Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

A prominent British newspaper columnist suggested that big business could ‘put a hit out on Trump’ in response to his tariffs.

Writing for the Telegraph, Tim Stanley made clear that he supported Trump’s tariff regime, asserting that the U.S. president is “trying to change history, rather than just caretake it.”

“In fact, Trump is correcting a 50-year misdirection in US life, and one that the hero of many Trumpers, Richard Nixon, also attempted to fix,” he wrote.

However, Stanley made clear that the backlash to Trump’s efforts to upturn the global order could be brutal.

“Were I a foreign manufacturer, I’d wager this policy will be reversed at least by 2028 when a new president is elected – or big business puts out a hit on Trump, because they’ll tolerate anything but the devaluing of their stock price. The next gun that fires at the president will probably be made in America,” he wrote.

It’s not clear whether the columnist was actually saying Trump could be physically taken out by monied interests, although his choice of words certainly seems to suggest this is the case.

As we reported yesterday, despite Trump surviving two assassination plots last year, vile leftists would be happy to see him killed.

A poll conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute found that over 55 per cent of respondents said it would be “justified” to murder President Trump, with just under 50 per cent believing the same about Elon Musk.

As we highlight in the video below, Stephen Colbert also ‘joked’ that if the deep state existed, it should step in to do something about Trump’s tariffs, referencing the word “Fidelio” from the movie Eyes Wide Shut, which is about a secret society that kills people who expose it.

*  *  *

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

MAGA and libertarians are ripping each other apart over the tariff debate: Free trade or protectionism? Our livelihood or numbers on a graph? Foreigners ‘ripping us off’ or exploiting the dollar’s strength to live beyond our means?

Getting to the bottom of the rift last night on ZeroHedge were libertarian asset manager Peter Schiff and America-first author Spencer Morrison. Expertly moderated by ‘Rebel Capitalist’ George Gammon, below were some key moments for those short on time (though we strongly recommend the full 2 hour discussion).

Schiff: Tariffs = Inflation

When Morrison (MAGA) tried to downplay the inflationary impact of tariffs, Schiff (libertarian) parsed the effects of tariffs into their most basic terms: “When our money stops leaving the country… that money stays here.”

“The goods don’t come in anymore… so we have all this money and not a lot of good. So what happens when you have a lot of money chasing a smaller supply of goods? The prices go way up.”

pic.twitter.com/QALCJFAf5j

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 9, 2025

If you see a hole in that logic, let us know.

Morrison: “America is not a market”

For the sake of both productivity and morality, Schiff advocated for the freedom of interaction between individuals regardless of nationality. To which Morrison replied that the concept of an “individual exists but in an ontological sense” and that economy productivity is not an end in itself: 

“The purpose of the economy is to serve the best interest of the nation and the people… the interests are to create beauty and protect the environment. To preserve a future for the people.”

When Gammon asked “who chooses” what is in the “interest” of the nation, Morrison replied: “We the people.”

pic.twitter.com/Xh7SbQ8f7T

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 9, 2025

NOT A DRILL: BONDS ARE CRASHING

Schiff — true to his nature — closed the debate with severe warning about the U.S. economy and societal stability… grim even by his standards but worth a listen.

Bonds, stocks, the dollar. All tanking in unison.

pic.twitter.com/aSzEAO1Iki

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 9, 2025

______________________________

Watch the full debate below:

From President Trump’s long-threatened trade war on day one to last week’s “Liberation Day” tariff blitz, the escalating trade war with China and other major trading partners appears to have triggered a foreign traveler boycott of the U.S.—even as domestic travel by U.S. citizens remains solid. 

Goldman analysts Catherine O’Brien and Jack Ewell told clients Monday that U.S. airlines recently slashed revenue guidance, citing transitory factors, reduced government travel, and economic uncertainty affecting last-minute bookings. They said that while there were earlier signs of recovery in future peak travel periods, growing economic and geopolitical instability is now expected to weigh further on demand. 

O’Brien pointed out that non-U.S. citizen traffic at U.S. airports declined sharply in recent weeks—dropping from +1% a month ago to -7% two weeks ago, and now -12%. This trend only suggests it will continue accelerating to the downside. 

The analysts noted that economic uncertainty prompted them to “reduce our outlook for the US airlines“… 

Here’s more on the outlook:

We are reducing our outlook for the U.S. airlines as we incorporate a worse 1Q 2025 exit rate on increasing economic and geopolitical uncertainty, and assume this lower level of demand holds for the rest of 2025. This drives a material cut to our outlook. However, the rate at which the industry is cutting capacity is encouraging, particularly for historically higher growth airlines that are now producing lower-than-historical margins. As such, we expect the lower demand environment to be partially offset by industry capacity cuts in the second half of 2025. We are not incorporating a full recessionary scenario into our forecast which would likely drive further downside risk to our outlook (see our recession scenario analysis here), but note that the GS macro team is now forecasting a 45% probability of a U.S. recession.

We expect the industry overall to perform better in an economic slowdown than it has previously, as it is more consolidated, less levered, and revenue is more diversified. We continue to believe that segmentation and revenue diversification will drive changes to relative profitability across the industry, with Buy-rated Delta and United benefiting from a better ability to compete profitably across various demand segments. In a slowdown, this would be the first cycle with a mature basic economy product rolled out, excluding the pandemic which is not comparable to a typical economic downturn in our view.

