Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

At the airport, the staff now offers comfort dogs, gorgeous Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds available for petting and holding. The idea is to comfort scared kids, delight passersby, and generally lift up the space. Yes, that’s exactly what dogs do.

What a wonderful idea. However, not everyone is happy about our love of dogs.

We’ve all become sensitive about threats on the horizon, small hints in science journals or from establishment media that target what we love. There was a time when we could treat these as an opportunity for debate and discussion. Events of the last five years suggest that parlor games are over. With so much trust lost, we are newly aware that these threats can turn out to be real and thus merit more attention.

The issue now concerns pets and dogs in particular. Are they coming for them?

In August 2020, Anthony Fauci co-authored an article in Cell that broadly called for “radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” Among the specifics, the article obliquely targets pet ownership, urging that we must reduce “unsafe exposure to animals.”

I wondered about that line at the time. The whole theory of the article is that humans are everywhere surrounded by icky things that can infect us. We’ve neglected these threats for many thousands of years by traveling around, moving here and there, domesticating animals, and living too closely together. This must change, they opine, because bad pathogens are ever more leaping from the outside world into humans.

A girl plays and pets Dino, a golden retriever led by his trainer Vesna Kiskovska (R) at the Skopje International Airport, in Skopje, North Macedonia, on Jan. 29, 2025. Robert Atanasovski/AFP via Getty Images

The empirics of the cause bear discussion. There really is no evidence that humans are uniquely in danger in our times as versus from the beginning of time. But the desire on the part of the intellectual elite to immanentize the eschaton never entirely disappears. That’s why there is a legitimate worry that they are coming for our pets.

Mother Jones has reprinted a piece from the Guardian which is a riff on a new journal article published in Australia, pointedly called “Bad Dog?: The Environmental Effects of Owned Dogs.” If you understand how this works, you don’t even need to read it. Dogs are polluters and wasteful. Feeding them requires too much in the way of resources. They threaten birds. They emit harmful gases. They sully the environment and spread diseases.

To quote from the breathless article: Dogs “are implicated in direct killing and disturbance of multiple species, particularly shore birds, but also their mere presence, even when leashed, can disturb birds and mammals, causing them to leave areas where dogs are exercised. Furthermore, scent traces and urine and faeces left by dogs can continue to have this effect even when dogs are not present. Faeces and urine can transfer zoonoses to wildlife and, when accumulated, can pollute waterways and impact plant growth. Owned dogs that enter waterways contribute to toxic pollution through wash-off of chemical ectoparasite treatment applications. Finally, the sheer number of dogs contributes to global carbon emissions and land and fresh water use via the pet food industry. We argue that the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.”

The solution seems obvious: get rid of them!

You can see what is happening here. Some among the scientific elite have picked up on Fauci’s call and added new research to back a growing attack on dogs and probably every other pet, too. It’s really an extension of the germophobia that spread lockdown ideology, and the conviction that the fix for all that ails us is to live in constant fear and isolation from all other living things.

Comfort dog Pepper, a Terrier Mix, gives the paw to its trainer at the Berlin Brandenburg Airport BER in Schoenefeld, Germany, on Oct. 20, 2023. Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

No, the threat of dog confiscation is not around the corner. But what these sorts of campaigns can do is feed regulatory restrictions. More registrations, more shots, more tracking, more chips under the skin, more fines, more rules, and so on. In the industrialized West, we already face tremendous restrictions on breeding, raising, and selling pets.

It’s doubtful that anyone is going to take your pet. The way this works is to make it more difficult for the next generation to come along. They put the squeeze on, introducing ever more controls and mandates, fines and fees, monitoring and investigations, until it is just not worth it anymore. The costs outweigh the benefits. That’s how the anti-pet forces play the long game.

When I was a kid, you could go into any pet store and see the puppies all begging for owners. It was like going to the zoo, and it was wonderful. This has entirely disappeared, based on a very effective but ultimately ridiculous panic about “puppy mills,” thus forcing would-be pet owners to adopt or pay exorbitant prices from privileged breeders, which can require traveling across the country to get your favorite pet. It is very likely that you have to pay the town for the privilege, and that your pet has a required vaccination schedule that is tracked and enforced by private groomers and public authorities.

Thus is there already evidence of certain freak-out in the public over pets in general. I can easily imagine conditions under which this would be intensified by a public campaign. All it takes is one rabies bite or more crossover infections of some newly named pathogen. The panic against animals, and domesticated animals in particular, is just waiting to be fired up under the right conditions.

The global amplification of what would otherwise be an obscure journal article in Australia illustrates the point. The campaign is already underway and not going away anytime soon.

Americans will not easily acquiesce to having their pets taken away, but we’ve already given in to government control of pets in ways that other countries would find intolerable. I like to spend time in Mexico City, which has only the loosest possible enforcement of any pet rules.

A traveller pets a therapy dog providing solace to stressed travellers before they board their flight at the Istanbul Airport, in Istanbul, on May 3, 2024. Yasin Akgul/AFP via Getty Images

It’s not uncommon to be in a church and see a dog walk by. You ask around, and people say that this dog generally just hangs around the neighborhood. It’s the same in restaurants and parks. Nice, sweet, happy animals roam freely and no one particularly cares. In the United States such a dog would be rounded up and slaughtered in minutes!

There are also no restrictions on breeding and selling pets. Nor should there be. This is a wonderful way for people to make money, allowing their own animals to do what comes naturally. To stop this practice is extremely cruel and damaging to many rural people who supplement their income producing valuable pet friends for others. The crackdown on this practice in the United States was entirely a class-based imposition of something that is wholly fine and traditional.

