Authored by Larry Behrens via RealClearPolitics,

Give the devil his due: Senator Bernie Sanders never misses an opportunity to remind Americans about our planet’s supposed peril. In a 2023 MSNBC op-ed, he whined: “The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of justice, of health, of economics, and of national security.” According to Sanders, climate change is a moral and existential threat demanding sweeping government intervention and dramatic changes in personal behavior.

Except, of course, when it comes to how he lives his own life.

Sanders’ recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour paints a very different picture. While crisscrossing the country decrying the evils of capitalism, Sanders traveled by—you guessed it—private jet. According to a new analysis from Power The Future, the senator’s 16-stop tour spewed an estimated 62.15 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

To put in context, that’s more than the average American produces in five years.

In fact, Sanders’ emissions from just one tour equal the annual emissions from 15 gasoline-powered cars. It’s the carbon equivalent to driving a gas-powered SUV 150,000 miles, or more than 6 times around the Earth at the equator. And this from a man who wants to regulate what kind of stove you use in your kitchen.

When questioned about the blatant hypocrisy, Sanders didn’t offer contrition. He doubled down. “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United… while 30,000 people are waiting?” he snapped at Bret Baier.

This isn’t the first time Sanders’ climate preaching has clashed with his jet-setting lifestyle. During the 2020 Democratic primary, his campaign shelled out over $1.2 million on private jet travel. Then, as now, the justification was the same: it’s okay when Bernie does it because his cause is righteous.

Let’s call this what it is: Mile High Marxism. Sanders flies high above the rest of us, belching carbon into the atmosphere while demanding working families pay more for energy and drive electric vehicles. He insists there’s a climate emergency but behaves like there’s no emergency at all.

The green movement is filled with elites just like Sanders—people who use the language of crisis to amass power while living above the consequences of their policies. They want to ban gas cars, restrict domestic energy production, and ration electricity, but they’ll never give up their jets, SUVs, or lakefront mansions. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about control.

Consider this: if the planet were truly teetering on the edge of climate catastrophe, would the loudest alarmists be the least willing to change their own behavior? If climate change were the existential threat they claim, wouldn’t they at least attempt to lead by example? Instead, we get moral lectures from the tarmac.

In Bernie Sanders’ perfect world, Americans brace for rising utility bills, submit to EV mandates, and prepare for lifestyle sacrifices in the name of “climate justice.” But the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. Jet fuel for Bernie. Unreliable solar panels for you. We get limits, they get luxury.

Perhaps the clearest signal of the climate emergency’s last gasps is how those who scream the loudest behave when the cameras are off. Sanders and his ilk want us to panic, comply, and pay up. But their actions—lavish travel, carbon excess, and indulgent living—reveal that even they don’t believe their own doomsday rhetoric.

When Bernie Sanders burns more fuel in one tour than a family does in half a decade, he’s not just undermining his credibility—he’s exposing the entire charade. It’s almost as amusing as a multimillionaire “socialist.”

So, the next time you hear Sanders railing about climate justice, remember this: the Mile High Marxist says the world is ending, but he’s still flying first class into the apocalypse. And that tells you everything you need to know.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

US officials who spoke to NBC News say that the Trump administration is looking to “permanently relocate” as many as one million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Libya.

Washington in return “would potentially release to Libya billions of dollars” that have been frozen since the NATO intervention of 2011, according to the claims of the anonymous sources.

“The plan is under serious enough consideration that the administration has discussed it with Libya’s leadership, two people with direct knowledge of the plans and a former US official said,” NBC writes in the fresh report.

“No final agreement has been reached, and Israel has been kept informed of the administration’s discussions,” it adds.

And yet this would see Palestinians go from war-ravaged and destroyed Gaza to being in a situation of another failed state, given Libya has experienced its own turmoil for well over a decade. 

NATO’s 2011 military intervention which led to the overthrow and summary street execution of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi resulted in anything but democracy and stability.

For a time, the country had at least three rival governments and power centers, and currently remains divided into an eastern half and western half. This past week has even seen rival warlords engaged in street gun battles in the capital of Libya, where a UN-backed government holds tenuous control.

NBC says that this ‘Libya option’ – which would be premised on the forced displacement of Palestinians would include offering “financial incentives such as free housing and even a stipend.” Ironically, Gaddafi’s Libya before the US-NATO bombings was a relatively secular place with plenty of state subsidized housing and benefits. 

But since the NATO war, orchestrated under then President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, radical Islamic militant groups, and even a local ISIS affiliate, have caused chaos in many areas, which on some occasions have also brought oil exports to a halt.

Likely most Palestinians themselves would not want to relocate to North Africa, and the long destabilized political situation there of competing warlords would make this ‘offer’ even less appealing.

Post NATO-intervention Libya has remained in an internecine state of civil war:

a Libyan who bought into US-NATO-Israeli-Saudi-UAE propaganda and took up arms against Ghaddafi thinking he was actually fighting for freedom, democracy and “true Islam”, reflects on what he did after his fall: “If Ghaddafi were alive now, I would fight for him.” Syria soon. pic.twitter.com/zgNhRaesf3

— ☀️👀 (@zei_squirrel) December 7, 2024

Soon after entering his second term in office, President Trump began calling for regional Arab nations to take in Palestinians, such as Egypt and Jordan, despite the fact that they already have absorbed millions going back into the 20th century.

For example, in late January Trump described a call with Jordan’s King Abdullah II as follows:

“I’d like Egypt to take people,” Trump said at the time.

