On Saturday the armed wing of Hamas, known as the Qassam Brigades, issued a ‘proof of life’ video showing Israeli hostage Elkana Buhbut speaking to his US national wife in a phone call, requesting that President Donald Trump release hostages from Gaza.

Elkana’s family released a statement alongside the video: “For 535 days Elkana has been trapped in an ongoing hell,” the family said. “The video reveals his dire condition – he has lost substantial weight from prolonged starvation, suffers from skin and respiratory problems in addition to his asthma, and has been deprived of daylight for nearly a year and a half.”

“This footage provides further evidence that Elkana must be returned home to his family, to his wife Rivka and son Re’em David immediately,” the statement read. 

“Elkana is desperately calling for help, begging not to be forgotten in these hellish tunnels. We urgently appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump – please consider this as if he were your own son, the father of your grandchild, who is waiting to see daylight, hearing IDF bombs overhead while living in constant fear for his life.”

Trump has lately appeared to back Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge to unleash “hell” in Gaza and pursue “complete victory” against Hamas.

But this plan has outraged families of the remaining captives, who are demanding that the broken ceasefire be renewed at least until they can get their loved ones back.

This isn’t the first time that Buhbut has been featured in a Hamas propaganda video. Some pundits accused Hamas of staging a fake phone call for the Buhbut hostage video…

With the family’s permission: Hamas released a propaganda video of hostage Elkana Bohbot, 36, for the third time.

They forced him to fake a phone call with his family—who he hasn’t spoken to in 550+ days. This is one of the most sick acts of psychological terrorism I’ve seen. We… pic.twitter.com/XZp0YngTDU

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) April 19, 2025

Earlier this month Hamas said it is ready to release all remaining hostages if a permanent ceasefire is reached. At the same time, Palestinian officials have asserted that the group will “never disarm” until a Palestinian state is created. Israel fears the terror group would just rise up again and resume rocket launches on its territory.

At this point there seems little hope for a renewed truce, as Israel has fully committed to a renewed air and ground campaign, and has kept Rafah and other cities surrounded and under military occupation.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Dealpalooza

It was a relatively quiet week on the tariff front. Last Friday night we had more tariff exemptions, followed by promises (or threats) of sectoral tariffs. But since then, the chatter has become all about the deals.

Ok, there is the talk about firing Fed Chair Powell, but away from that, on the economic front, we seemed to have switched from the tariff phase to the deal phase.

I do not think firing Powell would be a good thing over time. It would be a step towards reducing (or eliminating) the Fed’s independence. I don’t always agree with their policy. I do think it is weird that they feel the need to have less dissent than the politburo on their votes. But I think the appearance (and largely reality) of Fed independence helps the dollar and the Treasury market.

But markets are more likely to move on “deals” than anything else in the coming days and weeks (assuming some new, major topic doesn’t get introduced into the conversation).

Deal Messaging

The administration is touting deals. Progress. More deals. However, the administration seems to have backed off from stating that countries are begging for deals.

The U.S. messaging is clear (and less aggressive than before):

• Countries are calling. Countries are lined up.
• We will get deals. Good deals.

The messaging from the rest of the world is far from clear:

• Japan specifically met on trade and provided almost no detail. Neither side seems to have leaked any details.
• China has said very little, if anything, through official channels. Not too surprising as they are “public enemy number 1” but it doesn’t support the administration’s messaging that China is coming for a deal.
• I’ve spent hours looking for details on the deals, from the U.S. and abroad, and cannot find anything outside of the U.S. Even within the U.S. the messaging seems a bit mixed, though it is still leaning towards rectifying unfair situations and improving trade balances.

With little to no information, we have to guess which is an issue, but at least it can help us prepare a plan for how to react to the headlines.

What Are Tariffs Meant to Achieve?

The first problem in trying to evaluate our trade and tariff policy is trying to understand what tariffs are supposed to achieve.