While we expect relatively better performance across the airlines than in prior slowdowns, we are shifting our positioning to be relatively more defensive given the current level of economic and geopolitical uncertainty, and are downgrading AAL shares to Sell and upgrading SKYW shares to Buy. American’s operating leverage and balance sheet drives relatively higher downside to our outlook vs. the industry, but AAL shares have essentially performed in-line with the industry since February. Conversely, SkyWest is one of the most insulated in our airlines coverage given its revenue is primarily contractual, but SKYW shares are down nearly in-line with the industry since February.

Beyond the downgraded airline outlook for the U.S. market, what stands out most is the emerging foreign traveler boycott amid the escalating trade war. This trend may signal a broader downturn for the U.S. travel industry and other tourism-dependent service sectors.

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

The “Liberation Day” Tariffs announced at the Rose Garden last week went into effect as of 12:01 am. The tariffs on China have been increased since then, as China already retaliated by increasing their tariffs. I, like many refer to them as the “Liberation Day” tariffs, as that is a talking point that seems to appeal to the President and avoids calling them “reciprocal” which they are not.

There have been some interesting “surprises” overnight.

U.S. stock futures dropped between 2% and 3% a little after midnight but are now down less than 1% or even in positive in some cases (depending on whether you focus on the S&P 500 or Nasdaq 100 futures). They are moving rapidly.

European stock markets are down 2.5% to 3% across the board.

What is interesting though, is that Chinese ETF’s (KWEB, FXI) are up over 5%.

We will come back to stocks, but bonds were the big story overnight!

If you were up last night waiting to see if there was a last-minute reprieve, your social media likely got overwhelmed with stories about the bond market – with the U.S. longer dated maturities being the focal point.

The 30-year bond briefly breached 5%. The always important 10-year yield rose above 4.5% as yields marched incessantly higher from around 10 pm until just after midnight. They are currently back to 4.37%, about 7 bps higher than where they closed.

The yield story is the biggest, so here is our take on what happened:

• Some large and relentless volumes went through during a period of low liquidity. Why would anyone dump treasuries overnight when the market has limited liquidity relative to the U.S. hours? Large foreign or off-shore firms all have desks to trade treasuries during U.S. hours, so it was a bit weird. Leads me to think someone either was trying to “make a statement” or someone was trying to push markets and trigger stops (seems plausible). So in any case, while the move was eye-opening, I dismiss some of it, as it seems to have been done with intention.

• To a large degree, this was a global phenomenon. Most major countries (except for Germany – which is the EU “safe haven”) moved higher. Though not to the extent the U.S. did and certainly not with the same level of focus from market watchers.

• Could this be foreign selling of bonds? China has come up as a culprit in the selling. Maybe other countries were selling bonds overnight to “hurt” the U.S., but that doesn’t seem that likely. As mentioned already, anyone with size, probably does the bulk of their trading during U.S. hours. I cannot think of many entities who have large exposure to U.S. bonds (large enough to move markets) that doesn’t transact primarily during U.S. hours. So I’m not sure this theory holds much water for the overnight move.

  • Central banks, tend to hold treasuries with maturities of 5 years and in. It has been awhile since I did the digging on this (the obvious TIC data pages just show “short-term” of less than 1 year and “long-term” as longer than 1 year), but that was what I found last time. I think it was during the European debt crisis, so need to go through my notes, when I’m back at the office (am in Boston today). So I don’t think the pressure on longer maturity bonds is coming from Central Banks.

  • Foreign Pension funds in particular do hold long dated bonds and are quite likely selling as one consequence of the administrations’ actions and threatened actions (imposing fees on holders, etc.). That is a likely source of pressure on the long end, though I would think that is mostly affecting rates during normal trading hours (which also haven’t been kind to bonds of late).

• The “basis trade”. Apparently, many hedge funds (and other market participants) hold long term treasuries versus swaps. That has been unwinding of late. This makes more sense as part of last night’s moves, as this community is far more likely to have “stops” and get forced to sell, even at illiquid periods, than central banks or foreign pension funds. For now, I would attribute most of the blame on this trade/unwind.

What is helping risk assets right now?

• Lots of QE and Fed emergency move chatter. I’m incredibly skeptical that anything happening in the bond market, especially in an overnight session with a once in a lifetime tariff event went into effect (at least once in my lifetime event, so far).

• Countries are “begging” for deals. President Trump was speaking last night and was very aggressive in pointing out how many countries were basically begging for deals! There were no details on which countries (though he did say some “large trading counterparties” were among those “kissing his..” looking for a deal. We will see what countries and what deals.  The devil will be in the detail in terms of which countries and what the deals are. On many things, tariffs alone, won’t solve trade imbalances (even if they go to zero), but it could provide a lift to markets if we get that rolling. Even after almost a week of senior administration officials discussing tariffs, it is still difficult to divine the true end goal – get tariffs to zero (probably not that hard, and didn’t necessarily need the “nuclear option”), to generate revenue (in which case they need to stay on), or to get trade balances to zero (not sure how that works with poorer countries, and despite the U.S. being “ripped off” by everyone, the U.S. does have one of the higher per capita GDP’s of any nation. Optimism is understandable, but I remain cautious on this front.

