Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

Whatever happened to the Donald Trump and Elon Musk visit to Fort Knox?

You’ll recall the buzz from earlier this year. Trump and Musk loudly announced they were going to visit the U.S. bullion depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky to make sure the U.S. gold was actually there. The press was invited to tag along. Musk claimed that his DOGE team was ready to “audit” the gold bars to see that there were none missing. I had my own views on the announcement (described below) but I certainly agreed this would be the mother of all photo ops.

For the record, the U.S. Treasury holds 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold in the U.S. reserve position. Slightly less than half of this gold is stored in Fort Knox. The remainder is mostly stored in a secure vault at West Point, New York. The exact location of that vault is classified although I happen to know where it is. A small amount is held at the Denver Mint for coinage purposes. Legally the U.S. Treasury owns the gold reserve, but I point out that the U.S. Army actually controls it since almost all of the gold is stored on two Army bases – Fort Knox and West Point.

A Fort Knox Extravaganza

None of this nuance about storage and location deterred Trump and Musk. In the popular imagination, all of the gold is in Fort Knox. That’s where they were headed to prove once and for all that the gold was actually there. Elon Musk planned to livestream the entire visit using his Starlink satellite system. Trump vaguely threatened that if any gold were missing, there would be disastrous consequences for any wrongdoers who removed it. The plot was set. The drama seemed irresistible.

As an aside, I was hoping that Trump and Musk were each reasonably fit and had been lifting some free weights. Gold is heavy! In fact, it’s one of the most dense materials in the periodic table of the elements, leaving aside radioactive elements like uranium and some of the trace elements that only exist in minute atomic-level quantities. A standard 400-Troy Ounce bar weighs 27.4 pounds in the English system. I’ve lifted a few during my visits to secure gold vaults. I always smile for the camera, but inside it takes a lot of strength to keep the gold bar in the air. I was concerned that Trump or Musk might strain their backs putting on a show for the press.

Trump mentioned the proposed visit to Fort Knox in a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. He mentioned it to reporters aboard Air Force One. He mentioned his plan again in remarks before the National Governors Association Conference and at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) annual meeting.

Then suddenly the whole story went away. Trump never mentioned it again after February 26. Musk went radio silent on the topic after April 6. There was no visit to Fort Knox. There was no announcement about why there would be no visit. It was as if the whole story never happened. It just went away.

Now, Elon Musk is leaving his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). That was always in the cards. Musk’s appointment was as a temporary government employee; he was always going to leave about now. But why not put on a memorable gold show during his time in office? It simply never happened.

The Question Is, Why?

Let’s answer that beginning with the obvious point that the gold is all there. There have been rumors of missing and stolen gold almost from the day the bullion depository was built. Some suggested that European bankers stole the gold in the 1930s. Others said the Rockefeller clan looted the gold. The 1964 James Bond film Goldfinger is built around a plot to steal the gold.

This speculation makes for good rumor-mongering but, in fact, the gold is all present and accounted for. The last public audit was conducted in 1974, but annual audits are done by the U.S. Treasury (although the results are not made public). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said, “I can tell the American people … all the gold is there.”

If the gold is there (and it is), then why not go ahead with the visit? It would be great PR in any event and would reassure a skeptical American public.

A Money Monopoly

There are two reasons why the visit did not proceed and why you won’t hear more about it.

The first one is that the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve (Fed) do not want to call attention to gold’s role as a monetary asset. The Fed (along with commercial banks) has a monopoly on the money printing press. The government has done everything possible to diminish and deny the role of gold as money, beginning with FDR’s confiscation of gold from U.S. citizens in 1933 and continuing through Nixon’s closing of the gold window for foreign trading partners in 1971. At this point, we have three generations of students since 1971 who know almost nothing about gold.

Gold is not taught in economics classes. Gold is not discussed in economic or Fed policy circles. Younger students don’t even know that the U.S. was ever on a gold standard or that gold once circulated freely as a form of money (usually in ¼-ounce or 8-gram coins). The government has eradicated any memory of gold as money. Why bring it back to life with a high-profile visit to Fort Knox? Better just to ignore gold if you want to maintain your money monopoly.

Of course, gold is a monetary asset. As noted, the U.S. has 8,133 metric tonnes (tonnes). Germany has 3,351 tonnes. Italy has 2,452 tonnes. France has 2,437 tonnes. Russia has 2,333 tonnes. And China reports that they have 2,292 tonnes although they are non-transparent and probably have much more. Among multilateral institutions, the European Central Bank has 506 tonnes and the IMF has 2,814 tonnes. If all of the members of the Euro area including the ECB combined their gold holdings, they would have 10,770 tonnes. All of these holdings should be put in the context of 36,118 tonnes, which is the amount of combined official gold holdings of every country in the world.

The Top 10 Gold Reserve Holdings By Country

Why have such large gold holdings persisted for a century or more in some cases and increase on a continual basis if gold is not money? The question answers itself. Gold is a form of money.

It’s simply the case that major countries don’t want to acknowledge it because they want to maintain their monopoly on paper money, or they are still acquiring it and don’t want to spike the price, at least until they complete their acquisition programs. One of the Marx Brothers’ classic punchlines was, “Who ya gonna believe … me or your own eyes?” When it comes to gold, I believe my own eyes. Official holdings of 36,118 metric tonnes of gold bullion tell me all I need to know.

The Leasing Scheme

There’s another even more insidious reason why Trump and Musk backed off from their Fort Knox visit. Even allowing for the fact that the gold is actually in Fort Knox the deeper question is whether that gold is leased?