• A bargaining position.
  • I’m not sure what we are bargaining for, but this would indicate that tariffs would be temporary.
• Increased sales of Made in the U.S.A.
  • Imported goods would rise in cost relative to domestic goods, which should increase domestic sales. That requires tariffs to stay in place.
  • If tariffs against the U.S. are reduced or eliminated, then American made goods would be less expensive to import. This would likely occur only if the tariffs were temporary.
• A revenue source. Tariffs would have to remain in place for them to generate money.

Some of the objectives that have been presented by senior people in the administration cannot co-exist. Deciphering which reasons are most important has been incredibly difficult.

One question that comes to mind is how big of an impact will tariffs have on the ability to increase sales of Made in America products?

• If tariffs stay in place, will the price increase on imports be enough to drive Made in America sales? Will it be enough to invest in factories, etc., to build more to sell?
• If other countries abandon tariffs, how much will Made in America sales increase? Very difficult to tell as non-tariff barriers can be as impactful or more impactful than tariffs. Also, it is unclear how much is a function of demand for American products, as opposed to tariffs.

With that part of the equation as clear as mud, let’s move on.

What is Missing in Trade Math

I think we can all safely agree that the administration is focused on trade deficits. We can all argue about a lot of things, but this much is clear. It is consistent with Trump 1.0 as well. Heck, it is consistent with things President Trump said long before he became president.

There are two things that I think are insane to be left out of the trade conversation, yet they are.

• The trade balance of services.
  • Why aren’t services included in our overall analysis of trade with other countries? The U.S. currently has service surpluses with most countries. Maybe it is more difficult to imagine “cloud computing” being manufactured, but it is the sort of thing that the U.S. is exporting – very effectively. Since we all know that the U.S. has become a service economy (for better or worse), it seems insane not to include this number as part of any overall trade analysis.
• Profitability of trade.
  • I assume some things are more profitable than others. If we export things with a higher profit margin than the profit margin made on what we import, basic trade balances overstate the issue. If I buy $200 of stuff from you, that you make 10% on, but sell to you $100 of stuff we make 20% on, are we more balanced than a 2:1 import vs. export ratio would indicate? I think somewhere in the conversation there should be a consideration about profitability, but nowhere does that seem to show up. Services that we export are likely very high profit margin.

A couple of other things “irk” me. Not insane, but curious at least, why they don’t come up more.

• Raw materials and intermediate goods, versus finished products. I haven’t spent much time on this, but it seems to be that knowing more details about this type of trade would help us make better decisions. Are all trade balances equally bad?
• What happens to goods manufactured for an American company that don’t come to America? I presume (for many global companies) that only a portion of the goods they make come back to the U.S. Some are probably sold in China. I assume, that for many, if you want to sell into Asia, you don’t bring them back to the U.S. to sell into Asia. So, an American company that builds something overseas and then doesn’t import it helps that American company. Though conversely, that also means that even more things could be made here because the trade deficit is even worse.

I’m not sure how we got to where we are on trade balances, but I suspect a more detailed discussion and analysis would reduce the perceived problem, rather than amplifying it. But that is not where we are.

The Tariff Rollout

Before thinking about what deals might occur, we do need to look at the tariff rollout.

• China, Canada, and Mexico. Initial wave of tariffs were given a “Fentanyl Reprieve” for Canada and Mexico. Despite what looked like some efforts on that front (especially from Mexico) the tariffs went ahead as the fentanyl reprieve was waived. Maybe the reprieve can come back again. The initial reprieve was positive regarding how the U.S. might address tariffs, but that went to the wayside and hinted at some level of confusion.
• Steel and Aluminum. Separate from other tariffs and were implemented globally. Demonstrated the administration was serious about tariffs.
• Backing off on USMCA Compliant Goods. First autos and then all USMCA compliant goods were exempted from the Canada/Mexico tariffs. Seems like this could have been anticipated, which likely affects how countries come to the negotiating table.
• The Liberation Day tariffs. Literally instant disbelief over the numbers presented. Reciprocal tariffs were anything but reciprocal. To the rest of the world, this looked like the U.S. had gone “off the deep end” on tariffs. (Even to many in the states).
• The Liberation Day tariffs went into effect. More confusion for markets.
• 90-Day Reprieve and “Reciprocal” Tariffs of “only” 10%. What an amazing rally in the stock market. Suddenly 90 days to negotiate (which seems like it would have made sense from day 1). Also, while 10% is at the high side of overall tariffs between countries, it was at least in the ballpark. China was not given a break. It seemed like maybe the administration was reading the T-Reports, and this had pulled us back to the “somewhat reasonable” zone and clearly indicated that China was the main priority.
• Some further exemptions on products, primarily tech. Another thing that made sense, though this looked like the U.S. was once again backing down on something they could have foreseen as an issue.
• Then statements about how National Security and sectoral tariffs would pick up the slack here. Though it has been quiet since then.
• Further restrictions on what chips can be sold to China. Hit some U.S. stocks, but further enforced the view that China is public enemy number 1.

