Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a chilling case of censorship out of Clarksdale, Mississippi, where a court ordered a local newspaper to delete a publication that the city claimed was libelous. 

It is not clear that The Clarksdale Press Register editorial by publisher Floyd Ingram did constitute libel. Ultimately, the city backed down, but the actions of both the local officials and the court remain troubling.

Ingram’s article, “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” criticized the mayor and city council of Clarksdale for the lack of public notice before it passed a resolution to establish a 2 percent tax on retailers selling alcohol, tobacco, hemp, and marijuana.

Ironically, Ingram supported the “sin tax” to support “public safety, crime prevention, and continuing economic growth in the city.” 

However, he objected that, before the government “sent [the] resolution to the Mississippi Legislature,” it “fail[ed] to go to the public with details about this idea.” 

He added,  “Maybe [city commissioners] just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea—at public expense.”

The city went ballistic. 

The city council voted unanimously to sue the Press-Register for libel. Mayor Chuck Espy declared “I would like for the record to reflect, even though I did not vote, I am in full support, and I am fully vested in the decisions that the four commissioners unanimously said.”

Of course, these politicians could set the record straight by simply responding publicly to the allegations. Interestingly, the clerk appeared to confirm that the public notice on the resolution was a snafu. During the litigation, the clerk confirmed that “I customarily e-mail the media any Notice of Special Meeting. However, I inadvertently failed to do so.”

So, the premise of the column was confirmed. While I understand the sensitivity over the suggestion of a desire to travel to Jackson, that line is clearly protected opinion.

On February 13, the city council voted unanimously to sue the Press-Register for libel over its editorial. “I would like for the record to reflect,” added Mayor Chuck Espy, “even though I did not vote, I am in full support, and I am fully vested in the decisions that the four commissioners unanimously said.”

Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County ruled in favor of a temporary restraining order that required the paper to “remove the article…from their online portals and make it inaccessible to the public.”

Epsy celebrated the decision, posting “THANK GOD! The City of Clarksdale WON today! The judge ruled in our favor that a newspaper cannot tell a malicious lie and not be held liable….Thank You, God, for a judicial system.”

The role of the government in bringing a libel action is particularly controversial and chilling. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court observed that “for good reason, ‘no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence.’”

The Court added that such a role “has disquieting implications for criticism of governmental conduct…A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’—that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.”

The actions of both the city council and the court run counter to this precedent, and in my view, they could have been appealed successfully.

H/T: Joe Lancaster

A recession is imminent…

The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNOW model  – forecasting US economic growth – just downgraded its estimate of Q1 2025 GDP growth (or lack of it) from +2.3% to -1.5%…

After recent releases from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Census Bureau, the nowcast of the contribution of net exports to first-quarter real GDP growth fell from -0.41 percentage points to -3.70 percentage points while the nowcast of first-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth fell from 2.3 percent to 1.3 percent.

Put a different way, spending less on transsexual Guinea pigs in Bora Bora means US GDP gets hit.

It does make us wonder how a ‘model’ of economic growth can swing 380bps into contraction from trend growth in a week… but hey, propagandists gonna propaganda.

Who could have seen this coming?

Well we did!

Here’s the bigger play at hand, and why there is only token pushback to DOGE.

You cut enough spending – even if it’s all grift and fraud – you eventually get a recession, guaranteed. That’s all Congress is waiting for cause then they use the “emergency” to vote through a far…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2025

And here is Mizuho’s Dominic Konstam just yesterday confirming the narrative perfectly…

DoGE-led recession risk?

The market is focused on a negative economic fall out from Federal spending cuts. The level of potential Federal job losses are too small to derail growth but overall government spending has been egregiously high in recent years. There has also been excessive job growth in the “government+” sectors including federal, state and local government and in education and health. If DoGE sets a precedent on jobs and achieves spending cuts that ricochet through the quasi-public sector, it is likely that new economic headwinds will develop.

The Fed is not cutting rates anytime soon but that restrictive policy stance bodes well for inflation containment.  There are clearly still “seasonal” related bumps in inflation but we are a far cry from any trend rise in inflation. We remain confident that the disinflationary process is intact, more so with the Fed on hold.