  • China which had the largest tariffs, continues to push back and their stock market rallied further overnight (they had been down a lot too of late). So not sure we can see U.S. stocks higher as a clear “we are winning” signal.

• There is still some time for a “reprieve”. My understanding is that there are exemptions for goods already at sea, if they arrive in the U.S. within the next month or so. Between what has already in inventory and what is on the way and exempt, the full impact of tariffs for countries shipping via container ships (Asia and Europe, more than Canada and Mexico) won’t be felt for another month or so. That gives time for the negotiations to occur while not being as disruptive as the headline numbers suggest.

On positioning, on a quick glance yesterday may have been a record day of inflows for ETFs. Whatever the sentiment (soft data) indicators are telling you, the hard data indicators (ETF flows) are telling us that we are positioned for a bounce. I think that trade will fail, yet again.

Corporate credit was quite weak yesterday. I will be watching the front end closely (VCSH is a good proxy for those of you not deep in the weeds of trading corporate bonds). I will be watching the discount to NAV on large corporate ETF’s like a hawk (to the extent I can watch anything in between meetings). When funds like HYG, JNK, LQD trade at a discount to NAV, it has a tendency to unleash the ETF Spiral™! I will try and send around some old notes on this, but basically my strong view is that the “arbitrage” that is created by large discounts to NAV, at the early stages of times of stress, leads to more selling! Since the arb itself is risk neutral (sell bonds, buy the ETF), some argue that it doesn’t exist, but experience tells me that when people are uncertain, that $1 of owning bonds feels far more risking than owning $1 of ETF/index and it promotes more selling.

Credit could turn today and perform well.

The Fed could indicate some interest in supporting markets.

We could see some details on potential deals.

Any and all of those would be positive, but I don’t think that it will be enough and am still extremely cautious on risk assets here.

I don’t mind buying some bonds here, even with the potential for foreign selling, but not until after the auctions!

Good luck and welcome to the post Liberation Day tariff world (which, as you can tell, I still don’t think the market is fully pricing in the risks).

Also, as last minute addition, changing correlations (like stocks and bonds both moving down together) tends to cause de-grossing (cutting positions) in any sort of strategy that relies on cross asset correlations (from true Risk Parity to Risk Parity Lite strategies, like 60/40 funds).

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Like orbiting space debris, every loan that has been collateralized by an illiquid asset is a high-speed projectile with the potential to disable any other part of the system it impacts.

Complex systems can undergo what’s known as phase shifts, where the state of the system changes abruptly. The classic example of this is liquid water turning to ice. Since the mechanisms at work–temperature, saline levels, etc.–is known and measurable, then this phase transition is predictable.

Complex systems with emergent properties are unpredictable, and so their phase transitions catch us off guard. The system looks stable, as the risk of sudden instability resolving in a phase shift is not visible.

Emergent properties arise from the interactions of various parts of the system rather than from the characteristics of the parts themselves. Interactions in complex systems that are tightly bound –i.e. highly interconnected–are dynamic and so the consequences of unexpected interactions are unpredictable.

In other words, we think we understand all the possible interactions, but we’re forgetting second-order effects: first-order effects: interactions have consequences. Second order effects: consequences have consequences.

This illusion of control leads us to tinker with systems such as the global financial system to suppress any interactions we see as threatening the stability of the entire system. But this tinkering to lower risk has a hidden consequence.

As Nassim Taleb noted in a 2011 article: “Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks.”

Which brings us to a second example of a phase shift: The Kessler Syndrome: The Kessler syndrome, proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler, describes a hypothetical scenario where the accumulation of space debris in Earth’s orbit triggers a chain reaction of collisions, creating even more debris, potentially rendering parts of space unusable.

While this is described as “hypothetical,” the potential for a Kessler Effect to occur rises sharply with the quantity of space junk / debris speeding around low-Earth orbits in what I call The Orbital Landfill, a space-age analog of The Landfill Economy we’ve created here on the planet’s surface.

And voila, the number of bits of high-speed debris is rising, along with the number of satellites being lifted into orbit: Catastrophe Looms Above: Space Junk Problem Grew ‘Significantly Worse’ In 2024 That’s brings us to the nightmare scenario that should fill you with dread: The Kessler Effect.

I submit that the Kessler Syndrome is an apt analogy for what may be happening in the global financial system: interactions that few anticipated are setting off second-order consequences that are themselves interacting with other parts of the system in unpredictable ways that will cascade, in effect clearing entire orbits of the global financial system.

So once a margin call impacts a functioning satellite and shatters it into random projectiles, the fallout / debris from that impact then strikes everything that is tightly bound to that part of the system.

These consequences then impact other parts, triggering margin calls and liquidation of assets that then shatter and those destructive projectiles become so numerous that they clear the entire orbit of functional parts of the system.

In a financial Kessler Effect, every critical element is shattered into dangerous debris that cascades through the entire global system.

Being tightly bound, the global financial system is exquisitely sensitive to cascading margin calls and forced liquidations of assets. Like orbiting space debris, every loan that has been collateralized by an illiquid asset (i.e. an asset that can’t be sold with the click of a button and the transaction clears second later) is a high-speed projectile with the potential to disable any other part of the system it impacts.

