Europe Wants New ‘Half-Fuhrer’ In Ukraine, Lavrov Warns
Both the United States and Russia have been calling for new elections in Ukraine, also after President Putin has branded Zelensky as ‘illegitimate’ due to previously canceling presidential elections, citing martial law amid the war.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has issued some interesting new comments weighing in on the ‘what’s next’ from Moscow’s perspective after Zelensky is eventually out, and a new president steps in. The top Russian diplomat expressed skepticism that things will actually change substantially in Kiev.
If Zelensky gets ousted, Lavrov began in the interview with Kommersant, then the Kremlin believes it likely someone else will simply carry on the “Russophobic” regime in Ukraine with a new “half-Fuhrer“.
“Europe will do everything to ensure the regime does not change in its essence,” Lavrov stated, before asserting provocatively, “They’ll find some new half-Fuhrer… but the essence of the regime will remain.”
He further weighed on current French and British-led efforts to forge a ‘coalition of the willing’ to provide European boots on the ground, ostensibly as a ‘peacekeeping’ force for Ukraine.
“They have come up with a ‘resilience force’… In other words, in order to maintain Ukraine’s resilience, they are not going to send blockade troops… but the military of ‘civilized’ Western countries,” Lavrov said sarcastically, as cited in English-language Russian media.
Among the chief complains Moscow has long presented before the world is that the Ukrainian government suppresses the rights of Russian-speakers in Ukraine. Kiev authorities have also been persecuting the largest Orthodox Church of Ukraine, because it maintains spiritual communion with Moscow.
For example, a regional church media source reports the following violent incident from last week:
At least four churches were attacked by these schismatics and nationalists in just one day this week, Tuesday, April 8. They assaulted several people, leaving at least one young woman bleeding, reports Foma, with reference to Ukrainian outlets. In some cases, they managed to seize the churches, and in some they were driven away by the Orthodox parishioners.
Early in the morning, St. Michael’s Church in the village of Svetilnya, Kyiv Province, was seized. Police officers sat in a parked car idly watching as an unknown man cut through the church doors with an angle grinder.
Lavrov in the interview called out Western capitals for continuing to support this harsh crackdown on religious freedom and language rights. Much of the population of the east and south of Ukraine has long spoken Russian as their first language.
“All these peacekeeping schemes drawn up by the Macrons and Starmers are based on the need to preserve at least a piece of land where a Nazi, openly Russophobic regime will remain, geared towards preparing another war against Russia, as was done with the Minsk agreements,” Lavrov said.
Following the release of his new book, The Dark Sides of Migration, Swiss forensic psychiatrist Frank Urbaniok has called for European asylum policy to finally take migrant crime statistics into account, claiming that certain migrant groups are “disproportionately criminal” due to cultural factors.
Urbaniok, one of Switzerland’s most prominent forensic experts with over three decades of experience analyzing violent offenders, suggests that cultural influences from countries such as Afghanistan, Morocco, and Tunisia contribute significantly to higher crime rates among migrants from these regions.
“Afghans are reported more than five times, Moroccans more than eight times, and Tunisians more than nine times more often than Swiss nationals for serious violent crimes,” Urbaniok stated in an interview with Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, citing his analysis of crime data from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
“The disproportionate crime rate has a lot to do with cultural influences. It is about how violence is dealt with, the image of women, or the role of the rule of law in these countries. I have been dealing with criminals for 33 years and have seen thousands of cases at close range. That’s why I know how strong and relevant these imprints can be. Sometimes, they persist for generations,” he said.
The cover of his book has drawn some criticism for prominently featuring a knife, which he insists is a “good symbol” as it “reflects the growing sense of insecurity in public spaces.”
While careful to clarify that he does not condemn all migrants — he explains why he preceded “Migration” in his book title with “The Dark Side of” — Urbaniok makes no secret of his belief that the cultural background of asylum seekers should influence immigration decisions. “There are countries that are unproblematic, those that are problematic, and those that are highly problematic… and I don’t understand why that doesn’t play a role in the question of who we let into the country.”
Urbaniok proposes an explicit quota system that would limit asylum admissions from countries with high crime rates. In his view, the absolute right to asylum is unrealistic and harmful to public safety: “Hundreds of millions of people would theoretically be entitled to seek asylum in Switzerland, but we could never take them all in.”
