Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

The mixed signals that he sent on Friday suggest that he hasn’t made up his mind about what to do…

The first bilateral Russian-Ukrainian talks in over three years were held in Istanbul on Friday after Zelensky agreed, likely under pressure from Trump, to Putin’s proposal from the week prior. They didn’t result in the unconditional 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine demanded nor did Ukraine agree to withdraw from the entirety of the disputed regions like Russia demanded, but they did agree to a prisoner swap and to hold another round of talks sometime in the future. They therefore weren’t for nothing.

Most importantly, Russia and Ukraine were able to show Trump that they’re interested in peace after he signaled his increasing impatience with the US’ hitherto unsuccessful mediation between them, which could result in him either “escalating to de-escalate” or simply walking away from the conflict. Prior to making his fateful choice about the future of American involvement, Trump will likely hold talks with Putin, at the very least over the phone but ideally in person sometime in the coming weeks.

After all, the ball’s now in his court after the Russian and Ukrainian positions have proven to be irreconcilable, so Russia will either inevitably obtain its maximum goals by continuing to rely on military means to that end or the US will double down on support for Ukraine in order to prevent that outcome. The only realistic compromise would be if the US successfully coerces Ukraine into withdrawing from some or all of the disputed regions in exchange for Russia agreeing to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

The US hasn’t yet attempted that even though it could have tried doing so anytime over the past three months since Trump returned to the White House, however, thus leading to the aforesaid scenario branch. It therefore remains unclear exactly what Trump will do. On the one hand, he just threatened Russia with “crushing” sanctions, but he also just complained about the billions that the US “pissed away” in support of Ukraine. It accordingly looks like he himself hasn’t yet decided how to proceed.

“Escalating to de-escalate” would entail enormous financial and strategic costs, the latter with regard to potentially offsetting his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China and even risking World War III in the worst-case scenario. 

At the same time, walking away would lead to him owning what could then soon become one of the West’s worst geopolitical defeats. The middle ground between these extremes could be strictly enforced secondary sanctions against Russia’s energy clients.

To elaborate, the aim would be to pressure China and India into drastically curtailing their imports, the first as a “goodwill gesture” after Trump’s newly announced “total reset” in their ties and the second as a means to signal its worth to the US in the hopes that Trump reconsiders his incipient pivot to Pakistan. Nevertheless, one or both might still refuse to comply or secretly continue to purchase large amounts of Russian energy, thus forcing the US to either turn a blind eye or worsen ties by sanctioning them.

A blend of these scenarios could see Trump threatening Zelensky with a clean break from this conflict if he doesn’t withdraw from Donbass while threatening Putin with strictly enforced secondary sanctions if he doesn’t accept a (unconditional?) 30-day ceasefire in the event that this happens. Calls could then be made to Xi and Modi to inform them of his plans in the hope that they’ll convince Putin to agree. Such a proposal would be the most pragmatic one from the US’ perspective and could lead to a breakthrough.

Late Friday night, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry announced on X that law enforcement had recaptured three of the ten violent inmates who escaped from a New Orleans jail through a hole in the wall behind a toilet.

“3 down, 7 to go, and we ARE NOT slowing down!” Landry said, adding, “LOCK THEM UP!” 

3 down 7 to go, and we ARE NOT slowing down!

LOCK THEM UP! pic.twitter.com/h8K5cQRwY1

— Jeff Landry (@JeffLandry) May 17, 2025

The brazen jailbreak was caught on video.  

Most shocking: The escape wasn’t discovered until a routine headcount around 8:30 a.m., giving the fugitives more than seven hours of freedom before the alarm was raised. https://t.co/FOaCTMtvEc

— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) May 17, 2025

Before the inmates escaped, they left humorous messages on the wall for correctional officers, including “To easy LoL.”

According to Sheriff Susan Hutson, the inmates broke out of the jail in Orleans Parish around 0100 local time on Friday. 

“We have indication that these detainees received assistance in their escape from individuals inside of our department,” Hutson said. She noted that one jail employee saw the great escape through surveillance footage but did not report it. 

It wasn’t until 0830 local time that jail authorities noticed the missing men after a routine head count, according to the sheriff. That gave the inmates a gap of plus seven hours to flee the area. 

The seven inmates still at large are Corey Boyd, Leo Tate, Jermaine Donald, Derrick Groves, Lenton Vanburen, Antoine T. Massey, and Gary C. Price. Those apprehended include Kendall Myles, Robert Moody, and Dkenan Dennis.

Meanwhile, we’re not sure if the New Orleans police chief is after the escapees or the Batman…

JUST IN: New Orleans Cpt. Stephanie Minto-Gibson wears bizarre glasses to a press conference to give an update on the 10 inmates who escaped jail.

Only one of the inmates has been caught as of this time after the group escaped by removing a toilet from the wall.

What a… pic.twitter.com/CQcOOMyUwN

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 16, 2025

Inside job?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The “Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop” Rally

Last week, we discussed how the rally had repaired much of the previous damage following “Liberation Day.” However, we also made competing cases for the bulls and bears on the market’s next move.

