Authored by Adam Sharp via DailyReckoning.com,

Our friend and colleague Jim Rickards was on Steve Bannon’s War Room show Tuesday, and it may be the most important interview Jim has done this year.

In this fascinating discussion, Jim starts with the history of the original petrodollar system. And he knows the subject well, having helped create it.

The premise of the 1974 petrodollar agreement was that Saudi Arabia would only sell oil in dollars, which would stimulate demand for greenbacks as a reserve currency. 

Here’s Jim explaining the basics to Steve Bannon’s audience:

“We had a carrot and stick approach. Bill Simon, who was Secretary of the Treasury, went to the Saudis and said ‘everybody in the world needs oil, and if you price oil in dollars, then everybody needs dollars.’

And that basically underpins the role of the dollar today as the world’s reserve currency.

The stick was, if you don’t do it we’re going to invade Saudi Arabia and take over oil production.

The carrot was, if you price oil in dollars, we’ll give you a security umbrella.

It’s rare to hear such candor coming from someone who was directly involved in the formation of the petrodollar system.

Needless to say, the petrodollar system was successful and led to a resurgence in the American dollar as the world’s key reserve currency (despite Nixon ditching the gold standard just 3 years earlier).

At this point, Steve Bannon interrupted with an insightful question (paraphrased):

“Wait, you say the petrodollar system is still in place, but the Saudis are now selling oil to China for yuan. Aren’t cracks showing in the petrodollar system?”

Jim responded that yes, cracks are starting to show in the system, and that’s why Trump was in Saudi Arabia, to seal a “Petrodollar 2.0” agreement. Jim also points out that, at least for now, the amount of oil Saudi Arabia is selling for yuan and other currencies is miniscule compared to dollar-based sales.

Jim proceeds to lay out the purpose of Petrodollar 2.0:

“The U.S., by strengthening its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and creating Petrodollar 2.0, puts the pressure on China to reduce their tariffs and meet Trump’s requirements. Otherwise they don’t have a source of dollars.”

This time around, Trump is using a strictly carrot-based approach. He’s on a charm offensive and looking to build strong, lasting ties with Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. This is a smart approach and we expect it will bear fruit in the near future.

Had President Trump taken a threatening approach to Saudi Arabia, it almost certainly would have driven the country into China’s waiting arms. And America can’t afford to let that happen.

It’s an excellent interview, and you can watch the entire thing here (free) on Rumble. Jim also gets into Russia vs. Ukraine with Steve, and brings an insightful and unique perspective as always.

Also, be sure to follow Jim’s new account on X (formerly Twitter)!

Having embarrassed themselves with their TDS-driven cognitive dissonance over the past few months, Democrat-voting UMich respondents in the preliminary May survey (a month after Liberation Day and also post-Pause and the massive meltup in stocks)

Consumer Expectations are now at their lowest since – drum roll please… May 1980…

Source: Bloomberg

Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy. 

Note that interviews for this release were conducted between April 22 and May 13, closing two days after the announcement of a pause on some tariffs on imports from China.

The percentage of UMich respondents making unsolicited negative comments about news they’ve heard on government economic policy has surged to a record high of 66%!

Source: Bloomberg

The share of consumers expecting unemployment to rise in the year ahead increased for the sixth consecutive month and is now more than double the November 2024 reading and the highest since 2009.

Source: Bloomberg

Year-ahead inflation expectations surged from 6.7% last month to 7.3% this month, the highest reading since 1981 and marking five consecutive months of unusually large increases of 0.5 percentage points or more.

Source: Bloomberg

This month’s rise was seen across all three political affiliations. Long-run inflation expectations climbed from 4.4% in April to 4.6% in May, reflecting a particularly large jump among Democrats to a ridiculous 9.6% over the next year!!

