Germany has deployed a permanent military brigade beyond its borders for the first time since the end of World War II, with troops dispatched to the capital of Lithuania.  The event was inaugurated by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said during a military ceremony in Vilnius that “the security of our Baltic allies is also our security.” 

The decision is part of a series of actions in recent months by European nations to “bolster defenses” on NATO’s eastern flank amid claims that Russia intends to invade greater Europe if they defeat Ukraine.  The “domino theory” remains unfounded and the Kremlin has never threatened to attack any country outside of Ukraine.  The move to shift troops to Lithuania places them near the border of Belarus (a Russian ally) and within striking distance of Ukraine or the Russian border. 

European governments have been threatening an escalation by eventually moving NATO troops into Ukraine in direct confrontation with Russian forces.  Vladimir Putin has previously warned that NATO troops in Ukraine represent a red line which could result in nuclear conflict. 

Putin asserted that if Ukraine’s Western backers deepened their involvement in the war, such as sending troops, the consequences for the “invaders” would be “tragic”. 

“They must realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory,” Putin said, in apparent reference to increasingly lethal Western weapons provided to Kyiv. “What they are now suggesting and scaring the world with — all that raises the real threat of a nuclear conflict that will mean the destruction of our civilization.”

The remarks came after multiple European leaders including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron called for the potential deployment of NATO forces to the region.  Lithuania is a member of NATO and their foreign minister suggested at the beginning of this year that the country would be interested in moving its own troops into Ukraine should Kyiv make such a request.

European rhetoric on the war, calls for forced military conscription and the calls for boots on the ground have all coincided with the steady realization among NATO leaders (and the establishment media) that Ukraine is losing the war.  With dwindling troop strength and faltering defensive lines, the Russian attrition strategy is beginning to bear fruit.  Recent breakouts and big gains on the eastern front are developing alongside a mass buildup of troops near Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city.

Rather than focusing on quick territorial conquest, attrition warfare seeks to grind down enemy numbers over time while keeping movements limited.  The strategy is slow at first, and then the opponent collapses all at once.  Ukraine now seems to be entering this stage of attrition.

This might explain why Germany is moving its troops permanently abroad for the first time in 80 years.

Aerial strikes involving missiles and drones have increased on both sides, with Russia launching their largest missile/drone attack since the beginning of the war this week.  The escalation brings into question the chances of a peace agreement, as neither side appears interested at this point in negotiating.  President Donald Trump’s frustration with the conflict has been further exacerbated by European governments like Germany who are intent on keeping the war going at any cost.  

Even though it is clear that a Russian victory is imminent, the Europeans have declared that this simply cannot be, which means that further deployments near Ukraine and Russia are likely and that another world war is on the table. 

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The EU-US trade deal should have been the easiest to complete.

However, the deal is not progressing because the negotiation team refuses to lift any of the EU’s non-tariff barriers or to discuss the limitations imposed on US agricultural, livestock, and car exports.

These are the reasons why it should have been a concise and quick trade deal:

Most of the United States’ team demands coincide with the Draghi report’s concerns about excessive regulation and internal barriers. 

According to Eurochambres estimates, the cost of hyper-regulation for the EU exceeds one trillion euros per year. Draghi himself warned in an FT article, “Forget the US—Europe has successfully put tariffs on itself,” citing IMF estimates that show that internal barriers, regulation, and taxation increase prices in the services sector by 110 per cent and in manufacturing by 45 per cent.

If the EU negotiators had presented a comprehensive package of tariff reductions for agriculture, farming, and the automotive industry, a preliminary deal would have been signed immediately, benefitting everyone. However, the negotiators were only willing to negotiate possible improvements to LNG imports with the vague concept of “strengthening investment,” limiting any tariff negotiation to industrial goods where there was no significant dispute.

The United States’ requests to the European Union were significantly less demanding than the negotiations of burdens from China or India. 

Unfortunately, the EU negotiators were only willing to propose plans to lower tariffs on industrial goods and non-sensitive agri-food exports, as well as a clause to keep the US from introducing further tariffs while talks are ongoing, according to Bloomberg. The EU stated that tariffs could be reduced in phases or through a quota system, and higher levies would only come above a certain quantity of imports. Upon review, it appears that these proposals aim to uphold all non-tariff barriers and the majority of tariffs. Tariffs are much higher than those of the United States in agriculture, farming, chemicals, automotive and manufactured goods.

The demands of the United States are not outlandish. 

All of these demands simply aim to eliminate absurd regulatory and tariff burdens. Furthermore, the European Union allows the exemption of many of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to products coming from Turkey or Morocco, even China.

The European Commission threatened to impose new countermeasures that could affect €95 billion worth of US products if negotiations to resolve the trade dispute fail. However, the European Union lacks significant leverage in this situation. Its trade surplus is so large, and the barriers to U.S. goods so widespread, that it simply cannot fight back.

The European Union trade surplus, which stands at 150 billion euros and soared 244% in March 2025 compared to the same month of 2024, is not generated by free cooperation and spontaneous trade agreements between free companies. In many sectors, the EU’s production and energy costs are up to 50% and 100% higher, respectively, than those of the United States, yet the exports of the European Union massively outweigh those of the U.S. A significant proportion of the trade surplus of the European Union comes from lifting barriers to others and benefitting from open markets for European products.

The European Union must comprehend that a reasonable agreement can eliminate tariffs in minutes.

The EU negotiators must admit that they would be complying with Draghi’s recommendations and benefitting all businesses, inside and outside Europe, in the process. Therefore, they can swiftly and efficiently reach a deal.

It appears that the negotiators from the European Union are not interested in removing trade barriers, preferring to maintain them at all costs, even if it results in the economy of many member states being weakened. Negotiators seem more concerned about pleasing bureaucrats and finding a scapegoat for the EU’s stagnation in the Trump administration than advancing a deal that benefits US and EU companies.

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

Boy, oh boy are things… um… interesting. I almost miss the days of green-haired teenage girls with hairy armpits gluing themselves to the road to make the weather better.

Now we have craziness at the international trade level. At its core, it’s all politics.

