Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge on March 7 declined to block a new federal immigration enforcement policy that lets agents enter schools to arrest illegal immigrants.

U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico, during a hearing in Colorado, rejected a request from Denver Public Schools to enter a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against the policy. He said that Denver Public Schools failed to prove that a drop in attendance was due to a new policy from President Donald Trump’s administration.

The federal government in January rescinded guidelines that largely barred federal officers from arresting illegal immigrants at certain places, including schools and food banks.

Denver Public Schools said in its lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not demonstrated there were good reasons to implement the change.

“Defendants have provided no evidence that it examined relevant data, or any data. For example, Defendants have not cited any evidence to support its statement that criminals were hiding in schools,” the suit stated.

That means the move was arbitrary and capricious, in contravention of federal law, Denver officials said.

A DHS spokesperson said at the time that the administration was “protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and taking safe haven there because these criminals knew law enforcement couldn’t go inside under the previous Administration. DHS’s directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs.”

A DHS official said in a Jan. 31 memorandum that a supervisor needed to approve immigration enforcement operations at or near churches and other “protected areas.”

Since the policy change, Denver school officials said that there has been a decrease in school attendance and a slew of reported ICE raids around schools. Denver’s superintendent told the court that students and parents had been arrested in the raids, stoking fear in the school community.

Under a previous version of the policy, agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS component, made just two arrests at schools, under exigent circumstances, from Oct. 1, 2018, through Oct. 31, 2020, according to a court filing. Another 18 arrests were made near schools.

Federal officials said in court filings that Denver officials have not shown the drop in attendance or any other injury was caused by the new DHS policy. “Rather, the evidence shows that any drop is the result of fears among students and parents, not any actual enforcement actions by DHS at schools, and may relate to false reports of immigration enforcement at schools or enforcement actions that did not take place on school grounds or at bus stops,” officials said in one filing.

They also said that the new policy did not differ significantly from the previous policy. While that 2021 policy said in part that “we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location” listed as protected, agents were still able to conduct arrests at or around such places, the officials noted. Schools remain on a list of protected areas, and agents still need authorization before entering the locations, they added.

Domenico, the judge, said on Friday that it wasn’t clear how much of the fear surrounding possible enforcement actions in schools was really due to the new rules as opposed to broader concerns of increased immigration actions.

He noted the requirement that authorities receive supervisory approval before entering sensitive places and said that the fear over the new rules, as well as the belief that the old rules provided protection to schools, both seemed to be overstated.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

After a year of modest, barely perceptible inflation, China’s CPI tumbled back far more than expected to fall below zero for the first time in 13 months, an assessment skewed by seasonal distortions but also a sign of deflationary pressures persisting in the economy. Here is the summary:

• CPI: -0.7% yoy (-3.5% mom annualized*) in February vs. Bloomberg consensus: -0.4% yoy; January: +0.5% yoy (-1.7% mom annualized).
  • Food: -3.3% yoy in February (-13.1% mom annualized*) vs. +0.4% yoy in January.
  • Non-food: -0.1% yoy in February (-2.1% mom annualized*) vs. +0.5% yoy in January.
• PPI: -2.2% yoy in February (-1.3% mom annualized*) vs. GS: -2.2% yoy, Bloomberg consensus: -2.1% yoy; January: -2.3% yoy (-0.8% mom annualized).

In February, China’s headline CPI inflation fell to -0.7% yoy from +0.5% yoy in January, driven by lower food prices and tourism-related services prices partly driven by an earlier-than-usual Lunar New Year holiday. Goldman estimates suggest the earlier holiday (January 29 vs. February 10 in 2024) reduced year-over-year headline CPI inflation by 0.7% in February. In month-on-month terms, headline CPI inflation fell to -3.5% (annualized, seasonally adjusted) in February (vs. -1.7% mom s.a. annualized in January).

Even when adjusted for the effect of an earlier-than-usual Lunar New Year holiday, consumer inflation slowed to among the weakest levels in months, according to a Goldman report (available to pro subscribers in the usual place). A decline in services prices, combined with a rare negative reading for core inflation, were among symptoms of sluggish consumption.

More shocking was that China’s core CPI, which excludes volatile items such as food and energy, decreased for the first time since 2021 with a drop of 0.1%, and only the second time the gauge has contracted over more than 15 years. Factory deflation extended into a 29th month.

“China’s economy still faces deflationary pressure,” said Zhiwei Zhang, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management. “Domestic demand remains weak.”

The statistics bureau said a key factor for the decline in inflation was the effect of a high base from a year earlier, created by elevated prices caused by spending during the Lunar New Year. The festival is a moving holiday that fell entirely in February 2024 but ran from Jan. 28 to Feb. 4 this year.

When accounting for seasonality, the statistics bureau estimates consumer inflation actually rose 0.1% from a year earlier in February, according to a statement published on Sunday. Goldman economists estimate the earlier holiday brought year-over-year CPI inflation down by 0.7% in February, so roughly a wash.

Some more details courtesy of Goldman:

In year-over-year terms, food inflation dropped to -3.3% yoy in February from +0.4% yoy in January. The sharp decline of food inflation was mainly due to 1) lower food prices on decreased seasonal demand after the Lunar New Year holiday and 2) increased supply of fresh vegetables from warmer weather compared to a year ago. 

Among major food items, pork prices rose by +4.1% yoy in February (vs. +13.8% yoy in January). Fresh vegetable prices fell by 12.6% yoy in February (vs. +2.4% yoy in January), and fresh fruit prices declined by 1.8% yoy in February (vs. +0.6% yoy in January).

Non-food CPI inflation moderated to -0.1% yoy in February from +0.5% yoy in January. The fall of nonfood CPI inflation was mainly driven by lower tourism-related services prices in February, due to the distortions from timing of Lunar New year holiday. 

For example, transportation services prices fell 3.9% yoy in February (vs. +2.9% yoy in January). Fuel costs fell by 1.2% yoy in February (vs. -0.6% yoy in January), on the falling crude oil prices. After excluding food and energy prices, core CPI inflation fell to -0.1% yoy in February (vs. +0.6% in January). Services inflation declined materially to -0.4% yoy in February from +1.1% in January.