The problem with markets that Taleb described so succinctly is that the risk of apparently liquid markets freezing up and becoming illiquid is not visible until it’s too late to sell. Conventional market theory holds that there will always be a buyer to take an asset off a seller’s hands. But buyers disappear in crashes, as nobody wants to catch the falling knife.

Assets that were presumed to be liquid become illiquid, and their valuation plummets. This collapse of collateral then triggers margin calls (loans being called in, demands for cash) which then trigger more liquidations into an illiquid market.

And that’s how a Financial Kessler Effect clears entire orbits of the global financial system. What looked robust and low-risk is reduced to debris.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Financial emergencies have driven more Americans to tap into their 401(k) accounts—a trend already underway before President Trump took office. Much of the financial misery stems from the inflation storm sparked by the Biden-Harris regime. Now, the surge in early 401(k) withdrawals has drawn the attention of the nation’s second-largest retirement plan provider.

Empower CEO Ed Murphy joined Bloomberg TV on Monday to discuss the alarming trend of early 401(k) withdrawals. These funds have become Americans’ rainy-day funds, used to prevent foreclosure and pay medical bills. 

An early withdrawal for those under age 59 ½ comes at a 10% penalty. Murphy said withdrawals from 401(k)s are running about 15% to 20% above the historical averages. 

“There is a corollary to what you are seeing in the US economy with deferred payments on auto loans and mortgages,” he said, adding, “That’s something we monitor carefully.” 

“If you’re in retirement or you’re nearing retirement, and you see this kind of a decline, it can be a bit concerning,” says Empower CEO Ed Murphy.

He recommends everyone have at least 2 years worth of emergency funds during these turbulent markets https://t.co/2uC5nvdVQE pic.twitter.com/5lNURXHNMT

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) April 7, 2025

A recent report from Vanguard Group found that 4.8% of account holders in 2024 made early withdrawals. That’s up from 3.6% in 2023 and a 2% pandemic-level average. Data is based on nearly five million 401(k)-type accounts managed by Vanguard. 

“While experiencing hardship is not a good thing, having savings to turn to is a positive,” David Stinnett, head of strategic retirement consulting at Vanguard, told WSJ. 

These 401 (k) hardship withdrawals have been running at elevated levels well before Trump stepped into office. We previously noted “US Consumer Is Melting Down” and warned that the lower-income cohort finally tapped out last month. Again, another trend lingering from failed ‘Bidenomics’.

And how do we know this is certainly not a Trump phenomenon? Well, much of the financial stress for consumers erupted under Biden. It’s merely a continuation.

In addition, more consumers are falling behind on their monthly card payments.

It’s even uglier when looking at the charge-off rates.

More bad news for the consumer arrived on Monday…

6-Sigma Miss In Consumer Credit Confirms US Consumer Is Finally Down And Out https://t.co/04XsTaksNn

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 7, 2025

. . . 

Via Middle East Eye

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been lobbying US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to block the sale of F-35 warplanes to Turkey, citing concerns over Ankara’s growing influence in Syria, three sources, including two senior western officials, told Middle East Eye.

Netanyahu raised the F-35 issue during multiple calls with Rubio in March and April, the two western officials said. A third source familiar with the matter confirmed that Netanyahu had pressed Rubio on the arms sale.

Netanyahu has privately said he will push Trump against the F-35 sale but has yet to discuss it with him. The Israeli leader will meet Trump at the White House on Monday, his second visit this year. Netanyahu has a slew of files to address with Trump, from surprise tariffs levied against it and potential nuclear talks with Iran to the disarmament of Hezbollah and Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza.

However, Israel and Turkey’s rivalry is heating up in Syria. Last week, Israel bombed three military bases in the country – including Syria’s Tiyas air base, also known as T4. The strikes came as Israel saw a limited window of opportunity to attack the bases before Turkey moved its military assets in.

MEE revealed previously that Turkey is deploying a Hisar-type air defense system to the T4 base. Turkey’s control of the bases is part of a pending defence pact that Ankara and Damascus have been negotiating since December. The agreement would see Turkey provide air cover and military protection for Syria’s new government, which currently lacks a functioning military.

Netanyahu and his advisors see Rubio as a strong ally in trying to stop Turkey from acquiring F-35s, the western officials told MEE.

Rubio and Turkey

Rubio is one of the top Turkey hawks in Trump’s cabinet. He was one of the few American officials to express concern over the arrest on March 19 of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu. The imprisonment of Imamoglu, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s top rival, sparked mass protests in Turkey.

Amid fallout over the arrest, Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Trump held a “really transformational” phone call with Erdogan, saying there was “just a lot of good positive news coming out of Turkey right now”.

The sources told MEE that Netanyahu has raised the F-35 issue with Rubio several times, including on a call that took place before Rubio hosted his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, in Washington DC on March 25. A readout of that meeting provided by the State Department said the two discussed “close cooperation to support a stable, unified, peaceful Syria”.

Rubio and Fidan also had a warm embrace on the sidelines of a Nato summit in Brussels in April. When he was a Republican Senator, Rubio took a particularly strong interest in the Eastern Mediterranean. He passed legislation to advance security and energy cooperation between Greece, Cyprus and Israel.

