Authored by Bonner Russel Cohen via RealClearEnergy,

China is the only country in the world that can seriously challenge America’s longstanding status as the globe’s top dog. And a rejuvenated United States is the only thing standing in the way of an ambitious China ascending to the peak of the heap. The reemergence of a bipolar world in the 21st century – replicating the old U.S.-U.S.S.R. rivalry of the Cold War era – is the no-longer-to-be-ignored reality of our time.

However, unlike the late Soviet Union – sometimes referred to as “Haiti with missiles” – China is an economic powerhouse, one that puts is technological prowess in the service of its geostrategic aspirations. ”China has roughly nine times as many engineers as the U.S. and perhaps as many as 15 times as many science and technology graduates,” George Gilder recently noted in the Wall Street Journal. This gives China a decisive edge in a world where rapid advances in technology have far-reaching economic and military implications. 

There are, however, things that Trump and his team can do, and in some cases are already doing, that can turn the tables on Beijing. With the departure of the geopolitically inept Biden administration, Washington can now harness its considerable geological assets to the disadvantage of its rival in the Far East.

Beijing was quick to realize the importance of gaining control of both the mining and processing of rare earths and other critical minerals, which it had largely done by the time the U.S. and other industrialized countries embarked on their climate-driven green energy transition. Beijing was not so foolish; to meet its own energy needs, it built hundreds of coal-fired power plants. Abandoning fossil fuels, which the United States has in abundance, and embracing green energy, the supply chain for which is largely controlled by China, could benefit only one country. And for a while, China’s bet looked to be paying off. 

But China’s dominance of such sectors as electric vehicles, batteries that power EVs and serve to backup intermittent wind and solar energy, and the raw materials in wind turbines and solar panels makes the Middle Kingdom vulnerable to Trump’s renewed embrace of “American energy dominance.” One of Trump’s Jan. 20 executive orders titled “Unleashing American Energy” includes directives revoking the EV mandate, freezing unspent funds for green energy, expediting approval of liquid natural gas (LNG) export facilities, and streamlining the permitting process for oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production. It also speeds up the approval process for new pipelines and other critical fossil-fuel infrastructure. 

Another, less-reported section of Trump’s order focuses on the mining of critical minerals. It instructs federal agencies to identify all regulations, policies, and orders “that impose undue burdens on domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals and undertake steps to revise or rescind such actions.”

The geostrategic case for promoting the mining and processing of critical minerals in the U.S. is compelling. “China now produces 80-90% of the world’s rare-earth minerals, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Yet China has only about 37% of the world’s estimated reserves,” notes Greg Walcher, president of the Natural Resources Group LLC. “Relying on China for critical minerals is obviously not smart, not safe, nor necessary.” 

Known to the public for their unpronounceable names, rare earths – which are actually quite abundant – have a variety of commercial and military applications. They include smartphones, MRI equipment, satellites, jet engines, night-vision goggles, sonar on submarines and other naval vessels, and real-time imagery and targeting for surveillance and reconnaissance flights by unmanned aerial systems – just to name a few. 

Taking rare earths and other valuable minerals seriously means upgrading the nation’s hollowed-out domestic supply chain for these natural resources. This is the purpose behind Trump’s order to eliminate “undue burdens on domestic mining and processing” of these strategically important minerals. That, of course, will be easier said than done, because Trump’s initiative will be challenged by lawsuits launched by activists determined to cripple America’s industrial base.

Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark must be seen in this light. The icy island where the North Atlantic meets the Arctic abounds in mostly untapped mineral resources. In bringing the giant island under American jurisdiction, in whatever form, Trump can deny China (and Russia) access to Greenland’s riches while solidifying the U.S. presence in the Arctic. 

Another Trump executive order temporarily halts offshore wind leases in federal waters and pauses approvals, permits, and loans for offshore and onshore wind projects. Aside from signaling to investors that putting their money into capital-intensive wind projects may not be a good idea, the order undercuts Beijing’s investment in raw materials used in wind energy. 

“Wind farms require 10 times the amount of critical minerals as natural gas power plants and 1.6 times as much as nuclear power plants,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Austin Gae. 

China is the world’s leading supplier of raw materials that go into wind turbines, including in the U.S. Trump is deliberately shrinking the U.S. market for wind turbines and for the predominately Chinese-supplied raw materials that go into them. The goal is to play to America’s strengths, which lie in fossil fuels and a rejuvenated nuclear-power industry, while lowering our dependence on China by turning away from wind and solar power.

This is a winning strategy.

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Update(1735ET): President Trump in an afternoon press Q&A from Mar-a-Lago went off on those attacking his Ukraine peace initiative, which saw Secretary of State Rubio and national security advisor Walz lead a delegation in 4+ hours of talks with FM Lavrov and the Russians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia earlier in the day.

“I want to see peace. Look, you know why I want it? Because I don’t want all these people killed anymore. I’m looking at people that are being killed — and they’re Russian and Ukrainian people, but they’re people,” Trump emphasized.

His tone on Zelensky was decidedly negative, and he defended his administration’s stance on holding Kiev to new elections, saying this is necessary if the Ukrainians want a seat at the table. Watch:

FOX: We’re hearing that Russia wants to force Ukraine to hold new elections in order to sign a sign a peace deal. Is that something that the US would ever support?

TRUMP: We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law … the leader in Ukraine, I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating… the country has been blown to smithereens… the country looks like a massive demolition site.

FOX: We’re hearing that Russia wants to force Ukraine as a condition for a peace deal. Is that something the US would support?

TRUMP: We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law … the leader in Ukraine, I hate to say it, but he’s… pic.twitter.com/BE2gRdmopB

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 18, 2025

On a similar theme, at one point he was asked what his message is to Ukrainians who feel betrayed by his administration, again as the US pursues negotiations with Russia while sidelining both Zelensky and EU officials. Trump responded bluntly:

“I hear they’re upset about not having a seat. Well, they’ve had a seat for three years.”

Trump was further asked about how he would prevent Russia from installing a puppet government in Ukraine. He remarked that none of this is about personalities, but about getting the job done, saying he likes Zelensky “personally” but that’s not what this is all about.