Year-over-year PPI inflation edged up to -2.2% yoy in February (vs. -2.2% yoy in January). In month-over-month terms, PPI inflation declined to -1.3% (annualized, seasonally adjusted) in February (vs. -0.8% in January). PPI inflation in producer goods edged up to -2.5% yoy in February (vs. -2.6% yoy in January), and PPI inflation in consumer goods was flat at -1.2% yoy in February.

A clearer read on China’s inflation trajectory will emerge in March, as investors look for signs that the government’s stimulus is translating into stronger domestic demand. The country is on track for the longest streak of economy-wide price declines since the 1960s as a result of weak spending, while the property crash has yet to bottom out.

China has set its inflation target at the lowest level in over 20 years and now aims to bring consumer-price growth to around 2% in 2025 — down from the previous 3% target. It’s a signal top leaders are finally recognizing the deflationary pressures weighing on the world’s second-largest economy, with consumer inflation stuck at just 0.2% for the past two years.

Even so, it is unclear what miraculous stimulus China will unleash – monetary or fiscal – to send core inflation soaring to 2% in the coming 10 months.

Urgency has grown for the government to reflate the economy. At the annual parliament session Wednesday, China announced an ambitious economic growth goal of about 5% for 2025, despite the threat of an intensifying trade war with the US. Beijing also laid out plans to boost fiscal stimulus and domestic consumption.

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

I’m not sure what it means that this song, by a Canadian band, is stuck in my head, but I think it sums up where we are. If we listen to President Trump or Treasury Secretary Bessent – “we ain’t seen nothing yet.” Both are openly discussing possible hardships that need to be endured to get to the endgame they are looking for. Increasingly the endgame is that President Trump wants to create a legacy of returning manufacturing to the U.S. and re-invigorating a middle-class lifestyle in the U.S.

That is a laudable goal and it would be awesome if it could be achieved.

Many of our investment themes such as National Security Equals National Production and Refine Baby Refine are based on the U.S. taking the steps to achieve those goals.

We are not averse to the application of tariffs and think that at least some of the inflation concerns are overdone. We provided Some Tariff Basics, analyzing our overall views on tariffs, at the beginning of February. We do stand by the argument that corporations spend time to optimize their supply chains, and disruptions take time to digest, which will be problematic for the economy and earnings.

We have long argued that both Russia and Ukraine will need to be brought to the negotiating table with a mixture of “carrot and stick” diplomacy.

All of this fits well into our theme for 2025 – Messy but Manageable. Increasingly, the question of whether it is manageable is coming up in conversations. The answer remains yes, but as we outlined on Friday, the number of concerns is growing. This is less about the “what” (though concerns about the “what” are also rising), and much more about the “how.” The “what” vs “how” issue came up a lot during Trump 1.0. It seems to be coming up more and more lately, with a twist – is the “how” now affecting the “what?” We were all expecting an avalanche of executive orders and initiatives and that is what we are getting and dealing with.

It was all the way back in November that we published 3D Chess or 52-Card Pickup. The only thing I know for certain is that those who see the administration as playing 3D Chess, still see it that way, and those that see the opposite continue to see the opposite. For the rest of us, we are still trying to figure it out.

What Risk Assets Need to Rebound

We could go into a laundry list of details, but to me, there are two clear paths to a rebound in risk assets:

1. A lot of meaningful wins occur quickly. We’ve seen things like TSMC’s U.S. investment plans. We’ve seen or heard of various DOGE victories (though many of the initial claims seem to be getting watered down). We have seen, certainly with Mexico, some steps on the “war on drugs” front. But there have been stumbles. China, so far, doesn’t appear to be coming to the table with their hat in their hand. The list of risks is possibly longer than the list of wins so far. If that changes rapidly, and it could, then risk assets should be off to the races!
2. Consensus shifts to a high degree of certainty that the economic policies will deliver over time. Markets are always pricing in the future. If the market suddenly agreed that all of the current policies would shift us to the economy that the administration envisions, risk assets would rally.

I find option 1 far more likely than option 2 to trigger a rally in risk any time in the next few weeks.

Shifting the Narrative from Tax Cuts to Avoiding Tax Hikes

I’d love for a slew of new tax cuts to be put on the table. Bringing back the SALT deduction would be nice. But the reality is that extending the tax cuts that are expiring would not act like a tax cut. Literally no one, not one single person, is changing their spending behavior today with the expectation that taxes will be higher next year, because the cuts will expire (and deductions like SALT won’t be reinstated).

If the tax cuts don’t get extended that is like a tax hike! Merely extending the tax cuts already in place will not act like a tax cut for the economy, because it won’t affect spending. Yes, for all the official deficit projections, the extension will look like a tax cut, but it won’t impact the economy, because that is already priced into existing behavior.

This is a bit of a detour in today’s report, but I couldn’t help myself as this could be very important in the coming months as we start to see governing through legislation rather than through executive order.

The Market Risk of Deglobalization

Last weekend we questioned Where is the Economy Headed? Nothing that has occurred in the past week changes my view that the risks remain to the downside (though option 1 above could occur at any time, causing a rapid rethink of this view).

But today, we are going to go down a slightly different path. We will even discuss a couple of things that we rarely mention in the T-Reports – P/E ratios and Warren Buffet.

There is a large body of academic and practical research on the relationship between trade flows and capital flows. Since I only play an economist on TV, I typically don’t place a lot of emphasis on things that are very difficult to measure or infer causality in real time, like capital vs trade flows (we discussed this on Bloomberg TV – flows that is, not playing the role of an economist ).

This administration is quite clearly adamant that trade balances need to be corrected. Will correcting trade balances have any negative consequences? The corollary is, did rising trade deficits accrue any benefits to the U.S.? Certainly, some portion of the academic literature would argue that it did, potentially through capital flows. But that is all “too highfalutin” for a T-Report, so let’s bring it down to our level.

Somewhere between 25% and over 40% of revenue for the S&P 500 companies comes from outside the U.S. AI came up with 28% and someone I know well (and trust more than AI), Torsten Slok, produced a slide published on February 5th, showing “41% of revenue in the S&P 500 companies comes from abroad” (link).

In any case a significant amount of revenue (and presumably earnings and/or sales, depending on how revenue is used) comes from outside of the U.S. for the companies in the S&P 500. We have argued over and over, especially from a geopolitical standpoint, that this is crucial. “China Inc.” is the concept that Chinese companies and the Chinese government are effectively one and the same. That is just not the case for the U.S. government and U.S. companies (companies in the S&P 500 in this case).