Source: Bloomberg

Republicans did forecast a rise in their view of 5Y inflation expectations (while Democrats were flat at 5.1%)…

Source: Bloomberg

Spot the odd one out – UMich Democrats, The NY Fed, or The Market…

Source: Bloomberg

One more for fun – comparing Democrats view of the inflationary outlook to the ‘hard’ inflationary data…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, given their historic track record (completely refusing to acknowledge the surge in inflation under Biden), should we simply be ignoring the manic Democrats screaming about inflation now?

Source: Bloomberg

The Republicans seemed to get it? But then again, they’re all racist ignoramuses with no PhDs… so there’s that, right!?

So someone is lying: actual spending all time high while reported sentiment (based on 250 polled UMich respondents) is all time low.

Is the soft-data slump all driven by leftists imbibing mainstream media’s desperate propaganda-fueled terror of what Trump is doing?

Perhaps that explains why soft survey data has started to turn back up to hard data reality in the last week as it’s hard to hate and keep pushing out your depression-era forecasts when stocks are at record highs and jobless claims remain near record lows.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Fisher Investments recently wrote an interesting article asking whether corporate stock buybacks affect markets. Here is their conclusion:

“Yes and no? Stocks move on supply and demand. Stock buybacks, where a company buys and takes shares off the market, theoretically reduce supply. They can also raise earnings per share, thus rewarding shareholders. So, all else equal and on paper, stock buybacks are bullish. But reality, as always, is more complicated. Buybacks are just one factor affecting supply. There are others, and demand matters, too. They may not reduce supply if they merely offset secondary issuances, like employee stock awards. Often, buybacks merely ‘sterilize’ new issuance. Other negative (or less bullish) fundamental factors might matter more in pricing, lowering demand even as supply shrinks. So buybacks are a factor, but not the factor.“

While the statement is mostly correct, I am unsure they looked at the actual impact that corporate stock buybacks have on the market. We have discussed this topic and the past misstatements of corporate stock buybacks. Here is a listing for more background.

1. They are not a return of capital to shareholders; dividends are.
2. Corporate stock buybacks are the worst use of cash.
3. It is a benefit that almost entirely benefits corporate insiders.

But, without rehashing the many problems of corporate stock buybacks, let’s focus on these transactions’ impact on the overall market.

As of May 2025, corporate stock buyback authorizations are on track to eclipse $1.35 trillion this year, with more than $1 trillion executed. This will exceed any other year in the market since the turn of the century. Such should be unsurprising with Apple (AAPL) announcing an additional $100 billion and Google adding another $70 billion to their programs (those two programs will account for 12% of the total alone).

The data should lead one to question why corporate stock buybacks have grown steadily since the turn of the century. Such is particularly the case when the overreliance on buybacks at non-accretive valuations to boost stock prices has become commonplace. Such a statement undermines the fallacy that corporate stock buybacks are solely a return of capital to shareholders. For example, Apple’s $110 billion buyback plan in 2024 raised questions among some investors about whether the company focused too much on immediate stock price increases rather than on investments that could drive long-term value. That statement should not be overlooked, given that 5-year annualized revenue growth has been flat since 2018. (Chart courtesy of SimpleVisor.com)

If corporate stock buybacks are not a significant factor in increasing stock prices, why do companies engage in them so heavily? Why not just let market dynamics carry the load? The reason is simplistic to understand.

“Corporate executives give several reasons for stock buybacks but none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay and in the short-term buybacks drive up stock prices.” – Financial Times.

So, how much of a factor are buybacks?

Are Buybacks An Important Factor

It is a pretty easy task to see whether or not corporate stock buybacks influence stock prices. As we penned last year, the impact of buybacks extends beyond individual companies. Since 2000, net corporate buybacks have accounted for 100% of the equity market’s net asset purchases—a reflection of the diminished participation from pensions, mutual funds, and individual investors:

• Net Flow: +$5.2 trillion
• Pensions & Mutual Funds: –$2.7 trillion
• Households & Foreign Investors: +$2.4 trillion
• Corporations (Buybacks): +$5.5 trillion

In other words, without corporate stock buybacks, the stock market would be roughly 30% lower today.

