Trump vs. Zelensky Round Two? Tensions initially looked to have cooled after the Zelensky-Vance-Trump February 28 verbal blow-up and showdown at the Oval Office (see clip below), but the spat is heating up once again, and is fast getting personal.

President Trump has slammed President Zelensky in a Wednesday post on Truth Social, saying of the Ukrainian leader, “if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired”… and “He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.”

The fiery denunciation appears in direct response to Zelensky the day prior rejecting Washington demands that Ukraine be ready to formally recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Trump continued, “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about!“

The White House has this week been making it clear that the United States is ready to walk away from the peace process if it doesn’t have willing partners. All of this pressure seems aimed squarely at Kiev, given also Vice President Vance’s Wednesday remarks while in India. 

“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told the press pool while on the trip. “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.” Freezing the war now would certainly give Russian forces a huge advantage, given the immense territory in the East they now hold.

Trump in the fresh social media post further demanded that now is the time to “GET IT DONE” – referring to achieving a lasting settlement. And he coupled this with another swipe at Zelensky, saying the man has “no cards to play” – which has been a US admin theme going back to February.

“I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!” – Trump concluded in the post.

Trump is clearly not happy in the wake of Zelensky’s Tuesday remarks wherein he asserted that Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances,

“There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters.

But Trump is now calling this out as essentially BS – saying that no, this is the very thing in question that must be talked about if the war is to end. On a practical level, Russia is never going to give up Crimea regardless, given it has long been the historic home of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea fleet, and has an overwhelming Russian-speaking population.

This was “Round One”…

.@VP: “Do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?”@POTUS: “You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards … You’re… pic.twitter.com/iTYyAmfuCJ

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 28, 2025

Will Zelensky respond to this latest dressing down by Trump? His PR handlers are likely urging him not to. The last time this happened in the wake of Zelensky’s visit to the White House, the US cut off weapons supplies and intelligence-sharing to Kiev for several days. But this spat and sparring could blow up further yet. Zelensky expressed hope that he could meet with Trump while in Rome for the Pope’s funeral on Saturday, but this is now looking less likely.

Vice President JD Vance while traveling in India on Wednesday issued some new and provocative remarks on the prospect of Ukraine peace, and Washington’s demands related to ending the war.

The NY Times headlined is coverage of Vance’s new remarks by somewhat disparagingly calling it a “Plan for Ukraine That Sharply Favors Russia” — given that it calls for ‘freezing’ the front lines, which would leave Russian forces in control of the majority of the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine.

The Vice President reiterated to reporters that the United States would “walk away” from engaging in a peace process if both Ukraine and Russia refused to accept the American terms. The NY Times concludes, “But President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was clearly the target.”

“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told the press pool. “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.”

Here is the brief list of basics that Washington is demanding for its outline of peace:

—a “freeze” of territorial lines in the three-plus year war

—no path to NATO membership for Ukraine

—formal recognition of Russia holding Crimea

But it was only yesterday that Ukraine’s President Zelensky said he has rejected the possibility of ceding over Crimea, after the Trump administration reportedly offered this ‘gift’ to Putin of US recognition of Russian sovereignty over the strategic peninsula which has long been home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet.

According to Ukrainian media:

Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances, President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a briefing in Kyiv on April 22.

“There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters.

Zelensky added, “As soon as talks about Crimea and our sovereign territories begin, the talks enter the format that Russia wants – prolonging the war – because it will not be possible to agree on everything quickly.”

Kiev has also recently accused Moscow of using negotiations as a smokescreen, also coming off the 30-hour Easter truce, which saw both sides accuse the other of many violations.

Commenting further of Vance’s fresh remarks, the NY Times writes, “It was the first time a U.S. official had publicly laid out a cease-fire deal in such stark terms and the comments appeared designed to increase pressure on Ukraine, which has long refused to accept Russia’s claims on its lands, particularly in Crimea.”

