Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man the US government has acknowledged erroneously deporting, is alive in a prison in El Salvador, according to a new State Department court filing.

“It is my understanding based on official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador that Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador,” said State Dept. official Michael Kozak in a sworn declaration to a federal judge in Washington. “He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.”

The filing is the first since a federal judge overseeing the Abrego Garcia case ordered the Trump administration to provide daily updates on how they’re effectuating his return to the United States.

Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadorian national, was illegally residing in the United States when he was arrested and deported to El Salvador in March due to what US authorities claim was a “prominent role” in the MS-13 gang.

While an immigration judge had previously ruled that there was strong evidence the man was a member of MS-13, a different judge issued a withholding of removal – preventing his deportation to his home country over concerns that he would not be safe there.

The US government subsequently admitted that the deportation was due to an administrative error.

On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government must “facilitate” the release of Garcia from El Salvadorian custody, and make sure his case “is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump said on April 11 that he will honor the Supreme Court order.

As the Epoch Times notes further, when asked about the court ruling, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: “If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that.”

“I respect the Supreme Court,” the president added.

The federal government removed illegal immigrant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador on March 15. He is now detained at the Center for Terrorism Confinement, a maximum security prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador, the Supreme Court noted in its April 10 opinion. The opinion was unsigned. No justices dissented.

The Trump administration agreed a month ago to pay El Salvador $6 million to detain about 300 alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and two alleged members of the MS-13 gang in its prisons for one year. The United States has designated both criminal gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.

The government has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order and that his deportation took place because of an “administrative error.” The government has also acknowledged that his removal to El Salvador was “illegal,” the court said.

After an immigration judge signs a deportation order, he then has discretion to issue an order withholding removal, which prevents the government from moving forward with the deportation. The removal of the person is said to be withheld, leaving the individual in a kind of legal limbo.

At the same time, the government said that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang. Returning him to the United States would place the public in danger, the government says, according to the Supreme Court.

Abrego Garcia denies being a member of MS-13 and has said that he “has lived safely in the United States with his family for a decade and has never been charged with a crime,” the court said.

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 7,” according to the high court.

On April 7, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to vacate the judge’s order, arguing it would interfere with the president’s authority to manage the nation’s foreign relations.

Xinis “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil, but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight,” Sauer wrote.

Later the same day, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily stayed the order to give the justices time to consider the case.

Three days later in the April 10 opinion, the Supreme Court said that although the district court’s deadline has passed, the rest of its order is still in effect, and returned the case to that court for clarification.

“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the opinion said.

Meanwhile, on April 11, Xinis ordered the Trump administration to provide daily updates on Abrego Garcia’s situation starting on April 12.

At the April 11 hearing, when Xinis asked Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign where Abrego Garcia was, Ensign said he didn’t possess that information. The lawyer also declined to offer additional information on what the government intends to do to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

The judge told Ensign it was “extremely troubling” that there was no evidence available as to Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts.

T.J. Mascaro and Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

Authored by Zoltan Vardai via CoinTelegraph.com,

A New York lawmaker has introduced legislation that would allow state agencies to accept cryptocurrency payments, signaling growing political momentum for digital asset integration in public services.

Assembly Bill A7788, introduced by Assemblyman Clyde Vanel, seeks to amend state financial law to allow New York state agencies to accept cryptocurrencies as a form of payment.

It would permit state agencies to accept payments in Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash, according to the bill’s text.

Source: Nysenate.gov

According to the bill, state offices could authorize crypto payments for “fines, civil penalties, rent, rates, taxes, fees, charges, revenue, financial obligations or other amounts,” as well as penalties, special assessments and interest.

Cryptocurrency legislation is becoming a focal point in New York, with Bill A7788 marking the state’s second crypto-focused legislation in a little over a month.

In March, New York introduced Bill A06515, aiming to establish criminal penalties to prevent cryptocurrency fraud and protect investors from rug pulls.

Crypto-focused legislation has gathered momentum since President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, with Trump signaling during his campaign that his administration intends to make crypto policy a national priority, as well as making the US a global hub for blockchain innovation.

New York may mandate state “service fee” on crypto payments

If passed, the bill would mark a significant shift in how New York handles digital assets. It would allow state entities to integrate cryptocurrency into the payment infrastructure used for collecting public funds.

The proposal also includes a clause allowing the state to impose a service fee on those choosing to pay with crypto. According to the text, the state may require “a service fee not exceeding costs incurred by the state in connection with the cryptocurrency payment transaction.” This could include transaction costs or fees owed to crypto issuers.

Assembly Bill A7788 has been referred to the Assembly Committee for review and may advance to the state Senate as the next step.

New York’s legislation comes shortly after the state of Illinois passed a crypto bill to fight fraud and rug pulls after the recent wave of insider schemes related to memecoins, Cointelegraph reported on April 11.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,.

Records from a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are missing, the CDC’s parent agency has informed a U.S. senator.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials told Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in March that “they are having difficulty locating records,” Johnson said on April 9.

More recently, HHS officials said that Dr. Tom Shimabukuro’s records “remain lost and, potentially, removed from HHS’s email system altogether,” Johnson added.

Shimabukuro, the CDC, and HHS did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.

Shimabukuro is director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, which researches the safety of vaccines, according to the CDC’s website. He frequently spoke at vaccine meetings, at times offering false information, The Epoch Times previously reported.

He was also involved in vaccine research, including monitoring vaccine safety in pregnant women.

Johnson, the chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, disclosed the situation with Shimabukuro’s records in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Juliet Hodgkins, the acting inspector general of HHS.