The U.S. government is here to serve its constituents – which are the citizens of the Unites States. Administrations may find that the best way to do that varies, but that is ultimately their goal. It is clear that this administration is currently taking a focused view on what their constituency needs – lower taxes and more manufacturing.

The companies in the S&P 500 presumably have constituents across the globe that they need to pay attention to. Not just as customers, but also as suppliers. I haven’t spent much time on this because:

1. With some hiccups, we had been drifting towards more and more globalization where national boundaries seemed to make less of a difference. Since 2018 when Academy started focusing on China as a Strategic Competitor we could hone our analysis in on China (our view that China is shifting from Made in China to Made by China, went from being an outlying viewpoint, to pretty much consensus in the past year or so).
2. We have presumed companies have optimized their supply chains and distribution networks, and while from time to time, government policies (here and abroad) would create risks and opportunities, they have only impacted companies at the margins.

Right now, this isn’t at the margins and everyday there are indications of accelerating deglobalization (or at least dramatic changes in interconnectivity – like the potential for a reinvigorated trading relationship between Russia and the U.S.).

First chart ever looking at P/E ratios.

There have been a few periods when the average P/E ratio between the S&P 500 and the STOXX 600 has diverged. The times when the U.S. was significantly higher than Europe have been highlighted in orange. The recent divergence has lasted longer and is significantly higher than the other two periods of divergence since the early 2000s.

P/E ratios, especially for the U.S., but also for Europe (at least until 2022) have been drifting higher.

There are several reasons for this that have nothing to do with deglobalization:

• More wealth chasing fewer public investment options.
• A higher percentage of tech companies in the U.S. indices.

But what if globalization also allowed P/E ratios to rise? That the benefits and efficiencies of globalization helped investors get comfortable with paying more for stocks? That companies being able to optimize their businesses globally supported higher P/E ratios?

I’m not arguing that globalization was the biggest force behind higher P/E ratios, especially during the recent wave of AI valuations soaring, but it seems plausible that it was a part of it. Especially with somewhere around 1/3 of S&P 500 revenues coming from outside of the U.S.

Which brings us to Warren Buffet. The only time that I can recall mentioning him was in reference to his insurance companies selling massive amounts of first loss protection on the HY CDX Index first loss tranche. It was an incredibly efficient way to raise money at Libor flat to pay for Katrina damages (with low tail risk, unlike other things they underwrote). Pretty impressive for a person who is famous for claiming “derivatives are weapons of mass financial destruction.” But I digress.

I could be wrong (I really don’t pay attention to Buffet), but I think he is often linked to comparing the market capitalization of the S&P 500 with U.S. GDP. There are a number of bears out there who point out this disparity. Many seem to link it to 
Buffet holding record amounts of cash.

I’ve largely dismissed any comparison between U.S. GDP and the S&P 500 Market Cap because – you guessed it – about 1/3 of revenue comes from overseas!

Comparing global equity market cap to global GDP makes more sense, but it is nothing I spent much time thinking about, until recently.

I think it is more difficult to argue that globalization hasn’t played a role in this divergence! Again, lots of other factors are at work, but how much of that orange oval is linked to the benefits of globalization that may be getting disrupted?

Bottom Line

We are at the very early stages of a dramatic realignment of the global economy. The U.S. is the one setting it in motion, and the administration seems comfortable with creating bumps along the way. If the legacy is achieved, will it be great for domestic stocks? Unclear, but that is not today’s issue. Others are responding to the steps set in motion by this administration (we could also go back in time and figure out who did what to who, and when they did what to who, but tracing an “eye for an eye” back to the first eye, hardly ever accomplishes anything).

On risk assets, look for continued reversion to the mean. Own what is under-owned and shorted (globally). Be underweight what has been overbought and remains crowded longs. (Despite the recent domestic sell-off, despite the Nasdaq 100 closing below the 200-day moving average, I’m struggling to see signs of capitulation).

This is likely to bleed into credit spreads. The weakness that started a week or so ago, and accelerated last week, is likely to continue as this isn’t just reacting to shifts in data, it is the beginning of a reaction to a potential dramatic shift in global economics.

Rates are confusing to me. On the one hand, our outlook for the economy would indicate lower yields. I’m firmly in the 3 to 4 cuts camp, starting in May (I’d argue that we got into that camp before others starting joining us). But is that what will drive 10s and beyond? The 10-year yield rose 10 bps during a week in which the Nasdaq and S&P dropped over 3% (and no, the drop wasn’t tied to rate fears). Longer dated bonds have to contend with higher yields elsewhere. These are some of the same capital flow issues that foreigners may see, potentially making the U.S. seem like a less interesting place to allocate assets. DOGE (and the deficit) seemed to take off like a rocket ship, but lately, under more scrutiny, the work seems less impressive than initially publicized. No doubt it is finding fat and excess, but maybe not to the degree or ease that it felt like in the first days of rapid-fire announcements. I was worried that an aggressive effort to buy crypto would have hurt the bond market, but we seem to have avoided that, for now. So, with two hands balancing so much, I’d err to slight caution on rates, but think 4.2% to 4.4% is fair on 10s. We only get below that range on weak data (which may be coming, but it is a bit early). We could get higher on good data (which wouldn’t be bad) or we could break the range to the upside on yields because of a buyer strike, which would not be good for anyone!

I do think that crypto remains a leader on some days, and think that we could see further weakness next week as no new money was committed and this is a market that needs new money to flourish.

While it is difficult to be as bearish at levels around 10% below the highs, that is the direction I’m leaning as this isn’t your run-of-the-mill response to earnings and economic headlines. We are trying to price in a potentially massive change to the global economic and geopolitical landscape!

Despite the volatility that we’ve already experienced, I suspect that We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet. On that happy note, the weather looks to be turning for the better for much of the country!

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu ranks the world’s best-selling cars from 2024 using data compiled by Statista. 

Will Tesla Retain the Crown in 2025?

With Tesla sales sputtering in the early days of 2025, it’s possible that the once untouchable EV maker could start to fall down the rankings.

We can see in this graphic that Toyota, the world’s biggest automaker by sales, has two models close behind the Model Y.

To stay competitive, Tesla recently revealed its long-awaited Model Y refresh codenamed ‘Juniper’. With a fresh exterior design and new interior, Juniper could also help Tesla stay on pace with China’s fast-growing BYD.