“The chart below via Pavilion Global Markets shows the impact stock buybacks have had on the market over the last decade. The decomposition of returns for the S&P 500 breaks down as follows:“

• 6.1% from multiple expansions (21% at Peak),
• 57.3% from earnings (31.4% at Peak),
• 9.1% from dividends (7.1% at Peak), and
• 27% from share buybacks (40.5% at Peak)

Yes, buybacks are that important.

However, to Fisher’s question directly, there is more than just a minor correlation between corporate stock buybacks and the market. The chart below overlays the 4-week change in stock buybacks versus the 4-week change in the S&P 500 index. It is worth noting that before 1982, the SEC considered share buybacks an illegal form of market manipulation. (In 1982, the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18, which provided “safe harbor” from “liability of market manipulation. In other words, the SEC recognizes that buybacks manipulate the financial markets but provided a “shield” to corporations.)

The chart above is complex due to the large amount of data. The chart below is from 2021 to present, where changes to buybacks (increase or decrease) significantly impact changes to stock prices. It is worth noting that the nearly 20% decline in April was exacerbated by the sharp reversal in buyback activity and vice versa.

While Fisher suggests that buybacks have little to do with market movements, a high correlation exists between the 4-week percentage change in buybacks and the stock market. More importantly, since the act of share repurchases provides a buyer for those shares, the .85 correlation between the two suggests this is more than just a casual relationship.

But yes, Fisher is correct, other factors support higher asset prices.

Buybacks Affect More Than Just Prices

In 2023, Jason Zweig penned an article for the WSJ stating:

“Over the past five years, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices, big U.S. companies have spent $3.9 trillion repurchasing their own stock. Buybacks are neither bad nor good. They are simply a tool. Just as you can use a hammer either to build a house or knock one down, buybacks are useful in the right corporate hands and dangerous in the wrong ones.“ – Jason Zweig, WSJ

That is a fair statement. The impact of share buybacks is vital to manufacturing earnings growth since we measure earnings on a per-share basis. In other words, if you reduce the number of shares outstanding, corporate earnings “per share” improve, as shown below.

As discussed previously, the annual rate of change in earnings growth is one of the best predictors of forward stock market returns.

However, investors must be cautious about understanding the impact of buybacks on earnings when investing in companies. As Warren Buffett noted:

Finally, an important warning: Even the operating earnings figure we favor can easily be manipulated by managers who wish to do so. Such tampering is often considered sophisticated by CEOs, directors and their advisors. Reporters and analysts embrace its existence as well. Beating ‘expectations’ is heralded as a managerial triumph. That activity is disgusting. It requires no talent to manipulate numbers: Only a deep desire to deceive is required. ‘Bold, imaginative accounting,’ as a CEO once described his deception to me, has become one of the shames of capitalism.“

Why would CEO’s want to manipulate earnings? Unsurprisingly, a WSJ survey of CFOs found that 93% pointed to “influence on stock price” and “outside pressure” as the reasons for manipulating earnings figures.

Of course, one misnomer is that corporate CEOs execute buybacks when they believe the stock is undervalued. However, the reality is quite the opposite, and they tend to execute share repurchases when their current optimism is elevated. When share prices decline, and buybacks could be done at accretive prices, there is little incentive to do so.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: corporate stock buybacks are not a marginal force in markets—they are central to the mechanics of price inflation. When buybacks account for the entire net demand for equities over the last two decades, it’s hard to argue they’re simply “a” factor. They aren’t just reducing supply on paper—they are the demand. Without them, equity valuations would look very different.

But what’s more concerning is the why. Despite the popular narrative that buybacks return capital to shareholders, the data and behavior of corporate management tell a different story. Buybacks overwhelmingly inflate earnings per share and boost short-term stock prices, which are tied directly to executive compensation. That incentive skews the timing and intent of buyback programs away from long-term value creation and toward short-term financial engineering.

To Fisher’s credit, markets are complex. Demand, sentiment, interest rates, and macroeconomic factors all matter. However, dismissing buybacks as one variable among many overlooks just how much they dominate equity flows. Their influence is measurable, intentional, and reinforced by corporate leadership’s financial incentives.

