Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Never interrupt your enemy when he is committing serial suicide (in reverse American gore-style, when the serial killer always resurrects). In the case of the EU kakistocracy, serial self-destruction is always a given, and always skyrocketing.

So the EUrocrats in Brussels have just adopted their 17th round of sanctions against Russia – the sky is the limit – targeting nearly 200 tankers of the so-called Russian shadow fleet. The package, endorsed by EU member states, includes proverbial scores of asset freezes and visa bans.

The EU + UK combo is also scheming how to tighten the oil price cap on Russia to $50 a barrel, aiming to “hurt” Russia’s energy revenue.

Cue to a monster pipeline of laughter from the whole Global South, especially India and China. As if they would impeach any vessels of the shadow fleet, or if OPEC+ would care about a puny unilateral EUrocrat oil price cap.

To qualify EU actions as self-destructive anti-intellectualism is actually benign. The IQ of people at the top in Brussels is at dismembered worm level, exemplified by the Estonian batshit crazy chick in theory representing the foreign policy of 450 million EU citizens. Brussels has been reduced to a pathetic Estonian propaganda snake pit with a whiff of British accent.

The SVR has noted how there is a groundswell of despair in Brussels for the “mistake” of appointing the imbecile Estonian, universally known for “absolute incompetence” and a cringing “inability to build bridges” with EU leaders. She has already been removed from EU strategic defense policy planning.

Still, the sanctions package dementia will keep rollin’ on – redacted by careerists with fat salaries who only care about their own retirement gold package.

The next, the 18th, is supposed to be the largest sanctions package in History, according to the Brussels rumor mill, not only accusing Russia of multiples stances of Hybrid War and alleged use of chemical weapons (when it’s actually the neo-nazis of country 404 who resort to it) but targeting several Russian defense sector companies plus companies and intermediaries from third countries supplying sanctioned products to Russia.

Add to it the German BlackRock chancellor actively lobbying for an EU ban on the Nord Stream pipeline – blocking any possibility of a U.S.-Russia business cooperation, already signaled by Trump. This ban will be part of the 18th package.

Cue to Grandmaster Sergey Lavrov, who recently felt the need to emphasize that political EUro-trash banning the return of NordStream are “either sick or suicidal.”

Stealing Russia blind: good luck with that

On the Baltic front, there’s more, of course – in a “Pirates of the Baltics” register: that’s the SIGINT-heavy Baltic Sentry mission, which aims to block Russian maritime activity. France is on it – which implies a non-regional NATO member directly involved, unlike, for instance, Norway.

The Russians are unfazed. A strong possibility is that they will escort Russian ships with multi-functional naval and aerial drones fully equipped with reconnaissance and combat gear.

Yet on the Orwellian front, nothing beats the anti-Russian “tribunal” announced on May 9 by EU foreign ministers in Lviv, together with Kiev, to “hold top representatives of the Russian leadership accountable.” That involves 30 partner countries, incuding UK and Australia. The U.S. is out.

The scam was minutely deconstructed by Thomas Roper, who is now viciously demonized and censored by the EU, even though he is a journalist and EU citizen of German nationality. Yes, Brussels now sanctions its own citizens capable of critical thinking, to the point of freezing their assets and forbidding them to visit their home country. And this is just the beginning.

The new EU kangaroo “court” will be set up by the Council of Europe – and will issue judgments even in absentia, via 15 judges elected for 9 years each, the whole thing costing the EUrocracy around 1 billion euros.

Needless to add that this kangaroo “court” has absolutely no basis in international law, as it’s not approved by the UN; instead, it’s a private club of the fragmented West. Follow the money to understand the rationale.

Few people today remember that last year the European Commission (EU) gave a $50 billion loan to Kiev; actually $35 billion by the EU and $15 billion by the G7. The problem is only Brussels is responsible for repaying this joint EU-G7 loan. And the loan is supposed to be paid from the annual revenues generated by Russian assets frozen – i.e. stolen – in the EU, which Brussels refuses to release before the next 45 years.

These are all official EU decisions, enshrined in Regulation 2024/277. Translation: no, I repeat, no European mainstream media has informed taxpaying citizens across the union that the EU has formally decided to be at war with Russia for at least the next 45 years.

Brussels has done everything trying to steal for good the “confiscated” Russian assets. The problem is the EC EUrocrats have not found a mechanism to bypass international law.