Ukraine is meanwhile telling its Western backers that it is “ready to negotiate, but not to surrender.” According to fresh words of Ukraine’s vice PM Yulia Svyrydenko, “There will be no agreement that hands Russia the stronger foundations it needs to regroup and return with greater violence. A full ceasefire—on land, in the air, and at sea—is the necessary first step. If Russia opts for a limited pause, Ukraine will respond in kind.”

JD Vance threatens to abandon Russia, Ukraine peace negotiations with Trump’s ‘final offer’ on the table https://t.co/AmTiuQMyHt pic.twitter.com/WLiUZX0pYL

— New York Post (@nypost) April 23, 2025

Something like this was just tried as part of the 30-hour Easter ceasefire, with apparent limited success. But Svyrydenko also hit back at Washington, saying “But our people will not accept a frozen conflict disguised as peace.” The high-ranking official has laid out the following key points of Ukraine’s position:

—Open to negotiations, but not surrender 

—No deal to allow Russia to regroup for future aggression

—Full ceasefire (land, air, sea) required as first step

—No “frozen conflict” masked as peace

—No Ukraine recognition of Crimea as Russian

—If no NATO membership, must get strong, binding security guarantees

The reality remains that if Zelensky can’t so much as admit that Crimea will be permanently in Russia’s hands, with no hope of Kiev ever getting it back, the prospect of a peace settlement happening anytime soon seems very remote. Moscow has made clear it will never give Crimea over to Ukraine, after the 2014 referendum, and most Western officials recognize this as a reality as well.

This is why the White House is willing to let go of Ukrainian claims on Crimea as well, given it is a realistic first step and major, pragmatic concession toward potentially ending the conflict.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was expected to lead a high-level American delegation for more Ukraine peace consultations among allies in London on Wednesday. But in the latest sign that White House patience is wearing thin, the American delegation became a no-show.

“European diplomats pulled the plug on high-level talks set for Wednesday about ending Russia’s war in Ukraine after top US diplomats abruptly canceled plans to attend,” The Washington Post reports.

Now there will only be lower-level talks, and a planned foreign minister’s meeting has been scrapped due to Rubio’s absence. All this highlights the clear rift between Washington and European partners, which has seen the US side push the idea of offering Russia recognition of its sovereignty over Crimea.

Ukraine has instead wanted to “discuss a complete ceasefire first and everything else later” – according to an official quoted in The Washington Post.

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy was supposed to host his peers, but will now merely “drop in” during lower level talks, according to the report. “The foreign minister-level meeting isn’t happening,” an unnamed diplomat told the Post.

“We’re hopeful as per the Rubio tweet that a meeting in London can happen soon, but without Witkoff, the secretary of state, the French and German foreign ministers, there’s no reason for the foreign secretary to chair,” the diplomat said.

According to more travel details from the report:

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been scheduled to fly to London on Tuesday night but canceled those plans midday. Steve Witkoff, a special envoy and close ally of President Donald Trump central to White House efforts to broker an end to the war, also dropped out. He will head to Moscow this week, according to the Russians.

Likely these optics of Witkoff going to Moscow instead of London will be seen by Kiev as further evidence it is losing its number one ally and supplier of weapons and intelligence.

And Vice President JD Vance while on a planned trip to India Wednesday reiterated the White House stance, saying “We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process.”

He continued in the remarks to reporters while visiting the Taj Mahal, “We’re going to see if the Europeans, the Russians and the Ukrainians are ultimately able to get this thing over the finish line.”

Rubio and Witkoff will not be attending the London talks with Ukraine and European leaders. Kellogg will attend.

Yesterday Zelensky appeared to reject the Crimea recognition part of Kellogg’s plan.

Kellogg’s plan is going down in flames, and he will take the L. Rubio and… pic.twitter.com/kXd4LgMjlt

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) April 23, 2025

The suggestion is that both sides would have to give up territories they control, and make mutual compromises, but still it’s clear that Russia is in the driver’s seat on the battlefield – having just this week also regained nearly all of Kursk territory, leaving Zelensky with no leverage there.

