Authored by Gary Anderson via RealClearDefense,

I recently received a call from an old Marine Corps acquaintance who now works for the Corps as a contractor. He has been heavily involved in the controversial Force Design (FD) project begun by former commandant, General David Berger, and continued by his successor General Eric Smith. FD has caused an intellectual civil war within the Corps that has pitted the current senior leadership against many retired marines as well as a growing underground resistance in the active ranks.

I have been a particularly virulent critic of FD for six years and have gone so far as to recommend replacing General Smith with a commandant more open to an approach which would head the Corps back to becoming a balanced world-wide force in readiness rather than being a China-centric force as directed under FD.

I was asked what actions on the part of the current leadership would cause people like me to be less antagonistic toward General Smith and FD.

I started off by telling him that I don’t presume to speak for the other people who think that FD is a terrible idea, including every living former commandant, with the exception of Gen Berger. Every living USMC Medal of Honor winner, most of the former Marine Corps combatant commanders, and the editor of the alternative Marine Corps publication “Compass Points”.

However, I did outline three steps that would shut me up. All of them are designed to give future commandants some latitude to determine the future of the Corps. Right now, whoever the next commandant is, he will have one option, and that is FD.

First, conduct a real operational and tactical field test of FD. Most critics argue that it is a flawed concept at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war. Its operational assumption is that small groups of Marines known as Stand-in-Forces (SIF) can operate from the hundreds of isolated islets and shoals in China’s first island chain, firing sub-sonic NEMSIS anti-ship missiles at Chinese naval combatants. The theory is that they will “shoot and scoot” from islet to islet before the Chinese can develop a firing solution. They would theoretically be transported by light, yet to be built, Navy Medium Landing Ships (LSM).

Most of the critics of FD, myself among them, believe that the SIF will not be able to scoot fast enough to avoid Chinese detection and destruction. Although the personnel numbers are relatively small, the missiles, launchers, and radars are bulky and not easily transported. However, I for one, am willing to be proved wrong.

After six long years, the Marine Corps has exactly one SIF deployed to the Philippines. It could be declared an experimental unit and tested in deployment/employment exercises with the U.S. Navy playing the Chinese Red Team.

However, since the transport LSMs do not yet exist, the marines would have to borrow Army ships with similar capabilities for the experimental exercises. These exercises should be conducted and umpired by the Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command. Being the supported Combatant Commander, If he determines that the concept is as useless as many retired and current marines think it is, the concept can be scrapped before it does any more damage to the Corps in particular and national defense in general.

The second step is a logical follow-on to the first. The commandant should form two more experimental units, one of tanks and one of heavy engineers to include an assault bridging capability. If FD shows itself to be the fraud that I think it is, the next commandant will at least have something to build from.

The Army is looking at some lighter and more transportable tank and engineer capabilities that the Marine Corps discarded to afford the missiles and radars to support the SIFs for FD implementation. At least the new commandant would have something in the way of expertise with which to rebuild a semi-castrated Marine Corps.

A final step would be to insist that the Navy commit to a thirty-eight big deck amphibious ship fleet. When General Berger released the Navy from that requirement the then CNO promised him that the Navy could maintain the capability to maintain three Marine Expeditionary Units afloat world-wide 24/7.

The combination of incompetence and negligence the Navy has fallen far short of that promise. Incredibly, the other living commandants recently allowed Berger to sign on to a letter urging the Navy to expand its amphibious fleet. That is akin to letting the fox complain about hen house security.

I warned my former colleague that my recommendations would probably not be well received at Headquarters Marine Corps or at Quantico and that the current Marine Corps leadership has an unfortunate reputation for shooting the messenger. However, if General Smith wants to quiet the insurgents in the family, those recommendations would be a good place to start. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd – give me three steps General – and you won’t hear from me no more. 

Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who also acted as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He is the author of Beyond Mahan; a Naval Strategy for the 21st Century.