The now dead George Carlin had a skit where he told us why he doesn’t vote. To quote:

“I don’t vote. Two reasons I don’t vote. First of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The isht they shuffle around every four years… doesn’t mean a f* thing.

And secondly, I don’t vote because I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. If you vote, and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up, well… you are responsible for what they have done.”

We’ve had some conversations with clients who are questioning their own voting after the trade war kicked off. The problem with taking a position for or against any politician is that probability is not in our favour. We’re bound to be disappointed because the vast majority of these podium donuts aren’t there for our benefit. Sure, some of the things they may espouse are to our benefit, but then others aren’t. What to do?

Well, I think it’s best not to get caught up in the mental gymnastics of it all and simply keep reviewing the actions and data and then making decisions for ourselves accordingly.

As far as the tariffs go, at first glance they make no sense. The orange man said they are “reciprocal,” but any idiot with two thumbs and an interwebs connection can quickly do the math and determine this is hogwash. What they are is quite simple — they are based on other countries’ trade surplus with the US.

The supposition around “reciprocal” came unglued as soon as they tried to figure out why on God’s green earth there were tariffs on an uninhabited island that has only penguins. Wait… what!? Anyone then following their nose saw that the narrative fell apart faster than logic at a climate change gathering.

What this amounts to is an attempt to restructure creditors. It’s what you do in bankruptcy. Trump appears now to be bringing his experience in chapter 11 proceedings onto the global stage.

This is a big deal! From where we sit, there are four big forces through history that drive everything, all of these are interconnected and in many instances causal to each other:

1. The monetary and credit cycle where nations get into a sovereign debt problem, which needs to be dealt with.

2. Domestic conflict, typically beginning as political disagreement, but where disagreement isn’t resolved by discourse.

3. A rising power challenging the existing power and causing international conflict.

4. Technological changes that assist in disrupting the status quo.

So the first changes the monetary order. The second changes the political order. And the third changes the international order, while the fourth assists in ushering it in.

How does this all play out?

Well, let’s start with what we’ve been watching recently. No, not the Chinese laughing at bringing manufacturing back to the US…

Confucius philosophy says:

“If you want to govern a country, you must first govern your family. If you want to govern your family, you must first govern yourself.”

The issue here isn’t about “fair trade.” It is about survival, though. 

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis dropped some hard truths about the real reason behind the US- China trade war.

1. The US doesn’t fear China because of “cheap labor” or “IP theft.” What it truly fears is China’s capacity to undermine the US-led global financial order — the very system that allows America to print dollars and buy the world.

2. Wall Street’s aging financial architecture is losing its grip. It can’t control crypto flows. It can’t keep up with new financial ecosystems. China — with its digital yuan, vast industrial base, and rising global influence — is the first real threat to this system.

3. Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” were never about balancing trade. They were a desperate attempt to slow down China’s rise and protect the dollar system from collapse. Because if China succeeds, the US loses its magic weapon: monetary dominance. See point 2 above.

4. Today, Trump is laser-focused on America’s financial core with the Treasury bond market (America’s lifeline) and the stock market (America’s wallet). Both are fragile. And any external pressure could trigger a chain reaction.

5. The US is now panicking over who’s selling off US Treasuries. China? Japan? Others? Trump reportedly wants to punish any surplus country that dumps Treasuries — with tariffs, of course. This is not about trade. It’s about a dying empire trying to stop the bleeding.

6. In short, America is no longer confident in its own financial fortress. And China is no longer playing by the old rules. This isn’t just a trade war — it’s a war for the future of global finance.

Further to this point, the famous Ben Rickert (for those who’ve watched The Big Short) highlighted this issue:

“For the first time ever, China’s CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System) surpassed SWIFT in single-day transaction volume. A red banner flashed across Bank of China’s HQ at 1:30AM on April 16, 2025.

CIPS processed a jaw-dropping ¥12.8 trillion RMB in just one day—roughly $1.76 trillion USD. That volume, if verified, overtakes the greenback-dominated SWIFT system in sheer daily cross-border throughput.

No fireworks, no Western headlines. Just one quiet early morning in Beijing where the dollar’s crown slipped. The world’s financial plumbing just got a reroute—through China.”

This of course is known to those who DON’T rely solely on Western propaganda media.

Now, consider the US bond market.

The problem is that the US can’t just do what Milei is doing. The debt is too large, and because US treasuries are embedded in the very fabric of global financial markets, paying down that debt has ramifications that Milei simply doesn’t have to contend with.

To highlight the issue: consider that the most significant effort to cut government spending (DOGE) is set to yield $50 billion in annual savings. Awesome… until you realise that this is on the back of a $7.5 trillion budget. They haven’t even managed to cut 0.75% of spending. Furthermore, the US has to borrow over 10% of GDP annually to keep the lights on.

Now they’re weaponizing the dollar and trade in a desperate attempt to “Make America Great Again.” The rest of the world is preparing.

Something else…

Gold has a long way to go. That being said, it is looking a bit frothy right now, so if you’re the sort that will freak out if you see a decent pullback in a bull market (20-30%), you may want to check yourself on going “all in” here. On the other hand, it’s a bull market, and if — like us — your timeframe runs into the years, then you’re simply ensuring your allocation is adequate and leaving the rest to the market gods.

The old adage is worth considering — never sell a bull market and never buy a bear market. Bonds are in a bear market… and gold is in a bull market.

*  *  *

We are living through a rare and pivotal moment in financial history — a time when the old order is unraveling, and a new one is being born. The geopolitical chessboard is shifting, trade is being weaponized, and the dollar’s dominance is quietly being challenged in real time. This isn’t business as usual. It’s a systemic clash. If you’re trying to make sense of how to invest amid collapsing narratives, geopolitical chaos, and the breakdown of the global financial order, this is the moment to dig deeper. Download our exclusive special report: Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time Inside, we explore the key dynamics reshaping the world order — and what it means for your capital. Click here to get it now.

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times,

Tom Pawlak and Robert Trae Zipperer live 2,200 miles apart, but they share a common belief: that unlike old soldiers, no gravestone or marker of a U.S. military member should ever fade.

For Pawlak, 73, from Arizona, restoring the bronze plaques of veterans and those lost in combat to their original pristine condition has become his mission in life.