Rubio co-authored the 2019 Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act, which authorized foreign military financing for Greece and lifted a prohibition on arms sales to the Republic of Cyprus.

Greece is Turkey’s historic foe in the region. Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974 after a failed coup attempt to unite it with Greece. Turkey maintains more than 35,000 troops in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a country recognised by no UN member state except for Turkey. Cyprus, Greece and Israel have been alarmed by Turkey’s growing influence in the region after Islamist rebels overthrew Bashar al-Assad’s government last year in Syria.

With Ankara’s allies ensconced in Damascus, Greece and Cyprus are concerned that Turkey could replicate a maritime deal that it struck with Libya’s Tripoli-based government. Greece and Israel have been deepening their military ties for a decade with US backing, partly in response to that maritime deal with Libya.

That partnership has accelerated in response to Turkey’s growing sway in Syria. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis visited Israel on 30 March, and Greece is in talks with Israel to purchase its Barak medium-range air defence systems.

The Israeli foreign ministry declined to comment on Netanyahu’s lobbying. The State Department did not respond to MEE’s request for comment by the time of publication.

A source familiar with Ankara’s thinking said that while aware of Netanyahu’s lobbying, they do not believe he can do much. A senior Turkish official told MEE that the Trump administration hasn’t expressed any change on the F-35 file. “Netanyahu could only demand Trump to sell more F-35s to Israel, maybe doubling the amount Turkey might buy,” the source familiar with the matter said. “You cannot tell Trump not to make that sale.”

Trump and the ‘unfriendly takeover’ 

While Trump often touts his good relationship with Erdogan, he has often been critical of Turkey. Trump said in December that Erdogan orchestrated an “unfriendly takeover” of Syria after Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) toppled Assad’s government. He expressed concern about Turkish expansionism, saying, “They’ve wanted it [Syria] for thousands of years, and he got it”.

Trump congratulates Erdogan of Turkey on taking over Syria, eluding to the fact that Al Jolani aka Ahmad Al Sharaa is nothing but a Turkish pawn.

Congrats to our revolutionaries on handing Syria over to Turkey. pic.twitter.com/Ai0NHYcA29

— Bassem (@BBassem7) April 7, 2025

Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast War Room has become required listening to those seeking a peek behind Trump’s world view, said recently that Erdogan was “one of the most dangerous leaders” in the world and wants to “re-establish the Ottoman Empire”. Outside influencers have growing sway in Trump’s White House, as was underscored by right-wing Laura Loomer’s takedown of several national security officials.

The tussle between Turkey and the US over F-35s goes back to 2019 when Ankara purchased Russia’s S-400 missile system and was ejected from the co-production of the warplane. The following year, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on Turkey.

MEE revealed that Ankara is considering the temporary deployment of S-400 air defence systems to T4 or Palmyra in Syria to secure the airspace during the reconstruction of the bases. However, no final decision has been made and Russia would need to give its approval.

Under US law, Turkey must relinquish possession of the S-400 system to be readmitted into the F-35 programme. But deploying the S-400 to Syria would likely alarm Israel. Israel has long enjoyed a veto on US arms sales to other Middle Eastern states to ensure it maintains a qualitative military edge in the region.

The future of CK Hutchison’s deal to sell two Panama ports—the Balboa and Cristóbal terminals—to a BlackRock-led consortium is in dire straits after Panama’s top auditor revealed widespread contractual breaches and claimed the port operator owes the country hundreds of millions of dollars, reported Bloomberg. This comes shortly after Beijing launched an antitrust probe into the deal while trade war tensions between Washington and China intensified. At its core, the port sale revolves around President Trump’s push to secure hemispheric defense by terminating Chinese control from critical parts of the canal. 

On Monday, Panama’s Comptroller General, Anel Flores, told reporters that CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Company’s (PPC) 2021 renewal of a 25-year port concession was plagued with procedural breaches.

Flores said PPC used tax breaks to evade $850 million in taxes out of the $1.3 billion owed over the first 25 years of the contract period.

Flores accused CK Hutchison of operating “shadow companies” to obscure revenue. He alleged that PPC still owed the Panamanian government $300 million. 

The timing of the audit is another hurdle to CK Hutchison’s proposed $22.8 billion sale of 43 global ports to a BlackRock-led consortium, first announced in March. The deal was already delayed last week amid surging pressure from Beijing. 

For weeks, various Chinese media outlets called CK Hutchison’s billionaire founder “spineless” and questioned which “side he should stand on.” 

Flores warned BlackRock that acquiring the two ports stuck in legal disputes would inherit “breaches and nonpayment.” 

Here’s more from Bloomberg:

Flores said that he plans to file a criminal complaint with Panama’s attorney general’s office on Tuesday against the maritime authorities who granted the 2021 contract renewal and against executives of Panama Ports. He said that he will also inform Panama’s Maritime Authority of the audit’s results, and that agency will need to decide whether to rescind the contract.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink was asked about the port deal at the Economic Club of New York on Monday. He said regulatory review for anti-competition of the deal could take nine months or more, but overall, he said he was optimistic the transaction would be approved. 

Fink acknowledged that Beijing could derail the deal, emphasizing that it is driven by commercial interests—not geopolitical considerations (Trump’s hemispheric defense).

