Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has issued a dire warning about the United States’ chronic disease crisis, declaring that poor nutrition is fueling a healthcare cost surge that threatens to bankrupt the nation. 

During a recent Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined plans to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with Rollins, targeting sugary drinks and junk food that the USDA chief argues drive an unprecedented obesity epidemic.

 “We have 13 nutrition programs. Listen to this number. This is going to astound you. In America today, through USDA—this is not all the other agencies, this is just here at USDA—we spend $370 million a day on nutrition programs,” Rollins told All-In podcast host David Friedberg in an interview released Sunday. “So, not just SNAP, but food banks and all of the other ones. That’s just USDA. That is a stunning number. We’ve got to do better.”

.@SecRollins tells @friedberg the USDA spends $370 million daily on nutrition programs: “You can’t solve this through government regulation.”

“You can solve it through nutrition, empowering our farmers, and getting good food into these programs.”pic.twitter.com/CNwCHecLMo

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) May 5, 2025

The stakes are extraordinarily high, with Rollins pointing to alarming health trends that she warns pose an existential threat to the nation’s future, disproportionately harming the country’s most vulnerable and low-income populations. 

“Why are billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk food in our supplemental nutrition program for food-insecure, lower-income populations? This contributes to an obesity and chronic disease epidemic unlike any developed country has ever seen. 74% of our adolescents would not pass the military readiness test today. This is a massive challenge facing America,” she told Friedberg, adding, “Taxpayers fund junk food and sugary drinks at the front end, leading to diabetes and other issues, while the back-end costs of treating chronic diseases are bankrupting states through Medicaid.”

Brooke Rollins joined David Friedberg to discuss her role as Secretary of Agriculture.

The highlight: her conversation on how she and RFK Jr. are working to remove sugary snacks and drinks from SNAP.

“Why are billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk… pic.twitter.com/rCxJxVh0MR

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) May 5, 2025

Kennedy, a longtime champion of the Make America Healthy Again movement and a fierce critic of industrial food interests, is closely aligned with Rollins in transforming the nation’s food supply. “In the first administration, health care was under my portfolio in domestic policy. As conservatives, we’ve long discussed how to make America healthy again, focusing on the cost to the health care system,” Rollins said. “Enter Bobby Kennedy—while we don’t agree on everything, we align on most things. I was with him yesterday touring farms and discussing nutrition and agriculture. The opportunity for the agriculture and health leads to work together daily to solve this is key. You can’t solve it through government regulation, but through nutrition, empowering farmers, and getting good food into these programs.”

Last month, Kennedy unveiled a plan to eliminate eight artificial food dyes and colorings from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2026, collaborating with food companies to ensure a seamless transition.

ABC News reported: Federal officials are taking steps to pull the authorization for two rarely used synthetic food colorings — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — within the coming months. In addition, the six other petroleum-based dyes that federal health agencies are seeking to eliminate by the end of next year are Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2.

“I just want to urge all of you, it’s not the time to stop; it’s the time to redouble your efforts, because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle,” Kennedy said of the historic move. “And four years from now, we’re going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go to the grocery store.”

Authored by Peter Berkowitz via RealClearEducation,

In the high-stakes clash between the Trump administration and Harvard – fraught with peril for the White House, for America’s oldest and most famous university, and for higher education in America – both sides have hardened their stances. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration demanded supervision over reform of the university’s admissions, hiring, curriculum, and internal governance. In an April 14 email to the Harvard community, President Alan Garber rejected White House demands. The Trump administration promptly froze more than $2 billion in federal grants to Harvard and $60 million in contracts, and threatened to eliminate the university’s tax-exempt status. On April 21, Harvard sued several Trump administration officials.

Conservatives, who have been sounding the alarm about higher education’s failings for decades, have divided over how best the Trump administration should hold Harvard accountable.

On the one hand, the federal government has considerable leverage: It provides Harvard more than $500 million annually with billions in the pipeline. On the other hand, the Trump administration must respect constitutional and statutory limits on executive power. Political prudence dictates, moreover, that the president and his team consider that a sizeable majority of the public opposes increasing the federal government’s oversight of universities and that the federal government is ill-suited to the task.