How the tariffs have been rolled out and have evolved, I think is important.

The Foreign Mindset Coming Into Negotiations

As countries come to the negotiating table, I think this is a reasonable assessment of their state of mind.

• Some confusion over why they were targeted and the amount they were targeted with.
• Some trepidation about needing the U.S. market, but also about how much they can depend on any deal going forward.
• At least somewhat encouraged by what they may see as a series of miscalculations where the administration had to back down because of damage done to our markets or economy.
• The Art of the Deal is quite simple and easily understood. During Trump 1.0, few seemed to understand that. This time, many, particularly Xi, seem to understand that. Presumably, Trump knows that others know the art of the deal and they are adapting. Though, given how events have unfolded, I am not sure that the U.S. policy wasn’t dependent on getting the same reactions from world leaders as they received under Trump 1.0.

My view is that countries are coming in concerned about the economic impact on their country, but with the sense that mistakes have been made, and there is some lack of trust (i.e. deals are going to be viewed as a stopgap solution, giving them time to figure out longer-term solutions).

The Deals

Finally, we get to the main point. Are we going to get “rip your face off” rallies on the back of deals? Or will deals or the lack of deals drag markets (and the economy) lower?

• Face-saving deal. Let’s for a moment assume the administration has had a “rethink” on tariff and trade policy. That they are hearing from so many businesses that the tariff policy as enacted is not helpful. That bringing manufacturing jobs back to America will take years (and would be better accomplished by focusing on domestic policy first, to get the ball rolling). The administration has clearly backed off, so, what would a face-saving deal look like?
  • Reduced tariffs on both sides. I’m 98% convinced this could have been achieved without taking many of the steps that have hurt the administration. The other countries, at this stage, are far more likely to understand both the tariff and non-tariff barriers they have in place and where to cave and where not to cave to get the best deal for themselves.
  • Commitments to buy American made goods – with a focus on defense and agriculture. No real teeth to enforce compliance.
  • Some commitment to not allowing China to use them to change “country of origin” designations. It’s a bit tricky, but not a big deal.
• My estimate for this type of deal being offered by the U.S. to most countries has jumped from about 20% likely to 70% likely (given recent news flow and actions around tariffs).
• The administration can claim a win, and anyone trying to point out that these results could have been achieved without damaging the U.S. reputation, will be shouted down in social media. The end state will be a similar economy to what we had before. Tariffs were only a portion of the problem, and a minor one at that. Countries won’t increase their actual purchases of U.S. goods for long. They will take the lull to figure out ways to be less dependent on the U.S. So, markets may rally on the first deal headline or two, but fade as markets will establish that the U.S. economy and U.S. corporations are in a worse spot after these deals than before this whole thing started.
• Real Trade Balance Deals. If the side that has advocated for bringing production home wins, then the U.S. will need deals like this:
  • Commitment to buy American made goods, with hard figures and punishments for failing to comply. A real effort to ramp up sales of American made goods. Countries commit to buying from America and face punishment (presumably high tariffs) for failing to comply. This might be difficult for many countries to agree to.
  • Restrictions on business with China. At the very least, countries will be forced to acknowledge that China can not use them as a conduit to change country of origination. The U.S. may try to get other countries to tariff China (which would make U.S. imports look cheap relative to China). Some willingness to combat China’s worst offenses is likely palatable, but countries will be careful about being too aggressive against China, given China’s size, and in some cases, its proximity. Also, given the erratic nature of U.S. trade policy since the inauguration, countries have to be more hesitant to be perceived as anti-China than before the policies were launched.
  • Tariffs as a mix of revenue, punishment, and wins. Tariffs drop in importance if the true aim is to get trade balances in line.
  • It would be nice if the two things that I think are missing from the tariff math are incorporated into the administration’s view, as the starting point would be much closer than it is currently being viewed.