The real focus is on what kind of “new” economic order is in store for the global economy. We lay out a framework for Trump 2.0 that rests on two key principles: rebalancing trade and lowering rates.  We see a tariff regime with different dollar outcomes as juxtaposed to a more cordial Bretton Woods 2 (BW2)/ Mar-a-Lago accord that overlays new (global) fiscal priorities and includes the debt-for-security swap. We show that market pricing is not too far off assigning a relatively large weight to a tariff outcome with stronger dollar. With growth headwinds the Fed will be able to get-off-pause, easing once disinflation resumes.

The curve has retained much of its steepness despite the belly more recently driving curve direction (bullish flattening/bear steepening 210s). We think the recent flattening “relief” reflects an appropriate repricing against the bear steepening fears initially triggered around Trump 2.0. Our yield curve analysis in the context of likely net supply outcomes and Fed reaction do allow for further curve re-steepening but only bullishly, on a sustained basis. Net supply alone doesn’t (bearishly) steepen the curve much. A proper bear steepening with the Fed priced not to cut much, requires a shift higher in Fed expectations. This in turn would likely need to reflect rising inflation expectations and a Fed unwilling to hike. At least for the Powell Fed this seems unlikely, in our view.

Our preferred view is that we will get more tariffs with a strong dollar. Despite the headline rhetoric, the effective tariff rate is still likely to be diluted (closer to 10 than 30 percent, that’s what reciprocity means!) – the one-off price impact is less than otherwise. With growth headwinds mounting, we think investors should accumulate duration on yield set back with the curve still being pressured flatter. Come q2 we expect this to segue into bullish steepening on resumed disinflation.

February was an absolute shitshow for macro data with inflation surprising to the upside and growth drastically surprising to the downside. Put together, they form the Fed’s nemesis – Stagflation!

All of which could be seen as good news for Trump: he can impose tariffs (inflation) AND the Fed will be forced to cut rates (growth).

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Trump adviser Elon Musk and the White House have criticized media reports about 21 civil service employees resigning from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on Feb. 25.

DOGE, created by Trump by renaming the existing United States Digital Service (USDS), is tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal operations. Reducing staff numbers and limiting hiring are also part of the targeted cost-cutting efforts.

In a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained and reported on Feb. 25 by The Associated Press (AP), the 21 staffers said they were refusing to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.”

“We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” they wrote. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”

Musk, who leads DOGE, responded to the AP report on social media platform X, calling it “fake news” and “propaganda.”

“These were Dem political holdovers who refused to return to the office,” the businessman wrote. “They would have been fired had they not resigned.”

In a statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was dismissive of the mass resignation.

“Anyone who thinks protests, lawsuits, and lawfare will deter President Trump must have been sleeping under a rock for the past several years,” Leavitt said.

“President Trump will not be deterred from delivering on the promises he made to make our federal government more efficient and more accountable to the hardworking American taxpayers.”

In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, Harrison Fields, the White House principal deputy press secretary, said the issue was an example of inaccurate reporting.

“Democrats and the mainstream media have once again gone off the deep end with their breathlessly inaccurate reporting on President Trump’s widely popular mission to rid the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse,” Fields said.

“DOGE has effectively become part of the USDS as a component of the White House, and any leftover career bureaucrats who don’t align with the President or DOGE are neither advised nor welcomed to be a part of this never-before-seen mission to make the government more efficient.”

Musk and DOGE have been hit with multiple lawsuits seeking to stymie its operations.

Musk also recently drew criticism after the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to government workers over the weekend asking them to provide a bullet-point list of their accomplishments, with Musk commenting on social media that those who do not respond will face termination.

There is no official tally for the total firings and layoffs to date. Still, a review of various reports suggests that it is at least 20,000 people, with an additional 75,000 people accepting deferred resignations, bringing the total affected to nearly 100,000.

The Associated Press and Tom Ozimek contributed to this report.

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times,

Feb. 28 is the deadline for public school districts to end all DEI-related practices, policies, and curricula or risk losing federal funding under President Donald Trump’s executive order enforcing Civil Rights protections.

The U.S. Department of Education has not yet specified the next steps for sanctioning schools following the deadline and hasn’t disclosed whether any districts proactively contacted the federal agency with proof of compliance.

“Additional guidance on implementation is forthcoming,” Craig Trainor, the agency’s acting assistant director for Civil Rights, wrote via email to The Epoch Times.

Trainor’s Feb. 14 letter provided to states and school districts noted the 14-day deadline for ceasing DEI programs.

He called race-based preferential treatment, crude racial stereotypes, and practices that promote segregation within a school “a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history.”

“The department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation’s educational institutions,” the letter reads.

