Authored by Jacob Grandstaff via RealClearPolitics,

Leaving birthright citizenship to the Roberts court is walking into a minefield – legislation is the smarter route to end this unnecessary relic of the 19th century. Here’s why.

If conservatives are counting on the Supreme Court to rule birthright citizenship for illegal aliens unconstitutional, think again – it isn’t the slam dunk many believe it to be. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better path to abolishing this disastrous policy for good.

Some background: President Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order rolling back birthright citizenship for illegal aliens stipulates that natural-born U.S. citizens must have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanent resident.

On Feb. 19, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction on the order until it hears the case in June. Trump’s lawyers will ultimately have to convince the Supreme Court of his interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

Despite much legal analysis to the contrary, originalist conservatives should be wary of turning to the framers of the 14th Amendment or later Supreme Court rulings on this controversial issue.

Instead, Congress needs to immediately back up President Trump’s executive order before it makes its way to the Supreme Court. The justices will be more amenable to legislation, considering Section 5 of the 14th Amendment givesCongress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The court has never established precedent on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, but it acts like Wong Kim Ark (1898) – which established it for legal immigrants’ children – did.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), liberal Justice William Brennan muddied the waters, writing in a non-binding footnote that there is “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’” between lawful and unlawful immigrants. Notably, none of the four justices who dissented in Plyler v. Doe objected to Brennan’s footnote on birthright citizenship – including conservatives William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor.

We should expect the current Supreme Court to examine the framers’ intent, something the late University of Texas law professor Lino Anthony Graglia correctly argued is the best way to interpret a constitutional law. But that’s where things get tricky.

In 1866, the House of Representatives didn’t debate the birthright citizenship issue because the version that body passed didn’t include that clause in Section 1.

Once the amendment moved to the Senate, however, debate transcripts show senators interpreted the birthright citizenship clause – introduced by Sen. Benjamin Wade (R-OH) – to extend to everyone born in the U.S., except the children of foreign diplomats and – at the time – Indian tribe members.

Sen. William Fessenden (R-ME) specifically asked if the clause would include those “born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country.”

“I know that is so in one instance,” replied Sen. Wade, “in the case of children of foreign ministers . . . their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington.”

Some point to the statement of Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI) as evidence that the 14th Amendment’s original intent did not extend birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors of foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States,” he said.

But Sen. Howard was simply reiterating Sen. Wade on diplomats’ children. We know this because senators subsequently rose in opposition and support of the clause precisely because it would give birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners and aliens, and no one – including Sen. Howard – objected to their interpretation.

Sen. Edgar Cowan (R-PA) opposed the clause because it would give birthright citizenship to the children of Gypsies who “settle as trespassers.”

Sen. John Conness (R-CA) said, “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States . . .”

Sen. Conness then threw up a roadblock to the argument that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to temporary legal residents’ children. To reassure Sen. Cowan, the amendment would not cause the Chinese to immigrate Californians “out of house and home,” he explained, “The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other, either alive or dead.”

This is the heart of the problem for conservatives counting on our originalist Supreme Court today to rule birthright citizenship unconstitutional. If the Roberts court – which laudably bases decisions on the words and original intent of the men who authored our constitutional amendments – stops here, we might end up enshrining birthright citizenship forever instead of abolishing it.

Prof. Graglia argued the senators could not have meant to grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens because “there were no illegal aliens in 1868.” Although mid-19th century American immigration law was a veritable Wild West compared with today, it isn’t smart to gamble that at least five justices will distinguish between 19th century Gypsy “trespassers” and today’s illegal aliens.

But that’s only half of President Trump’s executive order. There remains far less hope that the court will interpret the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of temporary legal immigrants based on the statements of Sens. Wade and Conness.

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report concluded: “In a still evolving area of law,” the court has held that Congress can use Section 5 to go “beyond judicial decisions defining such rights in order to enforce” the 14th Amendment. It added that even if the court were to disagree, Congress already has the power to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under its immigration and naturalization authority in clauses 4 and 18 of Article I, Section 8.

Congress has already established precedent in redefining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” with the Indian Nationality Act of 1924. It follows that Congress could have as easily excluded illegal aliens from birthright citizenship in the Citizenship Act of 1934, the Nationality Act of 1940, or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The Supreme Court itself suggested as much in Kim Wong Ark when it explained why the U.S., even in 1898, remained an anomaly in offering birthright citizenship. In the feudal era, Europe, too, offered citizenship based strictly on birthplace. That changed when legislatures modernized their citizenship laws. Nothing’s stopping Congress from doing the same – so they should.

Fortunately, there’s already a solution at hand. Republican Sens. Katie Britt (AL), Lindsay Graham (SC), and Ted Cruz (TX) have co-sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, which mirrors Trump’s executive order. President Trump should rally Republicans to pass it and gain a surefire victory instead of betting on the high court and risking cementing this relic of the 1860s forever.

Americans are tired of our broken immigration system rewarding mass immigration and illegal aliens and are demanding a historic and lasting solution. Voters gave Trump a mandate to end birthright citizenship. He did his part admirably. If successful, this will be one of his greatest legacies. Now it’s up to Congress to do its part in ensuring that mandate makes it over the finish line.

