Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

The fate of social media giant Meta, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s primary company, is on the line as a trial begins in Washington on Monday to determine whether the tech giant is violating antitrust laws.

The Federal Trade Commission, which has spent the past six years investigating Meta, is expected to argue before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp created an illegal monopoly over social networking.

In the worst-case scenario for Meta, the company could be forced to divest both subsidiaries in a breakup on a scale not seen since the dismantling of AT&T’s telephone empire more than 40 years ago.

Here’s what to know about the most important trial in Meta’s history.

Trial

The case is being held at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, just a few hundred yards from the U.S. Capitol.

It’s a bench trial, meaning Boasberg alone will decide the outcome, not a jury. That gives the judge extraordinary influence over the future of one of the most powerful companies in the world.

FTC Claims

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the company began during President Donald Trump’s first term and was aggressively pursued under President Joe Biden.

The FTC has taken issue with the company’s 2012 purchase of the image-based app Instagram and 2014 purchase of WhatsApp, a messaging platform that’s particularly popular outside of the United States.

During the trial, the FTC is expected to argue that Meta’s purchase of the two platforms was part of a calculated effort to “buy or bury” any potential rivals to Facebook.

In a 2008 email presented by the FTC in a past federal court filing, Zuckerberg wrote, “It is better to buy than compete.”

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said that his agency is “raring to go” against Meta but also that he’ll follow lawful orders from the president to close the case.

Meta’s Response

Meta has consistently denied the allegations of operating an illegal monopoly and has argued that the FTC’s case is both outdated and out of step with current market realities.

A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the acquisitions were approved by regulators at the time and that the company has always operated competitively. He cited the presence of competitors such as TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage, and others.

The spokesperson said the lawsuit “defies reality” and that it would send a message that “no deal is ever truly final” if Boasberg sides with the FTC.

The company has also suggested that dismantling its integrated platforms would harm users, who’ve come to rely on interconnected services and shared back-end systems.

Since Trump was elected to a second term, Zuckerberg has visited Mar-a-Lago, ended the company’s controversial fact-checking efforts, rolled back diversity and inclusion programs, and staffed the company with GOP-friendly executives.

The Epoch Times reached out to FTC for further comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

‘Creaking Antitrust Precedents’

Boasberg has heard years of pretrial motions in this case and has made clear he isn’t fully sold on the government’s argument.

He threw out the FTC’s original filing in 2021, citing a lack of clear market definitions. While he allowed the revised case to proceed, he’s continued to express skepticism, warning in recent months that the FTC’s claims “strain this country’s creaking antitrust precedents.”

Antitrust statutory law and litigation are among the most labyrinthine areas of the federal code.

Boasberg has given both sides a chance to make their case in court. Witness lists include Zuckerberg himself, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and executives from rival platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat.

The trial is expected to last through the summer, with a decision potentially arriving by July.

On Friday, when looking at the earnings of the largest US bank, we said that while JPMorgan reported both revenue and earnings that beat estimates, it was JPMorgan’s record trading revenue that stole the show: yes, yet again the recent market turmoil meant that JPM would generate record trading revenues commissions in Q1, just as we had expected.

Make Trade Commissions Great Again

It’s official: the biggest volume session of all time https://t.co/ee3uYsA5Cb pic.twitter.com/pqd6PIiiEm

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 4, 2025

Today it was Goldman’s turn to do the same with the bank formerly known as the giant vampire squid blowing away expectations with its Q1 numbers after its traders posted their highest quarterly revenue haul on record, riding a wave of volatility triggered by an emerging global trade war that’s roiled financial markets. Specifically, Q1 equity-trading revenue rose 27% from a year earlier to $4.19 billion – the highest on record – and above the $3.80 billion expected, even as the more important FICC group actually missed, as revenues printed $4.404 bilion, below the $4.47 billion expected and up just 2% YoY. 

Goldman’s results were a carbon copy of JPMorgan because not only did FICC miss, but investment banking was a big dud as well (with misses in advisory and equity underwriting, as only debt underwriting outperformed estimates).

But before we dig deeper here is a snapshot of the Q1 results:

• Net revenue $15.06 billion, +6% y/y, beating estimate $14.76 billion and the third-highest quarter on record
• Global Banking & Markets net revenues $10.71 billion, +10% y/y, beating estimate $10.42 billion
  • Equities sales & trading revenue $4.19 billion, beating estimate $3.8 billion
  • FICC sales & trading revenue $4.40 billion, missing estimate $4.47 billion
• Investment banking revenue $1.92 billion, -8.1% y/y, missing estimate $2.03 billion
  • Advisory revenue $792 million, -22% y/y, missing estimate $910.4 million
  • Equity underwriting rev. $370 million vs. $370 million y/y, missing estimate $394.4 million
  • Debt underwriting rev. $752 million, +7.6% y/y, beating estimate $699.5 million
• Platform Solutions pretax earnings $25 million, beating the estimate loss $106.5 million
   
• EPS $14.12 vs. $11.58 y/y, up 22% and beating estimates of $12.21, largely thanks to a plunge in the effective tax rate to 16.1%, down from 22.4% a year ago (according to the bank, the drop reflect “an increase in tax benefits on the settlement of employee share-based awards, partially offset by a decrease in other permanent tax benefits, for the first quarter of 2025 compared with the full year of 2024.”)