“It is always difficult to say whether this is a ‘bear market’ rally while you are in the midst of it. In hindsight, these things are easy to identify, and investors have plenty of reasons to play the ‘could’ve, should’ve’ game. However, some valid arguments exist about why the recent correction was just that, and may now be over.”

This past week, the market continued its advance. There is little reason to be bearish with key overhead resistance levels broken. However, as shown, the markets are reaching decently overbought levels after being extremely oversold. This suggests that at least for now, the “easy money” has been made. With the market above the 200, and above the 50 and 20-DMA, pullbacks should be between 5600 and 5800. Investors can use such a pullback to increase portfolio equity exposures and reduce hedges accordingly. Conversely, 5000 to 5200 becomes the next critical target if those lower supports are violated. However, such would require some unexpected event to unfold.

Given the reduction in tariff-related risk and stable economic data, we suspect the market will hold bullish support. That statement follows our analysis from earlier this week, which discussed whether we have returned to a bull market or if this is still a bear market rally. That analysis compared the current market advance to the 2022 corrective cycle. However, that article elicited quite a few comments about why the recent “tariff” sell-off could be like the 2020 COVID-pandemic decline and recovery. It’s a fair question and worth a few words.

2020 vs 2025

As shown, there is an analogy between the current market recovery and that seen in 2020 following the pandemic. However, it is worth remembering that there are many competing differences between the current macroeconomic backdrop and that of 2020.

However, as we discussed in that previous analysis, even a “can’t stop, won’t stop bull market” gives those who can be patient better risk/reward opportunities to increase equity exposures. For example, after the initial rally off the March 2020 lows, the market pulled back and consolidated briefly before rallying further. Then, another longer consolidation process that year provided another entry point for bullish investors.

The weekly Technical Gauge we produce each week in this newsletter below follows the same path as 2020. While not yet back to bullish technical extremes, it is moving quickly higher to more elevated levels. When those readings reached 80, the market went through a longer consolidation process in 2020.

So, is this 2022 where the recent rally will fail and test lower levels? Maybe. Or, is it more like 2020, where the rally continues with only mild pullbacks along the way? Possibly. The true answer is that I don’t know. However, it is worth considering that there are many macroeconomic differences today compared to 2020. That lack of fiscal and monetary support, slowing economic growth, and tighter monetary policy are headwinds to higher stock prices. But, it is logical that the latest bullish market action has investors questioning a more cautious approach to the markets.

The same is true for us. We are currently underweight equities and hedged. However, the need for hedges is quickly declining, and the need for equity exposure is increasing. It’s a tough battle between creating portfolio performance and risk management. We are sticking with risk management until things become more certain, at least for now.

This week, we will discuss why another bearish case is fading – recession probabilities are falling.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Coliseum

“A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Coliseum” is a hysterical play by Craig Sodaro. In the play, Simplcuss, a naive Swiss farmer, heads for Rome to follow his dream of becoming a stand-up comedian; little does he know what adventures are in store. Stumbling into the house of General Spurius Sillius in search of food and water, he’s mistaken for the dreaded gladiator, Terribilus, who is due to fight in the Colosseum the following day. Simplcuss has to figure out how to save himself, and he overhears the General’s wife, Drusilla, and Senator Publius Piscious plotting to kill the Emperor’s daughter and the Emperor himself!

Without telling you the ending, there are many similarities to the current market. Over the last several months, the media headlines have been filled with stories of “Recessionus Terribulus.” Whether President Trump planned to deport illegal immigrants, Elon Musk and DOGE cutting government spending, or lately the fears of tariffs, all played into the media headlines of an impending recession.

Of course, there was also economic data to help support those claims. As discussed in the “Consumer Is Tapping Out,” rising delinquency rates are problematic. Particularly, for an economy driven by personal consumption. To wit:

“The current data point toward a recessionary risk. Deflation is highly correlated to economic growth rates, wages, and rates. Unsurprisingly, recessions reduce inflation as demand for goods and services collapses. While inflation may be “sticky,” the recent decline in bond yields and wages suggests consumer demand will decline this year. When tariffs, an additional tax on consumers, increase the cost burden, the reaction historically is not expansionary.”

Furthermore, last weekend’s #BullBearReport noted the rather sharp negative revisions to earnings estimates for the S&P 500 index.

“Given the slowdown in economic growth rates, it is unsurprising that, as of May 1st, S&P Global finally acquiesced and revised earnings estimates lower. However, this wasn’t a mild earnings revision but a slashing of estimates from their April 15th expectation of $292/share in 2026 to just $274. Furthermore, full-year 2025 reported earnings estimates were cut by nearly $20/share from $258/share to just $238/share.”

However, what is interesting is that despite these and several other indicators suggesting an increase in recessionary risk, the financial markets are currently putting in one of the strongest rallies we have seen since the COVID pandemic. Of course, much of that rally came on the heels of the relief of the sharp reduction of tariffs on China, one of the U.S.’s key trading partners.

