Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The FBI is prioritizing removing illegal immigrants with criminal records and arresting child predators, the deputy director said on May 10.

“[The FBI] workforce has been working overtime on task force operations to remove dangerous illegal aliens from the country. The work continues,” FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, a former radio host, wrote in a lengthy post on social media platform X.

“If you came here illegally to prey on our citizens, your days here are numbered.”

Such efforts are likely to ramp up in the coming weeks, Bongino said in the post, which he described as an operational update. He also said the agency is increasing enforcement against individuals who prey on children.

“Crimes against children are a priority for the workforce. Operation ‘Restoring Justice,’ where we locked up child predators and 764 subjects, in every part of the country, is just the beginning,” he said, referring to a recent operation announced by the FBI.

“We are going to take your freedom if you take away a child’s innocence.”

Hundreds of suspected child predators were arrested over a five-day period, and 115 children were rescued, the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on May 7.

Elsewhere in his post, Bongino said that the bureau would provide regular updates to Congress and is responding to high-profile cases that arose in recent years. These include the shooting at a congressional baseball game in 2017 that left Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) gravely injured, the 2023 Christian school shooting in Nashville, Crossfire Hurricane, the origins of COVID-19, and the release of files related to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

“There are voluminous amounts of downloaded child sexual abuse material that we are dealing with,” Bongino wrote in addressing the Epstein case. “There are also victims’ statements that are entitled to specific protections. We need to do this correctly, but I do understand the public’s desire to get the information out there.”

He also said that the FBI is doing its “best in the current budgetary environment to prioritize the mission, act as good fiscal stewards, find waste and inefficiencies, and to enact reforms while moving the FBI forward.”

FBI Director Kash Patel told Congress on May 8 that he would make the bureau’s mission “work on whatever budget we’re given,” a day after he said that he was seeking more funds than what the Trump administration had proposed.

The 2026 budget proposal released in early May calls for a funding cut of about $545 million for the FBI as part of what the White House said was a desire to “reform and streamline” the bureau and reduce “non-law enforcement missions that do not align” with President Donald Trump’s priorities.

“My view is that we agree with this budget as it stands and [will] make it work for the operational necessity of the FBI, and as the head of the FBI, I was simply asking for more funds because I can do more with more money,” Patel said in a Senate hearing.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

On average, U.S. counties grew by 1,000 people from 2023 to 2024. 

But the level of population growth varied widely from place to place. 

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross, in partnership with BGO, shows the fastest-growing counties. 

Ranking the Largest Population Increases in U.S. Counties

Using the latest data available from the U.S. Census Bureau, here are the counties that had the largest population growth measured in number of people.

Harris County, which includes Houston and neighboring communities, had by far the biggest population growth. The primary driver of the county’s growth was international migration. On a domestic basis, more U.S. residents moved out of Harris County than those that moved into the area. 

While international migration was the biggest contributor to population growth in most areas, some counties bucked the trend. Domestic migration drove the bulk of population growth in Montgomery County, Denton County, and Williamson County in Texas, along with Polk County, Florida and Pinal County, Arizona.

The only county on the list to see a bigger boost from the natural change in population (births minus deaths) compared to net migration was Kings County, New York.

Preparing for Larger Populations

In general, population growth was concentrated in counties that already had large populations. One challenge of growing populations can be ensuring there is sufficient housing for all of the new residents. 

To meet rising demand, BGO is expanding its investment in high-quality multi-family and build-to-rent communities across fast-growing Sunbelt and Western U.S. markets. This includes Phoenix in Maricopa County—now the third fastest-growing county in the country—as well as residential properties in other population growth hubs like Miami-Dade and King County.

Authored by Jonathan Miltimore via the Washington Examiner,

A massive blackout crippled Spain and Portugal on Monday, April 28, grounding flights, halting transport, and leaving millions without power.

The cause was “unclear,” the New York Times reported, with “no evidence of a cyberattack.” 