The question for investors is not whether buybacks matter—they do. The question is whether they’re being used to create real value or mask its absence.

The Friday meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials, the first direct engagement of its kind in some three years, has ended, according to Turkey’s foreign ministry, and lasted a little under two hours.

Each side will in the aftermath convey to the press its version of things, and Ukraine has been right out the gate telling CNN that there was nothing meaningful to come out of these first talks.

A Ukrainian source said the Russia delegation “did not have a mandate to make important decisions” and that “they are not ready to decide anything meaningful to end the war.”

Many international headlines Thursday described the team of junior officials sent by the Kremlin as an ‘insult’ to the peace process; however, it’s also the case that no matter who President Putin sends, he is the one who will ultimately make the decisions.

Wall Street Journal has described that “The talks, in the Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, came about as the result of President Trump’s pressure, so far mostly applied on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to find an end to the war.”

But, “Just as the negotiations started, Russia struck near the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a salvo of ballistic missiles, according to local officials.”

And Reuters agrees in its assessment that there are “no apparent sign of progress so far in narrowing the gap between the sides, and a Ukrainian source called Moscow’s demands ‘non-starters’.

Neither side has so far offered no major concessions, and issues like permanent control over Crimea and the four eastern territories remain sticking points for Moscow. 

During the Istanbul meeting, according to WSJ’s foreign correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov:

Russia demanded in Istanbul that Ukraine withdraw its troops from four regions — areas that Moscow has been trying to conquer but failed since 2022 — as a precondition for ceasefire. That’s an area twice the size of the country of Lebanon and home to more than a million Ukrainians. Not going to happen.

Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson were annexed in 2022, declared part of the Russian Federation, but Moscow forces still don’t have 100% control over them.

The talks in Istanbul lasted fewer than 2 hours and led nowhere, it looks. Russia demanded that Ukraine surrender, Ukraine refused. https://t.co/WR5A5jcI4e

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) May 16, 2025

And it doesn’t look like there was any progress on achieving a Trump and Zelensky-backed 30-day ceasefire. Moscow sees this as a tactic for Ukraine forces to simply rearm and regroup, at a moment they are in dire need of more manpower and artillery. 

President Zelensky has meanwhile been making clear that Ukraine will not surrender its territory as “this is Ukraine’s land” – and he isn’t so much as ready to even offer Crimea. Zelensky and European leaders are reportedly holding a phone call with US President Trump in the wake of the Istanbul meeting.

They will likely try to convince the US leader that attempts to negotiate an end to the war with Putin are futile. This seems to have been Zelensky’s aim all along: getting Washington and Trump back on his side, and securing the unending flow of weapons, cash, and intelligence.

President Trump has departed Abu Dhabi aboard Air Force One, concluding a historic week in the Middle East that saw the signing of more than a trillion dollars in deals aimed at advancing his ‘America First’ agenda. 

.@POTUS boards Air Force One in Abu Dhabi — marking the end of his HISTORIC week in the Middle East.

🇺🇸🇸🇦🇶🇦🇦🇪 pic.twitter.com/npvAVuJvGj

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 16, 2025

Ahead of his departure from the Middle East, President Trump addressed business leaders in Abu Dhabi, stating that his administration will unilaterally set tariff rates for U.S. trading partners within the next two to three weeks.

“We just reached a fantastic trade deal with the United Kingdom. And we have another big one that we reached with China,” the president said. 

He continued, “At the same time, we have 150 countries that want to make a deal—but you’re not able to see that many countries.” He added that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick “will be sending letters out essentially telling people what “they’ll be paying to do business in the United States.”

“I think we’re going to be very fair. But it’s not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us,” Trump said. 

The president did not specify which countries want to make deals, nor the ones that will receive letters. 