“Dr. Shimabukuro’s potential mishandling of his official records is highly concerning. His actions, if true, would have directly obstructed my multi-year oversight efforts of the COVID-19 vaccines and would be in clear violation of my November 19, 2024 demand to HHS, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration to ‘preserve all records referring or relating to the development, safety, and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines,’” Johnson wrote.

“Furthermore, given Dr. Shimabukuro’s role at CDC, which includes monitoring adverse events relating to the COVID-19 vaccines, his communications are directly responsive to my January 28, 2025, subpoena to HHS for records relating to the development and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress.”

The senator also said that if Shimabukuro mishandled records, he may have violated laws such as the Federal Records Act.

Johnson asked Bondi, Patel, and Hodgkins to investigate whether Shimabukuro and other officials within HHS deleted or destroyed agency records, including any attempts to avoid congressional oversight or Freedom of Information Act requests.

Spokespersons for the Department of Justice and HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed in emails to The Epoch Times that the agencies received the letter, and declined to comment further. The FBI declined to comment.

Another HHS official, National Institutes of Health scientist Dr. David Morens, was previously revealed—through emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act—to have talked about how he learned to make messages disappear after requests under the act were lodged.

“So I think we are all safe,” he wrote in one of the emails in 2021.

Johnson also requested an HHS inspector general investigation of Morens. The HHS hasn’t confirmed whether any probes were initiated, according to Johnson.

“To date, the HHS OIG refuses to confirm that it has initiated any of these investigations. The HHS OIG’s lack of transparency with Congress is unacceptable,” Johnson wrote. “If the allegations regarding Dr. Shimabukuro’s mishandling of agency records are true, then it will certainly raise questions about the effectiveness of the HHS OIG’s oversight and cast doubt on whether the HHS OIG actually did what I asked it to do nineteen months ago.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said on Sunday that Congress should hold hearings to investigate whether there was any insider trading after President Donald Trump encouraged people to buy stocks before reversing his tariff policy last week.

“Do you think there’s any evidence that anyone profited off of these tariffs?” asked Meet the Press host Kristen Welker.

To which Booker replied: “There is enough of an offense here, there’s enough smoke here that should demand congressional hearings, adding “We are – we are a separate and equal branch of government. The Constitution lays out very clearly that Congress is not supposed to be spineless and submissive. It is supposed to hold oversight over the president. These are real, legitimate, justifiable questions.”

NBC’s Kristen Welker asks Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) if he has any actual evidence that anyone in the Trump administration profited from the tariff announcements or if the call to investigate is just a fishing expedition.

Watch as he provides a lot of word salad, but zero claims… pic.twitter.com/cMvbX1MVER

— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) April 13, 2025

Democrats began raising hell after Trump posted “This is a great time to buy” on Truth Social as stocks were in a downward spiral following the administration’s chaotic tariff rollout. Hours after the post, the administration announced that most of the steep tariffs would be temporarily reduced, sending the stock market sharply higher.

That said, Democrats have not produced a shred of evidence to support the allegations that Trump, his advisors, or his allies acted on inside information regarding the trades.

Last week a group of 19 House Democrats sent a letter to the head of the SEC demanding an “immediate investigation into possible insider trading and market manipulation” in the days and hours leading up to the president’s reversal on tariffs.

Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Ruben Gallego of Arizona also sought answers from the White House and the U.S. trade representative on their concerns about any illegal actions related to Trump’s tariff moves. -NBC News

Did someone act on what was coming?

Alright, I think people knew of the tariff pause and traded it beforehand.

You can see before Trump posted “buy” on Truth Social, traders opened $QQQ $TQQQ and $SPY calls

RIGHT BEFORE THE NEWS, someone opened $SPY 509 calls, expiring TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those calls are… pic.twitter.com/8hG2i5Oijt

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 9, 2025

Authored by J.B.Shurkc via American Thinker,

President Trump, Treasury secretary Bessent, and Commerce secretary Lutnick are effectively teaching a course right now on the fundamentals of international trade.  

How many Americans previously understood that nations around the world use tariffs and other economic tools to keep American-made products from reaching their markets?  

Hasn’t the United States been spreading the gospel of “free trade” for centuries?  

Doesn’t commitment to “free markets” separate the civilizational West from more authoritarian countries with “closed” economies?  

Shouldn’t a “rules-based international order” ensure that the rules are the same for all participating countries?

Or asked another way: How “free” can international trade be if its proponents depend upon a labyrinthine system of rules that requires thousand-page treaties and guidance from the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, central banks galore, the Bank for International Settlements, international standards organizations, law firms specializing in commercial and maritime law, more law firms specializing in the administrative law of specific nations, even more law firms specializing in the labor and environmental laws of each nation, and an ever-increasing number of national and international regulatory bodies to tell producers what they can and cannot produce, how and when to produce what they are permitted to produce, and whom to pay for the “privilege” of producing it — all while restricting which domestic consumers around the world are permitted to purchase what the aforementioned producers end up producing?

That long question only scratches the surface of the sheer complexity of international trade, yet even in its oversimplification, it smacks of coercion, extortion, overbearing micromanagement, government corruption, and blatant racketeering.  It oozes the “command and control” odor we associate with a Soviet-type, socialist, or similarly centrally planned economy.  Nothing about “free trade” in practice sounds remotely free.

With the Trump/Bessent/Lutnick tariff tutorial currently being broadcast from the White House, millions of Americans are learning for the first time that the United States operates within an international market system that does not impose reciprocal entry costs.  That is to say, countries around the world collect fees from American producers before they are allowed to sell their goods in those markets, while the U.S. typically charges foreign producers much less — or nothing at all.  

Since the conclusion of WWII, the United States has directly subsidized Europe through various forms of a Marshall Plan, originally meant to help Europe rebuild after the war by restricting American competitors from selling in Europe while encouraging European producers to sell in the United States.  

