Update(1415ET): President Trump said Monday while hosting French President Emmanuel Macron at the The White house Ukrainian President Zelensky could be coming to the Oval Office as soon as “this week” to sign a “final deal” on rare earth minerals access.

“It looks like we’re getting very close. The deal’s being worked on,” Trump told the press pool, with a nervous and anxious-looking Macron sitting next to him.  “We’re I think getting very close to getting an agreement where we get our money back over a period of time,” Trump added, referencing prior demands to be paid back some $500 billion after years of heavy weapons and funds sent to Kiev.

“I will be meeting with President Zelenskyy. In fact, he may come in this week or next week to sign the agreement… The agreement is being worked on now. They are very close to a final deal,” Trump stressed. Watch:

BREAKING: President Trump says Ukrainian President Zelensky could be coming to the Oval Office as soon as *this week* to sign a “final deal.”

“It looks like we’re getting very close. The deal’s being worked on.”

“We’re I think getting very close to getting an agreement where… pic.twitter.com/xn23Bjmvw4

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 24, 2025

Axios has obtained a draft agreement being currently worked on, and provides the following…

 “The Government of the United States of America intends to provide a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine,” the draft says. It says the fund will be designed “so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase development,” including in areas like mining and ports.

It suggests the US will recoup some its losses “defending, reconstructing, and returning Ukraine” to its pre-war GDP. Zelensky has meanwhile rejected the concept of ‘repaying’ Washington for what’s been given through the course of the war.

An awkward public disagreement happened just as Trump was talking… “No!” Macron openly interjected…

Trump: So you understand, Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back.

Macron: No…pic.twitter.com/0TOyaX3iYu

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 24, 2025

By the end of the tense, unexpected exchange between the two leaders, a visibly annoyed Trump quipped, “If you believe that, it’s OK with me…”.

* * *

By all accounts the hold-up in the US and Ukraine potentially agreeing to a final mineral deal has been President Zelensky’s refusal to sign – seeing in it selling off Ukraine’s economic sovereignty; however, sources on both sides strongly suggest a deal is very close.

“I will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back,” said President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a press conference Sunday. President Trump is seeking access to some $500 billion in the country’s minerals, including rare earths, to repay Washington for its wartime aid.

Kiev as well as many of its European partners have complained that the deal offers no clear security guarantees or even the promise of future aid in return. Instead it appears set up to repay the US billions in past aid, and Ukrainian officials and the media have described it as punitive. 

The Ukrainian leader described this weekend:

“Let’s first clarify the $500 billion figure. I know that we had $100 billion [in US aid provided to Ukraine], and that’s a fact. But I’m not going to acknowledge $500 billion, regardless of what anyone says, with all due respect to our partners,” Zelensky told reporters at the “Ukraine Year 2025” forum.

Still, there appears have been some weekend progress, and the Zelensky government knows it’s in no position to fiercely push back, also given that the Trump administration is essentially calling for a near-future change in leadership at this point, having blasted Zelensky as a ‘dictator’.

“Ukrainian and U.S. teams are in the final stages of negotiations regarding the minerals agreement. The negotiations have been very constructive, with nearly all key details finalized. We are committed to completing this swiftly to proceed with its signature,” Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Olga Stefanishyna stated on X Monday.

“We hope both US and UA leaders might sign and endorse it in Washington the soonest to showcase our commitment for decades to come,” Stefanishyna added.

A fresh description from US officials involved say the deal will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and achieving a “lasting peace” as part of it. This will include the US agreeing to “durable partnership” between Washington and Kiev, the texts shows as reported by Bloomberg.

The latest draft also stipulates that those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction” – Bloomberg has also noted.

Earlier this month, when talk of a mineral deal plan was first being floated by the White House, Zelensky expressed openness, though he was also likely attempting to be diplomatic and conciliatory, not thinking such an agreement would be pushed this hard by Trump, or realistically get off the ground.

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on a rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine: “I expect to see a deal signed this week.” pic.twitter.com/61e1Q8qfvT

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 23, 2025

“If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it,” Zelensky had told Reuters at the time. The Ukrainian leader insisted the deal wouldn’t involve “giving away” Ukraine’s resources but framed it as a partnership.

But now with the details being hammered out and put into place, he clearly understands it to be very heavily skewed in Washington’s favor, and not benefiting future generations of Ukrainians.

Authored by Marie Poteriaieva via CoinTelegraph.com,

The Solana-Ethereum blockchain duel has never been more exciting to watch. While the ambitious newcomer showcases its high speed, user-friendliness, and low fees, the revered incumbent still boasts the most developed ecosystem among smart contract platforms.

Market reactions vary widely. Some analysts expect Solana to continue outperforming Ethereum in terms of user activity and DApp revenues, which could drive SOL’s price higher. The increasing likelihood of a SOL ETF approval adds further momentum. Others, however, anticipate Ethereum reclaiming dominance in 2025, citing historical price trends, growing ETH accumulation by whales, and upcoming technological upgrades.

Is ETH price on the verge of bottoming out?

Ether’s price performance in 2024 was underwhelming, appreciating by just 65%, compared to SOL’s 95% gain. In Jan. 2025, SOL claimed a new all-time high, while ETH remained below its peak from Nov. 2021.

SOL/USD 1-day chart. Source: Bloomberg

Currently, ETH is down 33% from its cycle high of $4,116, prompting speculation that a bottom may be forming. On Feb. 10, crypto analyst IncomeSharks posted a chart on X suggesting ETH is ranging, with the recent wick to $2,156 signaling a potential bottom.

“Everyone is afraid to call that wick a bottom, but it is. The largest volume candle and liquidation event are even more confirmation.”

ETH/USD 1-day chart. Source: IncomeSharks on TradingView

Another X user specialized in crypto charting, Tony “The Bull” Severino, noted that “ETH/BTC is oversold on the monthly RSI for the first time ever in its history.” RSI stands for relative strength index, a momentum indicator that measures the magnitude of recent price changes. Typically, when an RSI is in the “oversold” zone, i.e. below 30, it signals an impending trend reversal. On Feb. 10. Ether’s RSI fell to 28, later returning to the 41 level.

Another notable trend is ETH accumulation. French crypto analyst Crypto Futur pointed out that since December, the number of whale ETH addresses (holding over 1,000 ETH) has been steadily growing. Over the past two months, only four days have been negative in whale addresses 30-day change.