Gold leasing is an established market but not well-understood by non-specialists. Even experts in stocks and bonds know little about gold leasing. Basically, it’s a way for a gold holder to earn a return. Gold does not pay dividends or interest like stocks and bonds. But you can lease it to a third party and make 2% or so annually in lease payments. The party leasing the gold does not back up a truck and take it away. The gold stays in the original vault. Gold leasing is a purely paper transaction.

The gold lessor gets the lease payment. The lessee gets what’s called a right of rehypothecation. That means the lessee can lease the same gold to another party. And that party can lease it to a fourth party and so on. With rehypothecation in play, one metric tonne of gold could support 100 metric tonnes of “paper gold” transactions.

At each step in the chain, a party acts like it owns the gold for its own purposes of further leases or sales of “unallocated” gold. Everyone has price exposure and can make money if the price of gold goes up or lose money if the price of gold goes down. The same principle applies to gold futures, gold options, gold swaps, gold ETFs and an entire world of gold derivative transactions. The point is that the paper gold world is leveraged about 100:1 to the physical gold world starting with the physical gold in Fort Knox.

The danger is obvious. It’s no different than any run on the bank when it comes to bank deposits. If a group of paper gold investors suddenly demands physical delivery, the counterparties have to buy gold in the spot market since the leased gold is not in their physical possession. The gold market is liquid, but not liquid enough to support delivery if there were demand for more physical than a small slice of the paper gold market. A full-scale gold panic could emerge quickly. The spot price of gold would go to $25,000 per ounce before an investor could yell “buy!”

I take it that someone (possibly Scott Bessent) sat down and patiently explained the paper gold reality to Trump and Musk.

Once you understand how the market actually works, you quickly back away from putting on a show at Fort Knox. For the masterminds of the paper gold market at JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, the less said about gold the better. They need to keep the game going. And that’s why Trump and Musk won’t be showing up at Fort Knox anytime soon.

For the rest of us, the solution to this problem is simple – buy gold.

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Why is it that the organic apple must wear a label, pay a certification fee, and carry a price premium—while the conventional apple, grown with chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, is simply called an apple?

What if we flipped that?

What if the organic apple was just an apple—and the one grown with chemical inputs had to be labeled chemically grown? Why does the burden fall on the farmer doing the right thing, while the one using harmful practices skates by without warning, cost, or consequence?

Why does the farmer who’s working with nature—protecting our water, preserving our soil, and nourishing our communities—have to pay extra, while the farmer who’s polluting gets to do so for free? Why is the financial burden on the one not doing the damage?

Our rules make it harder to farm responsibly. A chemical farmer can spray right up to the edge of their fence line, but an organic farmer must give up 25 feet on all sides—and sell that buffer zone as non-organic. How does that make any sense?

We claim to want cleaner food, cleaner water, and a healthier planet. But the regulations say otherwise. They punish the farmer doing what’s best for humanity and reward the one taking shortcuts that come with long-term consequences.

Meanwhile, foreign-owned corporations—some with deeply troubling records abroad—are seeking permission to be traded on U.S. stock exchanges. Others continue selling toxic chemical products in the U.S. that are banned in their own countries. Why are we opening our doors to this? Why do we reward bad actors while the honest, hardworking American farmer drowns in red tape?

The system is rigged. It pushes farmers toward chemical dependency—not because they want to—but because doing the right thing is cost-prohibitive and over-regulated. Organic farmers pay annual fees and a percentage of their sales just to carry the label. They’re taxed not just financially, but logistically and emotionally—while conventional farmers get a free pass to pollute.

Imagine if we flipped it. What if the farmer spraying chemicals paid for that privilege? What if the cost and the burden were placed where the actual harm occurs? Wouldn’t that make more sense—for humans, animals, pollinators, soil, and future generations?

Consider this: research has shown that living within a mile of a golf course significantly increases your risk of Parkinson’s. Why? Because of a widely used herbicide that’s banned in other countries, yet still sold here—often by foreign companies that won’t allow its use in their own homeland. Why do we allow that without tax, penalty, or even a warning label?

Even within the regenerative and organic movements, we’re adding roadblocks. Equity audits have been folded into some certification programs. While I believe all men are created equal in the image of God, blending social justice metrics into a farming standard makes the transition away from chemical farming even less accessible to the very farmers we’re trying to reach. If we want to include social goals, let’s create a separate certification for those values. But let farming standards focus on soil, animals, and food.

On my farm, as on many others, men and women often do different jobs. Pay parity audits don’t reflect that nuance. Racial equity standards can also become murky when most of the labor force is a different ethnicity than the family that owns the farm. I used to joke, “I’m the only white person here—and I’m the one paying to keep this place going. I don’t even get paid—so is that equity?”

And here’s the bigger question: why are we trusting distant bureaucracies to keep our food safe instead of trusting our neighbors and fellow American farmers?

We’ve been conditioned to believe that federal regulation protects us, but often, it protects itself. Bureaucracy and red tape don’t make food healthier—they make it harder and more expensive to grow. They widen the gap between citizens and their food, and between intention and impact.

We are so far removed from functioning as a constitutional republic that many Americans don’t even remember that’s what we are. But it’s time we return to that foundation—where power is decentralized, communities are strong, and individuals take responsibility for what they grow, eat, and support.

We need less regulation and more relationship. We need to know who’s growing our food. We need to support local systems—small farms, medium farms, and large local farms that feed their communities. We need to rebuild a robust hub-and-spoke food network that serves people, not just centralized corporations.