Was the Marshall Plan necessary to resurrect Europe’s economy? 

 Perhaps — although many economists have argued that it so distorted market incentives that Europe’s economy is much less strong today than it otherwise would be.  Regardless, most Americans have been intentionally kept in the dark that this two-tiered system of trans-Atlantic trade has persisted for eighty years.

Europe is not alone in benefiting from “rules-based” trade advantages with the United States.  The U.S. handcuffs its producers in numerous ways.  If some country within America’s sphere of influence depends upon a particular agricultural crop or mineral export to sustain its national standard of living, then there is almost certainly a paragraph tucked away in the thirteenth section of the fifty-ninth chapter of some fourteen-hundred-page international treaty making it more difficult for American producers to grow, mine, ship, or sell that product to the other country’s detriment.  That’s one form of what foreign policy snobs like to call “soft power.”  

It’s a way for the United States to exert influence by effectively saying, “If you do what we say, we’ll prop up your nation’s economy.  And if you’re really obedient, the U.S. Agency for International Development or the National Endowment for Democracy will throw a little cold, hard cash at your political leaders.”

Now, if you’re building empires, that might be a splendid tactic.  It is an inexpensive way to expand American power around the world.  It fosters the image that the United States respects the sovereignty of individual nation-states while creating the conditions for the U.S. government to hold a nation’s economic future in its hands.  No doubt many of the countries that have flourished under America’s security umbrella are far better off today than they would have been had they become vassal states to the Soviet Union last century or communist China this century.  Nonetheless, this kind of manipulation of international trade comes at a cost to any American farmer or entrepreneur who is hamstrung due to the State Department’s “soft power” games.

There is a strange — and perhaps quite dangerous — disconnect between the way most Americans see their country and the way the U.S. government actually operates.  A reasonable, patriotic American believes that the United States is a great and powerful country with unique influence on the world stage.  Yet citizens still see it as a nation with distinct borders, a distinct culture, distinct interests, and a distinct Constitution that limits federal powers while ensuring that the American people are ably represented in their government.  The U.S. government, on the other hand, sees itself as the international headquarters of a global empire that has no borders; includes all cultures; pursues competing interests; acts without constitutional constraint; and represents international banks, corporations, and institutions with no allegiance to the political culture, historical inheritance, or territorial sovereignty of the United States.

The result of this disconnect is striking: While the American people expect their government to do what’s best for them and their country, the U.S. government does what’s best for itself and the expansion of its empire.  If international companies can profit from illegal immigration, then the federal government will ignore its own immigration laws and even fly illegal aliens into the United States.  If international banks can profit from slave labor manufacturing in communist China, then the federal government will outsource entire industries to its geopolitical enemy.  If the European Union and the World Economic Forum can use U.S. military and economic support to create totalitarian systems of control across the continent, then the federal government will spend itself to financial death in order to sustain the “New World Order’s” globalist hegemony. 

Americans didn’t vote for open borders, endless wars, forty trillion dollars of debt, or a hollowed out economy dependent on overseas slave labor.  

The U.S. government ignored their wishes and the limits of its constitutional powers and constructed a global empire anyway.

In truth, the American empire hasn’t been interested in “free trade” since at least WWI.  The Great War, coincidentally enough, started roughly six months after the Federal Reserve System was forced upon the American public in a corrupt congressional vote two days before Christmas 1913.  The creation of a “central bank” was a dead giveaway that markets would henceforth be controlled.  Nothing that is centralized can be said to operate according to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.”  From that point on, central bankers chose the “winners” and “losers” in the American economy, and “free trade” became a euphemism that global oligarchs whispered to the American people while stealing every last cent from their pockets.  

Before the Federal Reserve, Americans had gold-backed currency, owned real property, paid little in taxes, and moved up the social ladder faster than anywhere else in the world.  Since the imposition of a central bank, fiat dollars have lost most of their value, banks own most Americans’ homes, American tax obligations have exploded, and indebted workers are less well off than their parents.   

President Trump’s tariff policy is only the beginning.  He is setting the stage for the end of the income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve.  Getting there requires unshackling the American economy and unleashing Americans’ entrepreneurial spirit.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

For anyone who has been reading the T-Report for the past few months, you know that we have become increasingly concerned about the administration’s tariff policy and its impact on markets and the economy.

As recently as Thursday on Bloomberg TV, I was bearish on the economy and thought that we had evolved from a Trade War to an Economic War with China. That fits the D.I.M.E. framework for levers of power (Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economic).

• On Wednesday (it seems like so much longer ago), after the “reciprocal” tariffs went into place (which weren’t actually reciprocal), the administration backed down in two important ways:
  • The new “reciprocal” rate would be 10% (much more in line with the weighted average tariffs that the U.S. faces with many countries).
  • There would be a 90-day pause, or roll-back, to give time for countries to negotiate.
  • China was singled out as not benefiting from either of the above.

We discussed this briefly on Wednesday and in more detail on Thursday morning when we reviewed the Liberation Day Do-Over. The argument was that the pause and reduced rate was good, but probably not good enough to get us back to pre-Rose Garden levels. This also seemed to fit with the escalation of the Trade War to an Economic War with China.

Then, Friday night, we got some major exemptions:

• Chips, smartphones, and a wide variety of primarily tech-related products have been exempted from tariffs. There are some details that I haven’t seen on what products specifically will be exempted. Also, not sure whether the exemption is from the “reciprocal” tariffs, or if other, older tariffs still apply? Weirdly, I’m fine ignoring the details for the moment.
• China was INCLUDED in the exemptions.

The fact that China was included in the exemptions makes this quite powerful indeed. It certainly seems to ratchet down the full Economic War with China (for now).