Ethereum Whale Address Count. Source: Glassnode

Regarding SOL’s price performance, some analysts believe that as a “younger version” of Ethereum, it could mirror Ether’s price trajectory. As noted by the crypto analyst Inmortal on X, 

“In early 2021, a lot of people were trying to guess the top on $ETH. But in spite of everything, we continued to make higher lows. It reminds me of $SOL this year.”

SOL/ETH chart. Source: Bloomberg

With ETH’s market cap being three times that of SOL, a similar trajectory for Solana could push its price beyond $500.

Is “utility” the metric investors associate with value?

Beyond price speculation, a blockchain’s native coin’s value is closely tied to the blockchain’s performance. The more active the blockchain’s ecosystem is and the more revenue its DApps generate, the stronger the coin’s price fundamentals become.

In the Solana-Ethereum duel, Solana seems like a clear leader in revenues, often exceeding Ethereum’s daily earnings tenfold. Moreover, according to Nansen’s CEO Alex Svanevik, 

“Solana has beaten Ethereum on almost every metric: active addresses, transactions, DEX volume, total gas fees. The only one missing is TVL.”

Yet, not everyone is convinced. 

As IncomeSharks notes,

“So much has already been built on [Ethereum] chain. People say “SOL” is fast and cheap as they lose 99% of their position on a useless meme that rugs. There’s nothing unique being built on SOL other than more casinos.”

The launch of Uniswap’s Uninet on Feb. 11 marks another step in the Ethereum ecosystem development. 

However, Ethereum’s L2 solutions still face a major challenge: they are siloed. While bridges exist to connect Ethereum to its L2s and between L2s themselves, they remain complex and potentially insecure for both users and developers. To remedy that, several notable Ethereum L2 upgrades, such as Polygon’s Agglayer, Uniswap’s Across, or Base’s RIP-7755, are expected to come in 2025, potentially solving the interoperability problem.

ETH and SOL battle for institutional investor adoption

Spot ETH ETFs were approved in July 2024, with nine firms, including BlackRock and Fidelity, launching their own funds. Initially, their performance was disappointing, with outflows from Grayscale’s (ETHE) converted fund dominating the first five months. However, since Nov. 2024, inflows have started picking up, now totaling $3.18 billion of net inflows, according to CoinGlass.

Meanwhile, anticipation for a Solana spot ETF has been growing. On Feb. 10, Bloomberg analyst James Seyffart updated his forecast, assigning a 70% probability for a SOL ETF approval in 2025. His colleague Eric Balchunas added that these odds were “

Yet, ETF approval does not guarantee strong performance. According to the onchain analytics firm Messari, “Even with an SOL ETF, ETF bidders are far more likely to choose ETH over SOL.”

Amid rising fears that the Fed’s next move may be a rate hike instead of a cut, it appears that bond buyers – and especially foreign bond buyers – did not get the memo, and instead today’s just concluded sale of $69 billion in 2Y paper was one of the strongest on record.

Starting at the top, the auction stopped at 4.169% at its 1pm close out time; this was down from 4.211% last month and also stopped 1.1bps through the 4.18% When Issued, following last month’s modest tail. This was the third biggest stop through in the past two years as shown in the chart below.

The Bid to Cover was less exciting: at 2.56% it was down 10bps from last month’s 2.66% and was the lowest since October, which is why it was well below the six-auction average of 2.66%.

But what the auction lacked in BTC, it more than made up for thanks to foreign demand, because with 85.5% of the auction awarded to Indirects, i.e., foreign buyers, this was the highest Indirect award on record.

And with Directs awarded 7.6%, Dealers were left holding just 6.9% of the auction, the lowest on record!

Overall, this was a stellar auction, and on news of the break the 10Y yield, already near session lows, dropped to a fresh low for the day, just below 4.40% and likely set to drop even more.

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

Topics like bond yields, dollar debates, or yield curves can be admittedly, well, boring.

And things like politics can be, well… emotional at best or divisive at worst.

Shared Concern Among So Much Division?

In the current Zeitgeist, it’s hard to get through the fog of market complexity or the self-censorship of political polarization to arrive at anything even resembling a shared concern.

But we should all be concerned if we are collectively sinking on a global debt ship with not enough lifeboats to save our fiat current’s absolute purchasing power.

And when it comes to the water over-filling the air-tight compartments of the U.S. debt Titanic, we need to look soberly at what the Trump America is facing.

Toward this end, let’s be blunt.

Can’t We All Agree that America is Broke?

Public debt – $37T, unfunded liabilities at $190T. A debt/GDP ratio above 120%, etc.

The USA is in an unprecedented debt trap/spiral, the math, details, history and consequences of which we have been tracking for years.

And history (ignored) tells us an even darker yet simpler truth: debt destroys nations.

Every time and without exception.

Boring Bond Yields

Given that the USA in particular (and the world in general) is witnessing the greatest debt crisis of human history, should we not be equally concerned rather than politically divided when it comes to such boring things like bond yields (which reflect the very cost of debt)?

As for those boring bond yields, let’s just keep it broad and simple.

Yields on the 10-year U.S. Treasury represent the cost of money/debt for nearly everyone on the globe, in general and Uncle Sam in particular.

This means that when those yields start to climb too high, just about everything and everyone (including the country you reside in) starts to fall deeper into “uh-oh.”

And those yields rise when demand (i.e., purchasing) of those bonds starts to fall.

Read that last line again. Let it sink in.

When trust, love and/or demand and price for UST’s falls, pain for just about everything but the USD (and now gold) spikes.

Boring? Yes.

But relevant?

Absolutely.

From Boring Bonds to Just About Everything

So, what does such boring bond/UST talk have to do with your currency, your wealth or your lives?

And what does such boring bond talk have to do with market risk, gold prices, BTC’s direction or the fate of Trump’s America or even world trade and peace?

A lot.

Trump Change

Trump is a disruptor. A political outsider to a DC setting for which the term “swamp” is probably too kind.

He’s making bold statements and directives on everything from tariffs and immigration to JFK’s assassination (no great mystery there…) and DOGE spending cuts.

Love or hate him – he’s certainly busy making change…

And although he may know far more about real estate capitalism than he does about government debt or US history, his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, knows a heck of a lot about the latter – which means he’s dealing with a lot of contradictions coming out of today’s White House.

