Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration has suspended several dozen federally funded research grants to Princeton University as part of its investigation into campus anti-Semitism, according to a Princeton University email published by the Daily Princetonian student newspaper.

The email, dated April 1 and sent to the campus community by university President Christopher Eisgruber, said the university received the notification from the funding agencies, including the Departments of Energy, Defense, and NASA.

Eisgruber’s email did not disclose the amount of money in question.

“The full rationale for this action is not yet clear, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide our response,” Eisgruber’s email said.

“Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating anti-Semitism.

“Princeton will also vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of this university.”

Eisgruber’s email said more information would be released following conversations with affected faculty, researchers, and grant managers.

Princeton is among the 60 elite higher education institutions currently under federal investigation for the harassment of Jewish students following Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Eisgruber and his colleagues from fellow Ivy League institutions—Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, and Yale—were among those who received March 10 letters from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

The letter reminded university presidents of existing Civil Rights laws. It noted President Donald Trump’s executive order that states colleges and universities risk the loss of federal funding if they fail to combat campus anti-Semitism.

“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a March 10 statement from the Education Department announcing the letters sent to universities. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”

The Trump administration announced on March 31 that it is examining $8.7 billion in contracts with Harvard.

In an email response to The Epoch Times, Harvard University officials said the school has taken steps in the past 15 months to address anti-Semitism on campus, but the Trump administration still believes the school has a long way to go.

“We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat anti-Semitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat anti-Semitism,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a letter sent to students and employees.

“We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.

“By doing so, we combat bias and intolerance as we create the conditions that foster the excellence in teaching and research that is at the core of our mission.”

Columbia University was the first school to lose federal funding, $400 million, due to campus anti-Semitism.

The university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, complied with nine conditions outlined by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other federal agencies before resigning on March 28.

Eisgruber is also the board chairman of the American Association of Universities, which publicly criticized the Trump administration’s education cuts and, in February, filed a federal lawsuit opposing reductions to National Institute of Health research grants to universities.

“This action is ill-conceived and self-defeating for both America’s patients and their families as well as the nation as a whole,” the association’s Feb. 10 statement said.

“We look forward to presenting our case in court.”

Eisgruber’s March 19 editorial in The Atlantic magazine criticizing the Trump administration’s actions against Columbia University is posted on Princeton’s website.

“The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned,” he wrote.

The Epoch Times contacted Princeton University and the Department of Education, which referred to the departments of Defense and Energy.

The Department of Defense declined to comment.

British comedian Russell Brand has been charged with rape, indecent assault and sexual assault over claims made by four women spanning 1999 – 2005. The move follows a September 2023 investigation by the Sunday Times, after which Brand was interviewed multiple times by police.

The 49-year-old has previously denied all allegations, calling them “very, very hurtful,” and insisting that his relationships have been “absolutely, always consensual.”

In a short statement reported by the BBC (which has been running cover for ‘in-club’ pedophiles for decades), the Metropolitan Police said it informed Brand of the charges, which allege;

• In 1999 a woman was raped in the Bournemouth area.
• In 2001 a woman was indecently assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• In 2004 a woman was orally raped and sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• Between 2004 and 2005, a woman was sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.

Brand, believed to be in the United States, has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on May 2. If he refuses to fly back to face charges, authorities may consider extradition.

In a statement, Jaswant Narwal of the Crown Prosecution Service said (via the BBC);

“We have today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Russell Brand with a number of sexual offences.

“We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023.

“We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault. These relate to reported non-recent offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women.

“The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

The Metropolitan Police’s detective superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.

“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police. A dedicated team of investigators is available via email at CIT@met.police.uk.

“Support is also available by contacting the independent charity, Rape Crisis at 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line.”

Shortly after the allegations made headlines in 2023, he was demonetized by YouTube. 

“If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” a YouTube spokesperson told Deadline at the time.

His content will remain on YouTube, but he will no longer be able to make money from the videos, which lean heavily into internet conspiracies about politics, Covid, and UFOs.

Sara McCorquodale, chief executive of social media analysis agency CORQ, told The Guardian that Brand makes an estimated £2,000 ($2,500) to £4,000 per video, which would equate to up to £1M a year if he published five a week. -Deadline

Brand’s channel has 6.8M subscribers.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration was sued by a nonprofit civil rights group on April 3, with the organization saying that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs on Chinese imports.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), alleges that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose the sweeping tariffs unveiled this week, as well as levies he introduced on Feb. 1 by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

NCLA filed the lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based retailer that sells home management products and imports materials from China.

