Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times,

The Kremlin is seeking to balance its relationship with the United States alongside its military and economic partnership with communist China, according to a senior Russian official.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk made the remarks during an address on March 27 at the Boao Forum in China’s Hainan Province.

“As to the relationship between Russia, China, and the United States, we should not develop a relationship with one other country at the expense of another and vice versa,” Overchuk said, according to a translation of the comments first reported by Bloomberg.

Overchuk added that Moscow was eager to continue working with Beijing to implement and expand a strategic agreement signed by the two powers back in 2023.

That agreement laid out a comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Russia, bringing the two nations into a de facto alliance. As part of that agreement, Moscow and Beijing have deepened their economic, diplomatic, and military ties, including by increasing their joint military exercises worldwide.

That agreement was also at least partially aimed at undermining U.S. hegemony in international affairs. Just one day before its signing, Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged that China and Russia would create a “multipolar world order” to replace the “rules” of the current U.S.-led international order.

Chinese state-run media said that Overchuk also expressed hope that the strategic partnership would reach new heights in the coming years as the two powers continued to entwine their futures.

Similarly, Overchuk said that Russia had, in large part, been able to resist the power of Western sanctions over its war on Ukraine because of the support of China, which has greatly expanded purchases of Russian energy and other goods to fill the void.

Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, a high-ranking official on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Politburo Standing Committee, said he had met with Overchuk twice already this year and that the two would continue developing relations between their governments.

Overchuk agreed with that sentiment, saying he would continue to seek ways of expanding cooperation with China.

“There’s a desire on both sides to explore opportunities for expanding those ties because both nations are experiencing outside pressures,” Overchuk said. “And naturally we look for ways of how to cooperate and work together to improve the living standard of people in our countries.”

The comments come as Moscow seeks to reopen economic and diplomatic ties with the new administration in Washington and to discourage American and allied arms shipments to Ukraine.

President Donald Trump has thus far encouraged the rapprochement with Russia, saying that the United States would work towards fully reintegrating Russia into the global economic and diplomatic space.

Moscow’s recalcitrant approach to Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine has dampened those efforts, however, with Trump on one occasion threatening sanctions and tariffs on Russia if the Eurasian power did not comply more fully with cease-fire efforts.

“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large-scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and final settlement agreement on peace is reached. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now before it is too late. Thank you!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on March 7, partially in capital letters.

The Trump administration may nevertheless be open to the idea of a more integrated Russia and China as Washington seeks to bring both powers to the table on other issues, including military spending and nuclear proliferation.

“At some point, when things settle down, I’m going to meet with China, and I’m going to meet with Russia, in particular those two, and I’m going to say ’there’s no reason for us to be spending almost a trillion dollars on the military,’” Trump said last month.

How Washington will manage the increasing cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is an open question. The two powers have increasingly become antagonistic towards the United States in recent years, working directly with communist authorities in North Korea and the Islamist regime in Iran to undermine U.S. interests abroad.

In an explosive interview with The Bureau’s Sam Cooper, David Asher – a former senior U.S. State Department official with close ties to the Trump administration’s financial and national security apparatus—issued a stark warning: Canadian banks could soon face a “new universe” of regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Treasury. This follows the formal designation of Mexican cartels, including the Sinaloa group, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). According to Asher, the command-and-control structure for laundering proceeds from synthetic narcotics—produced using Chinese precursor chemicals—is largely orchestrated by Chinese triads operating out of Canada.

Asher warned that these transnational crime gang nexus seriously threatens both U.S. national security and the stability of the North American financial system. 

Exclusive: Canadian Banks Tied to Chinese Fentanyl Laundering Risk U.S. Treasury Sanctions After Cartel Terror Designation ⁦@StateDept⁩ ⁦@DHSgov⁩ ⁦@USTreasury⁩ ⁦@DEAHQ⁩ https://t.co/DA232SzHyr

— Sam Cooper (@scoopercooper) March 29, 2025

Here’s the interview between Cooper and Asher, which offers a possible road map for the looming legal consequences for Canadian banks as the Trump administration ramps up hemispheric defense and moves to dismantle, once and for all, the command-and-control structures of Mexican cartels and Chinese triads operating through Canadian financial institutions. 

In an explosive, sweeping interview, former senior State Department investigator David Asher—closely connected to the Trump administration’s financial and national security apparatus—warned that Canadian banks could soon face a “new universe” of regulatory scrutiny, including from the U.S. Treasury, due to the recent designation of Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Asher, who contends that the “command” for Western Hemisphere money laundering of synthetic narcotics—including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and ecstasy sourced from Chinese precursors—is “largely run by Chinese triads in Canada,” also argues that this interconnected transnational network presents profound risks to Canadian financial institutions.

Speaking bluntly about the nexus between Chinese Triads and Mexican cartels operating in Canada, Asher said: “Of course, they’re in bed with each other. This is why Tse Chi Lop lived in Toronto… These cartels are now designated as terrorist organizations. That changes everything—how we prosecute them, and what tools we can use.”

Asher, along with Canadian law enforcement experts such as former RCMP intelligence analyst Scott McGregor, believes a rarely discussed Canadian legal barrier—Stinchcombe—must be overcome. They argue Canada could unlock powerful new authorities if it begins treating cartel-connected Chinese money laundering networks as accessories to terrorism.

The rule, derived from the 1991 Supreme Court case R. v. Stinchcombe, requires Canadian law enforcement to disclose nearly all investigative material to the defense. While intended to ensure a fair trial, critics say it severely hampers complex RCMP investigations, especially those relying on wiretaps or sensitive intelligence, and risks blowing the cover of international partners and covert operations.

Asher didn’t mince words: “Every case I worked in Canada… the Stinchcombe thing ended up [inhibiting investigations]—we were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. Then they just changed numbers and changed their OPSEC. It’s a farce.”

He sees the recent terrorism designation of Mexican cartels as a legal pivot point: “That whole Stinchcombe thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities.”

Asher believes that if Canadian law enforcement engages more directly with U.S. authorities, the financiers and money launderers tied to Chinese triads in Canada can be directly linked to fentanyl-trafficking Mexican cartels. If Canadian banks are shown to be facilitating these funds, even passively, they may be subject to U.S. regulations—including terrorism finance sanctions.

The implications for Canadian institutions are profound. “If any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then they’re engaged in terrorism financing.”

Asher also pointed to marijuana trafficking from Canada into the United States—not as a separate criminal enterprise, but as part of the same transnational fentanyl networks. He said Chinese Triads, with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, sit atop this narcotics pyramid and are exploiting Canada’s legal marijuana system.

“The illegal pot—marijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United States is huge. And now we’re seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.”

The flow of narcotics south and criminal proceeds north continues largely unabated, Asher warned, with superlabs in British Columbia and other areas of Canada producing meth, ecstasy, and fentanyl.

