Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced on July 8 that the United States will be moving to ban Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland over national security concerns.

During a press conference with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and other top officials, Rollins said the Trump administration will work with states and use executive actions to ban ownership of U.S. agriculture by Chinese and nationals of other adversaries.

During a call with reporters on July 7, Rollins acknowledged there was no way for her agency to take back farmland owned by the Chinese and other foreign buyers.

“USDA is not in the role to be able to do that,” she said.

The national security action plan released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and obtained by The Epoch Times states that, “Land owned by foreign nationals—particularly those from countries of concern…or other foreign adversaries—is a potential threat to national security and future economic prosperity. USDA will ensure transparency of foreign U.S. agricultural land ownership and pursue robust and overdue updates to data collection, reporting, and analysis.”

The USDA, according to the plan, will implement reforms such as creating an online filing system to require foreign entities to report their holdings and transactions in the U.S. agricultural marketplace.

It will also work alongside Congress and states to pass and implement laws to take “action to end the direct or indirect purchase or control of American farmland by nationals from countries of concern or other foreign adversaries.”

Additionally, the USDA will sign a memorandum of understanding with the Treasury Department to “ensure regular coordination” with the agriculture secretary related to reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) when it comes to foreign transactions involving the agriculture sector, according to the plan.

Rollins announced that she will sit on CFIUS, a panel that reviews foreign purchases for national security risks, beginning July 8.

Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland has been a concern in both the agricultural and national security sectors.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report in 2024 said that U.S. agencies were in the dark about Chinese ownership of American farmland.

“This report confirms one of our worst fears: that not only is the USDA unable to answer the question of who owns what land and where, but that there is no plan by the department to internally reverse this dangerous flaw that affects our supply chain and economy,” said Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) at the time.

In July 2024, the Biden administration took executive action to shutter Chinese majority-owned MineOne Partners Ltd. and its affiliates.

BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund has just crossed over 700,000 BTC in assets under management, far surpassing Michael Saylor’s stash at (Micro)Strategy…

“New milestone… iShares Bitcoin ETF now holds over 700,000 BTC,” Nate Geraci, president of NovaDius Wealth Management (formerly The ETF Store), said.

“*700,000* in 18 months. Ridiculous.”

ETF inflows continue to build…

In just 18 months, IBIT’s AUM topped $75 billion; an achievement that took GLD (the gold ETF) over 15 years to achieve…

As The Block reports, the combined assets held by all U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs are now at approximately 1.25 million BTC ($135 billion), according to CoinGlass data – nearly 6% of bitcoin’s total 21 million supply.

IBIT accounts for approximately 56% of that AUM alone – greater than Strategy’s 597,325 BTC ($65 billion) stack, for comparison.

Meanwhile, as CoinTelegraph reports, US Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, combined with Michael Saylor’s Strategy, the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, have purchased more Bitcoin than the supply generated by miners almost every month so far this year, according to Galaxy Research.

Strategy and the US Bitcoin ETFs have collectively bought Bitcoin worth $28.22 billion in 2025, while Bitcoin miners’ net new issuance has amounted to $7.85 billion during the same period.

As of June, the combined entities have bought more Bitcoin than the new supply being generated each month, except in February, when the combined entities sold Bitcoin worth $842 million.

All of which supports the trend higher in bitcoin along with global liquidity surging…

…and increased adoption, with US leading UK and EU…

Deutsche Bank’s recent survey shows younger, high-earning respondents continue to have the highest adoption.

Male consumers boast a higher adoption rate and believe they have a better understanding of crypto vs. female consumers.

But, despite regulatory breakthroughs, lack of understanding and high risk continue to rank as the top barriers for crypto usage.

Authored by Cully Stimson & Hans von Spakovsky via The Epoch Times,

Attention, all parents and college students worried about the ever-rising cost of college tuition. The Department of Justice has finally—after three decades—started enforcing the federal law that prohibits states from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless they also offer in-state tuition to everyone else—including all citizen students from out of state.

The law it’s enforcing has existed since 1996, when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

Buried inside that huge law was Section 505, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which prohibits state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.

In English, that means that states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens also have to offer in-state tuition to everyone. That means you!

Section 505 is still the law of the land—as we wrote back in 2011.

But the problem is that the law did not include a private right of action, meaning everyday individuals could not sue and win. Only the U.S. government, through the Department of Justice, could sue states and universities to enforce the plain language of the law.

So, the law sat like a Caryatid for over three decades, staring out into space, standing tall, but supporting nothing except higher tuition costs for American citizens who have been subsidizing the tuition of illegal aliens.

That was true until recently.