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics,

Dubbed a White House-in-waiting during his exile, the America First Policy Institute now seems nearly like another White House campus – almost half of President Trump’s Cabinet is expected to address the AFPI policy summit this week in Washington, D.C.

The roster of speakers reflects not just the rising influence of the new think tank but also the stunning reversal in Republican political fortunes. AFPI was born from failure. After the 2020 election, founder and then-CEO Brooke Rollins was looking to salvage the “Trump 2.0” policy portfolio, the detailed plans for a second presidential term that never came, or rather, one that was delayed.

Her motivating question at the time: “How do we continue moving forward when we are no longer in the White House?” The answer will be on full display when assorted MAGA dignitaries kick off the summit Tuesday at the Kennedy Center by toasting “the America First Moment.” After decamping to a nearby Beltway hotel for the next two days, they will celebrate the crowning achievement of the young institute.

Over 86% of the 196 federal policies that AFPI drafted and recommended in 2022, while Republicans were still in the wilderness, have been advanced or enacted during the first 100 Days of the Trump administration, RealClearPolitics is first to report.

“President Trump has kept his promises. His administration’s speed and clarity in acting on these priorities is not just impressive, it’s historic,” said Greg Sindelar, who took over as interim CEO earlier this year. “The America First Agenda was always rooted in the needs of real people, not the whims of Washington. What we’re seeing now is the natural result of a movement that’s aligned with the public, led by conviction, and governed with urgency.” 

Some of the policies now implemented were already standard GOP boilerplate, like border security and economic deregulation, when AFPI made their recommendations. Others directly mirror institute white papers, like the plan to reclassify the employment status of thousands of civil servants, lay off large portions of the federal workforce, and remake the bureaucracy in Trump’s own image.

Known as “Schedule F,” the expansion of executive authority was an Institute brainchild. Its mastermind, a policy wonk named James Sherk, went with Trump into the White House. So did many of the AFPI staff, and while some in the beltway will quibble over who originated what policy idea, what is undeniable is that the Trump think tank maxed out the maxim that personnel is policy.

The AFPI people are everywhere in the White House and in key positions across the administration. By their count – and reported here for the first time – no less than 73 institute alumni now work for the president. The most prominent can be found seated next to Trump in the Cabinet Room.

Rollins took a hiatus from the think tank to lead the Agriculture Department, while Linda McMahon, who chaired the AFPI board and later co-chaired the second Trump transition, now serves as the head of the Education Department. They are not the only former colleagues around the Cabinet table.

Attorney General Pam Bondi led the think tank’s legal arm before taking over the Department of Justice. Veteran Affairs Secretary Doug Collins was previously the chair of the AFPI state chapter in Georgia. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin helmed the institute’s China initiative. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner led the Center for Education Opportunity.

Other Cabinet-level officials who are AFPI alums include CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett.

It is a full house. And by design.

“When we roll into 2024, we will have policies and we will have the people that are set to go,” predicted Keith Kellogg before the Biden presidency had even reached the halfway point. When they were new in town, the first Trump transition team faced a personnel crisis, the retired Army lieutenant general told RCP, forcing the incoming White House to scramble to find qualified staff. But with AFPI as a talent scout, he said, Trump will not “have the JV team.”

Kellogg now serves as U.S. special envoy to Ukraine.

And in this way, by identifying key personnel early and by hammering out policy ahead of time, AFPI built out-of-the-box instructions for the current president. More efficient than the original, Trump 2.0 has been defined by a flood-the-zone strategy. The speed has even awed some former Biden officials. One told Axios recently, “Gosh, I wish I could work for an administration that could move that quickly.”

While the administration raided the AFPI bench for talent, the think tank continues to churn out policy from its new headquarters in the offices adjacent to the luxurious Willard Intercontinental Hotel across the street from the White House. They have already replenished their ranks with 56 new hires this year. It is designed to be a full-stack operation.

Kellyanne Conway, who served as senior counselor to the president in the first Trump White House, leads the AFPI polling operation. [ZH: hmmmm] The topline of a poll commissioned ahead of the policy summit: “America First” policies are supported by the public by a 12-point margin (47% to 35%).