Today, there are many in the Amish and Mennonite communities who breed wonderful dogs and sell them online. You have to pick them up in person and mostly pay cash, but at least it is permitted. But even they report nonstop harassment from health authorities who would prefer they stop this practice entirely, thus denying alternative communities another income stream that makes their lives possible.

In other words, the attack on dogs is not new at all but actually dates back many decades. This is how control over our lives works these days: it creeps in gradually over time, and we hardly notice it until it is too late. It is the proverbial frog in water that is never so alarmed at the heating water to inspire a leap out.

I hardly need to make the case for pet ownership. They bring delight to lives. As for disease and so on, exposure to pathogens is how the immune system improves. On this score, Fauci and the other Covidians had it entirely wrong. The path to health is not extreme isolation but exposure and normal human interactions. It’s the same with pets. They are not to be feared but loved and treasured.

The airport people have it right: dogs love people and people love dogs, almost like we are meant to be together.

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

Countries are investing heavily in artificial intelligence to position themselves for a future that could look significantly different from today.

Greater investment in AI typically translates into stronger innovation ecosystems, which can attract top talent and fuel groundbreaking research that drives long-term economic growth.

This visualization is part of Visual Capitalist’s AI Week, sponsored by Terzo, and uses data from the 2025 AI Index Report to reveal which countries are placing the biggest bets on AI.

Data & Discussion

The figures in this graphic represent total private AI investment by country, between 2013 to 2024 in billions of U.S. dollars. Countries that raised less than $1 billion were grouped into the “Rest of World” category.

From this data we can see that nearly half a trillion dollars has been raised for AI in the U.S. This amount is greater than the rest of the world combined ($471 billion vs. $289 billion).

AI Startup Activity

The 2025 AI Index Report also features data on the number of newly funded AI companies by country. Generally speaking, more capital raised results in more companies starting up.

Based on these numbers, the U.S. is the clear leader in terms of creating new AI companies. In 2024 alone, 1,073 AI companies in the country were funded.

AI Focus Areas

Since 2013, the world has raised over $750 billion for AI ventures, but what is all of this money going towards?

Breaking down private AI investment by focus area reveals the top sectors that attracted the most capital in 2024.

“AI infrastructure, research, and governance” attracted the most capital due to large investments by companies building AI applications, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI.

To get into all the AI Week content, visit our AI content hub, brought to you by Terzo.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which AI Companies Have Acquired the Most Funding on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

Nine plane loads of bunker-busting bombs were shipped from the US to Israel. The munitions are intended to prepare Israel for a potential war with Iran.

“Nine US transport planes carrying bunker-busting bombs and other defensive weapons landed at Nevatim Airbase near Tel Aviv, in central Israel,” the Israeli broadcasting authority KAN reported. The outlet noted that Washington also sent additional interceptors for the THAAD air defense system to Tel Aviv.

The munitions and interceptors would be key to Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear program then countering the predictable Iranian response.

KAN explained the massive weapons shipment  comes “in anticipation of a possible joint US-Israeli strike, should nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran fail.”

Under President Donald Trump, a US-supported Israeli strike on Iran has become increasingly likely. The administration is divided on whether to attempt to make a new nuclear pact with Tehran or forego diplomacy and attack Iran’s nuclear program.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also lobbying Trump to aid an Israeli strike on Iran. Tel Aviv would need significant support from Washington to carry out a major attack on Iran’s nuclear program.

The New York Times reported last Wednesday that Netanyahu had requested Trump’s assistance in a series of military operations aimed at Tehran. The Times said the American President had denied the Israeli leader’s request.

However, on Thursday, Trump explained that he had not ruled out attacking Iran, but added, “I’m not in a rush to do it.”

The US and Iran are currently engaged in indirect talks aimed at creating a new nuclear agreement. In 2015, Tehran agreed to additional limitations and inspections on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

In 2018, Trump withdrew from that agreement. While in office, President Joe Biden engaged in some talks with Tehran in an effort to restore the Obama-era nuclear deal. Israel was able to sabotage the diplomacy with a series of assassinations and other attacks inside Iran.

Trump has now reengaged with the Iranian government. While US and Iranian officials appear optimistic after two rounds of talks, Trump has pushed for negotiations to move faster.

Israel will also need assistance in repelling any Iranian retaliatory attack. The US currently has multiple THAAD and Patriot systems deployed to Israel.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for attacks on two US aircraft carrier groups currently patrolling the Red Sea and areas off Yemen’s coast on Monday, and further announced fresh drone launches on the southern Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Eilat.

The Pentagon has not confirmed that US warships have come under attack. But the US side has tended to remain silent in the face of similar recent reports by the Houthis. However, Washington has in the recent past acknowledged Houthi efforts to target its warships with drones and missiles.

Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Sarea cited American support for Israel as it “oppresses the Palestinian people”. Describing the fresh attacks, he said: “The first targeted a vital Israeli enemy target in the occupied Ashkelon area using a Yaffa drone, while the second targeted an Israeli military target in the Umm al-Rashrash area in southern occupied Palestine using a Sammad-1 drone.”

He then announced two military operations against the US in “retaliation to the American aggression against our country and its massacres against our people.”

“Missile forces and drone units launched two cruise missiles and two drones at the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and its associated ships in the northern part of the Red Sea. The second operation, carried out by naval forces, missile troops and drone units, targeted the USS Carl Vinson and its associated ships in the Arabian Sea, using three cruise missiles and four drones,” Sarea told the Al Masirah TV channel.

Saria then claimed that “the goals of both military operations were successfully accomplished.” But there are as yet no signs the carriers were actually hit by any inbound fire. The Houthis actually made a similar claim of attacks on both US carriers on April 18.