Best for both sides would be a negotiated settlement. The settlement should minimize the federal government’s role in managing Harvard while ensuring that the university obeys civil-rights law, curbs progressive indoctrination, and bolsters traditional liberal education.

Harvard precipitated the crisis. The proximate cause of the Trump administration’s drastic intervention was the university’s violation of civil-rights law by indulging antisemitism and discriminating based on race.

Harvard’s indulgence of antisemitism stands in marked contrast to the alacrity with which it has protected non-Jewish minorities and women. For decades, Harvard has been narrowing the boundaries of permissible campus speech to shield students – particularly favored minorities and women – from supposedly offensive utterances, the offense of which often consists in departure from progressive orthodoxy. Yet following Iran-backed Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel, former Harvard President Claudine Gay discovered that campus free speech is wide and flexible enough to sometimes protect calling for the genocide of the Jews. Furthermore, as the university has acknowledged, it has harbored antisemitism and has been slow and ineffective in responding to campus antisemitism’s post-Oct. 7 surge.

In addition, for decades Harvard discriminated based on race. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023), the Supreme Court held that the university’s race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet despite losing in the highest court of the land, Harvard maintained DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs that classified, and doled out and withheld, benefits based on race.

Beyond the proximate cause of the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to reshape Harvard lies the longstanding cause. For decades, Harvard has betrayed liberal education. It has offered undergraduates a shambolic curriculum: Instead of concentrating on the essentials of an education for freedom – the American experiment in ordered liberty, the defining events and seminal ideas of Western civilization, and basic knowledge of non-Western civilizations – professors lard the curriculum with courses revolving around their arcane research interests. And for decades, Harvard has politicized the humanities and social sciences, promoting a progressive – and often radical – ideology that puts advocacy for left-wing social change ahead of understanding the basics of ethics, economics, culture, society, and politics.

Harvard’s hospitability to antisemitism and its race-conscious policies justified aggressive White House measures to compel the university to abide by its legal obligations or lose federal financial support. The university’s decades-long debasement of liberal education magnified the White House’s sense of urgency. But Trump administration remedies adopt a cavalier attitude toward the law and overlook the federal government’s limited competence.

The week before Harvard filed its lawsuit, City Journal published essays by Manhattan Institute senior fellows Heather MacDonald and Christopher Rufo assessing Trump administration endeavors to reform Harvard. While agreeing that reform was vital, the two eminent commentators on higher education differed over the government’s tactics.

A searing critic of universities’ war on free speech and discrimination disguised as diversity, MacDonald nonetheless worries in “The White House’s Clumsy Attack on Harvard” that the Trump team has overreached. “The administration calls for oversight of faculty hiring to ensure ‘viewpoint diversity,’ though the legal basis for such authority is unclear,” writes MacDonald. “Its demand for a ‘critical mass’ of intellectually diverse faculty is either a wry joke or unintentionally ironic. After all, the notion of a ‘critical mass’ of ‘diverse’ students was one of the flimsy concepts the Supreme Court used for decades to justify racial admissions preferences.”

In contrast, Rufo wants to fight fire with fire. In “The Right Is Winning the Battle Over Higher Education,” he argues that the left transformed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into “a vehicle for entrenching left-wing racialist ideology throughout American institutions.” Now, maintains Rufo, the right must use civil-rights law to achieve its original purpose – to establish “a framework grounded in colorblind equality.” He insists that “racial discrimination is wrong whether it targets whites, Asians, and Jews or blacks and Hispanics.” And he urges the Trump administration to “use every tool at its disposal to ensure that America’s elite universities adhere to the principle of colorblind equality.” But Rufo overlooks the Trump administration’s proclivity to reach for constitutionally and congressionally prohibited tools, and its penchant for unwisely, if lawfully, extending federal authority.

Meanwhile, Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the Trump administration overreached in the legal sphere.