BYD’s Global Expansion

Coming in at #9 is the BYD Song, a series of compact crossover SUVs sold in gasoline, plug-in hybrid, and pure EV configurations.

The model is exported to European markets as the BYD Seal U, and in Southeast Asian and Oceania as the BYD Sealion 6.

While the bulk of BYD’s sales come from its home market, China, the brand is making impressive progress in other countries. In Australia, the Sealion 6 became the country’s top-selling plug-in hybrid (PHEV) in 2024.

As of March 5, 2025, BYD shares (ADR) are up 34% YTD, while Tesla shares have fallen by -31%. Despite the drop, Tesla remains the world’s most valuable automaker with a valuation of $898B, down from its December 2024 peak of $1.4T.

If you enjoyed this post, check out A Regional Breakdown of Automaker Sales on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Thousands of accounts with suspected links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have been removed by social media platform X over the past month.

The accounts, which exhibited inauthentic activity, had been used to boost articles published by The New York Times that targeted a religious group persecuted in China.

One of the articles, a Chinese-language version of an attack piece on Shen Yun Performing Arts, was boosted so much it became the most shared New York Times article on X in more than a year, according to data from BuzzSumo, a social media analytics tool.

“It looks like a nation-state automated bot attack,” said Rex Lee, a cybersecurity expert at My Smart Privacy who has advised major corporations and government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency.

Most of the accounts were taken down by X after The Epoch Times sent the platform the results of an extensive investigation into the issue. The platform then launched its own investigation.

“We take reports like these very seriously, and continue to action millions of accounts per week for platform manipulation and spam violations,” Dave Heinzinger, X’s head of media strategy, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

The Target

The New York Times over the past eight months has published 10 articles attacking Shen Yun. Eight of them were also published in the outlet’s Chinese-language edition. The articles were all heavily promoted on X by accounts that don’t appear to be authentic users.

Shen Yun is a New York-based performing arts company that showcases traditional Chinese culture as it existed before communism. The company was founded by practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that includes meditative exercises and teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. The CCP sees Shen Yun, and Falun Gong more widely, as a threat because both make a point of exposing the regime’s human rights abuses.

The CCP has long been known to manipulate American social media, both through automated spam accounts and through deceptive “troll” or “shill” accounts.

The less sophisticated part of such operations relies on the CCP’s “50-cent Army,” a legion of thousands of low-paid workers tasked with making online posts in support of CCP goals.

The more sophisticated parts are likely run directly by CCP operatives or by the CCP military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), according to Casey Fleming, senior intelligence cybersecurity expert and CEO of Black Ops Partners, a company that advises major corporations, governments, and the military on intelligence, strategy, and cybersecurity.

Last year, several CCP whistleblowers came forward warning that in 2022, the CCP launched a new campaign against Falun Gong overseas, using Western media, social media, and social media influencers to besmirch the practice and various ventures founded by its practitioners, primarily Shen Yun.

The whistleblowers, who had high-level access to the CCP security apparatus, said the new campaign directly utilizes information collected by CCP intelligence networks to craft malicious narratives against Falun Gong. One of the individuals identified by whistleblowers as being used by the CCP in this way stated on X that he assisted The New York Times with its articles targeting Shen Yun.

The New York Times didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Social media companies are well aware of the CCP bot and troll problem. Meta, which operates Facebook and Instagram, produced a report in 2023 that discussed its efforts to identify and take down a network of thousands of CCP-linked accounts across more than 50 platforms “that were part of what appears to be the largest known cross-platform covert influence operation in the world.”

One such network, dubbed “Spamouflage,” was used to interfere in the 2024 election by hijacking political conversations. It also targeted human rights groups critical of Beijing, according to Graphika, a firm that tracks online networks.

Army of Bots

The Epoch Times analyzed X data available through BuzzSumo and discovered that an unusual volume of threadbare X accounts, with few to no followers, posted The New York Times’ main attack article on Shen Yun published in August 2024, as well as the other nine articles the paper produced against the company since then.

The Chinese-language version of the main hit piece was posted and reposted on X more than 28,000 times, making it the most shared New York Times article on X for the past year and the second most shared in more than two years, according to BuzzSumo data.

But fewer than 6 percent of the accounts that shared the article had more than 50 followers. That is extremely unusual. The number is well above 90 percent for other New York Times articles or for Epoch Times articles that gain traction on X, according to a review of BuzzSumo data.

In fact, 80 percent of the accounts that shared the Chinese-language hit piece had no followers at all.

Low follower count is one of the signs of bot activity, Lee told The Epoch Times. Other tells include repetitive posts, little or no engagement with other accounts, or high-frequency posting.

“There’s also an echo chamber effect, where some bots operate in networks, retweeting, liking each other’s posts,” he said. The Epoch Times manually reviewed the content of hundreds of the low-follower accounts and found clear signs of inauthentic activity. Typically, such accounts were set up around April 2024 or later and only posted or reposted anti-Falun Gong content.

Some only ever posted one or more of the New York Times articles attacking Shen Yun. Others posted large amounts of anti-Falun Gong content, often crude cartoons mirroring CCP propaganda that portray Falun Gong as death or the devil and they make extreme anti-Falun Gong comments.

Some of the accounts were set up earlier, in late 2023 and even go back as far as 2019. Those accounts often started off posting some generic content, such as photos of nature, architecture, young women, or various viral videos.

Over time, they started to mix in some anti-Falun Gong content or at some point switched to exclusively anti-Falun Gong content.

“It’s another way of them trying to get credibility of having those accounts being aged,” Fleming said.

Commonly, such accounts used inauthentic profile photos. Some pictures, it appears, were computer generated, others stolen or purchased from the internet. In many cases, they used images of young women. Sometimes, they also posted content praising China or the CCP or they’d attack other Chinese dissidents.

How a one man boy farm looks like. There are more computers around.

The bots also seemed to simulate human behaviors like going in and out of the X app.

By the way, the background voice is speaking in chinese in a very deep accent pic.twitter.com/9nncqyDZps

— Defense Politics Asia (@DefensePolitics) March 9, 2025

Upon alerting X to the issue, The Epoch Times reviewed hundreds of accounts that shared the main Chinese-language hit piece and found that X suspended more than 96 percent of the accounts with only one or no followers.

The enforcement has been much spottier for accounts with more followers, where The Epoch Times found that the majority of accounts exhibiting inauthentic behavior remained active. The Epoch Times then randomly picked and manually reviewed about 100 such accounts and provided them to X, upon which 75 percent of them were suspended or restricted.