On Canada’s enforcement efforts and the outcomes of official inquiries into Chinese criminal and influence networks, Asher was scathing: “What have you done to follow up on [the Cullen Commission]? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What have you done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing.”

He called on Canada to show resolve on investigations that impact the United States: “Frankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged? And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether they’ve been publicly named or not?”

His core message is that Canada must shake off legal and political inertia: “Why wouldn’t Canada want to protect itself? You’re losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks.”

The consequences of inaction, Asher warned, could be dire—not only for Canadian sovereignty and public health, but for its banking sector’s international standing. “Canadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking across the United States… That’s just the bottom line.”

The following transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. Some passages have been removed to streamline the discussion while preserving its core insights.

Sam Cooper: What is the key change that designating the Sinaloa cartel and these other Mexican cartels as terrorist networks—because Canada followed President Trump on that. So now this anti-terrorism law should be applicable in Canada. One, does that change the calculus of the U.S. working with the Canadian government in going after cartels in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal? And two, in your view, are these cartels operative with Chinese command-and-control financiers that underwrite their operations across North America?

David Asher: First of all, of course, they’re in bed with each other. I mean, this is the reason why Tse Chi Lop lived in Canada and in Toronto. I mean, the Sinaloa cartel has significant operations with partners and proxies in Canada, both for distribution and, increasingly, we believe with production—the rise of these super labs.

And so, the way I define it: we can do law enforcement top down. We use their intelligence, use their sources. We know who the leadership are, we know where the money is. Rather than build a case from the bottom up and start with dime bags on the streets of Chicago or Vancouver, we say we know these cartels are designated, and now these cartels are terrorist organizations. That changes everything in terms of how we could prosecute them and what type of tools we can use. Because that whole Stinchcombe thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities. Because Canada does have a reasonably strong counter-terrorism law.

So if we treat these cartels as terrorists—which they are—and you’ve designated them, we can use our signals intelligence and all sorts of other tools to much more robustly target them without them knowing it. Because every case I worked in Canada, the Stinchcombe thing ended up—we were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese, and also actually some Italian mob guys too, and Iranian mob guys. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. And then they just changed numbers and they changed their OPSEC. It’s a farce, you know that. But I mean, just like with the terrorism designations, I think we’re in a new universe here.

So now that the Latin cartels have been designated as terrorists, your Anti-Terrorism Act of 2017 will—it has these four key provisions: prevent terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadians from terrorist acts; activate tools to identify, prosecute, and convict terrorists; keep the border secure and contribute to economic security; and work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address root causes of violence.

All these aspects are fundamentally game changers. I mean, if you apply that, I think that you treat these cartels as terrorists, you start to prosecute them. We could do it jointly. And their partners too—I mean, they’re accessories to terrorism. So if the Chinese are laundering the money, and if TD Bank, let’s say, is accepting the money? Then TD Bank is involved in terrorism finance. Suddenly, then, the whole tapestry of authorities has changed, and we should not have to follow the Stinchcombe thing anymore. It should be that we have a direct way to secretly target the communications and follow the money through the cartels, now that they’re basically the same as Hezbollah and the Quds Force and Al-Qaeda.

And then there’s Chinese partners. Frankly, if they’re working with them in a partnership, you should be able to approach them as accessories to terrorism from a legal standpoint. That would change your prosecution. It would change your intelligence collection capability, and it would actually conform with the facts, frankly.

And I think also anybody who’s getting the Chinese guys you’ve profiled, like Paul King Jin and all these Chinese United Front actors in Vancouver—I mean, they are now effectively accessories to a terrorist organization’s finances.

So I have to assume that your politicians are not going to meet with accessories to terrorist organizations anymore. I hope what this is doing in the U.S. is that all U.S. banks now are under warning that the Anti-Terrorism Act will be applied to them if they take one dollar of Sinaloa money.

I think that people are starting to realize that. And I think there’s much—I think it’s hardly that TD was the only Canadian bank that was involved in laundering money.

Sam Cooper: Can you expand on that?

David Asher: You’ve got other banks, like BMO. I’m not saying it’s laundering money, but I’m not saying it isn’t. I don’t know, but they have huge operations in Mexico, so obviously they should be looked at. But if any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then they’re engaged in terrorism financing. I mean, the U.S. government will go after banks anywhere in the world that are engaged in terrorism financing, Canadian or otherwise.

And I don’t think the U.S. government is satisfied at all with the Canadian response at this stage. But there is great hope because if you start to crack down using your Anti-Terrorism Act, I think that we have an opportunity to change the framework for collective action and have a much better relationship.

But it’s going to mean taking on the Chinese because the money laundering for terrorist dollars is material support for terrorism, and it’s going to require going after the distribution of not just fentanyl, but let’s not forget there’s massive amounts of methamphetamine produced in Canada. And by the way, no one’s talking about all the meth from Canada that’s entering the United States. President Trump isn’t just concerned about fentanyl. I mean, for years we’ve had methamphetamine coming out of Canada into the United States.

Sam Cooper: Well, I recently did a story on a major Sinaloa Cartel cell set up on the British Columbia border near the Peace Arch crossing. They were dealing with [Sinaloa Cartel boss] El Mayo directly, which says a lot, right?

And they were raided–mind you no one is even incarcerated—but they face civil forfeiture. And they found Mexican passports, fentanyl, MDMA, methamphetamine, ketamine, fake Xanax, incredible weapons caches. And you also just had another major smuggling operation of MDMA from B.C. just prosecuted in Washington state. So the U.S. government is concerned with all these precursors from China and that includes ecstasy as well, right?

David Asher: Yes. And of course, the illegal pot—marijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United States is huge. And now we’re seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.

I think that the Canadian defense that statistics show Canada is innocent in fentanyl trafficking across North America is just bullshit. I mean, something like probably 80% of the money laundering networks in the U.S. that are Chinese are in direct contact with numbers in Canada every day. And we don’t know who those subscribers are. We’re not allowed to spy on Canada.

Sam Cooper: Alright. Can I ask you this? I heard from a senior U.S. narcotics expert with deep knowledge that the pot being run down from Ontario into New York and the tri-state area was coming in tons — and that they believed this was command-and-control Chinese organized crime in Toronto. They said the funds connected to all of that was collected in the U.S. and ultimately coming back up to Toronto banks.

Like you said, the money comes back to be laundered where command is. So that’s the legal—or really, illegal—pot trade from Canada, mixed with the fentanyl trafficking networks directed from Canada. The drugs go south, the cash is collected, and it’s laundered back up through Canadian banks.

That’s your TD Bank case, right?

David Asher: It’s all part of the same drug trafficking organizations.