Just about a week ago the USS Harry S. Truman was joined by the USS Carl Vinson in regional Mideast waters. Presumably this is a sign the Trump administration plans to ramp of its airstrikes on Yemen even further.

The Houthis have proven impossible to dislodge merely through airstrikes, which have been intense and ongoing since March 15. There have been recent reports that the United States is in talks with Saudi-supported Yemeni forces in exile (who have long fought the Houthi rebels) to cobble together a possible new land offensive to send against the Shia militant group which is allied to Iran.

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) living up to its motto: “Vis Per Mare,” which means “Strength from the Sea” in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility… pic.twitter.com/4t964ihhbg

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) April 12, 2025

“Yemeni forces opposed to the Houthis are in talks with the US and Gulf Arab allies about a possible land offensive to oust the militant group from the Red Sea coast, according to people involved in the discussions,” Bloomberg wrote last week.

Even if the US commits itself to a ‘limited’ ground operation using proxies, there’s always the potential for serious escalation which leads to direct Pentagon boots on the ground. The whole Yemen campaign seems a ‘no win’ situation, and is ultimately to the greater benefit of Israel – and not necessarily Washington.

Authored by Drieu Godefridi via The Gatestone Institute,

The news came down like a thunderbolt. In a spectacular decision, the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota, ordered the environmentalist organizations that comprise Greenpeace to pay $665 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The figure appears a monumental slap in the face to Greenpeace, which was sued by Energy Transfer for “defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts,” following demonstrations against the pipeline project in 2016 and 2017.

The North Dakota jury did not pull any punches. Greenpeace was declared liable; its methods illegal and its actions harmful. Greenpeace has already announced that it will appeal.

Beyond the legal wrangling, this ruling raises the question: what if this case marks the start of a major transatlantic rift between an America defending its energy interests and a Europe mired in its green romanticism?

Let us look at the facts. 

The Dakota Access Pipeline — a nearly 1,900-kilometer artery that carries crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation to Patoka, Illinois — has been the focus of much passion. As early as 2016, Sioux and Cheyenne Indian tribes, supported by an armada of activists, celebrities and organizations including Greenpeace, denounced the project as threatening sacred tribal lands as well as water resources. Tens of thousands of signatures poured in on petitions, and protests at the construction sites paralyzed the work — all costing Energy Transfer some $300 million in delays and extra costs.

The anger often degenerated into outright violence and large-scale vandalism, much to the annoyance of local populations, who became fed up with these crusaders who had appeared from elsewhere. Faced with this chaos, President Donald J. Trump, freshly inaugurated in 2017, issued a presidential memorandum to speed up the project, while brushing aside what he called an “incredibly cumbersome and horrific authorization process.”

The pipeline became operational in May 2017. Energy Transfer nevertheless immediately decided to go on a legal offensive. According to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace had orchestrated the demonstrations, financed the disorder and spread lies about the pipeline.

The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, agreed on March 19, 2025, and ruled that Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund Inc. must pay combined damages of $665 million to Energy Transfer, a sum that sounds like a declaration of war on environmentalist NGOs. The days of omnipotence and de facto impunity for environmentalist NGOs were over.

Greenpeace USA is now crying that it will be forced into bankruptcy. Really? With its network of donors — small, large and mega-large — the NGO should be able to bounce back. The signal is clear: in the United States, no one any longer jokes with those who hinder the economy and trample on the rights of others under the guise of idealism.

Meanwhile, Europe is getting restless. Greenpeace International has invoked the European anti-SLAPP directive — an EU initiative to protect individuals, especially journalists and activists, from abusive lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) aimed at silencing criticism or public participation, by providing safeguards like early dismissal of unfounded claims and financial protections. The anti-SLAPP directive, adopted in April 2024 by a European Union always ready to support and finance the most extremist NGOs, concretely aims to immunize these organizations against legal proceedings. Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer under the anti-SLAPP directive in the Netherlands, in February 2025.

Greenpeace related the incident to broader environmental concerns, according to its statement:

“Based in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International is citing Dutch law on torts and abuse of rights, as well as Chapter V of the EU Directive, adopted in 2024, which protects organisations based in the EU against SLAPPs outside the EU, and entitles them to compensation. The Directive, along with existing Dutch law, paves the way for GPI to pursue remedies against three entities in ET’s corporate group… for the damage it has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the SLAPP suits and related actions in the US. Greenpeace International sent Energy Transfer a Notice of Liability in July 2024, summoning it to withdraw its lawsuit in North Dakota and pay damages, or face legal action. Energy Transfer refused to do so.”

Greenpeace would apparently like organizations such as itself to directly or indirectly cause hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, while preventing any court from intervening.

The applicability of the EU anti-SLAPP directive to the judgment in question is doubtful, because:

1. The anti-SLAPP directive in question has not yet entered into force in the Netherlands.

2. It is first and foremost Greenpeace USA that has been found liable (for $400 million) for acts committed in the USA, while the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive is solely related to cross-border disputes. According to Article 1 of the anti-SLAPP directive, it pertains to clearly baseless claims or exploitative legal actions in civil cases that have cross-border elements, targeting individuals or entities — known as SLAPP targets — due to their involvement in public participation. The requirement of ‘cross-border implications’ means that SLAPPs related solely to domestic cases are not covered by the directive.

3. Greenpeace was found liable for activities that led to violence, not for having expressed its opinion. Incitement to violence is not an opinion, and the EU anti-SLAPP directive does not cover acts of violence. Its primary focus is on protecting individuals and entities engaged in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings in civil or commercial matters with cross-border implications.