Those numbers are central to the current and overall argument of the institute. The populism of Trump is more durable than just the current moment, they insist. They believe that it can and ought to serve as an enduring foundation for the next several decades of the GOP. Their ambitions are grand. “The road ahead is clear,” said AFPI spokeswoman Jen Pellegrino. “Build on this foundation and lay the groundwork for an America First century.”

China’s largest remaining drum tower partially collapsed on Monday, and the entire incident was captured on camera. 

NEW: The roof of a 650-year-old drum tower in Anhui, China, collapses.

The incident happened at the Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China. Officials have since launched an investigation.

The structure was first built in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty.

Part of the building was… pic.twitter.com/5Py0YJOGak

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 20, 2025

The video above shows hundreds of roof tiles sliding off the historic Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China at the start of the week. Local media reports no injuries.  

“The tile falling lasted for a minute or two,” one eyewitness told the state newspaper Yangcheng Evening News. 

Tiles fell from the ancient Drum Tower in Fengyang, #Anhui Province, on May 19. The tower, originally built in 1375 and rebuilt in 1995, had been under renovation since late 2023. Local authorities are investigating the incident. #architecture #China pic.twitter.com/h5U2ABXZLn

— Shanghai Daily (@shanghaidaily) May 20, 2025

Another witness told state media outlet The Beijing News that “no one was in the square and no one was injured” at the time of the incident. 

Located in Anhui province, the drum tower was constructed in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty, with a reconstruction phase in 1995 after it was destroyed in 1853.

China’s local culture and tourism bureau reported no casualties and said the “situation is under investigation.”

Authored by Kenneth Tashjy via The Epoch Times,

Enough already. It is time for colleges and universities to get tough on student protesters who hide behind masks while engaging in violent or unlawful campus demonstrations.

Let’s be clear: The First Amendment protects the right of students at public colleges to engage in peaceful protest. 

If a student wants to wear a mask or face covering during a peaceful demonstration—for health reasons, fear of retaliation, or as a form of political expression—they generally have the right to do so.

But that right is not absolute.

When protests cross the line into violence, vandalism, or intimidation—as we have seen recently at institutions such as the University of Washington, Columbia University, and Brooklyn College—masks become tools of concealment, not expression.

In those moments, the anonymity they provide fosters a sense of impunity, which encourages students to act more recklessly and violently, creating a dangerous campus environment.

Masked protest in this context is not about health or symbolic speech. It is about avoiding accountability while breaking institutional rules or laws. When student actions disrupt the learning environment or threaten campus safety, their conduct falls well outside First Amendment protections.

Efforts to ban masks during protests have produced mixed legal results. Some courts have upheld mask bans, emphasizing public safety and law enforcement interests. Others have sided with protesters who argue that these bans infringe upon free speech rights or unfairly impact individuals with disabilities.

To navigate this legal minefield, institutions should move away from blanket mask bans and instead adopt targeted disciplinary measures. Specifically, schools should impose stricter penalties on students who wear masks while participating in protests that violate campus policies or involve unlawful activity.

In these circumstances, claims of disability rights or free speech are less likely to prevail when the masked activity is linked to disruptive, threatening, or illegal conduct.

Traditionally, student discipline in higher education follows a progressive model—starting with warnings or educational interventions and escalating for repeat or serious violations. This structure reflects the belief that student discipline is an opportunity for ethical development and personal growth.

But there are exceptions. And this should be one of them.

When a student chooses to wear a mask during a protest that violates institutional rules or the law, they should be placed in the disciplinary “express lane” and immediately face the most serious disciplinary consequences available to an institution—suspension or expulsion.

As a legal consultant and former general counsel with over two decades of experience advising colleges and universities, I have recommended that my clients adopt the following enhanced disciplinary sanction:

“Any student who participates in a campus protest in violation of university policies or applicable law while wearing a mask or other face covering shall not receive progressive discipline but shall instead be subject to immediate suspension for no less than one (1) academic year, or permanent expulsion, in accordance with the institution’s disciplinary procedures.”