Why is raw milk illegal in many states, while shelf-stable, ultra-processed food-like substances—linked to chronic disease—are perfectly legal? We’re afraid of the wrong bogeyman. We’re being lulled to sleep by the illusion of convenience, but there are real consequences: to our health, our water, our soil, and the survival of the American family farm.

If we want a food system that supports health, freedom, and regeneration, we must stop rewarding the polluters and punishing the protectors.

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

Authored by Kenneth Tashky via The Epoch Times,

When it was recently reported that protesters disrupted Columbia University’s graduation ceremony, one might ask: which one?

In addition to its main commencement, Columbia hosts no fewer than 10 separate graduation ceremonies, often referred to as affinity graduations. These include distinct events for black, Latino, Asian, LGBTQIA+, Jewish, native, international, disabled, and first-generation/low-income students.

While Columbia claims that it has a “long history” of offering race-based and other segregated graduation ceremonies, this practice only dates back to 2005.

To put this in perspective, Columbia was founded in 1754. For more than 250 years, the university held a single, unified commencement ceremony for all graduates, celebrating their shared academic achievements without division by race, ethnicity, or gender identity.

Rather than continuing to use commencement to reinforce the institution’s collective mission and foster cohesion around a common student experience, Columbia has chosen to separate and segregate students based on race and other identity-based characteristics.

Columbia is not alone. Numerous institutions, including Princeton University, American University, Penn State University, University of Colorado, Fresno State University, and the College of William and Mary, host graduation ceremonies based on what a student looks like, their sexual preferences, who they pray to, or their ancestry.

These programs prioritize individual identity over the collective and common student experience, separating the campus into demographic silos and undermining the shared values, accomplishments, and sense of community that higher education is meant to cultivate.

Segregating students in this manner is not just limited to graduation programs. Across higher education, students are sorted into housing, orientation programs, and campus organizations based on their race and other identifying factors.

The National Association of Scholars has described the practice as “neo-segregation,” resembling a modern, albeit more palatable, version of the discriminatory and unconstitutional “separate but equal” doctrine.

Aided by college institutions, minority students are “simply conscripted to the new racially segregated normal.”

What is astonishing about this practice is that it’s being carried out by the very same higher education industry that has long proclaimed the indispensable value of achieving student body diversity and inclusion.

We have been told for years that creating diversity in higher education is essential to the educational experience and prepares students to participate in an increasingly complex and pluralistic society.

According to Lee Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan and Columbia University, racial diversity “is vital” to the student experience. “Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-rounded education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.”

Paul Alivisatos, president of the University of Chicago, regards racial diversity and inclusion as essential to his institution’s educational mission, describing it as “foundational to our academic success” and “providing a transformative education for our students.”

Yet while higher education continues to champion racial diversity as fundamental to its mission, its current practices reveal a troubling contradiction.

Institutions cannot achieve the fundamental promise that diversity fosters greater connection and mutual understanding between students if they are promoting or permitting division and disunity based on the very characteristics diversity is purportedly intended to embrace.

If diversity is to have any real value to the educational experience, it cannot be realized by dividing students into demographic groups and “celebrating” them in isolation.

Rather, it requires bringing people together—across lines of race, class, gender, and ideology—to engage in the hard, messy and challenging work of learning from one another as individuals.

More than two decades ago, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, issued a blistering dissenting opinion warning higher education against segregating students based on race under the pretense of promoting student diversity and inclusion.

Skeptical of using race as a factor in college admissions to engineer diversity, Scalia strongly denounced “those universities that talk the talk of multiculturalism and racial diversity in the courts but walk the walk of tribalism and racial segregation on their campuses through minority-only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies.”

At the time, some may have discounted Justice Scalia’s warning as the cynical musings of a conservative jurist. Now, with the benefit of time, his words appear prophetic and cast a long shadow over the current trend of racial segregation prevalent throughout higher education.

Scalia’s cautionary note also raises legitimate questions about the value and necessity previously attributed to achieving student body diversity if, once attained, students and their institutions conspire to impose self-segregating programs and activities.

Ultimately, higher education cannot have it both ways. It cannot, on the one hand, champion diversity as a unifying force, fundamental to its educational mission, while on the other promote and encourage practices that fragment students along lines of identity and difference, undermining the very mission it claims to uphold.

Justice Scalia was prophetic, indeed.

*  *  *

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

President Trump’s trade war with China is set to deliver a blow to U.S. drone enthusiasts—and potentially commercial users—as Chinese drone giant DJI withholds the release of its new Mavic 4 Pro from the American market.

Nikkei Asia reports the new Mavic 4 Pro model won’t be released in the U.S. due to Trump’s tariffs and heightened security restrictions. The $2,000 drone, launched in other major markets on May 13, features a 100-megapixel camera and advanced imaging capabilities. 

One gimbal. Three lenses. Unlimited creative control using the Infinity Gimbal with 360° rotation🎥✨

See how the DJI Mavic 4 Pro captures cinematic shots across all focal lengths — from BTS to final edit.

Created by IG/ashiakseem#DJIMavic4Pro #AerialCinematography… pic.twitter.com/v2TMmEaX8F

— DJI (@DJIGlobal) May 22, 2025

“As with many global companies, our market strategy has to respond to local conditions and the environment surrounding the industry,” DJI told Nikkei, adding, “We are monitoring the situation and proactively looking for a solution.”

DJI is also concerned about the possibility of being blacklisted without due process under new U.S. security rules that require a review of Chinese-made technology products. 

Several U.S. government entities have restricted or banned the use of DJI drones over national security concerns, particularly regarding data privacy and ties to the Communist Chinese.