If judges in the Netherlands nevertheless find in favor of Greenpeace International, anything is possible: such a ruling would be another slap(p) in the face to the United States. Would the Trump administration let stand a new European encroachment on US sovereignty? It looks as if the EU, through this directive, once again is trying to dictate the law on American soil. Transatlantic tensions, already fuelled by trade disputes, issues of free speech, NATO funding and the war in Ukraine, would mount further.

Beyond this legal duel, there is a clash of civilizations at play. On one side, Trump’s America, driven by the mantra “drill, baby, drill” and a newfound pride in fossil fuels. Shale oil and gas, abundant and cheap, have made America the world’s leading producer of hydrocarbons. The US is seeing energy independence boosted by massive exports of liquefied natural gas.

On the other side, a Europe stubbornly pursuing its Green Deal, a project as costly as it is illusory, sacrificing its competitiveness on the altar of environmentalist dogma. While in Europe, factories are closing, they are reopening in the United States. The contrast between pragmatism and ideology is striking.

What can we learn from all this? America has chosen its side: energy sovereignty, prosperity, an end to impunity for NGOs that engage in illegal activities. Greenpeace may appeal and its activists may cry “gagging prosecution,” but the tide clearly seems to be turning.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Is a new boom in deceptive trading practices taking shape in many parts of the world? As the U.S.–China trade war intensifies, it certainly looks that way.

China’s Gray Trade Strategy Blunts Impact of US Tariffs

With U.S. tariffs reaching 145 percent on Chinese imports—at least at the time of this writing—Beijing’s new strategy seems to include the use of so-called gray trade to bypass American trade barriers. Gray trade involves rerouting goods through low-tariff countries, such as Vietnam, Mexico, or Malaysia, to conceal their Chinese origin and thereby reduce U.S. import duties.

This sneaky tactic has surged as a response to President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, making China’s goods less competitive in the U.S. market due to their added cost.

Gray Trade Loophole Strategy

The simple idea behind gray trade is to exploit loopholes in U.S. Rules of Origin, the trading guidance for determining a product’s country of origin for tariff purposes. Chinese goods, for example, will remain unassembled or may be about 90 percent manufactured before being shipped to an intermediary country. There, they undergo final production, assembly, processing, repackaging, or relabeling to qualify as originating from that country, rather than from China.

For example, Chinese electronic parts may be sent to Vietnam, assembled into a product, and then labeled, “Made in Vietnam.” This enables China to benefit from the 10 percent tariff on Vietnamese imports under Trump’s 2025 reciprocal tariff regime, instead of the 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods.

It’s a perfectly sensible response by Beijing, and there’s no doubt that Chinese firms are rerouting goods through Vietnam, Mexico, and Turkey to exploit lower tariffs on goods sourced from those countries. A related tactic occurring in Mexico involves dividing goods into packages that are below the $800 tariff-free threshold for non-Chinese origins, a tactic called the “Tijuana two-step.”

China Has to Resort to Gray Trade

But gray trade isn’t new or even unfamiliar to the second Trump administration. During Trump’s first term, Chinese solar manufacturers bypassed 30 percent tariffs by partnering with their neighbors in Southeast Asia. In 2025, tracing the movement and provenance of vast numbers of products is complex at best and nearly impossible at worst, making it a challenge to disrupt gray trade.

It’s no mystery why Beijing is engaging in gray trade. With its exports to the United States accounting for 10 percent of its trade and supporting between 10 million and 20 million jobs, some experts say the world’s largest manufacturer faces an estimated 80 percent decline in its exports over the next two years, if the gray trade were to cease.

As domestic economic conditions decline due to the anticipated extensive trade tensions, China’s 2025 GDP projections have fallen from 5 percent to as low as 4 percent, potentially resulting in a 20 percent drop in GDP growth in just one year. With joblessness among its young people (ages 16 to 24) already approaching 17 percent, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faces a growing resentment among its people. The Party would like to avoid an uprising by its younger generation.

The gray trade has provided a much-needed cushion against the blow of the Trump administration’s high tariffs. For instance, according to official data, China’s exports surged by 12.4 percent in March, with exports to ASEAN increasing by 11.6 percent and exports to Vietnam climbing by nearly 19 percent.

Impact on Low-Tariff Countries

But it’s not just China that gains from gray trade. Its low-tariff country partners also gain economically from gray trade but face risks, too. Gray trading partners, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Mexico, profit from trade and processing fees, with some estimates on the social media platform X reaching as high as 10 percent. It’s worth noting that between 2017 and 2022, Vietnam replaced almost half of China’s lost market share in U.S. imports.

However, gray trading partner countries risk the consequences of U.S. pushback, resulting in a delicate balancing act for these countries caught between gray trade with China and managing important trading relationships with the United States.

Economic and Geopolitical Implications

Economically, gray trade preserves China’s U.S. market access for the moment, but it raises costs as intermediaries take their cut, with logistics costs also increasing. For U.S. consumers, it may delay steep price hikes, but won’t eliminate them.

Geopolitically, Beijing’s retaliatory 125 percent tariffs on U.S. goods, plus adding barriers to U.S. beef and LNG imports, raise tensions even higher. CCP leader Xi Jinping’s recent visits to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia could have secured their gray trade hubs going forward.

A Rough Road Ahead?

But the impact of gray trade is perhaps deeper and wider than many may expect. On the one hand, it’s a reasonable response on China’s part to U.S. tariffs. But on the other hand, there are greater risks. The United States could expand tariffs or use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to close loopholes.

That, too, may be a rational response by the United States, or it could make things worse.