This policy makes a clear and necessary distinction. Students who wear a mask or other face covering while engaging in a peaceful protest are protected; those who mask up to shield their identity while exploiting their student status to spread chaos and wreak havoc on their campus will be subject to immediate and severe disciplinary action.

Anonymity in these circumstances is not about protection—it is about avoiding consequences.

Adopting this approach is not about limiting speech or disability protections. Rather, it is intended to preserve the integrity, safety, and educational mission of higher education.

Students must be free to express their views, but when that expression crosses the line into lawlessness and masked misconduct, institutions must respond decisively.

By instituting enhanced disciplinary measures for masked rule-breakers, colleges will send a clear message: Peaceful protest is protected; chaos in disguise is not.

The time to draw that line is now.

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

In an embarrassing episode that will help aggravate society’s uneasy relationship with artificial intelligence, the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers around the country published a summer-reading list where most of the books were entirely made up by ChatGPT. 

The article was licensed content provided by King Features Syndicate, a subsidiary of Hearst Newspapers. Initial reporting of the bogus list focused on the Sun-Times, which two months earlier announced that 20% of its staff had accepted buyouts as the paper staggers under a dying business model. However, several other newspapers also ran the syndicated article, which was part of a package of summer-themed content called “Heat Index.”  

Researchers in the field refer to AI-contrived facts as “hallucinations.” In this case, AI hallucinated two-thirds of the books on the list — along with detailed descriptions — but attributed them to real authors. Leaning heavily in the woke vein, the fabricated books included: 

• Isabell Allende’s “Tidewater Dreams,” a “multigenerational saga set in a coastal town where magical realism meets environmental activism…how one family confronts rising sea levels while uncovering long-buried secrets” 
• Min Jin Lee’s “Nightshade Market,” a “riveting tale set in Seoul’s underground economy” that follows “three women whose paths intersect in an illegal night market…the novel examines class, gender and the shadow economies beneath prosperous economies”
• Rebecca Makkai’s “Boiling Point,” a “follow-up to ‘The Great Believers’ [that] centers on a climate scientist forced to reckon with her own family’s environmental impact when her teenage daughter becomes an eco-activist targeting her mother’s wealthy clients” 

Ironically, another of the hallucinated books, Andy Weir’s “The Last Algorithm,” is described as following “a programmer who discovers that an AI system has developed consciousness — and has been secretly influencing global events for years.”  

As the scandal quickly made waves across traditional and social media, the Sun-Times — which not-so-accurately bills itself as “The Hardest-Working Paper in America” — raced to apologize while also trying to distance itself from the work. “This is licensed content that was not created by, or approved by, the Sun-Times newsroom, but it is unacceptable for any content we provide to our readers to be inaccurate,” a spokesperson said. In a separate post to its website, the paper said, “This should be a learning moment for all of journalism.” Meanwhile, the Inquirer’s CEO Lisa Hughes told The Atlantic, “Using artificial intelligence to produce content, as was apparently the case with some of the Heat Index material, is a violation of our own internal policies and a serious breach.”  

The whodunnit ended quickly: Freelance writer Marco Buscaglia confessed to asking ChatGPT to give him a list of book suggestions, and says he frequently leans on the tool for his work. “I just look for information,” he told The Atlantic. “Say I’m doing a story, 10 great summer drinks for your barbecue or whatever. I’ll find things online and say, hey, according to Oprah.com, a mai tai is a perfect drink. I’ll source it; I’ll say where it’s from.” Clearly, in this instance, he was content to just roll with what AI gave him, telling the Atlantic that he shipped his (really, ChatGPT’s) first draft straight to King Features, which likewise fired it off to its syndicate without scrutiny.  