The renowned psychiatrist rejected accusations of exaggeration in his book, countering that much of the public discourse on foreigner crime amounts to “targeted disinformation” designed to downplay uncomfortable truths. “Many fear that citizens will not be able to deal with the facts,” he said.
In several European nations, foreign crime data is obscured by the fact that naturalized citizens in their respective countries are categorized as, for example, “German” or “Austrian,” even if they are foreign-born or of a historic migration background.
“Too many problematic people remain here,” Urbaniok said.
“I see them in the statistics and every day in my profession for thirty years. That’s unpleasant. What is really unpleasant is the realization that these problems can still exist a generation later. That’s why you can’t say that we have the matter under control. On the contrary, the problems are huge.”
Urbaniok has appeared at events hosted by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a party known for its hardline stance on immigration. While acknowledging that the SVP identifies the scale of the issue, Urbaniok criticized the party for what he considers to be a too simplistic solution. “It is a sign of their perplexity when they believe that all you have to do is control the borders and everything will be fine.”
He also spoke of the firewall against the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which he believes prevents the party from becoming more moderate and mainstream and enables radicals with pro-Russia and unpalatable, overtly xenophobic views to ride its coattails.
“The AfD does not distance itself enough from right-wing radical and xenophobic forces. It represents positions, for example vis-à-vis Russia, that I consider unacceptable. I don’t like their agitational language, but I think it is wrong to try to contain a party that has over 20 percent of the vote with firewalls. This only promotes the radical forces in this party,” he told the Swiss newspaper.
Despite the backlash against the issues raised in his book, Urbaniok remains defiant and optimistic about its release later this month.
“The publishers were afraid for their image,” he said, revealing that several publishers declined to publish his book. “They try to have an educational effect on the population, and I think that is wrong and harmful to our democracy.”
In the days around the U.S. presidential election, dozens of People’s Liberation Army warplanes cruised through Taiwanese airspace. Such behavior is a microcosm of China’s audacity and confidence to act with increasing impunity.
During President Joe Biden’s tenure, the Chinese military consistently probed Taiwan’s readiness and Washington’s leadership. Data from the Taiwanese Ministry of Defense indicates Chinese activity around Taiwan has spiked by over 30 percent compared to the same period last year, potentially a calculated jab to see how Trump 2.0 will respond to cross-strait antagonism.
In recent weeks, the People’s Liberation Army has returned to sending provocative signals. As typical, China’s military activities ebb and flow to send specific strategic messages or in reaction to perceived provocations, such as when the USS Ralph Johnson and USNS Bowditch transited the Taiwan Strait earlier this year.
That operation triggered an abnormally intense response for early February—30 Chinese aircraft were detected in Taiwan’s northern, southwestern, and eastern air defense identification zones in a single day. By comparison, the last transit of the Taiwan Strait by a U.S. Navy vessel, the USS Higgins on Oct. 21, 2024, saw China deploy only 14 aircraft in response.
Unlike the situation under the Biden administration, Beijing recognizes Trump 2.0’s focus on it hinders China’s absorbing Taiwan on a timeline of its choosing.
Moreover, shortly after Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations wrapped up, the Chinese military conducted unannounced live-fire drills on Feb. 27—unprecedented for that time of year when operational levels are typically lower and during less-than-ideal weather. The drills spanned from 40 nautical miles off Taiwan’s coast to the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, fomenting some consternation in Canberra and Wellington.
By mid-March, the 10-day average of median line crossings by Chinese aircraft showed a significant rise, almost doubling from six on March 17 to 11.8 by March 21—largely attributable to one day’s spike in activity on March 18.
To better ascertain China’s evolving military strategy and intent, the U.S. must leverage its forward-looking approach to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. In February, Adm. Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, warned that China’s heightened activity near Taiwan was in fact rehearsal for an attempt at forced reunification. This activity aims to desensitize Taiwan and its partners through sustained high military presence and gray-zone tactics that obfuscate preparations for kinetic conflict.
Project Overmatch, the Navy’s contribution to the Joint All-Domain Command and Control initiative, is accelerating anticipated development timelines, arming the Navy with artificial intelligence and advanced drone technology. That said, a potential demonstration of the return on investment here could become available with spring exercises coming in the Pacific. With this in mind, the fielding of operationally useful mass data analytics and artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making systems can be achieved in part by emulating Task Force 59’s success in the Arabian Gulf.