Zipperer, 56, is a Navy veteran from Florida who is equally passionate about restoring gravestones.

Pawlak’s quest began during a visit to a private cemetery in Phoenix in 2014, where some plaques were badly tarnished and hard to read.

As Pawlak scrubbed, buffed, and polished one marker, the name of U.S. Marine Pfc. Oscar Palmer Austin began to emerge.

Born on Jan. 15, 1948, Austin died in Vietnam on Feb. 23, 1969.

Pawlak then realized that Austin, a 21-year-old African American soldier from Texas, was not an ordinary recruit; he had received the Medal of Honor for bravery on the battlefield and the Purple Heart after being wounded.

The U.S. Navy later named a guided missile destroyer in his honor—the USS Oscar Austin.

Pawlak reached out to the ship’s commander to share his discovery and the restoration work he had completed. Two weeks later, he received a package from the Navy that contained a flag, as well as a blue cap with “USS Oscar Austin” emblazoned on it.

He began wearing the cap everywhere he went.

“As soon as I began wearing the cap, people would stop me on the street to talk,” he said.

He started going out more often to cemeteries, polishing and sanding the letters on the tarnished bronze plaques, Pawlak said.

Robert Trae Zipperer, founder of VeteranGraves.com, launched a volunteer effort cleaning gravestones across the nation in 2019. Courtesy Robert Zipperer

In 2014, he founded Mission Restore Bronze, a social media movement on Facebook that has drawn thousands of volunteers to the cause.

Remembering a Friend

Originally from Chicago, Pawlak never served in the military. However, he feels a deep connection with veterans and the military—he lost a friend just three weeks after the friend arrived in Vietnam in 1967.

He thinks of him every time he visits a cemetery and notices the sad condition of the bronze grave markers.

“I‘ll walk through a cemetery and see a bad marker. I’ll have everything with me and finish it,” Pawlak said.

Pawlak recalls his first volunteer: a naval commander who wanted to restore his father’s bronze plaque in Tampa Bay, Florida.

Other volunteers would ask him how to clean plaques when visiting cemeteries.

Pawlak offers free jars of his proprietary wax, along with video instructions on how to apply it correctly for lasting results.

The volunteer effort “just exploded from the start,” he said.

“I couldn’t leave the house. I took a shower and had 16 messages when I returned,” he said.

His efforts have inspired at least one Eagle Scout project in the Phoenix area.

In 2017, 13-year-old Levi Brown assembled a team to clean and restore approximately 250 bronze grave markers at Greenwood Cemetery in Phoenix.

Pawlak said he has no idea how many military personnel plaques have been cleaned and restored through his virtual movement.

Tom Pawlak of Arizona started Mission Restore Bronze Markers in 2014 as a one-man effort that has grown into thousands of volunteers nationwide. Courtesy of Tom Pawlak

Most volunteers are people he doesn’t know and has never met in person.

Since his project launched, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs for youths have carried the mantle forward, as well as court diversion programs and other groups.

“I‘ll just walk around and hand out wax jars to people,” Pawlak said. “I’ll have markers that I take care of regularly—people I’ve known.”

Often, he’ll get a call from a potential volunteer and send a jar of wax on request. Each jar contains enough product to clean 12 to 16 markers.

However, if Pawlak had to estimate the number of volunteers, it would potentially be well over 75,000, based on the viewership of his YouTube videos.

“We’ve included first responders and police. I’ll supply them with wax,” he said.

During another visit to Phoenix, Pawlak felt compelled to take action when he noticed that the bronze plaques commemorating the 622 Arizona soldiers killed in Vietnam needed love and care.

With a brush in hand, he and other volunteers scoured, scrubbed, and waxed the bronze plaques and statues of foot soldiers, restoring them to a remarkable shine for Memorial Day.

He’s also cleaned bronze plaques in Washington and even the statue of Gen. George S. Patton at the museum dedicated to Patton in California.

He said that getting down on his knees to clean is easy, but getting back up is hard. He could use more eager, younger volunteers.

Keeping Honor Clean

While researching his family tree in Lee County, Florida, Zipperer observed that many military gravesites were in poor condition, with some hardly legible due to mold.

A veteran’s headstone is covered in black mold. Courtesy of Robert Zipperer

The once-bright headstones had turned dark gray, making the names hard to read.

Zipperer faced frustrating regulatory challenges in Fort Myers before finally obtaining the necessary approval to clean the headstones in time for Memorial Day in 2019.

Initially, city officials claimed he needed permission from the families to clean the headstones, warning that he would be trespassing and “soliciting” otherwise.

However, after Zipperer brought his case to the media, the city changed its position.

“I’m just a guy that doesn’t take no for an answer. You can’t have a veteran’s headstone covered in crud. It’s just not American,” Zipperer told The Epoch Times.

The headstone as it now appears after cleaning. Courtesy of Robert Zipperer

Rules for Restoration

Zipperer later discovered no standard operating procedures at the local, state, or federal levels concerning cleaning veterans’ grave markers.

He contacted the National Cemetery Administration in Washington, which advised him to submit a proposal in writing.

Eventually, the agency incorporated his ideas into national guidelines for the volunteer maintenance of veteran and military gravestones.

“The graves just sit out there covered in nastiness,” Zipperer said.

“I’ve had to get out hedge clippers and cut bushes to reach a veteran’s grave enveloped in vegetation.

“You‘ll cut it all back, and you’ll clean it all up, and then you’ll scrub the headstone and get it clean.”

The NCA, part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, estimates that it has supplied more than 15 million headstones to national, state, and private cemeteries nationwide since 1973.

In fiscal year 2022, the agency provided 347,361 headstones and markers for military personnel buried in the nation’s cemeteries.

The VA operates 156 national cemeteries and 35 soldiers’ lots and monument sites across 42 states and Puerto Rico.

Members of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment place flags at the headstones of U.S. military personnel buried at Arlington National Cemetery, in preparation for Memorial Day in Arlington, Va., on May 22, 2025. Nearly 1,500 service members entered the cemetery at pre-dawn hours to begin the process of placing a flag in front of approximately 260,000 headstones. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

More than 4 million Americans, including military personnel from every war and conflict, are interred in VA national cemeteries. Approximately 84 percent of veterans are in private cemeteries throughout the country, according to the American Association of Retired Persons.