While the Panama port deal appears inevitably delayed, President Trump made the same move by extending the TikTok deadline by 75 days last week. These delayed deals are bargaining chips for Beijing and Trump in an escalating trade war. 

.@SecDef @PeteHegseth at the Panama Canal: “The United States of America will not allow Communist China or any other country to threaten the canal’s operation or integrity.” pic.twitter.com/Chm8kQVHgN

— Kristina Wong 🇺🇸 (@kristina_wong) April 8, 2025

The question remains whether Flores’ audit of PCC undermines the legitimacy of its 25-year port concession signed several years ago.

Authored by Etienne Fauchaire via The Epoch Times,

A verdict by the Paris Criminal Court on March 31 drew strong reactions across the French political arena. Marine Le Pen, a prominent figure on the nationalist right and a three-time presidential contender, was convicted in a long-running case involving her party’s use of European Parliament funds to pay assistants. The ruling bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election.

For the first time since 1981, the Le Pen name could be absent from the ballot entirely.

The Paris court’s verdict against Marine Le Pen reverberated beyond France’s borders, drawing international criticism from prominent conservative leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, writing on his social media platform Truth Social, offered his unequivocal support on April 4.

“Free Marine Le Pen!” he wrote in all caps.

At the center of the case is the use of European Parliament funds to pay staff who worked simultaneously for Rassemblement National (RN), or National Rally, members of the European Parliament, and for the party itself. The court called it embezzlement, although it acknowledged there was no personal enrichment.

Le Pen and 21 co-defendants were convicted by the trial court. She was sentenced to four years in prison—two of them suspended—to be served outside of jail under electronic monitoring, along with a five-year ban from holding public office, effective immediately.

Le Pen denounced the ruling as politically motivated.

On the French television network TF1 on the same evening, she said, “The rule of law has been completely violated.”

The next day, she went further, calling the decision “a nuclear bomb” designed to wipe her candidacy off the map.

Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally, denounced what he called the “tyranny of red judges.” Both Bardella and Le Pen say the case involves no embezzlement but rather an “administrative disagreement.”

The court rejected that defense, stating “this was not a matter of administrative errors or a misunderstanding by the Members of Parliament of confusing European rules.”

National Rally First Vice President Louis Aliot and former party treasurer Wallerand de Saint-Just, both co-defendants, said they stand by their defense of Le Pen.

“This isn’t embezzlement; it’s an administrative dispute,” Aliot told The Epoch Times. “Had the European Parliament clearly told us, ‘You can’t do this,’ we would obviously have acted differently.”

Aliot said that the rules governing parliamentary assistants had changed repeatedly over eight legislative terms, blurring the line between party activities and parliamentary duties.

“All the other political parties have done the same thing over the past decades,” he added. “The court should have taken that into account. It did not.”

The judges, for their part, rejected any suggestion of good faith. In their ruling, they concluded that the National Rally had engaged in “embezzlement within a system set up to reduce the party’s financial burden.” The defendants appealed this verdict.

Participants stand in front of posters during a gathering in support of President of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, after she was convicted of a fake jobs scheme at the EU Parliament, in Marseille on April 5, 2025. Clement Mahoudeau/AFP via Getty Images

Bayrou ‘Troubled’

Beyond the merits of the case itself, the most contentious issue in France centers on the court’s decision to enforce Le Pen’s immediate ineligibility for public office through a measure known as exécution provisoire (provisional enforcement). The ruling, which bars her from running in the 2027 presidential election before the appeals process is complete, is viewed, particularly on the right, as politically motivated.

Across the French right, political figures from Éric Zemmour (Reconquête) and Éric Ciotti (UDR) to Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) voiced strong indignation at the decision to apply the sentence provisionally.

“It is not up to judges to decide who the people should vote for,” Zemmour said in a March 31 social media post. “I regret that politicians have handed such excessive power to the judiciary. Everything will have to be changed.”

On the presidential side, French Prime Minister François Bayrou voiced his unease, saying he was “troubled” by the court’s decision. Bayrou and his party, the Democratic Movement (MoDem), are implicated in a similar case. On Feb. 5, the Paris court acquitted the MoDem president, citing a “lack of evidence.” The prosecution has since appealed the ruling.

The leader of the far-left party France Unbowed, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is also under investigation for the alleged misuse of EU parliamentary assistant funds.

Bayrou’s concerns were not echoed within French President Emmanuel Macron’s political camp.

“When an elected official is convicted of embezzling public funds, ineligibility is automatic. It’s the law. When there is a risk of reoffending (which is the case when the defendant denies having committed the offense), provisional enforcement is ordered. It’s the law,” lawmaker Sacha Houlié wrote on X.

Bayrou’s remarks were also harshly criticized by Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure, who said he was “troubled by the prime minister’s disturbance,” lamenting that “respect for the law, the rule of law, and the separation of powers are no longer on the government’s agenda.”

This view was echoed by legal scholar Paul Cassia, a professor of law and president of French anti-corruption association Anticor. In an op-ed for Le Monde, he argued the court justified the “proportionate nature” of its decision. He also said that a presidential candidacy “cannot, in itself, constitute a privilege or a totem of immunity … except by disregarding the principle of equal treatment under the law.”