There, autonomous vehicles and associated information networks served as the connective tissue between machines and manned vessels, enabling a wider and persistent sensor coverage previously unseen, which could soon be made lethal as demonstrated in November’s Digital Talon exercise. The drills showcased Central Command’s prowess in testing aerial autonomous launches and recoveries, as well as identified challenges for the group dubbed “the pioneers” to overcome in the future.
In the Pacific, this approach could give the U.S. a critical edge in countering China’s tactics and deter aggression. The private sector has matched this movement toward activity-based intelligence. Predictive models and sensors suites from companies like Windward track anomalous behavior using automated information systems, capable of subverting bad actors who seek to conceal their identities while at sea.
Data streams from platforms such as Northrop Grumman’s Manta Ray could create a sensor-heavy ecosystem capable of identifying, tracking, and predicting targeted activities like dark ships involved in sanctions avoidance, Chinese maritime militia activities, illicit narcotics trafficking at sea, and clandestine operations all in near real-time.
China is now seeking to check America’s—and Trump’s—response to its intimidation of Taiwan. Lawmakers must act without delay to equip the Indo-Pacific Command with the resources to field the appropriate technologies to pace rising Chinese provocations.
Done well, perhaps the next time China or Russia seeks to snip undersea cables in Asia or harass partners in the region, by detecting anomalous or illicit activities through cutting-edge monitoring, the United States could better position forces to preempt such moves before they become a confrontation at sea. To achieve this, our naval forces must have robust maritime domain awareness necessary to stay one step ahead.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
One hundred sixty years ago tonight, at Ford’s Theater, John Wilkes Booth put a bullet in the head of President Abraham Lincoln.
What motivated the 26-year-old actor?
Fame?
No, he had plenty of that. His photos were outsold only by Honest Abe himself.
Acclaim?
No, contrary to tales told in school that he was jealous of the critical raves afforded his father Junius and brother Edwin, Booth earned reviews any young actor would die for. He even refused to perform under his real name until he earned reviews worthy of the name.
To avenge the Confederacy’s defeat?
You’re getting closer. Booth raged and despaired over the suffering incurred by the South.
Actually, John Wilkes Booth told us his motivation.
After shooting Lincoln and making his dramatic leap to the stage, Booth shouted “Sic Semper Tyrannis!” (“Thus always to tyrants.”) Or to put it another way, “Lincoln was a threat to democracy.”
Threat to Democracy
Twice last summer, amid a daily drumbeat from former President Joe Biden, Democrats, and the media that Donald Trump was a “threat to democracy,” a budding tyrant, two would-be assassins came very close to killing him. Ryan Routh was charged Thursday in Florida for his attempt.
A recent study indicates 55% of self-described leftists think the assassination of Trump would be “justifiable.” Given the rhetoric, given the vast numbers with a similar heart, it’s no wonder Routh thought he was doing the world a favor.
“Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know [sic] that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a U.S. president,” Routh wrote in a letter found after his arrest. “U.S. presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity.”
So did Booth, who wrote while on the run:
Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.
A country that groaned beneath this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hands they extend to me.
Booth grew increasingly dismayed at being vilified and rejected.
I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat.
In a letter attempting to justify his actions, Booth wrote:
When Caesar had conquered the enemies of Rome and the power that was his menaced the liberties of the people, Brutus arose and slew him. The stroke of his dagger was guided by his love of Rome. It was the spirit and ambition of Caesar that Brutus struck at.
Oh, that we could come by Caesar’s spirit,
And not dismember Caesar.
But, alas!
Ceasar must bleed for it.
Booth, a man steeped since birth in Shakespearean drama, sought the death of Lincoln as Shakespeare’s Brutus did Caesar’s. This fear stemmed not from what the president had done, but from the belief that with his enemies conquered, Lincoln would keep his war powers and reign as a tyrant.
This gets to one of the most tragic elements of Lincoln’s assassination, positively Shakespearean in its awfulness.
John Wilkes Booth failed to realize that with the war over, Lincoln was the best friend the South had. And Booth had a role to play. The greatest of his life.