Enter the “court”. The EUrocracy will force the kangaroo “tribunal” to blame Russia for everything related to the war and the SMO; sentence Russian government members to long-term prison sentences – in absentia; and then decide that Russia has to pay reparations. Endgame: the kangaroo “court” decides to steal for good the frozen Russian assets.

Once again: under international law, this is a robbery. Key inevitable consequence: no one across the Global South will trust the euro and European financial centers anymore.

This Russian demonization EUro-dementia scenario is in play just as Trump 2.0 still bets on some sort of normalization with Russia via a solution for Ukraine. Yet the key factor here is the cowardly collective fear of the EU kakistocracy: if they don’t rob Russia blind, they have no means to repay that fateful $50 billion loan to the Kiev goons.

That should be the main factor explaining why this collection of political mutts needs, badly, to non-stop escalate what is a de facto Forever War against Russia.

So expect only dementia coming from Brussels in the foreseeable future. Like the brilliant idea of setting up a single military bank to alocate loans for weapons production, a replica of the World Bank with a HQ in London. Since they could not find 120 billion euros to come up with a single European military fund – the German economy, for instance, continues to collapse – their plan B is this bank.

For all that cornucopia of sound and fury, Russia remains, once again, unfazed. Putin top aide and former National Security Adviser Nikolai “Yoda” Patrushev has noted how NATO has been “conducting exercises at our borders at a scale unseen in decades. … They are training for conducting a broad offensive from Vilnius to Odessa, seizing Kaliningrad region, imposing a naval blockade in the Baltic and the Black Seas and executing preventive strikes on the staging locations of Russian nuclear deterrence forces.”

Good luck with that. Good luck with the military bank. And good luck with stealing Russia blind with no blowback.

Authored by RFE/RL via OilPrice.com,

• Donald Trump’s hardline stance on NATO and the war in Ukraine have pushed European nations to significantly increase their defense spending and preparedness.

• Trump’s direct, personalized approach to diplomacy with Russia, particularly with Vladimir Putin, has been a point of contention and may inadvertently play into Putin’s strategic goals.

• The conflict in Ukraine has strategic implications for US efforts to focus on China, and the article suggests that failing to resolve the Ukraine situation effectively could embolden China’s actions.

Successive US administrations have long lobbied European allies to shoulder their fair burden for joint defense, but US President Donald Trump has taken a more bottom-line driven approach to NATO, publicly questioning why the United States should pay for the defense of rich European nations.

And that tough rhetoric has shaken Europe out of its decades-long national security slumber, according to Russian-American scholar Leon Aron. Germany, the second-largest economy in NATO after the United States, in March passed reforms that would allow it to unlock billions in defense funding.

“Trump woke up Europe, whether he intended or not,” Aron told RFE/RL.

“The Europeans don’t like it, but actually, the end result was, I think, salutary.”

RFE/RL spoke with Aron, a senior fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, as part of a series of interviews called America’s Foreign Policy Shifts.

Aron said that Trump alone would not have gotten Europe to scale up on defense. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, unleashing the biggest war on the continent in 80 years, was an essential element, Aron argued.

“The combination of Trump and Ukraine, I think, moved them to really seriously contemplate the enormous delinquency in their national defenses,” Aron said in a wide-ranging interview.

If a decade ago, only three European members of NATO spent 2 percent of economic output on defense, the agreed-upon minimum, today only a few don’t. However, Europe’s underinvestment in its own defense in the three decades following the end of the Cold War has left a mark, Aron said.

As Trump seeks to shift some military power from the European theater to the Asia-Pacific region to deter China, allies will struggle to compensate, he said.

“It will take the Europeans years to fill the hole left by the United States,” Aron said. “They’re definitely awakened, but how they can technically arrange this very steep increase in their defense allocations remains to be seen.”

Aron, who was born in Moscow, focuses on US-Russia relations and Russian domestic policy.

From 2014 to 2020, he served on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversaw the operations of US government-funded news outlets, including RFE/RL. He was a Russia advisor to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney during the latter’s unsuccessful bid as the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential candidate.

Ukraine War

Amid US wars against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Romney in 2012 said that Russia — and not international terrorism — was Washington’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Two years later, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the seizure of Crimea, starting a war with Ukraine that expanded with the full-scale invasion eight years later.

Since beginning his second term, Trump has been pushing aggressively for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. After a flurry of diplomacy failed to convince Putin to agree to the 30-day cease-fire he was demanding, Trump said on May 16 that he needed to meet the Kremlin leader to end the conflict.

“I don’t believe anything will happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together,” Trump told reporters.