As Spanish officials urged citizens to stay off the roads, European leaders said they were attempting to ascertain the cause of the mysterious outage.

“We do not yet have conclusive information on the reasons for this [power] cut,” Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, said in a national address.

On Tuesday, April 29, power was largely restored, but the Associated Press reported that the blackouts “remain a mystery.” 

Some pundits, however, observed a remarkable coincidence in the timing of the blackouts.

“Six days ago, the media celebrated a significant milestone,” Michael Shellenberger observed on Substack.

“Spain’s national grid operated entirely on renewable energy for the first time during a weekday.”

Shellenberger was not the only person to claim that Europe’s overreliance on intermittent sources such as wind and solar had left its energy grid vulnerable.

“I would say there’s a strong chance that the large amount of solar on the system created the conditions for this to be a widespread blackout and made it much worse,” said Kathryn Porter, an independent energy consultant.

Many saw this tragedy coming.

European lawmakers’ infatuation with “green” energy, which is not as green as its supporters would have you believe, has been causing problems on the continent. Energy prices have soared in recent years. As the average household electricity bill skyrocketed, many nations scrapped energy taxes to help struggling (and angry) consumers.

In their rush to go green, many countries (including Spain) over the last decade began to phase out not only fossil fuels but nuclear power.

A tightening energy supply was exacerbated by the outbreak of the Ukraine War. Facing a full-blown energy crisis, governments began imposing regulations that forced Europeans into more Spartan lifestyles.

Energy rationing, including limits on hot showers and swimming pools, fueled public anger and helped trigger the 2024 “greenlash,” as Green parties were routed across Europe.

Spain and Portugal were among the nations that resorted to energy rationing. A European Union agreement tailored specifically for these nations was approved by lawmakers despite opposition from some regional authorities.

The law, among other things, set temperature limits for public and commercial buildings (no lower than 80°F for cooling, no higher than 66°F for heating), required “energy-efficient” appliances, and accelerated renewable energy projects. Meanwhile, the law was accompanied by a plan to cut 13.5 percent of domestic gas for power generation.

These actions didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was all part of Spain’s plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Net zero was always a pipe dream, but it was a lucrative one for politicians and their allies. Under the banner of fighting climate change, lawmakers funneled billions of dollars into subsidies, grants, and contracts that enriched a network of special interests, including renewable energy companies, consulting firms, and financial institutions.

The climate ring is now collapsing, but the costs of the experiment are visible. Europe’s energy infrastructure has languished and is in dire need of investment. Meanwhile, historically low fossil fuel prices have concealed the energy crisis Europe still faces.

European leaders promise a full investigation into the outage, but they’ll be reluctant to admit their own policies are to blame for the energy disaster.

While pundits were already quipping about net zero—“No iPhone charge, no Netflix, no Uber Eats, No Nothin’!”—energy policy is no laughing matter. Blackouts kill people.

Those on life support are sustained by equipment that runs on electricity. In the absence of generators, dialysis patients go without treatment when machines lose power. Home oxygen concentrators shut off, leaving respiratory sufferers gasping for oxygen. Traffic signals fail, causing fatal collisions. Water pumps stop. Refrigerators go dark, spoiling food supplies and triggering foodborne illnesses.

Americans should be paying close attention to developments in Europe.

The government-manufactured incentive structure that encouraged European lawmakers to abandon more reliable forms of energy and replace them with expensive intermittent energy sources also exists in the United States, where lawmakers dream of a “Green New Deal” and a world without fossil fuels.

None of this is to say there’s no room for renewable energies in the global future. There is. Battery technology is rapidly improving. And solar energy at utility scale has shown great potential.

But the effort to purge fossil fuels from economies and reshape the global economy through heavy-handed regulations, wealth transfers, and centralized planning was always tinged with economic hubris, if not madness.