Earlier this month, we wrote about how under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ successfully sued Texas for offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while charging non-Texan American students higher rates. Texas waved the white flag immediately and settled the case by entering into a consent decree to correct the illegal practice.

High off its easy win, the department has embarked on a state-by-state crusade, filing complaints against Kentucky on June 17 and Minnesota on June 25 for the same blatant violation of federal law. Both states offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens while demanding higher out-of-state tuition from American citizens who reside elsewhere.

These price differences aren’t trivial.

According to one figure, the average cost of in-state tuition and fees at a public four-year college in Kentucky is $11,299. That’s only 3.71 percent higher than the national average for a public college. But the average cost of out-of-state tuition and fees at a public four-year college in Kentucky is $26,640, more than twice as much.

Let’s look at Minnesota. According to the same source, Gov. Tim Walz‘s favorite constituents—illegal aliens who attend a four-year public college—only pay in-state tuition and fees of $12,873. An out-of-state American citizen dreaming of college in the Gopher State can expect more than double that price: an average of $26,719.

Think about it this way: an illegal alien from Mexico or Somalia living in Minnesota gets a better deal at a Minnesota state four-year college than a straight-A student from Michigan or Wisconsin, unless, of course, the out-of-state student gets a scholarship or a tuition discount.

How is that fair? It’s not.

Where We Want Bondi to Go Next

While the recent lawsuits against Minnesota and Kentucky are a great start, other states are also actively violating federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens while not offering the same to out-of-state students. The scofflaws are Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

All these should be addressed—but here are Heritage’s top three picks for the DOJ to target next.

Maryland

Gov. Wes Moore’s state makes the short list of states the DOJ should haul into court. Maryland’s universities have favored illegal aliens since 2011, when the state passed a law allowing them to pay in-state tuition for community colleges.

The Maryland DREAM Act, enacted in 2012, spells out the requirements for in-state tuition for illegals. Here are just a few of the requirements:

• Attend a Maryland public or private high school for at least one year; or

• Graduate from a Maryland high school or receive a Maryland high school diploma or equivalent diploma, like a GED; or

• File Maryland income tax returns for the last three years.

Regardless of these Maryland-specific requirements, the act still violates federal laws because Maryland does not give in-state tuition to residents of other states.

Annual in-state tuition and fees for a public four-year university in Maryland average $10,041. The price for a Virginia citizen resident—who can easily drive across the Potomac River to get to Maryland—is a whopping $26,721.

For many families, the difference between tuition of $10k per year versus $26k per year is the difference between attending college and not attending college.

How many illegal aliens are enrolled in higher education in Maryland? A stunning 11,675.

If every illegal alien student enrolled in a public college of higher education in the state of Maryland pays in-state tuition (which they don’t, as many get tuition breaks on top of in-state tuition), then the taxpayers of Maryland and the out-of-state students pick up the slack, which amounts to roughly $194,739,000.

In a state that faces a $3 billion budget gap and spends almost $6 billion on higher education, that’s a significant subsidy.

Colorado

This rocky mountain state, as beautiful as it is, has some ugly numbers when it comes to giving tuition benefits to illegal aliens in violation of Section 505.

The Centennial State advertises a somewhat reasonable average in-state tuition of $9,798 for four-year public colleges. Expensive, yes, but justifiable in exchange for the scenic views and the University of Colorado system. The picturesque mountains get a bit harder to justify at $32,476, the average annual price for out-of-state students.

Colorado has tweaked their state law with respect to how a resident illegal alien can qualify for in-state tuition. The latest revision to Colorado’s law came in 2022 with the passage of HB22-1155, which “remove[d] several barriers that prevented thousands of undocumented high school students from qualifying for in-state tuition rates and in-state financial aid.”

Under the new law, a resident illegal alien qualifies for in-state tuition and in-state financial aid if:

• He attended a Colorado high school for at least a year, or

• Graduated from a Colorado high school.

The student is not timebound as to when he or she must attend college, but he or she must be physically present in Colorado for one year before attending. How those strictures are verified or enforced is anyone’s guess.

The new law means that a California student whose family moved to Colorado the day after his high school graduation will pay 231 percent more than an illegal alien from El Salvador or Mexico who graduated from a Colorado high school after sneaking into the country.

Illinois

Home of the Windy City, deep blue Illinois and Gov. JB Pritzker are next on our DOJ lawsuit list.

With annual average tuition and fees at a four-year public college at $14,921, Illinoisans take a bigger hit than in-state applicants in other states looking to stay local. The state has the sixth most expensive public school tuition rate in the country.

