Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The production of uranium in the United States registered a gain last year following several years of subdued output, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“Companies in the United States produced more uranium concentrate in 2024 than in any year since 2018 after a sustained period of higher uranium prices spurred production,” the agency said in an April 2 statement.

“Production in the fourth quarter of 2024 alone was higher than the total annual production for each of the years in 2019–23.”

Uranium concentrate is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. However, it must first be processed through conversion and enrichment facilities where the concentrate gets turned into fuel rods or pellets, which then power the reactors.

Production had crashed over the past decade. Between 2010 and 2014, the country produced between 3.5-5 million pounds of uranium concentrate. This fell to between 2-3.5 million pounds during 2015–2017.

In 2018, output dipped below 1.5 million pounds, falling to less than 500,000 pounds from 2019 onwards. Last year saw the declining trend reverse, with uranium concentrate production exceeding half a million pounds.

The decline in production goes back at least 40 years. In 1980, output peaked at 43.7 million pounds, following which production has been on a free fall.

According to the EIA, prior to the 80, the United States had incentives and favorable trade policies in place to boost domestic uranium production. However, these policies ended in the 80s, leading to output declines.

“Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, have more accessible, high-quality uranium deposits, allowing them to produce U3O8 [uranium concentrate] at a lower cost than the United States,” the agency said. From the 1980s, imports of uranium concentrate started to surge.

The 2024 production increase in uranium concentrate “largely came from two in-situ recovery facilities, one in Texas and one in Wyoming, and the resumption of uranium production at White Mesa Mill in Utah, the only operational uranium mill in the United States,” the EIA said.

President Donald Trump has taken action to boost nuclear power in the United States.

On Jan. 20, he signed an executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which contained a provision calling for reviewing all agency actions that burden the development of domestic energy resources such as nuclear power.

On Feb. 14, he signed another executive order establishing the National Energy Dominance Council. One of the things the council is tasked with is advising the president on actions that each agency can take to boost energy production, including bringing small modular nuclear reactors online.

Boosting Nuclear Power Use

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy has announced steps to strengthen the use of nuclear power in the country.

In February, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright signed a secretarial order instructing the agency to take “immediate action to unleash American Energy in accordance with President Trump’s executive orders.”

The department’s research and development efforts must prioritize reliable, affordable, and safe energy technologies, including nuclear power, the order said.

“The long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch during President Trump’s administration. As global energy demand continues to grow, America must lead the commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy,” the order stated.

“As such, the Department will work diligently and creatively to enable the rapid deployment and export of next-generation nuclear technology.”

Several major U.S. tech giants have announced plans to use nuclear energy to run their energy-intensive operations, such as data centers.

In October, Amazon said it signed contracts with Washington, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to build small modular reactors. The same month, Google announced plans to start buying nuclear power from several small modular reactors developed by Kairos Power.

In December, Meta said it intended to identify nuclear energy developers to “help us meet our AI innovation and sustainability objectives.”

A March 4 report from S&P Global says that “lead time gaps” could be a challenge for using nuclear energy to support data centers.

For instance, a new data center takes 18 to 24 months to build. In comparison, small modular reactors or light water reactors can take six years.

However, the big advantage is that “once up, nuclear reactors perform well, with nuclear boasting the highest capacity factor across all energy sources,” the report said.

“The US nuclear power fleet ran at 93.1 percent capacity in 2023, according to the EIA, versus 33.2 percent for wind and 23.5 percent for solar. The utilization rate for natural gas power plants has hovered around 55 percent.”

Following President Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs last Wednesday, Goldman analysts began evaluating which U.S. retailers are most vulnerable due to their deeply embedded supply chains across Asia. A new note from the bank offers a more complete view of the potential tariff impact on apparel retailers and brands within its coverage universe. The data may also help consumers gauge which retailers will likely pass on higher costs.

Goldman analysts Brooke Roach, Evan Dorschner, and others penned a note Monday titled “Reciprocal Tariffs: Key considerations and scenario analysis,” focusing on tariff impacts on U.S. apparel brands and retailers in their stock coverage. 

In the “Scenario Analysis For Our Softlines Coverage Universe” section of the note, Roach provided clients with the “tariff impact for each of our covered retailers and brands.”

Their analysis shows that seven companies under coverage—Amer Sports, SharkNinja, Nike, Torrid Holdings, Lululemon, and PVH Corp—face tariff rates exceeding 40%, while Groupe Dynamite’s rate approaches 50%.

The analyst then took the same softline coverage and overlaid it with the tariff rate on the X-axis and U.S. sales exposure (%) on the Y-axis. 

Companies with higher merchandise and gross margins are generally better insulated from the worsening trade war. 

Some retailers and brands in this softline coverage faced lower tariff pressure and have outperformed their peers. 