Some legal experts dispute that interpretation. They argue that the court’s decision violates the presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Under French law, civil rights are not typically revoked until all appeals have been exhausted. Le Pen, they note, remains the leading contender in the 2027 presidential polls, making the immediate application of ineligibility particularly consequential and, in their view, disproportionate.

Critics also point to a perceived double standard. They argue that many of those now invoking the principle of equality before the law are the same voices who typically call for the individualization of sentences, a key concept in French criminal law often used to justify rulings perceived, particularly on the right, as lenient in cases involving insecurity and urban violence. This principle requires that sentences be tailored to the offender’s individual circumstances rather than applied mechanically.

To justify the accelerated enforcement of Le Pen’s ineligibility, the court invoked the spirit of the Sapin II law, passed in December 2016, which mandates automatic ineligibility for those convicted of misusing public funds. The events in question occurred between 2004 and early 2016, before the law was enacted.

Since judges could not legally rely on the Sapin II law itself, they instead based their decision on preexisting French legislation, which allows for ineligibility in such cases when justified. To support the provisional enforcement, the court cited two controversial arguments.

‘Risk of Recidivism’ Argument

The first justification offered by the court for the provisional enforcement of Le Pen’s ineligibility was the defendants’ “system of defense,” which it interpreted as evidence of a potential “risk of recidivism.” 

In other words, Le Pen’s refusal to admit guilt and her decision to contest the charges were taken as signs that she might reoffend.

“Since they have completely refused to acknowledge any guilt … it is entirely legitimate to consider that they could very well reoffend, especially if they were to hold the highest offices in the country tomorrow,” Julien Boudon, professor of Public Law at Paris-Saclay University, told Le Monde.

Critics disagree. Speaking to The Epoch Times, legal scholar Ghislain Benhessa, who teaches at the University of Strasbourg, noted the court treated the National Rally’s opposition to the European Union, and in particular to the values of the rule of law promoted by the EU, as an aggravating factor.

“But Marine Le Pen has a constitutional right to defend herself and contest the charges,” he said. “You cannot, on the one hand, accuse the National Rally of undermining the rule of law, and on the other, criticize it for exercising its legal right to mount a defense.”

French lawyer Pierre Gentillet, known for his conservative views, said the court’s reasoning was “absurd.”

“The judges based their decision on intent rather than on materiality. And even if we consider intent, it was inferred simply because Marine Le Pen denied committing a crime,” Gentillet said. “At the time, she had no awareness that the actions taken under her authority might be illegal. And if we’re talking about the material risk of reoffending, how? She is no longer an MEP, nor is she the president of the National Rally.”

Risk to ‘Public Democratic Order’ Argument

Second, to argue that their decision was proportionate, the judges introduced what some describe as a novel—and legally questionable—concept: “public democratic order.”

According to the ruling, the candidacy, or eventual election, of Marine Le Pen to the presidency would constitute a “major disruption to democratic public order,” given that she has “already been convicted at first instance, notably to an additional penalty of ineligibility,” and “could later be definitively convicted.”

An attendee wearing a red Phrygian cap holds French national flags in front of the golden dome of Les Invalides, ahead of a rally in support of the president of Rassemblement National parliamentary group Marine Le Pen, in Paris on April 6, 2025. Julien de Rosa/AFP

Critics note that this concept has no legal foundation in French law.

“The court pulled it out of thin air,” Benhessa said. “And it is not the role of a trial court to invent new jurisprudential doctrines. That responsibility lies solely with the supreme courts—the Conseil d’État and the court of Cassation—who alone have the authority to shape jurisprudence in accordance with legal doctrine and the specific nature of a case.”

Former Constitutional Council member Noëlle Lenoir echoed the criticism in an op-ed for Le Figaro, stating unequivocally that “public democratic order” is an “unknown notion in the penal code” and that these judges did not base their decisions on the law.

Violation of Voter Freedom?

Just three days before the verdict, on March 28, the French Constitutional Council issued a ruling stating that ineligibility may only be applied immediately if it does not disproportionately infringe upon voters’ freedom.

While some legal scholars argue that the trial court has complied with that standard, by invoking the risk of recidivism and the concept of “public democratic order” to justify the proportionality of provisional enforcement, others strongly disagree.

In an op-ed for Marianne, Jean-Éric Schoettl, former secretary general of the Constitutional Council, accused the judges of openly defying the council’s guidance.

“They have rebelled against the Constitutional Council, and against the voters,” he wrote. “The provisional enforcement of Marine Le Pen’s ineligibility clearly has disproportionate consequences on the freedom of the voter, as it deprives millions of citizens of their natural candidate in the country’s most important election.”

Criminal lawyer Maxime Thiébaut echoed that warning, calling the court’s move a serious breach of legal norms.

“The judges have tainted their ruling with illegality,” he told The Epoch Times. “It amounts to interference in the democratic process. What legitimacy does a first-instance court have to declare that someone is unfit to run for president?”

Judicial Bias Alleged

In their interviews with The Epoch Times, both Aliot and de Saint-Just also alleged that the judiciary—prosecutors, investigating judges, and the bench—had demonstrated political bias.