Zipperer believes the deteriorating condition of veteran headstones signifies a “lack of caring” and funding.

Through his website, veterangraves.com, he hopes to recruit more volunteers and financial support for his cause.

“The problem is we don’t have the [public] funding,” Zipperer said. “Nobody creates funding for veterans’ headstones. I’m doing what I can do, but I don’t have an unlimited budget.

“Every state should be contributing to this. Every American should be contributing to this cause.”

Zipperer estimates he’s spent more than $500,000 out of pocket to promote his mission on YouTube.

“There are people in Australia who love their veterans as much as Americans love their veterans,” he said.

Before and after images of a bronze veteran grave plaque. Courtesy of Tom Pawlak

“I’m just broadcasting it out there to whoever receives the message.”

Pawlak said he also had to use his own funds to support Mission Restore Bronze Markers.

“I just dedicated myself to doing it,” he said.

Celebrity Appeal

In 2021, before Memorial Day, Zipperer appeared on the ABC syndicated talk show “Live With Kelly and Ryan” to present his case.

The response was nothing like he had anticipated.

“I’m naive, I thought this was going to be it,” he said. “Tom Hanks was going to reach out to me. Clint Eastwood was going to reach out to me. Gary Sinise was going to reach out to me. Steven Spielberg was going to reach out to me.”

Patriotic celebrities, one and all, he said.

“And they would provide the help I needed to make this vision a reality. I thought all the senators and governors were going to call. My phone was going to blow up,” he said.

“Do you know how many people called?”

No one, he said, except for a nice woman in New Jersey, who saw him on television.

“We love our veterans in our county,” the woman said to him over the phone. “We’re going to take up your cause here.”

She asked if Zipperer would attend the county’s Memorial Day celebration, and he agreed.

An American flag at sunset in Springerville, Ariz., on May 25, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Zipperer was struck by the community turnout in Hunterdon County that day.

He finally grasped the true purpose of this mission.

“This is an American cause,” Zipperer said. “We can make this happen.”

Here’s one you don’t see every day.

The Marubo Tribe of Brazil’s Amazon has filed a defamation lawsuit in Los Angeles against The New York Times, alleging its coverage of the tribe’s first internet access portrayed them as tech-addicted and obsessed with pornography, according to the New York Post.

The suit, seeking hundreds of millions in damages, also names TMZ and Yahoo for amplifying and sensationalizing the story.

The article “portrayed the Marubo people as a community unable to handle basic exposure to the internet, highlighting allegations that their youth had become consumed by pornography.”

The suit continues: “These statements were not only inflammatory but conveyed to the average reader that the Marubo people had descended into moral and social decline as a direct result of internet access. Such portrayals go far beyond cultural commentary; they directly attack the character, morality, and social standing of an entire people, suggesting they lack the discipline or values to function in the modern world.”

The Times responded to AP saying: “Any fair reading of this piece shows a sensitive and nuanced exploration of the benefits and complications of new technology in a remote Indigenous village with a proud history and preserved culture. We intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.”

In his original piece, NYT reporter Jack Nicas wrote the tribe was experiencing challenges familiar worldwide: “teenagers glued to phones; group chats full of gossip; addictive social networks; online strangers; violent video games; scams; misinformation; and minors watching pornography.” He added a tribal leader “is most unsettled by the pornography,” noting young men were sharing explicit videos despite cultural norms that “frown on kissing in public.”

The Post report says that TMZ amplified this angle, publishing a video titled “Elon Musk’s Starlink Hookup Leaves A Remote Tribe Addicted To Porn,” which the lawsuit says “falsely framed the Marubo Tribe as having descended into moral collapse.”

In response, the Times published a follow-up stating, “The Marubo people are not addicted to pornography,” and that the article didn’t suggest otherwise. But the tribe says the follow-up “failed to acknowledge the role the NYT itself played in fueling the defamatory narrative.”

The lawsuit also disputes Nicas’s reporting, claiming he stayed less than 48 hours, not the full week he said. Plaintiffs include community leader Enoque Marubo and journalist Flora Dutra, who helped bring internet access to the tribe and say TMZ’s coverage created the “unmistakable impression” they had introduced harmful content.

In May 2013, John Rogers, a longtime Federal Reserve economist, was in Shanghai for an academic forum when he received an email that would eventually alter the course of his life and career.

The message was from someone claiming to be a Chinese graduate student. Rogers says he declined an offer of payment but kept in touch, later accepting an all-expenses-paid invitation to return to China. That visit, U.S. prosecutors allege, marked the beginning of a yearslong effort by Chinese intelligence to extract sensitive information from inside one of the most important economic institutions in the United States.

In January of this year, Rogers was arrested by the FBI on federal charges of economic espionage, the Wall Street Journal reports. He is accused of conspiring with Chinese operatives posing as students, handing over internal Federal Reserve materials in hotel rooms in China, and accepting travel accommodations arranged by his handlers. Authorities said they found $50,000 in cash at his Washington-area apartment, which his wife claimed as hers.

Rogers, who left the Fed in 2021, has denied all charges, maintaining that he never knowingly assisted a foreign government. His attorney argues that the indictment is misleading and lacks critical context. “The indictment presents an overly-simplistic, one-sided, and skewed version of events,” the lawyer said, adding that the defense team would mount a full rebuttal in court.

The case is one of the most detailed yet in exposing Beijing’s efforts to cultivate informants within U.S. institutions not traditionally seen as espionage targets, such as the Federal Reserve. American officials say China has broadened its intelligence gathering under President Xi Jinping, targeting not just defense contractors and tech companies, but also government economists and financial policymakers.

A 2022 Senate committee report alleged a coordinated campaign by China dating back at least to 2013 to gain insight into the Fed’s internal operations and decision-making. In one incident cited by the report, Chinese authorities allegedly detained a Fed employee in a hotel and threatened to jail him unless he shared economic data. The Chinese Foreign Ministry at the time dismissed the allegations as “political disinformation.”