But anyone else in the nation wanting to go to the Prairie State for college also better start saving early, as the out-of-state tuition and fees for a four-year public college average $30,027 a year.

Illinois’s higher education system actively educates 27,672 illegal alien students. With a difference of about $15k between in- and out-of-state tuition, this population costs the state a whopping $418,013,232.

Let’s put these numbers into perspective.

In 1911, it cost $250,000 to build Wrigley Field. Adjusting for inflation, this would be the equivalent to about $7.85 million in 2024.

You could build 53 Wrigley Fields, rent out the stadiums on opening day, buy everyone in the stadiums a hot dog, and still have money left over with the amount the state subsidizes illegal aliens yearly via in-state college tuition.

In 2003, Illinois Public Act 093-0007 gave eligible illegal alien students access to in-state tuition. Signed by Pritzker last August, the newest legislation made some changes to existing law, but for all intents and purposes, it remains just as illegal. Both make it impossible for anyone other than an in-state citizen or an illegal alien to receive discounted tuition.

The number of requirements imposed on in-state individuals to qualify for in-state tuition doesn’t matter. The only way a state law that offers in-state tuition for resident illegal aliens can comply with Section 505 is if the law offers in-state tuition rates for all students from any state.

Section 505 Is Not Anti-Immigrant

Let’s make one thing clear. Section 505 is not anti-immigration—nor is it designed by the alt-right to keep the illegal aliens in our country hopelessly uneducated.

The statute does not prohibit universities from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens. If a state wants to do that at its public colleges and universities, it is free to do so. Section 505 only mandates that when billing for tuition, states treat out-of-state U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same as illegal aliens.

States that offer in-state tuition (or make financial aid or scholarships available) to illegal aliens take finite resources away from other students, both in-state and out-of-state. That forces the state’s taxpayers—and the parents of U.S. citizen students from other states—to cover the difference.

Every family who has sent a child to college knows what it feels like to pay for tuition. As costs go up and up, seemingly for no reason, families are understandably frustrated. And when the reason is that they’re subsidizing the college education of illegal aliens, this goes from frustrating to infuriating.

The DOJ’s lawsuits are a step in the right direction to enforce existing federal law and hopefully bring a touch of sanity to the college tuition racket.

That’s a matter of fundamental fairness to American citizens. It’s about time!

Reprinted by permission from The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation.

Is President Trump ‘weaponizing’ copper?

Just over two months ago, we noted that drastic tightening of the Chinese copper markets and since then, copper stocks in China have continued to dwindle as stocks of copper at COMEX (US) have soared…

With COMEX copper stocks now at seven year highs while Chinese stocks are at multi-year lows…

With that as background, President Trump said Tuesday that he plans to set a 50 percent tariff on copper imports, as part of a set of looming sectoral tariffs, while also indicating he could offer pharmaceutical manufacturers at least a year before implementing levies on their foreign-made products.

Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday he was still planning tariffs on select industries, including drugs, semiconductors, and metals.

“I believe the tariff on copper we’re going to make it 50%,” Trump said when asked by a reporter what the rate on those products would be.

That effort is separate from Trump’s other effort to announce new country-specific tariff rates, which would not apply to products hit under his Section 232 efforts.

Copper futures in New York surged as much as 17% after Trump’s comments, the largest intraday gain in data going back to at least 1988…

…pushing the US price for the metal to a new record high… 

Trump had directed the Commerce Secretary in late February to open an investigation into foreign copper imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion act and submit a report within 270 days.

The act gives the president broad authority to impose restrictions on national security grounds.

So, with Chinese stocks dwindling and US stocks soaring, ‘tariff-ing’ Copper right now is interesting in its timing…

The US won’t be able to produce any more copper to offset the shortfall – it takes years to set up a copper mine, though there’s plenty in the ground.

US copper smelters though have struggled to compete with lower-cost smelters in China.

Copper is vital for housing, electronics and cars, both EV and conventional ICE vehicles. 

…remember, there’s no coincidences in Washington.

President Donald Trump and AG Pam Bondi completely punted over a question over Jeffrey Epstein during Tuesday’s televised cabinet meeting. 

Reporter: “Your memo and release yesterday on Jeffrey Epstein – it left some lingering mysteries. I guess one is whether he ever worked for an American or foreign intelligence agency. The former labor secretary, who was Miami US Attorney Alex Acosta – he allegedly said he did work for an intelligence agency. So can you resolve whether or not he did…”

To which Trump responded : “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?!? This guy’s been talked about for years. You’re asking – we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things that… And are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time? I mean, I can’t believe you’re asking a question about Epstein at a time like this when we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened… it just seems like a desecration. 