Here’s a list of federal-level bands:

Department of Defense (DoD):

• In 2017, the U.S. Army issued a ban on the use of DJI drones due to “cyber vulnerabilities.”

• In 2022, the DoD listed DJI as a Chinese military company, effectively blacklisting it under Section 1260H of the FY21 NDAA.

Department of Commerce:

• In December 2020, DJI was added to the Entity List, restricting U.S. companies from exporting technology to DJI without a special license. This move cited DJI’s role in human rights abuses involving surveillance in Xinjiang.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced multiple bills to ban federal agencies from purchasing DJI drones, including the American Security Drone Act, which aims to restrict federal procurement of drones from “foreign adversaries” like China.  

Instead of the Mavic 4 Pro, DJI will consider rolling out other new models, though the company did not specify which ones.

A spokesperson noted, “We will address various uncertainties to mitigate their impact and work actively to ensure customers can access our products without delay.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. faces an urgent need to reshore its small drone supply chain, as China maintains the number one spot. The race to dominate the 2030s will be defined by control over critical technologies—drones, EVs, space systems, clean tech, semiconductors, and mobile devices. Right now, the U.S. is playing catch-up.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities (full pdf available here)

Just last weekend, we discussed Confusion versus Uncertainty. We have a long list of potential market moving-events, many of which might be at pivotal moments.

• The Big Beautiful Bill. Not letting tax cuts expire is crucial. Additional targeted tax cuts would also be helpful – especially anything that would drive growth and innovation.
   
  • The new “twist” here was the apparent falling out, played out via social media, between President Trump and Elon Musk. It seems to have quieted down, which is a good thing. While we are correct to worry about the deficit, at this point in time, moving the bill along seems more important. Will Thursday’s “social media storm” be a one-time event, or do we need to think about potential ramifications for the Trump agenda without Musk’s support? I don’t think so, but it is a concern.
     
• Tariffs.
   
  • With July 8th approaching rather quickly, and only the U.K. deal signed, it seems unlikely that many more fully done deals will be inked before the deadline. On the other hand, the market is pricing in a “worst” case of extensions on the pause. We get some deals announced with a few countries and we get a pause extension on countries where there has been some initial negotiating. That seems reasonable for the markets to assume, given everything that has gone on.
     
  • A deal with China seems to have become the top priority.
     
    • The Geneva Deal doesn’t seem to be working as either side expected.
    • The President is apparently getting directly involved with Xi, which is what the President wanted all along, though I’m not sure that is the best approach, given China has known this all along.
    • We fully expected the administration to try to isolate China. We were wrong. While it is encouraging to see how the policy is being portrayed, there is a real concern, especially amongst the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, that we might not get the international cooperation against China that many think is necessary for the plan to succeed.
    • Short-term wins versus longer-term risks. If the purpose of the deal is to buy time to prepare for more separation, then we have to structure the deal very carefully. China has the resources and global integration to also work aggressively during any “cooling off” period. Protecting IP and National Security Interests should remain an integral part of any deal. There is a real struggle on this front between short-term and longer-term needs.
    • The processing of rare earths and critical minerals. The one “card” that China seems to have immense control over is the processed/refined rare earths and critical minerals. While Greenland and Ukraine might help get access to these raw materials (though we don’t see that as the major problem), they don’t do much for us in terms of processing/refining where China continues to dominate the market. We don’t know just how big of a card this is (quite large if they are actually willing to use it broadly for an extended period), but getting these businesses up and running domestically should be the biggest priority of the admin once Budget 2025 is passed. It still would have made sense, according to the GIG, to also include close allies in this crucial supply chain, but that ship may have sailed.
       
  • Are tariffs tools to negotiate, there to generate revenue, or designed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.? Recently Japan cited some uncertainty, from their perspective (on the U.S. side) regarding what the goal is.
     
    • It seems reasonable to expect that after the Big Beautiful Bill is passed (I’m assuming that it will be passed), we will get more clarity on the direction the admin is headed in on tariffs. The President, even working almost 24/7, can only focus on so much, so getting the budget passed is likely taking his attention away from other things (and the bizarre “feud” on Thursday certainly doesn’t help). We should also learn whether the revenue was an artifice to pull in some votes to get approval for the bill (arguing that tariff revenues will offset some costs, until growth kicks in). The “revenue” side of tariffs might be less important after the bill gets passed. On the other hand, maybe the administration doesn’t want to “upset the apple cart” and risk not getting the bill passed? So, after the bill is passed, will we go back to being more aggressive on tariffs?

      
      This chart might be a bit simplistic (data centers and AI still play a huge role in the movements of the market, but it isn’t too far off).
       

• National Production for National Security. If that has the sound of something that might have been said in a Communist country, I’m okay with it. Prioritizing what is needed and pushing the agenda as aggressively as possible is key for our success and ability to compete with China down the road. Subsidies would help, but they don’t seem to be on the agenda with the urgency many of our National Security experts think is needed. On the other hand, deregulation is also a crucial step and that is something we have argued, since day 1, that Trump has specialized in. Why he didn’t start with deregulation and fighting NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is a question I would love to have answered (the chart above would look a LOT different if the admin had come out of the gates focused on this front rather than tariffs). Treasury Secretary Bessent talks about this as being one of the “legs of the stool” and the more we turn our attention to this, the better. While it is also designed to take jobs away from elsewhere and bring them to the U.S., it seems less aggressive than using tariffs and is far more in our own control.
   