Some more details:

• Net interest income $2.90 billion, estimate $2.28 billion
• Total operating expenses $9.13 billion, +5.4% y/y, estimate $9.17 billion
• Compensation expenses $4.88 billion, +6.3% y/y, estimate $4.86 billion
• Total deposits $471 billion, +8.8% q/q
• Total Loans $210 billion, estimate $197.61 billion
• Provision for credit losses $287 million, -9.7% y/y, estimate $410.4 million
• Annualized ROE +16.9%, estimate +14.9%
• Return on tangible equity +18%, estimate +16.1%
• Standardized CET1 ratio 14.8%, estimate 15%
• Book value per share $344.20 vs. $321.10 y/y
• Efficiency ratio 60.6% vs. 60.9% y/y, estimate 61.6%
• Assets under management $3.17 trillion, +11% y/y, estimate $3.15 trillion
• Total AUS net inflows $24 billion vs. outflows $15 billion y/y, estimate $34.26 billion

Q1 consolidated summary:

… and by segment.

Unlike JPMorgan, whose loan loss reserves soared 3x to $1bn, Goldman’s provision for credit losses was only $287 million, below estimates of $410 million, and down 10% compared with $318 million for the first quarter of 2024. Provisions for the first quarter of 2025 primarily reflected net provisions related to the credit card portfolio. Provisions for the first quarter of 2024 reflected net provisions related to both the credit card portfolio (driven by net charge-offs) and wholesale loans (driven by impairments). Then again, that is to be expected for a bank which recently took massive write down losses on its entire retail/subsprime lending effort which imploded even faster than it was launched.

Goldman’s expenses were also lower than expected:

• Operating expenses were $9.13 billion for the first quarter of 2025, below expectations of $9.17 billion, but 5% higher than the first quarter of 2024 and 10% higher than the fourth quarter of 2024. 
• The firm’s efficiency ratio was 60.6% for the first quarter of 2025,  compared with 60.9% for the first quarter of 2024.
• The increase in operating expenses compared with the first quarter of 2024 primarily reflected significantly higher transaction based expenses and higher compensation and benefits expenses (reflecting improved operating performance), partially offset by significantly lower consolidated investment entities expenses, including impairments (largely in depreciation and amortization) and a decrease from the FDIC special assessment fee recognized in the first quarter of 2024 (in other expenses). 
• Net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings were $(11) million for the first quarter of 2025, compared with $23 million for the first quarter of 2024.

Taking a closer look at the bank’s all important Global Banking and Markets division, net revenues were $10.71 billion for the first quarter of 2025, 10% higher than the first quarter of 2024 and 26% higher than the fourth quarter of 2024.  At the same time, growth in Goldman’s dealmaking machine remains challenged as the same market volatility that fuels trading hampers clients’ willingness to ink big-ticket mergers and financing agreements. The company’s investment-banking revenue was $1.91 billion, 8% lower than last year. Financial-advisory revenues and equity underwriting both missed expectations, but the bank’s debt desk came in higher than predicted. here are the deails:

• Net revenues in Equities were $4.19 billion, beating estimates of $3.8 billion, and 27% higher than the first quarter of 2024, “due to significantly higher net revenues in Equities intermediation (primarily reflecting significantly higher net revenues in derivatives) and in Equities financing (primarily reflecting significantly higher net revenues in portfolio financing).”
• Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities (FICC) were $4.40 billion, missing estimates of $4.47 billion, and 2% higher than the first quarter of 2024, “reflecting higher net revenues in FICC financing, driven by significantly higher net revenues from mortgages and structured lending. At the same time, net revenues in FICC intermediation were slightly lower, “reflecting lower net revenues in credit products, interest rate products and commodities, largely offset by higher net revenues in currencies and slightly higher net revenues in mortgages.”
• Investment banking fees were $1.91 billion, missing estimates of $2.03 billion, and 8% lower than the first quarter of 2024, “primarily due to significantly lower net revenues in Advisory compared with a strong prior year period, partially offset by higher net revenues in Debt underwriting, primarily driven by asset-backed and investment-grade activity.” Net revenues in Equity underwriting were unchanged. 
• The firm’s Investment banking fees backlog increased compared with the end of 2024. 