As such, while Wall Street analysts and economists were slashing economic growth and earnings estimates just a month ago, striking fear into investors’ hearts, that has now reversed.

Recession Probabilities Are Falling

Following the announcements of trade deals with both the UK and China, recession probabilities for 2025 declined. Now, economists are rushing to reverse those previous recession calls.

The reality is that the onerous tariff levels initiated by the Trump administration were never permanent. This was a mistaken assumption by the mainstream media. Furthermore, the “inflation impact” from tariffs, which was expected to cause the recession, has yet to appear. Such is evident in both inflation reports this past week. The chart below shows the composite CPI/PPI index and whether inflation is above or below the long-term average inflation rate. Currently, inflation is 2% below its long-term average.

Inflation failing to appear is unsurprising and something we discussed in detail in “Tariffs Roil Markets.” In their rush to undermine the current administration, the media also failed to consider two important facts we discussed previously.

“The first is that Trump’s tariffs are a ‘stick and carrot’ for negotiating an agreement with both Mexico and Canada. As you will see, all he wanted was assistance in securing the borders, reducing illegal immigration, and arresting the illegal flow of drugs, especially “Fentanyl,” into the U.S. Therefore, any assistance provided by Canada or Mexico would lead to a reversal of those tariffs. Secondly, we stated the market’s opening would likely be the worst level of the day, so any “panic selling” of positions early in the morning would likely be a mistake.”

That same logic applies to China and every other country dependent on U.S. trade. Given that China depends on roughly $50 billion in annual trade (16.2% of total exports worldwide) to the U.S. for its economic growth, President Trump was correct in assuming he had a stronger hand in the negotiations.

With those tariffs vastly reduced, the risk of the recessionary impact from an excess “tax” on consumers is fading. However, even with the tariffs reversed, the economic data, while slowing, does not suggest that a recession risk is imminent.

A Recession-Proof Economy?

Doug Cass made a valid point this past week, asking if the “economy is now recession-proof.”

“Is the economy now recession-proof? Is this also now a syntax question as opposed to a practical question?

By a syntax question, this is what I mean. Recession is measured by reported GDP and reported employment. GDP is in part a function of reported inflation. If inflation is understated, GDP is overstated by the same amount. Employment includes jobs going to immigrants, second jobs, jobs created by the birth/death model, and jobs going to government employees that often have negative productivity and whose roles (regulatory and bureaucratic nonsense) end up harming the country and the economy, even though they help GDP in the short term.

The country thought we were in recession in the middle part of the Biden term. This includes very prominent financial minds and the average Joe. There is a reason the election went the way it did: “It’s the economy, stupid.” But, as measured by the official stats, there was no recession, and things were pretty good. Now, we are still not in recession, and as measured by the same stats, it still seems 50% likely we will not be in recession, and if we ever enter one, it feels like it might be mild, at least as measured by those same statistics.

So, is the economy now recession-proof? If we don’t go into a recession now, with the shaky foundation that was in place, including an overspent consumer, all the debt, global tensions, and all the uncertainty, it feels like we will never have a recession.”

It seems that way, but the one contributing factor that broke all pre-existing models was the flood of monetary and fiscal stimulus post the COVID pandemic. It may take us years to determine if the previous historical models and indicators, such as inverted yield curves, ever function as they did previously to gauge recession probabilities. Maybe they won’t.

However, as noted above, economists are rapidly reversing their predictions about the recession and now suggest that President Trump’s actions, while previously thought to be an economic disaster, might be beneficial. Furthermore, financial conditions are improving, which also supports economic activity. If that trend continues, particularly if the Fed resumes cutting interest rates, it should start to feed into consumer confidence. If consumer confidence strengthens, which would be logical following recent tariff resolutions, this should reduce recession probabilities further.

Understand the message here. As discussed two weeks ago, the economic growth rate is slowing, but recession probabilities remain low.

That does not mean that a recession is permanently avoided.

However, therein lies the problem with recession probabilities and predictions in the first place.

The Problem With Recession Predictions

It is wise to remember that in 2022, we had the most anticipated recession, which failed to occur and preceded one of the strongest bull markets in recent history.

The problem with predicting recessions is that economists always work off lagging economic data. Such is particularly the case with GDP, which is revised three times following the end of the quarter, 12 months, and 3 years later. Historically, given that lag, the timing of U.S. recessions can be off by 9 to 12 months before they are recognized by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The chart below shows the lag between the onset and recognition of previous U.S. recessions.

The following table better shows the lag between the start and recognition of previous U.S. recessions. I have also noted the impact on financial markets as investors reprice earnings growth for a reversal in economic growth rates.

Investors must decide whether the current correction is “just a correction” or whether the risk of a U.S. recession is increasing.

Currently, few indicators suggest recession probabilities are rising. The Economic Composite Index (a comprehensive measure of economic activity comprised of more than 100 data points) is in expansionary territory. The EOCI index confirms the improvement in the 6-month rate of change in the Leading Economic Index (LEI), one of the best recession indicators, and current levels of economic growth. While economic growth will undoubtedly slow as all of the excess governmental spending under the previous Administration reverses, there is currently no recession warning in the data. That does not mean that it can not change in the future. However, for now, the risk of recession is extremely low.