But look, we don’t have super labs in the United States, and this idea that, well, we have super labs in Canada, but they’re not targeting the United States—how the hell do you know that? I mean, you just stumbled upon this super lab out in British Columbia. How many others? We’ve heard from dozens of sources that there are a number of labs like that in Canada. I mean, there’s no way they’re not going to be involved in exporting to the United States.

But even if they aren’t, it’s a huge threat to Canada. And we have to assume that it’s an incoming threat to the United States. But putting aside fentanyl super labs, you’ve got super methamphetamine labs too, and you’ve got the marijuana business, ecstasy business—it’s all drug business. They’re all interlinked. And let’s not forget that Tse Chi Lop served, I don’t know about nine years in prison in the United States. We arrested him well before he was identified publicly, and when he was based in Canada.

You showed in your book Wilful Blindness that Paul King Jin, all these guys come down to Las Vegas to launder money. Remember, you can take these chips from these casinos and you can exchange them internationally. They’re like bearer bonds practically. You can take them and settle them elsewhere. The chips are fungible. So the idea that these major Chinese networks in Canada are not cross-border into the U.S. is also bullshit.

Sam Cooper: Absolutely, yes.

David Asher: That’s not some secret. Everybody knows that who works organized crime cases. So what’s going on in British Columbia, which your Cullen Commission reporting detailed in mind-altering detail. What has Canada done to follow up on that? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What has Canada done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing. I think there’s a lot we can do though. And there are people in the Canadian government that want to work this positively, and I think there should be more receptivity to it in the United States.

But I think we’d like to see the Canadians put some meat on the plate. Can they help us target the Sinaloa cartel’s operations in partnership with Chinese triads, not just in Canada, but in the U.S. too, and maybe even in Mexico?

I mean, have they come forward with a plan of attack together? I don’t think so. And if they did, it would be helpful. But frankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged?

And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether they’ve been publicly named or not? It’s in the document that the Department of Justice released that there were a number of people they’ve identified for criminal prosecution. I mean, in the U.S. we’re fining TD $3.1 billion. What’s Canada done? Like a $9 million fine against TD Corporate in Toronto. Seriously? The people in Toronto were running the money laundering network in the United States of America.

Sam Cooper: What more can you say about that piece?

David Asher: There are other people you should talk to about that. But we know there was command and control for the money laundering in Toronto. That’s why the CEO of TD Canada resigned. He took the blame, but he hasn’t been charged. I expect that that case has not ended yet. I think there’s a high probability that it will be continuing. I don’t know this for certain—I’m not involved—but from what I can see, the facts are pretty clear in the document that was put out by the Department of Justice. I don’t think that there’s grounds for this investigation into TD’s money laundering activity at the headquarters level to stop.

But why isn’t the Canadian government looking into them? This is the largest money laundering bank in the history of the United States of America. It’s Canadian. Have you ever thought that you guys might be able to charge them for money laundering too? What about anything they’re doing today?

At this point, I know they’ve hired people as consultants to try to supposedly clean up the bank, but you know what? They’ve got a long way to go. They have to close accounts. They’ve got to screen every relationship they’ve got. And even then, if the Department of the Treasury is satisfied, the Department of Justice might have a different view of it.

But I think that we know this: at the end of the day, the Canadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking of all sorts across the United States of America. And so I think that’s just the bottom line.

Sam Cooper: Okay. Let’s talk more about Stinchcombe and Canada’s courts and cross-border crime, because this is a major cause of friction fundamentally for Canada and the U.S. as allies I believe.

Can you explain more about the extreme impediments that Canadian police work under, so that U.S. international enforcement is totally frustrated, loss of confidence, can’t work with Canada. Could you briefly describe to the readers what Stinchcombe means in terms of your and the U.S. government’s frustration in not being able to go up on [establish wiretaps] on Iranian, Chinese, and Mexican operatives in Canada?

David Asher: Well, we could go up on them, but then they had to be told we were going up on them. I mean, there’s this disclosure rule. I’m not an expert on Canadian law, but I can tell you that we had multiple cases—including [Asher names an alleged Iran-regime connected criminal in Toronto that allegedly laundered several billion dollars in major Canadian banks] against the Iran network.

We actually did have a case into Tse Chi Lop as well that was significant with the Australians, but it was DEA-led. And we’ve had so many others, including against the Hells Angels of Canada, who were a big problem. I mean, those guys, they’ve been trafficking into the United States. And as far as I can understand it, every time we want to target someone, they end up getting told that they’re being targeted. I mean, you can’t build an undercover criminal investigation if the cover gets blown after 90 days because of some Canadian law or rule.

And the fact is, but now with this terrorism designation, at least when it comes to the cartels and their facilitating parties—and that could be the Hells Angels, that could be the Wolf Pack, that could be the Chinese triads—it doesn’t really matter. They’re facilitating terrorism.

And Canada would need to start to make cases on your own to identify, prosecute, and disable and dismantle these networks. Your government knows where these networks exist. It just acts like it’s powerless to do anything. It’s just not true. I’ve always felt that there was a compromise—because we were dealing with, in some of these Iran cases, we were dealing with terrorism. We had direct Hezbollah and Iranian IRGC connections in Canada. So it baffled us why the criminals were being told that they were being targeted or how they found out.

Whether it was through Stinchcombe or leaks or whatever. But all I can say is: when’s the last time we did a major case together between U.S. and Canada to take down a network? Seriously? Can you name one?

Sam Cooper: I can’t. No.

David Asher: Exactly. So there’s none, basically, that’s of any note. And it’s not just to blame Canada. I’m saying let’s just turn this into an opportunity for justice, because at the end of the day, your people are getting murdered by these cartels. And the cartels are making money because they can launder through these Chinese networks. And if they can’t make money, they’ll go out of business. So our job is not to protect Canada, but we’re certainly happy to help.

But I think that this needs to be—and it’s unfortunate that things have started off in an adversarial way between Washington and Ottawa. But I think that there’s just a lot of frustration. And I know it exists at the Treasury Department, not just the Department of Justice.

You’ve got a ways to go, and I think that your new Prime Minister will hopefully be able to navigate this, and we’ll see a new way of working these things together.

And I think, again, this terrorism designation is huge, but someone has to start by saying, okay, now we’ve got a terrorism designation. What do we do with it? And right now, I don’t think you should wait for the U.S. to come and complain or appeal to you to do it. You should do this yourselves. Why wouldn’t Canada want to protect itself? You’re losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks. And then, basically, you’ve created a countrywide environment that’s permissive to criminal organizations, and people are suffering. The fact is, this enormous amount of real estate that’s been bought across Canada, especially in British Columbia and the Toronto area, has been bought with money that’s been laundered. It makes Miami in the 1980s look minor league.