Had 10% “reciprocal” tariffs, with 90 days to negotiate, and exemptions for vital/expensive tech been excluded from the initial Liberation Day announcement, we probably all could have been saved a lot of time and suffering!

But they weren’t.

Before moving on to analyzing where I think we are and where we are headed, I want to thank management here at Academy for supporting the macro analysis we supply. I can guarantee that not everyone in management, or every employee, agreed with my take. I’m sure that many of our clients did not either. But the decision was made that the views were generated based on information at hand and by applying logic, as I saw it, to analyze the potential outcome. Provocative? Yes. But intentionally one-sided? No! It was this freedom that probably helped get Academy Securities quoted on the front page of the weekend edition of the FT.

So, let’s move on and figure out what we’ve learned and where this might all be headed.

What We’ve Learned

Here is what I think we’ve learned. It is based on my assessments coming into this weekend, so what I think I’ve learned is based on what I had previously thought.

• Wall Street and Main Street are inextricably linked. Wall Street, Main Street, and the Economy form a Gordian Knot. Anything that affects Wall Street or Main Street impacts the economy, which is the mechanism by which it transfers impact between the two.
• Economic common sense can win out. We are back to something that makes some degree of sense to me. A reasonable pushback on most of the world and time to negotiate. Tail risk related to headlines from this administration will be reduced (after what is likely to be a big gap higher for all asset classes on Monday). Quite simply, if the administration is saying something that doesn’t make sense for the economy (therefore Wall Street and Main Street), then there is chance it won’t occur or will be dialed back rapidly.
• The China Response Function. This is quite likely the most interesting thing and the one I’m most curious about, as I’m not sure I have an incredibly strong view.
  • Did China push back too hard, thinking the administration was hell bent on the original Liberation Day Plans? Did China get sucked into fighting harder than they would have, believing the U.S. was going to play incredible hardball with other countries? That is possible and would put China in a weakened position going forward.
  • Was China extremely well prepared for this all along? Both the administration and China have had at least since November to plan for Trade Wars, and presumably had been making contingency plans long before the election results. Is China prepared to forego about 15% of their exports (and an even smaller portion of their GDP) because they are prepared and have plans in motion to win, and know that their people will tolerate much more suffering, for much longer than the U.S.? Look at their lockdown versus ours – yes, eventually Xi had to capitulate but not right away. It is useful information to know that China seems prepared to fight this out, and might indicate they believe they “hold the cards.”
  • While I can see both sides of the argument, I’m going to be working under the assumption that China was much bettered prepared than the U.S. was. That they have plans in place to fight back across the globe and we had expected relatively quick capitulation (I think the same applies, to a much lower degree, to Europe). That is how I’m interpreting the events of the past few weeks. I could be wrong, I might be missing the “art of the deal” or am incapable of playing 4D Chess, but that’s where I’m coming out as my base case when thinking about how things move.
• The administration has no problem pivoting. While we’ve focused only on the tariff side of things, there have been shifts in geopolitical rhetoric as well. For a while it seemed like Ukraine could do nothing right in the eyes of the administration and Russia could do no wrong, but that has changed. According to Grok, Marco Rubio, all the way back to March 14th, was the last senior official to refer to Canada as the 51st state. Google Trends confirms that searches for 51st State have dropped to the lowest level of the year. (Yes, I am Canadian, but I do think that is an important shift in messaging from the administration). It is great that the administration can pivot and back away from things that may be playing out detrimentally for their plans. However, it is a bit concerning that they are so comfortable starting these types of things in the first place. This should reduce tail risk in markets for now, as it seems that across the board, there is a willingness to reflect and change course.

Bottom line is we’ve learned that all sorts of things might be said and done and even undone, which is both comforting (lower tail risk) and concerning (difficult to see how this is helpful long term). I think we have learned that China was ready to move this from a Trade War to an Economic War, so we better understand what hand they think they have.

Deals

Next on the slate must be the finalization of some deals. My first question is whether these will be tariff deals or comprehensive trade deals? I think we are going to see “trade” deals, which may be trickier to negotiate than we believe, but let’s go through the various steps.

Reduced or eliminated tariffs. This will be relatively easy, and I think it could have been achieved without the Liberation Day process as executed. Many of the tariffs are quite small and are not the primary reason the U.S. isn’t selling goods into that country. I’ve spent a lot of time over the past month examining tariffs, and I am not convinced that even if every country in the world reduced their tariffs to 0, that we would see a surge in U.S. exports.

For small tariffs, it seems unlikely that they are the differential between selling some and selling a lot. At the margin, it was a bit helpful, but only a bit.

Tariffs with low GDP per capita nations can be reduced to zero, but the spending power of those nations is still low. The rich are likely paying up to get the American items already. Plus, many of the American Brands aren’t made in the U.S., so they aren’t impacted – the tariffs are based on where things are made, not where the corporate headquarters are domiciled.

Non-tariff barriers are real. At the “cannot do anything about it” level of non-tariff barriers, is taste or consumer preferences. If for whatever reason things made in the U.S. don’t resonate with consumers in other countries, that can only be fixed by developing products for those markets – which presumably would have occurred if someone thought the demand was worth it. Then you do have rules on things, whether it is emissions, GMO, etc., that are true deterrents to trade, but can you really force countries to change those? This could be difficult to negotiate.

Currency control and manipulation. I have no idea how to determine the amount a currency is undervalued due to manipulation. That is a problem that I just haven’t spent much time on. Maybe it is easy to determine, but I suspect that it is far more difficult to determine an appropriate “level” of manipulation. Currency controls are easier to see, and China does that. But you know who else has tight controls on their currency? India! If the administration is looking closely at currency controls, India, who I think should be a country we work closely with (a long running theme of T-Reports), should come under scrutiny. They might not (probably won’t), because it isn’t pragmatic, but something to watch.