Harvard’s first major allegation might be a close call. According to the university, the government’s freezing of funds and demanding of sweeping reforms of admissions, hiring, curriculum, and internal governance unconstitutionally burden Harvard’s free-speech rights. The Trump administration will probably argue that its demands do not impair Harvard’s speech but rather give the university a choice. Harvard can say what it likes and do as it pleases and, consequently, lose federal funding, to which there is no constitutional entitlement. Or Harvard can adopt measures that would make the university worthy of taxpayer dollars.

Harvard is likely to prevail on the second major allegation, which is that the Trump administration disregarded the congressionally established procedures for withholding approved federal funds. The facts are clear: The Trump administration froze federal funding for Harvard without taking the statutorily prescribed steps for suspending or terminating signed contracts and approved grants.

A court battle would bloody both parties.

Needed, therefore, is an out-of-court settlement. In dealing with the proximate cause of the showdown, a reasonable settlement should ensure that Harvard abides by civil-rights law and that the Trump administration respects constitutional and statutory limits on executive-branch power. In handling the longstanding cause, a reasonable settlement should reduce indoctrination at Harvard in favor of liberal education while obliging the government to honor the university’s academic freedom and institutional independence.

Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Stanley Kurtz has provided an excellent proposal that provides an appealing compromise concerning the longstanding cause of the Trump-Harvard showdown. In “Trump vs. Harvard: A Negotiated Solution,” which appeared online at National Review on April 21 (the day Harvard sued the Trump administration), Kurtz highlights Harvard’s “lax handling of disruptive demonstrations and antisemitic harassment” and its “pervasive leftist bias.” At the same time, Kurtz expresses skepticism about the Trump administration’s demand that Harvard place itself “into a de facto federal receivership.” But Harvard and the Trump administration, Kurtz optimistically contends, could agree to a compromise based on “model legislation called General Education Act (GEA), a limited version of which just became law in Utah, and which is likely to be considered by other states in 2026.”

A co-author of the model GEA, Kurtz sketches a modified version for Harvard. It would create within Harvard a “School of General Education, where the governing dean and the newly recruited faculty are committed to a traditional ‘great books’ approach.” While Harvard undergraduates could earn a degree in general education, “[t]he distinctive feature of this plan is that the new School of General Education is put in charge of teaching a set of great books and Western Civ–focused courses required of every student at the university in question.” Whereas the Trump approach involves intrusive federal monitoring – and Democrats would remove it immediately upon regaining the presidency – the school of general education, once established, would be difficult to abolish.

Everyone could claim victory. The Trump administration could claim credit for impelling Harvard to invest in liberal education. Harvard could take pride in maintaining its independence. Harvard students could acquire precious knowledge of their civilizational heritage while learning to exchange conflicting opinions in a spirit of curiosity, civility, and toleration. Higher education in America could adopt as a model the liberal-education reforms instituted by the nation’s oldest and most famous university. And citizens could draw inspiration from the White House’s and Harvard’s cooperating to achieve compromise and conciliation that advances the public interest.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on X @BerkowitzPeter.

During Tyson Foods’ earnings call on Monday, Brady Stewart—head of the company’s beef and pork supply chains—offered fresh insight into what may be the emerging bottom in U.S. cattle supplies, which have fallen to their lowest levels in over 70 years. His comments came in response to a question from one Wall Street analyst.

Barclays analyst Benjamin Theurer asked Stewart about the overall environment in the beef industry:

So it feels like you only had a small volume drop-in the quarter that could almost be explained by just the leap year and some of the calendar effects. So just wanted to understand a little bit better what you’re seeing in terms of supply of cattle and the cost of that into your operations and how you think about the earlier signs maybe as to some of the heifer retention? Is that building or not? So how should we think about just these throughout the cycle? Are we at the bottom or is it just still too early to tell? That would be my first question. 

Stewart explained that while cattle supply remains down year-over-year, record-high animal weights are helping to offset the decline in volume. He added that the U.S. cattle industry is likely at or near the bottom of its inventory cycle, with herd levels now at a 73-year low.

Here’s the executive’s response to the Barclays analyst that provides valuable insight for consumers, ranchers, and everyone in between tracking the nation’s cattle supplies:

Ben, I think it’s important to note that cattle on feed from a weight perspective are extremely heavy. We’re at record weights throughout the business as well. So we’re seeing some weight that is offsetting from a volume perspective, some of the lower headcounts we’re seeing as the supply has been obviously lower than year ago.