“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing and say, ‘You know, it’s over.’”

But Gaza is one historic issue, which also of course dovetails with religion and ancient grievances, that isn’t going to be solved by just handing out cash or free housing.

No simple American taxpayer funded quid pro quo can solve the Gaza crisis, recent history has demonstrated, also as the Israeli military and political leadership isn’t in the mood for swift deal-making.

President Trump raised eyebrows on Saturday – posting a ‘Clinton body count’ clip to Truth Social that suggests several mysterious deaths over the past few decades are linked to the Clintons.

Mentioned in the clip are former Clinton White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster, Clinton associate James McDougal, Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, and the mysterious death of JFK Jr. which paved the way for Hillary Clinton to become a US Senator.

Watch:

Holy Shit President Trump posted this on his TruthSocial! pic.twitter.com/xU51iw3tjX

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) May 17, 2025

h/t Karli Bonne

Of note, Foster was a mentor to Hillary when they worked together at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.  When Bill Clinton was confirmed as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993, Foster took a role as his Deputy White House Counsel. Six months later, to the day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, along the Potomac River, of an apparent “suicide” resulting from a gun shot from a .38 caliber revolver. 

Interestingly, the “Clinton Body Count” phrase was originally coined by writer Danny Casolaro in the late 1980s. Casolaro “committed suicide” in 1991, while working on a story supposedly involving an international cabal.

The last time #ClintonBodyCount was trending on X (formerly Twitter) was when Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein had reportedly attempted suicide (before he was found dead in his cell) while awaiting trial on underage sex-trafficking charges.

When #ClintonBodyCount is trending on Twitter as a reaction to the story that Epstein “attempted suicide” you know people are hip to the game. They need him gone at all costs. 😱 pic.twitter.com/uFKsLk3EFu

— Jordon 🕊️✨ (@miss_jordon) July 25, 2019

It’s a big list…

Sam Altman-backed Oklo says it is navigating what CEO Jacob DeWitte calls “good uncertainty” as potential Trump administration executive orders could accelerate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing, expand military and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear roles, and boost U.S. nuclear fuel supply chains, according to UtilityDive.

On Oklo’s Q1 2025 earnings call, DeWitte confirmed the company is engaged in a “pre-application readiness assessment” with the NRC, aiming to smooth its formal license submission for a newly upsized 75-MW reactor design in Q4 2025. The company still targets late 2027 or early 2028 for first power production at its Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site.

DeWitte noted the recent departure of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as Oklo board chair removes a potential conflict of interest should OpenAI become a future power customer. Oklo already holds about 14 GW in nonbinding agreements with data centers and industrial operators.

The White House is weighing four nuclear-related executive orders, including directives to overhaul NRC licensing with an 18-month deadline for new applications, reconsider radiation exposure limits, and authorize military and DOE property for reactor deployments—potentially bypassing standard NRC approvals.

These efforts aim to boost U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050, up from about 100 GW today. While the NRC is already implementing changes from last year’s ADVANCE Act, further reforms could shorten Oklo’s expected 24- to 30-month licensing timeline.

The UtilityDive report says that Oklo is also among eight companies eligible for the military’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, enabling on-base reactor deployments. It’s developing nuclear fuel fabrication facilities capable of reusing spent fuel that would otherwise sit in long-term storage.

Meanwhile, NuScale Power is actively pursuing contracts for its small modular reactor (SMR) technology, targeting a firm customer order by the end of 2025. CEO John Hopkins said the company could deliver an operational power plant by 2030 “if we get closure on a deal here soon.” NuScale is awaiting expected NRC approval in July for its uprated 77-MW design and has 12 modules in production through manufacturing partner Doosan, capable of delivering up to 20 per year.

Hopkins emphasized NuScale’s focus on finalizing real contracts rather than nonbinding agreements, stating, “We’re actually in the process of submitting and negotiating term sheets. We’ve got customers that [want] to … touch steel.” Potential buyers include data center operators, heavy industry, and utilities. CFO Ramsey Hamady added that a signed deal would likely involve multiple parties, including plant operators and tier-one data center or AI developers.

Unlike Oklo’s build-own-operate model, NuScale provides SMR technology and plant services, likening its role to “the chip in the Dell computer.” While NuScale has courted data center customers similar to Oklo, it also promotes its reactors for hydrogen production, desalination, carbon capture, and petrochemicals.

NuScale has about two years of financial runway but expects a committed project to significantly improve its outlook. “We’ll be in a great place if our biggest challenge is keeping up with orders,” Hamady said.

Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,

The title is a bit crude and is deliberately mocking in tone. But it has to be because there is a deeply-entrenched, almost sacred presumption embedded in the nation’s foreign policy catechism that “allies”, “alliances” and “coalitions of the willing” are the be-all-and-end-all of enlightened, necessary and effective foreign policy.

American policy-makers and diplomats perforce should therefore never leave these shores for the wider world without them. This dogma perhaps reached its epitome in Secretary of State James Baker’s “coalition of the willing” during the utterly pointless first Gulf War of 1991 and has plagued us ever since. Unfortunately.

In fact, the truth is more nearly the opposite–so it needs to be stated coarsely, almost defiantly. To wit, allies in today’s world are mostly an albatross, completely irrelevant to the military security of the American homeland and a major source of unnecessary friction and even outright conflict among the nations.