All in all, I think tariffs will be reduced dramatically, and that could have been achieved without the angst of the past two weeks, and it won’t do much to spur American manufacturing.

Which leads me to import quotas.

I suspect we will see import quotas playing a large role in trade negotiations. The President still strongly believes in balanced trade, and forcing countries to buy U.S. goods fits into that view extremely well.

If we just wanted lower tariffs, the President could have given that to Israel as Netanyahu sat in the oval office. Israel had already agreed to eliminate all tariffs on U.S. goods.

So, if we get back to the first principle – more manufacturing in the U.S. – it is reasonable to assume that the administration will try to force the buying of American goods.

Quotas are likely going to be more difficult for countries to accept. Countries may have to change what they consume to meet quotes. This just seems more difficult than reducing tariffs (since I don’t think that will change the trade balance much, but quotas will).

The quotas are likely to have “teeth” to them. From all of our sources who worked with Trump 1.0, it is quite widely accepted that the President is angry that Xi never followed through on buying U.S. agriculture the way he had supposedly committed to do. So, for anyone thinking that countries will just agree to quotas and not honor them, I think you have another thing coming. Quotas are likely to be part of any trade deal and countries will face repercussions if they don’t live up to their obligations.

I believe import quotas, with penalties for violating them (which is completely appropriate if they agree to them), will play an important role in trade deals and may slow things down.

Restricting trade with China. There are 100s if not 1,000s of stories about how China uses loopholes in international trade to get around existing rules and regulations. The administration needs to stop that if the tariffs against China are going to be effective.

• To reduce the opportunities for China to sidestep tariffs, there are likely going to be demands put on countries to reduce trade with China, or to have some sort of reporting requirements that take away these obvious loopholes that have been used in the past.
• I certainly believe countries have been shocked and concerned by the trade policy approach. That may have been the intent and maybe all of the consequences have been intended. Many countries will and already had engaged more fulsomely with China. If the biggest economy in the world, which the U.S. is, acts erratically (from other countries’ perspective), the 2nd largest economy in the world is something you’d potentially turn to. Maybe, thinking of the Eurozone again, as a giant trading block (which it hasn’t acted like since Brexit), may also shake things up. So, if you think U.S. policy can change (dramatically in 4 years, and it may change dramatically this week), would you not turn to China? As sketchy as it seems, that is a logical response, and we are seeing it play out. Which is yet another reason for the U.S. to want to incorporate limitations on trade with China (forcing countries to impose tariffs on China is one possibility).

Basically, I’m at:

• Reduced or not, tariffs will be in 100% of all trade deals. This will be achieved easily and could have been achieved through other means.
  • Non-tariff barriers and currency related issues are too difficult to deal with and point the U.S. in some directions the administration may not want to go in, so they won’t impact deals much.
• Import Quotas. I expect these to play a prominent role in deals. It is a far easier way to guarantee that trade balances correct themselves. It is also far more contentious and difficult to get agreements. I think the U.S. will achieve some success on this front, but it will slow negotiations.
• Including China Clauses. I think the administration will try to force this issue. It will be framed as “us or them” (which is consistent with current messaging). This may be very difficult to achieve. Will countries agree to something along these lines after what they have just gone through? Their people probably do appreciate the cheap prices, and the U.S. itself just capitulated on a big portion of China’s trade with the U.S. Maybe this isn’t something that the U.S. will decide it needs?

Given that this is my speculation (which I view is logical from what we’ve heard from the administration and what we can infer as being required to achieve their stated goals – which I believe are still their goals), I think trade deals are going to take longer to achieve with some of the most important trading partners!

I hope I’m wrong, but the more bells and whistles these trade deals try to incorporate, the more difficult it will be for richer, larger countries to agree to them.

The Economy and Risk Assets

I still think we have a high risk of recession, for a number of reasons, but I can dial back my concerns based on what we know of the policy adjustments.

I can also be comfortable, that for now, the lows are in for stocks and the wides are in for credit spreads, as the economic slowdown I fear will take longer to play out, and might be preempted by rapid policy “realignment” like we’ve just seen.

Rates and the Dollar

I expect, near-term, for rates to do well, and that should help the dollar. We should see inflation expectations drop, and the economic outlook to improve (kind of a wash).

The U.S. is in the process of passing a very large increase in the debt ceiling. There is already talk about a much greater military spending budget (from $800 billion to $1 trillion). If I’m correct on pivoting to domestic growth (see next section), then we could see pressure on the deficit to increase (it would not be the first time an administration with the best of intentions on the deficit decides they need to spend now, to make it better later).

Here’s the bigger play at hand, and why there is only token pushback to DOGE.

You cut enough spending – even if it’s all grift and fraud – you eventually get a recession, guaranteed. That’s all Congress is waiting for cause then they use the “emergency” to vote through a far…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2025

There are 3 things that have not changed that may put ongoing pressure on bond yields:

• 10-year German bonds yield 2.56%. You can get 3.35% in France. 3.26% for 10s in Canada and even 3% in Japan if you go out to 40 years. If you want income in any of those currencies, you can now get it directly, without buying Treasuries and hedging out the FX risk (given recent moves, the FX risk is significant).
   
• Prior to Liberation Day, I’m not sure anyone took very seriously the “threat” that the U.S. would effectively force conversion of Central Bank Holdings of Treasuries into 0% coupon perpetual debt. That is one feature of the Mar-a-Lago Accord that seemed easy to ignore. But if the U.S. is going to spend more on its military (and this conversion is loosely tied to the benefits provided to global trade by the U.S. Navy) while trying to reduce the deficit, this may well be in play. Some level of dollars will likely be held for a variety of reasons, but I can see many central banks wanting to reduce their exposure to this risk. It is a binary type of risk, and it seems like you might be able to avoid it (or reduce it) by holding fewer Treasuries.
   