Three days later, the US president held a third call with Putin, and it appeared to end with Trump siding with the Russian leader’s position; namely, that a cease-fire can only come after Moscow and Kyiv reach an agreement on territorial control and peacekeepers among other issues.

Russia and Ukraine are so far apart on the issues that it may take months at best for them to agree to a deal. Putin is widely believed to be buying time because his forces have momentum on the battlefield, and he has yet to achieve any major war aims, despite illegally laying claim to five regions of Ukraine.

Trump conceded late last month that Putin might be playing him for time and threatened to further sanction Russia. Nonetheless, he spun the May 19 call as a success even as the Kremlin leader appeared to get his way.

“How far Putin can push Trump is probably the pivotal issue in this whole situation,” Aron said.

Managing Russia

Aron said Trump, like nearly every U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, is drawn to the idea of managing relations with Moscow.

“There is something almost religious about this,” he said. “Trump is no different in that respect.”

However, unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn’t delegate the Russia portfolio to seasoned diplomats, instead preferring a more personalized approach. Trump tapped his friend, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, who has no government experience, to carry out the talks with Russia. But that hands-on style, Aron said, may be playing into Putin’s strategy.

“Contrary to what Trump thinks, I believe Putin feels he can play him,” Aron said. “All he has to do is periodically massage his ego, periodically wave to him from the Kremlin, and things will go his way. Unfortunately, so far, it’s working.”

Putin’s war aims haven’t narrowed, Aron said. The Kremlin leader still aims to conquer Ukraine even though the costs of continuing the war are staggering. Agreeing to a cease-fire at the current line of conflict holds risks for his popularity, Aron said, even as many Russians want the war to end.

“He has to look at his domestic situation and decide how he’s going to explain to his people the loss of what is now approaching probably close to a million soldiers, injured or killed, for essentially getting what they had to begin with: Donetsk, Luhansk, part of Zaporizhzhya, and a couple of slivers of land.”

Putin would need to further tighten the screws on the Russian people in the event of such a peace agreement. So far, repression has kept a lid on Russian public anger.

“At this point, he feels he has control of the situation,” Aron said. “Moving toward peace contains some very serious risks for him.”

Trump should alter his position and backstop a European-led peacekeeping force to monitor any eventual deal, Aron said. If Putin continues to drag his feet, Trump should ramp up sanctions on Russia’s oil industry, including targeting the country’s oil shipping fleet.

“That’s a very tangible blow to Putin,” he said. “This may move him toward at least contemplating peace seriously.”

China Watching

But the long war in Ukraine has strategic implications beyond Europe, particularly for Trump’s broader goal of focusing US policy on China, he said.

“Precisely because I assume the Trump administration wants to avoid a war with China over Taiwan, it ought to press Putin to settle for something that is not an outright defeat for Ukraine,” Aron said.

He said that rewarding Russian aggression could embolden Beijing — and pointed to China’s role in sustaining the war.

“Without China, there wouldn’t be this war,” Aron said. “China essentially finances at least half of Russian battlefield expenses by purchasing Russian oil. Xi Jinping continues to maintain that lifeline.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s protectionist trade policies could undermine the very alliances needed to confront China, Aron argued. Trump accused allies and adversaries alike of taking advantage of the United States through unfair trade practices and imposed 10 percent tariffs on most countries.

“If the American market is curtailed by tariffs, Europe — especially Germany — may turn back to China,” Aron said. “Germany became richer over the past three decades by sending exports to China, primarily cars, but also other luxury items. They pulled back after seeing Xi’s policies, but they may be forced to go back.”

It is a similar situation in the Global South, where the United States, China, and Russia have been vying for influence. Countries such as Vietnam, Congo, and Zimbabwe could also pivot toward China if they lose access to the US market, he said.

Trump is also seeking to curtail US involvement abroad, slashing US international aid and reportedly planning to cut the diplomatic presence in Africa. While some Trump supporters have dismissed Africa as strategically unimportant, Aron said that retreating from the continent would be a mistake.

It’s not just that Russia and China would rush in to fill the gap, international terrorist groups would too, he added, pointing to Nigeria and Mali, where militant Islamic groups are active.

“Presence itself matters hugely symbolically,” he said.

The Trump administration has defended the policies, saying it is trying to align US aid and investment with its foreign policy goals.

Six months after a stinging nationwide rejection that handed Donald Trump a commanding reelection and fractured their core coalition, the Democratic Party is turning to a new solution: spending $20 million to figure out why young men don’t like them.