Even as big-ticket deals remain thin, the bank’s investment-banking fees backlog has grown quarter-over-quarter, the company said. That echoes the sentiment that Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick conveyed on Friday, when he said a lot of deals are paused but not abandoned. Finally, net revenues in Other were $197 million, compared with $12 million for the first quarter of 2024, primarily reflecting significantly lower net losses on hedges. Here is the breakdown visually:

Comparing results vs a year ago:

• Equities net revenues were a record and significantly higher YoY
• FICC net revenues were slightly higher YoY
• Investment banking fees were lower YoY
• Other net revenues YoY primarily reflected significantly lower net losses on hedges

Revenue from the bank’s vast asset- and wealth-management business was $3.68 billion, lower than the $3.84 billion expected by analysts, and the reason why: investments puked and the company was busy “harvesting.”

• Equity investments reflected significantly lower net gains from investments in private equities and higher net losses from investments in public equities 
• Debt investments reflected significantly lower net interest income due to a reduction in the debt investments balance sheet and net losses compared with net gains in 1Q24
• Incentive fees were driven by harvesting (i.e. selling)
• Private banking and lending primarily reflected higher net interest income from lending 

Goldman has been trying to expand its wealth management unit – which now manages $3.17 trillion – including by opening private equity funds to individual investors outside the bank. 

In doing so, it aims to create a more steady stream of fee-based income, tapping growing demand for private-market investments and alleviating investor concerns over its less predictable businesses.

Goldman’s Q1 results build on the sector’s momentum from last week, when banking peers including JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley also notched record stock-trading hauls for the period. And they follow a record year for Goldman in 2024, when the New York-based bank lifted its revenue in the division by almost 50%.

“While we are entering the second quarter with a markedly different operating environment than earlier this year, we remain confident in our ability to continue to support our clients,” Chief Executive Officer David Solomon said in the statement.

Goldman traders stand to gain from market volatility to a point, but Solomon has also called for more clarity on Trump’s policy agenda to provide certainty to investors. The results are the first since his future at the bank’s helm was cemented with an $80 million retention bonus – criticized by investor-advisory firms – that keeps him at Goldman until at least 2030.

Stripping away the record equity trading revenue which was a given, Wall Street commentary was mixed:

RBC’s Gerard Cassidy (Sector perform, $610)

• Goldman “posted a strong quarter driven by better-than-expected total revenues, lower-than-expected expenses and a lower-than-expected provision for credit losses,” the analyst wrote
• Effective tax rate was lower than expected, reflects increase in tax benefits on the settlement of employee share-based awards

Evercore’s Glenn Schorr (Outperform, $594)

• Goldman put up a strong quarter, Schorr and colleagues wrote
• Issues include: investment-banking down 8% year-on-year and advisory down 22% year on year; but the backlog was up
• “Second quarter will bring other challenges as banking and AWM start out the quarter in deficit, but trading remains strong and somehow Goldman’s banking pipeline is up”
• “Goldman Sachs will likely ebb and flow with the macro backdrop, but the great start to the year, continued growth in trading, financing and management fees and the high comp accrual should provide some offsets to what could be a mid-year slowdown”

JPMorgan’s Kian Abouhossein (Overweight, $614)

• Asset- and wealth-management revenue was “below JPM estimates, reflecting significantly lower net gains from investments in private equities and higher net losses from investments in public equities”
• “Investment-banking fees backlog increased quarter-on-quarter, primarily driven by an increase in advisory, partially offset by a decrease in equity underwriting”

Shares of the company, which were down 14% this year through Friday, rose 1.5% in early trading. 

More in the full Q1 presentation below (pdf link)

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Millionaire cosplay socialist Bernie Sanders took his ‘Fight Oligarchy’ tour to Coachella festival over the weekend, perfectly epitomising how fake and contrived the entire thing is.

The tickets for this thing cost several hundreds of dollars a piece. It’s a glamping weekend for trendy comfortable wannabe influencer 20 somethings who have no idea what everyday Americans are going through.

The perfect venue for Democrats like Sanders and his side kick AOC to reel off lists of alarmist ’causes’ they’re making dollars from.

Thank you, Coachella.

I enjoyed introducing the great @clairo tonight.

These are tough times.

The younger generation has to help lead in the fight to combat climate change, protect women’s rights, and build an economy that works for all, not just the few. pic.twitter.com/8sGvKAuNYY

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2025

Because nothing says “tough times” like shelling out oodles of disposable income to watch Lady Gaga prancing around in Satan horns tonguing skulls.

Gaga’s skull keyboard 💀 #coachella pic.twitter.com/lMPCPS9d1X

— ً ‎ (@ripworldstar) April 12, 2025

Lady Gaga nailed Coachella yesterday. That show was on a whole different level. She danced with skeletons, killed herself, got buried, resurrected, and kept dancing and singing.