Last week, Roach outlined a supply chain analysis of softline stocks. She said that companies such as Warby Parker, Torrid Holdings, Groupe Dynamite, Nike, Yeti Coolers, and SharkNinja had high supply chain exposure to China and other Asian countries targeted by Trump’s latest tariff round.

The new data provided by Roach and colleagues on Monday will help consumers navigate the retailers and brands that are subjected to the highest tariffs because their management teams did not heed Trump’s warnings in his first term. Reward the companies that have the least exposure to Asia—and more importantly, buy American for maximum cost savings. 

Via Remix News,

When two narrative constructions collide…

The first narrative is that “Russia has reached its reserves, the military industry is on the verge of collapse.”

Between 2022 and 2025, Russia re-deployed more than 4,000 tanks. Logically, these were in the best condition, so they probably only required minor repairs and renovations before they were put back into combat readiness. At the same time, the analysis states, as Russia was forced to reactivate tanks in increasingly poor condition, the pace of their withdrawal slowed. While several thousand units were added to the fighting forces in 2022 and 2023, only 342 tanks were removed from storage between February 2024 and February 2025.

According to analysts, despite the fact that there are another 4,500 tanks in storage, their poor technical condition will make it difficult to restore them. At the rate at which the Russian military is using them in Ukraine, it is almost impossible.

To make matters worse for Russia, these tanks include 650 T-64s. This type was not produced in Russia, so it is unlikely that they will attempt to restore them. Moscow is estimated to have only 1,200 serviceable tanks left.

The other narrative is that Russia is booming and its military industry is outpacing all of NATO, according to 4-star U.S. General Christopher G. Cavoli.

“As a result, the Russian defense industrial base is expected to produce 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles, and 200 Iskander ballistic and cruise missiles this year (the United States produces only about 135 tanks a year and is no longer producing new Bradley fighting vehicles). Russia is producing 250,000 artillery rounds per month, “on track to amass a stockpile three times larger than the United States and Europe combined.”

What is the reality? A mix of the two.

Russia has largely exhausted its stockpiled equipment and ammunition

It produces more in most categories than all NATO countries combined.

However, what Cavoli says is misleading. Of the 1,500 tanks mentioned, 1,300 are often 40-50-year-old T-72s scraped from warehouses and brought back in order, or the repair of equipment damaged on the battlefield. Only 200 are new tanks, T-90s. And the fact is, NATO does not produce that much today, in addition to the 135 American tanks, the Germans produce perhaps 40-50 Leopard 2s. But these do not go to Ukraine, but to customers, such as us in Hungary.

Most of the 3,000 infantry fighting vehicles are also reactivated, thousand-year-old BMP 1-2s, and 200+ new BMP-3s are being produced. Let’s say in return the USA produces zero Bradleys, the successor IFV tests are underway (one of the 2 last-round vehicles is the Lynx, which we have put into service). I don’t know how much European IFV production/year is, but it’s probably less than the Russian one.

So what’s true and what’s not? 

It’s true that the Russian military industry can surpass the entire NATO military industry in volume today in 2025 in many important categories (not in aircraft anymore) and that they have achieved great results in drone production and application.

However, in the long term, they certainly won’t be able to compete even with Europe, if the EU countries finally give in. It’s a complete projection that the Russian military industry would collapse, simply in 1-2 years, the stored ex-Soviet equipment will run out, i.e., the volume will decrease. But this is not a collapse. This is the “gray” picture.

There is no terrible Russian threat within 3-4 years, even if by some miracle they don’t have to keep a significant part of their army in Ukraine because even if there is a ceasefire, and 90-plus percent is not needed in Ukraine, like today, they still won’t be able to withdraw a significant part of their forces from there either. The bigger the slice they cut out of Ukraine, the longer the demarcation line, the more soldiers they need to hold it.

But there is no Russian collapse, neither military-industrial, nor economic, nor social. They can keep up this pace for years to come. That is, they are enough for Ukraine, not for Europe.

Read more here…

Despite a wave of electric vehicle factories popping up across the U.S. in recent years—fueled by tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act and promises of jobs in mostly Republican areas—many of these projects are now being scrapped, according to a new article by the Washington Post.

Even before former President Trump’s new tariffs, the clean energy shift was already losing momentum.

In just the first quarter of 2025, more EV-related projects were canceled than in the previous two years combined, according to Atlas Public Policy.

Among the losses: a $1 billion thermal battery barrier plant in Georgia and a $1.2 billion lithium-ion battery factory in Arizona. Thousands of jobs are now in question, casting doubt on the future of homegrown EV production.

The U.S. EV manufacturing boom is losing steam as policy uncertainty under the Trump administration causes companies to cancel or delay major projects. “It’s hard at the moment to be a manufacturer in the U.S. given uncertainties on tariffs, tax credits and regulations,” said Tom Taylor of Atlas Public Policy. The group found more clean energy projects were canceled in early 2025 than in the last two years combined, including billion-dollar battery plants in Georgia and Arizona.