No Change Without Consequence or Contradiction

Trump’s administration is making headlines, for example, about a stronger USD, ending inflation, optimizing tariff revenues, saving big oil and getting those boring UST yields down.

But there’s just one catch – no one, not even Trump or Santa Clause, can do all that without radically re-shaping the prior notion of American exceptionalism.

And ironically, no one knows this better than Trump’s own Treasury Secretary.

Why?

It’s simple – and even a bit “boring” – but the forces at play will directly impact YOU, so it’s worth a few reality checks and simple fact-reminders here.

It All Starts (and Ends) with the Dollar

If Trump, for example, pushes for a stronger dollar and aggressive tariffs (love or hate em), such a policy would not only create a drag on the global economy (which owes over $14T in USD-denominated debt), it would also be knife wound to Uncle Sam, oil production and the very yields the Trump White House wants to reduce.

That is, a rising dollar forces foreigners (and nations) to sell/dump USTs to get more liquidity to pay debts.

And if USTs continue to sell off, then prices fall, and yields rise; and when yields rise, even Uncle Sam reaches a point where he can’t afford his own bar tab.

See the paradox? The trap? The boring yet incredibly important relationship between bonds, currencies and economic life itself?

The USD: Weaker By Necessity

This relationship between a strong dollar and UST yields is clear and direct, and although the headlines and consensus still see a strong dollar ahead, I’ve long argued the oppositefor the simple reason that America itself can’t afford a strong dollar.

And deep down, Scott Bessent (a private gold buyer) knows this, too.

He’s openly admitted to the “counterparty” risk of a strong USD, but he won’t publicly confess that one of those counterparties at risk is the U.S. itself.

So, what is to be done?

How can Trump afford short-term tariff costs, cut spending/waste in DC (via DOGE), pay for the needed re-shoring of American jobs, or even win the war on inflation without risking debt issuance to the moon and hence bond yields even higher (which recently rose from 4.3% to 4.65% in just three trading days)?

Well, as even his own Treasury Secretary knows under his breath, the answer is simple: he can’t.

Unless…

Unless …an already openly declining, and hence openly desperate, debt-soaked nation does what all desperate individuals or nations do: resort to desperate measures.

Only Desperate Options Left

Bessent knows that for anything Trump wants to enact to grow the American economy; he must first get Uncle Sam’s debt to GDP levels to a place where growth is even mathematically feasible.

At current debt/GDP levels, for example, such growth is mathematically impossible.

So, what can the US do under Trump?

1) Inflate Away Our Debt?

We could end up inflating away our debt.

For that to happen, we’d need years of inflation and negative real rates at well over 15% to even come close to “inflating away” such debt.

This would not only be fatally painful for U.S. citizens but also political suicide for Trump.

2) Play the Yellen Card?

Bessent could try his predecessor’s playbook of just issuing more UST’s (IOUs) from the short end of the yield curve or emptying the reverse repo market and TGA accounts to buy more time/liquidity and create more debt.

But with the world dumping USTs and bracing itself for more tariff and trade wars, there just isn’t enough love, trust or buyers for those American IOUs anymore…

More importantly, such wimpy measures can no longer save a nation whose bar tab (interest expense on outstanding debt, entitlements and defence) is 140% of its tax receipts.

That, folks, is neon-flashing evidence of desperation, which means we are now at an inflection point where the only measures left are entirely emergency measures – and they come with a cost. A serious cost.

3) Create BTC Bubble?

The U.S. could also help pay down some debt by speculating in a politicized BTC bubble, and then use the speculation proceeds (not actual BTC “currency”) to pay down debt in an emerging-market-desperation play akin to El Salvadore?

This is desperation at its highest, yet masquerading as “tech” nirvana to the rescue…

I’ve written and spoken about this option at greater length here and here.

4) Revaluing Gold?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the topic of gold revaluation is also ripping through the precious metal pundit circles at a galvanic pace, and for good reason.

Based upon “reported” U.S. gold holdings, if gold were politically re-priced to just $4000 per ounce, that would create an additional $1.2T of instant liquidity (i.e. inflationary M2), which the Treasury Department could then direct deposit into an ever-drying TGA.

(This direct deposit is made legal under Section 2.10 of the Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks.)

Such a gold revaluation policy would take a lot of pressure off Bessent’s Treasury Department and buy the U.S. more time and money for the aforementioned Trump policies to “Make America Great Again.”

But could a potential series of gold revaluations to inject new money into the TGA piggy bank truly make America, well… great?

Or would it just save the U.S. economy from crumbling to the ground?

Kissinger’s Ghost

In the 1970s, Kissinger was very concerned when Europe, which collectively owned more gold than the U.S., wanted to revalue their gold to similarly cover their own debt disasters at home.

This would mean the U.S. would have to do the same, thereby playing its last Trump card (pun intended) of desperation (reverting to its gold vaults) in 1974.

And why was Kissinger so terrified of having to resort to the ultimate “red button” act of desperation in the form of revaluing its last real form of sound money/wealth?

Because Kissinger knew then what many of us know.

That is, if the USA shows its hand and starts revaluing gold to higher and higher levels to pay down higher and higher levels of debt (to keep politicians in power and the masses free of pitchforks), this would mean the end of American supremacy, hegemony and/or the Pax Americana.

Why?

Because he who has the most gold wins, and despite what the World Gold Council reports, it’s an open secret that America does not have the most gold (in a world of central banks stacking gold at record levels and COMEX revolving doors).

The Dilemma: Greatness or Survival?

Trump, Bessent, and the USA itself thus face a debt trap and, hence, a sovereign dilemma of historical import.

Yes, certainly, the U.S. can and may revalue its gold holdings to dig itself partially out of debt and hence spur more growth.

But once/if the U.S. revalues, the rest of the world will naturally follow, and that will make the US just one more economically average nation among many, but certainly not the strongest anymore.

Kissinger knew this.

Do Bessent and Trump?

Either Way, Gold Wins

Regardless of whether such a formal gold revaluation occurs from the top down in DC, the gold price will continue to rise (re-value itself) naturally from the bottom up for the simple reason that debt-soaked nations = debased currencies.

Gold, which only rises because fiat money inevitably suffocates under debt, sits at a different kind of historical moment.

It gets the last laugh because sovereign debt, led by sovereign mismanagement, has killed its sovereign currency in a death by a thousand cuts.