Relative to heifer retention and I would just say this and Curt has mentioned this before, if we’re not at the bottom relative to cow inventories, we can definitely see it from here as well. And I think a couple of reference points behind that certainly would be we’ ve seen an extreme drop almost 18% in beef cow harvest numbers.

And then secondary to that is we have seen a drop relative to heifer on feed, which means if the heifer are not on feed, they’re being retained by farmers and ranchers as well. And we’re seeing a 4% drop in heifers year-over-year as well. So I think the signs are really aligning to a rebuild to start to occur. And from a liquidation standpoint, really seeing the bottom at this point as well.

At the start of the year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual Cattle Inventory report revealed that the nation’s cattle supply had fallen to a 73-year low, totaling about 86.6 million head.

At the supermarket, USDA data from the end of March showed the average price for a pound of ground beef reached yet another record high of $5.79.

Commenting on Stewart’s remarks is The Beef Initiative founder, Texas Slim, who said:

“Rebuilding the herd takes more than forecasts—it takes proof of work. Ranchers holding back heifers aren’t chasing trends; they’re investing in land, genetics, and legacy. That 18% drop in beef cow harvest isn’t a collapse—it’s a recalibration. If this is the bottom, it’s the kind only real producers can build from.”

Slim said: 

“Rebuilding America’s cattle herd will take years—and critically, it must include the participation of mom-and-pop ranchers across the country. The current model, dominated by four multinational meatpackers, is unsustainable—on national security grounds.” 

And continued:

“The most effective way to support this rebuilding effort is one order at a time through the ZeroHedge Rancher Direct Store. Last week’s launch, in partnership with ZeroHedge, was a major success. Now, with the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA) movement gaining momentum, the connection between independent ranchers and consumers is set to grow stronger than ever.” 

Each order puts working capital into America’s mom-and-pop ranchers offering clean MAHA beef. 

Support America.

Support small ranchers.

Support the Heartland.

It’s time for a food revolution.

.   .   . 

Authored by Rachel Acenas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A reward of up to $5 million is being offered for information leading to the arrest of the highest-ranking MS-13 leader in Honduras, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Monday.

Yulan Andony Archaga Carías, 43, is a Honduran national and a fugitive on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted list.

“This terrorist leader can no longer be allowed to live free as MS-13’s evil devastates communities in America and throughout the western hemisphere,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.“If you can contribute information leading to his arrest, come forward now.”

In 2021, Archaga Carías was charged in a superseding indictment in the Southern District of New York with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and firearms offenses. A co-defendant in the case is currently in U.S. custody. Three other MS-13 leaders were also charged in the indictment with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and firearms offenses. One of them is in Honduran custody, while the other two remain at large.

The search for Archaga Carías is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to crack down on transnational criminal gang activity. MS-13 and Tren de Aragua were officially designated foreign terrorist organizations by the United States on Feb. 20, 2025.

“Dismantling and ultimately eliminating MS-13 continues to be one of the FBI’s highest priorities, and we’re not stopping until that mission is complete,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in the DOJ statement. “Alongside our dedicated law enforcement partners, the FBI will find Archaga Carías—a terrorist whose reign of terror at the helm of MS-13 is coming to an end.”

The United States is paying $6 million to El Salvador to hold alleged and confirmed gang members deported by the Trump administration for one year in its maximum-security prison known as CECOT.

The Trump administration has been met with legal challenges over its deportations of such illegal immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked new deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members held in northern Texas under an 18th-century wartime law.

President Donald Trump on Monday said the deportations are a campaign promise he is fulfilling.

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country, for that matter—People that came here illegally!”

If convicted, Archaga Carías faces a maximum penalty of life in prison and a mandatory minimum penalty of 40 years in prison. A judge will determine sentencing.

The DOJ said that only tips sent to the U.S. government will be considered for the reward. Tipsters outside the country should report to an American embassy or consulate, while those in the United States can contact local FBI offices.