The 2022 climate law offered tax credits to boost domestic EV production, but Republican proposals to repeal those incentives—and reverse emissions rules—could cut EV sales by 40% by 2030, according to Princeton.

The WaPo piece says that Aspen Aerogels scrapped its Georgia factory and shifted production abroad. “China is at 50 percent EV penetration already,” said CFO Ricardo Rodriguez. “In North America and Europe, we continue to dabble in this 10 percent to 15 percent level. So, you do start wondering, right, is that progress?”

Other companies are also pulling back. KORE Power dropped plans for a new plant, opting to retrofit an existing facility. EV startups like Nikola Motors and Canoo have gone bankrupt. Even Hyundai is scaling back, now planning to build hybrids, not just EVs, at its new Georgia plant.

“The EV outlook was already looking pretty bearish before the election,” said Trevor Houser of Rhodium Group. “Any downside… would naturally lead to some battery cancellations.”

Bob Keefe of E2 told WaPo: “Nothing is more important to business than market clarity. It’s about as clear as a blizzard at midnight.” He added, “It’s working-class people in places like Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan and Arizona that have seen some of these projects get canceled. And I can tell you who’s benefiting — China and other countries that are doubling down.”

Industry investment has plummeted, with just $176 million in clean manufacturing announced in January—well below the usual $1 billion. “You see a lot of people watching and waiting,” said Jason Grumet of the American Clean Power Association. “If you don’t know if the inputs to your factory are going to dramatically increase in price — it slows things down.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Heritage Foundation supports the policy shift. “Costly, mandated EVs make poor people poorer and less safe,” she said.

The White House insists its strategy is sound. “The President’s brilliant economic agenda is an all-encompassing plan to revive our economy by unleashing American energy, implementing tariffs to level the playing field, and bringing billions of dollars in historic investments to America’s manufacturing sector,” said spokesman Taylor Rogers.

Still, as projects vanish and momentum fades, Keefe said it best: “Everyone’s looking for a silver lining. I have a hard time finding it.”

Via Remix News,

The European Parliament will send a fact-finding mission to Hungary in mid-April to assess the latest developments regarding the rule of law, and 19 EU member states are already ready to take away Hungary’s voting rights.

The EUobserver claims that “rule of law in Hungary continues to deteriorate,” which is why EU institutions are considering accelerating sanctions under Article 7 of the Treaty.

This claim comes even as Marine Le Pen is banned from running for office in France on trumped-up charges as well as the presidential frontrunner in Romania, Călin Georgescu, being banned from running for president and suffering a show-trial arrest. 

NEW: Le Pen slams yesterday’s court ruling barring her from standing in the presidential election.

“People say this is a judicial decision. No, it’s a political decision.

Maybe next time I should arrive on my knees with a rope around my neck to make things easier for you?” pic.twitter.com/HmW3AsLpIG

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) April 1, 2025

At the same time, Germany is working on banning the largest opposition party in the country, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), all in a clear breach of fundamental democratic rights.

“According to an EU source in the European Council, 19 EU member states are already ready to move forward to take away Hungary’s voting rights. However, any real steps would require the agreement of all 26 other member states,” the article reads.

The author suggests that as a first step, four-fifths of countries could establish that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s fundamental values ​​in Hungary.

The European Parliament will send a fact-finding mission to Hungary in mid-April to assess the latest developments in the rule of law in the country. 

Dutch Green MEP Tineke Strik called on the European Commission and the Council of the EU to take firm action against Hungary’s allegedly deteriorating rule of law situation.

Read more here…

Authored by Madge Waddy,

Half the developed world is walking blithely towards authoritarianism. Seeking change, citizens are voting against their best interests and allowing iconic democratic institutions to corrode.

There is still room for redemption, but hope is not a strategy. To prevent the rise of fascism, people need to use the very rights that are at risk. The right to free speech, the right to assembly. The right to vote. In theory, the right to bear arms is also meant to prevent the rise of tyranny. Unfortunately, a significant portion of society is too busy watching Netflix or worshiping false gods to prevent democracy’s demise.

As we saw in France over the past few months, we can use these rights to our benefit. Whether or not we choose to do so is to be determined. Sadly, once the threshold into authoritarianism is crossed redemption is no-longer a winning strategy.

It’s too early to know what the future holds, but in the following article I attempt to show what daily life in a dictatorship is like and how best to survive.

“Every day in the Gestapo, I saw how people had been broken by terror. I experienced myself how one was crunched by this machine. That is what was so monstrous about it. One was no longer human.” 

– Victor Klemperer from his diaries “I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years”

Life Under Authoritarian Rule

Authoritarian governments rule by fear. Broad top-down and grassroots surveillance is key to keeping the population on edge.