“The curious task of economics,” the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek observed, “is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

Europeans receiving such a lesson now find themselves powerless.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) on May 9 said that they’re launching a new nutrition program that will help further the agenda of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The research initiative “will serve as a key element in fulfilling [Kennedy’s] commitment to Make America Healthy Again,” the agencies said in a statement.

Under the initiative, dubbed the nutrition regulatory science program, the agencies are going to carry out research that will answer questions such as how and why ultra-processed foods harm people’s health.

Officials also say they will look at how food additives affect human metabolism and the role of diet on health issues, such as autoimmune diseases, over one’s lifespan.

The answers “will enable effective policy development and help promote the radical transparency Americans deserve about the foods they are eating and how those foods can impact their health,” the agencies said.

Kennedy has said that one of his top priorities is removing “bad ingredients” from food and has repeatedly expressed concern about chronic diseases such as diabetes, particularly among children. More than four in 10 children have at least one chronic health condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA previously banned several artificial dyes and says it is working with companies to remove others that the agency still allows to be added to foods and drinks. More recently, regulators approved new additives derived from natural sources.

Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA’s commissioner, said in a statement that “the FDA is focusing resources on the greatest contributors to the staggering health care crisis: chronic diseases.”

The nutrition program mirrors a joint FDA–NIH program that has conducted research on tobacco, officials said.

FDA staffers will offer expertise on regulation while the NIH will “provide the infrastructure for the solicitation, review and management of scientific research,” according to the agencies.

The researchers who will be involved have not been identified, but officials said the program will feature research that is free from conflicts of interest.

“Nutrition has always been a priority at NIH,“ Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the NIH, said in a statement. ”By teaming up with the FDA, we’re taking a major step toward answering big questions about how food affects health—and turning that science into smarter, more effective policy. It’s time to tackle the chronic disease crisis head-on. That’s why NIH is making this investment alongside the FDA.”

Authored by Joe Baron via DailySceptic.org,

According to David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, many of the preconditions for civil war exist in Britain today. 

Using academic studies on social cohesion, civil war causation theory and social attitudes surveys, he argues that the following preconditions are in place: elite overreach, factional polarization, a collapse in trust, economic pressures, and the perceived downgrading of the majority population in a previously homogeneous society, are all present in contemporary Britain.

The current dynamics, he continues, point to an emerging conflict between radicalized factions within the Muslim community and an incipient nativist white nationalism. Professor Betz goes on to claim – using the Maoist model that divides insurgencies into three phases – that the nativists are in phase one, the so-called defensive phase in which the group begins to organize, disseminate propaganda and build a conscious community of followers.

Islamists, on the other hand, are in phase two – when violent attacks occur on a semi-regular basis, a military structure is being developed, but they are not yet strong enough to challenge the state’s monopoly on violence. (Professor Betz believes that, due to the absence of clear geographic divisions between the antagonists, Britain is unlikely to reach phase three – the offensive phase. This is when the insurgent groups are strong enough to challenge government forces.)

It is an arresting and troubling thesis. It is also convincing. 

The preconditions outlined above undeniably exist in modern Britain.

There has been a collapse of public trust in the state, for example. The 41st British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) report, published on 12 June 2024, concluded “that people’s trust in governments and politicians, and confidence in their systems of government, is as low now as it has ever been over the last 50 years, if not lower”. Indeed, a record high of 45% “almost never” trust governments of any hue (22 points above the figure recorded in 2020); 58% (another record high) “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth when they are in a tight corner, up 19 points on 2020; and a striking 79% of respondents said that the system of governing Britain could be improved “quite a lot” or a “great deal”, matching a record high recorded during the parliamentary stalemate over Brexit in 2019 and up 18 points on 2020.