Let’s assume this approach is now only used 30% of the time. I think this approach has a very low success rate. Countries, for a variety of reasons, are likely to resist this. As time goes on, if we don’t get deals, the market will sense that the U.S. has over-reached and will have to price in more economic problems and lower corporate profits. If the U.S. gets deals of this nature, it would be a big and actual win.

The Path of Negotiations and Deals

My base case is that the U.S. likely started down the “Real Trade Balance Deals” path and that is why we are hearing so little from other countries. They are potentially left confused or even flabbergasted by U.S. demands and are not in a rush to sign that type of deal.

Maybe some countries cave and sign that type of deal, bringing more countries to that type of deal.

But if we go weeks without deals, or worse, leaks that countries are far apart, look for the negotiating strategy to shift to “Face Saving Deals” (if it hasn’t already).

I could be wrong on how I read the “cards” at the table, but that is my best estimate of who is holding what. I think the biggest risk for markets and the economy, is that one side thinks their cards are far better than they are (and from what I’ve seen so far, that risk seems to be more likely on the American side). That would mean the problems in the global economy would mount and the risk of a deep recession would grow.

Damage to the American Brand

If the entire world lets bygones be bygones, we can get back to roughly where we were before. 

I just don’t see that.

I think there will be an extended period where American stocks, bonds, and products suffer from the geopolitical and economic actions taken.

I would love to be wrong here, but I don’t think I am. Especially since even if deals are signed, the news flow, economically, geopolitically, and domestically will certainly highlight divisiveness that doesn’t help heal any wounds that have been created.

Bottom Line

I think the volatility and “beta” to any given headline has been reduced.

I think this is a path back to where we all thought we were headed – growth fueled by business-friendly strategies. Taking actions to spur the development of domestic industries, with an emphasis on issues linked to National Security. The extraction and PROCESSING of commodities, especially those that are energy-related, or crucial to future tech. Chips. A more domestic-focused policy can achieve the goals over time, and have a narrower range of outcomes (that are more predictable than trying to rebalance global trade relationships, that took years to form, in a matter of months).

A pivot is required, and we might get it.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see some very strong trade deals announced, but my base case is that we realize that this approach isn’t working, and we wind up getting some face-saving deals.

The economy is slowing, and I think that will become more evident in the coming weeks (unless I’m surprised on the “big trade deal” front).

The U.S., as an investment choice, a tourist destination, or a brand more broadly, is going to act to slow the economy and markets.

That should be good for rates, but all the hope about deficit reduction seems to be diminishing. Much of what I think would be required to make a pivot successful will involve spending.

I think that keeps bonds in a range (maybe a wide range of 4.1% to 4.5% on 10s) but a range, nonetheless. At the moment, the risk of breaking out of this range is to the higher yield side. I see more headline risk to bonds than optimism, especially on the deficit side of the equation.

Equities will suffer, in dribs and drabs, if the U.S. doesn’t back down on what we hope to achieve in trade negotiations.

To me, it comes down to undoing a lot on the trade front and pivoting sharply to doing what is in primarily U.S. control.
Good luck and hopefully the shelf life of this thought process is more than a few hours.

The rate at which announcements shaping the geopolitical environment, the economic environment, and the investing landscape is staggering.

Hope you have been able to use the long weekend to regroup and get ready for more! And hopefully it is Dealpalooza time – we could all use that!

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has stopped funding for a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine that received an award during the Biden administration, the company making the vaccine said on April 16.

Georgia-based Geovax said that the stop-work order from HHS went into effect on April 11 and affected an award of some $24.3 million from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), an HHS component that was placed in charge of the Biden administration’s Project NextGen.