In a word, America is such an outsized economic and military Hegemon that all the little and mid-sized nation’s it has lined-up in formal and de facto alliances are inherently incentivized to pursue policies that minimize their own defense investments—even as they are also encouraged to throw diplomatic caution to the winds. That is, Washington’s “alliances” enable the domestic politicians or elected governments of these small allies to be more aggressive or confrontational vis-a-vis the “bad guys” designated by Washington than they surely would be if operating only upon their own steam.

For instance, the former Estonian prime minister between 2021 and 2024, Kaja Kallas, and now foreign affairs chief for the EU has been a loud-mouthed, vitriolic critic of Russia and hardline supporter of sending other people’s money [i.e. yours] to the support of the equally pointless proxy war against Russia on the Ukrainian steppes.

Of course, with a population of just 1.3 million, GDP of barely $40 billion and armed force of 8,000, Estonia amounts to a cipher of an ally in the scheme of things. So it does absolutely nothing for America’s homeland security, even as it has emboldened Kallas to become a loud irritant to the Big Bear of a country next door.

Then again, if there were no such thing as NATO and the Article 5 military shield of the US, do you think Kallas would be noisily whooping it up for Zelensky? Would her people have tolerated her posturing as little David waving a sling-shot at the Goliath next door?

We dare say the very opposite would have prevailed. Estonia and its leader would have taken care to make nice to their extra large sized neighbor—as small countries have done from times immemorial.

And if making diplomatic nice and conducting mutually beneficial economic commerce wasn’t working for some reason, although it almost always does, they would have been obligated to arm themselves to the hilt. That is, mobilize 10-25% of GDP for defense, if necessary, rather than the pittance of 2.9% of GDP that Estonia actually spends. In turn, that would establish deterrence—the standing up to a potential aggressor the heavy cost in blood and treasure it would be obligated to face in breaching the borders and sovereignty of a smaller neighbor.

And, no, for crying out loud, the 21st century world is not unique when it comes to the relationships between big, small and middle sized nations. What we described above as making nice in diplomacy and economics and making deterrence clear is actually the way the world of nations is supposed to work, and, prior to the rise of the Hegemon on the Potomac, actually usually did.

Most certainly the gods of history have not conferred upon Washington’s politicians and apparatchiks a mandate to befriend and safeguard  from one end of the planet to the other every Little Guy from the heavy breathing of nearby Big Guys.

Kaja Kallas on X: “Ukraine’s brave and fierce fight for freedom has been an “inspiration” to the Estonian people. Many have joined the voluntary Defence League.

Indeed, in a world not dislocated by the Hegemon on the Potomac no one would think to describe the reckless foolishness of Kiev in militarily attacking and brutalizing the Russian speaking populations of the Donbas after the Maidan Coup of February 2014 as an “inspiration”. 

It was actually stupid beyond belief—something that neighbors not addled by the Hegemon’s military shield or egged on by the CIA, NED, USAID, the State Department and Pentagon would have no problem recognizing and observing.

Indeed that observation applies to the whole passel of little countries that have been admitted to NATO since the turn of the century.  For instance, when it comes to the five  small Balkan countries that do not even share the Black Sea shorelines with Russia, here is the pitiful military capacity and defense heft (measured as % of GDP) that they bring to America’s homeland security.

In order to put this pittance of military manpower in perspective, moreover, we first note by way of comparison the size of police forces in major US cities. While these domestic police men, women and theys may eat too many donuts on the job and thereby fail any combat readiness tests, when it comes to sheer human muscle the city police forces listed here outrank most of what these Balkan “allies” bring to the table.

Size of Police Forces In Major US Cities:

• New York City: 36,000.
• Chicago: 13,100.
• Los Angeles: 10,000.
• Philadelphia: 6,500.

This is by way of saying that all of the above cities have bigger forces of men in blue than do most of the small the NATO allies depicted below, where we show their active military manpower and their defense spending as a % of GDP.

• Croatia: 14,300/1.8% of GDP.
• North Macedonia: 8,000/1.7% of GDP.
• Slovenia: 7,300/1.5% of GDP.
• Albania: 6,600/1.7% of GDP.
• Montenegro: 2,350/1.6% of GDP.

Clearly, these countries are not shaking in their boots about the Russian Bear. In the most recent year of red hot proxy war between NATO and Russia on the hapless steppes of the Ukraine, none of these five even bothered to spend 2% of GDP on defense!

Indeed, even the bigger fry positioned cheek-by-jowl with Russia on the Black Sea didn’t evince any greater fear of the Bear. Romania spends only 2.2% of GDP on defense and its voters just elected a president who wanted to make friendly with Putin—which democratic chosen leader was, of course, ixnayed by Romania’s “allies” in Brussels and Washington.

Likewise, Bulgaria spends but 2.2% on defense, as well. And, understandably, Serbia has not even seen fit to join NATO. Well, not since its capital was bombed to smithereens in 1999 by NATO war planes, owing to its insistence that Kosovo not be severed from its sovereign territory owing to the writ of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Even then as Russia’s firm ally in the region, Serbia spends about 2.3% of GDP on defense and has about 28,000 active men in uniform in its armed forces. That is, Serbia’s neutral forces total about the same as the combined military might of the five small fry on the Adriatic side of the Balkans.

Moreover, it also turns out that these five wee NATO members actually spend about the same pittance for military capabilities as is hoovered-up by Ukraine-bordering Hungary and Slovakia. The former spends about 2.0% of GDP on defense while the latter’s military spending is 2.1% of GDP. Yet both governments next door to the  Russian Bear are militantly opposed to the NATO proxy war in Ukraine and successfully get along with Moscow quite well!