“The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.”

That prompted a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association.

The Feb. 25 complaint, filed in a Maryland federal court, seeks to bar enforcement of Trump’s anti-DEI policy on grounds that it is overly vague and violates free speech rights.

The Epoch Times has previously reported that the five largest school districts in the nation (serving New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Las Vegas) collectively stand to lose more than $5 billion in federal funding if they don’t end DEI practices.

The deadline falls at the same time that many public school districts are planning their 2025–2026 budgets. Federal money typically makes up about 10 percent of a local district’s annual spending plan.

Federal funding from the U.S. Education Department is provided to schools with low-income student populations and covers special education programs.

The agency has also provided billions of dollars in competitive grants for curricula and staffing, many of which were centered on DEI and prioritized under the Biden administration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture funds free and reduced meals for low-income students at school.  During the 2022–23 academic year, more than half of K-12 public school students were eligible for free or reduced meals, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The Virginia-based Parents Defending Education organization constantly monitors public school activities related to DEI and transgender ideology.

As of Feb. 25, 22,805 schools serving more than 14 million students across 46 states and Washington, still maintain DEI policies, practices, and plans, according to the organization’s website.

The website provides links to DEI-related materials on the websites for each of the districts identified.

“School districts need to end diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and return to the original charter of educating children,” Rhyen Staley, a PDE researcher, wrote in a public statement.

“DEI has been a disaster for K–12, and the results are evident, as roughly 70 percent of American K–12 students are not proficient in reading or math.”

Authored by Peter Tchir via AcademySecurities.com,

Tariffs, AI, Crypto, Sentiment, Rates and the Economy

We plan to cover much of this in the weekend report, but given the magnitude of the moves this week, we want to review where we stand ahead of Friday’s trading.

We did get to cover some of this on Wednesday on Bloomberg TV (starts at the 52 minute mark)…

…but here is a quick summary.

Tariffs

A lot of confusing messaging this week, some of which has to be corrected. 

The negative news is that tariffs seem likely to be imposed, and even if they get relieved later on, some damage to the economy will be done. Mexico did deliver some cartel leaders to the U.S., so maybe they get another reprieve, which would be good for markets, but as a whole, my view is that no matter how tariffs  play out, they are impacting the global economy negatively. Decisions are being made to front run them (which artificially propped up some data) but will leave companies somewhat frozen in terms of hiring decisions.

AI

The risks and rewards in the AI space are shifting. Speaking with Academy’s General (ret.) Groen (former head of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Committee) he pointed out two trends, which are very good for companies and the economy, but I think will shift how investors invest:

• The shift to “inference” models from LLM’s. LLM’s were all the rage, but despite some excitement about how quickly they can summarize things and improve search, it is unclear how much impact they have in the real world. Add in hallucination risk and it is even less clear. Inference models are not as fast, but are more detailed.

• Custom designed tactical implementations. We don’t need to base decisions on everything in the world wide web. We need to run this factory, for example, more efficiently. What can AI do that either humans cannot do, cannot do quickly enough, or we don’t have enough humans to do?

AI is growing and evolving rapidly as is how it is used. That could continue to reshape how investors invest and who gains and who loses from that shift. Cheaper AI should in theory let more companies, including smaller companies benefit.

Crypto

The wealth effect from crypto is real, and all too often ignored by “traditional” economists. Bitcoin is down a lot, but the “alt” coin world has been hit even harder. I think there will be continued pressure on bitcoin until a couple of things are “resolved”

• Is MSTR trading at an “appropriate” valuation relative to its bitcoin holdings. This is crucial because the premium was pumped by inclusion in the Nasdaq 100 (forced buying) and the popularity of the single stock leveraged ETFs (MSTU and MSTX have a combined $1.5 billion in AUM, even after major price declines). An allegedly popular arbitrage trade is to short the company and own bitcoin (or the bitcoin ETFs, which is the preferred method for margining, mark to market, etc.). As the premium declines, people take off that trade, putting pressure on bitcoin.

• Are “only” meme coins, rug pulls? The backlash against meme coins is real. It, ironically, pushed some people into bitcoin, which the maximalists tout s the only way to invest in crypto. That could provide support, or could, investors start asking what the difference between bitcoin is and the coins that have rug pulled of late? Again, if you want to make your head hurt, look for tweets about bitcoin gain and bitcoin yield in relation to publicly traded companies and delve into the comment section. The tweets themselves are confusing (to me) but the comment sections are something to digest.