The project, codenamed SAM — short for “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” – is described in a prospectus obtained by the New York Times. It outlines a massive push to decode the language and culture of disaffected young men, particularly in online spaces, and includes a proposal to buy ads inside video games.

“Above all, we must shift from a moralizing tone,” the document urges.

The effort comes amid widespread Democratic soul-searching after a loss that wasn’t just electoral, but cultural. A recent NBC News poll placed the party’s favorability at just 27 percent, its worst showing in the poll’s 34-year history.

Focus groups show the branding problem is dire. One Georgia man recently summed it up succinctly: “A deer in headlights.” According to messaging consultant Anat Shenker-Osorio, Democrats are consistently described in her focus groups as “sloths,” “tortoises,” and now, apparently, roadkill.

“You stand there and you see the car coming,” the man explained. “But you’re going to stand there and get hit with it anyway.”

Democratic leaders are scrambling to reassemble a coalition that used to be rock-solid: young voters, working-class Americans, Latinos, and Black voters all shifted toward Trump in 2024 – and this time, he won the popular vote, too.

“There is fear, there is anxiety, and there are very real questions about the path forward – all of which I share,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), who is charged with recruiting candidates to help win back the House in 2026. “We are losing support in vast swaths of the country.”

Even the long-standing gender gap, which typically favored Democrats, flipped in key districts as men swung harder to the right. It’s one of the driving reasons behind the $20 million SAM initiative.

Meanwhile, the party is facing open rebellion from within. Progressive activists are outraged at what they see as a lack of fight. Moderate Democrats are openly warning that cultural messaging – on issues like immigration, gender, and economic elitism – is alienating the very voters the party once claimed as its base.

“We’ve pushed, in so many ways, these people away from our party,” Crow said.

Former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, who stepped down in February, admitted “The party has to find ways to compete in states where it’s not.”

But instead of barnstorming in battleground counties, Democratic donors are reportedly huddling in luxury hotels, commissioning focus groups and digital rebrand efforts that – to some – look more like anthropology than campaigning.

Democratic pollster Zac McCrary said Trump’s declining approval ratings may create openings in 2026, but warned against reading too much into a potential midterm bounce.

“A good 2026 midterm – we should not let that mask a deeper problem,” McCrary said, adding that the party’s brand is ‘repellent’ in so much of the country.’

He blamed a credibility gap: “Democrats have lost credibility by being seen as alien on cultural issues.”

For many in the party’s activist and base circles, the appetite for bold messaging and confrontation remains strong.

“Voters are hungry for people to actually stand up for them – or get caught trying,” said Shenker-Osorio. “The party is doing a lot of navel-gazing and not enough full-belly acting.”

Whether Democrats will rediscover their spine, or waste millions more studying why they don’t have one,  remains to be seen.

Authored by  Ronald Stein via The Epoch Times,

The recently released “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” isn’t just another documentary that lazily cheerleads the industry, though there is a fair amount of marveling at the technology and underscoring its benefits and potential. It’s an enlightening, educational, and entertaining 90-minute documentary that is a must-view for those who wish to enhance their energy literacy and decide for themselves if EVs are good, bad, or ugly.

It raises serious concerns that policymakers—in wealthy countries only—are setting “green” policies that continue to support human-rights atrocities and environmental degradation in poorer, developing countries where the exotic minerals and metals needed for EVs are mined.

Some challenges remain with wind and solar power, which can only generate occasional electricity and are unreliable. This issue has drawn federal legislative attention, with the U.S. Senate voting to discuss a resolution to roll back California’s EV mandate, citing concerns about energy infrastructure and consumer readiness.

“Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” narrated by political commentator and author Larry Elder, who also appears in the film, demonstrates the environmental degradation and human-rights atrocities caused by mining the components needed for EVs, while presenting a thorough analysis of the pros and cons of the vehicles.

Planet Earth’s Resources Are Limited

Elder’s documentary educates viewers about how the critical minerals and metals needed to support the much-touted “energy transition” to EVs, wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries come from unreliable countries such as China, some poorer African nations, and others. Those countries have minimal labor laws and poor environmental controls, so that their production of the critical minerals and metals needed for going “green” results in serious environmental degradation and dire social consequences.

All this, just to support “clean” electricity in wealthier countries.

The extraction rates and R/P (reserves to production) ratio for many of the critical minerals and metals needed for going “green” are alarming, and most of these natural resources are not being replenished. This suggests a worrisome possibility of an unsustainable approach to the current policies of subsidies for “green” energies. Furthermore, even countries with the largest reserve base face important challenges to increasing production growth to meet projected future demand.