Ukraine has said it’s open to negotiations “but not to surrender”. President Putin has meanwhile in a surprise move reportedly offered to halt all front line fighting – or freeze it in place – for the sake of achieving peace; however, he would likely want major concessions from the West in return, starting with international recognition of Crimea as under Russia. And any ‘freeze’ of current lines leaves Russia in control of most of the Donbass region.

Stocks are spiking higher, and extending premarket gains, after the WSJ reported that the Trump administration is considering slashing its steep tariffs on Chinese imports – in some cases by more than half -in a bid to de-escalate tensions with Beijing that have roiled global trade and investment, according to people familiar with the matter.

According to the report, China tariffs were likely to come down to between roughly 50% and 65%, about half of their current levels. The administration is also considering a tiered approach similar to the one proposed by the House committee on China late last year: 35% levies for items the U.S. deems not a threat to national security, and at least 100% for items deemed as strategic to America’s interest. The bill proposed phasing in those levies over five years.

In retrospect, the WSJ report said nothing new – and appears to be an attempt to merely stay in the newsflow – after Trump said Tuesday he was willing to cut tariffs on Chinese goods, saying the 145% tariffs he imposed on China during his second term would come down. “But it won’t be zero,” he said. The announcement sent stocks surging afterhours.

On Wednesday, China signaled it was open to trade talks with the U.S., though Beijing warned it wouldn’t negotiate under continued threats from the White House. In China’s policymaking circles, Trump’s comments Tuesday were viewed as a sign of him folding, the WSJ reported citing people who consult with Chinese officials said.

The expressions of openness to a deal from both sides represent a shift from much of the past month, as the world’s two largest economies exchanged reciprocal tariff increases and testy words, helping push stock markets around the world to their worst weeks in many years.

President Trump hasn’t made a final determination, the people said, adding that the discussions remain fluid and several options are on the table.

Separately, and at almost the exact same time, the WSJ also piled in on the other key topic du jour, namely the “explanation” why Trump decided not to fire Jerome Powell – as Trump also revealed he would not do yesterday. According to the WSJ, the White House had engaged lawyers to see how Chair Powell could be removed from office. However, Treasury Secretary Bessent and Commerce Secretary Lutnick are said to have stepped in and raised concerns about the market implications of such a move. Some more details:

As Trump’s criticism of the Fed chair ramped up over the last week, White House lawyers privately reviewed legal options for attempting to remove Powell, including whether they could do so for “cause,” according to people familiar with the matter. The laws that created the Federal Reserve say Fed governors can only be removed before their term ends for cause, which courts have generally interpreted to mean malfeasance or impropriety. Finding a pretext for dismissing Powell would have edged the White House closer to a dramatic escalation with the central bank.

Those discussions came to a halt early this week when Trump told his senior aides that he wouldn’t try to oust Powell. His decision came after interventions from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who warned Trump that such a move could trigger far-reaching market chaos and a messy legal fight, the people said. Lutnick also told the president that efforts to fire the Fed chair likely wouldn’t lead to any practical change on interest rates because other members of the Fed’s board would likely approach monetary policy similarly to Powell, one of the people said.

While there was nothing actually new in the WSJ reports, they validated the good news that had pushed stocks up sharply higher overnight, and the result was further gains this morning which sent the S&P up more than 3% and fast approaching the first key CTA buy trigger around 5460.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

If We Could Turn Back Time

I think this is the second time I’ve used a Cher song in the T-report (must be a guilty pleasure of mine). I also think that some of my colleagues at Academy have some firsthand knowledge of the filming of the video. In any case, as headline after headline hit last night, this is the song that kept popping into my head.

If we could turn back time?

If we went back a few weeks ago and had announced:

• 10% tariffs on every nation (as “reciprocal”) with 90 days to negotiate deals.
• All USMCA compliant goods exempted.
• A variety of important tech exempted.
• Something harsh, but manageable in the interim, with China.
• Complete faith in the independence of the Fed.