In short, none of these countries really seem to fear the Russian Bear or they would be spending double digit percentages of their GDP making themselves so well armed as to make a unappetizing meal for the alleged aggressor in Moscow. To the contrary, they have either joined NATO to get into the Atlantic Club or have simply eschewed the opportunity (Serbia) or gone along for the ride (Hungary and Slovakia).

The point is, extending NATO to the Balkans was a stupid joke perpetrated by Warfare State apparatchiks in Washington and Brussels. It does absolutely nothing for America’s homeland defense militarily, while enabling Russia’s small next door neighbors to spend a pittance for defense and from time to time squeak-up to the Bear in a provocative manner that they would not dream of doing on the strength of 8,000 lightly armed soldiers of their own.

Of course, the same thing is true up north on the Baltic. The three Baltic republics both experienced and do remember their decades of Soviet occupation. Yet their present day budgetary statements make abundantly clear that they do not really perceive post-communist Russia to be the same existential same threat at all. That’s why they spend nickels and dimes on make-pretend militaries, even as their politicians like Kallas demagogue about Putin in order to stir up the home voters and incur the favor of the warmongering neocon apparatchiks who dominate the NATO and the EU.

Still, no countries with the wafer-thin military capacities depicted in the numbers below truly fear their Russian neighbor. If they did, with or without NATO, they’d put their budgetary dollars where the unfortunate rhetoric of some of the loud-mouthed politicians lies.

Armed Forces Size and Defense % of GDP:

• Lithuania: 14,100/2.8% of GDP.
• Estonia: 7,700/2.9% of GDP.
• Latvia: 6,750/2.4% of GDP.

In short, the Donald’s observations about the state of the world usually amount to a random collection of the true, the false and the foolish. But in the case of all these pipsqueak NATO allies he surely hit the nail on the head.

Washington’s “Allies” in The Baltics

That is to say, all of these allies are far more trouble than they are worth. The military security of the American homeland can be secured by an invincible strategic nuclear triad based on bombers, land-based ICBMs and its deep sea nuclear subs–none of which require foreign bases or foreign “allies”. That, and a powerful conventional Fortress America defense of its shorelines and air space would more than do the job of maintaining the military security of the American homeland in today’s world.

Neither of these military capabilities are enhanced in the slightest by the pipsqueak allies that have been drafted into NATO since 1999. Nor in today’s world is there any risk that a larger power as economically lame as Russia or Ponzi-based as Red China could attack, conquer and roll-up tens of trillions of GDP, military age manpower and defense production capacities among large numbers of their small fry neighbors.

Indeed, both Russia and China well know that the cost of invasion, conquest and pacification in today’s world would not remotely be worth the candle. That’s perhaps why the answer to the question as to how many countries Red China has conquered in the last four decades is, well,  zero!

To the contrary, what America’s 750 bases and 160,000 servicemen positioned abroad from Japan to Germany, Italy and the UK actually amount to are dangerous “trip wires”designed to:

• Provide an excuse for US defense contractors to sell weapons to the allied nations where US forces are based.
• Create an excuse to meddle in foreign conflicts owing to the fact that American servicemen are in harms’ way.

Suffice it here to note that during the heyday of America’s development as the greatest nation on earth—from the cancellation of the treaty with France in 1797 to the ratification of the NATO Treaty in 1949—America had no alliances, no military treaties and no allies empowered to provoke conflicts with their neighbors on the understanding that Uncle Sam had their backs.

He didn’t and during those 152 years everything worked out for America as well as any nation in history before or since. And absolutely nothing has changed to alter the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson about avoidance of Entangling Alliances.

*  *  *

The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing. It’s an established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s. Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

Vietnam led Southeast Asia’s auto sales growth in Q1 2025, with a 24% year-on-year surge, outpacing larger markets thanks to strong economic momentum and rising public investment, according to Nikkei Asia.

Nikkei Asia data shows total sales across Southeast Asia’s five biggest markets—Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam—fell 1.7% to 732,898 vehicles.

In Vietnam, hybrid vehicle sales soared 80% to 2,562 units, driven by new models from Toyota and Suzuki. Commercial vehicles and trucks also saw strong gains, rising 22% and 21% to 15,445 and 13,400 units, respectively, supported by a 19.8% jump in public investment to $4.67 billion.

“We expect Vietnam’s passenger car sales, excluding VinFast and some luxury brands, to grow 15% year on year in 2025,” said Thuc Than, an analyst at Vietcap Securities. “Our forecast does not take into account a possible negative outcome of the tariff negotiations,” she added, warning that higher tariffs could pose risks to growth.

Vietnam’s official auto sales stood at 118,813 vehicles, but including VinFast’s 35,100 units and Hyundai’s 11,464 units, total sales would surpass the Philippines’ 117,074 units.

The Philippines saw solid 7% growth, led by a 13.9% rise in commercial vehicle sales, even as passenger car sales fell 13.7%. EV and hybrid sales accounted for 5.73% of the market.

Thailand’s market shrank 7% to 153,193 vehicles, with ICE passenger car sales down 14% and pickup truck sales down 13%. EV sales, however, grew 19% to 22,737 units, boosted by Chinese brands like BYD, which saw March sales jump nearly threefold.

Nikkei Asia writes that despite the yearly decline, Thailand’s Q1 sales rose 14% quarter-on-quarter, topping 150,000 units for the first time in a year, aided by price cuts and promotions.

Malaysia, Southeast Asia’s second-largest market, also slowed. Sales fell 7.4% to 188,100 vehicles as backlogs cleared and the market normalized. March sales rose slightly by 2.2%, supported by aggressive marketing campaigns.