Professor John Curtice, the Senior Research Fellow at the National Centre for Social Research, the organisation that carried out the BSA survey, says: “The government… will… need to address the concerns of a public that is as doubtful as it has ever been about the trustworthiness and efficacy of the country’s system of government.” As Professors Curtice and Betz warn, public trust in governments of all stripes has collapsed and, with it, trust in the system of government that we have traditionally sacralised and encouraged others to adopt. That this trend, if left unchecked, could potentially shatter an already fragile social contract is a statement of the obvious. Trust in the state unites the disparate groups of a multicultural society, acting as what Professor Betz calls a kind of “superglue”. Without it, the groups fracture and retreat into silos characterised by mutual suspicion and animosity.

Although the BSA report does provide a chink of light, offering the possibility of a resurgence in trust – like the one seen in 2020 after the parliamentary shenanigans over Brexit were finally put to bed by Boris Johnson’s election victory – the signs are inauspicious. The post-Johnson resurgence was short-lived, eroded by more ‘elite overreach’ as he turbocharged immigration against the wishes of the electorate. What became known as the ‘Boris-wave’ was the final act of betrayal for a downtrodden populus reeling from a decade of broken promises.

Indeed, public trust has been eroded by elite arrogance – and such arrogance shows little sign of abating. Political elites are not only forcing mass immigration on a reluctant population; they are now actively discriminating against the white majority. The recruitment practices of our public services are a case in point. In the summer of 2023, a report found that the Royal Air Force was unlawfully discriminating against white men in a campaign aimed at boosting diversity; West Yorkshire Police recently placed a temporary block on hiring white British candidates for the same reason. In addition, a recent article in the Telegraph revealed that NHS trusts discriminate against white applicants by manipulating interview shortlists to favour ethnic minorities. Our irreproachable health service encourages what is known as the ‘Rooney Rule’ – a policy originating in American football that makes it mandatory for ethnic minorities to be shortlisted for interviews if they apply.

Furthermore, the toxic spectacle of two-tier policing is obvious to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool progressives. The contrast between the police’s uncompromising response to the white Southport rioters – in which they rightly used batons and shields against the aggressors – and their pusillanimous reaction to the Harehills Romani rioters – in which they ran away despite a bus being set on fire – was starkly demonstrative of a system that no longer treats its citizens as equal in the eyes of the law. Sir Keir Starmer took the knee in the wake of the violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests; he pressured judges to hand down custodial sentences to mothers who posted injudicious tweets during the Southport disturbances.

Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing shamelessly highlights the current two-tier approach. It says there should be “equality of policing outcomes”, meaning, to ensure “racial equity” not everyone should be treated the same. Apparently, policing should not be “colour blind”. The justification for anti-white racism is therefore spelt out in black and white – excuse the pun. No wonder the police attack white football fans trying to protect the Cenotaph whilst appeasing the Islamo-fascists who wish to deface it. No wonder they tolerate marauding Muslim gangs in Birmingham while deploying armoured battalions to deal with their white counterparts.

The white, native population is in the midst of an elite driven programme to downgrade their status in the United Kingdom – a phenomenon that Professor Betz cites as a precondition for civil war. 

That it could lead to a backlash by those being downgraded is self-evident.

Britain is already facing factional polarization within some of its communities. Last year, four independent MPs were elected because of a religiously-inspired preoccupation with the Israel-Hamas war. Moreover, according to government figures, the UK has approximately 40,000 Islamists on the terror watchlist. Inter-communal violence has also been playing out on the streets of Birmingham between Hindus and Muslims, as well as on the streets of London between Eritreans and Ethiopians. If you add economic pressures into the mix – economic stagnation since 2008, an acute housing shortage, historically high taxation, private and public indebtedness, and broken public services – and a resentful white majority (Southport witnessed the incipient convulsions of a native population that clearly feels besieged), a heady, explosive cocktail threatens to ignite the country.

Professor Betz is right. The preconditions for civil war do exist. Years of elite overreach have led to resentment and an alarming collapse of trust in our politicians, institutions, and political system, in addition to the increased polarization of our ever-growing migrant communities – communities that find themselves, along with the native majority, in the eye of an approaching storm. Our elites must wake up before it’s too late!