How bearish would I have been?

Would recession still be on the table? Possibly, but the “capital R” recession would have seemed unlikely and Depression would not have been something I would have contemplated putting in writing.

Would 20% to 30% down on stocks been my call? Definitely not.

But we didn’t!

Do These Pants Make Me Look Bad?

I think in all human history, the only “correct” answer to this question is NO! The real answer might be yes, but that has rarely helped any relationship. Even, avoiding the question by saying that the pants bring out the color of your eyes, tends to be taken for a no.

This administration has spent the better part of the past month telling every country that they look awful in their outfits! That whatever they had on, was just hideous.

Now, in the car ride to the event, we’ve decided that maybe the outfit wasn’t that bad?

Bessent speaks at 10:00 am today. It seems likely that he might bring up some things the Treasury can do to help the bond market (there is chatter about announcing an operation twist to help support the long end of the yield curve).

We can continue to rally on the back of this new “softer” approach from the administration. Some of the people in the admin seemed to have disappeared from the talk show circuit. There is clearly some “repositioning” of policy.

Maybe as we wrote about this weekend, in Dealpalooza, the admin will back off and make some deals (even if they aren’t particularly effective). More importantly, maybe the admin will pivot to Domestic Production for National Security.

That pivot would be welcome and maybe the self-imposed de-escalation in tariffs is a step in that direction?

I find it difficult to see how this backtracking will help “win” big concessions in trade deals. To me, it confirms, that we over-reached, over-estimated our relative strength and have had to backtrack. That isn’t great for the U.S. negotiating position, at least not for those countries who already felt that the U.S. had miscalculated. Recent actions will only confirm that opinion for those countries.

But maybe it let’s us pivot to something more domestic in nature. Something that isn’t a zero-sum game.

That would be positive and I could embrace this rally further.

It seems plausible to expect more positive headlines today, especially from Bessent.

But, the reality is, I think the U.S. is in a far weaker position globally today, than it was a month or two ago. We, unfortunately, cannot go back in time, and the things that have been said or done, cannot be unsaid (they can be undone, but that isn’t the same).

Had we just started here a month or so ago, markets would be in better shape, and many friendships wouldn’t have been tested the way they were. But we aren’t.

So, I’ll move to cautiously optimistic that the worst is behind us on the policy front.

I’m not sure the damage of what has been done and what is still on the table (I think there are still tariffs in place), has been priced into equities after these recent bounces. The bond market may also have to shift to thinking about deficits again, as those concerns may reach “headline” status again, if everything else calms down.

I do feel bad that I no longer can claim to have any idea of what tariffs are in place, on what, with who, but I suspect some of those in charge of enforcing the policy no longer do either, as it has been “evolving” so rapidly.

Good luck, enjoy the respite, it is okay to be optimistic, but there is some risk that after the shorts are squeezed and reality sinks in, markets turn lower again.

Days after Scott Bessent dazzled JP Morgan with closed-door comments (aka not Main Street) that the tariff standoff with China is unsustainable, the US Treasury Secretary is set to deliver comments on Wednesday at the IIF Global Outlook Forum regarding the state of the global financial system as the Trump administration seeks to tamp down rhetoric over China.

According to a copy of Bessent’s prepared remarks, he is set to tell the IIF that “America First does not mean America Alone,” and that the International Monetary Fund must prioritize economic and financial sustainability. He is calling for IMF and World Bank reforms after “mission creep,” and will say that the Trump administration wants to work with them.

“Going forward, the Trump Administration will leverage U.S. leadership and influence at these institutions and push them to accomplish their important mandates,” Bessent said, adding “The United States will also demand that the management and staff of these institutions be accountable for demonstrating real progress.”

According to a report by the WSJ minutes before Bessent’s speech, the Trump administration “is considering slashing its steep tariffs on Chinese imports—in some cases by more than half—in a bid to de-escalate tensions with Beijing.”