Sam Cooper: Yeah. The estimates I’m getting now are over a trillion dollars in Toronto and Vancouver, connected to mortgage fraud and underground banking since 2010.

David Asher: Yeah, it’s massive. And it has to be fixed. I mean, seriously, this is an opportunity.

Sam Cooper: It’s an opportunity to improve both our nations.

David Asher: Correct. And I think if Canada came forward and said, we just identified the following networks and individuals who are laundering money for Chinese money laundering organizations, and we’re going to take them down, the U.S. would probably be impressed. Right now, you’re showing videos of dogs on the border and helicopters—that doesn’t do anything. Make some arrests, take down some criminals.

Eliminating Mexican cartels and Chinese triads from financial institutions across the Americas is part of the Trump administration’s broader strategy to strengthen national and hemispheric defense. This explains the push for deeper economic integration between the United States and Canada, along with the establishment of a hardened defense perimeter stretching from the Arctic to the Panama Canal.

Let’s visualize that…

TD and other banks face continued scrutiny under U.S. anti-terrorism laws following the recent disclosure of Chinese-linked superlabs in Canada, as the drug overdose death crisis claims 100,000 Americans per year. This heightened scrutiny may help explain why TD Bank’s equity on the Canadian stock exchange has yet to recover above its October 2024 highs, when the U.S. Department of Justice announced AML penalties against the bank.

What’s clear is that U.S. officials are growing increasingly confident in their assessments of drug money laundering by international gangs through Canadian banks—and have already begun issuing AML violations, as seen in TD’s case. We suspect the spotlight could soon shift to Mexican banks as well. And in the U.S., the DoJ should take a deeper dive into banks.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, after an appeals court slapped down a Friday attempt to sue Elon Musk and his PAC to block a $1 million giveaway to Wisconsin voters.

Dem AG Josh Kaul is now asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to step in just hours ahead of Elon Musk’s event in Green Bay, asking the court to block Musk from giving any payments to Wisconsin voters as Musk campaigns for conservative court candidate Brad Schimel pic.twitter.com/ajYO4Kg1Vs

— Matt Smith (@mattsmith_news) March 30, 2025

In his original lawsuit, Kaul said he was trying to stop an “egregious” and illegal scheme to sway voters days before a pivotal state Supreme Court election.

As the Epoch Times notes further, Kaul’s original complaint, filed in Dane County Circuit Court on March 28, targets Musk’s announcement that two Wisconsin voters would be picked to receive $1 million each at a Sunday event—on the condition that they vote in the April 1 election. The high-stakes election will determine whether the high court remains a 4–3 liberal majority or flips to a conservative majority.

In a since-deleted post on social media on March 27, Musk wrote: “I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote. This is super important.”

Musk later clarified his plans in a new post on X on March 28.

“On Sunday night, I will give a talk in Wisconsin,” Musk wrote. “To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges. I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition.”

According to Kaul’s lawsuit, Musk’s March 27 post violated a Wisconsin Statute that prohibits offering financial incentives to cast a vote. The Wisconsin attorney general is seeking emergency relief to block the payouts, arguing that Musk’s plan violates state election laws.

“Musk’s announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11,” the complaint states. “This must not happen.”

The lawsuit notes that Musk’s since-deleted post had garnered over 19 million views before it was taken down and was widely reported by the news media. While the complaint acknowledges that Musk removed the first post, it notes that, as of Friday afternoon, neither Musk nor America PAC had issued a statement rescinding the initial payout offer.

“Upon information and belief, despite taking down the X.com post, neither Musk nor America PAC have announced that the plan to make two $1 million payments to Wisconsin electors who have voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been cancelled,” Kaul wrote. He called on the court to issue a temporary restraining order that would bar Musk from any further promotion of the million-dollar gifts and prevent him from making the payments.

Musk’s attorney was not immediately reachable for comment. While Musk has not publicly commented on the lawsuit directly, he shared a post on X describing the lawsuit as “lawfare” and a “desperate attempt” by Democrats who are “terrified Elon is going to activate Wisconsinites to vote.”

The legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of a high-stakes race that could reshape Wisconsin’s political and judicial landscape. Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, a Republican, is facing off against Democratic Dane County Judge Susan Crawford for a 10-year term that will decide the ideological tilt of the court.

Musk’s America PAC launched a petition campaign earlier this month offering $100 to registered voters who signed a pledge opposing “activist judges.” The PAC also promised an additional $100 for each referral made by the signer.

“Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas,” the petition reads. “By signing below, I’m rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating.”

Though recipients of the money are not required to vote in a particular way, Kaul referred to the petition in his complaint, arguing that the entire effort undermines election integrity and violates Wisconsin law.

This is not the first time Musk’s PAC has offered money to eligible voters before an election. During last year’s presidential election, America PAC ran a similar campaign offering $1 million per day to randomly selected petition signers in swing states, along with $100 bonuses in Pennsylvania.

Authored by Robert Syrus via Robert’s Newsletter,

Elon Musk fired over 6,000 Twitter employees, which was about 80 percent of the company’s workforce, starting in November 2022. He told Tucker Carlson “It turns out you don’t need all that many people to run Twitter”. Recently President Trump offered two million federal workers a buyout severance package to leave their jobs. What if it turns out you don’t need all that many people to run America?

At this historical juncture when America is at last taking action on unlawful migration on the one hand and on the other hand credible sources such as Goldman Sachs are predicting radical worker displacement by AI and robotics it might be an opportune time to examine what labor and immigration policies really will put America, and Americans, first. A reversal of the deindustrialization processes which have beset the country over the past fifty years (and became turbo-charged once China was ushered into the WTO in 2001) if it is to be accomplished re-industrialization will look less like Rosie the Riveter and more like Robby the Robot.

There are some, with whom the Donald Trump of the shockingly gold-festooned NYC apartment might instinctively side, who call for bigger because…better, right? Matthew Yglesias argues this case in One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger. Of course if it only required a mega-sized population to be successful 800 million people in India would not depend upon daily government food handouts and 1.3 billion Africans would not rely on food imports for 80 percent of their groceries. Even in China, 11 percent of the population (which translates to roughly 153 million people) are unable to afford a healthy diet. So before inviting another 666 million people to enjoy the blessings of US liberty, policy makers should best examine all the most likely future scenarios.

If America is not completely full, it’s certainly full of foreigners. A 2018 study by researchers from Yale and MIT utilized mathematical modelling and estimated that the number of undocumented immigrants could be around 22 million, nearly double previous estimates. Common sense and Fox News will tell you that the real total is likely closer to 30 million after the Biden border-free-for-all. Combine that with some 30 million legal foreign born residents/naturalized citizens and you get 60 million newcomers. If you accept the figures of perennial immigration critic Ann Coulter (author of the famously prophetic book Adios America) of 50 million illegals you get a staggering 80 million foreign born residents, fully 24 percent of the aggregate Census Bureau population.