Definitely had some devil vibes. She is so weird I love it.

Manifesting Coachella 2026 🤞🏽 pic.twitter.com/2tePO38XBP

— kikiidoyouloveme (@kikiidoyoulovm) April 13, 2025

Maybe showing up at an event that only the entitled can attend isn’t a good look for worker solidarity. https://t.co/PfyEUPDhLg

— Movie Mad Motto (@Rob_Motto) April 13, 2025

Sanders got up there and blathered about the sacred human right to drop MDMA… or something.

bernie low key crazy for this 🤣 pic.twitter.com/4FNJtwt3T0

— Emmet Halm (@ehalm_) April 13, 2025

Hope your message was well received by a bunch of sweaty rich drug addled unemployed pretend retard hippies

— Lisa Says (@LisaPurdue2) April 13, 2025

He didn’t even have to say Trump’s name in order to illicit sheep noises.

NEW: Senator Bernie Sanders shows up to Coachella in California to rant about President Trump in front of tens of thousands of people.

The Democrat 2028 playbook is to get the drugged-out 20-year-olds to the polls.

“We need you to stand up to fight for justice, to fight for… pic.twitter.com/72ZivjD7DY

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 13, 2025

Then he hung around backstage while the latest manufactured music industry pawns slathered their arms all over him for insta clout.

Clairo and Bernie Sanders at Coachella. pic.twitter.com/370Wx9uoJt

— Pop Base (@PopBase) April 13, 2025

Do you know the avg ticket price to attend this event bro? 🤣

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) April 13, 2025

He “Anti Capitalist” being at one of the biggest Capitalistic events of the year is HILARIOUS…

— 𝕰𝖒𝕲 (@Emilio2763) April 13, 2025

Bernie’s appeal to these people is surely going to lead to a Marxist revolution, right?

Nothing says out of touch… like a 442 year old socialist talking to kids on molly at a rock concert

— Dr. Mike Libby MD. Esq. (@BasementLoner) April 13, 2025

Bernie, you’ve been in office for 17 years, how have you moved the needle for “climate change”, “women’s rights”, and “build an economy that works for all not just a few”?

In the 17 years you’ve enriched yourself to be part of the 1% economic level on a government salary.… pic.twitter.com/Tpt4echmSH

— Catherine Shiang (@cathshiang) April 14, 2025

Fighting the rich at a $600 a ticket festival where tacos and a lemonade cost $100.

Hahaha. https://t.co/K5n1cOgKL4

— Loudoun James (@LoudounJames1) April 13, 2025

Sanders, of course, has been yelling about the US rapidly hurting toward Oligarchy since the early 90’s.

He REALLY didn’t like it when his grift was exposed last week, and shared by Elon Musk.

Bernie Sanders is raging at Elon for posting about Bernie’s decades-long warning about Oligarchy:

“Just yesterday, our good friend Elon Musk sent out a tweet. And in essence he said Bernie Sanders has been talking about the growth of oligarchy year after year after year.”… pic.twitter.com/zesPWYuEir

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 12, 2025

Looks like my oligarchy video got under Bernie’s skin. 🤣

No Bernie, you didn’t say we are an oligarchy. You said last week that we are still rapidly moving towards oligarchy. Same message as 1993 and every year since. 🤡

At least you are finally updating your talking points. https://t.co/VWHNzAo4Mq

— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 12, 2025

Quick, fly in AOC first class to put a halt to the Oligarchy.

AOC flies first-class to Bernie Sanders’ ‘Fight Oligarchy’ rally as critics pan lefty pol for battling inequality one ‘mimosa at a time’ https://t.co/uL4OmSm6Zs

— New York Post (@nypost) April 7, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

President Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda – more specifically, the revival of domestic critical supply chains to reinforce hemispheric defense – scored a massive win this morning as Nvidia announced plans to design and build AI supercomputer factories in the United States for the first time.

Nvidia outlined new initiatives aimed at strengthening America’s chip manufacturing sector:

• Nvidia is localizing AI chip and supercomputer manufacturing in the U.S. for the first time, partnering with TSMC, Foxconn, Wistron, Amkor, and SPIL.

• Over 1 million square feet of manufacturing space has been commissioned for Blackwell chips and AI supercomputers in Arizona and Texas.

• Mass production of these chips is expected within 12–15 months.

• Total AI infrastructure by Nvidia could total $500 billion over the next four years.

“Tens of ‘gigawatt AI factories’ are expected to be built in the coming years,” Nvidia said, adding, “Manufacturing Nvidia AI chips and supercomputers for American AI factories is expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive trillions of dollars in economic security over the coming decades.”