Joe Baron is the pseudonym of a secondary school teacher. This piece was originally published on his Substack, which you can subscribe to here.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

That would be a nightmare scenario from the perspective of Israeli interests…

A report circulated last week alleging that Trump cut off all direct contact with Bibi after feeling manipulated by him. For as sensational as it sounds, the larger context suggests that it might be true. For starters, there was bad blood between them since late 2020 after Trump reportedly felt betrayed by Bibi recognizing Biden’s electoral victory while Trump was still challenging it in the courts.

This is a very personal issue for him seeing as how he continues to insist that he won so it wouldn’t be surprising.

More recently, Bibi has been pressuring Trump to bomb Iran, which Trump doesn’t want to do since a large-scale war in West Asia would offset his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” for containing China. In connection with that, Trump reportedly dismissed former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz due to him supposedly coordinating too closely with Israel. Also of relevance are the rumors that Israel was caught off guard by the US’ resumption of talks with Iran and is against any agreement between them.

Then there’s the US’ recent deal with the Houthis that excludes Israel, reports that the US will delink Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks, and even speculation that Trump might recognize Palestine during his attendance at next week’s Gulf-US Summit in Riyadh. Altogether, it’s self-evident that US-Israeli ties are newly beset with a host of problems, thus lending credence to the earlier cited report about Trump cutting off all direct contact with Bibi.

Their rift might even be irreconcilable depending on Trump’s next steps. It was already bad enough from Israel’s perspective that the US reached its own deal with the Houthis right after they announced their plans to impose an air blockade on Israel but delinking Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks, let alone recognizing Palestine, could cross the Rubicon. In that scenario, Israel and the US would remain at odds during the rest of Trump’s term, and perhaps even afterwards if Vance succeeds him.

The consequences of that happening would widely reverberate throughout the region. Without the continued support of its oldest and most reliable ally, which is still the strongest and most influential country in the world despite the global systemic transition to multipolarity, Israel would be left alone to deal with threats from Iran and Turkiye. To make matters worse, it can’t be ruled out that the US might curtail or even suspend its military aid to Israel on whatever pretext, thus weakening its armed forces.

This combination of factors could lead to Israel wildly lashing out against its regional adversaries in desperation before it loses its military-strategic advantages, which could spark a large-scale war, or being coerced into a series of compromises that accelerates the loss of these selfsame advantages. From the viewpoint of Israeli interests, this a zero-sum dilemma that it must avoid at all costs, yet Trump’s potentially irreconcilable rift with Bibi could turn this nightmare scenario into a fait accompli.

Nevertheless, as Trump’s unexpected reconciliation with Zelensky shows, there’s always the chance that their tensions could be overcome. For that to happen, however, Bibi would likely have to give Trump something of equivalent strategic value to Zelensky’s minerals deal. It’s unclear what that might be, and it could come too late to stop the US from delinking Saudi recognition of Israel from their civil nuclear talks and/or recognizing Palestine, but Bibi would do well to make Trump a peace offering pronto.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

Marine Le Pen used a visit to Rome on Saturday to denounce what she called a growing “democratic scandal” within the European Union, following her recent conviction that has barred her from running in France’s next presidential election.

Speaking alongside Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, the French nationalist leader warned that her case was part of a wider pattern of political suppression aimed at silencing sovereignist movements across Europe.

“I have an African friend who told me that there are countries where there are no elections, and countries where candidates are prevented from running,” Le Pen said in an interview with Corriere Della Sera during the visit.

“I believe that my conviction is really a democratic scandal: I was prevented from running for election, despite having appealed and am therefore still presumed innocent.”

Le Pen drew a direct comparison between her own legal troubles and what she described as systematic efforts by the European establishment to neutralize opposition voices. 

“I can’t help but think of what happened to Salvini, what happened in Romania with Călin Georgescu, and what the European Union wants to do with Orbán,” she said.