North Korea’s surveillance state is among the most extreme in the world. The regime employs a vast network of informants, and even private conversations are not safe from scrutiny. Citizens are required to attend weekly self-criticism sessions, where they must confess any perceived disloyalty. This constant surveillance ensures that any opposition – along with the dissenter’s entire family – is quickly identified and neutralized. The fear of imprisonment, torture, or execution is ever-present, as even minor infractions can lead to severe punishment.

In Nazi Germany, the secret police created a culture of fear by encouraging citizens to report any suspicious activities, even those of their friends and family. This tactic effectively turned people against each other and ensured a high level of compliance with the regime’s policies. As one German citizen recounted, “We lived in fear of being denounced by our neighbors, friends, even our own children.”

“We had all grown used to living in a state of permanent fear, and that was why we were always so short of time. Fear is the most time-consuming activity there is.” 

– Nadezhda Mandelstam from “Hope Against Hope”

A key ingredient to creating fear is actual or perceived alienation. For authoritarian regimes, the alienation pre-planted using social means (with the threat of physical isolation). Alienation is manufactured by a combination of relentless censorship and propaganda, leaving dissenters to believe they are alone. For this reason, media control is essential to maintaining a dictatorship.

The Soviet Union, for example, tightly controlled the flow of information through state-run media outlets. Independent journalism was virtually nonexistent, and the government disseminated propaganda to shape public perception. Independent journalists and writers who dared to challenge the official narrative faced imprisonment or worse. The Soviet regime’s propaganda glorified the state and its leaders while demonizing perceived enemies. A Soviet citizen described the omnipresence of propaganda: “Everywhere we looked, we saw the state’s version of reality. There was no escape from it.”

Similarly, China’s Great Firewall restricts access to information from outside the country, ensuring that the population is exposed only to state-approved narratives. Social media platforms are closely monitored, and any content deemed subversive is swiftly removed. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) employs sophisticated algorithms to censor dissent and promote its propaganda, creating a controlled information environment. This pervasive censorship stifles dissent and prevents the spread of alternative viewpoints.

Propaganda is a powerful tool for shaping public perception and maintaining control. 

Nazi Germany’s Joseph Goebbels famously stated:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The Nazi regime’s propaganda machine glorified Hitler and the Aryan race while demonizing Jews and other minorities. This relentless propaganda created a climate of hatred and fear, justifying the regime’s atrocities.

In modern China, the CCP uses propaganda to promote its vision of a harmonious society. State media outlets emphasize the party’s achievements and downplay its failures. Patriotic education campaigns instill loyalty to the party from a young age, ensuring a steady stream of compliant citizens. A Chinese citizen explained, “We are constantly bombarded with messages about the greatness of the party. It’s hard to see the truth through the propaganda.”

While censorship and propaganda softens and aligns most of the population, authoritarian regimes still must deal with dissenters. Disappearances, torture, detention, forced labor and summary executions are used to create examples out of those who overtly oppose the government.

“In China, we live in a virtual prison. The surveillance is everywhere, and it is the fear of what might happen that keeps us in check.” 

– Ma Jian from “China Dream”

In modern Russia political opponents and journalists critical of the government have faced harassment, imprisonment, and even assassination. The murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny are stark reminders of the lengths to which the regime will go to maintain control. A Russian activist noted, “Speaking out against the government is a dangerous game. Many have paid the ultimate price for their courage.”

Strategies for Survival

Authoritarian regimes thrive on compliance. While it’s easy for keyboard warriors to suggest revolt against dictators, most people just want a peaceful life with their families. Once authoritarianism takes hold, citizens will do what it takes for their family to survive and avoid harassment. Survival is realty, not cowardice.

The most straightforward way to avoid persecution is to comply with the regime’s demands. In Nazi Germany, many citizens outwardly conformed to the Nazi ideology to avoid suspicion. Attending state-sponsored rallies, displaying Nazi symbols, and participating in mandatory activities were common ways to demonstrate loyalty. This public conformity often masked private dissent, as individuals sought to protect themselves and their families.

In contemporary China, compliance with the CCP’s directives is essential for avoiding trouble. The Social Credit System, which rewards or punishes citizens based on their behavior, incentivizes conformity. A high social credit score can lead to better job opportunities and access to services, while a low score can result in restrictions and penalties. Many Chinese citizens navigate this system by carefully curating their online presence and avoiding activities that could draw negative attention.

Surviving and prospering in an authoritarian regime often requires a nuanced understanding of the system and the ability to navigate its complexities. In Pinochet’s Chile, some individuals managed to maintain their livelihoods by aligning themselves with the regime’s economic policies. Entrepreneurs who supported the neoliberal reforms benefited from the regime’s support, even as they privately opposed its brutality.

In modern Russia, oligarchs and business leaders who maintain close ties to the Kremlin enjoy significant privileges. These individuals navigate the political landscape by aligning their interests with those of the state, ensuring their continued prosperity. However, this relationship is precarious, as falling out of favor with the regime can lead to swift and severe repercussions.