The lawsuit lists Trump, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Pete Flores, and CBP as defendants.

The lawsuit comes a day after Trump announced broader levies on nearly all U.S. trading partners as part of what he described as efforts to balance trade deficits.

According to the lawsuit, the IEEPA authorizes specific emergency actions—such as imposing sanctions or freezing assets—to protect the United States from foreign threats, but it does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

“The Constitution assigns Congress exclusive power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce,” the lawsuit states.

“Presidents can impose tariffs only when Congress grants permission, which it has done in carefully drawn trade statutes.”

Typically, these statutes authorize tariffs only on industries or countries that meet “specified criteria,” and only under “specified conditions,” after following certain procedures, the lawsuit states. “Such statutes require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope.”

Trump has declared an emergency over China’s alleged role in facilitating the flow of illicit fentanyl into the United States.

The lawsuit argues his justification is a pretext for imposing tariffs with the goal of reducing U.S. trade deficits while boosting tax revenue.

“President Trump is attempting to bypass these constraints by invoking the IEEPA,” plaintiffs write in the lawsuit. 

“But in the IEEPA’s almost 50-year history, no previous president has used it to impose tariffs. Which is not surprising, since the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens.”

According to the legal filing, Trump’s tariffs on China will force Simplified to make higher tariff payments, driving up its costs and thus prices for its customers, while simultaneously reducing its profits.

The lawsuit asks the court to block the tariffs from being implemented and enforced and to undo Trump’s changes to the U.S. tariff schedule.

Trump announced on April 2 that goods imported from China, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, will be hit with a 34 percent duty under his new tariff plan. That is on top of the 20 percent tariff he imposed on China in February, bringing the total new levies to 54 percent.

Speaking from the Rose Garden at the White House, Trump stated that the tariffs will lead to increased jobs and domestic production while also lowering prices for consumers.

“This will be indeed the golden age of America,  it’s coming back we’re going to come back very strongly,” Trump said.

A spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the tariffs violate World Trade Organization rules and “undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system.”

“China firmly rejects this and will do what is necessary to defend our legitimate rights and interests,” the spokesperson said.

The Epoch Times contacted the White House for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Authored by Stephen Katte via CoinTelegraph.com,

European Union regulators are reportedly mulling a $1 billion fine against Elon Musk’s X, taking into account revenue from his other ventures, including Tesla and SpaceX, according to The New York Times.

EU regulators allege that X has violated the Digital Services Act and will use a section of the act to calculate a fine based on revenue that includes other companies Musk controls, according to an April 3 report by the newspaper, which cited four people with knowledge of the plan.

Under the Digital Services Act, which came into law in October 2022 to police social media companies and “prevent illegal and harmful activities online,” companies can be fined up to 6% of global revenue for violations.

A spokesman for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, declined to comment on this case to The New York Times but did say it would “continue to enforce our laws fairly and without discrimination toward all companies operating in the EU.”

In a statement, X’s Global Government Affairs team said that if the reports about the EU’s plans are accurate, it “represents an unprecedented act of political censorship and an attack on free speech.”

“X has gone above and beyond to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act, and we will use every option at our disposal to defend our business, keep our users safe, and protect freedom of speech in Europe,” X’s global government affairs team said.

Source: Global Government Affairs

Along with the fine, the EU regulators could reportedly demand product changes at X, with the full scope of any penalties to be announced in the coming months. 

Still, a settlement could be reached if the social media platform agrees to changes that satisfy regulators, according to the Times. 

One of the officials who spoke to the Times also said that X is facing a second investigation alleging the platform’s approach to policing user-generated content has made it a hub of illegal hate speech and disinformation, which could result in more penalties.

X EU investigation ongoing since 2023

The EU investigation began in 2023. A preliminary ruling in July 2024 found X had violated the Digital Services Act by refusing to provide data to outside researchers, provide adequate transparency about advertisers, or verify the authenticity of users who have a verified account.

X responded to the ruling with hundreds of points of dispute, and Musk said at the time he was offered a deal, alleging that EU regulators told him if he secretly suppressed certain content, X would escape fines. 

Thierry Breton, the former EU commissioner for internal market, said in a July 12 X post in 2024 that there was no secret deal and that X’s team had asked for the “Commission to explain the process for settlement and to clarify our concerns,” and its response was in line with “established regulatory procedures.” 