Adding to that analysis, the economically weighted ISM composite index is also in expansionary territory, suggesting no current risk of recession. This composite index (80% service / 20% manufacturing) is why we wrote that there was no recession risk in 2023 or 2024 despite inverted yield curves.

Lastly, Government spending remains robust, which fuels economic growth. While the current Administration is looking to cut spending and reduce the deficit, which would weaken economic growth rates, they are making very little headway.

Furthermore, despite the hopes that DOGE would cut Federal spending, it has only returned to the post-financial crisis exponential growth trend as the Government continues to use “Continuing Resolutions” to fund the Government. These resolutions automatically increase government spending by 8% annually. In other words, spending doubles every nine years, so debt levels continue to rise, feeding into economic growth rates.

Conclusion: Staying Grounded Amid Market Volatility

While recession probabilities have resurfaced in the headlines following the recent market sell-off, the economic data does not yet support the narrative of an imminent downturn.

As I discussed in “The Risk Of Recession Is Not Zero,” the government is currently engaged in activities that will impact economic growth. If those actions are combined with those of an already struggling consumer, the risk of recession will undoubtedly increase. Thus, economists are now scrambling to reverse their recession calls.

Historically, recession calls tend to be premature, often relying on lagging indicators that confirm economic contractions only well after they have begun. Current indicators point to a slower economic expansion, not contraction. Although growth is slowing, a slower growth environment does not equate to a recession—a distinction investors must keep in mind.

The more significant concern for markets is the inevitable impact of slowing economic growth on corporate earnings expectations. With analysts projecting continued double-digit earnings growth into 2026, there is an apparent disconnect between these forecasts and the economic reality. History suggests that earnings will eventually revert to levels that align with economic activity, which could lead to further bouts of market volatility.

For investors, the key takeaway is to stay informed, focus on fundamentals, and avoid being swayed by short-term noise. While volatility and corrections are natural in market cycles, history shows that panic-driven decisions often lead to missed opportunities. As long as economic indicators remain expansionary, the risk of a recession remains low, though careful monitoring is warranted. Investors should continue to assess their portfolios, manage risk prudently, and position themselves for a gradual slowdown rather than an economic collapse.

How We Are Trading It

As noted last week, we continue to manage our portfolios in a manner that allows us to participate in the market while still hedging against underlying risk. As such, we have started rebalancing risk as necessary and adjusting portfolio holdings to improve relative market performance. Notably, the breadth of the market has improved, but as noted above, the short-term overbought conditions suggest the “easy money” has been made. We will wait for corrections to reduce cash balances further and remove portfolio hedges entirely. That is, of course, unless some other unexpected event surfaces that substantially increases market risk.

As noted, while the risk of recession has fallen, recession probabilities are not zero. As we said in Friday’s Daily Market Commentary:

“However, patience will likely pay off here. As noted previously, we are still on a weekly sell signal, which has historically led to short-term market underperformance. As shown, previous periods of historical weekly moving average crossovers typically involve a more extended period of consolidation or corrective price actions. The main exception to that rule was 2020, when the Federal Reserve intervened with massive monetary support. With yields rising and the Fed on hold, no excess support is coming into the market other than a surge in corporate buybacks. However, those are due to decline starting next month.“

Continue to follow the rules and stick to your discipline. 

The Kremlin has said on Saturday that a future meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky is still ‘possible’ – despite no breakthroughs at Friday’s Istanbul talks by delegations representing the warring sides.

Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov said a meeting between the Russian president and Zelensky “is possible but only as a result of the work of the delegations of both sides and reaching specific agreements.”

Peskov underscored that one of the major hurdles is remains the question of who Ukraine would authorize to sign any potential agreements assuming the negotiations could produce firm settlement proposals.

Moscow’s stance all along has been that Zelensky is illegitimate given he canceled elections under martial law, and has run far past his authorized term in office. Kiev, however, has said that the national constitution allows for this in war time.

As for the content of Friday’s talks and reports that Moscow demanded a Ukrainian troop withdrawal from all the four easter territories, including Donetsk, he said, “Negotiations… must be conducted strictly behind closed doors. This is in the interest of the effectiveness of these negotiations.”

One key thing the two sides did agree to is a large prisoner swap involving 1,000 POWs – which would be the single biggest of the war.

But Ukraine has rejected the Kremlin’s demand of de-facto recognizing the loss of its territories. Zelensky has time and again emphasized “this is Ukraine’s land” – and has vowed to fight on, despite mounting losses and serious manpower issues. 

The following is reportedly among Moscow’s top list of demands, which can be described as maximalist (at least from the West’s perspective), per a new Bloomberg report:

• Ukraine agreeing to neutral status regarding NATO
• No foreign troops in Ukraine
• No nuclear weapons in Ukraine
• De-facto recognition of Crimea and lost eastern territories as now Russia’s
• Withdrawal of Kiev forces from these territories before a ceasefire takes effect

But once again, Peskov has not officially confirmed this list, and precise details discussed at Istanbul remain subject of speculation amid leaks to the press.