With crypto weak, it is going to be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for some segments of the stock market to do well. Those that tend to have cross ownership with crypto. It may also hurt the economy as significant wealth has dissipated in recent weeks.

Sentiment

According to indicators like the CNN Fear and Greed Index and AAII Investor Sentiment Survey we have moved to high levels of fear. Normally positive as a contrarian.

However, when I check on some of the frothiest ETFs (see the aforementioned 2x etfs, amongst others) I see evidence that investors have been buying the dip all week.

Maybe buy the dip will work, but we haven’t seen a good capitulation in quite some time, so maybe this is the time the next leg or two down takes out the dip buyers? Investor cash on the sidelines, at least when looking at mutual fund cash holdings, is quite low.

Messaging screams bearish, but actual trading doesn’t seem to reflect that. So for now I’m going to largely ignore these contrarian signals. Thinking about them, but not acting on them.

Rates and the Economy

Rates and the economy are both telling us the same thing. Ignore the rising concerns about inflation because there are a lot more negatives to discuss about the economy than positives. But that we can delve into in more detail this weekend.

Bottom Line

Have to admit, I cannot be bearish interest rates here. I’ve basically capitulated on where I think 10’s should be and how many rate cuts we will. The capitulation is not so much because the administration seems to be focused on them (which is a good thing) but because no matter the end game, I see a lot of bumps in the coming weeks and months for the economy.

I’m less bearish overall on equities (it has been a good move), though my portfolio recommendation remains bearish large cap momentum/ QQQ while spreading risk across other sectors and factors. Getting back to pre-election levels for the S&P and Nasdaq remains my target, though I won’t be pounding the table quite as hard today, as we did coming into recent weeks.

Credit spreads are due to start feeling the pinch. While the equity move was primarily a valuation issue, spreads could remain stable. As this spreads to an economic risk, look for spreads to finally start to widen. Not yet exciting enough to dedicate a lot of time to credit spreads, but I suspect that in the coming days and weeks, credit will go from being dull and boring, to at least mildly intriguing. Issuers should be issuing into this low yield, low spread, high demand environment!

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge declined on Thursday to grant a temporary restraining order that would have extended a block on the termination of dozens of CIA officers who worked in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs, which President Donald Trump had ordered to be dismantled.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in Virginia previously issued an administrative stay to pause the firings following a lawsuit filed by career intelligence officers who had been assigned to DEIA-related assignments temporarily within the CIA and the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

In the Feb. 27 order, Trenga said that he had denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, which could have prevented the agencies from firing them while the case was ongoing.

The judge extended a deadline for the plaintiffs to take on a deferred resignation program, which would allow them to receive pay until Sept. 30.

Trenga did not provide a specific reason for his decision in the order. The judge stated that the ruling was made after considering “the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument” presented to the court.

Kevin Carroll, a former CIA undercover officer representing the plaintiffs, told reporters on Thursday that Trenga has ruled CIA Director John Ratcliffe holds “sweeping statutory authority” to terminate CIA officers if he deems it necessary for the national interest.

The Epoch Times reached out to Carroll and the CIA for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Carroll previously revealed that the plaintiffs were among the 51 CIA officers placed on paid administrative leave on Jan. 22, after Trump issued an executive order that labeled existing DEIA programs “illegal and immoral.”

According to the court filing, the plaintiffs were instructed on Feb. 14 to report to the CIA visitors’ center with their intelligence community (IC) access badges and were given three options: retire immediately, accept a deferred resignation program, or be terminated on May 20. They were required to decide by Feb. 19.

The plaintiffs alleged that their imminent termination was not based on national security reasons but rather due to their temporary DEIA-related assignments and “a domestic political dispute between the Republican and Democratic parties regarding the efficacy and legality of DEIA initiatives” within the federal government.

They alleged that the firings were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” and lacked factual justification, which they claimed violated their constitutional rights under the First and Fifth Amendments.

“None of these officers’ activities was or is illegal. At no time have the agencies employing plaintiffs contended that they individually engaged in any misconduct, nor are they accused of poor performance,” they stated in the court filing.

In his order, Trump said the previous administration forced “illegal and immoral discrimination programs” into virtually “all aspects” of the federal government through DEI initiatives.

The order mandates that federal agencies terminate all offices and positions related to environmental justice, as well as any equity-focused action plans, grants, and contracts within 60 days of the order’s issuance.