Musk replied he was looking “forward to a very public battle in court so that the people of Europe can know the truth.”

Source: Thierry Breton

Update (0949ET):

President Trump wrote on Truth Social that China “played it wrong” after Beijing announced retaliatory tariffs on imported US goods earlier this morning.

“They panicked,” Trump said, adding, “The one thing they cannot afford to do!” 

And now, cue Trump’s re-retaliatory tariffs this weekend…

100,000% re-retaliatory tariff incoming pic.twitter.com/Rhx3RNTQXH

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 4, 2025

China has three options in the wake of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff blitz: 

1. Concede defeat to whatever terms Trump demands
2. Devalue the yuan by 20-40%
3. Unleash biggest fiscal stimulus in its history (talking $2-3 trillion) which will push its debt off the chart

China has three options:

1. Concede defeat to whatever terms Trump demands
2. Devalue the yuan by 20-40%
3. Unleash biggest fiscal stimulus in its history (talking $2-3 trillion) which will push its debt off the chart

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 4, 2025

On China’s potential response, George Saravelos, Global Head of FX Research at Deutsche Bank, provided clients with more color (read: here)… 

.   .   . 

U.S. equity futures took another leg lower, the VIX spiked to 36, Treasury yields slipped (UST10Y <4%), crypto tumbled, and the dollar reversed its European session gains—just after 06:00 ET—when China hit back at President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff blitz.

Beijing retaliates:

China to impose additional 34% tariffs on **all** imported U.S. products starting April 10, the official Xinhua news agency reports.

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) April 4, 2025

According to state-run Xinhua, Beijing announced it would slap 34% retaliatory tariffs on all U.S. imports starting April 10. Details were scarce at the moment. 

“Chinese authorities said they will start a probe into medical CT X-ray tubes imported from the US and India, and halt imports of poultry products from two American companies,” Bloomberg noted. 

Xinhua also reported that Beijing announced export control measures on certain rare earth-related items but did not provide specifics.

China announces export control measures on certain rare earth-related items pic.twitter.com/HBW2ahcjv1

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) April 4, 2025

The move comes two days after Trump’s tariff-a-palooza pushed the effective U.S. tariff rate on Chinese goods to 54%.

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos noted on Thursday that the big negative surprise this week has been the 50%+ tariff rate on China (far worse than expectations) and the key connector economy Vietnam, which affected $600bn worth of manufactured goods to the U.S. combined.

Goldman helped clients visualize this move. 

On Thursday, Beijing condemned the escalating tariff war, calling it “unilateral bullying. ” It added that it “firmly opposes” the tariff war and “will resolutely take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and interests.”

And here we are—risk assets getting hammered again on a Friday morning—as tensions between Washington and Beijing escalate sharply to end the week. Both superpowers remain locked in a stalemate over China’s subsidization of fentanyl precursor chemicals to Mexico, which has fueled the overdose death crisis in the United States. 

Stay on top of the tariff war:

• The Only Chart That Matters… Global Impact Of Trump Tariffs Will Be Determined By Beijing

• “Reign Of Tariffs” Begins: All You Need To Know About Trump’s “Reciprocal” Trade War

• Beijing Slams Trump’s “Unilateral Bullying” Tariffs, Signals Retaliatory Action

In markets, main US equity futures indexes were hammered lower after China retaliated. 

A lot more red. 

UST10Y <4%.

Implied interest rate cuts top 4.5 for the year. 

Bitcoin tumbles.

Dollar loses steam after European surge. 

And Yuan weaker.

*Developing…  

In a tensely-awaited but ultimately unanimous decision, South Korea’s Constitutional Court on Friday finalized the ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol, putting its stamp of approval on his impeachment for having declared martial law on Dec. 3. While some hope the decision will end the country’s biggest political crisis in decades, South Koreans must now choose a new president at a time of intense internal discord, alongside an economic shock in the form of President Trump’s 25% tariff. 

The 8-0 ruling came after weeks of hearings followed by weeks of deliberation. Millions of South Koreans watched the announcement on live television, with many gathering with crowds convening to show either support or opposition of the impeachment. Wary of violence, authorities put some 14,000 police on standby, and gave police advance rules of engagement that cleared them to use pepper spray and batons.  Palaces and other important Seoul facilities were closed, and the US embassy cancelled routine business. As this is written, there are no reports of violence — yet. Yoon’s party said it “humbly” accepted the ruling, which makes Yoon the second president to have been impeached in the country’s history.   

Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae made the announcement at 11am local time: 

“Given the serious negative impact and far-reaching consequences of the respondent’s constitutional violations, we hereby pronounce the following ruling, with the unanimous agreement of all Justices. (We) dismiss respondent President Yoon Suk Yeol.…

He committed a grave betrayal of the trust of the people, who are the sovereign members of the democratic republic…The president took actions beyond the powers. He did not merely declare martial law, but went on to commit acts that violated the Constitution and the law, including mobilizing military and police forces to obstruct the National Assembly’s exercise of its authority

Video captured an anti-Yoon crowd’s reaction:

South Korea faces snap election in sixty days as court upholds Yoon’s impeachment https://t.co/jAscuaH5Dy pic.twitter.com/yAZRijDtCv

— RT (@RT_com) April 4, 2025

Tensions had mounted as South Korea awaited Friday’s ruling. Over recent months, enormous demonstrations organized by both supporters and opponents of Yoon were a regular occurence. Ahead of the ruling, rhetoric ran hot. “If President Yoon is not reinstated, there will be a civil war,” said influential Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, who has organized pro-Yoon demonstrations. He’s described his work as a battle against “Communist Reds.” In two indications of the passion on both sides, opposition-party members have staged hunger strikes in Seoul, while two Yoon partisans self-immolated in protest of his impeachment. 

For now, the ruling leaves acting president and prime minister Han Duck-soo atop South Korea’s government. In an indication of the turmoil that has rocked the country since Yoon’s early-December power move stunned the world, Han was himself impeached two weeks into his acting presidency, accused of aiding and abetting Yoon’s martial law declaration. Last month, the Constitutional Court negated his impeachment, reinstating him as acting president. 

Per South Korea’s constitution, an election must now be held within 60 days to choose his successor. Recent polls suggest that Lee Jae-myung of the center-left Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) is the clear favorite. Unlike Yoon, Lee recently came out on the right side of a court ruling:  His conviction on charges of making false statements during his 2022 presidential campaign was overturned in March. That case centered on Lee’s having denied he knew a businessman involved in corruption-stained real estate development project. The High Court ruled that the evidence had been insufficient. In January 2024, Lee survived a would-be assassin’s knife attack that left Lee bleeding from his jugular vein.   

STREET PARTY AS YOON SUK YEOL IS REMOVED AS PRESIDENT. pic.twitter.com/mHjl3XJRlB

— Raphael Rashid (@koryodynasty) April 4, 2025

In his stunning late-night declaration of martial law in December, Yoon railed against “shameless pro-North-Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens,” promising that he would “eliminate anti-state forces as quickly as possible and normalize the country.” Soldiers and police immediately surrounded the National Assembly, but 190 of the 300 members of parliament managed to unanimously vote to annul the martial law declaration. Yoon retracted it and apologized, but was impeached in the following days. In his Constitutional Court hearings, he said the move was necessary to “alert the public” to the “wickedness” of the opposition.  

The 64-year-old Yoon may lose more than the presidency — he has been criminally charged with insurrection, and his trial begins on April 14. His defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun, is likewise in legal peril. He resigned upon being charged with insurrection, and then attempted to kill himself hours later in police custody. Lawmakers accused him of sending drones to Pyongyang, North Korea to spark retaliation and give Yoon a pretext for martial law. The country’s top two law enforcement officers were also arrested. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A college female fencer in Maryland refused to compete against an opponent who is a biological male and has been expelled as a result.

Stephanie Turner refused to compete against transgender fencer Redmond Sullivan at the Cherry Blossom Open, opting to take a knee at the start of the match, consequently being disqualified from the tournament.

“I knew what I had to do because USA Fencing had not been listening to women’s objections regarding [its gender eligibility policy],” Turner said following the incident. 

Female fencer takes a knee to protest against her biologically male opponent during a fencing match.

The opponent, Redmond Sullivan, switched from the men’s fencing team to the women’s fencing team at Wagner College last year.

Sullivan shockingly started dominating the… pic.twitter.com/v0uw8NF6Ji

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 2, 2025

“I took a knee immediately at that point. Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So, when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and said, ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual,” she further urged.

“Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks, ‘Are you OK?’ And I said, ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you,” Turner continued.