• When, or if, will the impact of existing tariffs, policy uncertainty, or even confusion hit the economic data and the markets? We discuss this in our NFP Reaction, and remain convinced that the market, at these levels, has become too complacent with risks on the economic front. While backing off on tariffs has been great, and has greatly reduced the risk of recession, that is still a risk as the global economy takes time to adjust to the level of uncertainty (and even confusion) that has been set in motion since Inauguration Day. I completely believe the worst is behind us on the tariff headlines, but the impact has not been felt in the real world, and while 10% (or just higher) is “manageable,” there are likely going to be costs.
   
• Peace. While we argued peace in a short timeframe was achievable (peace in a single day seemed impossible), that has stalled, at least in Russia. We published a Drone Attack SITREP on Monday. The mix of carrots and sticks was confusing to many of the GIG members, and maybe it is surprising we are here. The geopolitical situation is different than the economic situation, but if I had to be cautious about something right now – it is the growing difference between how confidently the President predicted peace, and where we are now. It is “different” than tariffs with China, right? Maybe not?

Bottom Line

I still like rates. Friday’s move could have pushed the Fed’s second cut out to next year, while, for me, the jobs data solidified the chance of a July cut, with 3 to 4 for the year. 10s back to 4.5% is a buying opportunity, though a range of 4.2% to 4.6% seems about right. A bit of a wide range, but the volatility around so many of the topics listed above, especially the bill, still needs to be considered.

Credit boring. Crypto exciting.

Credit, which I think I understand, should do okay here. So far the calendar hasn’t slowed much, but credit has held in very well. Across the globe, anyone looking for corporate credit risk needs to come to the U.S. as the market is the only place big enough to offer diversification across industries, ratings, and maturities. Also, the companies issuing corporate debt are often global in nature, so the exposure isn’t confined to the U.S.

On Crypto, I don’t understand the rush for governments to get involved, but it seems that is the trajectory we are on. So long as corporations can add crypto to their balance sheets and see their stock valuations rise more than the amount of crypto they bought, I can understand why they would do that. However, I cannot understand that relationship, which is driving the process. I do understand anxiety around FX globally and deficits globally, but I’m still not sure how that translates into owing crypto – but certainly I am more tempted to jump back on the bandwagon than fight it here.

Equities. Maybe not “priced to perfection” but getting close. When we examine the list of risks, uncertainties, or even things to be confused about, the market seems positioned to the optimistic side. That could be proven correct, but the risk/reward has definitely shifted with the recent legs of this rally (China, chips, and deficit spending). The IPO market is wide open and that could be a big benefit not just to markets, but also for the economy as new and innovative companies are brought to the forefront of daily market headlines!

It has been great being on the road a lot (on the road again this week) and talking to so many of our clients, colleagues, and members of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group.

• There is a decent amount of concern about small and midsize businesses, especially related to tariffs.
• A blind faith that the consumer keeps consuming (which has been the correct call).
• A more optimistic outlook for dealing with China from most people, than generally expressed by our Geopolitical Intelligence Group. We had a great outing with two GIG colleagues from the CIA last week, demonstrating how we are moving deeper into national security and policy.

Today, I just wanted to conclude by thanking all of those who take time out of their hectic schedules to meet with, talk to, or even just respond to Academy Securities as it helps us grow and get better!

If we go back to today’s question “Where are We Now?” the answer is at some pivotal moments for some major drivers to kick into gear, or stumble, as they near the goal line.

Chinese-owned AESC has halted construction of its $1.6 billion battery plant in America’s emerging “Battery Belt,” citing economic uncertainty tied to President Trump’s trade war and tariffs and the potential early termination of federal clean energy subsidies.

Construction of AESC’s electric-vehicle battery plant in Florence, South Carolina, began in 2023 after securing a deal with BMW to make battery cells. 

On Thursday, the company sent a letter to employees regarding the construction halt, as obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The letter laid out:

• Tariffs on Chinese-made machinery, steel, and aluminum, which significantly raise costs.

• A proposed tax bill in Congress that would end EV battery production subsidies early and restrict eligibility for China-linked companies.

• Broader industry pressure as automakers slow or cancel EV rollouts.

“Our intent is to finish construction of the facility once stability and predictability have returned to the market,” Knudt Flor, AESC’s chief executive for the U.S. and Europe, wrote in the memo.

Current and former employees told WSJ that construction of the building has been completed, but all work on installing equipment and battery cell assembly lines has been halted.

Sources noted that AESC would face steep tariffs on EV battery machinery imported from China and said that recent steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have further compounded the company’s cost challenges.

In recent years, Biden-era green energy policies fueled a surge in battery factory construction across parts of the Midwest and Southeast, driven by cheap land, proximity to major automotive hubs, and generous state-level incentives. This region—stretching from Tennessee and Alabama to the Carolinas, Ohio, and Michigan—has become known as America’s “Battery Belt.”

Some major projects across the belt include:

• Ford and SK On: $11.4B battery and EV campuses in Tennessee and Kentucky

• LG Energy Solution: Multiple joint ventures with GM, Stellantis, and Honda in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana

• Hyundai and SK: $5B EV battery plant in Georgia

• Toyota: Expanding EV battery production in North Carolina

“Now many of those subsidies are being targeted by Republicans at the same time regulations and tax credits aimed at driving EV sales are also at risk,” WSJ noted, adding, “The current version of a tax bill before Congress would end EV battery production subsidies a year early and make them unavailable to companies with ties to certain countries, including China.”

This week, readers were given fresh insights from UBS (read: here & here), highlighting the explosive surge in data center investments. As we’ve noted before, one asset manager—backing a multi-billion-dollar AI data center project in Texas—described to us the current AI infrastructure buildout as a multi-year “sprint.”