In response to the report, Fed Chair Jerome Powell defended the central bank’s security policies, noting that staff travel and contacts with foreign nationals are subject to strict review. The Fed tightened its rules further in 2021, banning staff from accepting gifts or compensation from individuals or organizations in countries under U.S. export controls, including China.

Rogers’s academic and personal ties to China deepened over the years. He earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia and joined the Fed in 1994, later becoming a senior adviser researching currency and interest-rate issues. Though he held an impressive title, people familiar with his role said he had limited access to high-level Fed deliberations and did not attend Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

Still, his resume and position appeared to make him an attractive target. In 2017, Rogers returned to China after accepting an invitation from the same “graduate student” who first contacted him. According to an indictment unsealed earlier this year, Rogers asked that his travel and lodging be covered, which the individual agreed to. 

That same year, Rogers began an online relationship with Liu Yu, a 31-year-old makeup artist from Shanghai, whom he met through a Chinese matchmaking service called Sky Love. After months of exchanging messages, Rogers arranged to meet her in person during a stop in Shanghai. They spent two days sightseeing, exchanging gifts, and sharing a hot-pot dinner, according to Sky Love, which later publicized the relationship as one of its success stories. The couple married in Hong Kong in March 2018, and Liu gave birth to their daughter later that year in Shanghai.

During this period, Rogers exchanged information with his Chinese contacts, including internal Fed materials and research reports. In one 2018 text message to a handler, he cautioned: “There has to be a lot more done to make this legitimate in the eyes of the Fed. Remember, it has to be teaching and not consulting. I am only allowed to teach.” Rogers added, “That would cause me a lot of trouble!” if the nature of the relationship were questioned.

His attorneys argue that these messages show Rogers’s intent to operate within Fed rules, not to conspire with foreign agents. In court filings, they described the exchanges as part of a teacher-student dynamic.

By the end of 2018, Rogers had taken a sabbatical and was working as a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University. He allegedly continued to supply notes to his Chinese contacts, including materials prepared for a Fed official awaiting Senate confirmation.

In 2020, Fed officials began raising concerns about Rogers’s foreign connections. In an interview with the Office of Inspector General, Rogers downplayed any wrongdoing but admitted: “They’d come out with packets of hundred-dollar bills.” He denied sharing classified materials, but prosecutors later charged him with making false statements in that interview.

He lost access to most Fed resources soon after and was formally forced out in 2021. Months before leaving, he signed a teaching contract with Fudan offering roughly $150,000 for one semester per year. He also secured a $300,000 research grant from a Chinese government-affiliated institution.

Even after his departure from the Fed, Rogers continued receiving messages from his Chinese contacts. In 2022, one invited him and his wife to Qingdao for another paid engagement, writing, “All related expenses will be covered by us, and we can pay for the class.” It remains unclear if Rogers accepted the invitation.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Nothing highlights the poverty of the media-Democratic mind than its weary use of echo-chamber buzzwords. 

Once Pravda-like instructions are sent out from DNC operatives, mindless media anchors mouth them in lockstep as gospel.

So, it was with the supposed “ambush” when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump. Trump indeed pressed his guest on a number of issues, from the decades-long targeted killing of white agriculturalists on their farms by black hit teams that have totaled somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500, depending on how one defines such targeted killings.

Trump further wanted an explanation from Ramaphosa on his government’s new legislation aimed at land confiscation without compensation, and the de facto vanishing number of Boer farmers.

Trump was further bewildered by Ramaphosa’s assertion that the new law would not be used to take private property without paying for it (“No, no, no, no. Nobody can take land”), when in fact that was the very purpose of the new legislation in the first place. 

Trump also showed Ramaphosa videos highlighting a resurgence of South African extremism of the tired “Kill the Boer” sort.

The dictionaries define “ambush” roughly as “a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a hidden or concealed position.”

Ramaphosa’s visit was no surprise. He, not Trump, requested it. Ramaphosa spoke openly to the media before the meeting that he was planning to convince Trump that there were neither widespread killings of white farmers nor arbitrary confiscation of land.

In sum, Trump was the host; Ramaphosa was the guest, who requested the meeting to present his case for a return of a number of concessions from the U.S. He knew Trump would raise issues that had estranged South Africa from both the president and Congress, and he was calmly prepped, as expected, to offer counterarguments.

But why was Ramaphosa so eager for a meeting?

He knew that South Africa had enjoyed a rare, sweetheart, one-of-a-kind, no-tariff deal from the U.S. that had empowered his nation in the last few years to vastly expand its exports. In 2024, South Africa achieved a staggering near $9 billion surplus with the U.S.

Yet Ramaphosa and South Africa have a funny way of expressing gratitude for the free trade magnanimity accorded by the U.S.—especially both as a recipient of nearly $500 million in annual foreign aid and after raising asymmetrical high tariffs on lots of U.S. imports.

Recently, the South African ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after he gratuitously slandered his host, the president, as a white “supremacist”—supposedly playing on “white victimhood as a dog whistle” out of fears of non-white demographics.

Like most globalist diplomats and intellectuals, Rasool had forged long ties with the American left and was accustomed to cheap, virtue-signaling trashing of the U.S. to his sympathetic progressive audiences. 

Most in South Africa supported the expelled diplomat’s allegations and smearing of his host president, as he returned home a hero rather than an embarrassment.

South Africa still trades on Nelson Mandela’s conciliation policies abroad, even as it has largely rejected his principles and insidiously transmogrified into an illiberal, violent, and racialist state.

In a characteristic fit of schizophrenic hypocrisy, the supposedly “ambushed” President Ramaphosa recently called the few South African white farmer families “cowards” who dared to consider fleeing his government-institutionalized harassment to resettle in the U.S.

I suppose he meant that they were to play the odds and hope they were not among the 60 to 70 farmers murdered each year for their race, and the hundreds assaulted. Or perhaps they were to take solace from the American left that such stuff happens because South Africa is one of the most violent places on earth, where thousands of blacks are murdered each year—though by other blacks and not for their race.

Why, then, the anger at seeing a handful of farmers leaving? And why would Ramaphosa want any largesse from an administration his own ambassador condemned as racist?