A Terrible Missed Opportunity?
Lincoln wanted a gentle reconciliation between North and South, “with malice toward none, and charity for all.” Many powerful forces around him had plenty of malice toward the Confederacy, and no mood for charity. Those in the South whose towns had been laid waste and their sons laid to rest by the hundreds of thousands, would also have trouble with reconciliation.
Lincoln’s mission of unifying the country in peace looked to be as difficult as winning the war. He would need all the help he could get.
Author Michael Kauffman discovered an intriguing tidbit when researching his book “American Brutus.” A worker at Ford’s Theater saw Booth hand an attendant a card, and the attendant bring the card into the Presidential Box.
What happened next is not known. But is it not possible that Lincoln received Booth’s card, and knowing Booth’s fame, his oratory gifts and his sympathies, realized the actor could prove very valuable in helping “bind the nation’s wounds”? Who better than America’s First Family of Theater to help bring the nation together? Perhaps the theater-loving president even knew the three acting Booth brothers would be sharing the stage at a benefit the following week.
With the war over and the comedy romp “Our American Cousin” playing out beneath him, did Lincoln see in Booth’s card a golden opportunity? Is it not likely an excited Lincoln told the attendant, “Yes, send Mr. Booth in”?
Rather than summon a potential partner, Lincoln summoned his own executioner. Booth killed not only the president, but all hope for a gentle reconciliation.
How much better for his beloved South had Booth pulled up a chair instead of a pistol?
How much better for our nation and their own dreams if liberals sought Trump’s cooperation rather than destruction?
The future is in their hands. The 55% who believe Trump’s assassination would be justified would heed well the lesson of John Wilkes Booth.
After being cornered in a barn in Port Royal, Virginia and shot, Booth looked down at his hands and uttered his final words: “Useless. Useless.”
Bye Letitia? Criminal Referral Filed Against NY AG Over Real Estate Fraud Accusation
A criminal referral against New York Attorney General Letitia James has been filed with the DOJ, alleging that James had “falsified records” to get home loans for a Virginia property that she claimed was her “principal residence” in 2023 – while she was serving as a New York state prosecutor.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte sent the missive to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche, claiming that in late August 2023 – weeks before she launched her civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization for inflating the values of its properties.
In 2021, James also purchased a 5-family Brooklyn property, but has “consistently misrepresented the same property as only having four units in both building permit applications and numerous mortgage documents and applications,” the letter noted.
Loans secured for this property could have reduced her mortgage interest rate by as much as 1% – leaving James with lower monthly payments under the federal Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP) since it was listed as containing just four units, according to Pulte.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte refers New York Attorney General Letitia James for potential prosecution over alleged mortgage fraud. pic.twitter.com/VyGGEtndQe
Documents from the NYC Department of Buildings show a pattern of inconsistencies about a Brooklyn property James owns—inconsistencies that mysteriously received special treatment when reported.
The Certificate of Occupancy for 296 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn—issued January 26, 2001—clearly states the property is a five-family dwelling regulated under NYC housing laws. James purchased this property on February 14, 2001, just two weeks after this Certificate of Occupancy was issued. This official classification has been on the books for more than two decades.
Yet James repeatedly filed permit applications identifying the same property as a four-family dwelling—a classification subject to different regulatory requirements under New York City building codes. Under NYC building code classifications, her property with five units would be classified as C2 (which applies to buildings with 5+ units), while her filings list it as C3 (which applies to 3-4 unit buildings). This fundamental contradiction between the long-established Certificate of Occupancy and her permit applications raises serious questions about regulatory compliance.
“While this was a long time ago, it raises serious concerns about the validity of Ms. James representations on mortgage applications” wrote Pulte, attaching several documents showing James had purchased another property with her father as a co-signer, but falsely listed the pair as “husband and wife” in 1983 and 2000.
James also granted power of attorney to Shamice Thompson-Hairston, a relative, to sign an Aug. 17, 2023, document authorizing the purchase of the first property, according to WCF.