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang commented on ‘Made In America’ supercomputers: 

“The engines of the world’s AI infrastructure are being built in the United States for the first time” and “adding American manufacturing helps us better meet the incredible and growing demand for AI chips and supercomputers, strengthens our supply chain and boosts our resiliency.” 

Nvidia’s move will bolster America’s chip manufacturing sector and reduce reliance on high-tech AI chips from Taiwan — a supply chain that Beijing could disrupt at any moment with an invasion of Taipei.

Rebuilding these critical domestic supply chains plays into a broader theme of hemispheric defense as the world fractures into a more profound bipolar state by the 2030s.  

The race to secure supply chains and strengthen hemispheric defense is intensifying. That’s because the technological competition between the U.S. and China is set to go into hyperdrive. Control over AI chips and their applications — including EVs, clean tech, humanoid robots, drones, low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and large language models (LLMs) — will be critical. While these may seem like separate industries, they all share a common ecosystem of technologies and supply chains. Whoever dominates these industries will dominate the next decade. 

If America wants to win 2030 – now is the time to bolster domestic supply chains.

President Trump’s 90-day pause on his “reciprocal” tariffs for countries that did not retaliate—excluding China—has allowed Tim Cook’s Apple to ramp up production of smartphones, tablets, and laptops in India and Vietnam.

Sources familiar with Apple’s supply chains told Nikkei Asia that top suppliers in India were instructed to ramp up iPhone production. Yet the people noted that factory utilization rates were already at maximum levels, making it challenging to bring on significant amounts of new production. 

Here’s more from the report:

Apple has helped suppliers purchase equipment that could increase iPhone production in India by several million units, one of the people told Nikkei Asia.

The company expects to produce at least 50 million iPhones there this year and is pushing to make the majority of its upcoming iPhone model bound for the U.S. in India.

It has also told suppliers that the majority of MacBooks and iPads for the U.S. market need to be made in Vietnam, sources briefed on the matter said.

Apple also asked suppliers to ship as many components and parts from China as possible to Southeast Asia and India to support the increasing production for a wide range of products for the U.S. market, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The good news for Apple over the weekend is that U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued updated trade guidance on some of the highest-value goods—such as computers, chips, and smartphones—from reciprocal tariffs (though they remain subject to a 20% basic tariff if made in China). However, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told This Week host Jonathan Karl on Sunday that these consumer devices will be subject to separate tariffs in the coming months.

After Pres. Trump exempts tech like phones, computers and chips from new tariffs, Commerce Sec. Howard Lutnick tells @JonKarl they will be included in semiconductor tariffs to be released in coming months.

“This is not a permanent sort of exemption.” https://t.co/p9xXrT2Xvx pic.twitter.com/RoVH72kfM1

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) April 13, 2025

Last week, Appel scrambled five emergency air freight shipments of iPhones and other products from India and China to the U.S. to avoid the tariff war. 

Trade data via the supply chain platform Sayari shows that Foxconn India is a major iPhone supplier.

Nikkei’s report also noted that Apple informed suppliers to “accelerate the shift of component production, such as printed circuit boards, to Thailand and other non-China locations.” 

“We are requested to ship all of our components to Southeast Asia and India by air as much as possible. … It’s like the client is scooping up all the inventories to move them outside of China,” said an executive with an Apple component supplier, adding that his company will have to shoulder the extra air-shipping costs.

“Apple is very serious about auditing multiple sites in Thailand for component production,” a manager at another key Apple supplier told Nikkei Asia. “The accelerating diversification out of China is ongoing.”

Meanwhile, Meta, HP, and Dell have also instructed suppliers to increase production in Vietnam and other Southeast Asia countries to avoid China tariffs. The direct result of Trump’s trade war is to push the supply chains of US companies out of China and toward friendshoring or re-shoring. 

It’s been the case for years that government entitlements have provided low-income families with a higher standard of living than those earning substantially more.

But, as we pointed out in 2010 and 2012 that ‘benefit’ can backfire as “work is punished.”

“the single mom is better off earning a gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“

Fast forward to the pandemic, and we find that the $2.2 trillion 2020 CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economy Security) Act left many employed Americans making less than their unemployed counterparts.

For minimum wage and low wage workers the difference between what they are being paid to work and would receive on unemployment is no doubt the most crushing. Many struggle to pay their bills as is and receive no benefits to complicate the equation. While they are dodging coughs and bringing in masks from home for $10 an hour, others who made the same money are now being paid to sit safely at home.

Now, the same thing is happening in the UK, where getting a raise could leave one thousands of pounds poorer.

Welcome to the childcare cliff, a policy anomaly so irrational that a mere £1 pay rise can leave parents worse off by tens of thousands.