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump GOES OFF on reporter for asking about Jeffrey Epstein, Pam Bondi says the child p*rn Epstein files can NOT be released, ever.

TRUMP: “Are you still talking about – Jeffrey EPSTEIN? … We have Texas, this, all of the things…are people still talking… pic.twitter.com/SsNWZHkd4Y

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 8, 2025

I can believe it.

— Michael Flynn Jr (@realmflynnJR) July 8, 2025

Then Bondi jumped in – saying “First, to back up on that. In February, I did an interview on Fox and it’s been getting a lot of attention because I was asked a question about the client list. And my response was ‘it’s sitting on my desk to be reviewed,’ meaning the file – along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That’s what I meant by that. Also to the tens of thousands of video – they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were. Never gonna be released. Never gonna see the light of day. To him being an agent; I have no knowledge of that. We can get back to you on that.” 

So, children being violated by whom?

Was there someone else in those tapes besides children? https://t.co/7bEx10OfOM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 8, 2025

And when can we expect ‘phase II’? 

Liam Cosgrove (@Cosgrove_IV) of @ZeroHedge makes his White House debut, asks about the Clinton Body Count and whether Phase 2 of the Epstein files will include info about Israel:

“You’ve released Phase I of the Epstein files. What was missing was any connection of his ties to… pic.twitter.com/zhAwpEIsHk

— The Washington Observer (@WashObserver) May 19, 2025

It’s as if a magician accidentally sawed his assistant in half for real, blood spilling everywhere as she bleeds out, and then you hear “It’s all part of the show, folks.” 

pic.twitter.com/2BDJx6a6gX

— Doochebag (@no_one_quits) July 8, 2025

How many videos was he in?

— The Sentinel (@sentinelpatrol) July 8, 2025

Trump looks bad here…very bad

— RubyTubee (@rubytubee) July 8, 2025

*  *  *

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

I literally feel sick right now.  After waiting for years for the truth about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation to come out, and after months of being promised that stunning new information would be released soon, now we are being told to forget the entire thing.  The people that were brought in to run the Justice Department and the FBI were supposed to restore faith in the system, but instead they are destroying it.  Nobody that can think rationally is buying the lies that we are being fed.  

Apparently we are supposed to believe that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t have a client list, he never blackmailed anyone, and he was solely responsible for his own death…

A Justice Department and FBI review of the investigation related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein found that there was no “client list” or evidence that he blackmailed prominent figures, according to a memo detailing the findings.

The review also concluded that Epstein died by suicide while in custody at a Manhattan correctional facility in August 2019. Epstein was facing federal sex trafficking charges, and his death was subsequently investigated by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog and the FBI.

The Justice Department and FBI said in their memo that video footage reviewed by bureau investigators — and made available to the public — confirmed that Epstein was locked in his cell and nobody entered tiers of the unit where he was housed at the time of his death.

The Justice Department and the FBI are now facing an unprecedented credibility problem, because millions of us simply do not believe them.

After everything that has happened, the American people deserve some answers.  The following are 12 important questions that all Americans should be asking about the shameful attempt to cover up the truth about Jeffrey Epstein.

#1 Why were Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell arrested and charged with operating an enormous sex trafficking ring that supposedly involved thousands of clients if no such clients ever existed?  As Robby Starbuck has pointed out, apparently we are supposed to believe that all of the powerful men that visited Epstein’s island were “just there to catch some waves and relax”…

#2 Why did U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi tell Fox News in February that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review” if no such client list ever existed?…

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday said the Jeffrey Epstein client list is “sitting on my desk right now” and she is reviewing the JFK and MLK files as well after President Donald Trump’s earlier directives.

“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” Bondi told ‘America Reports’ host John Roberts on Friday. “That’s been a directive by President Trump.”

#3 What was in the “thousands of documents” related to the Epstein case that were suddenly discovered in February?…

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been made aware of “thousands of documents” related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein that were previously not disclosed to her office, she said in a letter on Thursday.

#4 When Bondi claimed that the Epstein flight logs would “make you sick” in March, what did she mean by that?…

Attorney general Pam Bondi released hundreds of pages of information connected to Epstein in March, promising it would disclose “a lot of names” and flight logs that would “make you sick”.

#5 In May, Bondi confessed that there were “tens of thousands of videos” related to the Epstein investigation.  What was in those videos?…

She said in May that the FBI was reviewing “tens of thousands of videos” of Epstein “with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments and the delay in releasing the next batch of documents have tapped into suspicions that damaging details about Epstein or other prominent figures remain hidden.