“Ms. James, for both properties listed above, appears to have falsified records in order to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms,” Pulte wrote, adding that James could be charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Gold Soars As Beijing Lowers Yuan Fix Ahead Of Chinese Econ Data Beating On Tariff-Frontrunning
Ahead of tonight’s grand unveiling of what Beijing wants the world to think about its economy, the market was active with Gold soaring at the China open for the third day in a row…
…and the Yuan fix notably lower again…
Ugly yuan fix: PBOC set CNY reference rate at 7.2133, much weaker than yesterday’s 7.2096 and the weakest since Sept 2023, approaching weakest on record pic.twitter.com/XKjcn2Mwf7
Ahead of the GDP print, we saw both new and existing home prices released by the statistics bureau for March showing price drops have slowed on a month-on-month basis…
China March New Home Prices Fall 0.08% M/M
China March Existing Home Prices Fall 0.23% M/M
Of course, tonight’s data tsunami is pre-Liberation Day Tariffs so no excuses (aside from the 10% tariffs that Trump put on China at the start of February).
However, GDP was expected to show the economy slowing ahead of the tariffs given March’s unevenness.
In reality, it didn’t… China GDP growth beat expectations, rising 5.4% (+5.2% exp)…
The growth was in line with China’s growth rate in the fourth quarter and exceeded Beijing’s full-year growth target for 2025.
In the first quarter China’s trade surplus was over $270 billion, just below the record in the final three months of last year and almost 50% larger than a year ago. The record surplus last year of almost $1 trillion drove a third of China’s growth and the boost last quarter is likely to have been large.
Beijing has set a target of 5 per cent growth for this year and has backed this up with pledges to increase stimulus measures, setting a record budget deficit target for the central government.
And just like the GDP figure, the rest of the data beat (or met) expectations too
China Retail Sales BEAT +4.6% YTD vs +4.3% exp vs +4.0% prior
China Industrial Production BEAT +6.5% YTD vs +5.9% exp vs 5.9% prior
China Fixed Asset Investment BEAT +4.2% vs +4.1% exp vs +4.1% prior
China Property Investment MEET -9.9% vs -9.9% exp vs -98% prior
China Unemployment BEAT 5.2% vs 5.3% exp vs 5.4%$ prior
Presumably these much better than expected data are due to tariff front-running.
“The most pleasant surprise is retail sales which shows that consumption subsidies are working,” said Michelle Lam, Greater China economist at Societe Generale SA.
“Industrial production was a beat but understandable after the strong export data. But that’s all in the past now.”
China is the world’s largest importer of oil, natural gas and coal, and Beijing has been putting pressure on energy firms in recent years to boost output and reduce the nation’s dependency on imports.
Diggers and driller responded in March, with output rising 9.6% for coal, 5% for natural gas and 3.5% for crude oil. Output increases in coal and oil are particularly higher than expected.
Of course, it’s what happens next that really matters as US tariffs on China are now high enough to wipe out Chinese shipments to the US, according to Bloomberg estimates.
“Even with temporary exemptions, US duties will still be high enough to crush most of China’s exports to the US,” said Chang Shu and David Qu at Bloomberg Economics.
UBS this week cut its China GDP forecast with the most pessimistic outlook forecast among major banks, predicting the economy will expand just 3.4% this year as US tariffs choke exports.
Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are among global banks that cut their outlook for China in recent days, with most economists doubting Beijing can achieve the official target of about 5% growth this year.
“With the trade war with the US escalating sharply, the economy will face stronger headwinds. We expect policymakers to expedite stimulus,” said Shu and Qu.
The NBS struck a note of caution even as it released the upbeat data, emphasizing the need for greater support for the economy.
“We should be aware that the external environment is becoming more complex and severe, the drive for growth of effective domestic demand is insufficient, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery and growth is yet to be consolidated,” the bureau said in a statement.
“We must implement more proactive and effective macro policies.”
Beijing is placing high hopes on domestic demand – particularly consumption – to drive economic growth this year, as external pressures mount under Donald Trump’s second presidency.
In a bid to spur spending, leading bodies of China’s state apparatus and the ruling Communist Party issued a 30-point plan aimed at stimulating consumer demand.
Leaders in California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington said they wouldn’t provide a signed statement to the federal government by an April 24 deadline to certify compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting practices such as diversity training, affinity groups by race and gender, preferential hiring practices by race, and classroom curricula that include progressive ideologies such as critical race theory.
The federal correspondence sent to state education agencies asked leaders to report back on behalf of all their school districts. New York was the first state to dismiss the request, and the other states followed suit last week.