“The global trade system for the past ninety years is collapsing, leaving it difficult for people to forecast the economic impact and tell where the bottom for a market is,” Vincent Chan, a China strategist at Aletheia Capital Ltd., told Bloomberg.

As new phases of U.S. trade policy and responses unfold, the biggest risk may be uncontrolled escalation in both tariff retaliation and other forms of retaliation. In short, the impact of the gray trade may be deeper and wider than many expect, and it could even lead to a global trade war, with its own far-reaching implications.

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

Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Harmeet Dhillon’s decision to step down as the CEO of the Center of American Liberty to accept her new role as an assistant attorney general is one of mixed emotions, but it’s the right move, she says.

President Donald Trump chose Dhillon, who is known for championing parental rights, to lead the civil rights division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi. She was confirmed on April 3.

“Our priorities are the president’s priorities,” Dhillon told The Epoch Times. “You’re not going to see any sunlight between us and the White House on their policy prerogatives.”

Trump’s executive orders that aim to protect women’s and girls’ rights in sports and target gender ideology, anti-Semitism, and “unconstitutional and discriminatory behavior at America’s top institutions of higher learning” indicate a few focal points for the civil rights division, she said.

“Those are our top civil rights priorities, and I don’t think anyone will be surprised to learn that,” she said. “I’m pretty sure I was selected for this role because of the background in civil rights on a number of aligned issues that we have done at the Center for American Liberty … as well as my private practice and the Dhillon Law Group.”

The DOJ’s civil rights division is the nation’s primary defender of religious liberties, which are protected by the First Amendment and many federal statutes, “so you can expect that to be a priority of this administration,” she said.

With more than 400 attorneys, 600 employees in the DOJ’s civil rights division, and a heavy backlog of work, Dhillon said she’s getting up to speed on the division’s activities and beginning new investigations and initiatives.

“Every few minutes, something different crosses my desk,” she said, on her seventh day on the job.

While people on social media are asking her to investigate a wide range of issues, Dhillon said it will take time.

“I can’t put the cart before the horse. We have to do our investigations in due order,” she said. “As lawyers, we need to get our facts straight and go through a particular process before we file lawsuits, but I can assure you that the civil rights division under Bondi’s leadership, and under President Trump’s leadership is going to be extremely active on the issues that Americans care about.”

And those issues, she said, are the ones the president has spoken about on the campaign trail and in the Oval Office.

“Once we get started with some of these lawsuits becoming public and investigations—having some teeth into them—I think people are going to see those results to a much greater degree than ever in a Republican administration,” she said.

Dhillon recently launched a new account on social media platform X, where people can follow her official government posts.

‘Bittersweet’ Sentiments

When she accepted the nomination, she knew it would mean stepping down as CEO of the Center for American Liberty, which she founded in 2018.

“It’s bittersweet,” she said. “I’m sad about moving on because it was a dream of mine,” she said.

But she is confident in her colleague Mark Trammell’s ability to take the reins. Trammell is the former executive director.

Dhillon said she started the organization because she saw conservative organizations “doing little slices of civil rights work in very narrow areas, but nobody comprehensively taking on the rights of American citizens who are suffering from novel forms of discrimination or traditional forms of discrimination.”

The center has defended the rights of free speech for students on campus and filed more lawsuits during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, mainly on the grounds of religious freedom, than any other organization, and is well-known for representing young people who had undergone medical and hormonal treatments as teens in attempts to change their gender, which they are now trying to reverse; they’re known as detransitioners.

“We have led the nation in standing up for the rights of young women to hold their physicians and medical institutions accountable for misleading them about the gender transition industry and the harm that it does to so many thousands of American young women and men as well,” Dhillon said.

A New Role

When asked if she would investigate complaints from parents of gender dysphoric children who say they’ve faced the threat of having a child taken from their custody for refusing to call the child by opposite sex or preferred pronouns, Dhillon said, “Center for American Liberty took on several cases like that and that should be a clue.”

“I find it to be a very troubling trend,” she said. “It is absolutely a violation of Supreme Court jurisprudence, as well as natural law and civil rights law, for any state to usurp parental rights the way that we have seen.”

Coercing parents to use preferred pronouns as a condition of enjoying their natural rights as parents is a violation of the First Amendment, due process, and equal protection, she said.

Dhillon said she is also concerned about states that prohibit foster parents from helping orphaned children or troubled youth because they refuse to align with certain viewpoints on gender.

Read more here…

*  *  *

Top products last week at ZeroHedge Store:

– ZeroHedge Waxed Canvas Hat

– ZeroHedge Shirt

– IQ Biologix Astaxanthin (extremely potent anti-inflammatory)

– ZeroHedge Multitool

– Anza SWAT Micarta Blued (made in the USA)

A Trump administration deadline to remove a toll charged to drivers in Manhattan, New York City, by April 20 has not been met by local authorities.

On Jan. 5, the city implemented a congestion pricing policy under which drivers of cars, small vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs are charged a $9 toll for entering Manhattan below 60th Street between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends.

The rates change during other times based on peak traffic. Trucks, taxis, buses, motorcycles, and Uber services are also subject to the toll.

In February, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) terminated approval for the congestion pricing policy. New York state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the state agency overseeing the tolls, then sued the federal government for canceling the program.

The DOT had initially given the MTA until March 31 to stop the collection of tolls under congestion pricing. This deadline was later extended by a period of 30 days, until April 20. By Sunday’s deadline, congestion pricing was still in effect in New York City.

But, as Naveen Athrappully reports below for The Epoch Times, both New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office and the MTA confirmed on Sunday that its system of traffic cameras continues to collect the fee assessed on most cars entering the borough below Central Park.