Jacob Grandstaff is an investigative researcher for Restoration News and the author of a recent groundbreaking report on America’s great tradition of mass deportations.

A senior USAID official on Tuesday ordered the agency’s remaining staff to report to their now-former headquarters in Washington DC for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents, many of which contain sensitive information, Politico reports.

The materials marked for destruction include “classified safes and personnel documents” at the Ronald Reagan Building, according to an email sent by USAID’s acting executive director, Erica Carr.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” read the email instructing staff to label the burn bags with “SECRET” and “USAID/B/IO” (which stands for “bureau or independent office”) in dark sharpie.

🚨🚨 THIS IS A 5-ALARM FIRE 🚨🚨 Right now, as we speak, today, USAID is shredding and burning the contents of the agency’s classified safes — the key information needed to reconstruct the history of USAID’s weaponization both at home and abroad. THIS MUST BE STOPPED pic.twitter.com/G4uEuUY0yd

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 11, 2025

According to the report, the email did not provide any reasoning for the document destruction, however the building is currently being emptied out after mass layoffs, which may have disrupted the routine destruction of materials. 

The effort also underscores the tumultuous way in which the Trump administration is dismantling an agency that once managed a $40 billion annual budget and had more than 10,000 staff around the world.

Efforts by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency last month to access secure computer systems at USAID — including information about employees’ security clearances — triggered an uproar at the agency that prompted the administration to place two of the agency’s security staff on administrative leave. A DOGE spokesperson subsequently said that there was no improper access to classified material. –Politico

According to a former USAID staffer, “I’ve never seen something like this — en masse. Everyone with a safe is supposed to keep it up to date and destroy documents when they no longer need to be stored. Sometimes security will check your safe and tell you if you have to clean out old material.”

Developing…

Authored by Joe Lauria via Consortium News,

The attorney in the freedom of information case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking the contents from the computers of a murdered staffer of the Democratic National Committee has criticized the number of redactions in the index that the bureau turned over to the court late Monday night.

“Lots of things in the Seth Rich indexes don’t pass the smell test,” wrote Ty Clevenger, the attorney for Brian Huddleson, a Texas businessman, who filed a Freedom of Information Act request in September 2017 seeking to learn whether Rich was the source of WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of DNC emails that impacted that year’s U.S. presidential election.  Huddleson sued the F.B.I. in June 2020 after the bureau turned down his request. 

Rich, who was the DNC’s voter expansion data director, was murdered on a Washington D.C. street in the early morning hours of July 10, 2106, 12 days before WikiLeaks released its DNC emails and 15 days before the start of the DNC convention on July 25, 2016.  The case has never been solved.

Suspected WikiLeaks Link

The suspicion that Rich may have been WikiLeaks’ source arose when Julian Assange told a Dutch TV interviewer two weeks later on Aug. 10, 2016 that:

“Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”

Pressed by the interviewer to say whether Rich was the source of the DNC emails, Assange said WikiLeaks never reveals its sources. Yet, it appeared to be an indirect way of naming Rich, while formally maintaining WikiLeaks‘ policy.

(Assange could also have been cynically using Rich’s death to divert the trail from the real source. Rolling Stone magazine reported in November 2019 that lawyer’s for Seth’s brother Aaron had tried to subpoena WikiLeaks and Assange to depose them on evidence of Seth’s involvement but were unable to.)

On the same day of the Dutch TV interview, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the solution of the mystery of who killed Rich.

The suspicion was furthered when an audio recording of investigative reporter Sy Hersh, taped without his knowledge, was posted online on Aug. 1, 2017.

“What I know comes off an F.B.I. report. Don’t ask me how. You can figure it out, I’ve been around a long time,” Hersh says on the tape. “I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful, he’s a very high-level guy and he’ll do a favor. You’re just going to have to trust me.”

The F.B.I. cyber unit got involved after the D.C. police were unable to access protected files on Rich’s computer, Hersh said. So the F.B.I. “found what he’d done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC,” to Wikileaks, Hersh said.

“He offered a sample, an extensive sample, you know I’m sure dozens of emails and said ‘I want money.’ Then later Wikileaks did get the password, he had a Dropbox, a protected Dropbox,” Hersh said. He went on:

“Wikileaks got access, and before he was killed … he also, and this is also in the F.B.I. report, he also let people know, with whom he was dealing. … I don’t know how he dealt with the Wikileaks and the mechanism but … the word was passed according to the NSA report, ‘I’ve also shared this box with a couple of friends so if anything happens to me it’s not going to solve your problem.’”

WikiLeaks posted a link to the Hersh audiotape on Twitter on the day it was released. Hersh has since backed away from making those remarks and refuses to discuss it.

Kim Dotcom, the internet entrepreneur who was close to WikiLeaks and Assange told Consortium News in an interview that he was the middleman between Rich and WikiLeaks, after Rich had contacted him. 

And the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ran a test led by William Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency, which showed that the DNC emails had to be locally downloaded and not sent over the internet. 