According to most sociological studies, it typically takes around three generations for European immigrants to become fully assimilated into American culture. Therefore isn’t the case for a ten-fold increase of foreign immigrants weaker than the case for Net Zero Immigration?

The populist Swiss People’s Party which leads most polls has campaigned on a promise to cap that tiny country’s population at 10 million. Larry Fink, head of investment behemoth Blackrock has cited studies which show countries with stable or declining populations may become the world’s leaders in incorporating AI and robotics. Even in sectors where there is no shortage of potential workers such as trucking, (the number-one high paying employment for non-college American men) automation is poised to make a devastating impact. Millions of driving jobs will vanish, permanently. During 2024 autonomous taxi company Waymo successfully completed 4 million passenger rides. Human drivers cannot compete with 24/7 operation, no strikes, and lower insurance rates. That being the case does it not make sense to discover which immigration policies most benefit the shrinking and increasingly threatened middle class citizen?

During January 2025 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that over one million foreign-born workers found a job but effectively zero net jobs accrued to native born Americans. During a time of great employment transition does it make any sense to give away “golden ticket” jobs to foreigners residing in foreign countries through programs like H1B? The median starting salary for H1B jobs at companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google is about $150,000 but the opportunities for jumpstarting a person’s career and family life are incalculable. Here’s a question: what jobs absolutely positively cannot be filled by native born Americans or even any of the 60 million foreign-borns already here but must be filled by someone who currently lives in Mumbai or Shanghai? Can it be true native-born American’s brains have been permanently stunted from achieving excellence by 1990s TV shows as Vivek Ramaswamy recently, and perhaps unwisely, suggested?

China has no immigration program equivalent to H1B. Yet according to recent studies, China is currently considered to be ahead of the United States in several key technologies, including electric vehicles and batteries, advanced manufacturing, 5G network infrastructure, facial recognition technology, and certain aspects of artificial intelligence applications. Russia, with a GDP one tenth of America’s cannot compete for international technical talent; however the country ranked fifth in the world in terms of the number of people engaged in research and development and it is known to possess at least three hypersonic weapons systems deployed and used in active warfare with contrasts to the US total of zero.

Let us graciously disagree with Mr. Ramaswamy and consider the alternative case that there is no shortage of qualified or trainable workers in America. Let us further consider that the most practical course of development of the vast and varied landscape of the country’s economy is a steady state where a fixed number of 350 million citizens preside over an economy whose GDP growth is powered not by randomly adding foreign bodies but by the ever-increasing power and efficiency of automatons.

Will Elon Musk’s off-the-cuff prediction that there would come a point when “no job is needed” and jobs instead would be just for those who wanted one for “personal satisfaction” come true? Whatever the future holds, the concepts in the brief 2020 tome Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto are as much a dead end as Marxism for a simple reason: reality doesn’t work that way.

However…let’s fast forward to 2035: the country has a sensible skill-points and quota-based immigration plan, keeping the population stable as the nation is given time to assimilate the 60 million foreign born residents dumped into it during the previous 60 years and time to adjust to the Robot Industrial Revolution. These wise policies have not resulted in wage inflation or a labour shortage but has strongly incentivized corporate America to retrain the millions of workers displaced by AI and replace seasonal migrant labour with world-beating robotics which pick apples, cook French fries and drive 80 percent of truck and taxi trips, terrestrial and aeronautical.

Imagine Alfred Lutz, formerly employed as a Master Diesel Technician, recently retrained as a data scientist working for Walmart. Alfred makes enough money to support a politely hot stay-at-home wife and 2.6 mildly sassy but generally agreeable children. He works hard but can insist on reasonable leisure time and vacations; he is secure in the knowledge that his employer cannot just outsource his job to 2.5 H1B replacements for the same salary and no benefits. He is part of the resurgent middle class rescued in the mid-2020s by the MAGA movement.

As a flying drone limousine glides over Dallas freeways and lands him on his spacious driveway/helipad, Alfred may well reflect that the new American Dream rests on a foundation of net zero immigration and robot luxury capitalism.

Friday and the overnight hours saw US warplanes significantly ramp up airstrikes on Yemen, with several dozens of strikes on Friday alone, and more through the night and Saturday.

“United States air strikes have hit more than 40 locations across Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen, including in the capital, Sanaa, according to local media affiliated with the rebel group,” regional media details. Some reports have counted over 70 strikes in the last 24 hours.

Some half of these attacks were on the Tahrir and Qiyada districts of the Yemeni capital, which contain residential neighborhoods. The Sanaa International Airport was also struck for a second night in a row.

The US-led attacks have become nearly non-stop, with dozens killed and many wounded on the ground, after President Trump this week warned that he’s ready to bomb Yemen for “a long time” if the Houthis don’t halt their drone and missile attacks on Red Sea shipping.

The US President hailed the Yemen operation, which has been ongoing for about two weeks at this point, as “very successful beyond our wildest expectations.” However, there’s been no signs the Houthis intend to halt their own attacks off Yemen’s coast and against Israel.

Al Jazeera has noted that “The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), which now has authority from the White House to strike offensively in Yemen without pre-approval.”

According to emerging reports of strikes which continued Saturday:

Meanwhile, satellite photos analyzed by the AP show a mysterious airstrip just off Yemen in a key maritime chokepoint now appears ready to accept flights and B-2 bombers within striking distance of the country Saturday.

The strikes into Saturday targeted multiple areas in Yemen under the control of the Iranian-backed Houthis, including the capital, Sanaa, and in the governorates of al-Jawf and Saada, rebel-controlled media reported. The strikes in Saada killed one person and wounded four others, the Houthi-run SABA news agency said.

Times of Israel has reported more on the above-mentioned airstrip as follows:

Satellite images from Planet Labs PBC show an airstrip now appears ready on Mayun Island, a volcanic outcropping in the center of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen.

The images show the airstrip had been painted with the designation markings “09” and “27” to the airstrip’s east and west respectively.

A Saudi-led coalition battling the Houthis had acknowledged having “equipment” on Mayun, also known as Perim. However, air and sea traffic to Mayun has linked the construction to the UAE, which backs a secessionist force in Yemen known as the Southern Transitional Council.

So it appears US warplanes can now utilize a ‘local’ airspace under Saudi coalition auspices.

Satellite images from Planet Labs PBC show an airstrip now appears ready on Mayun Island, a volcanic outcropping in the center of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen.https://t.co/3blmJQfJW6

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) March 29, 2025

Instead of the attacks forcing the Houthis to back down, the militant group has continued attacking southern and central Israel with ballistic missiles.