With hundreds of billions pouring into data center development—concentrated in Texas and the Heartland due to cheap land and reliable power—investors should be asking one critical question: how fast is AI adoption scaling across corporate America?

According to Goldman Sachs’ latest AI Adoption Tracker for Q2 2025, the enterprise implementation of AI continues to expand, particularly across sectors most vulnerable to automation. At the same time, productivity gains are becoming more measurable, even as AI-related layoffs have yet to materialize. 

Analysts Jan Hatzius, Joseph Briggs, and others offered clients a clear snapshot of the current AI investment tsunami:

AI-related investment growth remains strong, particularly for semiconductor firms, where equity analysts expect revenue growth of 36% from current levels by the end of 2026. Since the release of ChatGPT, analysts have upgraded their end-2025 revenue projections for semiconductors by $200bn (0.7% of US GDP) and AI hardware enablers by $105bn (0.4%).

As for the AI adoption rate, analysts found that as of May, approximately 9.2% of U.S. firms reported using AI in the production of goods or services—up from 7.4% in 4Q24. 

The most significant quarter-over-quarter gains occurred in the education, information, finance, and professional services sectors.

“Large firms with 250+ employees continue to report the highest adoption rate (14.9%) while medium-sized firms with 100-249 employees reported the largest expected increase in adoption over the next 6 months (+4.7pp to 14.6%). Adoption rates have also accelerated among medium-sized firms with 150-249 employees,” the analysts said. 

Certain subsectors—especially in computing, web hosting, and telecom—are seeing adoption rates exceed 30%. Broadcasting and telecommunications firms anticipate the largest adoption gains through the rest of 2025.

Given the increasing AI adoption rate, the analysts noted that AI’s impact on employment metrics has been marginal:

AI’s impact on the labor market remains limited and there is no sign of a significant impact on most labor market outcomes. AI-related job openings now account for 24% of all IT job openings and 1.5% of all job postings. AI has not been mentioned in major corporate layoff announcements in recent months and the unemployment rate for AI-exposed positions has reconciled with the broader unemployment rate.

However… 

We continue to observe large impacts on labor productivity in the limited areas where generative AI has been deployed. Academic studies imply a 23% average uplift to productivity, while company anecdotes imply similar efficiency gains of around 29%.

Here’s what companies and trade organizations are saying about current and future AI adoption…

Ultimately, investors will need to see AI adoption across corporate America continue to climb in order to justify the massive infrastructure buildout.

The looming question now is: At what point does rising adoption trigger a wave of AI-driven layoffs?

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court has ruled that the city of Naples, Florida, can lawfully require a drag performance at this weekend’s Pride Fest event to be held indoors and restricted to adult audiences.

In a split June 6 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking local restrictions. The court found that Naples Pride, the nonprofit organizing the event, had waited too long to challenge the conditions after accepting the same terms in 2023 and 2024.

The majority concluded that the city’s decision to impose the restrictions was not based on the group’s viewpoint, but rather on public safety concerns. The judges also held that the performance venue—a city park—constitutes a “limited public forum,” where speech protections under the First Amendment are subject to greater regulation.

The court added that the performance could still go forward under the same conditions as in previous years—indoors and adults-only—and that the city had a strong argument that its rules were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu criticized the majority’s reasoning, arguing that the city’s restrictions were “undeniably viewpoint and content-based” and thus unconstitutional, regardless of whether the park is viewed as a traditional or limited public forum.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge John Steele issued a preliminary injunction barring Naples from enforcing the indoor and age-restriction requirements. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by the ACLU of Florida on behalf of Naples Pride, alleging violations of constitutional free speech rights.

Reacting to the 11th Circuit’s reversal, the ACLU of Florida called the decision “disappointing” and vowed to continue the legal fight. Naples Pride likewise criticized the ruling, but said it would comply with the restrictions, for now.

“We respect the rule of law and will comply with the restrictions—but we won’t pretend this is justice,” Callhan Soldavini, board member and corporate counsel for Naples Pride, said in a statement. “Righting the wrongs of injustice takes time, but make no mistake: we will keep fighting.”

The case now returns to the lower court, where Naples Pride’s claims for damages will proceed.

In response to the ruling, the Naples Police Department said on June 6 that the police would be on-site during the event to ensure public safety.

“As a result, the City may continue enforcing its event ordinance while the case proceeds,” the department said in a post on social media. “We remain committed to protecting public safety, upholding constitutional rights, and ensuring the safe use of public spaces.”

Meanwhile, the same court of appeals ruled in mid-May that a Florida restaurant known for hosting drag shows could continue hosting the performances pending further litigation in a case that challenges enforcement of the state’s Protection of Children Act.

The law prohibits the admission of children into live performances that Florida considers obscene for minors. However, the court found that the restrictions in the act were too vague as they applied to the shows held at the restaurant.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning borrowers to steer clear of student loan debt-relief scams, after shutting down a group of companies last month that allegedly charged millions in illegal fees and left customers worse off.

The warning, issued June 6, comes as part of a broader push by the FTC to raise awareness about deceptive debt-relief schemes targeting Americans with student loans.

In a recent enforcement action, the agency permanently banned California-based Panda Benefit Services and its affiliates from the debt-relief industry. The FTC said the companies posed as partners of the Department of Education and promised borrowers quick loan forgiveness in exchange for upfront payments.

According to the FTC, the companies collected more than $16.7 million from consumers who were told their loans would be forgiven or significantly reduced. Instead, the scammers kept the money and never delivered on their promises.