• According to Grok: “Stephen Miran, Chair of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, proposed fees on foreign holders of U.S. assets, including Treasury bonds, in a November 2024 paper. He suggested this as a way to offset costs of the U.S. dollar’s global role. White House remarks in April 2025 have aligned with this idea, though no official policy has been confirmed.”

  Supposedly this sort of tax has been implemented before, as a way to reduce trade deficits. If taxes force holders to reduce their exposure, it should help the trade with nations of those holders. This would not be limited to Treasuries and would not be limited to central banks. How real is the risk? I have no idea, but it is out there, and once again leaves me in the position of if you don’t need exposure to U.S. Treasuries (and it could encompass more than just Treasuries), then why keep your existing exposure?

I just see lots of reasons for countries, insurance companies, and pension funds in other countries to reduce their exposure to the U.S. Some mechanisms raise money for the U.S. (the fees, unlike tariffs, would be paid by foreigners) and allegedly help on trade balances, so why wouldn’t the administration consider it? Especially now that the tariff fees that they were relying on will be much lower and will start much later?

The basis trade and leveraged exposure played a role in driving yields higher, but the combination of higher yields and dollar weakness seems to point the finger to foreign net selling of Treasuries.

what if pic.twitter.com/34mLPz8FAC

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

I’ve been told that the indirect bids at the auctions throw cold water on the theory that foreigners are selling. Yes, it does make you question the theory, but let’s toss out a couple of other things:

• Everyone in the bond market is going to be watching those indirect bids. People who haven’t used the words indirect bid in their entire career were looking to that number. Any weakness there would have caused a large, immediate sell-off (that was consensus, and I agree with it).
• Is it possible that Bessent, who is an incredibly knowledgeable trader, or Lutnick, whose firm is a Primary Dealer, saw that risk and tried to alleviate it? Maybe calling “friendly” countries and getting them to take down a huge chunk of the auction? That is what I would have done if I were in their shoes.
• If I’m sitting on 100s of billions of dollars in Treasuries, even after having sold a lot of Treasuries, maybe the smart trade is to show up and alleviate the fear surrounding the most publicly available, real-time information on foreign flows by buying a big block at auction? Anyone who has traded knows that sometimes to get the best price for something you are selling, you have to convince the world you are a buyer. Not to mention that after yields back up, it is often profitable to get hit on the auction.

Yes indirect bids typically indicate foreign interest, but these were no ordinary auctions and the price action after the auctions seems to fit the foreign selling narrative.

I believe the Fed will provide temporary support as needed, but QE isn’t coming and the trend of foreigners selling U.S. bonds isn’t over, even after all the recent tariff concessions. If anything, some fears of foreign holders may escalate as this administration goes through their list of ways to reduce the deficit and the two methods above get traction.

Pivot to Domestic Production for Domestic Security

I’m tired of writing, and you are probably tired of reading.

It suffices to say, I’d love to see a pivot towards domestic production of things required for domestic security (I’d love “Fortress North America” chatter to pick up again, but I think that ship may have sailed).

• Release the money from the Chips Act.

At least two cabinet members mentioned U.S. shipbuilding. Put in a massive order for ships that will take years to fill, but also give time for the shipyards to retool and domestic sources of steel and other materials to be developed.

• Focus on domestic deregulation both to extract commodities from the earth, but also to process them!

There is a lot to be done that would achieve many of the policy goals that don’t come at the expense of global relations. Yes, it will hurt the deficit for a bit, but the path to success is much clearer than some of the things that have already been tried.

Bottom Line

I am all in for Make America Great Again. But my starting point was that America Is Already Pretty Darn Good, and not everyone has been picking on us even though everyone is jealous of America Exceptionalism.

I think there is a lot we can do that creates a smoother path to achieve the goals of:

• Rebuilding a robust middle class.
  • Reducing the deficits.
  • Building more here (though a focus on high tech, high margin, and things we need for national security would be ideal).

China remains the country we have to compete with, and even if that competition was slightly dialed back by Friday’s tariff exemptions, it is real competition and I don’t think it will be easy to win. Definitely winnable, but not necessarily easily winnable.

I cannot believe Liberation Day was only April 2nd!

It feels like a lifetime ago, but hopefully, we don’t have to respond to every headline as dramatically as we have had to recently and will be able to make better assessments of the range of likely outcomes for the economy, which impacts both Wall Street and Main Street. For the first time in weeks, I’m optimistic about the outlook for the economy and markets, but it is tempered slightly by all the messiness it took to get here.

The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project—an investigative arm of the conservative think tank that uses FOIA requests, lawsuits, and undercover videos to expose fraud, waste, and bloated government—partnered with Muckraker investigative journalist Anthony Rubin to uncover a taxpayer-funded NGO allegedly providing “ICE evasion training” to help illegal aliens subvert federal immigration laws. Even more alarming, prominent left-wing politicians are reportedly linked to the NGO, which appears to have questionable ties with China. 

Undercover footage obtained by Muckraker and later published online by the Oversight Project shows Carlyn Cowen, the leftist Chief Policy and Public Affairs Officer of the taxpayer-funded Chinese-American Planning Council (CPC), delivering a lecture at a radical activist meeting held in a New York City church on how illegal aliens can subvert federal immigration laws to evade ICE.

Muckraker’s Anthony Rubin explained in the video that CPC sponsored the radical activist event. He called CPC “a radical New York-based NGO that has ties to the highest levels of the Democratic Party in New York State.”  