Trump’s message to Ukrainians who feel betrayed by his administration: “I hear they’re upset about not having a seat. Well, they’ve had a seat for three years.” pic.twitter.com/MvQUdzSYIt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 18, 2025

“You have leadership now that’s allowed a war to go on that should’ve never ever happened, even without the United States,” Trump said, underscoring that the conflict and slaughter started under Biden.

“Look we had a president who was grossly incompetent, he had no idea what he was doing – he said some very stupid things, like going in for portions,” Trump continued.

“This is something that would have never happened. And I used to discuss it with Putin. President Putin and I used to talk about Ukraine – it was the apple of his eye… I used to tell him ‘don’t go in’ – and he understand that, he understood it fully… I want to see if I can save maybe millions of lives.” You might “end up in World War 3,” Trump warned, if the conflict keeps escalating and with no efforts to make peace.

And more:

🚨President Trump: “I want to see peace. Look, you know why I want it? Because I don’t want all these people killed anymore. I’m looking at people that are being killed — and they’re Russian and Ukrainian people, but they’re people.”
pic.twitter.com/RmHMsLjVjy

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 18, 2025

Importantly, Trump also asked where the billions upon billions given to Ukraine went.

“We gave them I think $350 BILLION… where is all the money that’s been given? Where is it going? I don’t see any accounting!”

“…so I want to see peace… I don’t want to see all these people killed anymore.” He noted that Europe has “only given a small percentage of that” – even though this most directly impacts the security of Europe.

🚨 PRESIDENT TRUMP: Where is all the money we’ve given to Ukraine??!

“We gave them I think $350 BILLION… where is all the money that’s been given? Where is it going? I don’t see any accounting!”

DOGE must dig DEEP into the endless flow of tax dollars given to Ukraine! pic.twitter.com/M7GGWqWZt4

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 18, 2025

“I could have made a deal for Ukraine that would have given them almost all of the land and no people would have been killed and no cities would have been demolished… President Biden in all fairness doesn’t have a clue”.

lol, Russian troops brazenly attacked Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities in a live broadcast, but Trump thinks it was Zelensky who started the war.

Putin is surely popping a bottle of champagne every night.

pic.twitter.com/YCSifKEHOS

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) February 18, 2025

* * *

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Tuesday he is cancelling his scheduled state visit to Saudi Arabia following the conclusion of US-Russia talks there.

He’s been on a Middle East diplomatic tour to gain support for his country now three years in to the Russia-Ukraine war, which took him to the UAE, Turkey, and Wednesday he was supposed to be in Saudi Arabia to meet with the kingdom’s leadership. The Saudi trip had been planned before it was known that the US-Russia talks would take place.

“Zelensky CANCELLING trip to Saudi Arabia following US/Russia talks. Zelensky will now return to Kyiv from Ankara, Turkey,” Fox News has reported. He now says he plans to visit in March. Zelensky is clearly trying to lash out at Washington.

Without doubt this is to signal his anger about being cut out of talks toward ending the Ukraine war. The Kremlin hailed Tuesday’s four-and-half hour meeting in Riyadh, with Rubio leading the US side and Lavrov leading the Moscow delegation, as “successful”. European officials were also noticeably absent from the meeting, which was hosted and mediated by the Saudi government.

Zelensky had issued a prior warning while in the UAE: “Ukraine will not accept. Ukraine knew nothing about this. And Ukraine regards any negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine as having no results,” he had said.

“Ukraine will not take part in the negotiations. Ukraine did not know they were planned. And the visit to the region was planned long before the US decided to meet Russia there,” he continued.

The fact that a high-level peace meeting was taking place without Zelensky or any Ukrainian representation, at the very moment he was in the region, is being felt as adding insult to injury from the Trump administration.

I think Zelensky is pissed off.

Zelensky: I will not travel to Saudi Arabia tomorrow; we have postponed the visit to March 10, and we expect U.S. representatives in Kyiv

I care about what our partners think of us. We are absolutely honest and open. That is why I will not go… pic.twitter.com/uQoK94jMLB

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) February 18, 2025

Top Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov has explained the need for Zelensky’s absence from talks as follows: “I don’t know what they [Kiev officals] could do at the negotiating table. If their aim is to cunningly extract a deceptive truce while secretly preparing for continued war—true to their habits and nature—then why invite them at all?” according to TASS.

The US and Russian sides have vowed to continue the peace negotiations going, hopefully leading to a face-to-face meeting between Presidents Putin and Trump.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio after the Riyadh meeting issued a statement revealing an agreement for election to be held in Ukraine, which Zelensky certainly isn’t going to like (and probably won’t agree to), given also he just recently argued that martial law prevents this. 

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov:

Zelensky’s entire team needs to be brought to reason, and he himself needs to be slapped on the wrist.

Russia has never endangered Ukraine’s energy supply system. pic.twitter.com/Kl8RHgjgGW

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 18, 2025

But Putin has said negotiations with Ukraine remain a non-starter so long as Zelensky refuses to hold elections. The Russian leader has said this makes him ‘illegitimate’ and thus he can’t legally sign any peace terms.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Summit… and nothin’?

Monday’s US Presidents Day was also European Presidents and Prime Ministers Day, the latter at an emergency summit to discuss defence. Absent were Ukraine — ironic as Europe complains of being left out by the US — and Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO.

EU Commission President von der Leyen was rhetorical: “Today in Paris we reaffirmed that Ukraine deserves peace through strength. Peace respectful of its independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, with strong security guarantees. Europe carries its full share of the military assistance to Ukraine. At the same time, we need a surge in defence in Europe.” The EU Council president said Europe should negotiate with Russia and design new European security architecture.

Then, as the FT put it, ‘European leaders clash over sending troops to Ukraine’: sadly, this is the only kind of clash EU leaders excel at. Almost everyone rejected sending their own troops to support Ukraine, except the UK, who can’t do much physically or financially. Even Poland won’t, as it looks to spend 6% of GDP on defence, because it might need them at home – or in the Baltics, if EU officials fearing President Trump might pull back US troops stationed there are right.

This might seem “a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing” to Western Europeans in markets thinking they *are* Europe, but the topic is a potential existential threat to fellow EU and Eurozone members. That used to require ‘Whatever It Takes’: but because that doesn’t now (directly) involve rate cuts and QE, it’s not as interesting(?)   