“There is nothing in state or federal law—including Title VI—that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,‘ ‘equity,’ or ’inclusion,’” David Schapira, California Department of Education deputy superintendent, wrote in an April 11 letter to school districts.
States and districts that don’t comply risk losing federal education funding in accordance with Civil Rights law and a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning racial preferences in college admissions, the federal letter states.
It’s unclear where other states stand in this process. The Department of Education informed The Epoch Times that Puerto Rico, a U.S. commonwealth, had complied with the order, but the agency had not reported updates by state.
The New Hampshire Department of Education’s website updates certification compliance by district.
Rural districts in states that oppose the order are caught in the crossfire. Many depend on higher percentages of federal Title 1 funding than urban districts because they serve low-income student populations and don’t have a strong property tax base.
School officials said these districts have DEI statements on their websites in accordance with state laws put in place years ago, but they don’t necessarily engage in affinity groups for minority teachers or students or mandate culturally inclusive instruction practices.
Jaime Green, superintendent of the Trinity Alps Unified district in Northern California, which depends on federal funding to make up for tax-exempt forest land, said he never received a letter from his state’s Department of Education asking him to disclose information about his district in this matter.
“I’m hoping that locally elected board members would be considered in each state’s decision as we believe in local control,” Green told The Epoch Times.
His district’s website does not show any indications of DEI practices that would be outlawed. It lists all current laws for protecting staff and students from discrimination and harassment and also lists the state-required equity policy adopted in 2018.
David Little, executive director of the New York State Rural Schools Association, said rural districts in the Empire State have struggled with severe enrollment losses in the past decade. Most of them rely on state funding based on enrollment, not property taxes or federal assistance, so they cannot afford not to comply with state requirements, such as DEI statements for hiring, inclusionary practices for all students, or mandated Board of Education diversity committees.
“For rural schools, today is all they know,” he said. “You’re trying to educate kids. You’re not running a compliance machine.”
The Franklin Central School District, a tiny rural district in the state’s southern tier region, lists state-mandated policies on its website, including gender-neutral single occupancy bathrooms. Nothing on the site promotes affinity groups for staff or students by race or gender.
By contrast, the two largest school districts in the country have guidelines to implement race- or gender identity-based programs.
The New York City School District website has an extensive page with guidelines “to support transgender and gender-expansive students.” It notes that any student can choose the name, pronoun, and gender they want without parental consent. The Los Angeles Unified School District website includes a Black Student Achievement Plan.
Both national teacher unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, have filed federal lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Trump administration’s DEI certification requirement.
At the state level, meanwhile, some legislatures across the country are already considering bills prohibiting DEI in schools, regardless of how Trump’s executive orders play out. That list includes Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas, according to the legislation tracker on the National Conference of State Legislators website.
Several states also have bills promoting DEI, including a culturally responsible education mandate in Delaware, an apprenticeship and placement program for teachers of color in Hawaii, mandated “LGBTQIA+” diversity training in Illinois, and required task forces to study and promote diversity in New York State public schools.
Jonathan Butcher, an education policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will proceed after the April 24 deadline; federal agencies may take a closer look at each state and audit individual districts as they did under similar orders for colleges and universities.
“The state has withheld money from districts already,” he told The Epoch Times. “I think the administration is largely within its purview. If a state chose to test this and see how serious [Trump] is, the administration has demonstrated it’s quite serious.”
Butcher said federal education funding, which is mainly limited to aid for low-income and special education students, typically amounts to less than 10 percent of a school district’s revenues.
He doesn’t think it is fair that some state education superintendents announced their decision not to comply without gathering input from all their districts, but at the same time, it should also not be assumed that rural districts, even in red states, intend to comply with the order.
“There are mandated affinity groups that get together during lunch in South Carolina,” Butcher said. “Yes, this is happening in districts of all shapes and sizes.”
Butcher added that the overriding concept—the main reason for the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Department of Education—is that states and school districts can make their own decisions. If they choose to maintain DEI practices and forgo federal money, taxpayers who voted for leaders opposing such practices shouldn’t have to pay for them.
Trump previously issued an executive order to facilitate the elimination of the Department of Education, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon has already laid off half the agency’s staff. In addition, the agency’s special education functions for K-12 schools have been moved to the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Small Business Administration will take over student loans.