Chinese brands are making rapid inroads in Malaysia’s EV market. Proton’s first EV, the e.MAS 7, launched in December, has already received over 5,500 orders, with a second model, the e.MAS 5, expected later this year.

“The Chinese brands are offering very competitive and affordable prices,” said Periasamy Arumugam of Great Wall Motors. Jerry Chan of Jetour added, “Malaysian customers prefer big cars like SUVs,” noting that Jetour plans to manufacture vehicles locally in Johor to meet demand.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

The mixed signals that he sent on Friday suggest that he hasn’t made up his mind about what to do…

The first bilateral Russian-Ukrainian talks in over three years were held in Istanbul on Friday after Zelensky agreed, likely under pressure from Trump, to Putin’s proposal from the week prior. They didn’t result in the unconditional 30-day ceasefire that Ukraine demanded nor did Ukraine agree to withdraw from the entirety of the disputed regions like Russia demanded, but they did agree to a prisoner swap and to hold another round of talks sometime in the future. They therefore weren’t for nothing.

Most importantly, Russia and Ukraine were able to show Trump that they’re interested in peace after he signaled his increasing impatience with the US’ hitherto unsuccessful mediation between them, which could result in him either “escalating to de-escalate” or simply walking away from the conflict. Prior to making his fateful choice about the future of American involvement, Trump will likely hold talks with Putin, at the very least over the phone but ideally in person sometime in the coming weeks.

After all, the ball’s now in his court after the Russian and Ukrainian positions have proven to be irreconcilable, so Russia will either inevitably obtain its maximum goals by continuing to rely on military means to that end or the US will double down on support for Ukraine in order to prevent that outcome. The only realistic compromise would be if the US successfully coerces Ukraine into withdrawing from some or all of the disputed regions in exchange for Russia agreeing to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

The US hasn’t yet attempted that even though it could have tried doing so anytime over the past three months since Trump returned to the White House, however, thus leading to the aforesaid scenario branch. It therefore remains unclear exactly what Trump will do. On the one hand, he just threatened Russia with “crushing” sanctions, but he also just complained about the billions that the US “pissed away” in support of Ukraine. It accordingly looks like he himself hasn’t yet decided how to proceed.

“Escalating to de-escalate” would entail enormous financial and strategic costs, the latter with regard to potentially offsetting his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China and even risking World War III in the worst-case scenario. 

At the same time, walking away would lead to him owning what could then soon become one of the West’s worst geopolitical defeats. The middle ground between these extremes could be strictly enforced secondary sanctions against Russia’s energy clients.

To elaborate, the aim would be to pressure China and India into drastically curtailing their imports, the first as a “goodwill gesture” after Trump’s newly announced “total reset” in their ties and the second as a means to signal its worth to the US in the hopes that Trump reconsiders his incipient pivot to Pakistan. Nevertheless, one or both might still refuse to comply or secretly continue to purchase large amounts of Russian energy, thus forcing the US to either turn a blind eye or worsen ties by sanctioning them.

A blend of these scenarios could see Trump threatening Zelensky with a clean break from this conflict if he doesn’t withdraw from Donbass while threatening Putin with strictly enforced secondary sanctions if he doesn’t accept a (unconditional?) 30-day ceasefire in the event that this happens. Calls could then be made to Xi and Modi to inform them of his plans in the hope that they’ll convince Putin to agree. Such a proposal would be the most pragmatic one from the US’ perspective and could lead to a breakthrough.

Late Friday night, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry announced on X that law enforcement had recaptured three of the ten violent inmates who escaped from a New Orleans jail through a hole in the wall behind a toilet.

“3 down, 7 to go, and we ARE NOT slowing down!” Landry said, adding, “LOCK THEM UP!” 

3 down 7 to go, and we ARE NOT slowing down!

LOCK THEM UP! pic.twitter.com/h8K5cQRwY1

— Jeff Landry (@JeffLandry) May 17, 2025

The brazen jailbreak was caught on video.  

Most shocking: The escape wasn’t discovered until a routine headcount around 8:30 a.m., giving the fugitives more than seven hours of freedom before the alarm was raised. https://t.co/FOaCTMtvEc

— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) May 17, 2025

Before the inmates escaped, they left humorous messages on the wall for correctional officers, including “To easy LoL.”

According to Sheriff Susan Hutson, the inmates broke out of the jail in Orleans Parish around 0100 local time on Friday. 

“We have indication that these detainees received assistance in their escape from individuals inside of our department,” Hutson said. She noted that one jail employee saw the great escape through surveillance footage but did not report it. 

It wasn’t until 0830 local time that jail authorities noticed the missing men after a routine head count, according to the sheriff. That gave the inmates a gap of plus seven hours to flee the area. 

The seven inmates still at large are Corey Boyd, Leo Tate, Jermaine Donald, Derrick Groves, Lenton Vanburen, Antoine T. Massey, and Gary C. Price. Those apprehended include Kendall Myles, Robert Moody, and Dkenan Dennis.

Meanwhile, we’re not sure if the New Orleans police chief is after the escapees or the Batman…

JUST IN: New Orleans Cpt. Stephanie Minto-Gibson wears bizarre glasses to a press conference to give an update on the 10 inmates who escaped jail.

Only one of the inmates has been caught as of this time after the group escaped by removing a toilet from the wall.