The US and Russia on Saturday held a phone call, in a post-Istanbul talks debriefing: 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a phone call with his US counterpart Marco Rubio, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Saturday, to discuss the direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv in Istanbul.

“Lavrov noted the positive role of the United States in helping Kiev eventually accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume the Istanbul talks,” the foreign ministry statement said, adding that Russia was ready to continue working with the US on the matter.

Meanwhile: “We didn’t say five. We said eight.”…

Story has been making rounds that Ukrainians were outraged when Russia negotiators said that Ukrainian soldiers must leave the four new Russian regions as part of ceasefire, to which the Moscow delegation replied “Next time it will be five.”

Now, our reporter in Istanbul got to… pic.twitter.com/4ZafhhR2PN

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) May 16, 2025

The White House is likely to latch on to anything positive regarding these talks that it can; however, President Trump has clearly been exerting pressure for more speedy resolution, and is growing impatient.

The Europeans are ready to slap more sanctions on Moscow, and Washington has also warned that this would essentially be plan B if Russia doesn’t cooperate. But Russia’s fresh maximalist demands will be a hard sell.

 Via VigilantFox.com

Joe Rogan sat down with Harvard professor and mind control expert Rebecca Lemov, and it didn’t take long for the conversation to dive into one of his favorite topics: government interference in our digital lives.

Rogan opened the conversation by saying, “There are so many different kinds of mind control.”

“One of the things we’ve talked about a lot on this podcast is, that an enormous percentage of what you’re seeing on social media in terms of interactions and debate is not real. It’s not organic,” he explained.

“It’s state-run and state-funded, and it’s whether it’s foreign governments or our government or even corporations, you’re getting inorganic discourse that’s designed to form a narrative and which is a form of mind control,” he added.

Lemov picked up on that point and took it further. Even when people know something is fake, she explained, our brains still react as if it were real.

“Yeah. I mean, I think even on a basic level, people, it’s known and studies have shown that we respond as if it were organic and real,” she said.

“Even when somebody likes a post of yours, the response is the same as, like, in-person interaction,” she added.

It’s not just governments pulling the strings, she warned. The platforms themselves are designed to influence how we feel.

“I think at the root, there is a kind of way that, on an emotional level, it’s not just manipulation of ideas,” she said, “but there’s a kind of emotional engineering that’s built into the platforms and doesn’t even demand, you know, at first, government involvement.”

Joe Rogan’s conversation with Harvard professor and mind control expert Rebecca Lemov quickly zeroed in on one of his favorite topics: government interference in digital life.

Rogan opened the door with a warning that’s become all too familiar.

“Well, there’s so many different… pic.twitter.com/XLqekbJL74

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 15, 2025

Lemov peeled back the curtain on DARPA, the government’s controversial defense research agency, and its hidden role in shaping the digital world we now live in.

DARPA, she revealed, wasn’t just involved in building the internet—it may have helped lay the foundation for emotional manipulation on a global scale.

“DARPA was involved in the development of the internet and of things like pattern recognition,” she said. “The government has funded many, many studies.”

But what concerned her most wasn’t just the technology—it was how that technology is being used.

“What I got interested in, in social media and how I connect it with the episodes of brainwashing—it creates states of emotional contagion that aren’t really about convincing people of a different way to think,” she explained.

She continued, “But more about how you feel about what you think.”

That emotional shift, she said, mirrors the exact tactics used in cults.

“It’s not that it changed my thoughts,” she said. “It’s how I felt about those thoughts.”

Lemov peeled back the curtain on DARPA—the government’s controversial defense research agency—and its role in shaping the digital world we now live in.

DARPA, she revealed, wasn’t just involved in building the internet. It may have laid the groundwork for emotional manipulation… pic.twitter.com/C3HvnZ6a67

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 15, 2025

That’s when Lemov dropped one of the darkest revelations in Big Tech history—a secret Facebook experiment that quietly manipulated the emotions of nearly 700,000 users.

And the users had no idea it was happening.

“There’s a famous Facebook experiment I read about that took place in 2012 and was published in 2014, where they announce that they’ve achieved, mass emotional contagion at scale,” Lemov told Rogan.

She explained how Facebook altered people’s newsfeeds without their knowledge or consent.

“Whenever you go on the platform, you agree to be tested or AB testing. So this experiment exposed a group to a more—their newsfeed was altered in a negative direction emotionally, as measured by word counting software,” she said.

The results, she added, were deeply unsettling.

“And they discovered that that group that had a negative exposure also responded in a more negative way, as judged through their posts and likes and responses.”

“The group that was exposed to a more positive newsfeed by altering the algorithm then had also a measurably statistically significant effect of more positive emotional response—and the control group was unaltered by this.”

In other words, Facebook wasn’t just studying emotions—they were actively shaping them.