The lack of action at Monday’s summit means markets may think Europe won’t change. However, the idea of Eurobonds has been floated again; let’s see what happens after the German election; and what Europe doing nothing as the US makes clear it won’t do anything, and Russia makes clear it will do something, does for the European economy and markets over time. In short, things are going to change. It’s just when and how.

To put things in perspective, the Telegraph reports Weimar-esque terms being set for Ukraine by the US, with a huge claim on its economy as quid pro quo for aid. There is also more musing if President Trump is serious about annexing Canada, with comments from his chief economic advisor suggest he may be. Moreover, Trump just reiterated:

“On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the USA, we will charge them – No more, no less!

For purposes of this US Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the US. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let US businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the US would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the US.”

What is described above is complex in application but simple in conception: “A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS,” and “RECIPROCITY.” Of course, a level tariff playing field won’t remove the structural US trade deficit given it’s caused by broader deliberate economic statecraft choices by others which force up their net savings and net exports vs the US: that structural conclusion is likely to be drawn on 1 April by other Trump trade investigations.

‘Just’ reciprocal tariffs will be hugely disruptive to the global trading system and financial flows. Not seeing that risk shows as little understanding of how that system works as of its history and how it was only built by force of arms in the first place. And, yes, there is an obvious link back to events in Europe and Ukraine there.

Which are about to be discussed, absent European and Ukrainian representation, in Saudi Arabia by the US and Russia. What else will be on the table at these talks? Who else might be on the menu?

Some note that the US, Russia, and Saudi are also the world’s three largest energy producers – and that Europe lacks domestic energy sources; and that gold continues to flow to the US and from other Western economies. That’s as market discussions continue about what a new, ideal US-dictated global trading and financial structure would look like; and some talk of ‘debt for defence’; even Fed governors like Waller underline they favour the creation of new crypto assets to cement the dollar’s global role; I’ve pointed out the strategic logic of financialized ‘Fartcraft’ to help shift the US towards a ‘Warcraft’ economy; and some reports suggest Russia is trying to create a centralised trading platform for Global South commodity trade. Simply, we are talking about historic, paradigm-shifting events that directly impact the shape, currency, and geography in which markets operate.

This is not like the post-9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the War on Terror, which, after initial geopolitical shock, wreaked havoc on the Middle East but were hardly felt by everyone in Western economies and trading floors beyond changes in airport security. I can recall when Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad and the TV news was immediately changed back to Bloomberg on the trading floor I was on. I was flabbergasted, “What about the effects on Iraq and the region? Doesn’t that matter?!” There was a collective shrug, and everyone went back to looking at tiny movements in lines on screens. And they were ‘right’.

This time, however, what is happening involves the West – and certainly Eastern Europe, which will matter for Western European trading floors if they don’t want to see things around them topple. Ironically, however, that may still involve a lot of market conventions, and even markets’ present key role, being toppled.

Going back to my concept of US ‘Grand Macro Strategy’, the framework of Trump’s second-term economic statecraft is emerging: at best, it is the toughest of tough love to force the West to change vs. what the US sees as its rivals; at worst, it is an echo of early-20th, 19th, and 18th century US history in its neo-Hamiltonian, mercantilist, and even neo-imperialist “manifest destiny” approach.

Lines on maps are moving; lines on screens certainly will.

At a tense diplomatic moment where Russia is trying to negotiate with Syria’s new rulers in order to keep a military presence at Moscow’s two longtime Russian bases on Syria’s coast, Hmeimim airbase reportedly came under drone attack overnight.

“Unidentified drones attacked a Russian-controlled air base in Syria overnight, Iran-linked media reported early Tuesday, as Moscow seeks to maintain its military presence following the ouster of its closest ally in the region,” The Moscow Times writes.

The publication cites regional publication Sabereen News: “Anti-aircraft guns inside the Russian-controlled Hmeimim air base in Syria are intercepting unidentified drones flying over the Russian base,” details the report.

The drone attack reportedly lasted for up to an hour. It was unlikely to have been the ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militants under Jolani behind the attack, but could have been any of the hundreds of jihadist groups still running around Syria.

This has included thousands of foreign fighters, such as Chechens, which would have clear motives to continue attacking the Russian presence.

There have been no reports of damage or casualties from the Russian side, or much in the way of details given.

Russian forces throughout the country had rapidly pulled back to the two bases in the wake of Bashar al-Assad’s December 8 ouster. Since then the naval base at Tartus and the Khmeimim Air Base near Latakia have seen a scramble of personnel packing up equipment, with the fate of the bases uncertain.

Below is unverified video purporting to show the attack as it was in progress:

A circulating video of the attack on the Hmeimim base in Latakia with drones at dawn today

Reports of a drone attack to be taking place on the Russian Khmeimim Airbase, near Jableh, northwestern Syria. Air defense systems are active and are trying to intercept incoming drones… pic.twitter.com/wG1AMkATj2

— Report Syrian (@reportsyrian) February 18, 2025

The Washington Post reported last week, “Syria is open to letting Russia keep its air and naval bases along the Mediterranean coast as long as any agreement with the Kremlin serves the country’s interests, Syrian Defense Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra said in an interview this week, underscoring the pragmatic approach taken by his government as it charts new alliances and reassesses old ones forged under the previous regime.”

*  *  *

ZeroHedge is largely reader supported. Please consider subscribing or buying something from our store. Thanks for your support.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

A Million Things to Parse?

Given the nonstop barrage of headlines, it might seem like there are a million things to parse? But maybe there is a subset of things that we can focus on to try to determine the direction of the market? It won’t make the task of coming up with answers easier, but it might make it manageable. Messy, but manageable remains a theme.

Academy was on Bloomberg TV on Friday, and I don’t think we could have scripted a set of issues this important to markets that are in Academy’s wheelhouse any better. The Full Clip starts at the 1:39:45 mark, but they also produced this smaller segment Tchir is Bullish on China, U.S. Chipmakers, and European Stocks.

Getting out of DOGE

Not a day goes by without a slew of DOGE-related headlines. I’m not sure if this is true, but it was so interesting that I figured I’d pass it along. Apparently, internet searches for “criminal lawyers” is “off the charts” in the D.C. area and a massive inventory of homes for sale has come on the market in recent weeks. Honestly, I’m not sure if those rumors are true, but the fact that the stories are circulating so widely is telling. I did find one “source” but the “source” for that “source” was GROK, which somehow seems fitting with everything going on.