“The EU does not like defeats, but it is ready to go against the people to crush those who bother it.”

Her remarks came during a joint appearance with Salvini at the League’s School of Political Formation following a religious observance in honor of Pope Leo XIV. The two leaders, longtime allies in the European nationalist movement, presented a united front against what they view as Brussels’ overreach and ideological rigidity. 

“His political ideas are practically the same as mine,” Le Pen said of Salvini.

“And I want to add that he is a brave, faithful man with great willpower. He really is a friend.”

Le Pen also used her Rome trip to criticize ongoing EU defense integration efforts, particularly the Readiness 2030 initiative, which she claimed is another vehicle for centralizing power in Brussels. “Whenever there is a crisis, the EU takes advantage to push integrated policies that override national sovereignty,” she said. “Today, it does so with Ukraine and tries to build a European army. It does so in an absolutely cynical way, to impose its ideological agenda on the European people.”

With French President Emmanuel Macron and other EU leaders visiting Kyiv for meetings with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” Le Pen questioned the coalition’s true aim. “Does it want to reach an agreement for peace, or will it end up fomenting war?” she asked. “Macron has put himself in the shoes of the warrior. France should do the opposite: devote all its efforts to acting as a mediator in the direction of peace.”

Though Patriots for Europe, the nationalist parliamentary group Le Pen co-founded, is now the third-largest bloc in the European Parliament, she acknowledged that uniting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) could elevate their influence further. “I do not lose hope that the sovereigntists can evolve into a single formation,” she said. “After all, we already vote together on many amendments. Certainly, there is more that unites us than separates us.”

On Meloni herself, Le Pen insisted she has “an important diplomatic role, and that’s no surprise. We have differences — especially her support for the election of Ursula von der Leyen — but she’s achieved results, both externally and for Italy’s economy.”

Despite tensions between the French and Italian governments, Le Pen advocated for a revival of the bilateral relationship. “France and Italy are the two most similar countries in Europe,” she said. “I support a true Renaissance in relations between them.”

In contrast, she dismissed the longstanding Franco-German axis. 

“That axis is a choice of the current French government,” she said. 

“Germany has always pursued its own policies. I believe Europe needs rules that apply equally to all.”

Read more here…

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Homeland Security has issued a subpoena to Los Angeles County for records tied to a state-run assistance program, which the department alleges might have been used to unlawfully provide federal benefits to illegal immigrants.

Homeland Security Investigations served a Title 8 subpoena to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, which administers California’s Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants.

While the cash assistance program is a state-funded initiative, the federal subpoena seeks records from January 2021 to the present to determine whether any recipients received Supplemental Security Income benefits but who were ineligible, based on their immigration status.

The requested documents include applications, immigration status records, proof of Supplemental Security Income ineligibility, and supporting affidavits, DHS said in an announcement.

“Radical left politicians in California prioritize illegal aliens over our own citizens, including by giving illegal aliens access to cash benefits,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“If you are an illegal immigrant, you should leave now. The gravy train is over. While this subpoena focuses only on Los Angeles County—it is just the beginning.”

The move comes less than a month after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum directing federal agencies to crack down on misuse of Social Security Act funds. The April 15 directive, aimed at enforcing Executive Order 14218, calls on federal officials to identify and prevent payments to ineligible recipients, including those without lawful immigration status.

Trump’s memorandum directs federal agencies to investigate fraud and prioritize enforcement in areas with high numbers of illegal immigrants. It also calls for expanding fraud prosecution programs through special assistant U.S. attorneys, particularly targeting identity theft and improper benefit payments.

According to DHS, more than 2 million illegal immigrants were issued Social Security numbers in fiscal year 2024 under prior policies. The department said it is now working with other agencies to prevent any further disbursement of benefits to ineligible recipients.

The Social Security Administration previously expressed support for the White House memo and outlined steps it is taking to prevent future benefit fraud. In an April 16 statement, acting Commissioner Leland Dudek said the agency is committed to ensuring that benefits are “paid only to those who should receive them.”