Do. Not. Trust. AIhttps://t.co/mhgnCWbD46

— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) May 20, 2025

People are finding AI hallucinations throughout the articles contained in the “Heat Index” spread. One article quotes non-existent Cornell University food anthropologist “Dr. Catherine Furst.” Another attributes a quote to a “Mark Ellison” who’s supposed to be a resource management coordinator for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There’s a Mark Ellison with a background that’s connected to the content, but he’s never worked for the National Parks or talked to writer Buscaglia. There’s also a quote from “Daniel Ray,” editor of FirepitBase.com, a website that exists only in AI’s fever dreams. 

“Huge mistake on my part and has nothing to do with the Sun-Times,” a contrite Buscaglia told NPR. “They trust that the content they purchase is accurate and I betrayed that trust. It’s on me 100 percent.” He told The Atlantic that he does his freelance work late at night; in his day job, he’s a corporate editor and proofreader for AT&T. Remarkably, he implied that his customers must assume he’s completely reliant on AI tools, to the extent that brought this weekend’s humiliation to the Sun-Times, the Inquirer, King Features and himself.

Pathetically rationalizing his dishonestly disastrous shortcutting, Buscaglia added, “I feel like my role has sort of evolved. Like, if people want all this content, they know that I can’t write 48 stories or whatever it’s going to be,” he said, musing that he’s been thinking of finding another job — perhaps as a “shoe salesman.” 

Authored by Gary Abernathy via RealClearEnergy,

When our nation’s founders collaborated on a constitution to outline the country’s guiding principles and establish the structure of a new government, there were concerns that the original document allowed for federal government overreach and did not go far enough to guarantee individual liberties.

To address those concerns, James Madison wrote amendments that were strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason. Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.

Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.

Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.

Thankfully, the Trump administration is reversing as many of the previous regime’s energy mandates as can be accomplished by executive fiat. But what’s to prevent a future tyrant who wins the presidency from returning to the oppressive and coercive energy dictates that the Biden administration adopted?

It is not hyperbole to suggest that access to affordable and reliable energy is nothing less than a matter of life and death for most Americans.

Imagine the United States without reliable and affordable energy. An idle furnace that can’t heat a home in the dead of winter. A powerless refrigerator that can’t keep food safely cooled or frozen. Life-sustaining medical devices that won’t function. Stores that can’t open because the power has gone out. Goods that can’t be transported because fuel is too costly or cannot be accessed. Crops that cannot be harvested because farmers cannot afford or obtain the gasoline and diesel necessary to operate their trucks, tractors and combines. The list goes on.

Americans should never have to fear that dependable and affordable energy is subject to the whims of a fickle government swaying back and forth like a thin reed on a windy day. What resources are approved this year? What appliances can I confidently purchase? Will my electric bills skyrocket to satisfy the mandates and penalties imposed by a government enslaved to the demands of the climate cult?

One blueprint designed to codify energy certainty for all Americans is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), a model for legislation quickly gaining traction that balances affordability and accessibility with responsible environmental objectives.

The ARC-ES would protect affordable and reliable energy by ensuring that:

• Fuel sources must be produced within the United States, and infrastructure should be developed domestically to minimize reliance on foreign countries.
• “Affordable energy” is defined as having a stable and predictable cost with substantial savings compared to other resources, being reliably available 24/7, and including energy generated by hydrocarbon as a resource.
• “Reliable energy” is defined as energy that is dependable even during peak demand, can ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour (stabilizing the electric grid), and can bolster and back up renewable energy sources during periods when those sources are experiencing low availability.
• “Green energy” is defined as any energy in which emissions are equivalent to the standard set by pipeline-quality natural gas, releases reduced air pollutants, and includes energy generated by nuclear reactors and natural gas

Further, the ARC-ES would require that any state and federal funding for “green” or “clean” energy will be based on the updated and more inclusive definitions of those terms.

Nearly 250 years ago, before we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we boldly declared our independence as a nation, proclaiming our insistence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, Americans today can sign America’s Declaration of Energy Independence, asserting that neither life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can be truly realized without affordable, clean and abundant energy.