#6 Other than Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, why hasn’t anyone else that was involved in the sex trafficking operation ever been arrested?…

#7 The memo that was released on Sunday night says that there will be “no further disclosure” in this case.  Does this mean that the Trump administration’s search for the truth ends here?…

In a memo published by Axios Sunday night, the DOJ and FBI jointly stated that the Epstein files did not include a client list, or evidence of additional perpetrators — and that there will be “no further disclosure” of information on the case.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” The memo said. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

#8 The memo also states that there is no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”.  Does this mean that none of the men that were having sex with underage girls will ever be brought to justice?…

Investigators found “no incriminating ‘client list’ ” of Epstein’s, “no credible evidence … that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals,” and no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties,” the memo adds.

#9 On the night that Epstein died, why were there so many strange “coincidences”?…

The jail had been told Epstein should have a cellmate, and that a guard must check on him every 30 minutes.

But on the night he died, his cellmate was transferred and not replaced and he was not checked on as often as required.

Two guards fell asleep at their desks – and later falsified their records.

Meanwhile, two cameras in front of Epstein’s cell malfunctioned that night – while another’s footage was “unusable”.

#10 Hours of video footage from outside Epstein’s cell on the night that he died has been released.  Did they think that we wouldn’t notice that a full minute has been cut out of that video footage?…

But now we can confirm that an entire minute was cut from the DOJ video that was released last night. Why? What are they hiding?

If you follow the full video you can see for yourself that the video is cut off at 11:59:00.

The video feed then restarts exactly at 12:00:00.

Where is the missing video?

#11 During the time that Elon Musk had unprecedented access to the government’s computer systems, did he learn some startling truths about the Epstein investigation?  If so, will he reveal what he knows now that he has started his own political party?

#12 Why was this memo about the Epstein case released to the public late on Sunday night on the 4th of July weekend?  Were they hoping that it would make as little news as possible?

I am so upset.

The victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking operation are never going to get any justice.

And all of the very sick men that committed unspeakable crimes are never going to be held accountable.

A line has been crossed that will never be able to be uncrossed.

How are we supposed to have faith in our federal law enforcement agencies after this?

They are lying to our faces and they are convinced that they are totally getting away with it.

There are some moments in history that are so horrifying that they will never be forgotten.

This is one of those moments.

*  * *

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

As “dip buyers” get eviscerated, more dominos fall, and at a tipping point, the herd realizes the tide has reversed and it’s time to sell–but alas, it’s too late.

Illiquid, Overvalued describes a great many assets that are on the books as “rock-solid investments.” Illiquidity means there are few if any buyers for the asset being offered for sale, and this can arise from various conditions.

1. Credit is tight and expensive, limiting the pool of potential buyers to those with cash.

2. Nobody wants the assets because they’re grossly overvalued.

3. The pool of buyers with the expertise and financial backing needed to buy the asset is inherently limited.

4. “Animal spirits” have left the room and buyers are “on strike” due to caution / fear of future losses.

Bill Ackman outlined some useful principles of illiquidity in a recent commentary on X in his discussion of the illiquid nature of many assets held by Ivy league university endowment funds:

“Harvard’s endowment is principally invested in illiquid private assets including real estate, private equity, and venture capital funds.

Real estate and private equity funds are highly levered so relatively small changes in asset values can have a large impact on equity values. For example, if a real estate fund’s asset values decline by 15% and the assets are levered 60%, the fund’s equity value will decline by 37.5%.

The increase in cap rates and interest rates have impaired real estate and private equity asset values. These funds do not generally mark to market as public assets are marked leading to a wide disparity between public values and private values when overall values decline.

Venture funds generally mark their assets to the last round valuation so these marks can also be overstated as these values can become stale.

I believe that a substantial part of the reason why many private assets remain private despite the stock market near all time highs is that the public market will value private assets at lower values than they are being carried at privately.”

In other words, assets held privately can be “marked to fantasy” because they’re not exposed to the market’s appraisal of their liquidity and value, which are two sides of one coin: if nobody has the cash and willingness to buy the asset, its value is essentially zero, regardless of its “book value.”

When Alan Greenspan issued his mea culpa in late 2013 about missing the subprime mortgage implosion and the resulting Global Financial Meltdown (Why I Didn’t See the Crisis Coming Foreign Affairs), he identified two sources of his failure to “see it coming”:

1. He assumed markets would remain liquid, i.e. that a buyer would emerge for every seller

2. The total failure of everyone’s sophisticated models to predict the collapse of confidence.

The core failure lay in the models’ reliance on the notion that humans make decisions rationally as Homo economicus, when the reality is we are extremely prone to irrational exuberance (a.k.a. running with the euphorically greedy herd) and panic (running off the cliff with the herd). He invoked Keynes famous “animal spirits” as the missing variable in economic models.