Turner then described how she was paraded in front of the bout committee to explain her actions. 

She was provided a copy of USA Fencing’s transgender policy and was forced under objection to sign a document acknowledging a black card.

USA Fencing defended  its policy, claiming that it “was designed to expand access to the sport of fencing and create inclusive, safe spaces.”

“The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day,” USA Fencing further proclaimed in the statement.

Tennis legend Martina Navratilova is among those expressing disgust at the organisation’s actions.

This is what happens when female athletes protest! Anyone here still thinks this is fair??? I am fuming… and shame on @USAFencing , shame on you for doing this. How dare you throw women under the gender bullshit bus!!! https://t.co/2ojOJvJiLx

— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) April 2, 2025

Sick to death of this. Absolutely sick of it.

“How does this affect you women?”

Like this. Every time.

All males OUT of women’s sports. https://t.co/tPXhY6xpUP

— James Dreyfus (@DreyfusJames) April 2, 2025

Can you imagine punishing a woman for choosing to not fight a man in college sports?

What kind of upside down world are we living in?

I hate this.

— Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) April 2, 2025

Others lauded Turner for refusing to be pressured into an unfair competition.

This is how it’s done.

This nonsense only stops when every female athlete refuses to compete against males.

— 🇺🇸 Pismo 🇺🇸 (@Pismo_B) April 2, 2025

I hate to see her lose for her cause but it is a brave and necessary effort.

Well done.

— Benjamin Way (@BWay124) April 2, 2025

President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office prohibiting biological males from competing in women’s sports, prompting the NCAA to change its trans athlete policy to reflect the order.

However, USA Fencing is primarily governed by its own Board of Directors, operates as a nonprofit entity and is recognised by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) as the official National Governing Body (NGB) for fencing.

As such, it has autonomy in its day-to-day governance, but must comply with USOPC standards and requirements, particularly regarding athlete representation, safety, and Olympic-related activities.

It remains to be seen how this will consequently play out as relates to Trump’s executive order.

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

After today’s shocking retaliation by China, which hiked tariffs on US goods by 34%, the jobs report was an afterthought. To be honest, it would have been an asymmetric afterhought any way, as any upside would have been viewed as stale and not reflecting the new tariff reality, while any miss would have cemented the recession case. And while the market is certainly far more focused on the ongoing trade war, in the end, the March jobs report ended up being far stronger than expected, as the US added a whopping 228K jobs, the highest since December and more than double the 117K in February (revised lower from 151K)…

… and beating the consensus estimate of 140K by 3 sigma

The number was also above the highest estimate from Wall Street analysts, which was 200K.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised down by 14,000, from +125,000 to +111,000, and the change for February was revised down by 34,000, from +151,000 to +117,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 48,000 lower than previously reported.

The unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2%, above the estimate of an unchanged print…

… as the number of unemployed workers rose modestly to 7.083 million from 7.052 million, even as the labor force rose fractionally from 170.359 million to 170.591 million.

And tied to that, while the Establishment survey rose by 228K, the Household survey also improved by a similar amount, with the number of employed workers rose by 201K, to 163.508 million.

Turning to wages, there was some more good news in the report, at least for those hoping for a fed rate cut: while the monthly average hourly earnings rose 0.3%, as expected and the same as last month, the annual increase in wages was 3.8%, down from 4.0% last month and below the 4.0% estimate, suggesting the wage growth continues to cool sharply, allowing the Fed to resume rate cuts.

Some more detailed from the jobs report: 

• The number of people employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.8 million, changed little in March. These individuals would have preferred full-time employment but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
• The number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job was essentially unchanged at 5.9 million in March. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a
• Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of people marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.7 million, was essentially unchanged in March. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, changed little at 509,000 in March.

Next we go through the qualitative breakdown of the Establishment survey, where we find that job gains occurred in health care, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing. Employment also increased in retail trade, partially reflecting the return of workers from a strike. Federal government employment declined.

• Health care added 54,000 jobs in March, in line with the average monthly gain of 52,000 over the prior 12 months. Over the month, employment continued to trend up in ambulatory health care services (+20,000), hospitals (+17,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+17,000).
• Employment in social assistance increased by 24,000, higher than the average monthly gain of 19,000 over the prior 12 months. Over the month, individual and family services added 22,000 jobs.
• Retail trade added 24,000 jobs in March, as workers returning from a strike contributed to a job gain in food and beverage retailers (+21,000). General merchandise retailers lost 5,000 jobs.
• Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 23,000 in March, about double the prior 12-month average gain of 12,000. In March, job gains in couriers and messengers (+16,000) and truck transportation (+10,000) were partially offset by a job loss in warehousing and storage (-9,000).
• Within government, federal government employment declined by 4,000 in March, following a loss of 11,000 jobs in February. (Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.)

Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; information; financial activities; professional and business services; leisure and hospitality; and other services.

Here is a visual summary:

Commenting on the numbers, Trump posted on Truth Social that job numbers were “far better than expected” and that “it’s already working.”

Trump’s tweet suggests that contrary to some expectations, the president isn’t actually looking to throw the economy in a recession, but will push to keep it from crashing while he is playing the great game of trade war chicken with China and the rest of the world, which makes lives for traders more difficult as it means the Fed will have to make decisions on a tweet by tweet basis, which will be problematic.

Meanwhile, others disagreed: here is Seema Shah from Ptincipal Asset Management who encapsulates prevailing sentiment well:

“Everyone knows that economic weakness is coming, but at least we can be reassured that the labor market was robust coming into this policy-driven shock and therefore, the slowdown should not be overly steep. Next month is when hard data is likely to start showing signs of what soft data has already been signalling. From the Fed’s perspective, today’s payrolls number will not prevent them from future policy rate cuts – they know that this is just a moment of calm before the storm hits.”

Gregory Faranello, strategist at AmeriVet Securities, explained why today’s jobs report was largely ignored: “it’s all about the forward outlook around tariffs and the ensuing impact on global demand. You would never have thought to see yields performing this way with a jobs report like this.”

Ed Al-Hussainy, rates strategist at Columbia Threadneedle Investment, says “the market is betting that recession risks and the tightening of financial conditions will force the Fed to cut aggressively” now up to 100bp this year and rising. 

As for Powell’s speech later this morning, Al-Hussainy says: “If we get any pushback against this from Powell & Co., front end rates may end up offside.”

But perhaps the best wrap of today’s jobs report, however, was from Omair Sharif,  Inflation Insights: “Someone forgot there was a recession coming.”

Our conversation with a few institutional desks suggests a growing interest in the downstream economic impact of DOGE-related federal agency restructurings across Washington, DC—particularly with USAID neutered, the Department of Education dismantled, and numerous other agencies experiencing tens of thousands of job cuts. Additionally, the termination of federal contractors and NGO staff raises further concerns that the nation’s capital—fueled mainly by taxpayer dollars—could face outsized economic disruption.

Goldman Chief Economist Jan Hatzius shared new insights with clients on Sunday, unveiling an economic snapshot of the DC metro area economy through the firm’s new Monthly U.S. Government Activity—a data dashboard that monitors DC government employment, spending, and other economic trends.

Hatzius said the first two months of the second Trump administration had featured federal agency restructuring, spending cuts, and federal layoffs, prompting his team to launch the monthly U.S. Government Activity Tracker to monitor employment and spending trends.

Jobs data so far indicates early signs of reduction in the government workforce, with 49.3k employees (1.6% of the workforce) affected. This includes 21k probationary workers, along with further cuts planned at agencies like the VA, DoD, IRS, and HHS. Initial unemployment claims for federal workers rose in late February (read here) and early March but have since moderated, while DC job postings on Indeed.com are down 11% since January. Hatzius noted that the broader labor market impact remains minimal.

Federal spending shows some confirmed cuts, particularly at the State Department and FCC, though total cash withdrawals from the Treasury align with historical norms. Contract awards have fallen slightly, while grant awards have stagnated below trend since Inauguration Day. Government travel has also slowed, but DC airport traffic remains stable, while DC Metrorail ridership surged as federal workers were called back to the office. 

Data from Morning Consult shows consumer sentiment among federal workers has soured, especially across the DC metro area since the start of the year. 