This September, the government’s expansion of free childcare in England – offering 30 hours of weekly care for children under three – was meant to ease the burden on working families. But for any household where one parent earns more than £100,000, this support vanishes entirely.

It’s a line drawn in concrete. 

Earn £99,999? Full benefits. Earn £100,000? You lose thousands.

A 50% Raise Just to Break Even

According to new analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) cited by the Financial Times, a London-based parent with two young children would need to earn over £149,000 just to break even vs. a colleague earning £99,999 who receives full childcare support. That’s a nearly 50% raise required simply to stand still.

And the system doesn’t stop there. As soon as you hit six figures, the personal allowance – the first £12,570 of tax-free income – begins to taper off. Combined with other clawbacks, this creates an effective marginal tax rate of 60% for earnings between £100,000 and £125,140 (and is even higher in Scotland).

In practical terms, this turns a middle-class promotion into a financial landmine.

Parents Penalized for Working

The result is both absurd and tragic: professionals across the country are turning down promotions, cutting their hours, and abandoning second children altogether – not for personal reasons, but because the math just doesn’t work.

FT reader Davina (name changed to maintain anonymity), a finance worker and mother of two, has dropped to a four-day workweek just to remain eligible for childcare benefits. “This year, we are £250 per month better off as a result, although I know that going part-time has affected my promotion prospects,” she told FT, adding “I feel bad for complaining, as we aren’t poor, but we’re still spending £2,750 per month on childcare even after the government help, and the reduction in my take home pay means we can’t afford holidays or a car.”

Others are stuffing bonuses into pensions just to stay under the line—sacrificing near-term cash flow for long-term retirement savings they can’t touch for decades.

‘Rob,’ a tech worker, rejected two promotions to avoid the cliff. Eventually, he quit to become a contractor, sacrificing stability for income he could control. He and his wife made a brutal decision: they won’t have a second child.

These aren’t isolated cases, they’re rational responses to irrational policy. One FT reader had to pause fertility treatment after a modest raise triggered thousands in unexpected taxes.

Others are gaming the system with salary sacrifice, electric vehicle schemes, and leave-buying tricks. Some have gone self-employed, precisely to limit taxable income. And across sectors, women are disproportionately going part-time, often doing full-time work for part-time pay just to preserve childcare support.

In the NHS – where long hours and defined-benefit pensions make income unpredictable, the effects are especially damaging. Consultants are turning down shifts to stay below the threshold. Some doctors, including those in cancer care and psychiatry, say they can’t afford to work more.

“I am a hospital consultant, and feel trapped by this,” another person (‘Martha’) told the Times. “I have tried to put as much as possible into my NHS pension, but I am really worried about what my tax bill is going to be next year. I can’t take on any extra work for the NHS because it would penalise me too much.”

Fiscal Drag Becomes Fiscal Punishment

The £100,000 threshold was set in 2017. It hasn’t moved since. Had it tracked inflation, it would now sit above £130,000. But instead, more than 1.8 million taxpayers now fall within range, with that number expected to climb as frozen thresholds and rising salaries collide.

This stealth taxation – known as fiscal drag – helps Chancellors raise billions without raising headline rates. But it creates cliffs, not curves, and encourages less work, not more.

IFS economists say that by 2028, 2.2 million people will fall into this trap, facing both the childcare cliff edge and the personal allowance taper.

Fixing this mess wouldn’t be cheap, but it wouldn’t be unaffordable either. The IFS estimates that scrapping the childcare cliff edge entirely would cost a few hundred million pounds – a rounding error in the national budget.

The true cost of inaction, however, is likely far higher: lost productivity, lower tax receipts, stalled careers, and family planning decisions dictated by HMRC.

Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates is blunt: “This is what happens when successive governments try to hide the real tax rate with tricks. What started as a small anomaly is now a serious problem.”

The political calculus is simple: it’s easier to complicate the lives of a few high earners than face the wrath of the many. 

But as this broken system snares more and more working families, inaction is becoming a choice with economic—and human—costs.

Reflecting some mix of anti-Trump sentiment, unease over American treatment of foreigners and economic worries, European travel to the United States plummeted 17% in March versus the same month last year.  More broadly, global tourism to the USA dropped 12% — the biggest decline since travel restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

There’s even more trouble coming: Hotel giant Accord, with brands that include upper-tier brands Sofitel, Novitel and Fairmont, said Europeans’ summer bookings in the USA are down 25%. People aren’t merely opting not to visit the United States — more foreigners are cancelling trips they’ve already booked. The cancellation rate leapt 17% in the first quarter compared to last year — with the cancellation rate among French, German and British would-be visitors soaring 40%.  