President Trump hasn’t made a final determination, the people said, adding that the discussions remain fluid and several options are on the table.

One senior White House official said the China tariffs were likely to come down to between roughly 50% and 65%. The administration is also considering a tiered approach similar to the one proposed by the House committee on China late last year: 35% levies for items the U.S. deems not a threat to national security, and at least 100% for items deemed as strategic to America’s interest, some of the people said. The bill proposed phasing in those levies over five years. -WSJ

Watch Treasury Secretary Bessent speak live here (due to start at 1000ET):

Bessent’s comments also come after President Donald Trump softened his tone on the unfolding trade war between the world’s two largest economies – to which China’s foreign ministry spokesman, Guo Jiakun replied “our doors are wide open.“

According to Tuesday comments by Trump, “very high” tariffs on Chinese imports will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero.”

“I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together, so I think it’s going to work out very well,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

Trump notably excluded China from a pause on “reciprocal” tariffs that were extended to other trading partners in order to allow them time to negotiate – blaming China’s retaliatory actions for its exclusion.

The China tariffs include a 125% reciprocal tariff on top of Trump’s original 20% tariff related to the fentanyl trade. Combined with pre-existing Section 301 tariffs, some Chinese goods face levies as high as 245%.

European flash April PMIs were ugly this morning with the Euro-area-wide headline composite measure -0.8 to 50.1, and with weakness concentrated in French and German services activity.

• Euro Area Composite PMI (Apr, Flash): 50.1, consensus 50.2, last 50.9

  • Euro Area Manufacturing PMI (Apr, Flash): 48.7, consensus 47.4, last 48.6

  • Euro Area Services PMI (Apr, Flash): 49.7, consensus 50.5, last 51.0

• France Composite PMI (Apr, Flash): 47.3, consensus 47.8, last 48.0

• Germany Composite PMI (Apr, Flash): 49.7, consensus 50.5, last 51.3.

• UK Composite PMI (Apr, Flash): 48.2,  consensus 50.4, last 51.5.

The manufacturing sector displayed surprising signs of resilience despite the imposition of US tariffs earlier this month (stock of purchases (+0.5pt to 45.6), quantity of purchases (+1.3pt to 47.4), and stock of finished goods (+1.4pt to 47.8) all improved). The details of the manufacturing print and commentary provided in the press release suggest that activity in the sector was likely supported by front-loading (possibly reflecting strategic shipments during the 90-day pause on the country-specific component of the US reciprocal tariffs) and restocking.

However, there was a clear drop-off in the forward-looking business expectations measures.

The responses for today’s flash PMI reports were collected between the 9th and 22nd of April, implying that the majority of the responses should reflect both the reciprocal tariff announcement and implementation of 10% baseline and critical industry tariffs, as well as the 90-day reciprocal tariff delay on April 9th.

In the US, expectations were for weakness in both Services and Manufacturing surveys, following a slew of dismal ‘soft’ data from Regional Fed surveys.

However, reflecting similar trajectories to Europe, US Manufacturing PMI beat expectations, rising to 50.7 from 50.2 (better than the 49.0 contraction expected) while Services disappointed, dropping from 54.4 to 51.4 (below the 52.6 expected)…

The tariff front-running that was seen in Europe appears to have been echoed in the US Manufacturing sector.

However, just as in Europe, forward-looking expectations for output tumbled… The latest reading was the joint-second lowest since September 2020, surpassed only by October 2022.

Commenting on the flash PMI data, Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence said:

“The early flash PMI data for April point to a marked slowing of business activity growth at the start of the second quarter, accompanied by a slump in optimism about the outlook. At the same time, price pressures intensified, creating a headache for a central bank which is coming under increasing pressure to shore up a weakening economy just as inflation looks set to rise. 

“Output rose in April at its slowest pace since December 2023, indicating that the US economy is growing at a modest annualized rate of just 1.0%. Manufacturing is broadly stagnating as any beneficial effect of tariffs are offset by heightened economic uncertainty, supply chain concerns and falling exports, while the services economy is slowing amid weakened demand growth, notably in terms of exports such as travel and tourism. 