So, yes, gold gets the last laugh – but the circumstances couldn’t be sadder.

By all accounts the hold-up in the US and Ukraine potentially agreeing to a final mineral deal has been President Zelensky’s refusal to sign – seeing in it selling off Ukraine’s economic sovereignty; however, sources on both sides strongly suggest a deal is very close.

“I will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back,” said President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a press conference Sunday. President Trump is seeking access to some $500 billion in the country’s minerals, including rare earths, to repay Washington for its wartime aid.

Kiev as well as many of its European partners have complained that the deal offers no clear security guarantees or even the promise of future aid in return. Instead it appears set up to repay the US billions in past aid, and Ukrainian officials and the media have described it as punitive. 

The Ukrainian leader described this weekend:

“Let’s first clarify the $500 billion figure. I know that we had $100 billion [in US aid provided to Ukraine], and that’s a fact. But I’m not going to acknowledge $500 billion, regardless of what anyone says, with all due respect to our partners,” Zelensky told reporters at the “Ukraine Year 2025” forum.

Still, there appears have been some weekend progress, and the Zelensky government knows it’s in no position to fiercely push back, also given that the Trump administration is essentially calling for a near-future change in leadership at this point, having blasted Zelensky as a ‘dictator’.

“Ukrainian and U.S. teams are in the final stages of negotiations regarding the minerals agreement. The negotiations have been very constructive, with nearly all key details finalized. We are committed to completing this swiftly to proceed with its signature,” Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Olga Stefanishyna stated on X Monday.

“We hope both US and UA leaders might sign and endorse it in Washington the soonest to showcase our commitment for decades to come,” Stefanishyna added.

A fresh description from US officials involved say the deal will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and achieving a “lasting peace” as part of it. This will include the US agreeing to “durable partnership” between Washington and Kiev, the texts shows as reported by Bloomberg.

The latest draft also stipulates that those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction” – Bloomberg has also noted.

Earlier this month, when talk of a mineral deal plan was first being floated by the White House, Zelensky expressed openness, though he was also likely attempting to be diplomatic and conciliatory, not thinking such an agreement would be pushed this hard by Trump, or realistically get off the ground.

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on a rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine: “I expect to see a deal signed this week.” pic.twitter.com/61e1Q8qfvT

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 23, 2025

“If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it,” Zelensky had told Reuters at the time. The Ukrainian leader insisted the deal wouldn’t involve “giving away” Ukraine’s resources but framed it as a partnership.

But now with the details being hammered out and put into place, he clearly understands it to be very heavily skewed in Washington’s favor, and not benefiting future generations of Ukrainians.

Update (1120ET): Sunday night’s panic within the FBI has quickly morphed into “utter despair” among liberals, “who had already grown fearful of a highly politicized FBI,” according to (formerly USAID-funded) Politico, which is rich considering that the FBI under Biden spent four years as a “highly politicized” weapon to go after conservatives.

Politico reports the Patel/Bongino appointments have been met with ‘utter despair by liberals, who had already grown fearful of a highly politicized FBI.’ Can anyone argue with a straight face that the FBI has *not* been highly politicized for years? https://t.co/0eYO0y1Ekt

— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 24, 2025

Rolling Stone (of pedo coverup fame), framed Bongino’s appointment with the “bad cops” tag, which is followed by an unhinged screed.

The once-great activist rag writes: “The FBI will officially be headed by two men with no experience in the bureau, and a lot of blind loyalty towards President Donald Trump.”

During the first weeks of Trump’s second administration, Bongino has hyped up the president’s power grab and revenge tour against his political opponents. Earlier this month, the radio host urged Trump to ignore a court order blocking the administration’s attempt to place a widespread freeze on federal funding. -Rolling Stone

Terminally TDS’d Stephen King deleted all of his interactions with Bongino:

Stephen king has deleted all his interactions with Dan bongino

🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣
🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤣🤡🤣
🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣
🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣 pic.twitter.com/jWoDPjIHN6

— Jacktron (@jacktronprime) February 24, 2025

And you know who should be panicking right now? Adam Schiff…

Oh boy. Went back to watch Dan Bongino’s last broadcast and Adam Schiff is in hot water now. pic.twitter.com/FkAWD6R61y

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) February 24, 2025

*  *  *

Last Day! Support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a ZeroHedge Multitool ,on sale until midnight tonight… Comes with belt sheath that sports ZH logo.

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.

*  *  *

On Sunday evening, President Donald Trump announced that former Secret Service agent and conservative talk show host Dan Bongino will become the new deputy director of the FBI – the agency that helped Obama and Hillary Clinton set Donald Trump us with the Russia Collusion hoax – which included leaks to the press, fabricating evidence, and die-hard deep state servants who vowed to destroy our president.

And now – Bongino and newly minted FBI Director Kash Patel are in charge…

Thank you Mr. President, Attorney General Bondi, and Director Patel. pic.twitter.com/bJqIDbWLEE

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) February 24, 2025

…which is not sitting well with current and former agency officials – or deep state journalists like NBC‘s Ken Dilanian, who reports that the FBI Agents Association struck out against Bongino’s selection. 

Without naming Bongino directly, the Association lashed out over the fact that the Deputy Director has typically been an active Special Agent.

“The FBI Deputy Director should continue to be an on-board, active Special Agent—as has been the case for 117 years for many compelling reasons, including operational expertise and experience, as well as the trust of our Special Agent population,” reads a memo obtained by WNBC‘s Jonathan Dienst.

As the WSJ notes,

The announcement sent shock waves through the FBI, whose new director Kash Patel had offered Republican senators private assurances that he would name a special agent with bureau experience to be his deputy, rather than a political outsider. Patel was sworn in at the White House on Friday.

Leaders of the FBI Agents Association, who met with Patel in January, said the new director had agreed that the deputy should be a current special agent…

Ken Dilanian echoed this sentiment, complaining on X that Bongino “has never spent a day working at the FBI, but he has spent many hours spouting baseless falsehoods about the bureau.”

A few minutes before Trump made his announcement, my colleague @jonathan4ny obtained a memo from the FBI agents association which said in part:

“The FBI Deputy Director should continue to be an on-board, active Special Agent—as has been the case for 117 years for many compelling… https://t.co/vnc80obNYs

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) February 24, 2025

In other words, the right people are freaking out right now.