“In North Korea, we did not have the luxury of thinking for ourselves. The regime did all our thinking for us, and if we resisted, we were punished.” 

– Yeonmi Park from “In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl’s Journey to Freedom”

Resistance

While compliance is a common survival strategy, some individuals resist authoritarian regimes through subterfuge. This is highly risky, but the drive to fight back is powerful for some.

During the Soviet era, underground movements and dissident networks challenged the state’s control. Samizdat, the clandestine copying and distribution of banned literature, disseminated alternative viewpoints. These acts of risky resistance allowed individuals to express dissent and connect with like-minded people.

In North Korea, defectors have developed ingenious methods to smuggle information in and out of the country. USB drives containing foreign media are covertly distributed, providing a glimpse of the outside world. These acts of defiance are dangerous, but they play a crucial role in undermining the regime’s control over information.

Stayin’ alive

When faced with unspeakable brutality, is conformity cowardice? In any authoritarian environment, you will have approvers, dissenters and conformists. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic to expect everyone to rebel against oppression. Often, we’re forced to adapt to our circumstances rather than make them right.

Generally, survival in a dictatorship requires one to keep their eyes open and head on a swivel.

Below are a few ideas for blending in, remaining informed and staying sane:

1. Stay Informed and Educated

Ensure you’re consuming information from a variety of reputable sources, both domestic and international. This will help you stay informed about the true state of affairs.

2. Protect Your Digital Privacy

Tools like Signal, ProtonMail, and VPN services can help protect your online communications from surveillance. Avoid sharing sensitive information that could be used against you. Assume that anything you post online is monitored.

3. Build a Support Network

Establish a network of trusted friends, family, and colleagues who share your concerns and can offer mutual support. Engage with groups that advocate for human rights, civil liberties, and democracy. They can provide resources and solidarity. However, association with such groups could create heat for you and your family.

4. Maintain Documents

Keep important documents (e.g. passports, bank records) and records in safe, encrypted digital locations or secure physical places.

5. Learn Survival Skills

Consider learning ways to protect yourself physically. Learn skills like first aid, emergency preparedness, and resource management. Decrease reliance on the state for life essentials. Grow food. Beware that if there is a shortage, food will be confiscated to feed police and military, as these are vital tools for maintaining state control.

6. Secure Your Finances

Keep some of your assets in safe, stable forms that are less susceptible to government control and easy to transport, such as foreign currencies or precious metals. If using gold or digital wallets, a significant amount of wealth can be transported in a backpack. Maintain an emergency fund in a secure, accessible place.

7. Establish a Safe Exit Strategy

Identify potential safe destinations and create a plan for a quick and safe exit if necessary. Ensure your passport and other travel documents are up to date. Build connections in other countries that could provide assistance if you need to leave quickly.

Truly remaining invisible requires blending in. If peaceful survival is your goal, you’ll need to put aside personal values and do what’s expected. That might mean attending rallies or flying a flag on your front lawn. Can’t stomach this? Non-conformity is a form of resistance, so prepare to be treated accordingly.

This is not a comprehensive guide. Merely a few thought starters to help prepare for the worst case scenario. Let’s use our voices and votes today to ensure it doesn’t come to that.

I don’t like writing this as much as you don’t like reading it. But with many governments around the world descending into dictatorship, this is the unfortunate reality we must consider.

Trade wars and military conflicts have sometimes intersected throughout history. Economic disputes amplify nationalistic sentiment, strain diplomatic ties, and can spark dangerous flashpoints. While a shooting war with China does not appear imminent, the U.S. and China are locked in a deepening trade war. Both nations have been showcasing their latest military hardware—particularly sixth-generation aircraft.

Weeks before President Trump entered the White House, high-resolution images of the next-generation tactical fighter-bomber (J-36), expected to replace the Xi’an JH-7, surfaced on social media. The diamond-shaped wing design left military observers across the West stunned. 

Deutsche Bank analyst Scott Deuschle characterized China’s rapid advancements in sixth-generation aircraft, leapfrogging from fifth-generation fighters, as a serious “wake-up call” for the United States Air Force. 

Fast forward to five days after Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff blitz on China, where the effective rate for both countries rocketed to the mid-50s percent…

… X user Defense Politics Asia noted: “China deliberately wanted you to see their 6th Gen J-36 Fighter. The number of sighting is no longer normal now.”

China deliberately wanted you to see their 6th Gen J-36 Fighter.

The number of sighting is no longer normal now. pic.twitter.com/6p6kDuaD4q

— Defense Politics Asia (@DefensePolitics) April 7, 2025

Just weeks ago, President Trump awarded Boeing a contract to develop the USAF’s F-47 6th-gen stealth fighter jet. 