“The cameras are staying on,” Hochul’s spokesperson Avi Small said.

John J. McCarthy, the MTA’s chief of policy and external relations, said, “In case there were any doubts, MTA, State and City reaffirmed in a court filing that congestion pricing is here to stay and that the arguments Secretary Duffy made trying to stop it have zero merit.”

The DOT said it would not remove the deadline even as the court case plays out, saying it would “not hesitate to use every tool” at its disposal if the state failed to stop the toll.

The MTA argues that toll fees help raise money to upgrade the city’s aging transit systems.

Hochul previously said the money would underpin $15 billion in debt financing for mass transit capital improvements, with 80 percent of the money to be spent on the subway and bus system and 20 percent on two commuter rail systems.

The Trump administration opposed the toll over concerns it negatively affects small businesses and average American citizens.

In a March 20 statement on social media platform X, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the “unlawful pricing scheme charges working-class citizens to use roads their federal tax dollars already paid to build.”

Duffy said Hochul’s “refusal to end cordon pricing“ and her ”open disrespect towards the federal government is unacceptable.”

On Monday, Duffy sent a letter to Hochul regarding the state’s “illegal toll,” according to an April 21 statement from the DOT.

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has been given 30 days to describe how its noncompliance is not illegal.

If the tolls are not stopped by then, or if the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), after evaluating NYSDOT’s response, determines that New York is out of compliance, the agency will take multiple actions, it said

This includes ceasing further “advance construction” projects within Manhattan and no more National Environmental Policy Act approvals for projects in the borough. The only exception would be if the projects are deemed to be essential for safety, the agency said.

If the noncompliance continues, more restrictive actions will be taken, including ceasing approvals for certain projects within New York City, it said

The corrective measures “may be expanded to other geographic areas within the State of New York if noncompliance continues,” DOT said.

Cars pass under E-ZPass readers and license plate-scanning cameras on the George Washington Bridge as congestion pricing takes effect in New York City on Jan. 5, 2024. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

MTA Versus DOT

In its complaint against the federal government, MTA said that the FHWA, a division of the DOT, had executed the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) allowing the congestion toll collection in November 2024.

It criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the congestion pricing, calling them “unlawful.”

The defendants have provided “no basis” for reversing their position on the program despite having approved it only a few months back, the MTA argued. Defendants in the case include the DOT, FHWA, and Duffy.

“Neither the VPPP Agreement nor applicable law or regulations permit FHWA to unilaterally terminate the VPPP Agreement,” the lawsuit said.

“This makes good sense. If FHWA had the right to unilaterally terminate a VPPP program that had already been approved and implemented, it would create uncertainty around the future of such programs any time leadership at FHWA, USDOT, or the White House changed—uncertainty that may make it difficult to issue bonds for other projects and would clearly undermine the purposes of the VPPP.”

Terminating the VPPP agreement is an “open disregard of a host of federal statutes and regulations” while also violating MTA’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, the complaint said.

In a Feb. 19 letter to Hochul, Duffy said New York City’s need for congestion pricing “appears to be driven primarily by the need to raise revenue for the Metropolitan Transit Authority system as opposed to the need to reduce congestion.”

Toll rates set under VPPP “should not be driven primarily by revenue targets,” he said.

Signs advising drivers of congestion pricing tolls are displayed near the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City on Feb. 19, 2025. Seth Wenig/AP Photo

Duffy said he recognized that the Federal Highway Administration under the Biden administration had deemed the congestion pricing policy eligible for approval under the VPPP initiative.

The Federal Highway Administration “did not explain the basis for its conclusion,” he wrote.

Even though the NYSDOT and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) have relied on the VPPP agreement to collect tolls, Duffy said such reliance “should not prevent the termination” of the agreement.

While NYSDOT and TBTA “have incurred costs related to the program, many of these costs were incurred” before the agreement was signed. The Federal Highway Administration “is not aware of any substantial costs associated with the physical stopping of the program,” the letter said.

The Epoch Times reached out to Hochul and the MTA for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Authored by Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration offered federal employees a deal many couldn’t refuse: resign voluntarily and receive full benefits and paid leave lasting until September.

More than 75,000 workers eventually accepted the Deferred Resignation Program, or buyout, which came as part of the administration’s broader efforts to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, the government has already laid off hundreds of thousands of federal employees and contractors.

As the federal government concludes a second round of buyout offers to nudge still more government workers out of the bureaucracy, The Epoch Times spoke with several employees who took the first buyout—and one who was not allowed to take it—about how the decision has affected their lives.

It wasn’t just Democrats who took the buyout, either: All who spoke to The Epoch Times about their decision were Trump supporters, and their accepting the offer was based on personal, rather than political, reasons. Most asked to remain anonymous over privacy concerns.

A former meteorologist told The Epoch Times that the buyout was too good to pass up. He was already eyeing retirement, and the government’s offer simply allowed him to jump-start those plans.

This was the most common reason for several others who took the deal as well.

Bill Page, a former curriculum manager for Army University, said he and most of his colleagues were in the same situation.

“Almost everybody in my section also took it. We were all older, or most of us were older, and were thinking about retiring anyway. And this opportunity came up.”

Page said his department was somewhat superfluous anyway. The employees who were too young to retire—or simply wanted to keep working—were allowed to move to other departments. Those who were already eligible for retirement had their buyout compensation extended to December, making the transition into retirement easier.

The Epoch Times asked Page about his next chapter.

“I’m 71, my next chapter is probably dying or something,” he joked. “But one of the reasons I didn’t retire until now was because I didn’t know what I would do with myself. I thought I wouldn’t have anything to do, and I was wrong. I’ve done all kinds of things … and I’m enjoying myself.”