It also requires agencies to compile a list of grantees who received federal funding to implement DEI and environmental justice programs since Jan. 20, 2021, and federal contractors who have provided DEI training to their employees.

Following the order, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo on Jan. 21 instructing federal agencies to place DEI employees on paid leave by Jan. 22 and to remove all websites and social media accounts associated with DEI initiatives by that date.

Trump’s order aligns with his campaign pledge to eliminate factors such as race and sex in HR decisions in favor of merit-based selection processes.

Speaking Jeffrey Epstein and things being kept under wraps (more on that later), a prosecutor with a famous last name quietly joined the sex trafficking case against Sean “Diddy Combs late last year…

In a thinly covered news story from December that’s suddenly relevant again (read on), New York Prosecutor Maurene Comey – whose father James Comey famously refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information & then participated in the Russia collusion hoax – joined the prosecution against Combs. The younger Comey has previously worked as lead prosecutor on both the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases, as well as that of former Epstein cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione. More on that below…

Combs is currently facing multiple serious legal charges, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for purposes of prostitution. These charges stem from allegations that, from at least 2008 to the present, the impresario led a criminal enterprise aimed at exploiting and abusing women, protecting his reputation, and concealing his conduct. The alleged crimes encompass sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

Multiple allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors have been made. Last October, attorney Tony Buzbee announced he was representing 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct; 25 of these accusers were minors at the time of the alleged incidents – while he’s also been accused of drugging and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in a New York City hotel in 2005 and a 17-year-old boy in 2008 who aspired to be on the reality TV show “Making the Band.”

According to former dancer Adria Sheri English, who claimed she was “pimped out” by Diddy, the embattled rapper would hold sex-crazed “freak offs” that often took place away from the “main party” but were kept a secret.  

In addition to dozens of celebrities, including Jay-Z, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, Usher, Kanye West, and Pharrell Williams, several famous politicians are alleged to have attended Diddy’s extravagant parties, including:

• Bill and Hillary Clinton
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Sen. Cory Booker 
• Andrew Cuomo
• Al Sharpton

How many of these figures were at the ‘main party’ vs. the ‘freak off’ rooms is unknown, however questions have been raised over whether Diddy was running an blackmail operation similar to what Epstein is suspected of.

According to a TMZ documentary about the Diddy raid “They have 250 cameras they took from his houses. A lot of people may be running from that tape,” said rapper Mark Curry, a former Bad Boy Records artist. TMZ executive producer Charles Latibeaudier said that Combs was “allegedly obsessed with recording everything that went on in his home.”

“I don’t think it’s just celebrities that are going to be shook,” said Combs’ former bodyguard, Gene Deal. “He had politicians in there. He had princes in there. He also had a couple of preachers in there.”

And so it suddenly becomes very interesting that the daughter of James Comey is now involved in the prosecution. Is she handling depositions? Or determining which witnesses are involved in the case?

A Brief Timeline

Maurene Comey becamse a US attorney in the Southern District of New York in 2015.

In 2019, when she was just 30-years-old, Comey became one of the lead prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case before he was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019.

Two years later, she became one of three lead prosecutors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s partner in crime and daughter of suspected Mossad operative Robert Maxwell. 

Before becoming a US attorney, Comey clerked for US District Court chief judge Loretta Preska of the SDNY – who notably oversaw a long-running defamation case filed by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre against Maxwell.

Comey was also involved in the case of Nicholas Tartaglione, a former NYPD officer who was convicted of killing four men in 2016, and who was briefly Epstein’s cellmate in the Manhattan Metro Correctional Center. Tartaglione claims to have helped Epstein after ‘finding him unconscious’ (and totally not trying to kill him) prior to Epstein’s actual death.

In 2016, Tartaglione suspected a man named Martin Luna had stolen money from him – for which “Tartaglione tortured Martin and then forced one of Martin’s nephews to watch as he strangled him to death with a zip-tie,” according to a statement by the US Attorney’s Office.

Two days after Epstein’s death, NY Times reporter James B Stewart, who had spent 90 minutes with Epstein a year prior, wrote “The overriding impression I took away from our roughly 90-minute conversation was that Mr. Epstein knew an astonishing number of rich, famous and powerful people, and had photos to prove it. He also claimed to know a great deal about these people, some of it potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use.

And so, whether this is just a case of ‘it’s a small world’ or something a little (or a lot) less innocent, James Comey’s daughter is now involved in a second case where high-profile celebrities and politicians may have been secretly filmed engaging in sexual activity with minors.