Oversight Project listed high-level Democrats that are reportedly connected with the radical NGO:

1. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

2. NY Gov. Kathy Hochul

3. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)

4. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) 

Why are prominent Democrat politicians such as@GovKathyHochul, @RepDanGoldman, @NydiaVelazquez, @BilldeBlasio, and many others so closely aligned with the Chinese-American Planning Council (CPC), a radical organization actively conducting ICE evasion training? pic.twitter.com/yp9KkXfIqk

— Muckraker.com (@realmuckraker) April 3, 2025

Rubin explained that the CPC has conducted several seminars to instruct illegal aliens on how to evade ICE agents.

Tax-Payer Funded NGO Caught Giving ICE Evasion Training

Undercover footage obtained by @realmuckraker shows that the radical government-funded Chinese-American Planning Council is training on how to evade @ICEgov and to keep illegal aliens in the United States.

This group has… pic.twitter.com/pQIZkwHd44

— Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) April 3, 2025

A review of public records shows that CPC’s stated mission is “to serve the Chinese-American, immigrant, and low-income communities in NYC by providing services, skills, and resources toward economic self-sufficiency.”

Nowhere in the mission statement does it mention sponsoring seminars that instruct illegal aliens on how to break federal immigration laws.

According to USA Spending, CPC has received several awards from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) totaling more than a million dollars. 

Further review of public records shows CPC’s subsidiaries…

CPC has questionable ties with the People’s Republic of China … 

Back to CPC’s Carlyn Cowen, featured in the undercover video via Oversight Project/Muckraker above, a very recent news release from the organization profiled the leftist organizer – even to the extent of providing critical detail in an image of her – wearing a “Filipinx For Black Lives” shirt.

Cowen’s shirt might be the biggest red flag yet, suggesting that the taxpayer-funded NGO—with questionable ties to China—could potentially be supporting Marxist causes in the U.S., aiming to subvert the nation as China plays the long game to weaken the nation from within.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point said that race is no longer a factor in their admissions processes—a policy shift that could move ongoing litigations closer to settlement.

In separate letters sent Friday to federal courts in Colorado and New York, the academies requested a 60-day pause in the lawsuits brought against them by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), arguing that the admissions policies in question are no longer in effect.

SFFA, which secured a landmark victory in the Supreme Court in 2023 that struck down race-based admissions at both public and private universities, filed lawsuits against the military academies shortly after the ruling. At the time, the court explicitly exempted the academies from the same constitutional standards applied to civilian institutions, with Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledging that they may have “potentially distinct interests” in maintaining a racially diverse officer corps.

The policy changes that prompted the request for a pause, the academies said, stem from directives issued by President Donald Trump, whose administration is committed to dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across all branches of the U.S. military as part a broader effort to refocus the military.

To implement the president’s vision for the military, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered his department to eliminate DEI initiatives and offices, including ceasing the practice of considering one’s race or sex when admitting cadets at military academies.

The U.S. Air Force Academy, based in Colorado Springs, stated in its letter that it has already ended race-based admissions practices following a series of White House and Pentagon directives. These include, most recently, a Feb. 6 memorandum issued by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Gwendolyn DeFilippi, who ordered the elimination of “quotas, objectives, and goals based on sex, race, or ethnicity for organizational composition, academic admission, career fields, or class composition.”

According to the Academy, the core constitutional question in the SFFA lawsuit is whether its prior policy violated the Fifth Amendment by allowing any consideration of race in admissions decisions. However, the service institution’s current admissions process “no longer permits any consideration of race, ethnicity, or sex.”

The Academy asked the court to stay the case for 60 days while it discusses with SFFA to determine whether the policy changes are sufficient grounds to resolve the case.

Similarly, West Point—located north of New York City—stated that it has taken all necessary steps to comply with the president’s orders and agency policy memoranda to ensure that race and ethnicity are no longer factors in admissions. The academy said it would use the 60-day period to continue talks with SFFA toward a possible settlement.

“At this time, the parties are continuing to discuss the details of West Point’s new policy and its effect on this litigation,” the school said in its own letter.

The development comes two weeks after the U.S. Naval Academy said it no longer considers race, ethnicity, or sex as a factor for admission, seeking to pause a lawsuit that was also brought by the SFFA. A federal judge ruled in December 2024 that the Annapolis-based academy could continue using racial preference in its admissions process.

Edward Blum, president of SFFA, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment but has praised the Naval Academy’s decision.

“Students for Fair Admissions welcomes the announcement that the U.S. Naval Academy will end its unfair and illegal race-based admissions policies,” he said in a statement in March. “Racial discrimination is wrong and racial classifications have no place at our nation’s military academies.”

Billionaire venture capitalist endorses President Donald Trump’s push to recalibrate the U.S.-China trade relationship for greater balance.

Peter Thiel, the sole prominent Silicon Valley figure to back Trump in 2016, told fellow billionaire tech investor and American Optimist host Joe Lonsdale that while he’s cautious about commenting on the details of Trump’s trade tariffs on China, he supports the need for a “reset” in relations with the communist regime.

“I’m hesitant to comment since obviously it’s a very, very fluid situation, but something like the sort of reset that they’re talking about now seems where we’re going, where you need a very drastic reset with China,” Thiel told Lonsdale. “In theory you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China.”

Peter Thiel on Trump’s tariffs against China: “You need a very drastic reset with China. In theory, you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China.” pic.twitter.com/Y9bgdDGoYm

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) April 11, 2025

However, Thiel acknowledged the efficiency of certain economic ties with China, such as low-cost labor at factories like Foxconn, but emphasizes the need to address the broader geopolitical rivalry that economists often fail to adequately consider.