And no one was ever warned.

That’s when Lemov exposed one of the darkest secrets in Big Tech history—a sinister Facebook experiment that quietly tampered with the emotions of 700,000 users.

And they never even knew it.

“There’s a famous Facebook experiment I read about that took place in 2012 and was… pic.twitter.com/LLQVXh2IV5

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 15, 2025

The full scope of the experiment didn’t come to light until two years later, when researchers finally admitted what they had done.

Facebook’s data scientists had quietly manipulated the feeds of 689,003 users—removing either all the positive posts or all the negative ones to observe the emotional fallout.

If your newsfeed felt unusually bleak or suspiciously upbeat in January 2012, there’s a chance you were part of it—and never knew.

The team behind the study, led by data scientist Adam Kramer, eventually published their findings in a scientific journal and spelled out the results in cold, clinical detail:

“When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred,” the paper said.

It was undeniable proof: emotions are contagious—and social media could be weaponized to manipulate mood at scale.

The experiment lasted just one week, but for those caught in the algorithm’s net, the emotional ripple effects may have lingered far longer.

Things took a disturbing turn after Lemov explained that when the experiment was finally made public, the backlash was immediate—and in some cases, heartbreaking.

She recalled one particularly chilling response from a user who reached out directly to the research team.

“And on the Facebook page of the research group that did the experiment, at least one user wrote in saying, ‘Could I ever find out if I was in that experiment? Because I was in the emergency room at that time with, you know, threatening to commit suicide, and I want to know if my feed was altered and maybe that pushed me over into that state.”

But there was no way to trace it.

“Of course, they could never know, and it can’t be traced backwards. And other people had a similar response,” Lemov said.

The revelations were serious enough to spark an investigation by the British government, which considered sanctions due to the international reach of the experiment.

“And there was even an investigation by the British government about whether this should be sanctioned because it affected users internationally,” she added.

But in the end, no one was held accountable.

“Ultimately, there doesn’t seem to have been any sanctions that came out of in anyone associated with it,” she said.

No punishment. No warnings. No transparency.

And the question still hangs in the air: how many more experiments are happening right now, hidden in plain sight?

But here’s where it gets truly disturbing.

Lemov revealed that when the experiment finally came to light, the backlash was swift—and in some cases, tragic.

“But, so this is why there was an ethical debate when the experiment was published in 2014,” she said.

One user, Lemov… pic.twitter.com/l96zLAlOTc

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 15, 2025

Watch the full conversation below:

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has had a very busy week. He first joined President Trump’s U.S. delegation to the Middle East, where he secured AI chip deals with Saudi Arabia, and is now in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, on Saturday morning.

Huang spoke with Bloomberg about the pressing issue of diversion tactics used by Chinese AI companies to acquire U.S. chips for their models. He stated there is no evidence that Nvidia’s most advanced chips are being smuggled into China through dark supply chains to circumvent U.S. trade restrictions.

“There’s no evidence of any AI chip diversion. These are massive systems. The Grace Blackwell system is nearly two tons, and so you’re not going to be putting that in your pocket or your backpack anytime soon,” Huang said. 

He added: “The important thing is that the countries and the companies that we sell to recognize that diversion is not allowed and everybody would like to continue to buy Nvidia technology. And so they monitor themselves very carefully.”

Earlier this week, Huang joined President Trump and other top CEOs across Gulf states where more than a trillion in AI deals were locked in – much of which aligns with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda. 

Nvidia secured a deal to supply 18,000 of its cutting-edge Blackwell chips to Humain, an AI startup just launched by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

NEWS: NVIDIA and HUMAIN, an AI subsidiary of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, announced plans to build AI factories that will transform the country into a global AI leader.

NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang participated in a state visit today to share how this effort… pic.twitter.com/4Au6NxvTQ6

— NVIDIA Newsroom (@nvidianewsroom) May 13, 2025

President Trump’s scrapping of the Biden-Harris era “AI Diffusion Rule,” which had been very unpopular with Silicon Valley, stifled U.S. innovation, saddled companies with regulation burdens, and undermined diplomatic relations with many countries, including ones in the Middle East.

“With the AI Diffusion Rule revoked, America will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead the next industrial revolution and create high-paying U.S. jobs, build new U.S.-supplied infrastructure, and alleviate the trade deficit,” a Nvidia spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal last week. 

Adding more color to Trump’s new strategy, Jeffrey Kessler, U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, said, “The Trump administration will pursue a bold, inclusive strategy for American AI technology with trusted foreign countries around the world while keeping the technology out of the hands of our adversaries.”

However, Shell companies and foreign adversaries have allegedly obtained Nvidia chips through dark supply chain channels, detailed in these reports:

• Trade Data Reveals Indian Biotech Firm Supplying US AI Chips To Russia

• Did DeepSeek Use Shell Companies In Singapore To Procure Nvidia Blacklisted Chips?