The bot campaign appears to be persisting. The Epoch Times found new accounts, set up in December and January, solely dedicated to anti-Falun Gong propaganda and sharing the New York Times attack articles.

The efficiency of such operations has been greatly increased by artificial intelligence (AI), Fleming and Lee concurred. An AI platform can generate semi-believable usernames, profile bios, and profile pictures, and constantly pump out bot accounts.

Even among larger accounts that have shared the main New York Times hit piece—those with more than 10,000 followers—about half showed clear signs of inauthentic activity, The Epoch Times found.

Typically, this type of inauthentic account had been set up between 2008 and 2016 and was dedicated to a specific purpose, such as marketing a business. Yet it ceased posting content years ago. Then, some time between 2022 and 2024, the account started posting again, only this time, the content was anti-Falun Gong propaganda or comments disparaging Falun Gong, usually in Chinese.

Sometimes, the oldest posts on such accounts only go back a year or two, indicating that any previous content had been deleted.

Inauthentic account operations on X have long been known to use hijacked or purchased older accounts with an already established follower base, Fleming said.

X policies prohibit such behavior.

A 2021 report by the Centre for Information Resilience described much the same methodology used by a network of social media accounts “to push pro-China, anti-Western narratives.”

Crypto Bots, Trolls, and Shills

A significant number of the accounts sharing the New York Times main hit piece were otherwise solely focused on crypto currencies and other topics popular in the crypto community, such as gaming, Elon Musk, and pictures of women.

Oftentimes, they had some pro-China content mixed in. At least in some cases, such accounts showed up in BuzzSumo data as having shared the New York Times hit piece, but when examined, the post no longer existed. Such accounts usually posted little or no original content.

Another category of likely inauthentic accounts was focused on opposing Falun Gong in replies to other posts. Almost all of their activity consisted of responding to posts critical of the CCP or supportive of Falun Gong with disparaging remarks, accusations, or various anti-Falun Gong content.

There were also accounts with the apparent purpose of supporting other anti-Falun Gong accounts. They focused on prolifically responding with praise and approval to social media influencers that have produced anti-Falun Gong content.

There were also some accounts that purported to be former Falun Gong practitioners. They were usually set up in 2024 and claimed that they had practiced Falun Gong for a long time, but recently abandoned the practice. Their activity was solely focused on pushing anti-Falun Gong content and promoting the anti-Falun Gong content of other accounts. They often made outlandish accusations. In some cases, they made openly pro-CCP comments.

In a typical bot operation, these accounts would be run by actual people with the goal of seeding content that could then be amplified by bots, according to Fleming.

Read the rest here…

America’s dominance of the global stock market is unrivaled, and its share has only grown in the past two years.

The outperformance of the S&P 500 has played a role in America’s leading position, averaging 14.8% compound average returns over the past decade. Global equities, represented by the MSCI ACWI (excluding the U.S.) Index, have returned 7% by comparison.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the world’s publicly-traded companies in 2025, based on data from Aswath Damodaran.

Breaking Down the $124 Trillion in Global Equities

Below, we show the market share of publicly-traded firms around the world at the start of 2025:

The value of the U.S. stock market is roughly equal to all other regions combined, encompassing 6,062 firms collectively valued at $60.1 trillion.

At the end of December 2024, the market capitalization of the Magnificent Seven – Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Nvidia, Amazon, and Meta Platforms – was over $18.4 trillion, making up almost 30% of the entire U.S. stock market. Last year, these companies fueled more than half of the S&P 500’s returns. This year, it has been the opposite, fueling the downturn as they have lost over $2.5 trillion…

China ranks as the world’s second-largest stock market, valued at $15.6 trillion across 7,061 publicly-traded companies. While Tencent and Alibaba stand as the largest firms by market cap, several financial firms play a dominant role in China’s stock market.

With a $5.2 trillion market cap, India’s stock market is now larger than the UK and Latin America combined. In 2024, roughly 20% of households owned shares, rising from just 7% in just five years. Notably, the country’s rapid economic growth and digital transformation have driven shares to rise 80% over the period. By contrast, emerging markets have increased by 6%.

To learn more about this topic from a performance perspective, check out this graphic on 30 years of global equity returns.

* * *

We’ve sold a TON of these lighter / flashlight combos…

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom seemed almost glib as he carved a deep chasm in his own political party Thursday over the issue of biological male trans athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sports. But Newsom’s seemingly off-the-cuff remarks deeming the issue one of “fairness” during his debut podcast episode is not just dividing the Democratic Party. It may have left his own personal house divided as well.

Newsom, a longtime, committed champion of LGBT rights who was one of the first prominent politicians to defy state law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is now siding with conservatives with his stated opposition to biological men participating in women’s sports.

“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness – it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said in his deputy podcast episode “This is Gavin Newsom,” in response to MAGA-world influencer Charlie Kirk’s questions. “I am not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the most radical trans laws in the nation, but suddenly believes that it’s unfair to have transgender athletes in female sports

He’s running in 2028 pic.twitter.com/Ezvuryyf7u

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 6, 2025

It’s not clear what impact, if any, Newsom’s comments will have on his own decisions regarding state policy. When asked if Newsom planned on issuing an executive action barring transgender athletes in women’s sports in California, a spokesman wouldn’t speculate. California is one of 24 states in the country that allow transgender athletes to play on sports teams that match their gender identities and enshrines such protections in the state education code.

Newsom’s newly stated opposition to his own state policies puts him squarely at odds with national and California LGBT groups and his wife’s very public support for “sports equity” – a euphemism for encouraging all children, including children in lower-income areas, minorities, as well as trans athletes, to compete in sports.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, known as the gender-neutral “first partner” in California – an acknowledgment of her commitment to LGBT issues – partnered with the group Positive Coaching Alliance to organize and speak at a “sports equity” event last month. Along with touting the benefits of sports for all children, regardless of race and income level, the Alliance also has long advocated against bans on allowing trans girls (biological males) to participate in girls’ high school sports.

The Positive Coaching Alliance lists a report on its website titled “Equal Opportunity for Transgender Student Athletes,” which states that high school trans athletes should be allowed to compete on teams “consistent with the student’s gender identity” even if the student hasn’t undergone any hormone treatment or gender-altering surgery.