• Lithium: In 2024, the world mined about 240,000 tons of lithium, almost three times the amount mined in 2020. The International Energy Agency projects that demand for lithium will increase to 450,000 tons per year by 2030. Despite a significant world resource base, production of those resources remains a major challenge.

• Cobalt: In 2024, the world produced an estimated 280,000 metric tons of cobalt, the highest amount ever recorded. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was the world’s leading producer, accounting for 74 percent of the global total, while the country is known for the major problems with child labor and poor working conditions of its mineral sector.

A typical EV battery for a Tesla sedan requires substantial raw material extraction for the battery’s minerals and metals of lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper, aluminum, graphite, plus the steel, plastic, and other metals for battery casings.

The documentary raises concerns about these “blood minerals,” which come mostly from developing countries—mined at locations in the world that are never inspected or seen by policymakers and EV buyers.

The mining and refining to support the demands for EV batteries, wind, and solar involve large quantities of raw materials. The estimated total mass of raw materials mined and processed for an EV battery, including overburden and waste rock, can range from 50,000 to 100,000 pounds, depending on battery size, chemistry, and mining efficiency.

Elder’s documentary should be viewed by so-called zero-emission policymakers in the few wealthy countries that have disrupted the delivery of continuous and uninterruptible electricity with strict regulations, preferential subsidies, and cancellation of proven baseload sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

Those who watch “Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” will learn about the shell game some are using to exploit developing countries to support so-called clean and green electric vehicles, and can evaluate for themselves whether global economies and the environment can sustain EVs to meet transportation needs for all, not just for a select few.

“Electric Vehicles: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” starts streaming May 23 on Ganjing World. It is available for purchase at $12.99, and available for a 72-hour lease for $9.99.

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

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao explores the world’s most expensive real estate markets, using data as of December 2024. 

The rankings are based on the average price per square meter for a prime 100–200 m² (1,075-2,150 sq. ft) apartment, sourced from New World Wealth and Henley & Partners.

What Is “Prime” Real Estate?

“Prime” real estate refers to properties in the most desirable global locations—whether for lifestyle, investment, or prestige. These homes typically share four key characteristics:

• High-Value: Located in top-tier global cities or exclusive resort areas, with premium price tags per square meter.

• Luxury-Oriented: High-end properties boasting top-tier amenities, design, and finishes.

• Strategically Located: Found in stable, globally connected markets with strong lifestyle appeal.

• Investment-Linked: Often eligible for residence or citizenship-by-investment programs, offering benefits beyond ownership.

The Global Leaders in Price per Square Meter

At the top of the list is Monaco, where prime real estate prices dwarf those of other markets.

The small principality on the French Riviera is a haven for the ultra-wealthy, driven by its low taxes, exclusive lifestyle, and financial services sector. With limited land and soaring demand, Monaco continues to command the highest prices globally.

In second place is New York City, consistently ranked the world’s leading financial center. Home to billionaires, major investment firms, and iconic luxury developments, NYC remains a global magnet for capital and prestige real estate.

Hong Kong ranks third, reflecting its ongoing role as a global finance hub. With limited land supply, strong investor demand, and its strategic location in Asia, Hong Kong’s prime real estate market remains one of the most expensive on Earth.

If you enjoyed this map, be sure to check out The World’s Largest Economies, Including U.S. States.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that it is drafting a plan to remove the caps on greenhouse gases from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants across the nation.

An EPA spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the agency has been reconsidering the Biden administration’s power plant emissions regulations, commonly referred to as “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” since March.

The Biden-era Clean Power Plan marks the third major attempt by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It follows the Obama administration’s original Clean Power Plan, which required power plants to shift toward lower-carbon sources of electricity.

“Many have voiced concerns that the last administration’s replacement for that rule is similarly overreaching and an attempt to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States, raising prices for American families, and increasing the country’s reliance on foreign forms of energy,” the EPA spokesperson said. 

“As part of this reconsideration, EPA is developing a proposed rule.”

The spokesperson did not provide further details about the draft plan but said it will be released after an interagency review and once it is signed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

“President [Donald] Trump promised to kill the Clean Power Plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,” the spokesperson quoted Zeldin as saying. 

“We are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.”

The first Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule formally rescinded and replaced the Obama-era regulation.

The ACE rule was struck down by the D.C. Circuit in January 2021, on the final full day of Trump’s first term. That ruling was itself overturned in 2022, when the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement the Obama Clean Power Plan as it was originally designed.