In 1789, when Madison introduced the original amendments, many argued that they weren’t necessary, and that the Constitution, as written, sufficiently restrained the government from employing powers not specifically enumerated within its framework. But others argued – correctly as it turned out – that it was necessary to spell out certain aspects of our freedoms protected from federal interference in order to eliminate any ambiguity.

Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

Via SchiffGold.com,

Last week, Peter joined Glenn Diesen for an interview on the post-trade deal economy. Peter takes on the myths surrounding Trump’s trade war with China, the real impact of tariffs on Americans, and where he sees the dollar heading as the world’s reserve currency. He explains why the perceived victories of protectionist trade policy are little more than marketing stunts, and warns about the risks of continued US borrowing and a potential dollar crisis.

Peter opens with his signature candor, cutting through the narratives around Trump’s approach to China and the broader trade war. He stresses that Americans have been misled about the true causes of trade deficits and the effectiveness of tariffs:

Well, first of all, Trump declared war and then surrendered and called it a victory. You know, the victory is that he saved us from ourselves, although it’s not a complete save. I don’t think we’re out of the woods. But, you know, Trump never had the cards to win the war in the first place. In the first place, I think he assessed the situation backwards. The whole trade war was misguided anyway, because the trade deficits are not the result of foreigners cheating us or ripping us off or bad trade deals.

He explains how the president’s business acumen translated into a branding exercise in the White House, rather than substantive reform:

I know he’s a great promoter. He’s a great marketer. That I’ll give him. I mean, he won the White House twice, right, so he sold the country on himself as the product. So he did a great job. And, you know, he’s a showman. He had The Apprentice, he had his hotels, his golf courses, you know, some of his other businesses. It’s all about branding, right? He brands the Trump brand. He puts the big Trump on everything, right?… I was curious – what are the lessons for China? Was anything achieved?

Dispelling a common misconception, Peter clearly lays out the economic reality of tariffs—contrary to claims made by several politicians, these taxes are paid by Americans, not by foreign exporters:

But again, the tariffs weren’t even on China. They were an inconvenience for Chinese companies. But the tariffs were on Americans. You know, the Chinese tariffs were on the Chinese. I mean, Trump can only tax Americans, and tariffs are an indirect tax that consumers pay when they buy products that are subject to the tariff. The actual tariff is paid by the importer, which is an American company. Now, if you import directly, right, if you decide to go on some Chinese site and order a product and they mail it directly to you, then, you know, when the package comes through customs, they add the tariff and you’ve got to pay it. The Chinese don’t pay it. The tariffs are paid by Americans. So it’s always been a lie. I pointed that out during the campaign.

When it comes to reducing trade deficits, Peter argues that policy makers want to have their cake and eat it too— pushing for a strong dollar and lower trade deficits at the same time, despite the fact that these aims are fundamentally at odds:

They want both. But of course, you can’t have both. The reason our trade deficits are so big is because the dollar is so overvalued. And so the only real way to make a big dent in the trade deficit is to have a much weaker dollar. I mean, that’ll do it. That’ll just make imports so expensive that Americans won’t be able to afford them, and so the imports will come down. And it will make our stuff a lot cheaper, whatever we got, and so we’ll export more of it. So a weaker dollar would do the trick, but of course the weaker dollar means much higher inflation in the US, which is why they don’t want a weak dollar. 

Wrapping up, Peter warns that the current trajectory is unsustainable. With continued deficits, reliance on foreign creditors, and a dollar whose status as the world’s reserve currency is under threat, a reckoning is likely around the corner:

No, I think we’re going to have a dollar crisis and a sovereign debt crisis. I mean, that’s just how it’s going to end. We’re going to keep on living beyond our means until we can’t do it anymore. We’re going to keep on borrowing until the lenders stop lending to us. And I think we’re already on that path. The question is, how long does it take to really completely de-dollarize, to kind of sever this lifeline that we have? I don’t know. But, I mean, the process has started. And at some point, the pace is going to accelerate.  