A former cybersecurity agent told the Epoch Times that the buyout was “a blessing.”

On Jan. 20, eight days before the buyout offer was announced, Trump asked federal agency heads to bring employees back into the office “as soon as practicable.” For years, and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, many federal employees have been permitted work remotely, rarely or never coming into the office physically.

By this time, the cybersecurity agent said, he and his wife had moved to the midwest and had little desire to return to the east coast.

Fortunately, he was eligible to retire in September after a decade of service.

“So it worked out for me. Like I said, I don’t know if everybody has that experience, but for me, it worked out real well.”

Not everyone was as enthusiastic about their decision to take the offer.

One man, a 58-year-old in asset management, told The Epoch Times that he was essentially forced to accept the buyout due to the prohibition on remote work.

He said he had worked remotely for years when the call to return to the office came in. His agency had a building that was only about a 20 minute drive that he hoped would suffice.

However, he later learned that, due to his particular set of duties, he might be required to work out of the Washington office, on the opposite side of the country. He said he didn’t find such a move desirable or financially feasible. Thus, he felt forced to take the buyout and retire two years early.

“I wouldn’t get a reduced retirement once I turned 60,” he said.

But he said available information at the time “wasn’t full and complete.” His department pushed off any final decision on remote workers beyond the window to take the buyout.

Uncertain about whether he’d have to move, he took the offer just to be safe, he said. But he expressed concern that the reduced retirement benefit may cause a bit of financial strain in the future.

Not everyone was allowed to take the buyout, which was only available to those not considered “essential.”

One young woman, an acquisitions specialist, jumped at the chance to live her dream of being a full-time homemaker when she learned about the offer. She said the lagging economy had forced her to work for over a decade, since she and her husband needed the extra income to support their two small children.

Her husband expects to receive enough military disability benefits to support the family, but not until later this year. In the interim, she suggested the family is struggling.

“It’s just kind of hard right now, with just things being so expensive and just not having enough resources.”

She had hoped to use the buyout to allow her to leave work early and begin homeschooling her 5-year old. But the government rejected her request, labeling her an “essential” worker.

“It was kind of frustrating. They promised you, you know, you’re gonna get paid out till September, and then they made it seem like everybody would get approved.”

She had been told beforehand that rejections would be rare, but in her department the opposite turned out to be true. Less than 20 employees were approved, perhaps because the department’s work was deemed to be especially crucial. But she insisted there was still plenty of fat to trim there.

“I do see a lot of positions in our agency that they could do away with to save the government money. I feel like they have a lot of employees that do similar jobs that they could kind of cut, especially in our headquarters.”

Although everyone who spoke to The Epoch Times was in favor of the program—and the reduction in the size of government that prompted it—they also generally felt the Trump administration’s plans had all been conducted a bit hastily.

Some, like the meteorologist, noted that while there was substantial federal bloat to remove in some agencies, their own departments were already “woefully understaffed.”

One former employee said that his younger colleague was set to be promoted, but had to wait until workforce reductions were comp.leted. If he had taken the promotion when it was scheduled, it would have put him in “probationary status,” and there was a chance he might have been targeted for firing.

Joseph Lord contributed to this report. 

By Eric Kulisch of FreightWaves

U.S. plans next month to cancel tariff-free access for low-value parcel shipments from China and Hong Kong, coupled with a new 145% tariff rate on Chinese imports, could bleed more than $22 billion in revenue from the air cargo sector over three years and put thousands of online sellers with direct-to-consumer fulfillment models out of business, according to an e-commerce and logistics consulting firm. 

Derek Lossing, the founder of Cirrus Global Advisors, has previously said the Trump administration’s recent trade actions against China would “decimate” air cargo out of China because demand for products on the Temu and Shein platforms would plummet. His Seattle-based consultancy has now quantified the downstream effects of the changes on the air cargo sector. 

The Cirrus Global Advisors model shows the airfreight industry revenue could contract $22 billion if the White House maintains tariffs at 125% for a substantial period of time, based on assumptions about lower consumer demand, excess airline capacity and downward pressure on yields. Large cargo airlines and freighter forwarders, like Atlas Air and Kuehne+Nagel subsidiary Apex Logistics, with heavy exposure to large Chinese marketplaces, as well as Amazon and smaller online brands, are expected to experience downward pressure on revenues, Losing said in a phone interview.

The estimate was made before the U.S. clarified that China tariff rate was actually 145%, to include a previous tariff, but it’s unclear if the higher rate would further drag down industry revenue.

E-commerce shipments account for an estimated 50% to 60% of China-U.S. air volumes and an estimated 20% of global air cargo volumes, according to logistics providers and the International Air Transport Association. Experts agree that dozens of widebody freighters are dedicated to hauling e-commerce shipments across the Pacific each day from China, but Lossing said he believes an estimate of 100 such aircraft by Netherlands-based consultant Rotate is high.

Total air cargo revenue on the China-U.S. trade lane will decrease more than 30% because of the lower volumes caused by the new U.S. trade policies and the lower yields that will follow, Lossing, a former Amazon logistics executive, predicted. 