“It is also advisable that high school athletic programs adopt a different policy for including transgender student athletes than college athletic programs,” the report states. “Specifically, this report recommends that high schools permit transgender athletes to play on teams consistent with the student’s gender identity, without regard to whether the student has undertaken any medical treatment.”

The report was the result of a “think tank” of participants that included the “National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National High School Federation, transgender athletes, and an array of “experts on transgender issues from a wide range of disciplines – law, medicine, advocacy and athletics. It was written by Dr. Pat Griffin, former director of It Takes a Team! Education Campaign for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Sport, Women’s Sports Foundation, and Helen J. Carroll, sports project director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Siebel Newsom, acting on behalf of the governor’s Advisory Council on Physical Fitness and Mental Well-being, appeared at the “sports equity” event on Feb. 25. It was sponsored in part by Positive Coaching Alliance as well as the Center for Healing and Justice Through Sport, another nonprofit. Organizers posted several X.com and Instagram photos and videos of her with participants and organizers.

Siebel Newsom’s partnership with a strong advocate for transgender athletes in women’s sports comes as little surprise considering her long record of gender-justice advocacy, as my co-author and I detail in our book, “Fools Gold: The Radicals, Con-Artists and Traitors that Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All.”  

Siebel Newsom founded The Representation Project nonprofit to battle “sexism through film education, research, and activism” and refers to itself as “the nation’s leading gender watchdog organization” that “embarks on social media campaigns that hold corporations, content creators, political leaders and others accountable.”

The first partner writes and produces these gender-justice films through her for-profit operation, Girls Club Entertainment, that then licenses them and charges for screenings in public schools. According to Fox News, Siebel Newsom raked in $1.4 million by charging schools to screen the films.

Corporations with pressing business before the governor, such as PG&E, which has been found guilty of sparking the most deadly and devastating wildfire in California history, have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit that produces the films, according to an analysis of the nonprofit’s 990 tax forms.

The films, which include “Miss Representation,” “The Mask You Live In,” and “The Great American Lie,” contain some sexually explicit imagery and push students to question their gender identity and to feel “shame and sorrow” about American society, which the films argue is split by privilege and oppression, according to research documented by Open the Books founder Adam Andrezejewski, whose watchdog first discovered the materials.

The films aggressively push students to question their gender identity. In the curriculum accompanying“The Mask You Live In,” the materials introduce the “genderbread person,” which shows middle and high school students how biological sex, “gender expression,” “sexual attraction,” and gender identity exist across a spectrum, which can be mixed and matched.

Curriculum for another Siebel Newsom film for students, “The Great American Lie,” which “examines the roots of systemic inequalities through a unique gender lens,” includes instructions to teachers to provide a “privilege walk” for students. The walk instructs students to offer admissions about personal information, comparing themselves to peers inside and outside the classroom. Such suggested “privileges” include being “a cisgender man,” being “white,” “born in the United States,” “straight,” and speaking English as a first language.

Two of Siebel Newsom’s films, “Miss Representation” and “The Great American Lie,” feature her husband cast as a women’s rights champion. In one of the films, Newsom touts his record as San Francisco mayor, noting that he appointed a woman police chief fire chief as one of his first acts in office.

Newsom has long championed transgender rights and, in recent years, argued that Republicans were weaponizing an issue that should be focused on acceptance and preventing transgender suicides.

While in the spin room at the Reagan Library after a GOP presidential debate in the fall of 2023, a reporter asked Newsom why he opposed allowing teachers and school administrators to tell parents when their children are transitioning at schools.

“It’s a helluva thing,” Newsom told RealClearPolitics. “You’re talking about 1% of the population when climate change, which impacts 100% of the population, wasn’t even brought up [in the debate]. And we’re talking about trans issues?”

“This is one of the greatest distractions and it’s classic,” he remarked, telling reporters they should be “ashamed” for asking the questions.

Yet, when Kirk pressed Newsom on this issue during his podcast, the governor readily acknowledged that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.” He also agreed that Trump’s campaign ad featuring Kamala Harris’ role in spearheading the provision of taxpayer-funded gender medical transitions for detained immigrants and federal prisoners was highly effective.

“She didn’t even react to it, which was even more devastating,” Newsom said, noting that upward of 90% of Americans disagree with Harris’ position. “Then you had the video [of Harris] as a validator. Brutal,” he added. “It was a great ad.”

Newsom, during that discussion, also expressed concern that transgender people are more likely to commit suicide and have higher rates of anxiety and depression. “The way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with – so I hold both things in my hand,” he stated.

That wasn’t enough to assuage influential groups whose leaders expressed dismay yesterday over Newsom’s break with the Democratic Party on transgender athletes playing in girls’ and women’s sports.

“Our message to Gov. Newsom and all leaders across the country is simple: The path to 2028 isn’t paved with the betrayal of vulnerable communities. It’s built on the courage to stand up and do what’s right and do the hard work to actually help the American People,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.

The largest state LGBT organization, Equality California, which has worked alongside the Newsom administration on many issues, also lit into Newsom over his comments to Kirk.

“We are profoundly disappointed and angered by Governor Newsom’s comments about transgender youth and their ability to participate in sports,” said Tony Hoang, the group’s executive director. “… Right now, transgender youth, their families, their doctors, and their teachers are facing unprecedented attacks from extremist politicians who want to eviscerate their civil rights and erase them from public life. In this moment of crisis, they need leaders who will unequivocally fight for them.”

“Instead of standing strong, the governor has added to the heartbreak and fear caused by the relentless barrage of hate from the Trump administration,” Hoang added.

Leaders of CALeg’s LGBTQ Caucus respond to Gov. Newsom’s comments on transgender athletes:

“We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks…” pic.twitter.com/MDczgthHKr

— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) March 6, 2025

The statements from the long allies of Newsom are even more striking considering that his administration provided a $630,000 grant to Equality California in 2023 as part of a program aimed at combating hate crimes against transgender, Muslim, and black people.

That year, Newsom signed a bill declaring California a sanctuary for transgender youths seeking gender-altering drugs and surgery. The designation provides legal protection for transgender children and their parents who flee conservative states that have restricted access to such medical care.

Equality California has worked alongside the Newsom administration’s Superintendent for Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who has issued state guidance and helped pass new laws, with Newsom’s strong backing, that prevent state public elementary schools from notifying parents if their child’s gender is changing at school.