From NTD News

Congressional Democrats are apparently furious that one of their members, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI), introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump, alleging that various actions such as deporting suspected MS-13 gang member Kilmar Barego Garcia, cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency without congressional approval, and Trump’s tariffs are impeachable offenses.

“Members can walk away with different impressions of a conversation, and a quick check-in with staff can go a long way in avoiding confusion,” said a top aide to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wrote in a letter to fellow Democratic staffers to let each other know when their bosses are about to pull some rogue shit like Thanedar.

“I don’t think any of us want to learn that their boss was added to a bill that’s been introduced from a Google Alert,” wrote Andrew Heinemann, according to Politico.

Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced a resolution Monday to impeach Trump with four Democrats listed as cosponsors: Nadler of New York, plus Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Robin Kelly of Illinois and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland.

But all four of the other lawmakers who had signed onto Thanedar’s resolution have since withdrawn as cosponsors and implied that they were mistakenly added to the legislation after conversations with Thanedar.

“The Congresswoman was under the impression that the resolution was drafted and reviewed by experts from the House Judiciary Committee,” said Rep. Kelly’s spox, while Mfume’s spokesperson said he removed himself “because he was made aware it was not cleared by Democratic leadership and not fully vetted legally — and he preferred to err on the side of caution.”

Trump Slams

On Monday, President Trump slammed “Radical Left Lunatics” who are into the “Impeachment thing” again – referring to Thanedar (without naming him) as one of “two “No Name,” little respected Congressmen, total Whackjobs both, throwing the “Impeachment” of DONALD J. TRUMP around, for about the 20th time, even though they have no idea for what I would be Impeached.”

The post continues;

Maybe it should be for cleaning up the MESS that they left us on the Border, or the Highest Inflation in our Country’s History or, perhaps, it should be the incompetent Withdrawal from Afghanistan, or Russia, Russia, Russia/Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, or the Attack of Israel on October 7th that only proceeded because they allowed Iran to regain Great Wealth. These Congressmen stated that, they didn’t know why they would Impeach me but, “We just want to do it.” The Republicans should start to think about expelling them from Congress for all of the crimes that they have committed, especially around Election time(s). These are very dishonest people that won’t let our Country heal! Why do we allow them to continuously use Impeachment as a weapon against the President of the United States who, by all accounts, is working hard to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. It’s the same playbook that they used in my First Term, and Republicans are not going to allow them to get away with it again. These are total LOWLIFES, who hate our Country, and everything it stands for. Perhaps we should start playing this game on them, and expel Democrats for the many crimes that they have committed — And these are REAL crimes. Remember, “Shifty” Adam Schiff demanded a Pardon, and they had to use the power of the Auto Pen, and a Full Pardon, for him and the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, to save them from Expulsion, and probably worse!

Yes, that.

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• For the first time, fossil fuels provided less than half of U.S. electricity generation in a month (March 2025).

• The shift is driven by increased renewable capacity (wind and solar), seasonal demand, and the decline of coal.

• The trend is expected to continue, driven by policy and economics, but grid reliability and regional differences remain challenges.

For the first time in history, fossil fuels supplied less than half of the United States’ electricity generation for an entire month, according to new data released by energy think tank Ember. This milestone, achieved in March 2025, represents a turning point in the evolving energy mix of the world’s largest economy.

Historically, fossil fuels—primarily coal and natural gas—have dominated U.S. electricity production. But the steady rise of renewables over the past two decades has chipped away at their dominance. In March, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear collectively overtook coal, oil, and gas, with fossil fuels accounting for just 48.9% of total generation.

However, note that this is an estimate of total generation, including small scale systems that are not connected to the grid. According to EIA data, fossil fuels still account for about 64% of electricity generation by utilities. 

What’s Driving the Shift?

Several factors converged to make this moment possible.

• First, renewable energy capacity has expanded rapidly. Wind and solar are now mainstream technologies, supported by state mandates, federal tax incentives, and falling costs. Wind generation alone grew 12% in March year-over-year, and solar jumped by a remarkable 37%.