The NSA, Binney argues, would have a record of a Russian hack of the emails, which it has never produced, despite the mainstream belief, based in part on an unproven U.S. indictment, that Russian military intelligence, and not a DNC insider, had stolen the emails and given them to WikiLeaks.

If Rich communicated with someone at WikiLeaks or with Dotcom a record of those emails or messages would presumably be found on either his work or personal computer. It is that information that Huddleson sought to obtain with his FOIA request.

Reasons for Withholding Information

It took nearly five years battling in court for the F.B.I. to finally turn over a so-called Vaughn Index of files found on Rich’s laptops and only after a judge’s order last November. This is just a list, not the content, of the files, (some with brief descriptions some without, some with dates and some without), and the reasons why the F.B.I. is withholding them from the public. 

Files that have dates are mostly not in chronological order making it difficult to create a timeline. 

The reasons the bureau gave for withholding Rich files were mostly to “protect a person’s personal privacy” and to not “interfere with law enforcement proceedings or investigations.”  These reasons were given on Rich files described as “Written School Assignment, Essay or Term Paper;” “Cover Letter;” “Resume;” “Job Posting;” “Campaign Organization Chart;” and even a “Poem” and a “Birthday Party Menu,” which were withheld.

Yaacov Apelbaum, a technical expert for the plaintiff, says that redacting a file called “Chart of Calls Made and Shifts Scheduled” because it supposedly could interfere with law enforcement suggests “evidence of coordination or activity the FBI does not want exposed.”

He said the redacted “List of Events by Date and Time” file “could suggest organized activities or misconduct.” “Roster of Names and Phone Numbers” “may contain associates, informants, or persons of interest that the FBI is protecting” or “indicates repeated efforts to hide individuals connected to a case,” Apelbaum said.

Clevenger tweeted, somewhat sarcastically it seems: “A lot to sort through here. They’re withholding his job offer letter from the DNC, for example, ‘to protect information, that if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings or investigations.’ So the DNC is a suspect in his murder?” 

Clevenger told Consortium News in an email: “We will definitely challenge the indexes. The small number of files in the indexes indicates one of two things: files have been deleted or files have not yet been accounted for. Even the files listed in the indexes have been redacted excessively.” 

Binney went further in his reaction to the released index, telling an email group:

“Where’s the index of all the email? Further, where are the emails? … They only show an index of a few email from November and December of 2012. Guess they don’t want to show any connection to Wikileaks. This is a major issue for KP [F.B.I. Director Kash Patel] – coverup of criminal activity.”

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

Update (1755ET): The House passed the stopgap resolution on Tuesday to avert a partial government shutdown and fund federal agencies through September.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was able to convince most Republicans to vote for the bill, with the exception of Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), while one Democrat – Jared Golden (D-ME) joined the Republicans in passing the measure which increases security spending by $4.4 billion, contains a $440 million boost for immigration enforcement, and cuts the IRS budget by $20 billion.

It also prevents Washington DC from spending $1 billion of its own tax dollars, and allows the Pentagon flexibility to buy new weapons – an odd provision in a stopgap bill that was demanded by GOP defense hawks.

The bill also has no new limits on DOGE, and does not prevent agency heads from firing federal workers or canceling federal grants and contracts – actions which are currently being challenged in the courts in what critics argue amount to illegal impoundments of money approved by Congress.

The bill passed in a 217 – 213 vote, and will now move to the Senate, where it needs at least 60 votes to pass – meaning around 10 Democrats will need to cross party lines.

Moderate Senate Democrats, including Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Mark Kelly of Arizona have given no indication on how they’ll vote, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said he would support it.

If a Saturday shutdown does occur, the White House budget office would have the flexibility to decide which federal workers are furloughed (and would receive backpay) and which essential staff must continue in their positions without pay. The military would remain on duty without pay until the shutdown was over.

*   *   * 

Top sellers from last week at ZH Store:

ZH Multitool

Anza Swat Micarta Blued knife (1 left until resupply)

ReadyWise Heirloom Seed Vault

IQ Colostrum

ZH Coffee + Tumbler deal (buy 2 bags, get free tumbler)

Update (1240ET): JP Morgan has weighed in with the usual ‘government shutdowns have meant little to the economy with the 5-week shutdown during 2018-19, real GDP fell by $11bn though $8bn was recovered after the gov’t reopened,’ however the bank does note that ‘equities have tended to fall in the days leading up to a shutdown before recovering all loses and resuming their trend higher,’ while concluding “The setup is different this time and a gov’t shutdown is likely not on many investors’ radar.”

Oh, fun…

*  *  *

With three days remaining before the next shutdown, the House is expected to pass a stopgap funding package on Tuesday after the House Freedom Caucus agreed to back it – which means Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) may be able to pass the bill, which would fund the government until September – without the help of Democrats.

That said, despite the Freedom caucus’ buy-in, Johnson still has several GOP holdouts – with the only one to go public being Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) – who President Donald Trump dragged on social media, calling for him to be primaried, and comparing him to Rep. Liz Cheney.

