts, much like smaller nations that fell to Hitler’s ambitions.

History’s warning is clear: A Switzerland that forgets its neutrality is a Switzerland that gambles with its survival.