Authored by Ronald Beaty via RealClearEnergy,

By February 21, 2025, the trumpet has sounded: Donald Trump’s second term has begun, and with it, the swift reversal of Biden’s LNG export pause. This isn’t mere policy tinkering—it’s a seismic recalibration of America’s role in the global energy chessboard. 

For conservatives, it’s a clarion call to reclaim energy dominance, secure jobs, and outmaneuver rivals. Yet, as the United States barrels toward an LNG export renaissance, a fresh realism must guide us—one that marries unapologetic ambition with a clear-eyed reckoning of trade-offs. RealClearEnergy readers—policymakers, industry titans, and patriots—deserve a vision that celebrates this moment while charting its complexities.

The Triumph of American Shale

Let’s start with the stakes. Biden’s 2024 LNG export freeze was a sop to climate ideologues, stalling terminals like CP2 and choking billions in Gulf Coast investment. Trump’s Day One reversal—likely formalized by now—unleashes a torrent: the U.S., already the world’s top LNG exporter at 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), could double capacity by 2035, hitting 30 Bcf/d with 12 new projects. This isn’t just gas—it’s leverage. Europe, unshackled from Russia’s grip since Ukraine’s transit deal died January 1, 2025, will guzzle 20 Bcf/d by decade’s end. Asia, led by China’s 100 million metric tons per annum (MTPA) appetite, follows suit. The American Petroleum Institute pegs this at 1.5 million jobs—welders in Louisiana, traders in Houston, families thriving.

Conservatives see the gospel here: free markets, not green dogma, deliver prosperity. LNG exports, projected to rival oil’s $200 billion annual haul, turbocharge GDP while slashing allies’ reliance on despots. Russia’s Gazprom, bled dry at 5% of global LNG share, can’t compete with Sabine Pass’s bounty. Qatar scrambles as U.S. shale undercuts its Hormuz Strait chokehold. This is Reagan’s “peace through strength” reborn—energy as a weapon of liberty, not coercion.

A New Realism: Beyond Blind Boosterism

Yet, triumphalism alone won’t suffice. LNG’s ascent demands a conservatism that’s muscular but mature—call it “shale realism.” First, the price paradox: flooding markets with 100 MTPA could drop global LNG from $15/MMBtu to $8 by 2032, a boon for buyers but a squeeze on producers. Henry Hub, at $2.50/MMBtu today, might climb to $4 as exports drain stocks, testing Trump’s “cheap energy” pledge. Conservatives mustn’t flinch—higher domestic prices are the cost of global primacy, a trade-off worth every penny if it bankrupts Putin’s war chest.

Second, the tariff tightrope. Trump’s 10% EU levy threat—60% for China—could backfire. Europe might stomach it, grateful for gas over Russian blackmail, but China’s retaliation could cap U.S. LNG at 15 MTPA, rerouting flows to Japan or India. Here’s a novel fix: tie LNG deals to trade pacts—discounts for tariff waivers. Imagine Beijing swapping solar panel exports for $10/MMBtu gas, a détente that cools trade wars while greening China’s grid. It’s pragmatic, not pandering—a conservative win through cunning.

The Climate Conundrum: LNG as Bridge, Not Bogeyman

Enter the green chorus: LNG’s methane leaks—1% of output, per the Environmental Defense Fund—could add 100 million tons of CO2-equivalent annually at scale. Trump’s likely methane rule rollback stokes their ire, and they’re not wrong to flag emissions. But here’s where shale realism shines: LNG isn’t the enemy of climate goals—it’s the midwife. Displacing Europe’s coal (30% cleaner) and China’s (55% of its mix), U.S. gas could cut global emissions by 500 million tons yearly, dwarfing leaks. By 2040, this bridge could halve coal’s share, buying time for fusion or next-gen solar.

Critics cry “fossil fuel lock-in,” but that’s a strawman. LNG’s flexibility—unlike rigid pipelines—lets renewables scale without blackouts. Picture Germany: its coal plants fade as U.S. gas fills gaps, wind turbines humming by 2035. Conservatives should own this narrative: LNG isn’t denialism—it’s discipline, a transition fuel that starves tyrants while science catches up.