On DOGE:

• Headline after headline of waste that is being reduced. Even if a fraction of the headlines are accurate, the ability to cut spending seems high. That is without focusing their attention, yet, on some of the big-ticket items in the budget. DOGE alone seems able to help with the goal of reducing the deficit.

• Accountability and Transparency. Or, simply, audits. There seems to be overwhelming support for accountability and transparency. As deficits have skyrocketed, in good and bad economic times, more people are left wondering where their tax dollars are going. Initial indications are that they are not being treated as carefully as we, the taxpayer, might like.

• Mistakes as well. The “other side” of the story is also emerging. What if certain things being cut as “fat and waste” are actually useful and important? What happened to the cryptic tweet about “discrepancies in Treasuries?” That one seemed unlikely to be true and has quickly disappeared from the ether. Chatter about paying lots of people who are 150 years old seems to be getting debunked as it may be an issue with COBOL dates. Not sure whether the root of the issue has been figured out, but it seems insane to me that systems run on COBOL, which was already falling out of favor when I was programming, last century.

So far, I think DOGE has been helping support Treasuries. DOGE provides some element of hope that bigger chunks of the deficit can be trimmed, without major repercussions to the economy or markets, than previously thought. The excitement about what DOGE can do to the bigger line items is real. The risk that the approach is too simplistic (with too many mistakes) is there as well, but so far, there seems to be enough low hanging fruit to feed an army.

The fact that Secretary Bessent and others seem focused on longer term yields (and not just the front end of the yield curve) is also encouraging. Their task of slowing the steepening may be Herculean, but it is helping, and something, as a Treasury bear, that I’m watching closely.

Enemies Close, Friends Less So

The adage of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” seems to be getting turned upside down.

• China got hit with “only” a 10% “fentanyl” round of tariffs. TikTok remains under Chinese ownership. The administration seems to be reaching out to Xi, as much, or more, than Xi seems to be reaching out to us.

  • Tossing out the idea of China, the U.S., and Russia cutting their defense spending in half seems a bit dubious. We mentioned transparency earlier, and that is never a word I would use to describe China’s official data. Of all the things that have been “tossed out there” as ideas, this one seems, uhm, not so great? If I’m China, I sign on the dotted line instantly and then spend more than ever. Probably the same for Russia, though not sure what they have to spend, though that could change on the back of any agreement to end the fighting in Ukraine.

• Russia back in the G-7? Not sure Europe wants that at all (see the title of this section). Not sure if calling it the G-7 was a slip, as it should be the G-8 if Russia is back, or it is a veiled threat that one member might get kicked out? This could be like quantum physics – with both answers being true at the same time!

• “Friends” sometimes need to be reminded that they too need to act in certain ways to remain friends. From trade practices to defense issues, relationships need to benefit both sides. Friends that are only “take, take, take” don’t make for good friends for the longer term. Having said that, most relationships are rarely that one sided.

  • Canada and Mexico are dealing with the “third round” of tariffs. See Reciprocal Tariffs from Thursday for more thoughts on the subject as a whole. Two countries, which could be a big part of shifting supply chains back to one heavily dominated by the U.S., seem to be absorbing the brunt of the president’s ire so far. Not sure if that is the best strategy. So far, so good, but it does seem to go against the adage of what to do with friends.

  • Hegseth and Europe. The Munich speech was aggressive and presumably designed to motivate Europe to do more, so the U.S. can step its spending and efforts back. Reasonable, to some degree, but not without longer term risks.

My simplistic world view, which has served us well, has been:

• On one side you have China. China is “circled” by their “bad actor” relations – Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Beyond that, China has wrapped their tentacles around many autocratic, resource-rich nations. China is a large importer of raw resources from certain nations, and in many cases, their Belt and Road Initiative is very involved in the infrastructure of those nations. I’m less worried about the BRICS as any sort of organization, than I am about their ability to act as an effective barter system for Chinese brands. There are openings into parts of Europe where current weak economic conditions, coupled with more reliance on China, make them susceptible to growing trade with China, potentially at the expense of the U.S.

• On the other side you have Europe, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America as opportunities. Africa could be a bonanza for the U.S., as China’s behavior has not endeared it to some of the countries that they are involved with. Plenty of opportunities, but an interesting start on this front.

An interesting start to relationship building. So far, it seems to be working, but these things take time to play out. There may yet come a time when the U.S., in its efforts to “nudge” countries to do more, pushes too far. Not even close to being there yet, but I expect some pushback rather than “ring kissing” in the coming weeks, which should upset markets.

What Did You Think the End of Russian Hostilities Would Look Like?

The level of global confusion, if not outrage, about a possible deal to stop the fighting between Russia and Ukraine is surprising. It is, for better or worse, following the path that Academy has been laying out. Our assessment wasn’t based on what people would “like” to happen, but what their experiences with the individuals involved and the current state of the battlefield led them to conclude would happen.

Two things that finally seem to be getting the attention they deserve with respect to the talks:

1. Russia’s frozen dollar reserves are a big bargaining chip. The U.S. is trying to determine how much can be legally kept. The more the better. But the reality is that any agreement will likely include Russia getting some back, with some being used to pay off Ukraine’s debts and to fund the rebuilding.

2. Zelensky isn’t that popular within Ukraine any longer. Now, it appears, out of nowhere, we are seeing articles about his inability to win an election and that is why he is choosing not to hold one. That has been part of our take on the situation for months, which is why he is likely going to take a deal that goes against a lot of what he publicly claimed he needed to do a deal.

There is one twist, which I’m still trying to make sense of:

• Getting access to Ukraine’s resources as payment for services already rendered. While fully on board with the idea that the U.S. will benefit from supporting the rebuilding efforts, “re-trading” something always rubs me the wrong way. The U.S. and U.S. companies should do well in the rebuilding. But do we change the terms of what was already done? Maybe, I guess, framing it as the way we want them to repay their debt makes it ok, but I cannot help but wonder if other nations will view it quite that cleanly? If they don’t, probably not a big deal in the here and now, but in the future?