If states and school districts are able to maintain DEI programs without federal funding, Butcher said, “they didn’t need Washington in the first place.”
How Much Does Each US Wealth Bracket Pay In Income Taxes?
The top 1% of U.S. earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2022, based on the latest available data.
This share has risen from 33.2% in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share paid by the bottom 50% of earners fell from 4.9% to 3% over the same period—likely reflecting the growing concentration of wealth at the top, which has boosted tax contributions from high-income individuals.
Below, we show the share of total federal income taxes paid by wealth tier in 2022:
Americans earning over $663,000, considered the top 1%, paid $854.5 billion in income taxes, the highest share overall.
The average income tax rate for this tier was 26.1%, across more than 1.5 million income tax returns in 2022. Individuals in this bracket paid $561,523, on average, in their income tax filings.
For those falling in the top 5% to 1% of all U.S. earners, income tax revenue amounted to $448.6 billion, the second-highest share. Taxpayers falling into this bracket earned between $261,591 and $663,164 and paid 23.1% on average in income tax.
Meanwhile, the bottom half of earners funded the smallest share of total income tax revenue, with an average income tax rate of 3.7%. These represent earners of $50,339 or less, spanning across 76.9 million American taxpayers.
To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on top marginal income tax rates around the world.
Topline: Local residents and environmental advocates have banded together to oppose California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed $20 billion water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, with various groups arguing the project will “make our town uninhabitable” and have “terrible consequences” for wildlife.
Key facts: California officials have debated building a tunnel for decades. The current proposal will store rainwater to prepare for potential droughts caused by climate change, and is expected to provide $38 billion in benefits: an increased water supply that would be better protected from natural disasters. In April, the State Water Resources Control Board began holding hearings to decide on granting permits for the project.
Opposition has been fierce.The Associated Press said that the tunnel is “one of the most controversial projects in recent memory.”
Some are afraid of the impact on salmon and other fish in the river delta, which CalMatters says “has collapsed from a once-thriving ecosystem into an aquatic ICU of endangered species and harmful algal blooms.”
State Sen. Jerry McNerney is worried about the cost. He told CalMatters he believes the tunnel will actually cost $40 billion once they factor in the costs to mitigate the environmental impacts.
Construction will be based in the town of Hood, with a population of just 271. One resident told CalMatters, “This will make our town uninhabitable. There will be so much heavy equipment and traffic and people going through town that the locals will be driven out.”
California plans to address that problem by throwing even more money at it. The tunnel’s price tag includes $200 million in grants to help local communities recover from the impacts of the construction project.
The tunnel would still not entirely offset the expected effects of climate change. The state believes its water supply will decrease by 22% by 2070, while the tunnel will provide a 17% boost, according to the AP.
There also may be other, cheaper ways to boost the state’s water supply. A new report from the University of California, Los Angeles found that California recycles just 22% of its wastewater. Nearby Nevada recycles 85%, and Arizona recycles 52%.
Critical quote: Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta, told Governing.com that “The tunnel is like dropping a bomb on the north delta … There is a body of science out there that shows that you can’t divert more than 25 percent of the fresh water from an estuary and have it survive. And we have been diverting 50 percent and 60 percent regularly now.”
Summary: A $20 billion price tag is shocking for any project, let alone one that not everyone agrees will actually benefit California.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
Former Majority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer recently admitted that he is responsible for confirming 235 “progressive” judges who are “ruling against Trump time after time.” Activist judges are Schumer’s Plan B.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make policy for the military. But as things stand now, unelected, unaccountable federal judges are overruling President Trump’s Executive Orders and arrogating to themselves power to run the armed forces.
Unless the 119th Congress intervenes, President Joe Biden’s radical policies regarding transgender people in the military will continue indefinitely.
Self-Appointed “Supreme Judicial Commanders” Take Charge
President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order #14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” is one of several calling for an undistracted focus on military warrior ethos, not “political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”
Executive #14168 (January 20) defined biological reality – differentiating “sex” from subjective “gender identity” and proclaiming the existence of two immutable sexes, male and female. This EO also prohibited male access to women’s sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities and discontinued use of inaccurate invented pronouns and bureaucratic markers that reflect subjective gender identity instead of biological sex.