Geopolitical Judo: Flipping the Board

Now, the grand play. Trump’s LNG surge isn’t just supply—it’s strategy. Europe, at 40% of exports by 2030, becomes a U.S. vassal in energy, not ideology—NATO’s glue thickens without a bullet fired. China, hooked on 20% of our LNG, trades coal smog for American molecules, a dependency Trump can tweak with tariffs or diplomacy. Russia, limping at 20 billion cubic meters to Europe, pivots to a discounted Siberia 2—China pays $8/MMBtu, not $12, bleeding Moscow dry.

Here’s an original twist: LNG as soft power. Trump could launch an “Energy Freedom Initiative”—subsidized exports to Africa’s microgrids, outpacing China’s $50 billion oil grab. Kenya’s 100 MW solar pairs with U.S. gas backups, electrifying villages without Beijing’s strings. By 2040, America owns the developing world’s energy soul—capitalism’s quiet coup.

The Balanced Ledger: Risks and Remedies

Shale realism demands candor. Oversupply risks stranding $50 billion in terminals if Europe goes 60% renewable by 2035—Cheniere’s bet could sour. Methane’s shadow looms; a voluntary industry standard—say, 0.5% leakage caps—could blunt critics without EPA meddling. Trade wars might shrink exports to 20 Bcf/d, but a “LNG bloc” with Japan and India hedges that bet.

Conservatives mustn’t dodge these. Champion LNG, yes, but innovate: tax credits for methane capture, not just drilling. Pair exports with fusion R&D—$1 trillion by 2040, privately led. This isn’t capitulation—it’s command of the future.

The Verdict: A Legacy Worth Forging

Trump’s LNG reversal is a conservative dream: jobs, power, liberty. By 2035, 35 Bcf/d could flow—40% to Asia, 30% to Europe—redefining energy’s map. Prices might settle at $10/MMBtu, coal withers, and Russia fades. Yet, shale realism elevates this beyond bravado. It’s a chance to wield LNG as a scalpel—cutting rivals, bridging climate gaps, and electrifying allies—all while fueling America’s heartland.

RealClearEnergy’s readers know the drill: energy isn’t sentiment—it’s strategy. Trump 2.0 can etch a legacy not just of dominance, but of dexterity. Let’s seize it, eyes wide open, and shape a world where American gas lights the way.

Ronald Beaty is a former Barnstable County Commissioner, and a lifelong resident of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Something sinister is lurking in the heart of Africa, and no one knows what it is. A mysterious illness has swept through two remote villages in northwestern Congo, killing 53 people in just five weeks – some within hours of falling sick.

Health officials are scrambling to figure out what’s behind the deadly outbreaks in Equateur Province, but answers remain elusive. With 419 reported cases and the death toll rising, fear and speculation are gripping the region.

A Tale of Two Villages

The outbreaks began on January 21 in two villages separated by more than 120 miles. In the tiny village of Boloko, the first victims were children who had eaten a bat (oh?). Within 48 hours, they were dead, according to the Associated Press. Weeks later, hundreds more cases surfaced in Bomate, where at least some patients also tested positive for malaria. Are the two outbreaks connected? Health officials still don’t know.

Dr. Serge Ngalebato, medical director of Bikoro Hospital, says this is an ‘unusual situation.’

“The first one with a lot of deaths, that we continue to investigate because it’s an unusual situation, (and) in the second episode that we’re dealing with, we see a lot of the cases of malaria.” 

Congo’s Ministry of Health reports that about 80% of patients share symptoms including fever, chills, body aches, and diarrhea. These symptoms are common in many tropical infections, but what has scientists on edge is the rapid death of many victims.

Initially, fears of Ebola ran high, as the virus has struck Congo multiple times before. But lab tests in Kinshasa ruled out Ebola and its deadly cousin, Marburg. Now, health officials are considering everything from viral hemorrhagic fever to food poisoning, typhoid, and even meningitis.

“The speed at which people are dying in Boloko is alarming,” the WHO Africa office said in a statement. “We need to accelerate laboratory investigations, improve case management, and strengthen surveillance before it spreads further.”

Congo’s Deadly Pattern

This isn’t the first time an unknown illness has swept through Congo. Just last December, a similar outbreak claimed dozens of lives. The country’s weak healthcare system and remote geography make it difficult to track and contain diseases before they spiral out of control.

Many of these deadly outbreaks stem from the region’s deep forests, where viruses jump from animals to humans. Scientists warn that as long as people continue eating bushmeat—including bats, a known carrier of deadly pathogens—Congo will remain a hotbed for mysterious diseases.