What a… pic.twitter.com/CQcOOMyUwN

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 16, 2025

Inside job?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The “Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop” Rally

Last week, we discussed how the rally had repaired much of the previous damage following “Liberation Day.” However, we also made competing cases for the bulls and bears on the market’s next move.

“It is always difficult to say whether this is a ‘bear market’ rally while you are in the midst of it. In hindsight, these things are easy to identify, and investors have plenty of reasons to play the ‘could’ve, should’ve’ game. However, some valid arguments exist about why the recent correction was just that, and may now be over.”

This past week, the market continued its advance. There is little reason to be bearish with key overhead resistance levels broken. However, as shown, the markets are reaching decently overbought levels after being extremely oversold. This suggests that at least for now, the “easy money” has been made. With the market above the 200, and above the 50 and 20-DMA, pullbacks should be between 5600 and 5800. Investors can use such a pullback to increase portfolio equity exposures and reduce hedges accordingly. Conversely, 5000 to 5200 becomes the next critical target if those lower supports are violated. However, such would require some unexpected event to unfold.

Given the reduction in tariff-related risk and stable economic data, we suspect the market will hold bullish support. That statement follows our analysis from earlier this week, which discussed whether we have returned to a bull market or if this is still a bear market rally. That analysis compared the current market advance to the 2022 corrective cycle. However, that article elicited quite a few comments about why the recent “tariff” sell-off could be like the 2020 COVID-pandemic decline and recovery. It’s a fair question and worth a few words.

2020 vs 2025

As shown, there is an analogy between the current market recovery and that seen in 2020 following the pandemic. However, it is worth remembering that there are many competing differences between the current macroeconomic backdrop and that of 2020.

However, as we discussed in that previous analysis, even a “can’t stop, won’t stop bull market” gives those who can be patient better risk/reward opportunities to increase equity exposures. For example, after the initial rally off the March 2020 lows, the market pulled back and consolidated briefly before rallying further. Then, another longer consolidation process that year provided another entry point for bullish investors.

The weekly Technical Gauge we produce each week in this newsletter below follows the same path as 2020. While not yet back to bullish technical extremes, it is moving quickly higher to more elevated levels. When those readings reached 80, the market went through a longer consolidation process in 2020.

So, is this 2022 where the recent rally will fail and test lower levels? Maybe. Or, is it more like 2020, where the rally continues with only mild pullbacks along the way? Possibly. The true answer is that I don’t know. However, it is worth considering that there are many macroeconomic differences today compared to 2020. That lack of fiscal and monetary support, slowing economic growth, and tighter monetary policy are headwinds to higher stock prices. But, it is logical that the latest bullish market action has investors questioning a more cautious approach to the markets.

The same is true for us. We are currently underweight equities and hedged. However, the need for hedges is quickly declining, and the need for equity exposure is increasing. It’s a tough battle between creating portfolio performance and risk management. We are sticking with risk management until things become more certain, at least for now.

This week, we will discuss why another bearish case is fading – recession probabilities are falling.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Coliseum

“A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Coliseum” is a hysterical play by Craig Sodaro. In the play, Simplcuss, a naive Swiss farmer, heads for Rome to follow his dream of becoming a stand-up comedian; little does he know what adventures are in store. Stumbling into the house of General Spurius Sillius in search of food and water, he’s mistaken for the dreaded gladiator, Terribilus, who is due to fight in the Colosseum the following day. Simplcuss has to figure out how to save himself, and he overhears the General’s wife, Drusilla, and Senator Publius Piscious plotting to kill the Emperor’s daughter and the Emperor himself!

Without telling you the ending, there are many similarities to the current market. Over the last several months, the media headlines have been filled with stories of “Recessionus Terribulus.” Whether President Trump planned to deport illegal immigrants, Elon Musk and DOGE cutting government spending, or lately the fears of tariffs, all played into the media headlines of an impending recession.

Of course, there was also economic data to help support those claims. As discussed in the “Consumer Is Tapping Out,” rising delinquency rates are problematic. Particularly, for an economy driven by personal consumption. To wit:

“The current data point toward a recessionary risk. Deflation is highly correlated to economic growth rates, wages, and rates. Unsurprisingly, recessions reduce inflation as demand for goods and services collapses. While inflation may be “sticky,” the recent decline in bond yields and wages suggests consumer demand will decline this year. When tariffs, an additional tax on consumers, increase the cost burden, the reaction historically is not expansionary.”

Furthermore, last weekend’s #BullBearReport noted the rather sharp negative revisions to earnings estimates for the S&P 500 index.

“Given the slowdown in economic growth rates, it is unsurprising that, as of May 1st, S&P Global finally acquiesced and revised earnings estimates lower. However, this wasn’t a mild earnings revision but a slashing of estimates from their April 15th expectation of $292/share in 2026 to just $274. Furthermore, full-year 2025 reported earnings estimates were cut by nearly $20/share from $258/share to just $238/share.”

However, what is interesting is that despite these and several other indicators suggesting an increase in recessionary risk, the financial markets are currently putting in one of the strongest rallies we have seen since the COVID pandemic. Of course, much of that rally came on the heels of the relief of the sharp reduction of tariffs on China, one of the U.S.’s key trading partners.

As such, while Wall Street analysts and economists were slashing economic growth and earnings estimates just a month ago, striking fear into investors’ hearts, that has now reversed.

Recession Probabilities Are Falling

Following the announcements of trade deals with both the UK and China, recession probabilities for 2025 declined. Now, economists are rushing to reverse those previous recession calls.