Ken is still furious that Kash looks different than every other FBI Director.

The “traditionally” argument is a call for the elites to stay in charge. https://t.co/f7QlLDHyHq

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 24, 2025

Bongino is part of the Russiagate corner—he knows this stuff from our side of the fence. No classified briefings, no peeking under redactions—just the hard grind of piecing it all together. Now he’s a co-keeper of the holy grail and we’re about to see it all. It’s all coming out.

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) February 24, 2025

Oh man they are so f’d https://t.co/QXKqQL7QZQ pic.twitter.com/L01po49seI

— David Steinberg (@realDSteinberg) February 24, 2025

*  *  *

You can support ZeroHedge and longtime reader and patriot John O. by purchasing one of these amazing wooden flags that look great on any wall. Shipping included in the price to the lower 48.

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

We covered some of the most important topics in last weekend’s A Million Things to Parse. From DOGE, to Ukraine/Russia, to tariffs, to the so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord, much of what is shaping the global landscape is coming out of D.C. (though the Trump administration seems to be doing a lot of it out of Mar-a-Lago). Academy also wound up being quoted in the FT – Musk and markets: why DOGE is not cutting through, and in Barron’s Up & Down Wall Street. 

Clearly the topics are resonating as investors and corporations try to navigate these times. With another week of headlines behind us, we should be closer to “knowing” the answers, but I’m not sure that is the case. As we look at so many issues, it is possible to see a “successful” path where negotiations and actions occur, leaving the economy and markets in a much better spot. It is also possible to see this playing out in a way that leads us to a much worse economy and weaker markets. And in between those two “binary” options, there are a lot of other possibilities. 

Here is what I think we can add to last weekend’s report along with an update on how we are trying to interpret the policies and likely outcomes. 

Re-Trading Is Worrisome 

In capital markets a “deal is a deal.” You really cannot go back and change the terms later, and certainly not unilaterally. For much of my career I traded bonds and credit derivatives. You agreed on price and size and moved on. Occasionally you had trade disputes, but it was rare. But sometimes traders developed the reputation of being “flaky.” They didn’t live up to their word. Very few people who developed that reputation went on to thrive. 

I think this is important because I cannot help but characterize two things as “re-trading:” 

• Making Ukraine pay for things already given seems like re-trading to me. Whether or not we liked how aid to Ukraine was given, it was done legally (as far as I know). Does this mean that every time the U.S. does something, we can later go back and retroactively say that the terms aren’t what you thought? How will countries engage with the U.S. when a deal might not be a deal? 

  • Raising new tariffs on Canada and Mexico, while the USMCA, which was implemented under the first Trump term, is still in place, seems a bit odd as well. Not alarming and well within the president’s rights, but still… 

• Part of the Mar-a-Lago Accord chatter is around forcing countries to buy or convert Treasury holdings into zero-coupon bonds that cannot be traded. The argument is that countries need to pay for the security that the U.S. provides and has provided. Some of the logic makes sense. The U.S. spends a lot of money and protects the world’s supply chains. The U.S. benefits as do other countries. It may even be a reasonable ask to get paid for undertaking that role going forward. But, from the chatter I’m hearing and seeing, there is an element that the countries need to pay for what was already provided. How will that affect countries dealing with the U.S. in the future, if in the back of their minds, they are concerned that they will get coerced into something?

  • If countries bulk up their own defenses, they will have less need for this in the future (European Defense stocks have done incredibly well of late, in anticipation of such spending).

  • If countries have to pay for something, maybe they would rather fund their own protection forces, rather than paying the U.S. That could reduce the U.S. need to spend but it would come with a cost of a reduced presence globally. Also, will the U.S. really cut back on protection if countries don’t agree? Is the protection other countries get something that can be trimmed out of the U.S. budget, or is it something that occurs by the U.S. protecting its own interests?

Re-trading is not good policy and could lead to countries looking for alternatives to the U.S. and hasten deglobalization, which would not be good for American companies. The S&P 500 is up 2% YTD, while most of Europe is up more than 10% and the Hang Seng is up 17%. 

The Focus on 10-Year Yields 

This administration, at many levels, has made it clear that when they focus on getting lower interest rates, it is across the curve. They aren’t just worried about a Fed cut here or there; they want the 10- year yield much lower. 

Markets have liked that and there are things that are working in their favor, in a positive way:

• Just talking about it can help. While the Fed, through its transparency, has lost some of its ability to jawbone markets, the president and Treasury Secretary have that ability. The “promise” to not extend the duration of the balance sheet did help bonds. 

• QE will be ending (though since QE was almost exclusively achieved by allowing debt to mature, I’m not sure that will help that much). 

• Can DOGE deliver on the deficit? Will tariffs help the deficit? There seems to be some progress on the DOGE front, but it really is at the early stages. Will other policy announcements (like tax cuts) undo any deficit savings? 

4.4% on the 10-year now seems too low, especially given many of the reasons for the recent price action (in the face of higher-than-expected inflation data – which I think is suspect and subject to bad seasonality adjustments). 

The one thing that is concerning is that yields are justified if the economy isn’t that strong! 

Economic Weakness 

Service PMI came in below 50. Not good. 

We have argued that seasonal adjustments to the jobs data are incorrect and have overstated jobs in the first part of the year. While that effect is diminishing over time, it is still real, and we could see some job losses. 

We have no idea (yet) what the economic implications are from the DOGE cuts so far. If it is all “fat” and excess spending, great. However, to the extent it was important and feeding into the economy, we could see some reverberations in the coming months. 

Without a doubt, laying off government employees will affect the economy (with the D.C. area being hardest hit). But how easy is it to find jobs in the market? I think the JOLTS Quit Rate tells us that it is not so easy (and certainly not as easy as you might be led to believe by the NFP prints). 

Look for further signs of economic slowdowns here and the ongoing reversal of the American Exceptionalism trade. I think yields should be higher but I am rethinking that as my concern about the state of the economy evolves. We’ve discussed increasing delinquencies in prior T-Reports, and updated data on that front is doing nothing to assuage our concerns. 

Optimal Supply Chains 

We mentioned that we see the potential for some very good outcomes from what is being strategized in Mar-a-Lago and D.C. Having said that, even if we get to some really positive outcome (which is not my base case), there will be hiccups along the way. 