The Social Security Administration said it is reviewing questionable earnings reports and considering whether to resume civil monetary penalties in cases of fraud. The agency also confirmed that it recently reclassified more than 6,300 Social Security numbers as ineligible after identifying recipients who had been paroled into the U.S. despite criminal records or national security concerns.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, and the California Department of Social Services did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times before publication.

Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report. 

Two weeks ago, as part of its quarterly refunding announcement, the Treasury surprised the market when it unveiled a funding need for the current quarter that was $53 billion lower than it had initially forecast in February, and which we said “indicates that DOGE is indeed working and the US funding needs are actually declining.”

Needless to say, for a market that was habituated to Joe Biden’s debt-funded drunken sailor spending ways, the news that the US would needs less – not more – spending than previously expected, came as a shock, and yields slumped as less debt than expected would be required to fund the world’s most indebted government.

Today we got the reason why the borrowing need of the US was surprisingly lower than previously expected, and it was revealed in the latest Treasury Monthly Statement laying out the US government’s monthly deficit… or rather surplus. Yes, we are so used to describing the sum-total of the US government’s monthly income statement as a deficit (i.e., more spending than revenue) that it has become automatic to assume that every month the US will spend more than it brings in. Only this time that wasn’t the case.

Presenting Exhibit A: in April, the US Treasury generated a $258.4 billion surplus after last month’s $160.5 billion deficit; this the second biggest surplus on record, with just the $308 billion bumper surplus in 2021 bigger.

To be sure, while US surpluses are few and far between, the one time of the year when they can (occasionally) be seen, is in April, when a surge in tax income offsets the now chronic government bloat and spending. This April was just that, and while the US did spend a hefty $592 billion in April (slightly more than the $528 billion in March, and more than the $567 billion spent a year ago) of which very ominously more than $100 billion was gross interest on the record US debt (which at this moment is about $37 trillion) for the second month in a row…

… the revenue collected by the US treasury managed to more than offset this massive spend, and surged by a whopping $850 billion, just shy of the record $864 billion record in April 2022.

The unexpected surge in revenue, and the resulting budget surplus means that the cumulative deficit for fiscal 2025 suddenly doesn’t look catastrophic: recall that just four months ago, back in January, in the last month of Biden’s reign, the US had already spent a record $840 billion for the first 4 months of the year, on pace to blow away all previous records. But then something changed, and first March saw a big slowdown in spending which resulted in a much more tame cumulative deficit through March, and then the April data meant that the cumulative deficit in the first seven months of the year, was actually an improvement, and dropped to just $1049 billion, down from a peak of $1037 billion in March, and below the run-rate of both 2021 and 2024.

And while the primary reason for the unexpected budget surplus was a far bigger tax haul than expected, mostly thanks to a burst in capital gains tax which is unlikely to be repeated this year (unless we see the S&P rise another 20% from here by year end), there was another big reason for the April revenue surge, a reason we profiled previously in “Trump Trade War Results In Record $12 Billion Surge In Customs Revenues.” As shown in the chart below, Customs Duties in April doubled from $8.2 billion in March to a record $15.6 billion in April, thanks to surge in Trump tariffs.

And while all of that is a good start, and certainly a big improvement in the US fiscal picture in the first three months of Trump’s regime, the big picture sadly remains a dismal one, largely because the US debt picture remains completely unsustainable and manifests itself in $1.2 trillion in gross interest expense per year, just $300 billion shy of the biggest spending category of them all: Social Security Spending. 

That said, April’s bumper revenue aside, all five main spending categories are growing much faster than revenue, and something drastically has to change for this big picture to become viable. Unfortunately, we have now seen the wholsesale pushback Trump has faced when doing just that – trying to restructure a broken status quo – which is why unless Trump magically succeeds in this undertaking, the US is pretty much doomed (while DOGE’s achievements have been admirable, they are a drop in the bucket in the context of Congresionally appropriate spending) as nobody else will ever come close to Trump’s intended overhaul of the US fiscal picture.