The reality is that the onerous tariff levels initiated by the Trump administration were never permanent. This was a mistaken assumption by the mainstream media. Furthermore, the “inflation impact” from tariffs, which was expected to cause the recession, has yet to appear. Such is evident in both inflation reports this past week. The chart below shows the composite CPI/PPI index and whether inflation is above or below the long-term average inflation rate. Currently, inflation is 2% below its long-term average.

Inflation failing to appear is unsurprising and something we discussed in detail in “Tariffs Roil Markets.” In their rush to undermine the current administration, the media also failed to consider two important facts we discussed previously.

“The first is that Trump’s tariffs are a ‘stick and carrot’ for negotiating an agreement with both Mexico and Canada. As you will see, all he wanted was assistance in securing the borders, reducing illegal immigration, and arresting the illegal flow of drugs, especially “Fentanyl,” into the U.S. Therefore, any assistance provided by Canada or Mexico would lead to a reversal of those tariffs. Secondly, we stated the market’s opening would likely be the worst level of the day, so any “panic selling” of positions early in the morning would likely be a mistake.”

That same logic applies to China and every other country dependent on U.S. trade. Given that China depends on roughly $50 billion in annual trade (16.2% of total exports worldwide) to the U.S. for its economic growth, President Trump was correct in assuming he had a stronger hand in the negotiations.

With those tariffs vastly reduced, the risk of the recessionary impact from an excess “tax” on consumers is fading. However, even with the tariffs reversed, the economic data, while slowing, does not suggest that a recession risk is imminent.

A Recession-Proof Economy?

Doug Cass made a valid point this past week, asking if the “economy is now recession-proof.”

“Is the economy now recession-proof? Is this also now a syntax question as opposed to a practical question?

By a syntax question, this is what I mean. Recession is measured by reported GDP and reported employment. GDP is in part a function of reported inflation. If inflation is understated, GDP is overstated by the same amount. Employment includes jobs going to immigrants, second jobs, jobs created by the birth/death model, and jobs going to government employees that often have negative productivity and whose roles (regulatory and bureaucratic nonsense) end up harming the country and the economy, even though they help GDP in the short term.

The country thought we were in recession in the middle part of the Biden term. This includes very prominent financial minds and the average Joe. There is a reason the election went the way it did: “It’s the economy, stupid.” But, as measured by the official stats, there was no recession, and things were pretty good. Now, we are still not in recession, and as measured by the same stats, it still seems 50% likely we will not be in recession, and if we ever enter one, it feels like it might be mild, at least as measured by those same statistics.

So, is the economy now recession-proof? If we don’t go into a recession now, with the shaky foundation that was in place, including an overspent consumer, all the debt, global tensions, and all the uncertainty, it feels like we will never have a recession.”

It seems that way, but the one contributing factor that broke all pre-existing models was the flood of monetary and fiscal stimulus post the COVID pandemic. It may take us years to determine if the previous historical models and indicators, such as inverted yield curves, ever function as they did previously to gauge recession probabilities. Maybe they won’t.

However, as noted above, economists are rapidly reversing their predictions about the recession and now suggest that President Trump’s actions, while previously thought to be an economic disaster, might be beneficial. Furthermore, financial conditions are improving, which also supports economic activity. If that trend continues, particularly if the Fed resumes cutting interest rates, it should start to feed into consumer confidence. If consumer confidence strengthens, which would be logical following recent tariff resolutions, this should reduce recession probabilities further.

Understand the message here. As discussed two weeks ago, the economic growth rate is slowing, but recession probabilities remain low.

That does not mean that a recession is permanently avoided.

However, therein lies the problem with recession probabilities and predictions in the first place.

The Problem With Recession Predictions

It is wise to remember that in 2022, we had the most anticipated recession, which failed to occur and preceded one of the strongest bull markets in recent history.

The problem with predicting recessions is that economists always work off lagging economic data. Such is particularly the case with GDP, which is revised three times following the end of the quarter, 12 months, and 3 years later. Historically, given that lag, the timing of U.S. recessions can be off by 9 to 12 months before they are recognized by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The chart below shows the lag between the onset and recognition of previous U.S. recessions.

The following table better shows the lag between the start and recognition of previous U.S. recessions. I have also noted the impact on financial markets as investors reprice earnings growth for a reversal in economic growth rates.

Investors must decide whether the current correction is “just a correction” or whether the risk of a U.S. recession is increasing.

Currently, few indicators suggest recession probabilities are rising. The Economic Composite Index (a comprehensive measure of economic activity comprised of more than 100 data points) is in expansionary territory. The EOCI index confirms the improvement in the 6-month rate of change in the Leading Economic Index (LEI), one of the best recession indicators, and current levels of economic growth. While economic growth will undoubtedly slow as all of the excess governmental spending under the previous Administration reverses, there is currently no recession warning in the data. That does not mean that it can not change in the future. However, for now, the risk of recession is extremely low.

Adding to that analysis, the economically weighted ISM composite index is also in expansionary territory, suggesting no current risk of recession. This composite index (80% service / 20% manufacturing) is why we wrote that there was no recession risk in 2023 or 2024 despite inverted yield curves.

Lastly, Government spending remains robust, which fuels economic growth. While the current Administration is looking to cut spending and reduce the deficit, which would weaken economic growth rates, they are making very little headway.

Furthermore, despite the hopes that DOGE would cut Federal spending, it has only returned to the post-financial crisis exponential growth trend as the Government continues to use “Continuing Resolutions” to fund the Government. These resolutions automatically increase government spending by 8% annually. In other words, spending doubles every nine years, so debt levels continue to rise, feeding into economic growth rates.