On the one hand, most South African politicians would like nothing better than to see the final riddance of the vestigial seven percent of the population.

But on the other hand, the lesson of Zimbabwe’s expulsions reminds them that such mass flight might well collapse the entire South African agricultural sector, if not the economy in general.

That same incoherence characterized Ramaphosa’s relationship with Elon Musk and his Starlink global internet system. He desperately wants Musk to do for South Africa what he has done for lots of countries, including Ukraine—ensuring high-speed internet at a cut-rate cost to remote areas.

But in contrast, his government uniquely insists that Musk essentially turn over about a third of any South African franchise to black South African partners. Ramaphosa will back down because he wants good Internet more than reminding the world that investors in South Africa must follow its racialist laws of partnership. Nonetheless, Ramaphosa has developed a bad habit of cultivating foreign magnanimity, but in a fashion that is ultimately insulting, often racist, and full of ingratitude.

In other areas, South Africa has sided with Russia in the Ukraine War—an embarrassing fact rarely mentioned by the adoring left. 

Indeed, it has facilitated arms transfers between Russia and North Korea, as well as opposed U.N. sanctions on Russia.

South Africa is one of the most anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic, nations in the world, and supported the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It usually votes at the UN in lockstep opposition to the U.S.

Of course, all that business is South Africa’s own.

But it should not expect most-favored-nation trade status and generous aid from a government its chief diplomat has smeared.

Nor should Ramaphosa have counted on an ebullient White House welcome when he and his predecessors have opposed U.S. policy on almost every international issue. (The media was excited before the meeting that far from being an ambush, Ramaphosa was going to confront Trump and set him straight.)

Indeed, South Africa has aligned itself on most key fault lines with dictatorial China and Russia—without a word of worry about the plight of the Uighurs.

The American Left and the media have blasted Trump, claiming there is no effort to kill white farmers in South Africa. 

They claim the “Kill the Boer” mantras belong to a long-ago age of legitimate resistance to apartheid.

Not true. 

In fact, Julius Malema, the leader of the “Economic Freedom Fighters,” the third largest party in South Africa, led a huge stadium crowd recently in 2023 in the “Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer” chants. And he added, “The revolution in South Africa is guaranteed.”

Malema is no aberration. 

The South African “Equality Court” in 2022 ruled that “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer” was not “hate speech.”

If calling for the mass death of an entire minority group is not hate speech in South Africa, then one wonders what possibly could be hate speech in that nation?

Trump hardly needed more evidence that by any traditional measure, South Africa is an ungracious, illiberal “democracy” that relies on U.S. largesse while opposing every element of its foreign policy.

That is why Trump stripped away America’s singular no-tariff policy and slapped a 30 percent tariff on South Africa’s exports to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Pretoria. The state department will likely not be so ready to issue carte blanche travel, green card, or student visas to South Africans unless applicants can demonstrate credible fear of systemic, institutionalized violence.

Again, there was little animus in Trump’s meeting, and no “ambush” at all. Like the denouement of the so-called Zelensky “ambush,” Ramaphosa will likely be back, realizing that he, not Trump, is the president in need.

The end of the session was more or less a visually aided wake-up call to South Africa. In the future, President Ramaphosa might be wiser to look for Belt and Road help among his apparent true friends and allies. Russia and South Africa are similarly aligned on the Ukraine War, friendship with China, North Korea, and Iran, and share a like-minded common hatred of Israel.

Trump is simply reminding the world that the long-ago optimism of a new Mandela South Africa has long vanished. And U.S. foreign policy needs to readjust to the alterations that South Africa, not the U.S., had previously made to our relationship.

Ramaphosa apparently thinks, like the thousands of South African residents in the U.S., that the adoring, institutionalized, left-wing administrative state, media, universities, and foundations still run the U.S. But at least for the foreseeable future, they do not.

As a result, Trump is wishing South Africa well, not as an enemy, but simply as no longer truly a friend, given its undeniable serial and passive-aggressive hostility.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Memorial Day

We hope you are all enjoying the Memorial Day long weekend! We could all use a nice long weekend after the past few months, which have been quite intense on the news, policy, geopolitical, and market fronts. Today is meant to honor members of the military who were killed in service. I am thankful for all that the military does, and have been incredibly lucky to be part of the growth of Academy Securities, which continues to grow our capital, increase the size and scope of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, and, most importantly, is continuing to hire veterans.

To allow you to more fully enjoy your Memorial Day, and because, quite frankly, it is difficult to think of something new to add, we will keep today’s T-Report short and hopefully sweet.

While somewhat squeamish about Thursday’s shift to recommending Start Adding Duration, we will stick to that for now (but are closely watching foreign bond yields and the dollar, as we think we need some support there for U.S. yields to move much lower).

Uncertainty – Main Street vs. Wall Street

It was less than 2 months ago that markets were “bracing” for Main Street over Wall Street. Basically, policies that would be good for Main Street would be followed, even if they hurt Wall Street.

At the time, we argued that Main Street and Wall Street were more closely aligned than that simple message implied. There are differences, and we could certainly see (or see again) things that could hurt margins and therefore stocks, while helping people with jobs and taxes, but overall, the two are probably going to have to move in the same direction.

Wall Street seems less uncertain:

• VIX is slightly elevated at 20. Elevated yes, but with a high degree of uncertainty, no.
• Friday’s tariffs posts from the President regarding iPhones and the EU moved markets a little (yes, I think we can call 1% “a little” in this trading environment). But markets didn’t panic, and we saw buying throughout the day, because guess what? A few weeks ago, the President seemed happy with Tim Cook and just ahead of negotiations in Geneva with China, the President put out on Truth Social that “80%” seemed right – and we came back with 30%. Lo and behold (surprising absolutely no one) the EU tariffs have been put back on delay (to the July 9th date that was the original date of the April 9th 90-day pause). Stock futures are now slightly higher than where they closed Thursday night (before that recent set of posts that markets have learned, correctly (for now) to largely ignore).
• Putin. Peace? Sanctions? Markets seem nonplussed to the headlines. New sanctions would likely be bad for markets (similarly, if new sanctions are imposed on Iran), but markets seem to have very little concern about that risk.
• The CNN Fear and Greed Index is back to a reading of Greed. Personally, I don’t think this index has kept up with the times, as so many new tools for investors have been developed, but it is a proxy of something and does indicate that markets have become relatively docile again.
• It would be remiss not to point out that TQQQ (3x leveraged QQQ) continues to see outflows, and retail has been timing this market pretty darn well. This works against the narrative about Wall Street becoming less uncertain, but it is what it is.