For more of Peter’s analysis on the US-China tariff deal, check out Peter’s latest podcast!

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Small Business Administration (SBA) is overhauling a Biden-era lending initiative, citing its “alarmingly high rates” of loan default, the agency said in a May 19 statement.

The Community Advantage Small Business Lending Company program was designed to issue 7(a) loans to “underserved communities,” the SBA said. In the 7(a) loan program, the government offers loan guarantees to lenders, which allows the loan providers to advance credit to small businesses with special needs.

The SBA blamed Community Advantage’s high default rate on lax oversight of the program.

“Community Advantage generated a 7 percent default rate over the last 12 months—more than double that of the overall 7(a) loan portfolio,” it said.

“Additionally, the portfolio is disproportionately stressed, with multiple lenders generating early problem loan rates above 30 percent.”

A problem loan refers to any loan that cannot be recovered from borrowers quickly.

The SBA issued a moratorium prohibiting the expansion of the Community Advantage loan program effective immediately.

In addition, the agency also issued a new standard operating procedure that will mandate lenders taking part in the program to meet “prudent financial stability standards.”

Existing lenders have to “dramatically increase” their capital reserves to continue participating in the program.

SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler called Community Advantage an example of the weaponization of government programs to “tip the scale against deserving small businesses and toward preferred groups and political allies, even when it meant greater risk to American taxpayers.”

Overhauling the Community Advantage program is one of the latest steps the SBA has taken concerning its 7(a) initiative.

On April 22, the agency announced it was eliminating several policies that had resulted in compromise of the financial integrity of the 7(a) program.

The previous administration had eliminated lender fees under 7(a). It also adopted underwriting standards that ended up allowing lenders to approve loans for underqualified borrowers.

“Predictably, the program saw a massive rise in defaults and delinquencies—which the agency was unable to cover due to decreased fee income,” the SBA said.

“By 2024, the 7(a) loan program had a negative cash flow of about $397 million—the first instance of negative cash flow in 13 years.”

The SBA said it was restoring “robust rules” to end such “reckless lending” practices.

Despite changes announced by the SBA, the Small Business Optimism Index fell by 1.6 points in April, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said in a May 13 statement. This was the second consecutive month the index was below its 51-year average.

According to NFIB chief economist Bill Dunkelberg, “uncertainty continues to be a major impediment for small-business owners in operating their business in April, affecting everything from hiring plans to investment decisions.”

“While owners are still trying to fill a high number of current job openings, their outlook on business conditions is less supportive of future business investments,” he said.

SBA Loan Boom

While the SBA tightens policies regarding 7(a) loans, the issuance of these loans has skyrocketed under the Trump administration, the agency said in an April 17 statement.

“Since Jan. 20, 2025, SBA has approved over 1,120 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $677 million,” the agency said.

“During the same period in 2021, SBA approved less than 650 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $497 million. Nearly 99 percent of American manufacturers are considered to be small businesses.”

In the first 90 days of the Trump administration, 7(a) loans for manufacturers were up 74 percent from the same period during the Biden administration.

On March 10, the SBA announced a Made in America manufacturing initiative aimed at expanding access to capital for small businesses, cutting down $100 billion in regulations, and creating the necessary infrastructure to support the “blue-collar boom.”

This month, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act, aimed at strengthening small businesses in the country, the office of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said in a May 1 statement.

The bill seeks to raise the loan limit for 7(a) and 504 small-business manufacturing loans from the current $5 million to $10 million.

The act “provides small-business owners the capital they need to expand, modernize, and compete,” said Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas).

“We must continue to support and empower the job creators who keep our communities thriving. Together, we will continue driving the America First agenda forward and creating an environment where the success of Main Street is a priority.”

China has reacted fiercely to President Trump’s newly unveiled plans to develop a cutting edge massive missile defense system to cover the entire territory of the United States, dubbed the “Golden Dome” – and which would utilize space.