On Sunday, Massie said on X “I’m not voting for the Continuing Resolution budget (cut-copy-paste omnibus) this week,” adding “Why would I vote to continue the waste fraud and abuse DOGE has found?”

To which Trump replied on Truth Social: “Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump said. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him.”

To which Massie then replied: “Someone thinks they can control my voting card by threatening my re-election. Guess what? Doesn’t work on me.”

Also potentially on the fence Punchbowl reports that Reps. Kat Cammack (R-FL) and Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) both raised concerns over the measure during a GOP whip meeting on Monday.

*   *   * 

Top sellers from last week at ZH Store:

ZH Multitool

Anza Swat Micarta Blued knife (1 left until resupply)

ReadyWise Heirloom Seed Vault

IQ Colostrum

ZH Coffee + Tumbler deal (buy 2 bags, get free tumbler)

That said, the House Freedom Caucus endorsed the CR in a statement, saying:

“The House Freedom Caucus supports the FY 2025 Continuing Resolution. Contrary to Congress’ longtime abuse of this legislative tool, this CR is a paradigm shift.

This bill will reduce and then freeze spending for the next six months to allow President Trump and his Administration to continue their critical work within the Executive Branch to find and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

It entirely kills the prospect of a budget busting, pork filled omnibus this fiscal year, and it breaks the longstanding practice in the Swamp of handcuffing increases in defense funding with increases to the non-defense bureaucracy.

Furthermore, it contains zero earmarks, makes major rescissions to the Internal Revenue Service and the so-called “Commerce slush fund,” and includes additional funding for immigration enforcement and deportation operations. Perhaps most importantly, it prevents Democrats from derailing the America First agenda with a go-nowhere government shutdown.

With the six months of funding this bill provides, Freedom Caucus Members look forward to working hand-in-hand with DOGE, OMB, and the new cabinet secretaries in eliminating even more waste, fraud, and abuse — and enacting historic spending reforms via reconciliation — all as part of President Trump’s effort to balance the budget.”

Trump, meanwhile, has been working the phones – calling undecided House Republicans, and will continue to do so today according to the report. As Punchbowl reports further:

Vice President JD Vance will attend the Republican Conference meeting this morning for a final lobbying blitz. OMB Director Russ Vought – a former Hill aide himself – met with GOP lawmakers on Monday night. Vought has been speaking to House Republicans one-on-one about the package.

“Trump is all in,” one House Republican leadership aide told us Monday night. “Members can’t be on the wrong side of this.”

Some of the opposition may be performative. Remember: Several House Republicans opposed giving Johnson another term as speaker in early January but buckled after Trump weighed in. Last month, a number of House Republicans backed the budget resolution only after entreaties from Trump.

Enter Hakeem

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has gone all-in on opposing the funding bill, insisting that his caucus “will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people.”

On Tuesday, Johnson said “They are going to try to shut the government down. Every House Democrat will participate in this… You’re about to see on vivid display, very clear the contrast: You will see one team that is working to fund the government… You’re going to see another opposing the CR.”

Senate Looms

If the bill can pass the House, Senate Democrats are a solid ‘maybe’ on the CR, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is a solid ‘no.’ 

Given that, eight Democrats will have to vote yes to overcome a filibuster.

Key Senate Dems have trashed the CR as bad policy, however they also view a shutdown as an outcome that nobody wants – so they haven’t declared it DOA in the Senate.

“Passing a full-year CR risks handing [Trump] a huge slush fund with which to do what he wants in ways that could be harmful to our national security,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE).

“I’m waiting to see what the final version is, until then we’re not gonna make any decisions,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).

And while Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Punchbowl just days ago that the CR was “awful,” he told the outlet that he preferred it to a government shutdown.

Update(1745ET): Coming out of the Jeddah talks with the Ukrainian delegation, which lasted over eight hours, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a statement hailing that Kiev has agreed to enter negotiations with Russia to end the war.

“Today, we’ve made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable,” Rubio stated.

The 30-Day ceasefire aspect which was announced earlier appears designed to jump-start direct talks – with the intent that the guns would go silent to allow for talks to begin in earnest. It appears akin to a ‘freeze’ of the front lines of the conflict (something which Putin is likely to reject, seeing in in a possible ploy for Ukraine to rearm and regroup).

Rubio explained before reporters:

The offer is to stop the shooting. The goal here is the only way out – to end this war is to negotiate out of it.  There’s no military solution to this war.  The solution to this war and the way to end it and to achieve the President’s objective of peace is to negotiate. 

But before you can negotiate you have to stop shooting at each other, and that’s what the President has wanted to see, and that’s what – that’s the commitment we got today from the Ukrainian side, their willingness to do that.  Obviously, now that will be delivered to the Russians. 

Rubio says if Russia does not accept the ceasefire, “we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here.” So while Russia is making gains, they will have to accept terms dictated by the US/Ukraine — while US arms resume flowing — or else they become the “impediment” pic.twitter.com/LQCYXme7Sy

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 11, 2025

On communicating the plan to Russia, Rubio said “It’ll be delivered to them directly through multiple channels, meaning not only will they obviously see it – we’ve – it’ll be communicated to them through our diplomatic channels, through conversations, and other methods.  But they’ll obviously be well aware.”