“Confidence about business conditions in the year ahead has meanwhile deteriorated sharply, worsening among manufacturers and service providers alike, largely thanks to growing concerns about the impact of recent government policy announcements.

“Tariffs are meanwhile being cited as the key cause of higher prices, though labor costs are also reportedly continuing to rise, causing companies to hike their selling prices at a pace not seen for over a year. In manufacturing, the rate of price increase is the steepest for nearly two-and-a-half years. These higher prices will inevitably feed through to higher consumer inflation, potentially limiting the scope for the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates at a time when a slowing economy looks in need of a boost.”

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to provide laid-off federal probationary employees with a written notice stating that they were not terminated for performance reasons but that it was part of a government-wide termination effort.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup also ordered Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Charles Ezell not to tell agencies to terminate “any federal employee or group of federal employees.”

The judge wrote on April 18 that the firings of probationary workers followed an OPM template that states they were fired for job performance reasons.

“Termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant,” wrote Alsup, who is based in San Francisco. “The stain created by OPM’s pretense will follow each employee through their careers and will limit their professional opportunities.”

The latest directive from the judge is part of a lawsuit that was filed by labor unions and nonprofits contesting the mass firings of thousands of probationary workers in February under President Donald Trump.

Probationary workers are typically new hires or employees who were recently promoted and who must serve a trial period of one to two years before they receive full-term, or permanent, employment.

“If a particular termination was in fact carried out after an individualized evaluation of that employee’s performance or fitness, the Chief Human Capital Officer (or equivalent) of that agency may instead submit … a declaration, under oath and seal, stating so and providing the individual reasoning underpinning that termination,” Alsup also wrote, setting a May 8 deadline to do so.

On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an earlier order from Alsup that required the administration to return to work some of the terminated probationary federal employees who were terminated. The justices were responding to the Trump administration’s emergency appeal of Alsup’s ruling

The court’s order involved a technical legal assessment of the right, or standing, of several nonprofit associations to sue over the firings. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, said they would have kept the judge’s order in place.

The groups who filed the lawsuit argued that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s separation of powers clause and that OPM had lacked “the constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority to order federal agencies to terminate employees in this fashion that Congress has authorized those agencies to hire and manage.”

“Notwithstanding this lack of legal authority, OPM ordered federal agencies throughout the nation, including in this District, to wipe out their ranks of probationary employees without any regard to applicable statutes,” said their complaint, filed in February.

The Trump administration lawyers, in their emergency petition to the Supreme Court, said that the district judge had acted unconstitutionally.

The judge’s “extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the Executive Branch’s powers of personnel management on the flimsiest of grounds and the hastiest of timelines,“ lawyers for the government wrote. ”That is no way to run a government.”

Separately, a federal judge in Maryland overseeing a similar lawsuit brought by 19 states ruled that the Trump administration did not follow laws regarding mass terminations of federal employees.

That order was overturned this past week by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Dave Huber via The College Fix,

Making the rounds this past week were comments by a Mexican archeologist regarding the discovery of a Mayan altar at which child sacrifices were performed.

As reported by CBS News, the altar, found in Tikal National Park, showed “the remains of three children not older than 4 years,” according to the scholar who led the discovery team.

The savagery of how such sacrifices were performed, however, is not brought up. Instead, we merely read how Tikal was “a cosmopolitan center,” a “center of cultural convergence,” and how the altar had a “figure representing the Storm Goddess.”

CBS also managed to get a comment from an archeologist not affiliated with the findings at Tikal. How come? Probably because María Belén Méndez of the National Autonomous University of Mexico said the child sacrifices were merely “a practice.”

“It’s not that [its practitioners] were violent,” Belén Méndez said, just that sacrifices were “their way of connecting with the celestial bodies.”