When the Biden administration last fall proposed tighter rules for a subset of Chinese goods to qualify for de minimis, a program that allows the duty and tax-free entry of shipments with an aggregate value of $800 or less per person, per day, Cirrus Global Advisors estimated the impact to global air cargo revenue at $3 billion over three years. The estimate for revenue loss has steadily increased with Trump’s aggressive posturing against China before and after his inauguration, culminating with a complete ban of all Chinese goods from duty-free treatment, effective May 2. Starting next Friday, retailers will need to file formal customs entries, which require much more information and time than the fast-track de minimis process, to clear individual shipments

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says lax data requirements for de minimis shipments makes it difficult to screen for entry of illicit and unsafe goods. Trump canceled de minimis on the grounds that it enables smuggling of the opioid fentanyl and cheap imports that undercut U.S. retailers and manufacturers. 

Limiting de minimis when tariffs were relatively low was mostly considered an inconvenience for large Chinese marketplaces like Temu, Shein and Alibaba because their prices are so low consumers likely wouldn’t change their shopping habits if a piece of clothing increased in price by $2 or $3. But the imposition of 145% tariffs has blown up the model of fulfilling orders in China and shipping them by air directly to the customer’s residence, which was cheaper and faster than shipping in bulk by ocean to a U.S. warehouse for pick, pack and delivery. 

Temu, a hugely popular market for cheap goods, and fast-fashion brand Shein last week notified customers on their websites that they will raise prices starting April 25 in response to new trade rules and rising tariffs. The South China Morning Post reported that Temu has already sharply reduced online advertising in the U.S. Despite this, both sites have seen a spike in orders recently as shoppers try to get goods before the tariffs kick in. 

In addition to higher prices from tariffs, digital markets could lose sales as new customs clearance requirements create friction for customers during checkout, Lossing predicted Friday on LinkedIn.

“How comfortable will U.S. online consumers be to provide more, personal sensitive information to shop on a Chinese website, to facilitate a customs declaration for a B2C shipment,” he wrote. If e-commerce hassles and privacy concerns deter consumers from completing purchases the decline in cross-border parcel volumes and air cargo revenues could be even greater than currently forecast.

The Cirrus model, like others, assumes that the steep drop in China e-commerce shipments to the U.S. will significantly reduce demand for freighter aircraft. Airlines will respond by accelerating the retirement of older aircraft and relocating assets to other markets, resulting in excess capacity there and lower average freight rates. The degree to which express carriers and freighter operators reduce flight schedules or remove aircraft from China service will depend on how much consumers pullback from shopping. 

And If the European Commission follows through on intentions to remove the de minimis exemption for goods valued below $170 and impose a customs handling fee on individual B2C packages the harm to cross-border e-commerce players, including all-cargo airlines, could be severe, Losing told FreightWaves. 

“That’s kind of the one-two punch that actually would potentially push the revenue loss for air cargo over our current estimate,” he said. 

And the potential damage to the industry could spread if the Trump administration, as threatened, eliminates de minimis benefits across all nations once systems are in place to collect tariffs from millions of extra shipments per day. But the harm could also be less severe if the President follows a pattern of quickly undoing policy pronouncements and relaxes the tariffs or de minimis rules.

Small online sellers at high risk

The crackdown on Chinese e-commerce shipments poses an existential threat for many small-and-medium e-tailers with storefronts selling goods directly from China, as well as logistics providers that handle customs clearance and last-mile delivery for B2C shippers, said Lossing.

Large Chinese marketplaces were already preparing for more restrictive de minimis rules by building millions of square feet of U.S. warehouses the past couple of years to support a more traditional B2B2C fulfillment model, logistics executives said. Temu, for example, will consign goods to its U.S. entity, clear them via a formal customs entry, pay duty and truck them to a fulfillment center, where they will be stored, picked, packed and delivered.

Another reason for consolidating air or ocean shipments on one customs entry is to reduce the cost for customs brokerage and merchandise processing fees paid to the government per shipment. The cost for customs brokers to file entries will shoot up from 10 cents to $3 per package once the special de minimis pathway is eliminated. 

The National Foreign Trade Council calculates that without de minimis the average $50 package would require about $31 in paperwork, a brokerage fee of $20, plus tariffs and taxes, which would more than double the delivery cost.

In addition to significantly higher import costs, air shipments are expected to take longer for CBP to process under the standard entry process. 

Lossing said there are tens of thousands of small companies in China that sell on Amazon and other platforms that won’t be able to pay the 145% tariff and don’t have the resources to use a traditional containerized export model. And many customers will switch to countries like Vietnam, where tariffs are lower, for their online orders. 

He shot down arguments that the direct-to-consumer model for e-commerce from China is still viable because it allows merchants to defer tariffs until the actual time of sale versus paying them at a U.S. port of entry and it avoids the risk of having cash tied up in unsold inventory while paying for warehousing. 

On LinkedIn he challenged the assertion on Bloomberg Television by Izzy Rosenzweig, CEO of e-commerce logistics provider Portless, that the benefits of fulfilling individual orders from China to U.S. residents still made economic sense. Rosenzweig said Shein has plenty of margin to absorb higher import costs, while Temu’s goal is to fulfill 80% of its orders in the domestic U.S. 

“There are some pretty significant data points that show that the China D2C model will not survive at these tariff rates and de minimis closure. I guess only time will tell what happens….The only upside we see for the China-US e-commerce model is air freight rates are set to drop 30%-40% on the trade lane, bringing the cost per parcel down over $1 per unit,” Lossing posted.

Aaron Rubin, founder and CEO of ShipHero, a warehouse management software provider for e-commerce brands, said on LinkedIn that FedEx is charging an additional 45 cents per pound on airfreight from China because so many companies are running sales to liquidate their Chinese products for de minimis expires on May 2.

New tariffs, higher shipping rates and customer friction together “will force all companies to create and implement B2B2C clearance models because asking for sensitive customer information at checkout is a nail in the coffin” for direct-to-consumer fulfillment, Lossing said on LinkedIn.