“And our hope is that the Russians will say yes, that they will also agree, so the shooting will stop, the killing will stop, the dying will stop, and the talks can begin about how to end this war permanently in a way that’s acceptable and enduring for both sides,” the US top diplomat added.

* * *

An apparent breakthrough in Jedda talks between the US and Ukraine, as the United States has announced it “will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.”

The Zelensky government has also “expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the statement said.

“The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace,” it added. This comes after a reported over eight hour-long meeting between the US and Ukrainian delegations in the Saudi port city on Tuesday. No doubt, the Ukrainians came hat in hand, ready to please Trump after relations had fallen off a cliff with the Zelensky Oval Office confrontation earlier this month.

Shortly before the announced US-Ukraine agreement for a 30-day ceasefire, a TASS headline said that the Kremlin has no information on any details coming out of the Jeddah meeting.

But will Putin agree? There’s as yet little incentive for him to enact a temporary ceasefire, given as Trump recently admitted… he has all the cards (and Zelensky doesn’t).

By all accounts the Russians are fast taking back territory in Kursk and advancing along front lines in the Donbas. Likely Russia fears that Kiev could simply use this ceasefire as an opportunity to rearm, rest, resupply and regroup – especially given Washington just said the US arms and intel pipeline is back on.

Moscow is likely to see this is simply a matter between Washington and Kiev, and it appears to be a version of Zelensky’s ‘partial ceasefire’ which demands a halt to all air assaults. Or in essence it sounds like Zelensky just wants his satellite images turned back on.

Ukraine’s presidential office presenting this as the joint statement following the talks led by Rubio, Waltz, and Witkoff:

• “The United States will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.”
• “Both countries’ presidents agreed to conclude as soon as possible a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine’s critical mineral resources to expand Ukraine’s economy, offset the cost of American assistance, and guarantee Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security.”

The full statement:

From Russia’s point of view, there’s nothing about turning back on the halt in weapons and intel assistance which will help anything, given also just last night Ukraine launched its biggest drone attacks in Russian territory to date, targeting the capital of Moscow.

developing…

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked any effort by the Trump administration to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student and permanent resident who led pro-Palestinian encampment protests at Columbia University after the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by the Hamas terrorist group.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York (Obama judge) ordered on March 10 that Khalil—who was arrested over the weekend—must not be deported until further legal proceedings have played out and the court potentially authorizes his removal from the United States.

“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise,” Furman wrote.

The judge set a March 12 hearing to consider the case of Khalil, whose arrest was celebrated by President Donald Trump and the White House but denounced by Democrats and some civil rights groups.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump praised Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for arresting Khalil, calling him a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student.”

The president said that Khalil’s apprehension was the “first arrest of many to come” and warned that additional detentions would target individuals engaged in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity” on college campuses nationwide.

“Many are not students, they are paid agitators,” Trump wrote. “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country—never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Khalil was taken into custody as a result of Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism after having “led activities aligned with Hamas.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored the administration’s stance in a post on social media platform X, stating that the government “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” He did not provide further details on the policy implementation.

Khalil’s detention sparked opposition from a constellation of critics, including congressional Democrats, who demanded that he be freed immediately.

Some civil rights groups and free speech advocates accused the Trump administration of using its immigration enforcement powers to suppress criticism of Israel.

“This arrest is unprecedented, illegal, and un-American,” Ben Wizner, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement. “The federal government is claiming the authority to deport people with deep ties to the U.S. and revoke their green cards for advocating positions that the government opposes.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights advocacy group, alleged in a statement that Khalil’s arrest was motivated by his protests against the Israeli military’s anti-Hamas operations in Gaza and “represents a blatant attack on the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, immigration laws, and the very humanity of Palestinians.”

The Epoch Times reached out to ICE for comment on the case.

Khalil’s arrest coincides with the Trump administration’s move to revoke $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, citing the institution’s alleged failure to address anti-Semitic incidents and harassment of Jewish students on campus.

Following the Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent military response in Gaza, student-led protests erupted at universities across the United States, including Columbia. Last spring, pro-Palestinian activists organized a prolonged encampment and occupied a campus building.

This past week, Trump reaffirmed his opposition to such demonstrations.

“All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested.”

Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, said on March 7 that the university will cooperate with federal agencies and pledged “serious action” against campus anti-Semitism.

Update (1530ET):

Tesla shares rebounded late in the session, rising about 6%, after a fleet of Tesla vehicles arrived at the White House.

President Trump announced plans to purchase a Tesla vehicle on Monday to show support for Elon Musk and DOGE.

Trump is checking out five different Tesla models. There is speculation that the president may choose the Cybertruck.

“Number one, it’s a great product — as good as it gets — and number two, because he [Musk] has devoted his energy and his life to doing this and I think he has been treated very unfairly,” Trump told reporters, adding, “will be buying a Tesla today.” 

Recall Tesla was excluded from the Biden-Harris administration’s EV summit at the White House in 2021.