• Second, seasonal demand patterns played a role. March is typically a shoulder month for electricity demand—warmer than winter but not yet summer hot—which tends to reduce the need for gas-fired peaking power plants. Lower demand allows zero-marginal-cost renewables like wind and solar to play a more prominent role on the grid.

• Third, coal continues its long decline. Once the backbone of U.S. power generation, coal’s share of the mix has been in free fall since the mid-2000s. In March, coal accounted for just 15% of overall electricity generation (and ~18% of electricity produced by utilities). 

Nuclear power also remains a steady contributor, generating around 19% of electricity, while hydro added another 7%. Combined, these non-fossil sources provide a rapidly growing part of the U.S. grid, with gas providing backup during peaks and seasonal extremes.

A One-Month Wonder, or a Trend?

It’s important to view this milestone in context. April’s low fossil fuel share is partly seasonal, and likely to rebound in the hotter summer months when demand for air conditioning increases and natural gas generation ramps up. Indeed, in 2023, fossil fuels still provided 60% of total annual electricity generation.

However, the trajectory is clear: renewable energy is rapidly scaling, and fossil fuels—especially coal—are losing ground.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, has accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure. Billions of dollars are now flowing into solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission upgrades. Analysts project that renewables will continue to take a growing share of the power mix, driven not just by policy, but by economics. In many parts of the country, new wind and solar projects are already the lowest-cost option for new generation.

Grid Reliability and the Energy Transition

One lingering concern is reliability. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, still provide critical dispatchable power when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. The challenge now is to scale clean, reliable alternatives, such as long-duration energy storage, advanced nuclear, and grid-interactive demand response.

There are also regional differences to consider. Some states—like California and Texas—have made significant strides in renewable integration, while others remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Building out the national transmission grid will be essential to balancing these disparities and ensuring a reliable, resilient system.

A Glimpse Into the Future

The March data doesn’t mean the U.S. has “solved” the energy transition—but it does offer a preview of what the grid could look like in the not-so-distant future. As technology improves, costs continue to fall, and policy support remains strong, it’s likely that fossil fuels will make up less than half of the annual electricity mix within this decade.

For investors, utilities, and policymakers, the message is clear: the momentum behind clean electricity is real. Those who prepare for this transition—by investing in clean infrastructure, modernizing the grid, and rethinking electricity markets—will be best positioned for the energy system of tomorrow.

Russia says its military repelled a fresh drone attack on Moscow, with the capital’s mayor Mayor Sergei Sobyanin describing that anti-air defense systems intercepted “four drones flying towards Moscow.”

International reports highlight that the attack appears “intended to unsettle Moscow’s preparations for events marking the end of the Great Patriotic War, commonly known as World War II elsewhere, on May 9.” This year’s commemoration events, happing throughout the country – but to include world leaders visiting Moscow – mark the 80th anniversary.

Russia’s aviation watchdog, Rosaviatsia, announced a temporary halt to all flights at Domodedovo airport, a key airports serving Moscow, as a result due to the aerial danger in Russian skies.

Elsewhere, at least 17 drones were reported downed over the Bryansk region along with five more over Kaluga – though within the last several days the numbers of inbound drones from Ukraine were significantly higher.

The Black Sea port city of Novorossiysk has seen a state of emergency over the last couple of days as it’s come under large-scale drone attacks. 

Bloomberg reported over the weekend that “Ukrainian drones damaged Russia’s largest grain terminal in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk overnight, according to regional authorities and facility’s owner.”

“Work is underway at the KSK grain terminal to eliminate consequences” of a fire triggered by falling drone debris.

Civilian neighborhoods were also reportedly hit, with regional media citing Novorossiysk mayor Andrei Kravchenko, who stated, “Apartment buildings in the Aurora residential complex and in Suvorovskaya Street were damaged. There is damage in the private sector of the Eastern District. If necessary, we’ll deploy temporary accommodation centers.”

Last week President Vladimir Putin declared a unilateral three-day ceasefire for May 8-10, which Ukraine’s Zelensky in turn denounced as but a “theatrical show” meant simply to ensure Victory Day events run smoothly as planned.