If you believe, and it seems reasonable, that most companies have designed efficient supply chains given the existing rules, then the changes made to deal with new rules will be suboptimal. 

Any behavior changes in response to new rules (or even the threat of new rules) has to be negative for companies and the economy (if the existing world is optimal). 

There is so much uncertainty. We are halfway through the 30-day stay of execution on the initial Mexican and Canadian tariffs, with little insight into what will happen when the first reprieve expires. 

Start looking for “problems” or signs that the uncertainty is hurting the global economy, which will impact the U.S. and our markets the most. 

Bottom Line 

I am forced to lower my target on the 10-year yield (for the wrong reasons). We’ve been looking for 4.8% or higher, but now 4.6% seems reasonable given what the government can do. That rate level assumes a decent economy, which I’m increasingly worried is too optimistic. Expect 2 rate cuts this year, 1 in May and 1 in autumn, but even with inflation expectations rising, the number of cuts might need to be higher, as disruptions to the global economy and further (potentially rapid) deglobalization is creeping its way up the league table in our list of probable outcomes. 

On equities, I continue to look for trades that will benefit from National Security = National Production. We have been overallocated to Chinese stocks and that has been great. We have been very concerned about the Nasdaq 100 and continue to think that the risk of a 10% or greater pullback is high. A pullback to pre-election levels would be close to 10% from here and given what we are seeing in the economy and economic policy so far, that is now my target. Basically an “unwind” of the gains made since the election as so far policy has done little to convince me that those gains are warranted. 

Credit spreads should widen in sympathy with equities, but I’m still not particularly concerned (though, again, this is dependent on a decent economy, which might not be the case). 

It is difficult to believe that we are “only” one month into Trump 2.0 given the sheer number of headlines we have been forced to digest, but the picture isn’t much clearer to me than it was before he was sworn in, and that makes me nervous for the economy and markets.

As DB’s Jim Reid writes in his expansive Daily Reid note this morning, five years ago today, global markets first began to panic after a weekend that saw 11 Italian towns emerge from it in Covid lockdown. Five years later we had a mini panic on Friday as attention focused on a report earlier in the week about a new coronavirus discovery in bats, from the infamous Wuhan lab, with similar properties to Covid-19. And speaking of five years, will the German election be seen as a pivotal moment when we look back on it in 2030? For financial markets the make-up of the Bundestag was probably as important as the overall results and the one line summary is that the centre-right and centre-left should have sufficient seats to form a grand coalition but overall the centrist parties are short of a two-thirds majority. This latter means that any future reforms of the debt break will be challenging and may require compromise and horse trading.

In terms of the details, the provisional results confirm a victory for the centre-right CDU/CSU (28.6%), followed by the far-right AfD (20.8%), centre-left SPD (16.4%) and Greens (11.6%). Of the smaller partis, the leftist Linke (8.8%) comfortably exceeded the 5% threshold, but the far-left BSW (4.97%) and liberal FDP (4.3%) fell short. BSW’s narrow failure to enter the Bundestag, which may take a few days to be definitively confirmed, has the important consequence of leaving the CDU/CSU and SPD combined with a projected 52% of the seats. 

That leaves the grand coalition as the most likely outcome, being the only option to avoid the need for three-party coalition given that mainstream parties have ruled out partnering with the AfD. DB’s Germany economists see the prospect of a two-party coalition led by a strong CDU/CSU as a positive for Germany’s corporate sector, promising less policy gridlock and uncertainty than under the outgoing government. Earlier in the night, CDU leader Merz said he wanted to form a coalition within the next two months.

While the outcome may reduce the risks of particularly fractious coalition talks, it still confirms an ongoing anti-establishment trend that has been visible both in Germany and Europe as a whole. The result marks the lowest ever vote share for the two major parties, even as the turnout (82.5%) was the highest since at least 1990. And it leaves the centrist parties short of a 2/3rds constitutional majority, with the CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens jointly at just under 66% of seats. That means any debt brake reform, including for defense spending, would require support from one of the fringe parties. This may not be impossible, but it would require significant political compromises.

In terms of other events this week, Nvidia’s earnings on Wednesday could be the biggest mover of markets. Interestingly of the 62 analysts who cover the stock on Bloomberg, 56 have a buy rating with only one sell. DB are currently one of only 5 with a hold rating. Outside of that, inflation takes centre stage with US core PCE, German, French and Italian flash CPI, as well as Tokyo CPI all out on Friday with Spain’s equivalent coming out on Thursday. In terms of the rest of the main global releases, the German Ifo survey today will be less relevant given the election but later we have the Dallas and Chicago Fed manufacturing surveys. Tomorrow sees the US Conference Board consumer confidence release which will be interesting after Friday’s weak UoM equivalent. Wednesday sees US new home sales and Australian inflation. Thursday sees US durable goods and the ECB account of their January meeting and Friday sees US personal income and spending data and the ECB consumer expectations survey. There are also lots of central bank speakers through the week, including at the G20 central bankers and finance minister meeting in Cape Town on Wednesday and Thursday. You can see the main ones detailed in the day-by-day calendar at the end as usual, along with key earnings releases and all the other data.

Digging into the main US data this week now. According to DB economists, Friday’s personal income (+0.3% forecast vs +0.4% previously) and consumption (+0.2% vs. +0.7%) will likely be softer due to the LA wildfires and poor weather with the all-important core PCE deflator (+0.27% vs. +0.16%) higher but not as extreme as CPI due to softer subcomponents in the subsequent PPI. This would lower the YoY core PCE two tenths to 2.6%. 

In the US consumer confidence tomorrow, the jobs-plentiful / jobs hard-to-get series is important as a good proxy for the unemployment rate. For claims on Thursday our economists are looking to the DC area in particular given press reports of substantial federal government layoffs. Around 20% of the ~2.3mn federal government employees live in Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia. The German bank estimates that there have been roughly 14k potential federal layoffs since the Trump Administration took office with another 12k pending the resolution of court cases. Clearly this is just within the first month.