“The missile force targeted Ben Gurion Airport in the occupied Jaffa (Tel Aviv) area with a Zulfiqar ballistic missile and a military target south of occupied Jaffa with a Palestine-2 hypersonic ballistic missile. The operation successfully achieved its goal,” Yemen’s Houthi military had said Thursday.

Israel has reported no deaths or casualties from these attacks, but there’s been limited damage. Most inbound projectiles have been intercepted or fell in the desert before reaching Tel Aviv.

Via The Vigilant Fox,

Bill Maher has been trying to make changes to his roof for ages—but California’s endless red tape keeps getting in the way. Frustrated by the constant bureaucratic hurdles, Maher finally had the chance to confront Governor Gavin Newsom face-to-face and ask why even basic repairs feel impossible in California.

This isn’t Maher’s first run-in with California’s bureaucratic nightmare. Back in 2018, when he first tried installing solar panels, Maher faced over three years of delays due to endless permits and red tape.

Now, facing another roof debacle after the wildfires, Maher is sick of the unnecessary hurdles.

“Let’s talk about what’s important: my roof,” Maher said firmly to Newsom.

“Your roof?” Newsom asked—surprised.

“My roof,” Maher reiterated.

Maher explained that after a wildfire damaged his roof, he opted to repair it exactly as officials recommended. But instead of being able to get the work done quickly, he was hit with unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles instead.

“Two inspections I needed to have—why?” Maher asked. “It’s my roof. If it falls on my head, that’s my problem.”

“That’s it? That’s just a statement,” Newsom replied.

“No, that’s my question,” Maher shot back. “Why do I need two inspections, which I have to pay for? Yeah, you were here last time we talked about regulations. You said, ‘Oh, it’s a completely new day.’ That’s a quote from you. ‘Completely new day.’”

Newsom shifted gears, referencing Ezra Klein’s book, Abundance, suggesting liberal governance was overly fixated on process rather than outcomes—essentially acknowledging that Maher’s roof saga was exactly the kind of bureaucracy Klein warned about. He vaguely promised to eliminate some of these hurdles.

Maher—seeing through Newsom’s political speak— wasn’t satisfied. “How’s that going, though?” he asked.

Bill Maher has been trying to make changes to his roof for ages—but California’s endless red tape keeps getting in the way. Frustrated by the constant bureaucratic hurdles, Maher finally had the chance to confront Governor Gavin Newsom face-to-face and ask why even basic repairs… pic.twitter.com/HT3rJKRaIZ

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 29, 2025

Shortly after this exchange, Newsom’s rebranding as a moderate fell apart when Bill Maher called out California’s rule that kept parents in the dark if their child changed their gender identity.

“So what do you say to people who say… ‘Governor, you were the poster boy for a lot of this [woke] stuff?’” Maher asked.

“I see today the Trump administration talked about the fact that California had a rule that schools cannot be required to notify parents if their kids in school have changed their gender, their pronouns. That’s the kind of thing—even though it doesn’t affect a lot of people—that makes a lot of people go, ‘Well, you know what? That’s the party without common sense,’” Maher added.

Newsom tried to deflect, framing the issue as protecting students: “I just disagree with that. I mean, the law was you would be fired, a teacher would be fired if a teacher did not report or snitch on a kid talking about their gender identity. I just think that was wrong. I think teachers should teach. I don’t think they should be required to turn in kids.”

Maher quickly called out the political spin: “Turning in? We’re talking about their parents. How can you snitch?”

Shortly after this exchange, Newsom’s rebranding as a moderate fell apart when Bill Maher called out California’s rule that kept parents in the dark if their child changed their gender identity.

“So what do you say to people who say… ‘Governor, you were the poster boy for a lot… pic.twitter.com/OPKnOwHN2v

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 29, 2025

As the interview neared its end, Maher demanded Gavin Newsom give it to him straight about his future presidential ambitions, explicitly telling him to cut the bullsh*t and speak clearly.

But, in a moment that should surprise no one, Newsom responded with an intentionally vague answer.

“Given that we are in this dire situation, I feel like we don’t have time anymore for the old bullsht,” Maher challenged. “You know, the old, ‘Are you running for president?’ ‘Well, you know, there’s an exploratory committee, and I’m looking at it. I’m happy with my job as governor.’ I mean, your future is not in California. Your future is in Iowa. Let’s dispense with the bullsht. We need someone who’s gonna be the champion. Are you gonna do it or not?” Maher asked.

“Just come on, tell us. We don’t have time for the bullsh*t.”

“I can’t stand the bullsh*t as well. And I mean that,” Newsom empathized before ironically giving a vague, bullsh*t answer.

“So, look, this is not my purpose or passion. It’s not my meaning. It’s not everything. The cynicism that’s out there, that every move he [Newsom] is making is some move to some longer-term strategy or short-term strategy.”

Maher kept pressing, “But who could do it? Who could get it done? Who could win?”

Newsom refused to give a straight answer again, “I deeply respect that. I respect the question, but I don’t have any grand plans, as it respects that.”

As the interview neared its end, Maher demanded Gavin Newsom give it to him straight about his future presidential ambitions, explicitly telling him to cut the bullsh*t and speak clearly.

But, in a moment that should surprise no one, Newsom responded with an intentionally vague… pic.twitter.com/WrMfVyr92Z

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 29, 2025

Whether Newsom is running for president or not isn’t really relevant. He’s clearly on a rebranding tour, launching a new podcast, speaking to conservatives, and trying to draw as many eyeballs as possible.

This is a business move, not some act of goodwill. Remember, this is the same guy who insisted, “Not one person ever in my office has ever used the word Latinx.”

Whether Newsom is running for president or not isn’t really relevant. He’s clearly on a rebranding tour, launching a new podcast, speaking to conservatives, and trying to draw as many eyeballs as possible.

This is a business move, not some act of goodwill. Remember, this is the… pic.twitter.com/ZTMYieOadL

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 29, 2025

Yet, his own tweet from 2023 exposed him saying, “The GOP are busy banning the word ‘Latinx’ and AP Black history courses rather than the weapons of war that are killing our kids.”

Whether it’s repairing a roof or addressing gender identity issues in schools, Newsom’s vague, no-substance responses always leave voters spinning in circles. Until he fixes that and starts speaking plainly, he’ll never be president.

There is growing unease across the European continent—from the war in Ukraine and the migrant crisis to economic troubles in Germany and even the continent’s lagging space program.

Without a doubt, what infuriates the liberals in Brussels most is that Elon Musk’s SpaceX is running circles around the European Space Agency and its institutional partners in terms of space access and securing space-based communications.

The latest mishap for the ESA is the German startup Isar Aerospace’s first rocket launch attempt to reach low Earth orbit, which ended in a fireball earlier Sudnay.