Boeing Will Build US Air Force’s Next-Gen Stealth Fighter Jet, Trump Announces https://t.co/lUVga81g3P

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 21, 2025

“The J-36 sightings definitely seem orchestrated. It’s a clever move to subtly influence perceptions of China’s tech advancements, which could impact defense strategies and budget allocations. It’s a chess game on a global scale,” one X user said. 

The J-36 sightings definitely seem orchestrated. It’s a clever move to subtly influence perceptions of China’s tech advancements, which could impact defense strategies and budget allocations. It’s a chess game on a global scale.

— Simon P (@simonkp) April 7, 2025

Another X user pointed out: “China’s playing the long game. These deliberate exposures force Pentagon budget increases while masking true capabilities. Classic non-linear strategy in a zero-sum competition where perception becomes reality.“

China’s playing the long game. These deliberate exposures force Pentagon budget increases while masking true capabilities. Classic non-linear strategy in a zero-sum competition where perception becomes reality.

— EchoesOfFuture (@EchoesOfFuture) April 7, 2025

China’s increasing showcasing of its 6th-gen stealth bomber is largely a show of force by Beijing as trade tensions with Washington boil over. Just more evidence of a bipolar world taking shape.

The Kremlin has complained that progress toward achieving Ukraine war ceasefire talks with the United States has been stalled as it awaits answers to key questions issued to the Trump administration.

President Vladimir Putin still supports the idea of a ceasefire, a new Monday Kremlin statement said, but Russia has yet to be given answers which could bring progress to talks. Moscow has called these “crucial conditions” which must be me before any future ceasefire can take effect.

“President Putin does support the idea of the need for a ceasefire, but before that a number of questions must be answered,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

“These questions are still hanging in the air; so far no one has given an answer to them,” he emphasized.

For example, Putin has said there would have to be some kind of agreed-upon verification mechanism to ensure Ukraine’s military doesn’t rearm during any truce period.

But the Kremlin has also said it is dubious this could ever actually be achieved in reality due to the significant numbers of “extremist and nationalist units” within the Ukrainian military’s ranks.

Putin had starting in mid-March conveyed a list of conditions in response to a proposed 30-day US-backed ceasefire, via state media translation:

—“guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not conduct mobilization, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons,” Putin said during a press briefing with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow.

—“These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?” Putin asked.

—Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, violations could be easily disputed, leading to a blame game between both sides. Systems of “control and verification” to monitor a ceasefire are not in place but should be agreed.

Also, back in January Putin had explained why a short-term truce will be rejected. He had said at the time, “The goal should not be a short truce, not some kind of respite for regrouping forces and rearmament with the aim of subsequently continuing the conflict, but a long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people, all nations living in this region.”

Rubio last week: “We’re not interested in negotiations about negotiations, this thing will not last forever.”

‘We’re not interested in negotiations about negotiations, this thing will not last forever’ – #Marco_Rubio on Ukraine talks progress#USA | #Ukraine | #Russia pic.twitter.com/w2DmWjYYea

— ⚡️🌎 World News 🌐⚡️ (@ferozwala) April 4, 2025

Currently an ‘energy site ceasefire’ is on, but since it was supposedly agreed to by both Moscow and Kiev last month, both have complained of repeat violations. Russia says it has submitted a list of these violations to Washington but hasn’t received a response on this either.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to New York’s 2022 gun law, leaving restrictions in place on concealed-carry licenses and firearm bans in “sensitive locations,” including churches, healthcare facilities, entertainment venues, parks, and other public places where people gather.

Bloomberg noted, “The justices without comment turned away an appeal by six New York residents who said the restrictions infringe the Constitution’s Second Amendment and fly in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings bolstering gun rights.” 

The case is Antonyuk v. James, 24-795.

Gun Owners Foundation wrote on X, “Supreme Court DENIES certiorari on our lawsuit Antonyuk v. James on interlocutory appeal,” adding, “We are challenging New York’s unconstitutional “good moral character” requirement to carry a firearm—which was passed to restrict gun rights after NYSRPA v. Bruen.”

🚨BREAKING🚨 ⁰⁰Supreme Court DENIES certiorari on our lawsuit Antonyuk v. James on interlocutory appeal.⁰⁰We are challenging New York’s unconstitutional “good moral character” requirement to carry a firearm—which was passed to restrict gun rights after NYSRPA v. Bruen. pic.twitter.com/b2gH2y3Gr0

— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) April 7, 2025

“This is a real shame. I know the Supreme Court doesn’t like taking cases on interlocutory appeal, but New Yorkers’ rights are being infringed!” Gun Owners of America’s Aidan Johnston wrote on X. 

This is a real shame. I know the Supreme Court doesn’t like taking cases on interlocutory appeal, but New Yorkers’ rights are being infringed!

— Aidan Johnston (@RealGunLobbyist) April 7, 2025

The decision leaves in place an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld key provisions while striking some down. This is the third time the court has rejected an appeal in the case, effectively upholding a lower court’s decision that found most restrictions constitutional.