The group has been at the center of the fight for keeping secrets from parents about their children’s gender-transitioning at schools. Equality California has fiercely opposed the parental rights movement, labeling it homophobic and transphobic, and argues that notifying parents amounts to “forcibly outing” gender-transitioning children, which could lead to physical or emotional harm for these young people who already experience higher rates of depression, mental health, self-harm, and suicide than their peers.

Equality California staff have attended school board meetings and appeared alongside Thurmond as he answers questions from the press. Parental rights advocates have argued that the grant is inappropriately boosting the group’s lobbying efforts opposing parental rights policies at local school boards.

In 2023, Newsom started issuing threats of civil rights investigations and $1 million-plus fines for school boards, including one in Temecula, that refused state-mandated DEI curriculum.

“Demagogues who whitewash history, censor books, and perpetuate prejudice must never succeed,” Newsom posted on X.com. “Hate doesn’t belong in our classrooms, and because of the board majority’s antics, Temecula has a civil rights investigation to answer for.”

Within weeks, the Democrat-controlled state legislature in 2023 passed a bill that would legalize hefty state fines for school boards that rejected state-determined curricula and other state DEI policies. The state attorney general also sued a different school district in Chino for requiring parents to be notified when their children begin identifying as a different gender in California public schools.

Yet, even in late 2023, Newsom demonstrated limits when it came to how far he was willing to take the transgender rights debate. The governor surprised LBGT activists by vetoing a bill requiring judges to consider children’s gender identities in custody disputes. In his veto message, Newsom attempted to sidestep the underlying political controversy, warning against allowing the government “to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards” for judges to apply. He argued that courts could already consider parents’ views on the gender identities of their children.

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will meet with senior leaders of the processed foods industrial complex to discuss potential topics ranging from banning seed oils and certain food additives to nutrition labels as the “Make America Healthy Again” revolution begins.

Politico reports that RFK Jr. will meet with senior leadership of General Mills, PepsiCo, and others within the ‘Big Food’ industry on Monday. The report cites four people familiar with the meeting but stresses that the attendee list could still change. 

RFK Jr. is America’s best chance at rolling back the ultra-processed food and food additives industry, one of the main drivers for the obesity crisis—an alarming national security threat. He has publicly accused the industry of harming Americans’ health and highlighted the dangers of processed foods and seed oils.

During a Senate confirmation hearing in January, RFK Jr. told lawmakers:

 “Something is poisoning the American people, and we know that the primary culprits are changing food supply, a switch to highly chemical-intensive processed foods.” 

“When my uncle was president, only 3% of America was obese. Today, it’s over 70%. Epidemics are not caused by genes. Genes may provide the vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin.

Something is poisoning the American people.” pic.twitter.com/bllEPEX8nL

— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) January 30, 2025

A source familiar with the upcoming meeting said it was advised by the White House, which has urged Cabinet officials to speak with key industry leaders under their oversight.

More from the report:

The meeting was first floated among industry players in February and was initiated by the Consumer Brands Association, which represents packaged food companies, alcoholic beverage companies and others, according to another one of the people familiar with the details. But as of Friday, the attendees had yet to agree on a meeting agenda, a dispute that is dividing CBA’s board and could potentially muck up the meeting.

“There is major concern that [CBA is] going to agree, as major industry players, to things that eliminate science from the FDA,” the person said. The person also speculated that it’s “entirely possible the CEOs fall over themselves to agree to whatever MAHA asks them to do.”

Our reporting has outlined potential pathways RFK Jr. and MAHA may take to reform the nation’s food supply chain, improve public health, and prevent agency capture at top food and health agencies from happening again:

• RFK Jr. Lays Out His HHS Agenda: ‘Nothing Is Going To Be Off Limits’

• Two Alarming Truths: Family Farms Vanishing & Centralized Beef Industry For RFK Jr. To Fix

• RFK Jr. & Trump Will End War On Small Farms To Save Nation’s Food Supply Chain

• MAHA’s Nicole Shanahan Shares Vision To Make Small Farms Great Again

Already…

• RFK Jr. Effect: Cancer-Linked Red Dye Banned From US Foods

The meeting will mark the first sit-down between the new health secretary and representatives from the processed foods industrial complex. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni made headlines after suggesting that NATO’s Article 5 should be extended to Ukraine even if it doesn’t formally join the bloc.

 In her words, “Extending the same coverage that NATO countries have to Ukraine would certainly be much more effective (than dispatching peacekeepers), while being something different from NATO’s membership.” 

What she didn’t mention is that Ukraine already kinda has these guarantees from some NATO countries, including Italy.

They were agreed to with Italy, the US, UK, France, Germany, Poland, and others throughout the course of the past year, which readers can confirm through each of the preceding hyperlinks that redirect to the full text of their respective pacts from official government sources. The common thread between them is that they all promise to resume their existing level of military-technical cooperation with Ukraine (ex: intelligence, arms, logistics, etc.) if another conflict breaks out after this one inevitably ends.

This is essentially the same as NATO’s Article 5, which obligates members to assist those of their allies that come under attack, albeit as each of them “deems necessary”. Although the use of armed force is mentioned, it’s ultimately left to individual members to decide whether to employ this option. Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance as explained above.

Considering that Article 5 always left the option of armed force up to each individual member, which remains the case with each of the bilateral “security guarantees” that Ukraine reached with some of them over the past year, Meloni’s dramatic proposal doesn’t actually amount to anything new. It’s only newsworthy since Article 5 is commonly associated in the public imagination with employing armed force upon the request of those allies that come under attack, but this has always been a misperception.

The reason why Russia has consistently opposed Ukraine’s formal membership into NATO is because policymakers believe that this could increase the pressure upon the bloc to directly intervene in its support if Ukraine were to provoke Russia into cross-border kinetic action after joining. That could in turn immediately prompt a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis or even World War III, the latter of which might break out by miscalculation, both of which Russia obviously prefers to avoid.

Ukraine’s hypothetical NATO membership is assessed by Russia to be incomparably more dangerous than the Baltic States’ due to the former’s post-independence and Western-encouraged anti-Russian identity. The presence of such ethno-national radicals at the pinnacle of power in Kiev greatly raises the chances of them unilaterally provoking Russia into cross-border kinetic action in order to manipulate NATO, first and foremost its American leader, into either coercing Russia into concessions or waging war against it.