There’s one seasonal factor that contributed to the fall-off: Easter fell in March last year, but April this year. However, Adam Sacks, president of Tourism Economics says Easter alone can’t account for the depth of the descent, telling the Financial Times that other data shows “it’s very clear something is happening . . . and it is a reaction to Trump.” He’s not the only one in the travel business pointing a finger at the White House. Didier Arino of French travel consultant firm Protourisme also blamed anti-Trump sentiment, and expressed amazement at the scale of the impact. “It’s unheard of. It’s happened before in a country at war, in a county where there was a security risk, or risk of health crisis, but in a normal situation, we’ve never seen this kind of turnaround,” he said.

Similarly, the CEO of luxury French tour operator Voyageurs du Monde told CNN his US bookings since Trump’s inauguration have fallen 20%, saying, “In the 30 years I’ve been in this business, I’ve never seen anything like this for any destination. It’s huge.” Tourism represents 2.5% of America’s economy, and international travelers spent $253 billion on US trips last year. 

Given the intensity of Western leftists’ revulsion over Trump, it’s reasonable to attribute some or maybe even most of the decline to politics and policies, but not all of it. With recession fears mounting, some travelers are likely opting against transatlantic travel to brace their personal balance sheets against potential trouble ahead.

That said, there are some Trump policies that hit travel where the rubber meets the proverbial road. Never mind the Trump administration’s progress in securing the Mexican border against infiltration of Venezuelan gang members and other would-be illegal immigrants. It’s an increasingly aggressive treatment of credentialed visitors that’s generating unease among would-be Western tourists. 

This is an absolutely horrific story.

This bloke has been living in the US for seven years *with a valid visa* but had it cancelled, a 5-year entry ban imposed and was deported to Australia by ICE.

The US is no longer a safe country to visit.https://t.co/tCXACIr7Bq pic.twitter.com/Zz8ZJ2BX66

— taipan168 (@taipan168) April 11, 2025

For example, British citizen Farah Mendlesohn told CNN she forfeited $1,000 in nonrefundable commitments and cancelled a long-planned summer trip to Oregon, Seattle and Vancouver after reading about Welsh resident Becky Burke, who was detained for 19 days and then expelled — wearing leg chains, waist chains and handcuffs — on the allegation that she worked illegally while in the US on a tourist visa. Burke was halfway through a US-Canada backpacking trip when she was nabbed leaving for Vancouver. Her parents told BBC she may have run afoul of US law by helping host families “around the house,” but was treated like Hannibal Lecter. 

Mendlesohn also feared that her previous provocative writing against sweeping UK anti-terrorism measures may have invited harsh treatment by border and customs officials. That’s not far-fetched in light of the Trump administration’s campaign to expel foreigners whose beliefs clash with those of the administration.

Mahmoud Khalil never expressed “hatred” toward the US. To the contrary, he came to the US, is married to an American with an American baby on the way, on a path to citizenship.

He criticized Israel. But because you’re drowning in AIPAC money, you think Israel is part of the US. https://t.co/bfHOCNNuhz

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 12, 2025

In the most prominent case, Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil — charged with no crime — was detained and whisked off to a prison in Louisiana over his activism relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s “personal” determination that Khalil is antisemitic and that his continued presence in the USA would “undermine a significant foreign policy objective.” A federal judge affirmed Rubio’s unilateral, unchecked power to make such determinations under a 1952 law, with affected individuals holding no right to due process or ability to challenge the rationale. 

Danish citizen Robert Christiansen cancelled a trip to Texas where he’d planned to surprise his daughter who’s studying there. He attributed his decision to flight safety worries, and to the fact that he’s used social media to voice political views that vary from the Trump administration’s, concluding, “I cannot trust the government of the United States.” 

While Christiansen’s unease about vacationing in Dallas could be overblown, we must say, those are words for everyone on Earth to live by — no matter who’s in the White House.  

Authored by Sarah Kuehberger and Wilson Beaver via The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation,

Since the election of President Donald Trump, Europeans have been vocal in their criticism of nearly every U.S. policy issue, often professing that “transatlantic relations are over” and “this government does not care much about the fate of Europe.”

This negative sentiment, echoed by politicians and amplified by a biased media landscape, has led to a rapid decline in European trust toward their longest-standing ally.

Amidst their frustration over differences in perspective, Europeans should pause and consider the underlying goals of current U.S. foreign and defense policy, rather than resorting to cheap insults.

While there has indeed been a seismic shift in transatlantic relations, this change should be regarded as positive. The Trump administration believes that America’s allies must strengthen themselves, as peace can only be achieved through strength.