“It’s illegal for anyone to charge fees before they help you or to pretend they’re affiliated with the Department of Education,” the FTC said in the consumer alert.

The Education Department does not work with private companies that demand payment in advance, and borrowers should be cautious of anyone claiming otherwise.

The now-banned companies, including those doing business under names like Prosperity Benefit Services and Pacific Quest Services, were first sued in 2024. At the time, the FTC alleged the operators sent deceptive mailers marked “FINAL NOTICE” and “Time Sensitive,” and made false promises of full loan forgiveness.

Borrowers were also misled into sharing personal financial details, including their Federal Student Aid ID, which scammers could use to access accounts or steal identities.

The case was one of the FTC’s first under a new federal rule that strengthens its ability to penalize those impersonating government agencies. Several judgments in the case ordered the defendants to surrender assets and banned them from telemarketing and making misrepresentations about financial services.

The FTC emphasized that no private company can do anything for borrowers that they can’t do themselves for free at StudentAid.gov. This includes applying for income-driven repayment plans, consolidating loans, or exploring forgiveness options—none of which require payment to third-party services.

Federal law also prohibits companies from pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. But scammers frequently misuse official-sounding names and seals to appear legitimate.

Borrowers struggling to repay federal loans can explore free options, including deferment, forbearance, and income-driven repayment plans. In some cases, they may also qualify for forgiveness based on long-term payment history or employment in public service.

The agency is urging the public to report suspected scams at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, contact their state attorney general, and find out more at ftc.gov/StudentLoans.

Los Angeles is bracing for yet another day of what appears to be coordinated rioting sparked by mass arrests of illegals by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The unrest has involved organized elements affiliated with far-left activist cells, including Marxist-aligned nonprofits (see below).

The situation over the last two days has quickly deteriorated into looting, arson—including the burning of vehicles—and direct assaults on law enforcement personnel. Indicators suggest a high degree of premeditation and online mobilization in what appears to be an attempt by Democratic Party-aligned actors to ignite a Mexican version of the Black Lives Matter riots, echoing the chaos seen during the 2020 “Summer of Love” color revolution.

Scenes from New York and Los Angeles, your typical Democrat ran cities!

These are not “protestors” they are domestic terrorists! pic.twitter.com/MGNB1dnqo4

— Mike Engleman🇺🇲 (@RealHickory) June 8, 2025

On Saturday, the Trump administration announced they were federalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops, while DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also chimed in – posting on X that protesters who use violence against officers will be prosecuted – writing “You will not stop us or slow us down.’

President Trump also blamed California Governor Gavin ‘Newscum’ and LA Mayor Karen Bass Bass – saying in a Saturday night ‘Truth’ that if they can’t do their jobs, “then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem.”

On Sunday, Trump posted: 

Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest. We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to to handle the task.

These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED. Also, from now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why??? Again, thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!

White House spox Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s comments, saying in a post on X: “President Trump will uphold law and order and continue to remove all dangerous illegal alien invaders from our country,” adding “The mob violence will be quelled, the criminals responsible will be brought to justice, and operations to arrest illegal aliens will continue unabated.“

Newsom, Bass, and the LAPD are downplaying the protests – framing it as fed overreach amid ‘peaceful‘ protests between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and protesters, after ICE agents carried out multiple immigration sweeps throughout the county.

The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.

LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close…

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 8, 2025

California AG Rob Bonta said “There is no emergency and the President’s order calling in the National Guard is unnecessary and counterproductive.“

We’ve been in touch with local law enforcement in LA. They have the resources they need to meet the moment, and we stand ready to assist should the need arise.

There is no emergency and the President’s order calling in the National Guard is unnecessary and counterproductive.

— Rob Bonta (@AGRobBonta) June 8, 2025

Bonta is now siding with with a foreign army attacking Americans. pic.twitter.com/98ZbUchWOQ

— Sawyer (@flippersrevenge) June 8, 2025

Late Saturday, a Border Patrol Black Hawk helicopter could be seen unloading dozens of boxes of guns and ammo. 

Border patrol Black Hawk on LA street unloads dozens of boxes of arms and ammo

‘Getting ready for major battle’ pic.twitter.com/B2zqQ3trVA

— RT (@RT_com) June 8, 2025

Meanwhile, the Deartment of Homeland Security accused Democratic leaders in California – including Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Mayor Karen Bass (D) of contributing to the violence.

“The violent targeting of law enforcement in Los Angeles by lawless rioters is despicable and Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom must call for it to end,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 

SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler called out Newsom called out Mayor Bass – saying that the SBA will relocate its regional office out of LA ‘immediately.’

Los Angeles is openly refusing to cooperate with ICE – siding with illegal aliens over American citizens and small businesses.

Therefore, effective immediately, @SBAgov will begin relocating its Regional Office out of L.A.

If a city won’t protect its people, we won’t stay. https://t.co/lal7Z8gOfs

— Kelly Loeffler (@SBA_Kelly) June 7, 2025

And what do we have here?

The pallets of bricks have reappeared, echoing the same tactics seen during the 2020 riots.

🚨 JUST IN: Pallets of cinder blocks have been discovered right near the riots in Los Angeles

They’re now being used as WEAPONS against federal agents

WHO PUT THESE HERE, AND WHO PAID FOR THEM??! This MUST be investigated.

🎥 @AnthonyCabassa_ pic.twitter.com/fEzUSZsvvw

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 7, 2025

On Saturday morning, we profiled one of the nonprofits behind the chaos — Unión del Barrio — whose manifesto is filled with explicit Marxist and communist rhetoric — appears to have become the next group Democrats are using as useful idiots. 