Last July, the Supreme Court sidestepped several gun-related cases shortly after upholding a federal law that bans individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. 

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden-era rule regulating so-called “ghost guns”…

Authored by Kim Witczak via The Brownstone Institute,

I never set out to be an advocate.

I wasn’t a doctor, scientist, or policy expert. I was just a regular person who, like so many, blindly trusted that our healthcare system was designed to protect us.

But life has a way of pulling us into the arena when we least expect it.

After the tragic and unexpected loss of my husband Woody to the antidepressant Zoloft he was prescribed for insomnia, I was thrust into a world I never imagined—one where medicine wasn’t solely about healing, but deeply entangled in a system that prioritizes profit over safety, buries harms, and keeps the public in the dark.

For over two decades, I’ve had a front-row seat to how this system truly operates—not the illusion of rigorous oversight we see in medical journals or glossy pharmaceutical ads, but the reality of how industry influence is woven into every stage.

I’ve met with regulators, testified before the FDA and Congress, filed a wrongful death and failure-to-warn lawsuit against Pfizer, and earned a seat on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee as a consumer representative.

I’ve also spoken at and participated in global conferences like Selling Sickness, Too Much Medicine, and the Harms in Medicine meeting in Erice, Italy—where some of the world’s leading experts acknowledge what few in mainstream medicine dare to say:

Our healthcare system isn’t about health—it’s about business.

And in this business, harm isn’t an accident. It’s built into the system.

The more I uncovered, the more I realized:

We aren’t just patients. We are customers.

And we are all trapped in Big Pharma’s spiderweb of influence.

The Spiderweb of Influence

The more I learned, the more I saw just how deeply embedded the pharmaceutical industry is—not just in drug development and marketing but in every corner of our healthcare system.

That’s why I created the Big Pharma Spider Web of Influence—to visually map out how the system is designed not to prioritize health but to sell sickness while minimizing, downplaying, or outright hiding harms.

From clinical trial design to regulatory approval, from direct-to-consumer advertising to medical education, from controlling medical journals to silencing dissenting voices, the industry has built an intricate and self-reinforcing web—one that traps doctors, patients, and even regulators in a cycle of pharmaceutical dependence.

How the Web Works

• Clinical trials are often designed, funded, and controlled by the very companies that stand to profit. They manipulate data to exaggerate benefits and obscure risks, ensuring that negative results are buried, spun, or never published at all.

• Regulatory agencies like the FDA are deeply entangled with the industry they’re supposed to oversee. More than 50% of the FDA’s budget comes from industry-paid user fees, and a revolving door ensures that many key decision-makers come from—and later return to—pharmaceutical companies.

• Medical journals depend on pharmaceutical funding through advertising, reprint sales, and industry-sponsored studies—severely limiting independent scrutiny of drug safety. Many studies are ghostwritten or crafted by paid “key opinion leaders” (KOLs) who serve as pharma’s trusted messengers.

• Doctors receive education through industry-funded programs, learning “best practices” based on treatment guidelines crafted by the very system that profits from overprescription.

• Patient advocacy groups, once independent grassroots organizations, have been co-opted by industry money, ensuring that the loudest voices often serve pharma’s interests rather than patients’ needs. I call them “astroturf” patient groups—they look like real grassroots organizations, but they’re anything but.

• Screenings and guidelines continuously expand the definitions of disease, turning more people into lifelong customers.

This isn’t about one bad actor or isolated corruption—it’s a systemic issue. The entire structure is designed to push more drugs onto the market, medicalize normal human experiences, and only acknowledge harm when it becomes too big to ignore.

It’s a brilliant business model—but a catastrophic public health strategy.

“To Sell to Everyone:” The Business Model of Medicine

If this sounds like a conspiracy, consider the bold admission made by Henry Gadsden, former CEO of Merck, in a 1976 interview with Fortune Magazine:

“The problem we have had is limiting the potential of drugs to sick people. We could be more like Wrigley’s Gum…it has long been my dream to make drugs for healthy people. To sell to everyone.”

– Former Merck CEO Henry Gadsden

Let that sink in.

This wasn’t about curing disease—it was about expanding markets. Gadsden’s vision wasn’t just to treat illness, but to medicalize everyday life—creating a cradle-to-grave model where every person, healthy or sick, became a customer for life. Just like selling a variety of gum—something for everyone. Juicy Fruit, Big Red, Doublemint, Spearmint, and so on.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Today, we live in a system where:

• Everyday emotions—sadness, worry, shyness—are rebranded as medical conditions requiring treatment.

• Preventive medicine often means lifelong prescriptions, not lifestyle changes.

• Drugs are marketed to the “worried well”, turning normal human experiences into diagnoses.

This isn’t just theory—it’s well documented. In Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients, Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels expose how pharmaceutical companies create diseases, expand diagnostic criteria, and convince the public that normal life experiences require medical intervention.