Irrational “animal spirits” generate “tail risk,” events that supposedly happen only rarely but when they do happen, they trigger outsized consequences, and the Fed’s models failed to accurately account for “tail risk” because they happen more often than statistical models predict.

All this boils down to illiquidity caused by a panic-button urgency to sell and a profound reluctance to buy: When “animal spirits” are confident in ever-higher asset valuations, participants place a constant bid under the market because prices will keep going up so I’ll make more money. This constant bid is called liquidity: cash is flowing into the asset class, be it stocks or housing or cryptocurrencies or commodities.

When “animal spirits” turn to panic, sellers rush to sell as buyers vanish as they fear that prices will keep going down so I’ll lose more money. Buying into a downtrend is known as “catching the falling knife”: the initial “buy the dip” players have their heads handed to them on a platter, and those on the sidelines decide not to try to catch the falling knife.

This is an illiquid market: the bid keeps dropping until buyers are willing to gamble that “this is the bottom.” But should asset prices continue sliding after an initial euphoric pop higher–“the bottom is in, buy!”–then those who held back find their caution reinforced: that wasn’t the bottom after all, and everyone who jumped in lost money.

As every surge of “buy the dip” players loses, the market goes bidless–everyone who wanted to play “catch the falling knife” has been burned, and those who have lost the “animal spirits” to gamble stay out. Bids (offers to buy) dry up and asset prices crash to levels no one in the greed-euphoria stage could imagine were even remotely possible.

Those who follow liquidity assume that the more cash sloshing around the system, the more money will flow into assets. But this assumes participants are rational and prices are “fair value”. When panic takes hold of the herd, no matter how much cash is sloshing around, none of it will be gambled on a losing bet.

Take a look at this chart of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble, and note the bubble symmetry: what shot up soon plummeted back to pre-bubble levels. Stocks that had reached $60 per share were recommended as “buys” at $45–a rational play perhaps, but wildly off the mark, as the stock eventually bottomed at $4.

When sellers desperate to sell swamp buyers, prices decline. If bids dry up, prices crash.

There is a domino-like effect to euphoria /liquidity turning to caution and then to panic / illiquidity. When overvalued illiquid private assets are sold at huge discounts, this topples the first domino of caution in professional money managers, who then move to sell the overvalued assets on their books to credulous “retail” investors and overseas buyers.

As “dip buyers” get eviscerated, more dominos fall, and at a tipping point, the herd realizes the tide has reversed and it’s time to sell–but alas, it’s too late.

The Federal Reserve can pump billions of dollars of credit “liquidity” into the financial system, but if nobody wants to “catch the falling knife,” the credit will just sit there untouched, as everyone who was dumb enough to borrow money and gamble it away–leaving the debt still to pay–has already been wiped out.

Illiquid and overvalued: two sides of the same coin.

*  *  *

Check out my new book Ultra-Processed Life and my new fiction/novels page.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

So much for the Democrats’ panic that the US is about to be hit with hyperinflation (because Toyota is footing US tariff costs). 

Moments ago, the NY Fed reported that consumer expectations for future inflation have return to levels last seen at the beginning of the year, before the announcement of aggressive new tariffs, as the fake panic that Trump is about to spark the same runaway inflation that his predecessor unleashed, fade away. 

The June survey showed median expectations for consumer price increases one year ahead decreased for the second straight month in June, falling back to 3%, back to where they were at the end of 2024 and before Trump had launched his tariff strategy. Estimates for annualized inflation three and five years ahead remained unchanged at 3% and 2.6%. Inflation uncertainty, or the uncertainty expressed regarding future inflation outcomes, decreased at the one- and three-year-ahead horizons and was unchanged at the five-year-ahead horizon

Median home price growth expectations remained unchanged at 3.0%. This series has been moving in a narrow range between 3.0% and 3.3% since August 2023.

Median year-ahead commodity price change expectations increased by 1.5 percentage points for gas to 4.2%, by 1.9 percentage points for the cost of medical care to 9.3% (the highest level since June 2023), by 1.6 percentage points for the cost of college education to 9.1%, and by 0.7 percentage point for rent to 9.1%. Median year-ahead expected change in food prices remained unchanged at 5.5%.