We reported earlier that Zelensky went so far as to hint that a Ukrainian attack on Victory Day events could happen. Here’s what Zelensky warned early last week:

“Now they are worried that their parade is in question, and they are rightly worried. But they should be concerned that this war is still going on. They must end the war,” the Ukrainian president said.

Moscow officials certainly took this as a direct threat. Various world leaders, including President Xi Jinping of China, will be present for the V-Day parade through Red Square and other observances.

Meanwhile in Moscow region, Russia’s air defenders started lighting up multi-storey apartment blocks in Podolsk!

No wonder some locals are concerned.

Authorities claim to have shot down 4 attack drones already. Domodedovo airport has been closed for around 90 minutes. pic.twitter.com/RtXKn1IlnE

— Tim White (@TWMCLtd) May 5, 2025

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova issued a statement Saturday saying that Zelensky “unambiguously threatened world leaders.”

“After every terrorist attack on Russia’s territory, the Kiev regime, its security services, and Zelensky personally boast that this is their doing, that this will continue. Therefore, the phrase that he ‘does not guarantee security on May 9 in Russia’ as it is not his area of responsibility is, of course, a direct threat,” the diplomat stated. There’s a likelihood Russian forces could ramp up bombing raids against Ukrainian cities, and even the capital of Kiev, as a result.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that illegal immigrants who use the CBP Home app to initiate their own deportation procedures will receive a $1,000 bonus stipend.

In a statement on Monday, the agency said illegal aliens will “receive both financial and travel assistance to facilitate travel back to their home country through the CBP Home App” and that those individuals who aren’t authorized to be in the United States will get the $1,000 stipend “after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app.”

Trump administration officials have said that using the government’s self-deportation process is likely the best way for illegal immigrants to remove themselves to avoid being targeted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

“If you are here illegally, self-deportation is the best, safest and most cost-effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in the statement. 

“DHS is now offering illegal aliens financial travel assistance and a stipend to return to their home country through the CBP Home App. This is the safest option for our law enforcement, aliens and is a 70 percent savings for US taxpayers. Download the CBP Home App TODAY and self-deport.”

On the day he took office on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump moved to close down the Biden administration’s CBP One app, which had been used by migrants in Mexico to schedule appointments at designated U.S. ports of entry.

Upon CBP One’s cancellation, migrants could no longer schedule appointments, and tens of thousands of border appointments were scrapped.

More than 900,000 people entered the country on immigration parole under CBP One, generally for two years, starting in January 2023.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has repeatedly urged people who are in the country illegally to leave.

Last month, the president told Fox Noticias that while his administration is focused on removing violent criminals from the United States, he wants to provide a more robust “self-deportation program.” At the time, Trump signaled that DHS would provide those individuals with a stipend of some kind.

“We’re going to give them a stipend,” Trump said in mid-April. “We’re going to give them some money and a plane ticket, and then we’re going to work with them—if they’re good—if we want them back in, we’re going to work with them to get them back in as quickly as we can.”

The president also said he wants to help hotels and farms get the workers they need and recommend people to fill needed positions.

“We’re doing a self-deportation and we’re going to make it comfortable for people,” Trump said. 

“And we’re going to work with those people to come back into our country legally.”

During his campaign and in the first months of his administration, Trump has made immigration enforcement and bolstering border security a centerpiece of his agenda. But some of his policy initiatives and executive orders around deportations have been stymied in court.

The high court, in a brief order issued in April, directed the government not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas “until further order of this court.” In a separate case, the Supreme Court also ordered the administration to facilitate the return of a Salvadoran illegal immigrant and accused MS-13 gang member, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador earlier this year.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

CNN ran an interview with a member of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico and asked him to send a “message to Donald Trump,” but failed to get the response they were looking for.

The network sent reporter Isobel Yeung to the home turf of the most monstrous drug trafficking organisation in the world where she sat with a member of the Sinaloa Cartel as part of her ‘investigation’ into the effect the cartel is having on society.

In one section of the interview, likely in an effort to create headlines, Yeung referred to Trump recently designating the cartel as foreign terrorists, opening up the possibility of targeting them with military force.