Also, note that Tesla is one of the most made-in-America vehicles and fulfills Trump’s ‘America First’ manufacturing pledge. 

Did Tesla vehicles arriving at the White House put a bottom in the stock? 

Meanwhile, Trump told reporters that ongoing violence by leftists against Tesla vehicles will be labeled as “domestic terrorism.” 

*   *   * 

President Trump announced early Tuesday morning on Truth Social that he will support Elon Musk by purchasing a new Tesla.

While the president did not specify which model he intends to purchase, his endorsement comes as Musk’s DOGE has been a massive success, neutering parts of the Deep State—though not without consequences for the billionaire. 

Musk has faced backlash from unhinged leftists, who have attacked Tesla showrooms, torched Tesla Superchargers, attacked vehicles, and even initiated a boycott—all because these folks are outraged that DOGE has found billions of waste and fraud within the federal bureaucracy. 

“To Republicans, Conservatives, and all great Americans, Elon Musk is “putting it on the line” in order to help our Nation, and he is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

In recent weeks, Torsten Slok, Apollo’s chief economist, has pointed out that DOGE-related federal government job cuts could reach around 300,000. He said combined layoffs of federal workers and contractors could top one million, as DOGE’s demolition of the corrupt Deep State is a mandate the American people handed the president. 

In recent days, Trump told Musk publicly to transition from “hatchet” to “scalpel” in eliminating fraud and waste within the federal government, but more importantly, within the corrupt NGO complex. 

Leftists are furious with Musk’s DOGE this week after Secretary of State Marco Rubio thanked Musk on Monday for uncovering fraud and waste in USAID, a rogue agency captured by the Deep State. Rubio announced on Monday that 83% of USAID’s programs would be shuttered. 

Given Musk’s success with DOGE, Trump continued:

But the Radical Left Lunatics, as they often do, are trying to illegally and collusively boycott Tesla, one of the World’s great automakers, and Elon’s “baby,” in order to attack and do harm to Elon, and everything he stands for.

They tried to do it to me at the 2024 Presidential Ballot Box, but how did that work out?

In any event, I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American. Why should he be punished for putting his tremendous skills to work in order to help MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN??? 

Trump’s support for Musk’s Tesla comes as shares plunged 15% on Monday, down 45% year-to-date, round-tripping all presidential election gains. 

Some of Monday’s losses came after UBS analyst Joseph Spak slashed delivery projections to 367,000 from 437,000 for the first quarter. The analyst also lowered his 12-month price target to $225 from $259.

Last week, Goldman Sachs analysts Mark Delaney, Will Bryant, and others lowered their Tesla delivery forecast for the first quarter to 375,000 from 399,000. 

As for Trump, there’s no telling what model he will choose – but likely – a Cybertruck.

Russia is seeking to clamp down on Western spying on its soil, amid ongoing tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions especially involving Britain, related to alleged espionage. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) confirmed Monday that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs revoked the accreditation of two British diplomats, accusing them of entering Russia based on false information. They are being booted from the country.

The counterintelligence agency described it had “identified signs of intelligence and subversive work” that the pair had carried out against Russian national security interests. Countries often issue diplomatic cover for intelligence operatives working out of their foreign embassies.

The UK Foreign Office was adamant in rejecting the basis of the accusations: “This is not the first time that Russia has made malicious and baseless accusations against our staff,” it said. But this didn’t seem so ‘direct’ a denial speaking to whether the two were spies or not.

Britain had expelled a Russian diplomat on similar grounds last month, and as a response to Moscow expelling a UK diplomat in November 2024.

And just last week three Bulgarian nationals were convicted in a London court for carrying out “industrial-scale” spying for Russia. The Guardian has detailed the case as follows:

Three Bulgarian nationals accused of spying for Russia have been found guilty of espionage charges in a trial that heard how they were involved in a string of plots around Europe directed by a fugitive based in Moscow.

After more than 32 hours of deliberations, a jury at the Old Bailey reached unanimous verdicts on Katrin Ivanova, 33, a lab technician, Vanya Gaberova, 30, a beautician, and Tihomir Ivanchev, 39, a painter and decorator, all of whom were living in London before their arrest.

The three were convicted for being junior members of a spy ring that was ultimately directed by Jan Marsalek, an Austrian businessman who had fled to Russia in 2020 after a company he helped to run collapsed amid a €1.9bn (£1.6bn) fraud.

Marsalek directed the hostile surveillance of Christo Grozev – an investigative journalist who had helped implicate Russian spies in the poisoning of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny – in Bulgaria, Austria and Spain. All three defendants were involved in the operation.

Apparently they also set up an operation to steal mobile phone numbers of Ukrainian troops believed to be training at a US barracks in Stuttgart, Germany. UK media reports say they utilized military-grade snooping and electronic equipment.

Britain believes all of this was ultimately at the direction of Russian intelligence. So just as Moscow’s relations with Washington improve, relations with London keep growing more and more hostile and distant.

There was also the recent case of a British mercenary being captured by Russian forces in Kursk. The UK military veteran was given a 19-year prison sentence for fighting alongside Ukrainian forces while invading Russian soil. A Moscow court dubbed him a ‘terrorist’ and not a soldier who would have been afforded protections under the Geneva Convention.