Trump: And we have.. 150 countries that want to make a deal but you’re not able to see that many countries so at a certain point over the next two to three weeks… we’ll be telling people what they will be paying to do business in the United States. pic.twitter.com/iZdCfb8ksh

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 16, 2025

Talks remain ongoing with top trading partners, including Japan, South Korea, India, the EU, and China, with recent progress…

• Trump Hails U.S.-U.K. Trade Deal As “Breakthrough”, Says Lower Barriers Will Unlock Transatlantic Growth

• U.S., China Reach Agreement To Lower Tariffs In 90-Day Cool-Off Period

However, the administration appears to have abandoned comprehensive negotiations in favor of setting terms directly for many countries due to what Bloomberg says “the lack of manpower and capacity makes it impossible to hold concurrent negotiations with all the countries caught up in the president’s so-called reciprocal tariffs plan.” 

Earlier this week, the U.S. and China announced a breakthrough trade agreement that temporarily lowered tariffs on each other’s products for 90 days. The U.S. dropped its 145% on Chinese goods to 30%, while China lowered levies from 125% to 10%. 

Goldman illustrates the rollercoaster ride of the tit-for-tat trade war between the U.S. and China in recent months, as well as the temporary cooling period aimed at de-escalating tensions.

On Wednesday morning, Goldman analyst Jerry Shen told clients, “We Now Expect the Effective Tariff Rate to increase by 13pp.” 

Last week, Trump stated, “We have four or five other deals coming immediately. We have many deals coming down the line. Ultimately, we’re just signing the rest of them in.”

Charter Communications has agreed to acquire Cox Communications in a blockbuster merger that will create the largest cable TV and broadband provider in the U.S., surpassing Comcast.

The transaction values Cox Communications at $34.5 billion, including $21.9 billion in equity and $12.6 billion in net debt and other obligations. According to a press release, the valuation aligns with Charter’s enterprise value-to-2025 estimated Adjusted EBITDA multiple of 6.44x. 

Charter, the second largest publicly traded cable company behind Comcast, was up 3% in premarket trading in New York from its Thursday close of $419.57. The Cox family privately holds Cox. 

Charter will acquire Cox’s commercial fiber, IT, and cloud businesses and contribute Cox’s residential cable assets to Charter Holdings. 

Cox Enterprises will become the largest shareholder of the combined entity’s fully diluted shares outstanding with a 23% stake and have seats on the board. 

“This combination will augment our ability to innovate and provide high-quality, competitively priced products, delivered with outstanding customer service, to millions of homes and businesses,” Chris Winfrey, President and CEO of Charter, said in a statement.

Winfrey said, “We will continue to deliver high-value products that save American families money, and we’ll onshore jobs from overseas to create new, good-paying careers for U.S. employees that come with great benefits, career training and advancement, and retirement and ownership opportunities.” 

The combined company will remain headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and keep a “significant presence on Cox’s Atlanta, GA campus following the closing,” according to the press release.

The merger with Cox follows Charter’s announcement of an all-stock acquisition of Liberty Broadband, with both transactions expected to close concurrently.

Charter expects $500 million in annualized cost synergies within three years of closing the deal. 

Bloomberg added context to the merger, describing it as part of an escalating “turf war” in the telecom industry:

Cable and phone companies have been engaged in an intense turf war, seeking to win over customers in areas that others have dominated. Cable providers have been selling their own mobile phone plans by leasing network access from major carriers. At the same time, phone carriers have been poaching home internet subscribers from cable companies.

The bet is that customers will in the future prefer to buy their internet and mobile phone services from the same provider — a trend referred to as convergence. A combination of Charter and Cox would position them to better compete in that environment by allowing them to bundle offerings and more efficiently invest in infrastructure.

Bloomberg Intelligence analysts noted:

“Charter is aggressively marketing its converged mobile fixed bundles at competitive rates to improve subscriber acquisition and retention.

“Regardless, the entire cable sector is being hurt by intensifying telecom competition from both fiber coverage and fixed wireless access.”

Axios pointed out:

Some layoffs are expected to result from the merger. Other Cox Enterprises businesses, including Axios and Autotrader, are not directly impacted.