“We had no prior indication that the notice was forthcoming. We were surprised by the notice as both ourselves and our external contractors and consultants were making good progress and had a seemingly productive working relationship with the technical team at BARDA,” David Dodd, Geovax’s president and CEO, said at a conference on Wednesday.

According to Dodd, the financial impact of the canceled funding on the company will be less than $750,000 annually for overhead and personnel costs.

The stop work order came about five months before the phase 2b portion of the clinical trial was scheduled to start enrolling participants, he said.

“We assume, from what we can determine, that the contract termination is resulting from the ongoing government efficiency efforts under the new administration,” Dodd said.

An official with HHS told The Epoch Times in an email, “The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago when there are other emerging public health threats that we can better prioritize resources for.”

Under President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the department and other agencies have been cutting staffers and programs deemed wasteful.

U.S. officials in June 2024 announced the award to Geovax to conduct the phase 2b clinical trial for the vaccine, which BARDA described at the time as a novel candidate “that may provide broader, longer protection.”

Project NextGen was awarding $5 billion in funding for the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and tests.

GEO-CM04S1, GeoVax’s vaccine, will still be developed, the company said.

“We do not anticipate any significant changes to our ongoing operations resulting from the contract termination,” Dodd said, adding later that they “remain committed to GEO-CM04S1 as a critically needed next-generation COVID-19 vaccine providing [the] potential of a more robust immune response against emerging variants.”

HHS previously issued a stop-work order for another COVID-19 vaccine, made by Vaxart, that received funding through Project NextGen. An HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in February that the order was issued several days before 10,000 people were scheduled to start clinical trials for the shot.

“Four years of the Biden administration’s failed oversight have made it necessary to review agreements for vaccine production, including Vaxart’s,” Kennedy told Fox News at the time.

More recently, the Food and Drug Administration, another office inside HHS, did not decide whether to license Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine, which is under emergency authorization, before a deadline.

Kennedy said that officials are looking at the vaccine while alleging that single-antigen vaccines have never worked for respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19.

Novavax has said the vaccine is effective.

Dr. Tracy Hoeg, a special assistant to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, told a panel meeting this week that the administration will provide an update on the Novavax vaccine soon.

The Democratic Party remains rudderless following last November’s election setbacks, when Republicans regained control of both the White House and the Senate, while narrowly holding onto their House majority. Now, a new poll shows confidence in the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership has collapsed, sinking to record lows. 

Gallup conducted a new poll in the first half of April, finding that Americans’ confidence in Democratic congressional leadership has plummeted to an abysmal 25%—about nine points below the previous low of 34% recorded in 2023.

“Democratic leadership’s latest 25% confidence rating is an all-time low for the group — well below the previous 34% low recorded in 2023 and the average of 45% since 2001,” Gallup wrote in a report, adding, “Confidence ratings were last at the majority level in 2009 for Democratic congressional leaders and in 2003 for Republican congressional leaders.” 

The stunning collapse in public trust toward congressional Dems comes as no surprise given socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been flying around the country in private jets to “Fight Oligarchy,” and Maryland’s far-left Senator Chris Van Hollen wasted taxpayer funds on a trip to meet with an MS-13 gangster (FTO designation) at an El Salvadorian resort. 

• Socialist AoC & Bernie Sanders Caught Using Private Jets On “Fighting Oligarchy” Tour

• Why Is Maryland Senator Defending MS-13 Gangbanger While State Falls Apart

The latest mainstream media interviews with political strategist James Carville and Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg reveal that the rudderless party is experiencing growing infighting.

🔥HOGG vs. CARVILLE feud heats up: Hogg tears into Carville for calling him “a contemptible little twerp.”

“James Carville has not won an election since before I was born. These are the same ones that had $2 billion to win an election and still lost.”

Oof.

😂🍿 https://t.co/bTmL4hkaiL pic.twitter.com/BxHyaYcpNB

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 19, 2025

Meanwhile, Americans are increasingly fed up with Democrats and their network of billionaire-funded dark money NGOs staging “Tesla Takedown” protests. At the same time, far-left activists have launched domestic terror attacks targeting Tesla showrooms, Supercharger stations, and vehicles.