Authored by Paul Mueller via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

We just made it through another tax season. Congress has begun debating whether and how to extend the Trump tax cuts from the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While many elements of that tax debate are worth commenting on, I want to highlight the standard deduction because it sheds light on an underappreciated part of American philanthropy.

Prior to the introduction of the federal income tax in 1913, charitable donations did not have meaningful tax deduction benefits. Yet Americans gave generously. In fact, if anything, American philanthropy has declined because of the Scrooge effect of the welfare state.

“Are there no [state-funded] prisons [or work-houses]?” Ebenezer Scrooge asks in Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol.”

The questions reveal that Scrooge (and others) feel that their higher taxes to fund a variety of social and “poverty-reduction” programs take the place of direct philanthropic giving.

Americans also keep a lot less of what they earn today than they did 100 or 150 years ago—as most of us know from recent personal experience.

The case of welfare programs crowding out charity has been made eloquently by Marvin Olasky in “The Tragedy of American Compassion.” Various religious and fraternal orders provided health insurance, old-age insurance, and other social services to their members throughout the 19th and into the 20th century. These services were later replaced by state unemployment benefit schemes, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

These government programs “crowded out” charitable, philanthropic civil society—contributing to problems of declining social capital elaborated by Robert Nisbet (“Quest for Community”) and Robert Putnam (“Bowling Alone”). Government agencies and government checks replaced civic networks and systems of support. Yet American philanthropy is still alive and kicking in the United States.

The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University estimated that Americans gave $557.16 billion to charity in 2023. That’s about $1,600 per capita. By comparison, Canadians gave about $400 per capita to charity and Brits gave about $250 per capita. Even as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United States ranks well above European countries. According to one source, the United States is one of the most charitable countries in the world.

What’s remarkable is that the vast majority of Americans who give to charity receive no federal tax benefit from doing so. Returning to the individual exemption, when you file your taxes, you can either claim the standard deduction ($14,600 for an individual, or $29,200 for a couple) or you can itemize your deductions. A few expenses can count toward the itemized deductions, but these expenses are highly qualified and don’t add up to much for the average person.

From a benefit standpoint, your qualified expenses, including your charitable giving, must add up to more than the standard deduction before you receive any tax advantage. Suppose someone takes the entire $10,000 state and local tax deduction (SALT) and comes up with $5,000 more in other qualified expenses. They would still be $14,200 short of the $29,200 standard deduction for a couple. This means that any of their charitable giving, up to $14,200, does not render them any benefits on their federal taxes.

Seventy percent of American households earn less than $127,000 before taxes. So $14,200 would mean donating more than 10 percent of their pre-tax earnings before they saw any advantage from the giving being “tax-deductible.” For most Americans, the “tax-deductible” element of charitable giving is practically irrelevant. Yet they give anyway.

Most Americans donate money even though they receive no federal tax benefit. Americans gave generously long before the income tax and the charitable tax deduction existed. A large industry of lawyers and accountants has cropped up to help wealthy people lower their tax liabilities through various forms of charitable giving. Sometimes these methods lead to creative accounting and legal gymnastics that can distort or divert people’s choices of how to use their wealth.

These observations provide a few reasons to want an alternative to our federal tax code 501(c)(3) structure. We should ask whether society would be freer in a world without tax exemptions for charitable giving—a world without the stark for-profit/nonprofit legal divide with all its attendant reporting and hoops. Tax code rules that put their thumb on the scale represent social engineering of the kind free people should reject.

Most Americans give generously without thought of return—even with a large welfare state and high taxes. 

There is something deeply admirable about this kind of generosity that gives without expecting any material benefit in return. Imagine how they would give if the welfare state were trimmed down and their taxes were lower. 

That’s what George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” should have meant.

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