Courtesy of DB, here is a day by day summary of the key events:

Monday February 24

• Data: US January Chicago Fed national activity index, February Dallas Fed manufacturing activity, Japan January PPI services, Germany February Ifo survey
• Central banks: BoE’s Lombardelli, Ramsden and Dhingra speak
• Earnings: Diamondback Energy, Trip.com, Domino’s Pizza, Cleveland-Cliffs
• Auctions: US 2-yr Notes ($69bn)

Tuesday February 25

• Data: US February Conference Board consumer confidence index, Richmond Fed manufacturing index, business conditions, Dallas Fed services activity, Philadelphia Fed non-manufacturing activity, December FHFA house price index, Q4 house price purchase index, Germany Q4 GDP detail, EU27 January new car registrations
• Central banks: Fed’s Logan, Barr and Barkin speak, ECB’s Schnabel and Nagel speak, BoE’s Pill speaks
• Earnings: Home Depot, Intuit, Workday, Coupang, ASM
• Auctions: US 5-yr Notes ($70bn)

Wednesday February 26

• Data: US January new home sales, Germany March GfK consumer confidence, France February consumer confidence, Australia January CPI
• Central banks: Fed’s Barkin and Bostic speak, BoE’s Dhingra speaks
• Earnings: Nvidia, Salesforce, Deutsche Telekom, TJX, AB InBev, Synopsys, CRH, Snowflake, Stellantis, E.ON, Novonesis, TKO, Paramount Global
• Auctions: US 2-yr FRN (reopening, $28bn), 7-yr Notes ($44bn)

Thursday February 27

• Data: US January durable goods orders, pending home sales, February Kansas City Fed manufacturing activity, initial jobless claims, Japan February Tokyo CPI, January retail sales, industrial production, France February PPI, Italy February consumer confidence index, manufacturing confidence, economic sentiment, December industrial sales, Eurozone January M3, February economic confidence, Canada Q4 current account balance, Switzerland Q4 GDP
• Central banks: ECB’s account of the January meeting, Fed’s Schmid, Barr, Bowman, Hammack, Harker and Barkin speak
• Earnings: Iberdrola, AXA, Dell, LSEG, Autodesk, Rolls-Royce, Vistra, Monster Beverage, Eni, Haleon, Engie, Warner Bros Discovery, Telefonica, Endeavor

Friday February 28

• Data: US January PCE, personal income and spending, advance goods trade balance, retail inventories, wholesale inventories, February MNI Chicago PMI, Kansas City Fed services activity, UK February Lloyds Business Barometer, Nationwide house price, Japan January housing starts, Germany February CPI, unemployment claims rate, January retail sales, import price index, France February CPI, January consumer spending, Q4 total payrolls, Italy February CPI, Canada Q4 GDP, Sweden Q4 GDP
• Central banks: ECB consumer expectations survey, BoE’s Ramsden speaks
• Earnings: Allianz, Holcim, BASF, Amadeus IT, Erste

Finally, Goldman notes that the key event this week is this week is core PCE inflation on Friday. There are several speaking engagements by Fed officials this week.

Monday, February 24

• There are no major economic data releases scheduled.

Tuesday, February 25

• 04:20 AM Dallas Fed President Logan (FOMC non-voter) speaks:  Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan will speak at the “2025 BEAR Conference: The Future of the Central Bank Balance Sheet” in London. Speech text and a moderated Q&A are expected. On February 6, Logan said, “I think the possible policy strategies for the FOMC in 2025 boil down to two key alternatives. In some scenarios, it will soon be appropriate to resume reducing the federal funds target range. In other scenarios, we’ll need to hold rates at least at the current level for quite some time.” She also said, “What if inflation comes in close to 2 percent in coming months? While that would be good news, it wouldn’t necessarily allow the FOMC to cut rates soon, in my view.”
• 09:00 AM FHFA house price index, December (last +0.3%)
• 09:00 AM S&P Case-Shiller 20-city home price index, December (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.4%, last +0.4%)
• 10:00 AM Conference Board consumer confidence, February (GS 102.0, consensus 102.7, last 104.1)
• 11:45 AM Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Barr speaks: Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr will give a speech on financial stability at an event hosted by Yale School of Management. Speech text and Q&A are expected.
• 01:00 PM Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will give a speech called “Inflation Then and Now” at an event hosted by the Rotary Club of Richmond. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On February 5, Barkin was asked if he still expected the FOMC to cut the fed funds rate this year and responded with “That’s certainly the lean, but we’ll have to see what happens.” Barkin also said, “I still think policy is moderately restrictive.”

Wednesday, February 26

• 08:30 AM Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will repeat his speech called “Inflation Then and Now.”
• 10:00 AM New home sales, January (GS flat, consensus -3.3%, last +3.6%)
• 12:00 PM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will speak on the economic outlook and housing at the Urban Land Institute’s annual Housing Opportunity Conference in Atlanta. Q&A is expected. On February 3, Bostic said, “My general outlook is that we’re going to get to target and get back to neutral. And I think neutral is lower than where we are now, somewhere in the 3-3.5% range. But how long should it take for us to get there depends on how the economy evolves.”

Thursday, February 27

• 08:30 AM GDP, Q4 second release (GS +2.1%, consensus +2.3%, last +2.3%); Personal consumption, Q4 second release (GS +4.1%, consensus +4.1%, last +4.2%): We estimate that Q4 GDP growth was revised down by 0.2pp to +2.1% (quarter-over-quarter annualized), reflecting a downward revision to consumer spending (-0.1pp to +4.1%) due to softer public transportation and personal home care details in the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS), a downward revision to business fixed investment (-0.8pp to -3.3%), but an upward revision to exports.
• 08:30 AM Durable goods orders, January preliminary (GS +4.0%, consensus +2.0%, last -2.2%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, January preliminary (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.3%); Core capital goods orders, January preliminary (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.4%); Core capital goods shipments, January preliminary (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.5%): We estimate that durable goods orders increased 4.0% in the preliminary January report (month-over-month, seasonally adjusted), reflecting a rebound in commercial aircraft orders. We forecast 0.4% increases for core capital goods orders and shipments, reflecting further increases in the orders and shipments components of manufacturing surveys in January.
• 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended February 22 (GS 225k, consensus 221k, last 219k): Continuing jobless claims, week ended February 15 (consensus 1,872k, last 1,869k)
• 09:15 AM Kansas City Fed President Schmid (FOMC voter) speaks: Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid will give remarks at the USDA Outlook Forum.
• 10:00 AM Pending home sales, January (GS -5.0%, consensus -0.8%, last -5.5%)
• 10:00 AM Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Barr speaks: Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr will speak on novel activity supervision at an event in Washington. Speech text and Q&A are expected.
• 11:45 AM Fed Governor Bowman speaks: Fed Governor Michelle Bowman will speak on community banking at an event in Kansas. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On February 18, Bowman said, “I continue to see greater risks to price stability, especially while the labor market remains strong,” and later added, “I would like to gain greater confidence that progress in lowering inflation will continue as we consider making further adjustments to the target range.”
• 01:15 PM Cleveland Fed President Hammack (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack will give the keynote address on financial stability at the Research Conference on Bank Regulation in New York. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On February 11, Hammack said, “Given current economic conditions, it will likely be appropriate to hold the funds rate steady for some time… We are well positioned to respond to changes in the outlook to achieve our maximum employment and price stability objectives.”
• 03:15 PM Philadelphia Fed President Harker (FOMC non-voter) speaks:  Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker will give a speech on the economic outlook at an event in Newark, Delaware. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On February 11, Harker said, “Inflation has remained elevated and somewhat sticky over the past several months, both in the overall and core figures. But that notwithstanding, I do believe that our current positioning will bring inflation back to target, in the next two years if conditions broadly evolve as I expect.”