“What a success! At 12:30 CEST, Isar Aerospace successfully launched its Spectrum launch vehicle from Andøya Spaceport in Norway. The launch vehicle aborted after approximately 30 seconds in the air, and the vehicle fell straight into the sea. The launch platform appears to be intact,” Isar Aerospace wrote in a statement, quoted by local media outlet VG. 

LAUNCH! Isar Aerospace’s Spectrum rocket launches from the Orbital Launch Pad at the Andøya Space Center in Norway.

Overview:https://t.co/64HcC1kqIH

Live Isar/NSF:https://t.co/aGH02uqNum

And failed early in first stage flight. That’s why it’s a test flight. pic.twitter.com/SfolnqhtBu

— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) March 30, 2025

Drone and pad footage from Isar Aerospace’s Spectrum launch. You can see it avoided the pad when it came down. pic.twitter.com/NePozHqYad

— NSF – NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) March 30, 2025

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic… 

First time humans will be in polar orbit around Earth launches on Monday!@framonauts https://t.co/s0fNKcUxNx

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 29, 2025

Data from Bryce Tech shows that SpaceX has given the world a master class in rocket launch domination and quickly scaling the largest satellite constellation network operated by Starlink.

The US leads the space race because of Spacex.

SpaceX is a perfect example of how privatization of the space industry—removing rocket launches from the government—can result in a tremendous innovation wave after decades of stagnating the sector due to bloated government. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

What’s the most un-American thing you can think of?

Trying to make it a law that an American company that employs thousands of Americans cannot operate because you don’t like the opinions of its owner.

Yeah that’s up there.

Patricia Fahy, a Democrat state senator in New York is introducing legislation that would effectively ban Tesla dealerships in the state by pulling existing permits for its five in-person sales locations.

NY State Senator Patricia Fahy (D) has introduced a new bill that aims to effectively ban Tesla dealerships in the state.

“No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk– He’s part of an effort to go backwards.” -Sen. Patricia Fahy

Democrats are so unhinged that… pic.twitter.com/nV8oM271AJ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 28, 2025

“No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk,” Fahy said, according to Politico, adding “He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”

New York lawmakers target Tesla https://t.co/RlCsYGWF6K

— POLITICO (@politico) March 26, 2025

Elon Musk is dragging humanity backwards. Could a more profoundly stupid sentence be uttered?

Yeah, the guy landing rockets on barges and making EVs mainstream is definitely the one dragging us backwards. Thank God we’ve got career politicians to protect us from innovation.

— Mildly Defeated (@SighHarder) March 28, 2025

There’s a word for this. Desiring to take away an innovative business’ right to compete in a free market.

Seems pretty fascist-adjacent to me.

— jeebus (@jeebus2122) March 28, 2025

It’s actual fascism.

Which is gloriously ironic given that deranged leftists can’t stop saying that word every two minutes.

New York’s Senator Fahy’s bill to ban Tesla dealerships is a blatant abuse of power! Targeting a single company over political gripes with Elon Musk reeks of vindictiveness, not justice. Legally shaky, it violates equal protection under the law—singling out Tesla while letting… pic.twitter.com/2AXWEGMRzt

— 𝐃𝐔𝐓𝐂𝐇 (@pr0ud_americans) March 29, 2025

It’s fundamentally un-American. But then again, what do you expect from Democrats?

This is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. You can not single out a individual or entity for punishment.

— NeoUnrealist (@NeoUnrealist) March 29, 2025

You don’t want people to have jobs at the Buffalo Tesla Gigafactory NY State Senator Patricia Fahy? pic.twitter.com/1WwbD6qvJ8

— Marcus Notrealius (@TheLieKeeper) March 28, 2025

NY bill S6894, targeting Tesla’s direct sales, may violate federal antitrust laws by limiting competition and favoring traditional dealerships. Introduced by Sen. Fahy, it caps Tesla at 5 locations, potentially banning in-person sales. Legal challenges could argue it restrains…

— Grok (@grok) March 28, 2025

Also, Fahy’s bill targets Tesla’s direct sales model by restricting registration certificates for zero-emissions manufacturers that skip dealerships.

So she’s using Tesla’s environmentally friendly credentials to try and ban it, prompting the question ‘what happened to the climate change crisis?’

It also makes clear that the so-called climate emergency was never real. If EV adoption was as important as they always claimed, they wouldn’t obstruct the company doing more than any other to make affordable EVs available to the masses.

— @recruit96 (@Recruit96) March 28, 2025

Oh, it doesn’t matter when it’s someone you don’t like, riiiight.

So are they admitting that they really don’t believe in climate change? Is that why they are hating on the best electric vehicles?

— Lisa Nose (@Li_nose) March 28, 2025

Musk himself went off on Dem daddy Tim Walz, calling him a “jerk” and a “creep” for taking joy in Tesla’s stock momentarily sinking last week.

🚨 Elon Musk just EVISCERATED Tim Walz for celebrating Tesla’s stock decline

“What a creep, what a jerk. Like, who derives joy from that?”

“Minnesota State Pension fund is a major investor in Tesla. But he didn’t care. He was so overjoyed…”

“Does that sound like a good person… pic.twitter.com/eBYB6EdRlH

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) March 28, 2025

Democrats showing their true selves again.

*  *  *

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.

Why should Russia’s refusal to make big concessions come as any surprise to either the White House or mainstream media, given Russian forces are clearly steadily gaining on the battlefield?

In a phone interview with NBC on Sunday, President Donald Trump said, “if Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia.”

Trump went on to say he’s “very angry” and “pissed off” particularly at President Vladimir Putin’s attacking the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s and his leadership:

“I was very angry, pissed off” when Putin “started getting into [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky’s credibility” and “started talking about new leadership” in Ukraine, Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker in a phone call.

Trump said that Putin’s comments on Zelensky are “not going in the right location.” This was in reference to a Friday plan pitched by Putin for a “transitional administration” for Ukraine under the auspices of the UN.

The immediate aim would be ceasefire leading toward “democratic” election, followed by the negotiation of a peace agreement with the new authorities.

“We could, of course, discuss with the United States, even with European countries, and of course with our partners and friends, under the auspices of the UN, the possibility of establishing a transitional administration in Ukraine,” Putin said while visiting the northwestern Russian city of Murmansk.

He laid out that “we could discuss the possibility of introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine,” while Ukraine holds “democratic elections, to bring to power a capable government that enjoys the trust of the people.”

After this, he explained, the two warring sides would “start talks with them about a peace treaty.” Putin has in the recent past complained that Zelensky is ‘illegitimate’ and thus can’t legally be negotiated with, since he has canceled democratic elections on an indefinite basis.