Nevertheless, it would still ultimately remain every member’s sovereign prerogative whether or not to support Ukraine with armed force, but public opinion in some of the European members might push their leaders to react in such a way that then escalates the crisis to the point of involving the US. For example, if the UK resorted to armed force in support of Ukraine per the way in which its leadership applies Article 5 in that scenario, then the US might feel compelled to protect it from Russian retaliation.

While the same dynamics would be present even in the case of countries reacting in the aforesaid way per their leaderships’ application of the “security guarantees” that they agreed to give Ukraine last year, there’d be much less pressure on them since it wouldn’t be through NATO. That applies even more to the US’ response to any allies unilaterally entering into a hot war with Russia outside of NATO’s ambit since it could argue that this wasn’t agreed upon so it’ll hang them out to dry to avoid World War III.

Returning to Meloni’s proposal, the most that she’ll likely manage to achieve is to assemble a “coalition of the willing” that would explicitly extend Article 5 guarantees to Ukraine with the knowledge of how this would be interpreted by the public, as in likely employing armed force in its support if requested. Poland already ruled out dispatching troops to Ukraine under any circumstances, though that could change after May’s presidential election, while Hungary and Slovakia are already dead-set against this.

Moreover, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared in early February that the US won’t extend Article 5’s mutual defense guarantees to any NATO country’s troops in Ukraine, which will likely deter many of them from considering Meloni’s proposal since they now know that America wouldn’t have their backs. Trump 2.0 has proven itself impervious to domestic and international pressure, the latter of which includes what it’s experiencing nowadays from its NATO allies, to risk war with Russia over Ukraine.

No realistic scenario therefore exists for expecting the US to intervene in anyone else’s support if they end up embroiled in a hot war with Russia, at least so long as Trump remains in office and provided that he’s succeeded by Vance or another like-minded member of his party. Even if the opposition returns to power, Trump plans to already lock in strategic resource deals with Russia before then in order to deter them from risking war with Russia over Ukraine due to how mutually detrimental that would be.

His planned “Pivot (back) to Asia” could also reshape global geopolitics by then too, thus leading to more pressure upon future administrations to responsibly manage relations with Russia no matter what so as ensure continued access to its strategic resources that the US needs for competing with China. Restoring and expanding the US’ complex interdependencies with Russia, which still exist in part to this day as proven by Russian uranium exports to the US, is Trump’s envisaged means towards the end of peace.

Reflecting on all the insight shared in this analysis, it can consequently be concluded that Meloni’s proposal isn’t anything new nor is it a game-changer, and it was likely shared to show that Italy shouldn’t be ignored amidst France, Germany, and Poland’s competition for leadership of post-conflict Europe. Ukraine already kinda has Article 5 guarantees from some NATO countries, but these won’t foreseeably manifest themselves through armed force so nothing serious is expected to come from this anyhow.

New York firefighters have been battling four wildfires on the outskirts of the Hamptons since Saturday, sending residents into a state of panic and prompting Governor Kathy Hochul to declare a state of emergency. There has been speculation on social media over whether arson played a role—particularly in light of the recent Palisades Fire.

Here is the local radar indicating a couple of smoke plumes from small scale fires (radar imagery through 2:55 pm). A NW wind has the plumes blowing offshore further downstream. #nycwx #nywx #liwx pic.twitter.com/kW5XZoHse2

— NWS New York NY (@NWSNewYorkNY) March 8, 2025

The fires — in Center Moriches, East Moriches, Eastport, and Westhampton — erupted in the early afternoon hours on Saturday and appeared to be fueled by a combination of low humidity and gusty winds. 

Something’s on #fire on #Long Island. pic.twitter.com/ITyMh9lcyh

— April Waugh (@AprilWaugh2) March 8, 2025

🚨 #BREAKING: Multiple MASSIVE brush fires have engulfed Long Island, NY near the Hamptons

More and more major roads are being closed while firefighters fight the blazes.

This is terrifying. pic.twitter.com/jW6YrJa4m5

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) March 8, 2025

Prayer for my friends and family huge fires out east Long Island right now 😞 #LongIsland #hamptons #westhamptonbeach #hamptonbays #flanders #pinebarrens pic.twitter.com/UOa4RBfg6M

— Tootsiemr2 (@tootsiemr2) March 8, 2025

FIRE IN THE HAMTONS, LONG ISLAND, NY. No one thinks this is from “climate change” and people are saying they think it is arson. No official reports yet available. Hopefully, the winds will die down overnight, and the water planes could potentially continue in areas. If the wind… pic.twitter.com/zjkciT8cCX

— ✝️ Dr Margaret Aranda Ferrante, MD PhD FACFEI ♿️ (@TheRebelPatient) March 9, 2025

Long Island brush fire 3/8/25 #LongIsland #fire #suffolk #Hamptons pic.twitter.com/GAGYWzH7uP

— Kenneth Wynne (@Nautical4lyf) March 8, 2025

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote on X:

New York State agencies are responding to a brush fire in the Pine Barrens. We are in close communication with local partners on Long Island to coordinate assistance and make sure they have the resources they need to protect their communities.

New York State agencies are responding to a brush fire in the Pine Barrens.

We are in close communication with local partners on Long Island to coordinate assistance and make sure they have the resources they need to protect their communities.

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) March 8, 2025

The exact cause of the brush fires remains unclear. However, folks on X had their own opinions:

It’s not climate change. It’s a fire set intentionally on eastern Long Island. They have tons of scrub oak that grow and that’s what is on fire. My son in law is a fireman on the scene

— Ronnie Waalkes (@WaalkesR105) March 9, 2025

The NY Post is reporting four separate fires around the Hamptons.

Arson attacks are a common method of terror used by communists to confiscate private property. It’s all for the *collective good*.

— Florence Barrett (@Phattico) March 9, 2025

This area and most of the hamptons have been devasted by a pine beetle. Whole forests of dead and dry pine trees. It was on everybody’s radar there. Could be arson but this has been a concern for a very long time.

— 𝕮𝖔𝖓𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖙𝖚𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑 𝕮𝖗𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖎𝖘𝖙✍ (@SalManila17) March 9, 2025

A wildfire near the Hamptons, New York? Convenient

Billionaire playground, untouched for decades, now suddenly “accidentally” up in flames?

Land grabs. Insurance fraud. A cover-up for something bigger?

They don’t want you to ask questions. But I will pic.twitter.com/efqikq2NkC

— John (@johnEiid) March 8, 2025

.  .  .