“All these viruses have reservoirs in the forest,” said Gabriel Nsakala, a professor of public health at Congo’s National Pedagogical University. “As long as these forests exist, we will always have outbreaks.”

The Congolese government has sent teams of experts to the affected villages, but the remote locations are making containment efforts difficult. Patients are receiving treatments targeting their symptoms, but without a known cause, there’s no cure in sight.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is calling for urgent international assistance. The U.S. has historically been the largest donor to Congo’s health sector, but with foreign aid currently under review, it’s unclear whether resources will arrive in time.

As the mystery illness continues its deadly march, one thing is clear: Congo is once again at the mercy of an invisible killer. And until scientists can crack the case, fear and uncertainty will reign supreme.

Authored by Mark Oaks via RealClearPolicy,

For years, unelected regulators and global financial firms have colluded and used other people’s money to force businesses to address climate change and social issues. Under the guise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), proponents diverted capital away from the energy sector, prioritizing political activism over prudent financial stewardship. The resulting misallocation of capital is most acutely felt in Europe, where energy prices are four times higher than in the U.S.

Sadly, the EU continues to push ESG through regulation with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directives (CSRD). The CSRD imposes sweeping ESG mandates on companies with operations in the EU, even if they are headquartered in the U.S. “CSRD is the EU’s new regulation requiring companies to disclose their environmental and social impact…and hold businesses accountable for their sustainability efforts.”

That is why I, along with 25 of my fellow state financial officers, sent a letter to President Trump asking him to direct the United States Trade Representative to open an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the European Union’s CSRD. This provision allows the President to take action against foreign regulations that unfairly burden U.S. businesses.

The CSRD is costly, prioritizes political agendas over investor returns, and undermines U.S. sovereignty. Given the sweeping scope of the EU’s ESG requirements, a Section 301 investigation is fully justified.

The directives mandate companies to report on ESG impacts and performance, including initiatives to reduce their environmental impact. And, even though President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, it requires companies, including U.S. businesses, to develop and implement a Paris-compliant transition plan for climate change mitigation.

Beyond their own operations, businesses must disclose the potential ESG impacts of companies within their supply chain, including Scope 3 emissions. In 2024, even the SEC shied away from such onerous disclosures due to high compliance costs, inconsistent and unreliable Scope 3 data, and the legal uncertainties surrounding the rule itself. The CSRD also introduces a radical concept of “double materiality.” This means not only reporting on financially material risks, but also on speculative societal impacts. This goes far beyond the long-established U.S. legal definition of materiality, creating a legal minefield for American businesses.

The directives also invite frivolous lawsuits from activist groups and trial lawyers seeking to weaponize ESG disclosures. They are built on assumptions about climate change that will force companies to incriminate themselves. Traditional energy has no reliable, abundant, affordable alternatives, so, of course, companies are dependent on it for their underlying activities.

Since CSRD requirements extend European regulators’ authority to U.S. companies, these bureaucrats will dictate in-scope issues that American companies must address, including within their domestic operations. This regulatory overreach undermines U.S. sovereignty.

U.S. companies are unwinding from the coercive ESG scheme. Many of our largest financial institutions, including banks, insurance companies, and asset managers, have pulled out of the collusive global net-zero alliances. The EU, in contrast, seems determined to carry on the deleterious ESG cabal despite the demonstrably detrimental impacts that have resulted.

The recent American Airlines retirement plan litigation highlights the risks of prioritizing non-pecuniary interests in investment decisions. Judge Reed O’Connor noted that ESG investments often underperform traditional ones by about 10% and stated that it is irrational for shareholders or investment managers to push companies like Exxon to act in ways that undermine their own profits.

The EU’s ESG policies have already crippled European economies, driving energy shortages and economic stagnation. The directives will exacerbate capital misallocation and weaken the economies of both Europe and the United States. This not only harms the financial interests of states but also drains financial resources from shareholders.

Even within Europe, the directives are controversial. President Macron of France has asked the EU to postpone their implementation indefinitely. As Brussels re-examines the directives, the U.S. has an opening to assert its opposition.

President Trump’s administration has taken critical steps to free American markets from the grip of ESG mandates. We must extend that fight to the international stage. By taking a firm stance now, the U.S. can protect American businesses, restore market principles, and encourage Europe to rethink its self-destructive policies.

We must act swiftly to ensure that Europe’s regulatory failures do not become America’s burdens.

Marlo Oaks is the State Treasurer of Utah.