So Trump has clearly brushed this aside in the new Sunday comments…

🚨 NBC: “Just hours ago, President Trump called me to tell me he is ‘pissed off’ with Russia’s President Putin and threatened to impose secondary tariffs on Russia’s oil.” pic.twitter.com/ikpmFH5t1Q

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 30, 2025

However, Trump’s attacking Putin for denouncing Zelensky as illegitimate will surely not be taken as a very serious critique by the Kremlin, given the irony of Trump himself not too long ago having himself blasted Zelensky as a “dictator without elections”.

Trump confirmed to NBC that he will speak again with his Russian counterpart this week. Russia has indicated that the question of the Black Sea ceasefire is still being negotiated, and is awaiting the removal of sanctions on agricultural exports which necessitates specific banks being reconnected to the Swift payment system. But Europe has that no, it won’t go along with any plan which results in easing sanctions.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

The US-led world order has undergone several distinct phases since the end of World War 2.

From 1945 to 1991, it was defined by the Cold War—a global struggle between the US and the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the post-WW2 world order experienced a massive shift, with the US emerging as the undisputed global superpower. This era, often called the “unipolar moment,” lasted from 1991 until Trump’s inauguration in 2025.

Yuval Harari is a key advisor to Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF). He recently stated that if Trump were to become president again, it “is likely to be the kind of death blow to what remains of the global order.”

While I think it’s premature to declare the end of the post-WW2 world order, Trump’s return to the White House undoubtedly marks one of the most significant shifts in international relations since the Soviet Union’s fall.

Marco Rubio serves as Trump’s Secretary of State, tasked with executing Trump’s vision for America’s role on the world stage.

His statements—during his Senate confirmation hearings and in an interview with journalist Megyn Kelly—have made that vision unmistakably clear.

Here’s what Rubio stated during his confirmation hearings (emphasis added):

“Out of the triumphalism of the end of long Cold War emerged a bi-partisan consensus that we had reached ‘the end of history.’ That all the nations of Earth would become members of the democratic Western led community. That a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the ‘liberal world order.’ And that all mankind was now destined to abandon national identity, and we would become ‘one human family’ and ‘citizens of the world.’

This wasn’t just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.

Here in America, and in many of the advanced economies across the world, an almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade at the expense of our national economy, shrunk the middle class, left the working class in crisis, collapsed industrial capacity, and pushed critical supply chains into the hands of adversaries and rivals. An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people has resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in America and around the world that threatens the stability of societies and governments.

While America far too often continued to prioritize the ‘global order’ above our core national interests, other nations continued to act the way countries always have and always will, in what they perceive to be in their best interest.

And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interest at the expense of ours. We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have lied, cheated, hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense.

The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.

And all this has led us to a moment in which we must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.

Eight decades later, we are called to create a free world out of chaos once again. This will not be easy. And it will be impossible without a strong and confident America that engages in the world, putting our core national interests above all else once again.”

Here are Rubio’s remarks to Megyn Kelly (emphasis added):

Megyn Kelly: America First?

Secretary Rubio: Well, and that’s the way the world has always worked. The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.

Where our interests align, that’s where you have partnerships and alliances; where our differences are not aligned, that is where the job of diplomacy is to prevent conflict while still furthering our national interests and understanding they’re going to further theirs. And that’s been lost.

And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem.

And there are terrible things happening in the world. There are. And then there are things that are terrible that impact our national interest directly, and we need to prioritize those again.

So, it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.

We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.

So now more than ever we need to remember that foreign policy should always be about furthering the national interest of the United States and doing so, to the extent possible, avoiding war and armed conflict, which we have seen two times in the last century be very costly.

They’re celebrating the 80th anniversary this year of the end of the Second World War. That – I think if you look at the scale and scope of destruction and loss of life that occurred, it would be far worse if we had a global conflict now. It may end life on the planet. And it sounds like hyperbole, but you have multiple countries now who have the capability to end life on Earth. And so we need to really work hard to avoid armed conflict as much as possible, but never at the expense of our national interest. So that’s the tricky balance. “

Rubio’s words are a reflection of Trump’s vision and policy. Frankly, it’s a much-needed dose of realism and pragmatism.

It’s worth emphasizing several key points from Rubio’s remarks:

• The idea that the US could uphold a unipolar world order indefinitely “wasn’t just a fantasy; it was a dangerous delusion.”

• “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.”

• “We must now confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and generational global crisis in the lifetime of anyone alive here today.”

• “It’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was an anomaly.”

• “Eventually, you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.”

Though it endured for 34 years, the notion that the US could maintain a unipolar world order indefinitely was never realistic.

President Trump seems to recognize that maintaining it is not just unrealistic but unsustainable. He appears to have decided that it is in the US’s best interest to transition to a multipolar reality on its own terms rather than be forced into it by a chaotic collapse.

We are now in a volatile adjustment period as the unipolar world order gives way to a multipolar one (click image below to enlarge).

Does this mean World War 3 is over?

I don’t think so. But it does mean we have entered a new phase of it.

There is still much to be determined—most crucially, the boundaries of the US, Russia, and China’s spheres of influence in this emerging multipolar world.

With the war in Ukraine all but lost and the prospect of victory in Taiwan shrinking by the day, the US government appears to have accepted that the complete subjugation of Russia and China under its unipolar dominance is no longer an achievable goal.

The goalposts of World War 3 have shifted.

Rather than total victory and preserving the unipolar world order, the US is now focused on maximizing its power within the new multipolar landscape—while limiting the influence of its most formidable rivals: Russia, China, and their allies, including Iran.

While the US seems to be moving away from the unipolar model and begrudgingly acknowledging the existence of rival powers, it still seeks to be the dominant force in a multipolar world.

The new global boundaries have yet to be defined, and the situation remains volatile and dangerous. Whether Trump can successfully guide the US—and the world—through this transition without descending into greater conflict remains an open question.

On a smaller scale, this mirrors how powerful criminal organizations—such as mafias and street gangs—operate within a city. Ideally, a gang or mafia would eliminate all rivals. However, when certain rivals prove too strong to destroy, the conflict shifts toward defining boundaries until a formal arrangement is reached that divides territories.

The same dynamic is now unfolding on a global scale between the US, Russia, and China as World War 3 plays out.

Each side is maneuvering to expand its power and influence until a new arrangement is reached that defines the balance of the multipolar world.

The Global Order Is Changing—Are You Ready?

The unipolar world is fading, and a volatile new multipolar reality is taking shape.

The global power structure is shifting fast—and the consequences will be massive.

Most people will be caught off guard—don’t be one of them.

What does this mean for America? For the economy? For you?

That’s why I’ve put together an urgent report revealing the hidden forces shaping this new era and how to prepare for the massive geopolitical and economic shifts ahead.

This could be the most important dispatch you read all year.

Don’t get caught unprepared.

Click here to see it now.