Simple and Transactional

When asked about the president’s two greatest strengths, I pounce on the phrase:

• Simple and Transactional. He is quick to cut to the chase. To see through a lot of the messiness and get to the point. Deals are good. They don’t need to be all-encompassing deals. Each deal can be struck on its own merit, and we can move along by keeping things simple and transactional.

Wow, I feel like we are back to quantum physics, but when thinking about the president’s two greatest weaknesses, I get right back to:

• Simple and Transactional. As great as KISS is, there are things that are complex. The devil can be in the details. While everyone likes a good deal, there is a tendency to do more deals with those you trust over time (where you build a rapport). The need to “win” every deal may not lead to optimal outcomes down the road.

As we examine everything this administration is trying to accomplish, and think about how it will affect businesses, the economy, and markets, it is the balance of the simple and transactional that we will be forced to weigh. What are we getting today? What are we getting set up for down the road?

Mar-a-Lago Accord

Is all of this setting up for some push towards a “Mar-a-Lago Accord?” There has been an increasing amount of chatter about a so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord.

Most of what we’ve written about today, and in the past, fits well.

Talk of an External Revenue Service, which would focus on generating income from “foreign” sources, primarily trade. We haven’t discussed this specifically, but it fits well within our view (and concern) that the administration could decide that they like the revenue from tariffs so much that it becomes an increasingly important part of our budget process. My concern is that the benefits are felt immediately (more income), but the shifts in supply chains and relationships might be damaging longer term.

Discussions about moving more assets to the Sovereign Wealth Fund and valuing them at market prices. Our expectation is that we would look to move gold, some land, and other assets into a sovereign wealth fund.

• For gold and some other assets, it might be a way to mark them to market. We’ve always tried to point out that for every corporation, people discuss the asset and liability side of the balance sheet, but for the government, we are only fixated on the liability side. I’m not a proponent for selling off national parks to the highest bidder, but trying to better account for U.S. assets would be good.

• It may open the way for the government to strike deals with the private sector that ensure that the rights and privileges granted are not overturned by the next administration, or the one after that. My biggest concern about “refine baby refine” or now “National Security = National Production” has been whether corporations will be convinced that a favorable regulatory environment will remain in place for the duration of their project. I could see the sovereign wealth fund being a vehicle that could be used to structure deals with more regulatory certainty which would be good for my National Security = National Production view.

Paying for U.S. “trade protection” (the Navy in particular, but all branches of the armed forces) by “forcing” countries to buy Treasuries at off-market prices. Chatter of paying par for 100-year bonds with a 0% coupon. Lots of chatter on this, but this seems like it could hit a number of roadblocks, especially as it seems like the view is that countries may have to pay for protection that was already afforded to them. I assume this would have the “benefit” of reducing our spending (others now are paying for it) and lowering the cost of funding the debt (off-market prices would do that). Both might backfire, especially on the off-market pricing. We already “broke” one “covenant” when we froze Russia’s dollar reserves. It sent a clear signal that if you are a bad actor, your dollars are not necessarily yours. This would breach another covenant along the same lines. The debt we owe you is subject to our needs at some point in time. It won’t overwhelm markets on day one if something like this is implemented, but I’d bet against it helping yields in the longer run and it would likely hasten deglobalization.

Things do seem to be funneling in this direction, but I don’t think we’ve missed much by addressing the various topics individually rather than under the banner of the Mar-a-Lago Accord.

How Much More Good News Can Bitcoin Handle?

I’m not sure I’ve ever been this confused about Bitcoin. I’ve lost count of how many states, countries, and companies are “discussing” Bitcoin or crypto reserves (I really wanted to write “spouting off” but restrained myself). Yet, here we are still below $100k on Bitcoin.

Maybe the average investor has figured out that crypto enthusiasts can pay people to pump crypto and some of the most vocal pundits are paid and heavily conflicted (I really wanted to use “shills,” but restrained myself, again). Maybe it was that in Argentina, which has been in the headlines, in a good way, of late, there was a “rug pull” of a meme coin that seemed to have President Milei’s endorsement. At least during the few moments when the meme coin (LIBRA) did well, though social media seems to have been scrubbed of those endorsements. Or maybe, and this seems weird, so many big institutions are showing up with Bitcoin ETFs rather than “physical” (an oxymoron for a bunch of 1s and 0s), then having to explain how it is easier to own in ETF form rather than in their own wallets. That does seem a bit strange.

With all the headlines, I’d expect crypto to be soaring. It isn’t.

Crypto seems much more correlated with the market of late. Partly because of real world links (the ETFs and crypto-focused firms in major indices) and partly because it’s all part of the same sentiment/trade. I’m keeping an eye on this closely, as crypto can lead the way, particularly to the downside, for U.S. risk assets.

The Gold Arbitrage

Arbitrage is a term thrown around loosely. It should only be used when you can buy and/or sell things where the up-front cost/fee of putting the trades on converges to a point where you are guaranteed a profit. I warn you not to Google “Bitcoin arbitrage” / ”Bitcoin yield” as they are currently being used because it might make your head explode.

There is a “real” arbitrage between the price of gold in New York and London. Gold is fungible. There are storage and delivery costs that need to be accounted for, but the potential for arbitrage exists.

The relationship between New York and London gold prices has generally been stable. Of late, the price of gold in the U.S. is now significantly more than the price in London, relative to history.

Presumably, it is largely because of concerns about tariffs. When going through my notes on tariffs, thoughts and concerns on gold were, ummm, nowhere on my list. Or at least far enough down, that I hadn’t thought about it.
Yet, here it is, being influenced by tariffs.

There is only one reason why I bring this up – it is the first sign of tariffs affecting liquidity.

When we gets shifts in relationships (arbitrage conditions, volatility, cross-asset correlation) there is increased risk that one or more dealers get caught “offsides.”

That can tend to reduce the liquidity, obviously in the market in question, but it can also reduce liquidity more broadly.
If liquidity in precious metals breaks down, could it hit other commodities? As it hits other commodities, it leaks into the stocks (and bonds) of those companies that are related.

So on and so forth.

At the moment, what is going on in gold is registering as “mildly intriguing,” but given my view of market structure (the faux liquidity of algo-driven market making), it is yet another thing to keep an eye on.