Firebombing Teslas, vandalizing personal vehicles, and shooting up Tesla dealerships over politics IS terrorism.

Lying psychopath. Your gaslighting doesn’t work here.pic.twitter.com/ErlD9ohZ8l

— Kangmin Lee | 이강민 (@kangminjlee) March 21, 2025

Telsa protestors with HUGE signs openly calling for everyone to “Burn a Tesla, Save Democracy”

Where is the FBI? Where is the DOJ?

We know Democrats are PAYING FOR protestors with their NGO laundered money and Democrat donors

This is Domestic Terrorismpic.twitter.com/Xn6FCCmAV5

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 29, 2025

Some good news: with the USAID money spigot shut off from funding the Democratic Party’s color revolutions against Trump and Musk, the era of rent-a-riots and million-person marches appears to be over—at least for now.

• “Geofenced Every Event”: Democrats Caught Staging Another ‘Inorganic’ Color Revolution Operation Against Trump

• Democrats Activate NGO Machine For Weekend Color Revolution Operation Against Trump

• Tesla Takedown Organizers Plan Color Revolution To “Kill” Brand & “Death Spiral” For Investors

What an epic mess the Democratic Party has become—rife with hate, violence, and a relentless push of anti-American propaganda.

Americans want peace and prosperity—the era of Democrats waging 15 years of hybrid warfare through color revolutions and manufactured chaos has come to an abrupt end. 

This raises a very important question: Where does the Democratic Party’s allegiance truly lie? Is it with America First—or somewhere else entirely? 

Authored by Greg Collard via Racket News,

You likely already know from reading Racket that the Biden administration was very active in targeting misinformation and disinformation, even as it engaged in those practices.

Racket’s Twitter Files and other reporting have extensively documented many of the anti-disinformation and misinformation programs and organizations that the federal government supported, like the Election Integrity Project, Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI League), and the Center on Narrative, Disinformation and Strategic Influence at Arizona State.

But the number of grants? We didn’t know that. Now we do.

The Free Press reports that since 2017, the federal government has awarded about 800 grants to counter mis/disinformation — and the Biden administration is responsible for more than 600 of them. The 800 grants amount to more than $1.4 billion.

The findings by reporters Gabe Kaminsky and Madeleine Rowley are based on a new database of anti-mis/disinformation programs. The database was created by the free speech advocacy group liber-net.

“A large number of these projects cynically employed the ‘misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation’ framework to counter their political adversaries, with U.S. government funding making it possible,” liber-net’s director, Andrew Lowenthal, told the Free Press.

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that accused the Biden administration of violating free speech rights “under the guise” of combatting misinformation, disinformation and malinformation.

But Kaminsky and Rowley found that several of the programs were continuing under the Trump administration — at least until they started asking about the grants, as Kaminsky explains to Racket.

We reached out to agencies to understand if these programs would continue under President Trump. What we found was a groundswell of federal officials taking the information and letting us know that they were either terminating the programs, investigating them, or adjusting internal policies as to how they characterize some of these programs to ensure alignment with the President’s executive order on “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” that he signed on his first day in office. Some agencies, however, didn’t respond, or, in the case of the National Science Foundation, declined to comment.

In one example the Free Press cites, NIH director Jay Bhattacharya sent an email marked “URGENT” to employees to investigate grants and contracts related to “fighting misinformation or disinformation.”

The Free Press found several dozen grants that have since been canceled, such as $683,000 awarded to UC-Irvine in December. The money would have gone toward studying the influence of social media and “misinformation on vaccine acceptance among black and Latinx individuals.” The study would have done that by enrolling 500 people who follow vaccine-hesitant influencers on X.