“There are ways the economic relationship with China is fairly efficient,” Thiel said. “If people are working for a dollar and a half an hour in a Foxconn factory, we don’t really want to get those jobs in Wisconsin.”

“But it is this geopolitical rivalry where you have to somehow factor in that the economists never are able to factor in properly with China,” the investor continued.

“I’m not sure I would call this the optimistic plan, but the reset in trade that seems desirable to me would be that we radically changed the relationship with China and we sort of induce a lot of other countries to radically change their relationship with China,” he added. “Maybe that’s how we build a stronger western alliance of the free world.”

Thiel then suggested that leveraging AI and reforming anti-business policies could enable some manufacturing to return to the U.S., while also advocating for shifting production from China to countries like Vietnam, which, despite its flaws, poses less of a global geopolitical threat.

“I think there are some parts that can be moved to the US with AI. Maybe also if you change some of the environmental rules and some of the other anti-industrial policies we have in the US,” Thiel told Lonsdale. “But then if parts of this are moved to other emerging market countries. Vietnam is a communist country.”

“It has bad mercantilist policies, but it’s not planning to take over the world. And so at the margins, if we can move things from China to Vietnam, that’s a big win,” the billionaire added.

On Friday, China escalated its tariffs on U.S. imports to 125%, in response to the Trump administration’s statement yesterday that U.S. duties on Chinese goods now stand at 145%, driven by earlier fentanyl-related tariffs.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping said Friday that his country is “not afraid” of a trade war against the U.S.

“The successive imposition of excessively high tariffs on China by the US has become nothing more than a numbers game, with no real economic significance,” a spokesperson for China’s Commerce Ministry said.

“It merely further exposes the US practice of weaponizing tariffs as a tool of bullying and coercion, turning itself into a joke,” the spox added.

Despite Xi’s remarks, Trump is “optimistic” that the U.S. and China can reach an agreement over tariffs, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Friday.

“The president … would be gracious if China intends to make a deal with the United States. If China continues to retaliate, it’s not good for China. The United States of America is the strongest, best economy in the world, as evidenced by the more than 75 countries who have called the administration immediately to cut good deals,” Leavitt said. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A 17-year-old kid from Wisconsin is suspected of murdering his own parents as part of a demented plot to assassinate President Trump and violently overthrow the government, according to charges outlined by local law enforcement.

The teenager, Nikita Casap, has been charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide of his own mother and stepfather, according to a Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department press release.

Casap has also been charged with hiding a corpse, misappropriating ID to obtain money, and theft of property over $10,000.

NEW: The 17-year-old accused of k*lling his parents and lighting candles on their ‘f–king rotten bodies’ was in contact with a Russian speaker and planned to flee to Ukraine

17-year-old Nikita Casap faces criminal charges in Waukesha County for the de*ths of his mother and… pic.twitter.com/fH3TaxLknp

— Unlimited L’s (@unlimited_ls) March 29, 2025

Investigators in the case say that Casap had put together a deranged fantasy whereby he would kill his own parents and use his inheritance to fund an assassinate attempt on Trump and simultaneously launch an anti-government insurgency.

He documented it in a manifesto titled “Accelerate the Collapse,” which was unveiled in a federal affidavit unsealed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Referring to himself as “Awoken” and “accelerationist14,” the teenager detailed his plan to kill Trump, thereby igniting civil unrest all over the country.

🇺🇸 WISCONSIN TEEN WHO KILLED PARENTS SOUGHT ‘CHAOS,’ NOT CASH

FBI says Nikita Casap didn’t just kill his parents for money—he wanted full-blown mayhem.

New court docs reveal he picked Trump on purpose, saying killing the president would “guarantee chaos” and show people that… https://t.co/qfvJiD9uHO pic.twitter.com/uYWi2rGzdM

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 13, 2025

He also wrote of kicking off a race war, in order to “save the white race from Jewish control,” manufacturing bombs, and assassinating “Jewish politicians and billionaires.”

When authorities recovered messages from Casap’s devices, they discovered that he had gotten as far as communicating with international accomplices, seeking out how to acquire explosives and drone weaponisation kits to deliver explosives and poisons, and was formulating an escape to Ukraine after completing “the job.”

Casap wrote that “There’ll never be a perfect revolutionary situation that springs up out of nowhere. We need to create a revolutionary situation ourselves. I do agree that only if terrorism is sustained over a period of time can it be effective.”

“In short, huge amounts of violence will be required,” he further declared, adding “Long past are the days when we can vote for a Hitler to save us. It is time we stop waiting. The best day to commit an attack is today, the next best is tomorrow.“

He further wrote, “It is time that we lead the way to the System collapse. Do absolutely anything you can that will lead to the collapse of America or any other country you live in. This is the only way that we can save the White race. White Revolution is the only solution.”

As this post further explains, Casap was also seemingly obsessed with the Satanic Order of Nine Angles:

The bodies of Casap’s parents were discovered on February 28 inside their home.

ABC News reports that in addition to the murder charges, investigators are pursuing federal charges consisting of conspiracy, attempted presidential assassination, and the use of weapons of mass destruction.

A Wisconsin teen allegedly killed his parents to “obtain the financial means and autonomy necessary” to kill President Donald Trump and overthrow the U.S. government, federal authorities said in court documents. https://t.co/Dq9CFlDZic

— ABC News (@ABC) April 12, 2025

In case you missed it..
Nikita Casap, 17, murdered his mother and stepfather in Wisconsin, stole their money to fund an attack on Trump, hoping to spark a ‘revolution.’ He now faces murder charges after hiding their bodies..

pic.twitter.com/Ux6gTPFIkm

— Chris from Massachusetts AKA TommyboyTrader (@autumnsdad1) April 13, 2025

The unsealed search warrant affidavit in the case is below:

*  *  *

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.