National Security = National Production

I’ve given up on getting “Refine Baby Refine” to resonate. But, I have not given up on my belief that everything that is considered necessary for national security will generate a lot of attention from this administration. With the goal of being as independent as possible (and certainly independent of China, Russia, etc.) for those items.

Those items include commodities, the processed (or refined) versions of the commodities, chips, and some medical/pharma/biopharma items as well. Energy production certainly falls into this camp as well, since if we want to dominate AI and chips, we will need energy and power to do that.

If you position your portfolio around National Security = National Production, you should fare well under this administration. Maybe that will resonate better than “Refine Baby Refine.” In any case, “Drill Baby Drill” barely scratches the surface of what national security is pushing for and what seems to be getting a very positive reception from this administration.

Over time, this will keep a lid on inflation, but I don’t see how we get to extracting, processing, or producing anything in scale, without first experiencing some inflation.

Bottom Line

Millions of things are going on, but using terms like “simple” and “transactional” can help us focus on what is most important. However, we need to be aware of the failings of simple and transactional, at the same time, to avoid getting blindsided.

Credit still seems boring.

Yields are lower than my targets, but I do understand why. I’m not buying into the bullish arguments as much as the market is, but I am considering them, and wondering if I’ve underestimated the positives for bond yields? I don’t think so, but I have to keep it in mind.

Equities have plenty of opportunities, but I’m focused on the most shorted, least loved assets right now. We haven’t had a really good (meaning vicious) rotation lately, and I’m betting that we see that coming soon. Look for foreign markets to outperform. Look to own companies that will benefit from the National Security = National Production view of this administration.

Bitcoin has so many positives, but it keeps muddling along, so I’d be very tempted to dump it or short it here. This probably means that by Tuesday morning we will be at new all-time highs, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark (separate from Greenland – yeah, I had to go there!).

Good luck, and I am hoping for a Canada/U.S. rematch in the 4 nations series, as Saturday night’s game embodied the old joke, “I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out” with 3 fights in the first 9 seconds! Old school hockey! Both sides will be putting on the foil if we get to that rematch!

This is the same kind of preparation we need for dealing with these markets and the slew of headlines (for those who think we have a few weeks of no tariff-related headlines after last week’s vague announcements, I wouldn’t bet on that!).

With the Trump administration cutting off billions of US taxpayer funding for the USAID international slush fund, formerly flush NGOs are now begging woke EU nations for money to continue operations, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

“WARNING! Our fears have come true: the globalist-liberal-Soros NGO network is fleeing to Brussels, after President Trump dealt a huge blow to their activities in the US,” Orbán wrote in a Tuesday post to X. “Now 63 of them are asking Brussels for money, under the guise of various human rights projects. Not going to happen! We will not let them find safe haven in Europe!”

“The USAID-files exposed the dark practices of the globalist network. We will not take the bait again!“

WARNING! Our fears have come true: the globalist-liberal-Soros NGO network is fleeing to Brussels, after President Trump dealt a huge blow to their activities in the US. Now 63 of them are asking Brussels for money, under the guise of various human rights projects. Not going to…

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) February 18, 2025

Orbán then linked to a plea from the International Commission of Jurists begging the EU for money.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), together with over 60 civil society organizations, has joined an urgent appeal calling on EU leaders to take immediate action to address the global development aid crisis triggered by recent decisions by the U.S. administration.

On 20 January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order imposing a 90-day freeze on all U.S. foreign aid. This decision has already led to immediate and devastating consequences, including the closure of clinics, the suspension of life-saving disease treatment programmes, the disruption of human rights and rule of law initiatives, and a funding crisis for NGOs worldwide. -ICJ

And what are their priorities that demand this urgent intervention?

• Provide emergency funding to mitigate the financial shortfalls created by the U.S. aid freeze and Global Gag Rule;
• Prioritize funding for sectors most affected, including reproductive rights, gender equality, and LGBTIQ rights;
• Reduce administrative barriers to ensure accessibility of funding for civil society organizations;
• Take diplomatic action to urge the U.S. administration to reverse course.

Good luck getting the EU to pay for it. Surely such wealthy and virtuous nations can foot the bill?

Expel them from every corner of your nation.

We are doing the same.

Save your country!

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) February 18, 2025

The corrupt NGO’s that were refunded by DOGE are going to the WEF and UN for money. Who would’ve guessed.

— individual1st (@individual1st) February 18, 2025

In January, Orbán predicted a “new golden age” for Hungary after Donald Trump’s November win, six years after kicking Soros’ network out of Hungary.

“Everything will change, a different day will dawn over the Western world on Tuesday morning. The failed democratic governance in America will come to an end,” Magyar Nemzet reported Viktor Orbán as saying in his first interview this year with Kossuth Radio’s Good Morning Hungary! program.

Calling the Democratic Party and George Soros “a bunch of idiots,” Orbán claimed the Democrats want to force what they think is right on the world, including regarding migration and gender.

He further added that his top priority for 2025 is to send George Soros back to the United States, with the “expulsion of the Soros network from Hungary” starting this spring. Orbán also expressed his hope that “patriots elsewhere” will also do the same.

“It must be shown that the Soros network’s presence in Europe is contrary to the interests of the people,” he stated.

Stating that Brussels is in the pocket of George Soros, he said, “If there is corruption, this is it.”

Noting the start of a “new era in Brussels,” the prime minister said Brussels needs to “sober up” and “adapt.”

*  *  *

ZeroHedge is reader supported. Please consider subscribing or buying something from our store! Thanks for your support.

Can incoming youth prospects handle the workaday world?  It’s a question that is plaguing economists and researchers, and for good reason.  No generation in recent memory has had quite as much trouble integrating into work environments compared to Gen Z.

US employers report that they are increasingly reluctant to hire Gen Z labor, and this includes Gen Z -age hiring representatives who don’t want to hire their own.  Despite this trend the latest generation to enter the work force says they feel greater optimism for their job prospects going into 2025 according to surveys, but are they living in la la land? 

The recruitment process has apparently been grueling for many companies that are relying increasingly on AI to process resumes.  What they did not expect was for Gen Z workers to also use AI as a tool for supercharging the amount of applications they send out.  Employers now say AI might be complicating the hiring process, with savvy Gen Z exploiting the tech to better misrepresent their qualifications and apply to jobs randomly through automation. 