For instance, they pointed out that investigating judges Claire Thépaut and Renaud Van Ruymbeke are both affiliated with the Syndicat de la Magistrature (Union of the Magistracy), a judges’ union that has openly called on magistrates to oppose the RN’s rise in the lead-up to the 2024 legislative elections.

The Syndicat de la Magistrature responded to criticism of the Paris Court’s decision, arguing that claims of “politicized justice” are “based on assumptions that verge on conspiracy theories.”

The impartiality of Judge Bénédicte de Perthuis, who delivered the verdict, has also been questioned.

Fueling further controversy, it emerged this week that Judge de Perthuis had cited Green politician and former magistrate Eva Joly as a personal source of inspiration in 2020.

Rémy Heitz, prosecutor general at the French Court of Cassation, took issue on RTL, a commercial radio station, with that line of criticism, saying this decision is the result of a “fair trial” and that it was handed down not by one but by “a panel of three independent, impartial judges.”

Race Against the Clock

On April 1, the Paris Court of Appeal announced it would fast-track its review of Le Pen’s case.

Ordinarily, appeals of this nature take between 18 and 24 months, meaning the timeline would likely have excluded Le Pen from the 2027 presidential race. In an unusual step, the court has announced its intention to deliver a ruling by the summer of 2026.

Benhessa acknowledged the exceptional nature of the move.

“This is highly unusual,” he said. “Given the media storm surrounding the first-instance ruling, I believe the Court of Appeal is trying to put the fire out. What’s striking is that they’re not just scheduling a hearing: they’re committing to a deadline.”

The main facade of the Paris courthouse (Palais de Justice), which houses the Paris Court of Appeal in Paris, France, on March 2, 2025. Milani/Hans Lucas via AFP/Getty Images

The Paris Court of Appeal declined to make any public comments on the decision.

Within the Rassemblement National, the announcement is seen as a tacit admission that the initial ruling was excessive.

“This is very good news, and I take it as a sign of the unrest the ruling has provoked,” Le Pen said.

“This shows that it’s actually the lower court’s decision that creates a disturbance to public order. The Court of Appeal has never done this for anyone,” Aliot told The Epoch Times.

The accelerated timetable should not be interpreted as a “disavowal” of the lower court’s verdict, Paris Chief Prosecutor Marie-Suzanne Le Quéau told Agence France-Presse.

Beyond France’s borders, the appeal will be closely watched, especially by conservatives and by the Trump administration, who are concerned that lawfare is rising in Europe and free speech is waning.

In Trump’s lengthy post, the president compared Le Pen’s situation to his legal battles.

“The witch hunt against Marine Le Pen is another example of European leftists using lawfare to silence free speech and censor their political opponents. … It’s the same playbook they used against me,” he wrote.

“I don’t know Marine Le Pen, but do appreciate how hard she worked for so many years. She suffered losses, but kept on going, and now, just before what would be a Big Victory, they get her on a minor charge that she probably knew nothing about—Sounds like a ‘bookkeeping’ error to me. It is all so bad for France, and the Great French People, no matter what side they are on.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who in a speech in Munich last February warned of a “retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America,” also came to Le Pen’s defense.

“The Europeans, they are absolutely, 100 percent our friends,” Vance told Newsmax on April 3. “But that relationship is going to be strained, and it’s going to be tested, if they keep trying to throw opposition leaders in jail.”

The Trump administration is mulling the potential withdrawal of up to 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe, NBC News reports Tuesday, citing half-a-dozen American and European officials privy to the discussions.

The internal discussions are specifically focused on reducing US troop levels in Romania and Poland, long dubbed NATO’s most important ‘eastern flank’ countries. If effected, the move would cut the Pentagon troop surge which began following the start of the Ukraine war by half, after some 20,000 soldiers were surged there to bolster Eastern Europe.

US troops have also been deployed to the Baltic states. Last month four US Army soldiers died during a training exercise. The members of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division were found in an area outside Pabradė, Lithuania.

“In the early morning hours of March 25, the four Soldiers went missing. The first three Soldiers and their M88A2 Hercules armored recovery vehicle were recovered from a peat bog in the early morning of March 31,” a US Army statement later confirmed.

Addressing the potential for a US draw-down in the region, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said this would be done in close coordination among European allies.

The Trump White House has been ramping up the pressure for European states to shoulder more of the burden for defense of the continent, including committing to higher defense spending.

NATO leadership has been in discussions for coming up with a plan to fill the gap of US leadership within the alliance five to ten years down the road, amid speculation Trump could pull the US out of NATO, or at least greatly reduce Washington commitments. 

Financial Times wrote last month, “The discussions are an attempt to avoid the chaos of a unilateral US withdrawal from Nato, a fear sparked by President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to weaken or walk away from the transatlantic alliance that has protected Europe for almost eight decades.”

“The UK, France, Germany and the Nordics are among the countries engaged in the informal but structured discussions, according to four European officials involved,” the report said.

“Their aim is to come up with a plan to shift the financial and military burden to European capitals and present it to the US ahead of Nato’s annual leaders’ summit in The Hague in June,” FT continued.

But as we’ve detailed before, the ‘eastern flank’ countries prefer to remain under the US security umbrella. Poland is even still pitching a major US military base called “Fort Trump”. These eastern flank countries also tend to be hawkish when it comes to their anti-Moscow rhetoric.