Although most mis/disinformation grants occurred under Biden, they started with some regularity during the first Trump administration. Here’s a graphic from liber-net that shows how the number of grants ballooned from Trump to Biden:

The organizations that receive grants typically dole out portions of the money to other organizations. Kaminsky explains how they work:

Gabe Kaminsky: Like many federal programs, there are often subgrantees or subcontractors. So, while Maddie Rowley and I found that the Biden administration had awarded north of 600 grants and contracts to outside organizations, that number only accounts for primary awards. Take the $2 million that the Department of State awarded in 2023 to the Vermont-based NGO World Learning to, in its telling, “support the Armenian media sector’s overall resilience to disinformation.” For that program, which ended in February 2025, World Learning dished out a sub-award of $275,219, or 13% of the primary award, to the Poynter Institute.

And for Poynter, that’s nothing new. For example, I reported last year that Poynter had received a sub-award from the State Department’s since-shuttered Global Engagement Center—which Republicans accused of censoring conservatives in the United States. Poynter received the GEC funding via the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, a London-based entity.

Greg Collard: Although most grants were during the Biden administration, they were also awarded during the first Trump administration. Was there a difference in the types of grants that were awarded?

GK: Post-2017 is really when these programs were kicked into gear, speeding up dramatically under Biden. The same grantees and contractors that ended up receiving large amounts in funding under Biden often had initially received some during the first Trump administration. As to why that was is I think a mix of Republicans being in the dark as to the programs, and—as was evident broadly across the first Trump administration—there being agencies that sort of operated how they desired irrespective of Trump’s stated policies. Trump did not know how Washington worked.

However, I would say that the descriptions of programs on federal documents under Biden was a notable difference—as some appeared to more specifically align with the ideological priorities of the Democrats: using terms like “racial equity,” “Latinx,” or other left-leaning terminology championed by the Biden administration. Under Trump 1.0, in other words, the anti-misinformation circus quietly gained a foothold in the U.S. by advertising itself in broad strokes that, in theory, many might agree with: countering extremism or online harassment, for example.

But in practice, the programs were far more complicated and often partisan.

Active Grants

Although many anti mis/disinformation programs have been shut down, many remain active — including the largest grant: a $979 million award to military contractor Peraton, courtesy of the Department of Defense. Peraton landed the grant in 2021 to help the U.S. Central Command “counter misinformation,” liber-net’s Lowenthal writes in a Substack post about the database.

That grant alone easily makes the Defense Department the largest funder of mis-disinformation grants from 2016 to 2024. USAID was the second-largest funder at $149 million.

Smaller grants also remain active. One the Free Press cites is $6.8 million in multiple grants to the University of Washington for literary resources that help “rural communities and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities” identify misinformation. The grant description says misinformation is a “growing threat to American democracy,” and that “Solutions must not only provide the public with skills for determining the truthfulness of claims, but must also provide resources for addressing the social and emotional impacts of misinformation.”

Los Angeles County residents have plenty to worry about amid a wildfire recovery effort, federal immigration crackdowns, and persistent homelessness, but what most concerns them is the cost of living, according to an annual UCLA survey released on April 16.

The 10th Annual Quality of Life Index (QLI) survey polled 1,400 county residents between Feb. 23 and March 9, and found widespread frustration with the high cost of living, including increasing prices of groceries and household items.

The survey, conducted by UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs, found that concern over the high cost of living has kept the QLI at a lowly 53, the same as last year. 

That number represents the lowest level in the survey’s history. In 2016, the QLI came in at 59.

“Meanwhile, the salience of [the cost of living category] has risen to its highest-ever point in this index, and is joined by a growing concern about jobs and the economy,” said the survey, which was prepared by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research). 

“The combination represents fundamental bread-and-butter issues that are the biggest explainers of the longer-term lukewarm attitudes toward life in Los Angeles County.”

As Kimberley Hayek reports for The Epoch Times, more than two-fifths of respondents claimed to know someone who lost a home or business in the January wildfires. 

An additional 23 percent, including those who live relatively far from the burn areas, such as the northern part of the county and the South Bay, claimed to know someone affected. Meanwhile, 14 percent of respondents said they lost significant income due to the fires, while another 13 percent said they incurred a nonsignificant loss.

More than half of respondents said they wore a mask to avoid smoke, volunteered or donated to help victims, and feared having to evacuate.