Conclusion: Staying Grounded Amid Market Volatility

While recession probabilities have resurfaced in the headlines following the recent market sell-off, the economic data does not yet support the narrative of an imminent downturn.

As I discussed in “The Risk Of Recession Is Not Zero,” the government is currently engaged in activities that will impact economic growth. If those actions are combined with those of an already struggling consumer, the risk of recession will undoubtedly increase. Thus, economists are now scrambling to reverse their recession calls.

Historically, recession calls tend to be premature, often relying on lagging indicators that confirm economic contractions only well after they have begun. Current indicators point to a slower economic expansion, not contraction. Although growth is slowing, a slower growth environment does not equate to a recession—a distinction investors must keep in mind.

The more significant concern for markets is the inevitable impact of slowing economic growth on corporate earnings expectations. With analysts projecting continued double-digit earnings growth into 2026, there is an apparent disconnect between these forecasts and the economic reality. History suggests that earnings will eventually revert to levels that align with economic activity, which could lead to further bouts of market volatility.

For investors, the key takeaway is to stay informed, focus on fundamentals, and avoid being swayed by short-term noise. While volatility and corrections are natural in market cycles, history shows that panic-driven decisions often lead to missed opportunities. As long as economic indicators remain expansionary, the risk of a recession remains low, though careful monitoring is warranted. Investors should continue to assess their portfolios, manage risk prudently, and position themselves for a gradual slowdown rather than an economic collapse.

How We Are Trading It

As noted last week, we continue to manage our portfolios in a manner that allows us to participate in the market while still hedging against underlying risk. As such, we have started rebalancing risk as necessary and adjusting portfolio holdings to improve relative market performance. Notably, the breadth of the market has improved, but as noted above, the short-term overbought conditions suggest the “easy money” has been made. We will wait for corrections to reduce cash balances further and remove portfolio hedges entirely. That is, of course, unless some other unexpected event surfaces that substantially increases market risk.

As noted, while the risk of recession has fallen, recession probabilities are not zero. As we said in Friday’s Daily Market Commentary:

“However, patience will likely pay off here. As noted previously, we are still on a weekly sell signal, which has historically led to short-term market underperformance. As shown, previous periods of historical weekly moving average crossovers typically involve a more extended period of consolidation or corrective price actions. The main exception to that rule was 2020, when the Federal Reserve intervened with massive monetary support. With yields rising and the Fed on hold, no excess support is coming into the market other than a surge in corporate buybacks. However, those are due to decline starting next month.“

Continue to follow the rules and stick to your discipline. 

The Kremlin has said on Saturday that a future meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky is still ‘possible’ – despite no breakthroughs at Friday’s Istanbul talks by delegations representing the warring sides.

Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov said a meeting between the Russian president and Zelensky “is possible but only as a result of the work of the delegations of both sides and reaching specific agreements.”

Peskov underscored that one of the major hurdles is remains the question of who Ukraine would authorize to sign any potential agreements assuming the negotiations could produce firm settlement proposals.

Moscow’s stance all along has been that Zelensky is illegitimate given he canceled elections under martial law, and has run far past his authorized term in office. Kiev, however, has said that the national constitution allows for this in war time.

As for the content of Friday’s talks and reports that Moscow demanded a Ukrainian troop withdrawal from all the four easter territories, including Donetsk, he said, “Negotiations… must be conducted strictly behind closed doors. This is in the interest of the effectiveness of these negotiations.”

One key thing the two sides did agree to is a large prisoner swap involving 1,000 POWs – which would be the single biggest of the war.

But Ukraine has rejected the Kremlin’s demand of de-facto recognizing the loss of its territories. Zelensky has time and again emphasized “this is Ukraine’s land” – and has vowed to fight on, despite mounting losses and serious manpower issues. 

The following is reportedly among Moscow’s top list of demands, which can be described as maximalist (at least from the West’s perspective), per a new Bloomberg report:

• Ukraine agreeing to neutral status regarding NATO
• No foreign troops in Ukraine
• No nuclear weapons in Ukraine
• De-facto recognition of Crimea and lost eastern territories as now Russia’s
• Withdrawal of Kiev forces from these territories before a ceasefire takes effect

But once again, Peskov has not officially confirmed this list, and precise details discussed at Istanbul remain subject of speculation amid leaks to the press.

The US and Russia on Saturday held a phone call, in a post-Istanbul talks debriefing: 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a phone call with his US counterpart Marco Rubio, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Saturday, to discuss the direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv in Istanbul.

“Lavrov noted the positive role of the United States in helping Kiev eventually accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume the Istanbul talks,” the foreign ministry statement said, adding that Russia was ready to continue working with the US on the matter.

Meanwhile: “We didn’t say five. We said eight.”…

Story has been making rounds that Ukrainians were outraged when Russia negotiators said that Ukrainian soldiers must leave the four new Russian regions as part of ceasefire, to which the Moscow delegation replied “Next time it will be five.”

Now, our reporter in Istanbul got to… pic.twitter.com/4ZafhhR2PN

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) May 16, 2025

The White House is likely to latch on to anything positive regarding these talks that it can; however, President Trump has clearly been exerting pressure for more speedy resolution, and is growing impatient.

The Europeans are ready to slap more sanctions on Moscow, and Washington has also warned that this would essentially be plan B if Russia doesn’t cooperate. But Russia’s fresh maximalist demands will be a hard sell.