• Singapore Probes Nvidia AI Chip Shipments By Middlemen To Malaysia Amid DeepSeek Scrutiny

Huang concluded in the interview: “Limiting American technology around the world is precisely wrong,” adding, “It should be maximizing American technology around the world.”

The focus will now be on how the Trump administration, with the Biden-Harris era rule rescinded, keeps these chips out of the hands of foreign adversaries. 

Authored by Star Parker via The Epoch Times,

SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, is one of the nation’s largest welfare programs.

And, like all welfare programs, it is massive, it has grown prodigiously over the years and it is inefficient.

One glaring issue, which is gaining attention as a result of new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again campaign, is the kinds of foods that recipients of SNAP funds can purchase.

And here we have convergence of bodily health and fiscal health.

The “N” in SNAP stands for nutrition. The point of the whole program is to help poor Americans eat and not forgo nutrition as result of insufficient funds to buy food. So why should government funds be used to purchase foods that are not fundamental to meeting the requirements of basic nutrition?

The program is funded by the federal government but administered by the states.

Now three Republican governors—governors of Arkansas, Idaho and Indiana—are joining the governor of West Virginia in seeking waivers from the federal government to permit them to remove soda, candy, and other sweets from the foods that can be purchased with SNAP funds.

SNAP funds flow from the Department of Agriculture, and new Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins showed her support for this move by appearing alongside of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders when she announced that her state would seek a waiver to eliminate soda and candy.

According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, “Soda is the number one commodity purchased with food stamps. More food stamp money is spent on soda, candy, snacks, ice cream, and cakes than on fruit, vegetables, eggs, pasta, beans, and rice. Purchases of sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, and candy exceed the program’s combined sales of fruits and vegetables by $9.4 billion a year.”

FGA goes on to point out that the incidence of obesity is higher among food stamp recipients than among those not on food stamps at similar income levels and that food stamp participants are “more likely to be at very high or extremely high risk” of the many health problems that result from obesity.

Per the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in 1975, federal funding to the SNAP program was $4.6 billion. By 2000, it was $14.6 billion. In 2023, it was up to $111.2 billion.

Per Pew Research, in 1974, there were 12.9 million Americans receiving SNAP funds. In 2023, it was up to 42.4 million.

Most recipients are adults—63 percent are over the age of 18—and of adults receiving food stamps, 62 percent had not been employed at all during the year, 24 percent were employed over the year and 14 percent were employed part of the year.

Among children receiving food stamp payments, 56 percent were in homes with one or no parent.

Much discussion about reform of SNAP involves a more rigorous application of work requirements to receive funding. This points back to importance of health. If SNAP funds permit purchase of foods that are unhealthy, or damage health, so it seems SNAP funds contribute to undermining the ability of recipients to work.

Needless to say, as this initiative gains momentum, as it should, and as more states seek waivers to streamline their SNAP funding to foods that clearly aim to fundamental nutritional needs, the beverage and candy industry can be expected to be all over Congress to block the change.

The Wall Street Journal reported last December about ramped up lobbying by Coke, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association to leave their soft drinks in the purview of SNAP funding.

Some concerns have been expressed by grocers that increased specificity regarding what can be purchased can make administration and monitoring difficult. But surely technology can deal with this.

Removing non-nutritious foods and beverages from SNAP won’t balance our federal budget. But it is a no-brainer for our fiscal and physical health.

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

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The New York Times continues to work tirelessly to maintain the narrative that the United States is now a fascist regime. Earlier, the Times demonstrated its view of balanced analysis by running a collection of legal opinions titled “A Road Map to Trump’s Lawless Presidency.” Now, it is featuring three Yale professors fleeing fascism for the safety of Canada, making direct references to the rise of the Nazis. The video is titled “These Yale Professors Study Fascism.”

All three professors are going permanently to Canada to teach at the University of Toronto. It appears that the systemic rollback of free speech for conservatives in Canada is not a deterrent for Yale professors longing to be free.

The seven-minute opinion video features the three scholars:  Yale philosophy Professor Jason Stanley and history professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder (who are married).

Shore insisted that the United States is now a fascist country replicating the Nazi takeover. Indeed, she mocks those of us who believe that our constitutional system has proven itself for centuries as a guarantor of civil liberties, including our system of checks and balances. Shore dismisses such assurances while suggesting that the American people are a virtual ship of fools in not recognizing the fascists all around them: “The lesson of 1933 is that you get out sooner rather than later.” She added that Americans are

“like people on the Titanic saying, ‘Our ship can’t sink.’ We’ve got the best ship. We’ve got the strongest ship. We’ve got the biggest ship. Our ship can’t sink,” she said. “And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.”

Professor Snyder declared that Americans are deluding themselves:

“If you think there is this thing out there called ‘America,’ and it’s exceptional, that means that you don’t have to do anything. Whatever is happening, it must be freedom. Soon, you are using the word freedom, what you are talking about is authoritarianism.”

The New York Times splices in ominous images of migrants being detained, children crying, and anti-Israel protesters being arrested. It also shows the image of Elon Musk’s alleged Nazi salute, a ridiculous claim fostered by the media.