The Biden-era regulation that the Trump EPA now seeks to replace, formally known as Reg. 2060-AV09, was finalized in early 2024. It mandates that existing coal-fired power plants reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent if they plan to continue operating beyond 2039, while imposing even stricter limits on newly built natural gas-fired power plants.

The only currently known technology capable of achieving such reductions is carbon capture and sequestration, which has not yet been deployed at that scale.

The rule quickly came under legal challenge from a coalition of Republican-led states, utility companies, and coal industry stakeholders. Critics said that carbon capture is not economically viable or technologically mature enough to be used at the nation’s roughly 200 coal plants. They also pointed to logistical problems, such as the extensive infrastructure needed to pipe captured carbon dioxide into underground storage sites that are located hundreds of miles from the plants.

“By constructing a rule that offers power plant operators the choice of either employing technologies that do not yet exist on a commercial, affordable scale or shutting down, the EPA has wrested control of our nation’s energy policy with neither the legal authority nor expertise to do so, all at the exact time that electricity demand is forecast to double,” Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said at that time. “If this rule is allowed to stand the results for the American people and economy will be catastrophic.”

Despite opposition, the Biden power plant rule was allowed to take effect after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause it while litigation proceeds. The U.S. Supreme Court also rejected emergency requests to block the rule, although Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have granted the stay.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a note that he believes the challengers “have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges.” However, he said, since the rule does require them to start compliance work until June 2025, they are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm before the D.C. Circuit issues a final decision.

“So this Court understandably denies the stay applications for now,” Kavanaugh wrote, adding that if the challengers lose at that level, they may again ask the Supreme Court for relief while appealing the case.

The D.C. Circuit has not yet issued a ruling on the merits of the case.

President Donald Trump announced just after 6pm on Sunday that the US will delay the implementation of a 50% tariff on European Union products to July 9 from June 1. 
Sunday’s decision to extend the tariff deadline was made after a phone call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier in the day, and comes after Trump unexpectedly threatened duties of 50% on the EU on Friday morning. The move surprised European officials who thought they were making progress with his administration on talks to avert the 20% “reciprocal” tariffs Trump announced in April, and then paused for 90 days.

“I received a call today from Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, requesting an extension on the June 1st deadline on the 50% Tariff with respect to Trade and the European Union,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“I agreed to the extension—July 9, 2025—It was my privilege to do so. The Commission President said that talks will begin rapidly.”

Trump’s statement followed a post from von der Leyen on the social media platform X, in which she described her conversation with Trump as a “good call.”

Good call with @POTUS.

The EU and US share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship.

Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively.

To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9.

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) May 25, 2025

“The EU and US share the world’s most consequential and close trade relationship. Europe is ready to advance talks swiftly and decisively. To reach a good deal, we would need the time until July 9,” she wrote.

Trump initially said on May 23 that the United States will impose a 50 percent tariff on the European Union starting June 1 after the president wrote on Truth Social that he felt talks with the EU were “going nowhere,” and cited a litany of his trade irritants, from the EU’s value-added taxes to fines and regulations on U.S. companies. The sides also have yet to agree on how to align their trade policies on China, though the EU has privately indicated it is willing to work with the U.S. to combat Beijing’s subsidies for key industries such as steel according to the WSJ.

Trump has long maligned the EU, which he says was formed to take advantage of the US, and decried the U.S.’s persistent trade deficit with the continent. The EU, meanwhile, has said it wouldn’t negotiate over certain Trump demands, such as value-added taxes. And some European ministers have made clear that they wouldn’t accept a deal that keeps Trump’s 10% baseline tariff in place—a concession the U.K. made in a pact signed early this month.

Trump’s statement on Sunday reverts the negotiations back to where they were before his Friday missive, giving the sides just over a month to come to an agreement.

The United States and EU share the largest bilateral economic relationship in the world. Yet, U.S. goods and services face persistent tariff and non-tariff barriers in the EU market, according to the latest Foreign Trade Barriers report issued by U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

Although the EU’s average Most Favored Nation tariff rate stands at a relatively low 5 percent, certain goods face disproportionately high levies, such as fish and seafood (up to 26 percent), trucks (22 percent), bicycles (14 percent), passenger vehicles (10 percent), and fertilizers and plastics (6.5 percent).

Many processed foods such as confectionary products and baked goods also face complex and burdensome tariffs under the EU’s Meursing Table system, which calculates duties based on product composition.