What was the point of all that?

The point, I think, is that while Wall Street is less uncertain (or less concerned about uncertainty), Main Street seems VERY Uncertain.

Anecdotally, most things we are hearing fit the narrative that Main Street (call it, Corporate America of all shapes and sizes) is highly uncertain and is struggling with the uncertainty. The degree of the struggle varies, from minimal to severe (small companies dependent on China form the bulk of the latter). Make no mistake, there are pockets of the economy that are humming along. Some companies stand to benefit, even benefit greatly, from Budget 2026, deregulation, and spending linked to improving national security through national production.

But the vast majority of what we hear is uncertainty. The difficulty is figuring out when, where, or if that uncertainty will hit the economic data.

The difficulty with finding evidence that this higher uncertainty on “Main Street” will actually impact the economy stems from several issues:

• The initial ramp up in orders to get ahead of the tariffs, and then the renewed effort to take advantage of the pauses in case the pauses turn out to be temporary. Amidst the backdrop of uncertainty has been the need to stockpile resources, making the economy potentially look stronger than it is.
• Contracts and commitments don’t change quickly. If you entered into a contract when everything seemed geared towards growth (and we are hopeful the administration is pivoting back to that, rather than starting to double back down on tariffs), you are committed to that. It is only as contracts get renewed, or decisions for new projects get made, that uncertainty would start to show up. It might be early for that, hence little evidence of actually slower spending, despite the message of caution.
• Supply chain problems and tariff-linked inflation. Can you see that? Maybe if you squint really hard (seeing some people point to a turn in Truflation data, that I need to explore more). Here again we have two issues with timing:
  • Given the inventory ordered to prepare for tariffs, we wouldn’t expect to see much until June/July (which are approaching). All of the “temporary” reductions will likely have pushed risks of “unstocked shelves” further down the road. Which may mean that the issue will never materialize, but also makes it easy to ignore the risk.
  • Increased pricing tends not to get implemented overnight. There will be some absorption of the tariffs. First step is to get the exporter to cut a deal. Then the importer will likely “eat” some of the cost. Even what they decide to pass on will take some time, as many prices have been contractually agreed upon, forcing it to take time before we see it in the system. Also, it seems like it would be wise not to draw the President’s ire by ratcheting up prices, so you would slow play it.

We will be spending the better part of this week trying to figure out where we might identify early warning signs that Wall Street’s lack of concern is unwarranted and Main Street’s concerns will impact the data, the economy, and then markets.

Bottom Line

Wall Street seems less concerned than Main Street, but much of the data doesn’t support the anecdotal evidence that Main Street is concerned.

That is the conundrum.

• Is Main Street even concerned, or do we face a time where “talk is cheap” and it is easier to talk about uncertainty than it is to change behavior?
• Even if Main Street is concerned, have they done enough to bide their time, and as policy shifts towards pro-growth, the concerns will reverse course?
• Or have we already set in motion, with even 10% tariffs, a chain of events that will lead to a slower economy and higher prices in the short-term? This is probably my base case, but other cases are certainly plausible.

The more the administration focuses on growth, deregulation, and national production for national security, the better. Late last week, there were indications that we might be getting away from that. Minor indications, that have been assuaged by the extension, but we might all need to be thinking that while peak tariff uncertainty (danger) is behind us, we may also be past peak “dealz” optimism.

Finally, what I think is more likely is that as we digest the uncertainty going forward and the certainty of what has already been done, we should brace for a change in the economic winds again.

In no way, shape, or form do I see the current trajectory leading to Depression or even Deep Recession (unlike the pre-delay, no budget in sight policies) but that doesn’t mean markets haven’t gotten ahead of themselves (both equities and bonds).

The worst of the volatility and price action is almost certainly behind us, but that doesn’t mean the market won’t over-reach and it seems like currently there is a risk that Wall Street is ignoring Main Street’s uncertainty.

As we do some data dives this week trying to figure out what the “steady” state of the economy is likely to look like by the end of the summer (assuming we are roughly on the current policy glidepath), we will share that.

There is a chance the data dive makes us more optimistic about current market levels, but my sense is that in digging deeper, we will highlight some impacts that the market isn’t pricing in.

Enjoy the weekend and hopefully we all have an enjoyable and productive summer!

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Make no mistake about it: The Democratic Party is facing an existential crisis that even their media allies can’t spin anymore. The New York Times, the crown jewel of the liberal media establishment, just published a devastating analysis showing how the Democrats’ supposed stronghold on American politics has crumbled under the MAGA movement.

While Democrats continue their tired routine of Trump-bashing and pretending to care about working Americans, the numbers tell a completely different story. The Times’ analysis reveals a political earthquake that’s reshaping the electoral landscape, and it’s not in the Democrats’ favor.

“All told, Mr. Trump has increased the Republican Party’s share of the presidential vote in each election he’s been on the ballot in close to half the counties in America — 1,433 in all,” the paper writes. 

“It is a staggering political achievement, especially considering that Mr. Trump was defeated in the second of those three races, in 2020. By contrast, Democrats have steadily expanded their vote share in those three elections in only 57 of the nation’s 3,100-plus counties.”

In the 2024 election, six times as many counties shifted toward the GOP as toward the Democrats. 

While 435 counties trended more Democratic compared to 2012, 2,678 moved more Republican—by an even larger average margin of 13.3 points versus 8.8 for Democrats.

That’s not just a loss; that’s a political bloodbath.

The Democrats’ problem? 

They’re increasingly becoming the party of coastal elites and college-educated snobs. 

Meanwhile, Trump has built an unstoppable coalition that includes working-class voters across all racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

The New York Times didn’t sugarcoat the situation for the Democrats.