Just like that, the combined entity is set to become America’s largest cable TV and broadband provider. 

Recall one of the heirs to the Cox empire is a far-left radical…  

Fergie Chambers is the heir to the Cox Media empire. He is also a devoted Communist and a fan of Mao (see tattoo on his thigh). He is spending his fortune from capitalism on a proletariat Revolution to overthrow capitalism.

How was he introduced to Communism? By a history… pic.twitter.com/V0KeJutqr7

— Xi Van Fleet (@XVanFleet) December 7, 2023

Sigh. 

Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss—dubbed the “New Soros” by conservatives for his funding of leftwing causes—has been accused of sexual harassment in what is being described as a “jaw-dropping” lawsuit. 

The lawsuit, filed in California’s San Luis Obispo County Superior Court last month, claims that Wyss exposed himself, “brazenly groped,” and made other unwanted sexual advances toward Madison Busby before forcing her to resign her job, according to a ‘jaw-dropping’ lawsuit filed in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court on April 25.

New York Post reports: 

Busby, 30, met her now-husband Bryce Mullins in 2019, when he was helping Wyss manage the 2,700-acre winery, Halter Ranch. The two later began dating and moved in together on the Paso Robles property. Mullins filed a separate suit April 1 alleging that Wyss fired him after Busby complained about the sexual misconduct in a private email to the billionaire — and reneged on providing him up to $30 million in equity interest in Halter Ranch after Mullins had operated the winery for six years, starting when he was just 26 years old.

Early on, Wyss “shared unwelcome stories about his sexual exploits and various affairs,” said “how much he enjoyed having a threesome, even with another man,” and suggested once “if Bryce is not behaving, you can join me in bed,” according to the Busby suit.The “abusive and predatory behavior” also included asking Mullins for “sexy” photos of Busby — and even groping her butt before she started working for him in September 2019, the suit alleges.

Wyss eventually floated a “foursome” with the couple and another friend of his named “Lori” and even subjected Busby to a live phone sex Facetime call between himself and the woman, the suit goes on. 

By summer 2024, Busby had expressed discontent with what what calls “unreasonable expectations” and “inappropriate behavior and misconduct” exhibited by Wyss, who, the lawsuit claims, allegedly conceded that if Busby “ever went after me for sexual harassment, you would win.” She later quit her job, citing “her own anxiety and distress,” per the lawsuit. 

A representative for the winery strongly denied the explosive claims laid out in the filing. 

“Through all these years, they never complained about the owner’s conduct, or simply declined to spend so much time with him, until after they voluntarily left their employment at the winery in 2024,” a statement from the winery’s press representative reads. “The allegations in the complaint are not true and we intend to vigorously advance the facts that surround their time at the winery and their departure.”

Wyss is no stranger to sexual harassment allegations – having previously settled out of court for $1.5 million with a Colorado woman who claimed she experienced sexual abuse while employed at his Wyss Foundation, according to the Daily Caller.

Wyss, a foreign national who sold his medical device company Synthes for nearly $20 billion to Johnson & Johnson, has poured millions of dollars into leftwing organizations focused on climate change through his own foundation and groups connected to the dark money network operated by the shadowy Arabella Advisors. He has also supported leftwing causes via his advocacy group the Berger Action Fund, which has reportedly donated $339 million to non-profits since 2016. 

“What was important for him was to find out that he could exert an influence through his foundation,” Heidi Wyss, the billionaire’s sister, once wrote. “At a single meeting, the board of trustees quite often allocated several million dollars. Thus behind the scenes a Swiss plays an important part in American politics.” 

“The Wyss Foundation and Berger Action Fund have no involvement with this matter,” a spokesperson said in a statement obtained by the Post. “The organizations’ charitable activities are totally separate from those of the Halter Ranch.”

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via substack,

British cardiologist and author Dr. Aseem Malhotra, the newly appointed Chief Medical Advisor to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, says there is “overwhelming evidence” to ban the COVID-19 mRNA shots.