Under this system, the EU charges a tariff on each imported good based on the products’ content of milk fat, milk protein, starch, and sugar.  This system not only increases administrative burden but also creates uncertainty for U.S. food exporters, according to the USTR.

In addition, the EU does not administer its laws through a single customs administration, which presents another layer of complexity for U.S. exporters. Each EU member state enforces customs law independently, resulting in different interpretations and enforcement throughout the bloc.

The EU’s technical barriers to trade also remain a sticking point. For example, Europe’s adoption of regional standards for safety, quality, environmental protection, labeling, and packaging impede market access for U.S. products even if they meet international standards, according to the USTR.

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

A study published on Thursday found that people with higher vitamin D intake may be slowing a process linked to aging.

In a paper released by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on May 22, Mass General Brigham and the Medical College of Georgia researchers looked at results from a randomized controlled trial known as VITAL showing that taking vitamin D3 supplements can help support telomeres, which are protective ends on chromosomes.

“VITAL is the first large-scale and long-term randomized trial to show that vitamin D supplements protect telomeres and preserve telomere length,” co-author JoAnn Manson said in a statement issued by Mass General Brigham. “This is of particular interest because VITAL had also shown benefits of vitamin D in reducing inflammation and lowering risks of selected chronic diseases of aging, such as advanced cancer and autoimmune disease.”

VITAL, they said, is a randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind trial of vitamin D3 and omega-3 supplementation involving U.S. females aged 55 and older and males aged 50 and older. Participants took 2,000 IU, or about 50 micrograms, of vitamin D3 per day and about 1 gram of omega-3 per day.

In their research, they found that when taking vitamin D3 supplements as compared with taking a placebo, it significantly reduced the shortening of telomeres over a four-year period and was able to prevent “the equivalent of nearly three years of aging,” the statement said.

The researchers said that while several smaller-scale studies have suggested that vitamin D or omega-4 fatty acid supplements could help maintain telomeres, the results haven’t been consistent.

The researchers also noted that taking omega-3 supplements did not have a significant effect on the length of telomeres. Omega-3 is also commonly found in fish oil supplements and is associated with several benefits to the heart, brain, and joints.

“Our findings suggest that targeted vitamin D supplementation may be a promising strategy to counter a biological aging process, although further research is warranted,” Haidong Zhu, an author of the study who works at Augusta University’s Medical College of Georgia, said in a statement.

Separate research has suggested that shorter telomeres are associated with aging and a higher chance of developing certain diseases. According to a paper published by the National Institutes of Health, telomere length can potentially serve as a “biological clock” to determine how long a cell lives or how long an organism will live.

Telomeres, which are made of sequences of DNA, prevent the ends of chromosomes from merging with other chromosomes or deteriorating over time, the researchers noted.

Vitamin D can be obtained through sunlight or foods such as fatty fish, egg yolks, cheeses, orange juice, fortified cereals, and certain types of mushrooms.

According to research published by the Cleveland Clinic, supplementation of vitamin D is common, with around one-fifth of the U.S. population taking a vitamin D supplement daily.

How long you live depends a lot on where you’re born…

Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao illustrates this phenomenon in the above map, which uses 2025 life expectancy at birth projections from the UN World Population Prospects published last year.

Life expectancy at birth measures the average number of years that a newborn could expect to live, if they were subject to the age-specific mortality rates of a given period.

ℹ️ This number visualized is an average between men and women. For extra context, women have higher life expectancies than men in nearly every country in the world.

Ranked: Countries Where People Live the Longest

The micronation of Monaco has the highest average life expectancy in the world. A baby born in the country in 2025 can expect to live to 87 years old.

Note: Figures rounded.

Most of the top 10 countries are similarly small-sized territories or countries.

However, Japan (#4), South Korea (#5), and Australia (#10) are the three top-10 countries with the highest life expectancies (84+) when accounting for a population of more than 20 million people.

Regionally, Western European countries have the highest life expectancies at birth. Their counterparts in Eastern Europe are a shade lower.

And despite Japan and South Korea’s performance, most Asians have life expectancies between 70–80 years. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Papua New Guinea are below the 70-year threshold.

However, several African countries have a below-60 life expectancy, a projected lifespan that is a full 20 years shorter than Western European residents.

Nigeria has the lowest average life expectancy at birth, at 55 years.

What Life Expectancy Numbers Mean for Individuals

Life expectancies are tricky things to fully comprehend: in that they change throughout a person’s lifespan and are measured for entire cohorts born in a year.

For example, in countries with lower projected expectancies, it doesn’t necessarily mean adults don’t live as long.