Authored by Daniel Lacalle and Jaime Figueras,

This week, financial markets have experienced unprecedented volatility.

Two key issues dominate the national conversation: first, the shifting economic landscape under President Trump’s leadership and second, the increasing financial burden faced by older Americans. 

While market uncertainty looms, President Trump’s policies are aimed at fostering long-term stability and growth, both domestically and globally.

At the same time, we urgently need to address the mounting credit card debt among older Americans who are facing financial difficulties as they near retirement.

These two issues, while seemingly unrelated, share a common theme: the need for strategic planning, responsible policies, multi-horizon solutions that alleviate the immediate economic burden for older Americans as well as long-term solutions that galvanize the US economy for younger individuals.

The recession and stagflation risk was created by four years of insane government spending and record deficits in a growth economy, not by a month and a half of a new administration.

Milei in Argentina implemented decisive and drastic cuts and many predicted chaos. However, the economy strengthened, inflation declined, and poverty fell… In less than a year. Supply-side measures do not work immediately, but they work, and they last. Don’t expect miracles in a month.

Unfortunately, some market participants tend to get excited about central planning and scared of supply-side measures. Why? Because the first one means printing money and the other requires bottom-up deep research. However, betting on central planning always leads to disaster.

Increased government spending leads to the issuance of more currency units and an artificial increase in money velocity. Keynesian interventionists propose higher taxes to reduce the excess of money in the system. Therefore, government size in the economy rises in periods of expansion and rises as well in periods of slowdown, eroding the investment and saving capability of the economy. The road to stagnation. This leads to persistent inflation, lower real wages, and economic stagnation.

As such, a short recession resulting from the control of government spending and debt is not a negative event. It is simply the manifestation of a previous excess. Reducing taxes and cutting the excesses of past years in government jobs and expenditures will only make the GDP healthier.

In the past four years, federal debt growth has exceeded even nominal GDP growth, and by a significant margin. Curbing that path to ruin is an essential policy.

It is better to have a short and healthy recession if it comes from lower government spending and more attractive taxes than to maintain GDP growth with debt and unproductive expenditure.

A short recession can be positive. It is like the process of losing weight and exercising following a sugar and alcohol binge. The economy will be stronger by making the private sector more robust, and subsequent growth will be more productive and sustainable.

It is essential that the next Treasury secretary talk about the essential adjustments required by the economy and the reality of the time bomb inherited from the Biden administration. Bidenomics was an upside-down approach to economics, and the United States requires supply-side strategies to restore productivity, wealth, and genuine prosperity.

Reducing deficits and debt with higher taxes is an unacceptable option. On the one hand, there is no revenue measure that can eliminate the current $2 trillion deficit. However, tax receipts follow a cyclical pattern, while public spending is a yearly and consolidated process. Therefore, using taxes to reduce debt always fails.

Sound money and a responsible government budget, supported by lower taxes and reduced bureaucratic expenditures, are the only options to strengthen America’s economy. Socialism would be disastrous. Conservative Keynesianism would be useless. The U.S. must learn the lesson of the UK and the EU countries’ recent examples and avoid the convenient trap of right-wing socialism.

The only way in which the United States will escape the seemingly inevitable debt and currency crisis will be to cut spending, reduce taxes, pump growth driven by private investment and rising real wages, and strengthen the US dollar by reducing indebtedness and conducting a sound monetary policy.

President Trump’s economic agenda is rooted in a vision of a more resilient American economy. Despite facing significant challenges—such as heightened levels of market volatility, tariff negotiations, and shifting global alliances—President Trump remains resolute in his belief that the U.S. will emerge stronger and more prosperous (we agree). His administration’s focus on reducing trade imbalances, cutting excessive regulations, and unleashing the power of the private sector is setting the stage for sustainable economic growth. Though concerns about growth and the impact of fiscal policy changes have surfaced, Trump’s long-term strategy is designed to achieve a more efficient and competitive economy, not just for the U.S. but for global partners as well.

One of the most striking examples of this global shift is Europe’s reevaluation of its fiscal policies in light of U.S. economic changes. In response to shifts in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in terms of defense spending and international relations, Germany is now considering loosening its traditionally stringent fiscal constraints. This could result in increased investments in infrastructure and defense, potentially driving European economic growth and fostering greater competition on the world stage.

Meanwhile, China is also signaling a new phase of economic reforms, aimed at addressing the threats of stagnation and inefficiency. By blending stimulus with reform, China is positioning itself to navigate its economic challenges while potentially benefiting from more balanced trade relationships with the U.S. under Trump’s administration. Although uncertainties persist in global markets, there is an emerging belief that a more balanced and prosperous global economy is within reach, thanks in part to President Trump’s vision of economic rebalancing.

However, as the global economy rebalances, credit card debt among older Americans is becoming a pressing issue. A recent survey by AARP has revealed a troubling trend: nearly half of Americans aged 50 and older who carry credit card debt are relying on it to cover essential living expenses. This growing reliance on credit cards is exacerbated by rising costs in healthcare, food, and housing, placing a heavy burden on those already nearing retirement.