Overall household sentiment also benefited, as unemployment and job loss expectations improved. To wit, mean unemployment expectation, or the mean probability that the U.S. unemployment rate will be higher one year from no, decreased by 1.1 percentage point to 39.7%…

… while the mean perceived probability of losing one’s job in the next 12 months decreased by 0.8% to 14.0%, the lowest level since December 2024. The decrease was broad-based across age and education groups

Median one-year-ahead earnings growth expectations fell by 0.2 percentage point to 2.5% in June, remaining below its 12-month trailing average of 2.8%. The series has been moving within the range between 2.5% and 3.0% since May 2021

While spending growth expectations slightly declined, household income growth expectations increased: the median expected growth in household income increased by 0.2 percentage point to 2.9% in June, equaling its 12-month trailing average.

Households were also more optimistic about their year-ahead financial situations and credit access

Finally, after sliding to a record low 33.8% in March, household expectations for higher stock prices one year from now rose to 36.0%…

… and while expectations for growth in government debt also rose to a 7.3% annual increase, the highest since October, the real number will be much, much higher now that Trump’s BBB (and future US credit rating) has passed.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Equities and bonds sold off (a bit) yesterday, primarily on tariff headlines. Letters went out to a myriad of countries, with Japan and South Korea leading the way. Their tariffs were “reset” to roughly the Liberation Day rates.

We discussed the risk that the administration would take another serious stab at tariffs, in this weekend’s Big Beautiful Production for Security.

For now, the market’s muted response makes sense:

• The messaging from both the President, but particularly from Bessent, seem to be guiding to “more negotiations” into a “newish” August “sort of” deadline.

• Given prior pauses, extensions and pullbacks, it is reasonable for the market to assume that the latest round of tariffs (via letters) won’t amount to much (it was incredibly difficult not to include a joke about the post office losing the letters in the mail).

• This administration has been extremely busy. The President is very “hands on” and he had to give the decision to go ahead with the strike on Iran, he had to manage the process of getting the Big Beautiful Bill passed (which, we discussed in more detail this weekend), and he went to NATO to get 5% commitments. So the admin might just need the time to get refocused on trade deals as they likely took a backseat to those pressing issues.

• While the market is right not to get too concerned at the moment, there is a risk that it is being very complacent:

• The tariff revenue is real and the administration may want more of it, a LOT more of it.

• We don’t know what other countries are thinking. Messaging from many other countries seems to be that:

• The U.S. goals seem unclear and confusing, making deals difficult.

• Many countries seem to be thinking about tariffing “services” which they may decide is a good way for them to boost their tech industries where they are quite clearly behind and dependent on U.S. based firms (that would not be good).

Markets will be on edge, looking towards deals. Very little risk of new, higher tariffs is being priced into the market. That seems both plausible and dangerous from a positioning standpoint.

I’d rather fight the move in bond yields (10’s at 4.41%) than “buy the dip” as stock futures are already higher.

Maybe these tariff headlines are “fake news” but at the all-time highs, that is a might big assumption.

Federal government agencies terminated 54 contracts over two days that netted $804 million in savings, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) said in a July 5 post on social media platform X.

The canceled “wasteful contracts” had a ceiling value of $1.8 billion, it said.

These include an “$842k USAID professional services contract for a ‘director of the Armenia innovation hub within the USAID/Armenia Economic Growth Office’ and a $33k USAGM contract for ‘24/7 FM broadcast services to the Togolese Republic.’”

As Naveen Athrappully reports for The Epoch Times, DOGE’s announcement follows Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s confirmation of the shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on July 1, arguing that the foreign assistance provided by the agency failed to deliver results for Americans.

USAID was part of a “globe-spanning NGO industrial complex” funded by U.S. taxpayers, he said, using the abbreviation of “nongovernmental organization.”

In a July 6 post on X, DOGE commended the Office of Personnel Management for having cut its annual spending on federal contracts by 50 percent while “improving both the quality and scope of its services.”

For instance, the agency saved $5.9 million through restructuring the IT helpdesk while also instituting efficiency measures.

“As a result, the average ticket backlog dropped by 30 percent,” DOGE said.

According to a June 29 update by DOGE, the initiative has so far saved $190 billion in taxpayer funds through measures such as contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, cancellation of grants, and asset sales.

This translates into roughly $1,180 saved per American taxpayer.

Some of the “strangest, most baffling uses” of government funding uncovered by DOGE include a $2.8 million grant to address “historic and systemic racial inequities” in STEM education and a $6.9 million grant for teaching social and emotional learning from an “antiracist approach.”

Agencies that have generated the most savings under DOGE include the Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Department of Education, and the Office of Personnel Management.

DOGE has been operating for more than a month without Elon Musk at its head. Musk left the initiative in May after his tenure as a special government employee expired.