Previously, Snyder did interviews claiming an oligarchic conspiracy led by Musk:

“we’re shifting from a democracy, which had some pretty heavy oligarchical streaks running through it, toward something like an oligarchy, in which I think it’s fair to say that it’s not Trump who’s the most important person. It’s Musk. Trump has debts. Musk has money. Trump has debts specifically to Musk for getting him elected. And I think the burden of proof is actually on Trump to show that he has any room for maneuver in this system. And it’s going to be interesting to see how congressional Republicans react, because what this particular oligarch wants is to break the federal government. And whatever their views might be, not — many of them don’t actually want the United States of America to cease to exist so that oligarchs can pick up the pieces.”

That is who the New York Times featured in its latest apocalyptic diatribe. What is interesting about one interview is how Snyder predicts Trump will engage in censorship through litigation, noting that it will not involve direct censorship barred by the First Amendment. He entirely ignores the massive censorship system of conservatives fostered by the Biden Administration on social media. That was apparently not something that you would speak out against, let alone leave the country over.

Professor Stanley’s past contributions to the political debate include his condemnation of “the right-wing hateosphere” in a diatribe that he later reaffirmed:

I am really, truly, embarrassed by the fact that my mild comment ‘F[**]k those assholes’ is being spread. This wildly understates my actual sentiments towards homophobic religious proponents of evil like Richard Swinburne, who use their status as professional philosophers to oppress others with less power. I am SO SORRY for using such mild language.

In the New York Times video, Stanley clinically explains that “you know you’re living in a fascist society when you’re constantly going over in your head the reasons why you’re safe. What we want is a country where none of us have to feel that way.”

It is a curious statement. Most of us fight to preserve our civil liberties to maintain a country that remains the longest, most stable, and most successful constitutional system in history. We do not dramatically pick up our things and stomp out of the country in a self-aggrandizing huff.

Losing elections can certainly make some “feel that way,” but for the rest of the country, it seemed like democracy at work. In the meantime, our courts are sorting out challenges to Trump executive orders, with many judges, including Trump appointees, ruling against the Administration. Those are the pesky “checks and balances” that Professor Shore blissfully dismissed in the New York Times video.

What is truly striking is that even Yale (which has purged virtually all conservatives from its faculty ranks) is not sufficiently “safe” for these three academic émigrés. They are going to the University of Toronto and Ontario to feel truly safe.

Of course, Ontario is not viewed as a safe space for many conservatives or contrarians. It proved hardly protective for University of Toronto professor emeritus Jordon Peterson when he was ordered to take mandatory training classes to curb his controversial writings. That order was upheld by successive Canadian courts.

So now these three academics will relocate to Toronto to teach Canadian students about fascism. They may, however, want to tread lightly on the subject of free speech.

Authored by Rep. Elise Stefanik via RealClearPolitics,

This National Police Week, we pause to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. We remember the brave officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and we express our deepest gratitude to those who continue to serve with unwavering dedication. It is an important moment to reflect on the courage, sacrifice, and selflessness that law enforcement officers demonstrate daily, particularly in Upstate New York and across our great state.

To the law enforcement officers of Upstate New York, the North Country, and everywhere else across our nation: Thank you. Your service does not go unnoticed, and your commitment to keeping our communities safe is deeply appreciated. I stand with you, and I will continue fighting for policies that prioritize the safety of our communities, ensuring that you have the resources and support needed to do your vital work.

In these challenging times, it’s crucial that we stand up for those who serve us. While the far left continues to push anti-police rhetoric and policies that put our officers in dangerous positions, it’s more important than ever to back the blue. The far-left “Defund the Police” movement and the dangerous rise of anti-police sentiment threaten the very fabric of our communities. Our law enforcement officers are the backbone of our safety and security, and they deserve the respect, resources, and protection to do their jobs effectively. Their hard work ensures that law-abiding citizens can live in peace, free from fear.

Unfortunately, many on the left in Albany, Washington, and across the nation are taking law enforcement for granted. Policies like reckless bail reforms and calls to defund the police only endanger our communities. It’s time we recognize the critical role our officers play in public safety and stop allowing radical left movements to jeopardize their ability to serve and protect.

During my tenure in Congress, I have worked tirelessly to provide officers with the resources, training, and recognition they deserve. I introduced bills aimed at bolstering funding for police departments, improving officer safety, and enhancing mental health services for law enforcement personnel. I also have been a vocal proponent of holding criminals accountable while ensuring that police officers have the necessary protections to do their jobs without fear of unjust retribution.

In Upstate New York, we are fortunate to have some of the most dedicated law enforcement officers in the country. Their work has resulted in our district having one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

I’m proud to stand with them and will always fight for policies that support law enforcement and keep our communities safe.

National Police Week may only last seven days, but the gratitude and respect we owe to our men and women in blue should echo every single day. Thank you to our heroes in uniform, and may we continue to support and protect them in their mission to safeguard us all.

Republican Elise Stefanik represents New York’s 21st District in Congress.