The reality-based principles stated above, applied to DoD policies regarding persons having a history of gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender, logically justified orders to revoke President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders and Directives accommodating persons with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender in the military.
Trump’s EOs and directives restored gender dysphoria to the DoD list of physical and psychological conditions that affect eligibility to serve, and ended Biden-era mandates and subsidies for irreversible treatments and surgeries for “transitioning” purposes that attempt to change sex.
Trump’s Executive Orders also mandated respectful treatment for persons separating with generous benefits due to gender dysphoria, and protected vulnerable children from chemical and surgical mutilation based on “junk science” recommended by discredited “experts” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).
Lawsuits Filed to Halt Trump Gender Dysphoria/Transgender Policies
A lawsuit titled Nicolas Talbott v. U.S., plus two more, (Shilling v. Trump in Seattle and Ireland v. Hegseth in New Jersey), are challenging the directives and premises behind President Trump’s Executive Order regarding persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender.
In the Washington, DC Talbott case, District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked implementation of Trump’s order. Judge Reyes, a longtime Democratic/left-wing activist described as the first gay Latina U.S. District Judge, displayed extreme bias in her handling of this case. Her behavior toward the Justice Department attorney defending the Trump policy was so egregiously hostile, the office of the Attorney General filed a formal complaint.
Not surprisingly, Judge Reyes’ March 18 opinion in the Talbott case lashed out at Trump’s recognition of only two sexes and concerns about male/female sexual privacy. Her strident rhetoric could be the start of a Plan B campaign of judicial lawfare against President Trump and his efforts to restore sound priorities in our military.
A similar national injunction in the Shilling case, a temporary restraining order in the Ireland case, plus additional adverse rulings expected from other activist judges, could make Biden’s extreme transgender policies permanent while various lawsuits wind their way to an unpredictable Supreme Court.
Absent Congress Action, Biden Policies Likely to Become Permanent
The 78-page Talbott opinion exploited weaknesses in the government’s case, but Judge Reyes’ intemperate language and obvious bias showed why federal judges should not be making policy for our military.
Among other things, Judge Reyes disregarded Defense Department data on the costs and consequences of Obama-era treatments for gender dysphoria. In 2018, a DoD panel of experts reported to then-Defense Secretary James Mattis that 994 active-duty service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria accounted for 30,000 mental health visits – a 300% increase per capita.
The Mattis panel’s report also cited long-term studies highlighting the operational and human costs of gender dysphoria, including disproportionately high risks of suicide.
Why has this data not been updated? Perhaps because Biden’s policy prohibited discussion of problems with the transgender policy without approval from high-level officials. Now Biden-era officials are praising their own policies before Congress and the courts.
We don’t know whether the Justice Department, representing the DoD, mentioned several empirical studies that have questioned lucrative treatments for gender dysphoria. A 2025 University of Texas study, for example, reported elevated risks of depression and suicide following “gender-affirming surgery.”
Even if the Justice Department had presented many recent critical studies in court, the judge probably would have still described Trump’s policy (twice) as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”
Judge Reyes’ over-the-top opinion showed zero concern about operational complications, medical ethics, and overwhelming public opinion against men entering women’s private facilities and athletic teams. Activist court injunctions that usurp power from Congress and the Executive Branch are about reality-denying transgender ideology, not military effectiveness.
Congress Should Enact Common Sense in Defense Bill (NDAA) for 2026
Years could pass before the issue reaches the Supreme Court, which may or may not hand down a decision favoring the Trump policy. This puts the ball squarely in Congress’ court.
Without principled congressional action, accomplished in a way that can withstand judicial scrutiny, members could be held accountable for not delivering on promises made during the 2024 elections.
It would help to inscribe four essential principles in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026: Merit as the exclusive basis for personnel actions, a prohibition on non-merit factors such as race in personnel actions, clear definitions of key terms such as “merit,’ “male,” and “female,” and narrow exceptions for operational reasons.
Congress also should dismantle ideological power bases in the Pentagon. Non-discriminatory practices and common-sense, reality-based measures would support President Trump’s efforts to end woke policies in the military, while reaffirming purposes of the military that some federal judges refuse to respect.
Elaine Donnelly is President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), an independent public policy organization founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.