A high infant mortality rate for a particular cohort of babies born in a year could reduce the projected lifespan of the entire cohort. However once a baby from that year survives to adulthood, they may very well reach their 70s.

In fact, data shows that the biggest difference between life expectancies of Africa and high-income regions are for those before the age of 5 and after 60.

This is because both babies and older adults have a need for specific medical infrastructure which many Africans don’t have access to.

There is a strong correlation between wealth and longer lifespans. Check out Countries with the Highest GDP per Capita in 2024 to see similarities.

Authored by Bruce Davidson via The Brownstone Institute,

The manufacturer of the replicon mRNA Covid “vaccine” in Japan, Meiji Seika Pharma, has brought a lawsuit against a member of the Japanese parliament, Kazuhiro Haraguchi. Haraguchi had commented that the Covid injections are “akin to a biological weapon,” a statement which the Meiji Pharma president claimed was beyond the bounds of acceptable expression.

However, statements like Haraguchi’s about the dangers of the Covid mRNA injections are now commonplace in many nations, and drug companies do not seem to be suing people for making them, at least in the US. Instead, state attorneys general in Kansas and Texas have been suing Pfizer for misrepresenting its Covid injections.

In general, Japan has been gradually evolving into a place where it is difficult to publicly express ideas unapproved by powerful business interests and officialdom. In addition to government and mainstream news media collusion to keep Covid medical realities from the Japanese public, the government passed a law to squelch nonconforming messaging online.

The intentions behind this measure are clear: Prominent government figures have openly declared their conviction that “misinformation” is a major problem in Japan. In December 2024, Prime Minister Ishiba stated that he was considering more regulations concerning Internet discourse that he considers problematic, and a prominent LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) politician named Noda commented recently that Japan was being influenced more and more by “fake” information.

In May 2024, Japan’s parliament passed a law to enable the quick elimination of defamatory posts from social media platforms like Facebook and X. By this law, such platforms would have to make explicit sites for taking requests to delete posts and also make clear their criteria for taking down posts. The new law went into effect on April 1, 2025.

Unsurprisingly, some Japanese YouTube vloggers are expressing concerns that, under the new set of regulations, their vlogs may soon be targeted as purveyors of “misinformation,” especially when they criticize government policy.

Only online media platforms are targeted in this development, even though Japanese print communications and TV programs have also often been guilty of spreading harmful disinformation. Ironically, in many instances, this is not because they are unregulated but precisely because they are under the thumb of government agencies.

For example, the Japanese National Police Agency has deliberately leaked information about people under investigation in order to pressure them into confessing to crimes. Since the Japanese public often naively believes that suspicion equals guilt, this tactic results in terrible consequences for the unjustly accused.

In 1996, after an unsuccessful attempt by the Aum Shinrikyo cult to assassinate three Japanese judges, police leaked to news media outlets some details of their investigation of Yoshiyuki Kono, an innocent man whose family was also severely injured in the attack.

Kono’s experience of being hounded by both the authorities and the mainstream news media mirrors that of Richard Jewell, the heroic security guard who became a suspect after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. The FBI deliberately leaked details of their investigation to American mainstream news outlets, which proceeded to harass and condemn Jewell along with the investigating FBI agents, though the case eventually unraveled.

Even before the social media platform law, Japanese news media outlets were effectively controlled by the government. As a result, Japan was ranked lowest among all Group of Seven nations for freedom of the press in the World Press Freedom Index. Japan’s overall ranking dropped from 68th to 70th after the 2024 social media law was passed. 

The reasons for this are the press club system and the self-censorship of most Japanese reporters. Each government ministry has a press club consisting of representatives from prominent news media outlets, and they receive official briefings from government officials. However, these members of the press can be banned from these briefings if they do anything that reflects badly on the government.

Therefore, at such meetings, there is “no atmosphere that encourages deliberation of important issues because reporters know that if they ask difficult questions they can be punished,” in one Japanese reporter’s words. For instance, reporters at press briefings were afraid to ask questions about unclear statements to Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga, who sometimes harshly responded, “That question is beside the point!”

These developments are especially ominous in light of the fact that Japan already has a tainted history in regard to suppressing freedom of information and expression. In 1925, the Japanese government passed the Peace Preservation Law, which criminalized the expression of unapproved ideas.

In the years that followed, totalitarian control rapidly replaced democratic government and unrestricted public debate. This culminated in a war that brought great horrors to Japan and other nations. Freedom of expression is a matter much more significant than words.