• Riots Erupt At LA ICE Facility As Mexican BLM Clone Unleashes Color Revolution Operation

DataRepublican noted that several NGOs are coordinating the chaos. 

A number of NGOs have been implicated in this. Foremost is Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights or CHIRLA, and the photos of signs show they were printed by PSLWEB / Party for Socialism and Liberation. pic.twitter.com/yS7jXkHGJ8

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) June 8, 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Taxpayer-Funded Nonprofit Behind the Anti-ICE Riots in Los Angeles.

Over the past two days, ICE agents have conducted targeted operations across the Los Angeles region, detaining more than 40 suspected illegal aliens. These enforcement actions triggered large-scale… pic.twitter.com/bDTn0oB6nD

— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) June 8, 2025

Further assessment is ongoing to determine the operational structure behind the violence and any external influence or coordination exerted by foreign adversaries. 

“As a reminder while riots rage in Los Angeles LA’s Mayor, Karen Bass, was a Fidel Castro supporter She was a member of the Venceremos Brigade and made 7 trips to Cuba during the 1970s — when it was illegal for Americans to do so Later, she traveled there with Obama in 2016,” Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire wrote on X. 

As a reminder while riots rage in Los Angeles

LA’s Mayor, Karen Bass, was a Fidel Castro supporter

She was a member of the Venceremos Brigade and made 7 trips to Cuba during the 1970s — when it was illegal for Americans to do so

Later, she traveled there with Obama in 2016 pic.twitter.com/uIrhIb6tX3

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) June 8, 2025

And this. 

One of the leading organizers of the violent LA ICE riots is the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

They are CURRENTLY receiving six-figure grants from @DHSgov for “citizenship instruction and naturalization services.”

This should be terminated immediately! @Sec_Noem… pic.twitter.com/96w7ZjmmVg

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) June 8, 2025

Violent extremist Antifa militant Craig Toennies @ctizzie is directing his fellow violent comrades to attack videographers @AnthonyCabassa_ and @camhigby for documenting the far-left insurrection in Los Angeles. He’s furious the two have captured raw video of the violence, making… pic.twitter.com/sc12pTXSt5

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) June 8, 2025

CC Trump admin??  Maybe it’s time to codify DOGE cuts. 

Exactly

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 8, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s former running mate, Nicole Shanahan, pointed out:

I smell CIA/deep state all over this. Sanctuary cities like LA strategically encouraged erratic and violent migrants to seek refuge and now are using them to violently attack federal law enforcement officers.

They have no respect for our laws, they use our entitlements, and they destroy our cities. This will be the fate of all sanctuary cities if we let this madness continue.

“Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers” (Deut 28:43-45). These words were written thousands of years ago and still hold true today.

Newsom and Bass want this altercation with Trump. They will trade a city on fire if it means they can score political points. Meanwhile, California suffers. Will we ever wake up from this nightmare?

I smell CIA/deep state all over this. Sanctuary cities like LA strategically encouraged erratic and violent migrants to seek refuge and now are using them to violently attack federal law enforcement officers.

They have no respect for our laws, they use our entitlements, and they… pic.twitter.com/u1zSxciFQb

— Nicole Shanahan (@NicoleShanahan) June 8, 2025

Los Angeles was a war zone in the overnight hours. 

Far-left & Mexican nationalist insurrectionists in Los Angeles have brought supplies to make Molotov cocktails to throw at US federal agents and officers. The ongoing riot against immigration enforcement continues to escalate.
Video by: @AnthonyCabassa_pic.twitter.com/7JWDFyQYti

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) June 8, 2025

Antifa and Mexican nationalist rioters in Los Angeles use a stolen refrigerator as a makeshift shield against federal law enforcement in Compton. The rioters are part of an insurrection against the government. pic.twitter.com/J0aRBwwJBl

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) June 8, 2025

🚨BREAKING: The scene in LA is escalating quickly. More and more fires are lit, a tractor trailer is broken into, and an advance on the police line is made pic.twitter.com/HLDJQcUCjq

— Cam Higby | America First 🇺🇸 (@camhigby) June 8, 2025

🚨 JUST IN: Rioters are now LOOTING stores in Los Angeles while police are TOTALLY MIA

And the store manager can’t do anything about it or else HE will end up charged

TOTAL LAWLESSNESS thanks to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats pic.twitter.com/YyaVNUQdeh

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 8, 2025

JUST IN: Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino calls for the public to help identify a man throwing rocks at vehicles in Los Angeles where federal agents are conducting raids.

“We are currently seeking information regarding the identity of the person(s) throwing rocks at vehicles… pic.twitter.com/wZFgHMe792

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 7, 2025

Los Angeles City Council Member Eunisses Hernandez (D) called to escalate the fight against ICE agents. 

Los Angeles City Council Member Eunisses Hernandez (D) calls to escalate the riots against ICE agents.

Arrest her. pic.twitter.com/e4euGZ5os5

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 8, 2025

A key question emerging from the unrest is the extent to which illegal aliens are participating in the riots—and whether any individuals or groups may be acting under the influence of foreign intelligence agencies intent on fomenting social unrest within the U.S.

Given the indicators observed so far—coordinated action, ideological messaging, and tactical resemblance suggest the rogue nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party are using “color revolution” frameworks in their attempt to spark nationwide riots. This incident should be evaluated as a potential national security threat, given the likely participation of foreign nationals. 

Stay tuned for updates…