The US Has Been Carrying the Weight

Since World War II, the United States has consistently maintained hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe to deter first Soviet, then Russian aggression. They helped rebuild Western European economies through the Marshall Plan and provided the nuclear umbrella for the continent. Despite these sacrifices, concerns about burden-sharing are unfortunately not a new issue. Even during the early years of the NATO alliance, when significant threats loomed over the European continent, the U.S. spent disproportionately more on defense.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many European countries reduced their defense spending, relying on the “peace dividend” and assuming U.S. protection would continue. In 2006, NATO defense ministers formally agreed that members should aim to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense to ensure military readiness. However, compliance remained low, and the same impulse continued through the Obama years.

During the first Trump administration, NATO members finally started taking the warnings more seriously, albeit reluctantly at first. Today, even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledges the impact, stating, “President Trump, thanks to him, we pushed up the defense spending.”

The US Can’t Be as Generous as It Was

Europeans take pride in their welfare states, but they should acknowledge that these were subsidized by the American security guarantee, which reduced Europe’s defense spending concerns and enabled investment in other areas. Unfortunately, times are changing, and given the geopolitical threat posed by the rise of Communist China, the U.S. can no longer be as generous as it once was. This reality, underscored by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at last week’s foreign ministers conference in Brussels, means that Europe must step up its efforts.

The US Won’t Leave Europe High and Dry

Shifting priorities doesn’t mean the U.S. is leaving Europeans defenseless. Rubio has clearly acknowledged the Trump administration’s commitment to NATO, despite anxious comments to the contrary.

The current geopolitical moment necessitates that the United States focus its efforts on the rise of China. For this vision to succeed, European NATO members will need to assume responsibility for the bulk of conventional deterrence in Europe. This should not be seen as a burden but as a reality of life and an opportunity for greater operational autonomy for European NATO members.

American conservatives do not want a Europe that is fully dependent on the United States. Instead, they are seeking to build up a strong and prosperous Europe that can project power in its own neighborhood and act as a force for stability with minimal American assistance.

Europeans should welcome this and rise to the occasion.

Former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made an unexpected admission during a recent CNBC interview while discussing the topic of President Trump’s controversial rare earths minerals deal with Ukraine.

Not only did Blinken appear to approve of some kind of rare earth minerals plan which would benefit the US, but disclosed that the Biden administration was working on something similar – albeit he characterized the current White House as having the wrong approach.

“Part of the victory package that [Zelensky] put on the table in the last six months of our administration included us working with them on rare earths, on critical minerals,” Blinken told journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin in the televised interview. He also described ‘frustrations’ between the Biden admin and Zelensky government, but said the White House under Biden was unwilling to make these public.

Biden was reportedly seeking direct investments in Ukraine’s rare earths sector. To be expected, Blinken slammed the way that Trump is going about putting together a minerals deal, which some critics characterizing it as a big resource grab at a moment Ukraine remains vulnerable and at war.

“What I think we saw put forward in the deal that was proposed was basically a protection racket, without the protection. We want all of this stuff, but you’re really not going to get much for it in terms of protection against Russia from us,” Blinken emphasized in the comments.

A key caveat of Trump’s plan is for Ukraine to reimburse all the assistance the US has provided in the wake of Feb. 2022.

Interestingly Blinken lays out that a minerals plan to ‘pay back’ America actually originated with Zelensky, albeit in a softer form…

😑 Ukraine offered the US Ukrainian rare earth deal in exchange for military aid, “it was one of his (Zelenskyy’s) parts of the Victory Plan,” former US Secretary of State Blinken pic.twitter.com/G8X7vPncz6

— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) April 11, 2025

Zelensky and his European allies have balked at this, and there’s been intense haggling over the plan ever since. It seems White House demands have only gotten wider in scope, however.

But Kiev is also in a desperate position, and feels it has to entertain Trump’s plan on some level, given that US-supplied weapons and intelligence could be completely cut off once again. Trump earlier ordered a halt to weapons for a matter of a few days, but the arms pipeline has since been back on.

Watch Blinken’s full CNBC interview which aired last Thursday below…

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

It turns out that the solution to illegal immigration is instituting a nationwide system of digital identity, issued to every baby at birth and containing all your social, education, financial, medical, and employment information.

At least, according to the 40 or so Labour MPs who co-signed an open letter calling for such a system.

Of course, that digital ID could solve the immigration “problem” should come as no surprise. After all, it can solve every “problem”.

It can make sure our elections aren’t rigged. It can protect our children on the internet. It can prevent the spread of disease. It can lower crime. It can tackle truancy and benefit fraud. It can government eliminate inefficiency.

Oh, it’s good for the economy too!

Yay!

Digital Identity is the Swiss Army knife of political policy. 

It has an attachment for everything, even funny-shaped ones you never use.

That’s why virtually every government in virtually every nation on Earth is keen to get one set up, to make life easier and safer for all of us.

And for no other reason.

This is nothing new. 

They’ve been saying it for years, but this louder and prouder, and worthy of note for that.