Dr. Malhotra is a former U.K. government and long-time ally of MAHA leaders like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) and NIH head Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

He’s campaigned for taxes on sugary drinks, worked to lower the amount of Brits taking statins unnecessarily, and worked with government leaders to remove ultraprocessed foods from hospitals and schools, per The Daily Mail.

Though Malhotra is not formally employed by the federal government, he will serve as a leading voice of the movement and work closely with grassroots groups to advance its policy agenda.

In a Wednesday Twitter/X post, the British best-selling author (@DrAseemMalhotra) left no question where he stands on the COVID jab.

“It’s what you’ve been waiting for,” he wrote. “There is OVERWHELMING evidence to call for a moratorium on the mRNA covid jabs & help the vaccine injured. Let it rip.”

On the same day, MAHA Action, an organization founded by former Team Kennedy leadership, announced Malhotra’s appointment:

We are honored to announce that Dr. Aseem Malhotra has joined MAHA as our Chief Medical Advisor.

Dr. Malhotra is an NHS-trained Consultant Cardiologist and an internationally renowned authority in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease.

He has served as Honorary Council Member at Stanford’s Metabolic Psychiatry Clinic and Visiting Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine. As Founding President of the Public Health Collaboration and a founding member of Action on Sugar, Dr. Malhotra has led national efforts to curb sugar intake and champion low-carb diets for type 2 diabetes.

He is the bestselling author of The Pioppi Diet, The 21 Day Immunity Plan, and A Statin-Free Life, and played a key advisory role for the UK government on the link between obesity and COVID-19. His publications have garnered an Altmetric score exceeding 10,000, one of the highest worldwide for a clinical doctor.

We are thrilled to welcome Dr. Malhotra to the MAHA team and look forward to the invaluable expertise and passion he brings to our mission of Making America Healthy Again.

Malhotra told Daily Mail, “It’s very clear to me that perhaps this is the most important issue that has galvanized MAHA and helped elect President Trump,” he said, referring to criticism of mRNA COVID injections.

“There is a pandemic of the vaccine injured. We can’t make America healthy again if we don’t address this.”

The doctor believes there are “hundreds of thousands” of vaccine injuries and wants states to pass legislation halting use of the drugs because they have shown “more harm than good and never should have been rolled out in the first place.”

CDC data show 38,541 deaths have been linked to the COVID jab since 2020, but if fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported—as a 2010 HHS-funded Harvard analysis suggests—the real number could exceed 3.8 million, compared to just 7,109 deaths that got propoxyphene pulled after nearly 30 years on the market.

Malhotra recently told Fox News he began to doubt the safety of the COVID shot after his father died after suffering cardiac arrest.

You can watch the segment below:

Now leading America’s most unapologetic health freedom initiative, Malhotra is making one thing crystal clear: the COVID shot crisis isn’t over—it’s just finally being confronted.

Russia’s first underground oil storage facility, built by a subsoil user in the Krasnoyarsk territory, is ready for trial operation, said Nina Erofeeva, head of the Oil and Gas Geology, Groundwater and Structures Department at the Federal Subsurface Resources Agency, according to Interfax.

Speaking at a conference on subsoil use, reserves appraisal, and regulations, Erofeeva said: “The first [licenses] have been received for the creation of oil storage facilities, in the Krasnoyarsk territory. This was also an unusual case. Russia has never had oil storage facilities. Oil has always been pumped through pipelines.

“Given recent events and the lack of infrastructure in the Arctic zone, oil storage facilities are needed in several regions. Accordingly, oil will be placed in these oil storage facilities so as not to burn it during pilot development.”

The idea of building underground oil storage was actively discussed in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic caused oil demand and prices to fall.

Interest in the idea grew again in March 2022 after Russian crude oil faced a global boycott. Experts from the Russian Gas Society said the ideal reserve volume should be 10-20% of annual production—about 55-100 million tonnes based on 2019 levels. They estimated it would take 10-12 years to build such facilities from scratch, but only 3-5 years if built in depleted oil fields.