The goal?

Make medication the default—not the last resort.

Harms Are Always an Afterthought

Harms from medication are not rare, nor are they unexpected. 

But in this system, they are treated as acceptable collateral damage—something to be dealt with only after the damage is done, after lives are lost or forever changed.

I’ve sat in FDA Advisory Committee meetings, reviewing new drug applications, and have seen firsthand how safety concerns are often dismissed in favor of “innovation” or “unmet medical need.”

I’ve heard industry representatives and advisory committee members argue that safety signals can be addressed post-market, meaning after a drug is already in circulation and causing harm or a required REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) program upon approval.

But by the time post-market safety issues are acknowledged, it’s often too late.

We’ve seen this play out over and over:

• Opioids—marketed as “non-addictive” and pushed aggressively onto patients, leading to an epidemic of addiction and death.

• SSRIs and antidepressants—long linked to increased risks of suicide and violence, particularly in young people, yet downplayed or dismissed for decades. Other hidden harms include withdrawal syndromes and Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD), conditions that many patients were never warned about.

• Antipsychotics—widely prescribed for off-label use, leading to severe metabolic and neurological side effects.

• Covid-19 vaccines—an experimental mRNA platform rushed to market, mandated, and imposed on society despite limited long-term safety data and growing concerns over harms.

Every time, the pattern is the same:

The industry sells the benefits while downplaying the risks—until those risks become too big to ignore.

By then, the drug is a blockbuster, billions have been made, and the system moves on to the next new “breakthrough.”

More Than Degrees: The Truth of Lived Experience

One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned in this fight is that real-world experience matters just as much as credentials.

Over the years, I’ve been invited to speak at medical schools, PhD programs, and universities, thanks to brave academics willing to challenge the narrative. I share my journey as an accidental advocate—someone who didn’t have a medical degree but discovered America’s broken drug system the hard way.

But let’s be honest—the medical world is driven by credentials. Or, as I like to say, the alphabet soup.

At conferences, attendees wear name tags listing their titles—MD, PhD, JD, MPH. It’s a quick way to size someone up, to assess credibility before even speaking. And I’ve seen it happen: people glance at my name tag, see no impressive letters after my name, and walk right by.

Years ago, I was speaking at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference and noticed my badge read: Kim Witczak, BA.

I was horrified. Was that really necessary? Did my name tag need to remind everyone that I only had a BA?

Later, I was telling the story to a doctor friend, and he laughed.

“Next time, tell them BA stands for Bad Ass.”

And he was right.

Because real expertise doesn’t always come from an advanced degree—it comes from lived experience, from asking the right questions, from refusing to accept the status quo.

The Counterargument: But Don’t We Need Experts?

Of course, some will argue that only experts with MDs and PhDs should be trusted to shape healthcare policy.

But that assumes that the system they operate in is free from bias, conflicts of interest, or financial incentives.

The reality is that many of those with the most letters after their names are also the ones benefiting from pharma funding—whether through consulting fees, research grants, or advisory roles.

Meanwhile, patients and their families—the ones living with the consequences—are too often ignored.

That needs to change.

Asking Better Questions: Reclaiming Our Power

If there’s one thing I’ve learned on this journey, it’s this: no one is coming to save us. The institutions meant to protect us are too entangled in the web to act with true independence.

My late husband, Woody, used to say: “Follow the money.” And when you do, the truth becomes impossible to ignore. Pharmaceutical profits—not patient well-being—drive the system. That’s why the only way to create real change is through awareness, transparency, and fundamentally shifting how we think about medicine and health.

That starts with asking better questions:

• Who funded this research?

• Does this person or institution have financial ties, intellectual bias, or self-interest that could impact their recommendations?

• Who benefits from this treatment?

• What aren’t we being told?

• What are the long-term consequences of this drug or intervention?

• Are there safer, non-drug alternatives being ignored because they aren’t profitable?

But asking the right questions isn’t enough.

We have to stop outsourcing our health to a system built on financial incentives and guided by corporate interests.

We must demand full transparency, challenge the status quo, and recognize that sometimes the best medicine isn’t a pill but a deeper understanding of what our bodies truly need.

Because once you see the web, you can’t unsee it.

And once you recognize how deeply medicine has been shaped by profit, you’ll realize the most important question isn’t just “What can I take?”—it’s “Who benefits if I do?”

Final Thoughts: Tearing Down the Web

I never wanted to be in this fight, but once you see the web, you can’t unsee it. That’s why I continue to speak out, to challenge the system, and to push for real accountability.

Because the stakes aren’t theoretical. They’re deeply personal.

For me, this fight began over two decades ago with Woody. But for countless others, it begins the moment they or someone they love is caught in the web—trusting a system that was never truly designed to protect them.

It’s time to tear down the web.

And it starts with seeing it for what it really is.

Republished from the author’s Substack