The survey paints a grim picture of how older Americans are struggling with their finances. Among those with credit card debt, 47% reported using their cards for basic living expenses, and 37% of them have accumulated more debt over the past year. Nearly half (48%) carry a balance of $5,000 or more, with some even surpassing $10,000 in debt. These figures are particularly concerning as they coincide with a time when older adults should be planning for a secure retirement, not facing mounting debt. 

Healthcare costs have emerged as one of the leading contributors to this growing debt. With many older Americans on fixed incomes, medical expenses are forcing them to lean on credit cards just to get by. This situation is further exacerbated by high interest rates, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to pay off their balances. As a result, many are facing the tough decision of whether to prioritize paying off debt or saving for their future. For those aged 50-64, this financial strain is particularly acute, as they are at the cusp of retirement and must weigh the consequences of their financial choices.

The impact of this growing debt is not just immediate—it is eroding older Americans’ ability to save for the future. Nearly half of those with credit card debt report that their current financial situation is hindering their ability to save for retirement. This is a dire situation that requires immediate attention and action from both policymakers and financial institutions to provide older adults with the resources and support they need to regain control of their finances.

President Trump’s economic vision, with its focus on reducing tariffs, promoting private sector growth, and fostering fairer international trade, can be seen as part of a broader solution to these interconnected challenges. By creating a more dynamic and competitive economy, both in the U.S. and globally, the economic policies that Trump advocates could help alleviate some of the financial pressures on older Americans, especially if they lead to reduced healthcare costs and more sustainable economic growth.

However, while Trump’s economic policies aim to reshape global and domestic markets, it is equally important to address the financial realities faced by older Americans. Comprehensive solutions to the credit card debt crisis should include measures to reduce interest rates, expand access to financial education, and provide more robust healthcare support to ensure older adults can live with dignity and security in their later years.

Ultimately, the economic agenda of President Trump and the financial struggles of older Americans are intertwined. While the global economy undergoes a transformation, it is vital that the financial system evolve to protect those most vulnerable—especially older Americans who are facing unprecedented debt burdens. By supporting these individuals through targeted policies and economic reforms, we can create a future where both the U.S. and its citizens can thrive, free from the shackles of financial uncertainty.

Update (1445ET): After earlier responding to President Trump’s threats with more sound and fury:

“I want to send more electricity” to the US, Ford said during an interview with CNBC, but cutting off power exports remains “a tool in our toolkit.” 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford just folded like a broken deckchair and agreed to suspend its surcharge of 25% on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York and Minnesota, Ontario Premier Doug Ford says in a post on X.

Today, United States Secretary of Commerce and Premier of Ontario Doug Ford had a productive conversation about the economic relationship between the United States and Canada.

Secretary Lutnick agreed to officially meet with Premier Ford in Washington on Thursday, March 13 alongside the United States Trade Representative to discuss a renewed USMCA ahead of the April 2 reciprocal tariff deadline.

In response, Ontario agreed to suspend its 25 per cent surcharge on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York and Minnesota.

As a reminder, this was not earth-shattering as Minnesota and Michigan imported about 1% of its power from Canada in 2024, and less than half of that came from Ontario, according to the region’s grid operator, Midcontinent Independent System Operator. New York imported about 4.4% of its total electricity from the country in 2023, according to Bloomberg calculations.

The response in market was immediate with stocks ramping to the highs of the day…

*  *  *

Just when you thought it was safe to dip your toe back in the growth-challenged markets, President Trump took to Truth Social and unleashed a retaliatory strike against Canada (more specifcally Ontario) for its ongoing tariffs (and electricity price hike)… (emphasis ours)

Based on Ontario, Canada, placing a 25% Tariff on “Electricity” coming into the United States, I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. 

This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. 

Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. 

If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada. 

Those cars can easily be made in the USA! 

The result is that the Canadian dollar dumped…

And US stocks gave up some their early gains.

It’s different this time.. for now…

Trump then diverted back to his previous comments on making Canada America’s 51st State:

Also, Canada pays very little for National Security, relying on the United States for military protection. 

We are subsidizing Canada to the tune of more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. WHY??? This cannot continue. 

The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. 

This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear. 

Canadians taxes will be very substantially reduced, they will be more secure, militarily and otherwise, than ever before, there would no longer be a Northern Border problem, and the greatest and most powerful nation in the World will be bigger, better and stronger than ever — And Canada will be a big part of that. 

The artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear, and we will have the safest and most beautiful Nation anywhere in the World — And your brilliant anthem, “O Canada,” will continue to play, but now representing a GREAT and POWERFUL STATE within the greatest Nation that the World has ever seen!

We are sure Mr Carney will bristle with Trump’s hurtful words.

*   *   * 

Top sellers from last week at ZH Store:

ZH Multitool

Anza Swat Micarta Blued knife (1 left until resupply)

ReadyWise Heirloom Seed Vault

IQ Colostrum

ZH Coffee + Tumbler deal (buy 2 bags, get free tumbler)