As Reason Senior Editor (and former College Fix contributor) Robby Soave put it, “mostly peaceful child sacrifice”?

Now, imagine CBS News finding some deep-woods gentleman in, say, Middle-Of-Nowhere Arkansas. He’s holding several individuals captive on his property and forcing them to work for him and tend to his land:

Professor Antoinette Whitebread told CBS News it’s not that this man was practicing slavery. It was just his way of connecting with the Bible. After all, in Leviticus and Joshua we read “Moses tells the Israelites on the way to the Promised Land how they should acquire and keep slaves,” and that “some of you shall always be slaves.”

In the the New Testament, Ephesians notes that Paul said “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling.”

We have to imagine this as of course CBS would never run such a segment — because it’s ridiculous. The West long ago rejected such justifications (if they ever really existed in the first place), and there’s no way CBS or other news outlets would treat this hypothetical without referencing the inherent barbarity.

Oppression studies dictates that Western values, culture, and even science aren’t any better than others’, and since they’ve been the (positive) focus for so long, the focus must now shift elsewhere — but only with favorable narratives.

New Zealand, for example, tells us “indigenous ways of knowing” are on par with modern Western science methods. The University of Massachusetts Amherst got a $30 million federal grant in 2023 to “braid” indigenous knowledge into science. And a required nursing class at the University of Alberta teaches about “indigenous ways” of understanding “health … and being one with nature.”

In the meantime, high school and college students are taught that the West’s history of “settler-colonialism” is responsible for just about any conceivable ill. Courses and workshops on “whiteness,” “white supremacy,” “white fragility,” etc. cover all that and then some.

The irony of the CBS story is that 1) the Maya/Teotihuacan never encountered Europeans (their eventual successors, the Aztec, wouldn’t meet Cortez and Co. until 700 years later), and 2) the Maya actually were quite advanced mathematically and scientifically. 

Thus, even on an oppression studies basis, there’s no reason to sugarcoat their heinous practice of human sacrifice.

But whoever said oppression studies and its adherents make any sense?

The ongoing trade war is poised to deliver a negative shock to US growth, prompting the International Monetary Fund to slash its 2025 forecast earlier Tuesday. This gloomier outlook has sharpened our focus on the once high-flying industrial metals market—now showing signs of weakness—particularly the copper market.

Goldman analyst Adam Gillard provided clients with a snapshot of current conditions in the copper market, highlighting tight physical supply in China and continued strength in domestic demand.

However, Gillard cautioned that ongoing global industrial production weakness and declining Chinese exports—driven by the deepening trade war—could tip the market into surplus.

The analyst outlined four micro data points on the copper markets for clients to better gauge sentiment:

1. US cathode imports: YTD imports from BL data 408k MT implying an “over-import” of ~100k MT vs market expectations of ~300k MT (by June). If this run rate continues LME should tighten despite the likely tariff related demand shock.

2. Scrap: US scrap spreads remain under pressure as rising discounts erode the CME premium (US scrap is priced off CMX). March exports unchanged sequentially despite ARB strength; we don’t have April export data yet but this will be key given lower US exports (FY production ~542k MT contained) were key to the bull thesis.

3. Chinese demand: Ostensibly strong; YTD demand +10% due to production strength (from increased smelter capacity), seasonally adjusted stock draws (in part due to tariff related tolling exports) and strong net imports (despite deeply negative SHFE / LME import arb). Think this figure inflated by SMM production numbers (base affect) but a strong number nonetheless.

4. Positioning: Although our CTA model is running close to max short LME net spec at 28k is above the Aug24 low of 16k, and China appear to be still be running long on Shanghai (due to strong domestic demand).

The question remains whether copper bulls like Kostas Bintas, Trafigura Group’s former co-head of metals and now with Mercuria Energy Group, and/or Carlyle Group’s Jeff Currie (former Goldman boss of commodities) are still bullish on the industrial metal—or if the trade war has delayed their thesis of much higher prices. 

LME Copper…

. . .