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump has just signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

They can now be targeted with LETHAL FORCE by the U.S. military.

This is HUGE. pic.twitter.com/WAf7HhKVAY

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 21, 2025

“According to the Trump Administration, you are a terrorist…You are a member of a terrorist organization. What do you make of that?” Yeung pressed the cartel member.

He responded that the situation is “ugly,” but claimed that cartel activity is just business because they “have to eat.”

Not satisfied with that answer, Yeung made another effort to get the cartel member to bash Trump.

“What is your message to Donald Trump if he’s watching this?” she asked.

The cartel member replied “My respect,” adding “According to him, he’s looking out for his people.”

Straight from a member of the Sinola Cartel.

CNN Reporter: “What is your message to Donald Trump if he’s watching this?“

Cartel Member: “My respect. According to him, he’s looking out for his people.“ pic.twitter.com/HcXiifbcYr

— Carmine Sabia (@CarmineSabia) May 3, 2025

The Cartel News Network was clearly hoping for a “Trump is evil, we’ll kill him” soundbite. Instead it ended up completely backfiring on them.

They attempted to stoke a confrontation and accidentally ended up giving Trump a campaign ad he can now use when he does move against the terrorists, you couldn’t write it if you tried.

*  *  *

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.

One month ago, Goldman’s Jan Hatzius became the butt of Wall Street nerd jokes when in the span of 73 minutes, the bank’s chief economist revised his US outlook to make a recession his base case forecast… only to flipflop just over an hour later when Trump announced a delay to his tariffs, reverting to his previous “non-recession baseline”, yet one where he still sees a 45% chance of recession.

It was also around this time when we predicted that, amid the panic and chaos on Wall Street which saw virtually every economist make a recession their base case scenario, it would be about a month when we would see a wholesale – and very quiet – walk back, as “all the banks who made a recession their base case this week, make an unrecession their base case.”

Will be so slightly awkward when all the banks who made a recession their base case this week, make an unrecession their base case in 1 month.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 8, 2025

We didn’t have long to wait, and with most banks now quietly revising their economic estimates higher – certainly far more quietly than they were to declare that a recession is imminent – overnight Goldman became the flagbearer (bearing the white flag that is), when Hatzius published a report in which he now anticipates Q2 surging to 2.4% from -0.3%, which would make it higher than the average GDP print reported  since the start of 2022.

Not only that, but when discussing the -0.3% GDP print for Q1, Goldman said that “inventory investment was significantly understated, which means that GDP was significantly understated too.” In short, Q1 GDP will be revised positive, and Q2 could push to 3% or higher!

Here is how Hatzius justified his forecast which effectively punts a recession (which is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP) at best into early 2026, and most likely indefinitely.

• Q1 GDP printed at -0.3% annualized, but frontloading of imports probably significantly understates this number. In theory, frontloading should be neutral because it boosts imports (which enter the calculation of expenditure-side GDP negatively) but raises consumer spending, business fixed investment, and inventory investment (which all enter positively) by an equal amount. In practice, we believe inventory investment was significantly understated, which means that GDP was significantly understated too.

• We expect this distortion to reverse in Q2. Our current forecast of +2.4% assumes that measured imports decline sharply but measured inventory investment remains solid as the distortion unwinds. However, this is highly uncertain, in part because the distortion could also unwind via upward revisions to Q1 GDP.
   
• Domestic final sales excludes both inventories and net exports and is therefore a somewhat better gauge of underlying growth. But it is far from perfect and was probably distorted upward by frontloading of goods spending. We expect domestic final sales growth to slow to 0.3% in Q2 from 2.3% in Q1, reflecting a more modest pace of consumption growth (+1.2% vs. +1.8%) and a sharp decline in equipment investment (-10.2% vs. +22.5%) reflecting a decline in imported computer and communications equipment after a frontloading-led surge in Q1.

There is more in the full Goldman note (available to pro subs) but you get the message. And now that Goldman has effectively taken a recession off the table for the near future, expect every other bank to do the same, just as we said they would one month ago when conventional wisdom was apocalyptic… and dead wrong.