Friday, February 28

• 08:30 AM Personal income, January (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.4%, last +0.4%); Personal spending, January (GS flat, consensus +0.2%, last +0.7%); Core PCE price index, January (GS +0.25%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.2%); Core PCE price index (YoY), January (GS +2.54%, consensus +2.6%, last +2.8%); PCE price index, January (GS +0.30%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.3%); PCE price index (YoY), January (GS +2.43%, consensus +2.5%, last +2.6%): We estimate that personal income increased by 0.4% in January, while personal spending remained unchanged. We estimate that the core PCE price index rose by 0.25% in January, corresponding to a year-over-year rate of 2.54%. Additionally, we expect that the headline PCE price index increased by 0.3% from the prior month, corresponding to a year-over-year rate of 2.43%. Our forecast is consistent with a 0.16% increase in our trimmed core PCE measure.
• 08:30 AM Advance goods trade balance, January (GS -$118.0bn, consensus -$115.0bn, last -$122.0bn)
• 08:30 AM Wholesale inventories, January preliminary (consensus +0.1%, last -0.5%)
• 09:45 AM Chicago PMI, February (consensus 40.3, last 39.5)
• 10:15 PM Chicago Fed President Goolsbee (FOMC voter) speaks: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee will speak at the 2025 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Economic Summit. Q&A is expected. On February 20, Goolsbee said, “My view is, before we got to the uncertainties from policy and from geopolitics and from some others, the overall [picture of inflation] looked pretty good to me.”

Source: DB, Goldman, BofA

A suspected terror attack has taken place against the Russian consulate in the French city of Marseille on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has confirmed, after explosions erupted inside the consulate’s walls. Three explosive devices were thrown onto the grounds of the consulate which detonated, resulting in damage but no casualties. The diplomatic compound has subsequently been sealed off by police pending an investigation.

The attack corresponded to the three-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Army poured across the borders from Russia and staging grounds in Belarus on February 24, 2022.

There are reports that one of the devices failed to detonate, and the building in the southern port city is swarming with police and firefighters, as “around thirty units” were dispatched to the scene, AFP describes. The device that did not explode was later detonated by a police-operated robot.

“The explosions on the territory of the Russian Consulate General in Marseille have all the signs of a terrorist attack,” foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told a press briefing.

“We demand that the host country undertake exhaustive and speedy investigative measures, as well as steps to strengthen the security of Russia’s foreign missions,” she said. This isn’t the first time explosives have been ‘randomly’ hurled at Russian diplomatic compounds in Europe, but this one clearly planned and timed to mark the day of Feb.24.

The Associated Press has some further details as follows:

A second device, which was also thrown against the consulate’s outer wall, did not explode and fell to the sidewalk. A bomb disposal expert was called to the scene.

The suspect fled and an investigation has been launched, an official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be publicly named by national police policy. Authorities did not provide details on the suspect or a motive.

For its part the French government has “condemned any attack on the security of diplomatic compounds. The inviolability, protection and integrity of diplomatic and consular premises, as well as their personnel, are fundamental principles of international law” in a statement.

Russian embassies and consulates are on high alert worldwide, given the potential for more attacks marking three years since the invasion.

‘All the hallmarks of a terrorist act’ — Russian FM spox Zakharova on explosions at Russian Consulate General in Marseille, France pic.twitter.com/hXRPhskGiO

— RT (@RT_com) February 24, 2025

Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador at Large Rodion Miroshnik has highlighted that the constant anti-Russia rhetoric coming out of European and French leadership helped set the stage for Monday’s consulate bombing.

After repeating that it has “all the signs of a terrorist act” – Miroshnik leveled the charge: “It seems that the hostile rhetoric of the French leadership is not just hot air, but also contributes to terrorist acts on French territory,” he wrote on Telegram.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Bernie Sanders, who is a multi millionaire from taking big pharma money and other ‘perks’ of being a high profile elected official, posted a video over the weekend begging people to fund him touring around the country to essentially complain about President Trump and Elon Musk.

Here he is asking people to give him money so he can stay in swanky hotels and blather to conference rooms full of leftists about “the oligarchs,” “authoritarianism,” and “the richest people in the world” running the government.

[Content of the tweet from LangmanVince would appear here] — Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) Date

As if this guy has any clue what “working families,” struggle with. 

C’mon man, every good Socialist needs at least three houses.

— Robert Kliemann (@robert_kliemann) February 23, 2025

No working class people are sitting around crying about Trump eliminating fraud, sorting out the disaster at the border and making the government more efficient.

he needs all 3 of them to fight climate change and resist the oligarchy

— Two Weeks LOL (@TwoWeeksLOL) February 23, 2025

It fits the socialist mould.

Socialists never spend their own money, they spend everyone else’s.

— MikeLyonsofHere (@HereLyonsof) February 23, 2025

Why does he specifically want $27 from people? 

Is that what a breakfast at the Marriott costs?

Because he won’t dig into his own pockets 😂 he wants the taxpayers to cart his bum around on our dime, not going to happen, Bernie’s got millions, he can finance his own whatever

— Sisco (@KGibson10746) February 23, 2025

His usual flow of funds is drying up.

Aw, did his USAID account dry up?

— Lesley (@Lesley20234) February 23, 2025

*  *  *

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