This dynamic has created an environment of “ghost applicants” and also “job ghosting”.  Companies offer positions to Gen Z applicants which are automatically accepted, only to discover that the person is no longer looking.  Sometimes the position is filled and the employee is processed, only for the worker to never show up.  

AI and online hiring has allowed Gen Z to send out resumes by the thousands and gather as many potential offers as possible; then sift through those offers and accept the one they prefer while never following up on the flurry of AI generated applications they fired into the ether.  Companies say the time they have to spend on sorting job applicants has skyrocketed in the past few years.  Over 80% of hiring managers say they will be rejecting AI generated applications outright.  

The days of a prospective employees physically walking in the door, turning in a resume or filling out an application, then talking to a manager and shaking their hand are nearly gone.  This has caused a lack of tangibility in the labor market that is in large part a problem caused by the corporate world’s obsession with efficiency.  Some will argue that Gen Z is merely adapting to the technology and the circumstances, however, the situation is beginning to backfire on everyone.

When Gen Z prospects are required to engage an employer during in-person interviews, many struggle with social interaction and around 20% have even reverted to bringing their parents to interviews as a security blanket.  Employers list unrealistic salary expectations for entry level positions as a problem for younger applicants, along with a tendency to be offended without cause.

Companies say bad habits of younger workers are creating a quiet but discernible shift away from Gen Z in the labor market.  They argue that trends like “career catfishing”, job ghosting, quiet quitting and concepts like “bare minimum Mondays” are turning Gen Z employees radioactive.  

As Fortune recently noted, Gen Z college grads in particular are notorious among corporate recruiters for their lack of basic work skills and professionalism.  Over the course of the pandemic labor rush and the beginning of the inflation crisis labor was in short supply, meaning younger applicants just entering the workforce have enjoyed a demand bonanza.  Many of them have never faced a market environment in which job options are in short supply.  This is changing.  

Employers are firing Gen Z employees in large numbers.  At least 60% say they are getting rid of many younger employees that were hired in the past year.  Employers’ gripe with young people today is their lack of motivation or initiative – 50% of the leaders surveyed cited that as the reason why things didn’t work out with their new hire. 

Bosses also pointed to Gen Z being unprofessional, unorganized, and having poor communication skills as their top reasons for having to sack grads.  Leaders say they have struggled with the latest generation’s tangible challenges, including being late to work and meetings often, not wearing office-appropriate clothing, and using language appropriate for the workspace.

The reasons for this behavior and inability to adapt to work environments are up for debate.  Some argue that the public education system has failed to prepare children for the expectations of the private sector, which is a fair point.  Others argue that parents and previous generations have made soft kids with no understanding of discipline and dedication. 

Socialists claim that Gen Z is in the midst of a “worker revolution” and that they are “rebelling against capitalist exploitation”.  This may be true for a contingent of young people (especially college grads) brainwashed by the political left into thinking they shouldn’t have to work or have merit to get the things they desire.  But an empty stomach is an empty stomach and it can’t be filled with socialist righteousness – people will work because they need to.  

So, maybe they haven’t needed to?

Another more grounded explanation is that around 50% of Gen Z adults (18-28) are still living at home with their parents – A record high not seen in 80 years.  This safety net has allowed young workers the option to leave a job or turn down a position at will without facing financial insecurity.  Unfortunately, this has also ingrained attitudes which could make many in Gen Z unemployable in the future.  Not to mention, staying at home won’t necessarily be an option for most of their lives.  

The greater reality is that Gen Z will be overtaking Millennials as the primary labor pool in ten years.  Though some companies are launching pre-employment programs designed to teach Gen Z hires better work habits, there will need to be a sea change in how American youth are prepared for the adult world.  AI and automation isn’t going to save them from the struggle; if anything, it’s going to make their lives much harder. 

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration has announced that it was restricting Associated Press journalists’ access to certain areas frequented by the president, including the Oval Office and Air Force One, part of a continuing demonstration of President Donald Trump’s frustration with his treatment by the media.

AP News sent an email to subscriber organizations on Jan. 23 with a notification that it would continue to use “Gulf of Mexico” rather than “Gulf of America,” the Trump administration’s new name for the body of water.

The White House restriction was announced on Feb. 14, with the administration citing the dispute.

“The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said in a statement on social media.

The president has been vocal about his frustration with many in the media since the start of his political career in 2015, when he announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election. Trump has frequently gone so far as to call out those in the media specifically, as well as taking on companies at large.

The AP’s decision has a particularly wide-reaching impact because its newswriting standards are frequently used as a default style. Many news agencies use AP Style with specific modifications where the organization has a different preferred term.

Because of the wire service’s influence, its decision not to switch to “Gulf of America” will likely hinder the the term’s normalization.

Following the White House decision, AP journalists and photographers will retain their credentials for the White House complex but will be restricted from some areas.

Budowich also said that “the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration” could now have the opportunity to gain access.

Yes to Mount McKinley

When AP originally announced its decision, the notification cited the fact that Trump’s order “only carries authority within the United States” and said that other countries and international groups “do not have to recognize the name change.”

AP noted that it is a global news agency and “must ensure that place names and geography” are easy to understand for all audiences.

“The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen,” AP said in its statement.

Budowich responded by saying, “This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press’s commitment to misinformation. While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One.”

The AP statement pointed out that the news agency reviews its standards regularly and that its guidance often reflects “common usage.” AP pointed to its own use of two names for the Gulf of California, which is sometimes referred to as the Sea of Cortez.

The AP has, however, announced that it will follow the administration’s order to revert the name of North America’s tallest peak back to Mount McKinley. The name was changed to Denali in 2015 under the Obama administration, something AP followed in its style.

The wire service explained that “the peak is solely within the U.S., and Trump has the authority to change federal geographical names.”

Clashing With the Press

The White House made headlines for the 2018 decision to revoke the press credentials of CNN’s Jim Acosta during the previous Trump administration. The reporter engaged in a tense exchange with the president at a press conference, and the White House revoked his privileges shortly thereafter.

However, a federal judge ordered the White House to reinstate the correspondent’s access, siding with CNN, which Trump has repeatedly called “fake news.”