Interfax writes that in September 2023, Rosnedra’s Central Commission approved the project for this first underground storage facility.

At the time, Igor Shpurov, head of the State Mineral Reserves Commission, clarified: “There is not a very large volume there, this for operating storage of oil, not strategic.”

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Could this be the most up front and honest interview ever conducted?

GB News reporter Patrick Christys went to Calais, the French port where migrants camp out waiting to jump into boats and cross the English Channel to illegally arrive in Britain.

He encountered one future surgeon or astronaut who told him “In England they will give me money, you can help me with anything I need.”

Illegal alien: “Anything I need, give me” pic.twitter.com/Ye4rKR0FtP

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 14, 2025

Ok, yeah that’s true of the government, which currently literally gives these people debit cards and houses them in luxury hotels before providing benefits to help them buy houses.

When Christys asked why the people of Britain should give him money for a house, (we think) he replied “just give it to me.”

Christys’ expressions say it all. He’s all of us in this moment.

Here’s an extended version of the report from Christys:

He speaks almost no English. The only words he knows are “give me.” That sums up the whole problem. https://t.co/qDNMNJGfHC

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) May 14, 2025

That’s literally all of them. They’re not here to improve our countries, they’re here to exploit them.

— David Santa Carla 🦇 (@TheOnlyDSC) May 14, 2025

Imagine thinking you can just show up in a new country and get everything for free! I believe the term for this is “GIMMIGRANT”!

— Sarah Smith (@Defundmedianow) May 14, 2025

Send him back until he learns “please” in English, at least!

— C.F. Dalton (His Lordship/His Majesty) (@cfdalton1) May 14, 2025

This is your country’s immigration policy in 1 video

— _RN03xx_ (@_RN03xx_) May 15, 2025

He could be a Harvard professor the way he so clearly boiled down the leftist argument.

— Anthony Galli (@RallyWithGalli) May 14, 2025

Would this guy pass Kier Starmer’s “you must speak fluent English” test?

Starmer has pivoted to this sudden “control the borders” stance because he knows he is finished politically if he doesn’t do something following massive gains for Reform UK in local elections and opinion polls.

46% of the UK population want migration at less than zero or zero. Only 5% support migration at current levels.

Despite relentless ‘diversity is our greatest strength’ social engineering, we’ve won the argument.

Time to implement the will of the people.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 15, 2025

He’s now posting stuff like this every day…

Starmer’s daily “I’m against illegal immigrants now, honest” post drops. https://t.co/FDENRy21Ht

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) May 15, 2025

Settlement in the UK is a privilege that is earned, not a right.

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) May 13, 2025

I know you’re angry about immigration. I get it.

Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders.

That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.

We will smash the people smuggling gangs at source.

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) May 14, 2025

He’s framing it in a way to solely blame the Conservative Party, despite the fact that mass immigration started under successive Labour governments and ballooned out of control under the Tories while Labour refused to oppose it as a central policy.

The Tories lost control of our borders.

My Labour government is going further than ever to tackle illegal immigration at its source.

And Nigel Farage voted against it. pic.twitter.com/BhOdJBTfm9

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) May 14, 2025

Stamer himself openly spoke out in support of open borders for years.

Starmer is a hypocrite who believes in open borders.

Here he is making the case for freedom of movement just a few years ago.

Nobody believes a word he says. pic.twitter.com/D2JBUxT740

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) May 12, 2025

Until he does something meaningful to close the border and stop all mass migration, his words mean nothing.

Having immigration fall from 1 million a year to half a million a year isn’t ‘controlling immigration’.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 12, 2025

You called this rhetoric dangerous and far-right, Keir. Now you’re parroting it to save your polling. This isn’t leadership, it’s cowardice in a suit. You haven’t taken back control, you’ve just handed in your spine for a focus group script.

— Peter Malcolm (@pmal5098) May 13, 2025

Where was this 5 years ago?

— Josh Barnett-AZ (@BarnettforAZ) May 14, 2025

* * *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.