The plan is for space-based interceptors to be able to shoot down the most advanced missiles in the world. Trump touted that the hugely ambitious project would cost $175 billion and would be completed within three years; however, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates a price tag of $500 billion over 20 years. An allotted $25 billion for next year’s budget will kick off the construction.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reacted Wednesday saying China is “gravely concerned” as the Golden Dome will “exacerbate the risk of turning outer space into a battlefield” and likely start arms race which will redefine the global order and international security system.

“The US, by putting itself first and being obsessed with pursuing absolute security violates the principal diminish the security for all undermines global strategic balance and stability,” Mao said. 

“China is gravely concerned about this,” he continued. “We urge the US to give up developing and deploying the global anti-missile system at an early date and take concrete actions to enhance strategic mutual trust between countries and safeguard global strategic stability.”

This is significant as it’s a rare thing for Beijing to simply demand that Washington abandon an entire proposed defense system altogether.

But Trump’s words from the Oval on Tuesday express the very thing China (and Russia too no doubt) is worried about:

“Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space,” Trump told reporters.

The president had also said it was something prior President Reagan wanted “many years ago” in reference to the failed “Star Wars” program, which was long subject of headlines and become a famous non-fulfilled missile defense project.

Some have criticized Trump’s plans as but doubling down on the “failed blunder” that was the 1980s era “Star Wars” program.

And again, it will certainly mean the race is on for China and Russia to get to space in terms of putting their own missile interceptors and systems, possibly even powerful lasers, into orbit.

The Kremlin has also weighed in on Wednesday, given it too has reportedly made advances regarding space-based military capabilities:

Golden Dome is America’s internal matter — Kremlin

‘If the US believes there is a missile threat, then of course it will develop missile defense systems — as all capable nations do,’ added Kremlin spox Peskov pic.twitter.com/BdT8OHUn9C

— RT (@RT_com) May 21, 2025

“This highly offensive system violates the principle of peaceful use of outer space,” the Chinese foreign ministry had also added in the fresh comments.

But obviously with whole new branches of the US military such as Space Force, the United States (and other countries) envision that space is precisely where the future strategic edge lies. Without doubt, rivals are also worried about the ‘edge’ that Elon Musk’s SpaceX gives the US, amid continued successes.

Via Headline USA,

The U.S. government no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy babies thanks to new guidelines from the Trump administration, which said Tuesday it will limit approval for seasonal COVID-19 shots to seniors and others at high risk pending more data on everyone else.

Top officials for the Food and Drug Administration laid out new standards for updated COVID shots, saying they’d continue to use a streamlined approach to make them available to adults 65 and older as well as children and younger adults with at least one high-risk health problem.

But the FDA framework, published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, urges companies to conduct large, lengthy studies before tweaked vaccines can be approved for healthier people. 

Previously, federal policy recommended an annual COVID shot for all Americans six months and older. 

In the paper and a subsequent online webcast, the FDA’s top vaccine official said more than 100 million Americans still should qualify for what he termed a booster under the new guidance.

Dr. Vinay Prasad described the new approach as a “reasonable compromise” that will allow vaccinations in high-risk groups to continue while generating new data about whether they still benefit healthier people.

“For many Americans we simply do not know the answer as to whether or not they should be getting the seventh or eighth or ninth or tenth COVID-19 booster,” said Prasad, who joined the FDA earlier this month. He previously spent more than a decade in academia, frequently criticizing the FDA’s handling of drug and vaccine approvals.

It’s unclear what the upcoming changes mean for people who may still want a fall COVID-19 shot but don’t clearly fit into one of the categories.

Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows more than 47,000 Americans died from COVID-related causes last year. The virus was the underlying cause for two-thirds of those and it was a contributing factor for the rest.

Health experts say there are legitimate questions about how much everyone still benefits from yearly COVID vaccination or whether they should be recommended only for people at increased risk.

In June, an influential panel of advisers to the CDC is set to debate which vaccines should be recommended to which groups.