Here’s the U.S. Government Activity Tracker snapshot for March: 

Employment

Reduction in Force Orders Have Affected an Estimated 49.3k Federal Employees So Far

Initial Unemployment Claims Filed by Federal Employees Remain Elevated

Further RIF Layoffs Have Been Reported at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, and Internal Revenue Service

Job Openings in Washington DC Have Declined Considerably

Federal Government Job Growth Slowed to 0.7% Year-over-year in February

Spending

Total Federal Government Operating Cash Withdrawals Are Roughly On-trend…

But Spending is Undershooting in Several Key Department and Agencies

Federal Contracts Activity Declined Slightly in February but Still Lies Within Normal Ranges

Federal Grants Have Largely Stagnated at a Below-trend Level Since Inauguration Day

Government Travel

Recent Company Anecdotes Highlight Negative Impacts on the Airlines and Hospitality Sectors

No Signs of Decline in DC-Area Flights

Weekday Metrorail Ridership Reaches a Post-pandemic High as Federal Employees Return to Office

Consumer Sentiment

Sentiment Among Government Employees Has Declined Sharply, Especially Among Those Residing in the DC Area

Market Performance of Companies Exposed to Government Spending Cuts Has Declined Since Election Day

Some IT Software, Defense, and Real Estate Companies Are Cautiously Optimistic About the Efficiency-driven Spending Cuts

Hatzius pointed out, “Taken together, the data captures a modest real-time impact on employment and discretionary and operational spending but otherwise suggests limited growth implications. We continue to expect these government spending cuts to have a relatively limited macroeconomic impact.” 

Separate from Goldman, we have commented on everything from MLS housing data to jobs data, which only show that the real pain for the DC Swamp—whether in DC itself, Northern Virginia, or Maryland—has yet to hit.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Democrats in Colorado have introduced legislation that would recognise ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ as forms of abuse of children who have decided to identify as transgender.

Colorado Newsline reports that the bill, called “The Kelly Loving Act” after a transgender-identifying individual killed in a 2022 club shooting in Colorado Springs, would ensure such ‘abuse’ be considered in child custody disputes.

The legislation defines ‘deadnaming’ as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name.”

INSANE. The CO House Committee has voted 7-4 to pass a radical transgender bill that makes “misgendering” a “discriminatory act,” takes children away from parents who “deadname” or “misgender,” and pushes gender ideology in all schools, including private and charter.

Every… pic.twitter.com/x5WOwAKI6Z

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 2, 2025

It identifies ‘misgendering’ as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual using an honorific or pronoun that conflicts with the individual’s gender identity or gender expression.”

That’s right, calling little Jimmy ‘he/him’ after he’s decided he wants to be little Janey would be classed as child abuse.

🚨Yesterday, these 7 Colorado Reps voted to force all parents to affirm their kids’ gender dysphoria, or else the state will take them — and force ALL Coloradans call a man a woman if he tells you to, or else the state will come after you. https://t.co/7clVMmk2wN pic.twitter.com/DI1shaEYLE

— Erin for Parental Rights (@Erin4Parents) April 3, 2025

The bill outlines that courts overseeing child custody decisions would have to consider ‘misgendering,’ and ‘deadnaming,’ as “coercive control” on behalf of a parent.

A group of Colorado Democrats in the state legislature have introduced legislation to require courts to consider “deadnaming” and “misgendering” in court battles regarding child custody.

DETAILS: https://t.co/4nrqsJCWd7 pic.twitter.com/dSGtiU5Qqe

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) April 2, 2025

Imagine the scenario. The kid sees something on social media and decides he’s a girl now. Dad, let’s call him Chad, thinks it’s just a phase or an example of social contagion, but Mom, Karen, is adamant it’s not and wants to give the kid puberty blockers.

Who do you think is gonna get custody if the parents are separated?

A father in Colorado was gagged by the court during a custody battle because he refused to give his child puberty blockers.

Democrats in CO are now pushing bill HB25-1312 which would take “misgendering” & “deadnaming” into account during custody hearings. pic.twitter.com/vxOxRu3M8F

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 3, 2025

The report also notes that the legislation would prohibit Colorado courts from enforcing orders or laws from other states that require a child to be removed from parents who allow them to undergo ‘transition’ procedures.

The bill would also ensure that ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ are recognised as discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. 

The report also highlights that the proposed law would mandate schools to adopt policies regarding “chosen names” and prohibit school dress codes based on “gender.”

The legislation has passed the House committee on its way to a vote.

When President Trump took office, he signed an Executive Order outlining that there are only two genders. Trump’s order also defunds any schools or clinics supporting transitioning procedures or self identifying when it comes to sex.

JUST IN: A child was denied “gender-affirming care” at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin due to Trump’s EO banning funds for puberty blockers for minors.

President Trump is saving our children from irreversible, harmful drugs. pic.twitter.com/XjWlGMkxu8

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 10, 2025

*  *  *

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