Other reporters have also lost access, including Playboy’s Brian Karem, who lost and regained his White House credentials in 2019 under the former Trump administration.

Karem lost his press pass in August 2019 after he yelled at and heckled guests at a White House event. A district judge ruled the next month that the White House acted improperly because it can’t deprive reporters of their First Amendment rights without due process.

In 2023  journalist Simon Ateba sued the Biden administration on First Amendment grounds, alleging discrimination on the part of the press team. According to the suit, despite being allowed to attend White House briefings, Ateba was denied access because the administration leaves “biased journalists in charge of who gets to ask the tough questions.”

It Started With Wilson

Press access to the White House was limited before the 20th century, and presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln had contentious relationships with the press but didn’t actively restrict access.

Woodrow Wilson held the first presidential press conference in March 1913, and that tradition continues to this day. In the 1920s, press conferences became the primary way for the executive branch to communicate with the American people. In 1929, President Herbert Hoover formally established the position of press secretary, with George Akerson serving as the first in that position.

President Calvin Coolidge spoke to reporters about why he held press conferences in September 1926, saying, “I regard it as rather necessary to the carrying on of our republican institution that the people should have a fairly accurate report of what the president is trying to do, and it is for that purpose, of course, that those intimate conferences are held.”

The role of journalists at the White House grew tremendously under the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration created regular press conferences as we know them today, where journalists were allowed to ask questions. Consequently, in 1933, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt became the first first lady to hold an official press conference.

Press access became a  more formal process during the 1940s and 1950s under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. It was Eisenhower’s press sectary, James Hagerty, who first permitted radio, television, and newspaper equipment to record news conferences in 1955.

Acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michelle King, resigned on Sunday after a standoff with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over access to sensitive government records.

The same day, Musk posted what he says could be the ‘biggest fraud in US history‘ in which millions of ‘people’ over the age of 100 are collecting payments.

According to the Social Security database, these are the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE!

Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security 🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/ltb06VX98Z

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 17, 2025

King – who worked at the agency for over 30 years, left her position this weekend after refusing to give DOGE staffers access to sensitive information, such as the fraudulent payments to ‘vampires’ – with at least one recipient being older than the United States itself.

Which of course is the exact reason career employees shouldn’t be holding the keys to the castle with the new sheriff in town.

According to the Washington Post, “Administration officials have also been skeptical of career employees’ efforts to guard federal data, maintaining that political appointees should also be able to access it, particularly if necessary to root out wasteful or erroneous spending.”

In the wake of King’s departure, President Donald Trump appointed Leland Dudek – a manager in charge of Social Security’s anti-fraud office, as acting commissioner, while the Senate vets Trump nominee Frank Bisignano. Dudek had previously posted positive remarks on social media over DOGE’s efforts to cut  waste, fraud and abuse throughout the US government.

Yes, there are FAR more “eligible” social security numbers than there are citizens in the USA.

This might be the biggest fraud in history.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 17, 2025

Trump picking Dudek to take over for King bypassed ‘dozens of other senior executives who sat higher in the agency’s leadership heirarchy, touching off alarm in and around the agency,’ according to WaPo.

“At this rate, they will break it. And they will break it fast, and there will be an interruption of benefits,” said former Social Security commissioner under Biden, Martin O’Malley – a former Maryland governor.

“It’s a shame the chilling effect it has to disregard 120 senior executive service people,” O’Malley continued. “To pick an acting commissioner that is not in the senior executive service sends a message that professional people should leave that beleaguered public agency.”

Yes jackass, that’s the point.

On Monday evening, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she had been fighting “fake news reporters” trying to “fearmonger” about Social Security payments.

DOGE’s access to records across the federal government have prompted disputes with senior officials at various agencies. Perhaps most prominently, the highest-ranking civil servant at the US Treasury Department quit after similarly refusing to grant Musk’s team access to the Bureau of Fiscal Service, which manages over $5 trillion in annual payments.

On Sunday, the Post reported that DOGE is looking to access a heavily guarded IRS system that contains detailed information about every taxpayer, business and nonprofit in the country. For some reason, Democrats seem to be the only ones freaking out about this.

And again, that’s the point.

*  *  *

Our most popular supplement Astaxanthin – the ultimate antioxidant, is back in stock at ZH Store! Grab some today.

Intel shares climbed 5% in premarket trading (extending gains from last week’s pump) following a report from The Wall Street Journal indicating that Broadcom and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing are considering potential deals that could result in a breakup of the struggling US chipmaker. 

WSJ noted:

Broadcom has been closely examining Intel’s chip-design and marketing business, according to people familiar with the matter. It has informally discussed with its advisers making a bid but would likely only do so if it finds a partner for Intel’s manufacturing business, the people said.

Last week, Intel shares recorded the largest weekly gain in the company’s four-decade trading history after Bloomberg reported that TSMC was in early discussions to acquire a controlling stake in Intel’s factories at the request of Trump administration officials.

“But the potential deals would have been unthinkable until Intel’s recent struggles made it an acquisition target,” WSJ’s Asa Fitch, Lauren Thomas, and Yang Jie pointed out, adding, “The end result could be a breakup of Intel after the American icon spent many decades dominating the business of making central processors for both personal computers and data centers.” 

Given our understanding last August, it was not unthinkable that Intel holds excess value within its enterprise, particularly in its fabs…

Intel has 15 fabs; the fabs alone are worth $10bn/each in liquidation value.

The value created by management is negative $50 billion. https://t.co/HkqUQJ4A6J

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 2, 2024

WSJ sources said that Frank Yeary, Intel’s interim executive chairman, has been spearheading discussions with potential buyers as well as officials from the former Trump administration, who view the company’s chip production as critical to national security. Yeary has privately told folks behind the scenes that his goal is maximizing value for Intel shareholders. 

This could be an excellent time for an activist hedge fund—such as Elliott Management—to step in and stir the pot, as valuation discussions behind those fabs and the company are likely worth in the $35-$40 range, if not higher.

Now would be a great time for an activist hedge fund to come in with a stalking horse bid (cc: Elliott) https://t.co/5wIgZ9y1AJ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 18, 2025

Generational low… 

WSJ noted that Broadcom and TSMC aren’t working together and that all discussions have been preliminary and largely informal.