Counties that have become steadily more Republican exist in some of the country’s bluest strongholds, including New York City, Philadelphia and Honolulu. Mr. Trump’s party is still losing in those places, but by significantly less. At the same time, Mr. Trump has driven Republican margins to dizzying new heights in the nation’s reddest bastions.

In New York, 43 out of 62 counties shifted at least 10 points more Republican in 2024 compared to 2012, cutting the statewide Democratic margin in half. The only county to consistently trend Democratic was ultra-progressive Tompkins County, home to Ithaca. Meanwhile, even deep-blue and diverse areas like the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn have trended Republican in multiple elections, alongside rural upstate counties like St. Lawrence and Lewis.

“We could be entering a world where the greatest predictor of voting behavior is no longer race,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) told the New York Times.

“Donald Trump’s greatest achievement — his greatest electoral achievement — lies not in breaking the blue wall in the industrial Midwest, but in beginning to break the blue walls in states like New York, and in counties like the Bronx.”

The Democrats’ old playbook is dead, and they know it. 

Their own pollster Ben Tulchin admitted “the math doesn’t work” anymore. 

While they’re stuck pandering to wealthy urbanites and pushing radical policies that normal Americans reject, Trump’s MAGA coalition keeps growing stronger.

The only thing that could derail this momentum is if Republicans get complacent or drop the ball. 

I hope they don’t.

The MAHA Report, released last week, focuses on deliverables that actually fall within the executive’s constitutionally limited scope of authority. Where some have argued that increased federal authority is justified to “Make America Healthy Again,” the report outlines the ease of corporate capture when control becomes centralized.

Instead, the administration is going all-in on partnering with America’s farmers and ranchers. “We Can Not Succeed in This Movement Without the Partnership of the American Farmer, “said RFK Jr during the MAHA Report presser. 

We recognize that we cannot succeed in this movement without the partnership of the American farmer. The partnership between @HHSGov and @SecRollins @USDA is crucial to Make America Healthy Again. pic.twitter.com/f1JDDOJQRY

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) May 23, 2025

With consensus being rare within the agricultural industry, ZeroHedge set about finding what a farmer-focused partnership might look like to MAHA Ag leaders. Surprisingly, we found consensus on key issues ranging from regulatory reform to mission realignment and consumer choice.  

Judith McGeary, the Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), tells ZeroHedge that a partnership with America’s farmers looks like regulatory reforms first. 

“We need an overhaul of government programs — not simply eliminating regulations, but a careful re-crafting of them — to develop scale-appropriate regulation that fosters fair and open competition in the marketplace for consumers to have real choices and access to healthy food.”

McGeary further explains that current regulations, crafted by monopolies, prevent small producers from marketplace access. 

“Regulations in almost every area of food — including meat processing, egg grading, and produce safety — are designed to be workable for large-scale, chemical and confinement-based producers. And even when small, regenerative producers find a way to manage to comply with the regulations, they are largely either kept out of the markets due to corporate control or undercut by misleading labels and marketing.”

Bill Bullard, the CEO of R-CALF USA, shares McGeary’s call for regulatory reform.

“We appreciate that this report identifies key problems within our beef supply chain that our government has refused to address, until now,” Bullard said. “These problems include undue corporate influence over national dietary guidelines; a revolving door between government regulators and regulated corporations; and the corporatization and consolidation of our cattle and beef market.”

Bullard adds that partnering with America’s farmers must include the USDA’s original mission of antitrust enforcement and restored consumer confidence with a return to Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) requirements.

“Partnering with us will include an emphasis on antitrust and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement to curb corporatization and consolidation; an end to the demonization of beef and recognition of its critically important dietary role; reinstatement of MCOOL, as where beef is produced and under whose production standards it was produced is important to ensure safety and wholesomeness,” Bullard said, adding that he’s hopeful Congress can make headway in the next Farm Bill.

Bullard appeared on Fox Business last week, warning about the ongoing hollowing out of rural communities across America.

For Tennessee rancher and Agricultural attorney, Dustin Kittle, the corporate capture of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) has hit too close to home. Kittle, who has dedicated his career to saving the family farm, tells ZeroHedge a partnership must include the mission realignment of the FCA.

“The Farm Credit System was originally created to safeguard family farms.  It’s now funneling half of its $400 billion loan portfolio into mega-loans ($25 million and higher) to the usual suspects of Big Ag,” Kittle explains.  “In fact, there are Fortune 500 companies who have taken out billion dollar loans, at reduced interest rates, through the U.S. Farm Credit System.”

Kittle continues by outlining the impacts. 

“If we eliminate the Big Ag mega-loans draining Farm Credit’s funding dry, it frees up $200 billion in lending capital; enough capital to provide a $400,000 farm loan to 500,000 family farms; near identical to the same number of farms the USDA found to be in need of financing in a 2023 Report issued by its Economic Research Service.”

Cole Bolton, rancher and Senior Vice President of Frontier Bank of Texas, spends his time trying to educate ranchers on proper leverage, debt reduction discipline and how to build a balance sheet to even qualify for lending. 

Bolton tells ZeroHedge that regulatory reforms are needed more than ever. 

“Now, more than ever, producers need access to liquidity for expansion or just simple stability,” Bolton said. “For too long ranchers have been indentured to leverage and the banking regulatory guidelines are making it harder for them to qualify for operating loans.”

According to the report Kittle referenced, the United States is losing farms at an alarming rate. Over the last five years, 141,733 farms have disappeared. That’s an average of approximately 28,347 farms per year—about 77 farms per hour.

Given that small family farms make up 96-98% of all American farms, it’s easy to understand how an industry – that rarely agreed on anything  – has been able to find consensus on what partnership looks like.  

Time is of the essence. This is why ZeroHedge has launched the first farmer-focused partnership with the Beef Initiative—a rancher-direct think tank. Together, we are committed to leading by example and creating innovative solutions to inject liquidity directly back into the hands that produce our food supply.  

As monopoly-guided regulations disproportionately burden small players, and public funds are prioritized for mega-donor reciprocity, we must look to consumer choice and free markets over bigger government. 

Simultaneously, MAHA farmers welcome the opportunity to partner and stand united in calls for regulatory reforms and the mission realignment of executive agencies.