Subsequently, Musk and President Donald Trump engaged in an escalating public feud over the One Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4.

Musk has criticized spending in the new law, saying it will increase the United States’ debt ceiling by $5 trillion.

Privacy Issue, Codifying DOGE Practices

DOGE has come under fire from Democrats over the issue of citizen privacy. In a June 8 letter to the acting inspector general of the Department of Education, Democrat lawmakers accused the agency of refusing to provide them with “key information” regarding DOGE’s “infiltration” of the department.

This includes DOGE employees’ access to sensitive data, the letter said.

“Because of the Department’s refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE’s role and influence at [the Department of Education] remains unknown,” the lawmakers wrote.

“This lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education.”

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers introduced the “DOGE in Spending Act” last month, which aims to codify DOGE practices to identify and prevent improper and fraudulent payments, according to a June 5 statement from the office of Sen. Kevin Kramer (R-N.D.), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill.

The act seeks to modernize the Treasury’s payment oversight system. It would require each federal disbursement to specify the purpose of the expenditure and the source of funding.

“From the moment he took office, President Trump laid out a clear agenda: eliminate waste, reduce unnecessary spending, and restore fiscal sanity to Washington,” Cramer said.

“The Department of Government Efficiency has delivered—cutting through layers of bureaucracy.

“This agency has taken a scalpel to the federal government, slashing misspending, and eliminating fraudulent and improper payments. By codifying DOGE’s best practices, we safeguard the taxpayer dollars of North Dakotans and Americans across the country.”

The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Among the more interesting highlights from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on Monday was that during the Trump-hosted dinner, and at a moment the Gaza war is still raging, Bibi presented the US president with a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Part of the stated rationale was that Trump pushed for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which has held, though the whole 12-day war seemed highly planned and choreographed between Washington and Tel Aviv. Widespread reports said that Trump greenlit Israel’s surprise attack and even set up a sham nuclear talks process in order to lull Iran into a false sense of comfort. The Abraham Accords were also a big reason for Netanyahu’s gesture.

“The president has already realized a great opportunity. He forged the Abraham Accords. He’s forging peace as we speak in one country and one region after the other,” Netanyahu said. “So, I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize committee. It’s nominating you for the peace prize, which is well deserved.”

“This I didn’t know,” Trump said upon receiving and looking over the letter. “Wow. Thank you very much. Coming from you in particular, this is very meaningful.”

But ironically, at this very moment the region is still on fire – literally and figuratively. War is flaring up again the Red Sea and in Yemen, Israel’s military is still taking on mass casualties and inflicting them on the Palestinian population in Gaza, and Syria is now overrun by various terrorist groups in the wake of Assad’s fall. Israel’s military is also still taking occasional shots at Lebanon, including bombing raids.

As its stands, President Trump doesn’t seem in the mood to employ the standard two-state solution talking point of pretty much all past and recent administrations. He responded, “I don’t know” when he was asked by reporters whether a two-state solution was possible.

Netanyahu, for his part, explained that “After October 7th, people said the Palestinians have a state, a Hamas state in Gaza and look what they did with it. They didn’t build it up. They built down into bunkers, into terror tunnels after which they massacred our people, raped our women, beheaded our men, invaded our cities and our towns, our kibbutzim and did horrendous massacres, the kind of which we didn’t see since World War II and the Nazis, the Holocaust. So people aren’t likely to say, ‘Let’s just give them another state.’ It’ll be a platform to destroy Israel.”

Netanyahu seems to be saying it’s ‘either us or them’ in terms of who is fated for destruction. His brutal policies in Gaza also speak loudest.

“We will work out a peace with our Palestinian neighbors, those who don’t want to destroy us and we will work out a peace in which our security, the sovereign power of security, always remains in our hands,” Netanyahu continued.

“Now people will say, ‘It’s not a complete state, it’s not a state, it’s not that.’ We don’t care. We vowed never again. Never again is now. It’s not going to happen again.”

Another interesting moment from the White House dinner, related to Syria and regional geopolitics:

Trump finally publicly admitted that Netanyahu asked him to lift sanctions on Syria, in case anyone is still denying Jolani’s utility for Israel.

Trump was very impressed by Jolani and said his tough background (ISIS/AQ) makes sense, since “he’s from a tough part of the world.” pic.twitter.com/cX3URpNQUp

— Lindsey Snell (@LindseySnell) July 8, 2025

Trump has appeared generally supportive of this more hawkish and unbending stance from the Israeli leader, even as diplomats in the region continue to forge ahead on renewed ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel, which are being conducted ‘indirectly’.