“While the percentage of residents who lost income is lower than the percentages of those who experienced other impacts, it still represents millions of Angelenos,” said the survey, which found that Latinos, younger residents, lower income earners, and those working part-time jobs were disproportionately affected.

Eighty-nine percent of county residents agree that homeowners who lost their property in the fires should be permitted to rebuild at the same locations. In 2019, when residents were asked the same question in the wake of the Woolsey Fire near Simi Valley, 76 percent agreed.

“Both numbers are high, but suggest that the geographic breadth of the [January] fires, the extent of the destruction and the collateral impacts they had on a wide swath of the county significantly influenced this year’s results,” the survey said.

The Palisades and Eaton fires this year destroyed more than 16,000 structures; the Woolsey fire destroyed 1,600, according to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Fifty-two percent of county residents said they would generally be OK with increased taxes for improved wildfire response. Younger residents, Latinos, and Asians were most open to the proposal. Whites and African Americans were evenly split on the idea, which did not include specifics.

Attitudes toward the Los Angeles mayor were affected by the wildfires, the survey said.

For example, just 37 percent of respondents view Mayor Karen Bass favorably, with 49 percent viewing her unfavorably. That’s a reversal from 2024, when 42 percent viewed her favorably and 32 percent unfavorably.

“The wildfires that raged in Altadena and Pacific Palisades in January are the story of this year’s survey,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Luskin School’s Los Angeles Initiative.

“These catastrophic events have left devastating physical and psychological impacts in their wake,” said the former county supervisor.

“Although the primary victims are those who lost their lives, homes and possessions, millions of other Angelenos have been touched by these terrifying events in myriad ways. These impacts cross geographic, economic and racial lines that can only be described as a shared trauma across Los Angeles County.”

Cost of Living

The county’s high cost of living has become a major source of frustration for residents. Three-quarters of respondents chose it as the most important category affecting their quality of life. Among the subcategories, the cost of housing remains the leader, but the costs of groceries and household items rose in importance, as did taxes.

“The overall satisfaction score on our QLI index is stuck for one main reason—the impact of the high cost of living,” said Paul Maslin, a public opinion and polling expert with FM3 Research. 

“Those concerns were the highest in terms of importance of any category we’ve measured in the last decade. And cost of living continues to be the lowest rating category in terms of satisfaction.”

Immigration and deportation

Forty-four percent of county residents fear that a member of their family or a friend could face deportation by federal authorities.

In 2017, 37 percent expressed such a fear at the start of Trump’s first administration.

Latinos are most likely to feel this way at 54 percent. By age group, residents aged 18-29 and 30-39 are the most likely to fear a member of their family or friend could be deported at 57 percent and 52 percent, respectively. They are also most likely to believe that the city and county governments should not cooperate with the federal government’s current deportation policies.

“The new administration in Washington has once again brought the question of immigration and deportation to the fore,” Yaroslavsky said. 

“This is very much an issue that is front and center on the minds of a large part of our county’s population.”

Homelessness

Homelessness remains at or near the top of concerns for residents, though for the first time in a while, the portion who believe the homelessness problems are worsening has declined by 8 percentage points. In 2024, 60 percent thought the problem was growing worse. In the 2025 survey, 52 percent thought so. Yet only 10 percent believe the situation is getting better. That number was the same in 2024.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable.

With the rise of financialized asset bubbles as the source of our “growth,” family home went from shelter to speculative asset. This transition accelerated as financialization (turning everything into a financial commodity to be leveraged and sold globally for a quick profit) spread into the once-staid housing sector in the early 2000s. (See chart of housing bubbles #1 and #2 below).

Where buying a home once meant putting down roots and insuring a stable cost of shelter, housing became a speculative asset to be snapped up and sold as prices soared.

The short-term vacation rental (STVR) boom added fuel to the speculative fire over the past decade as huge profits could be generated by assembling an STVR mini-empire of single-family homes that were now rented to tourists.

Now that housing has become unaffordable to the majority and the costs of ownership are stair-stepping higher, housing has become a liability. I covered the increases in costs of ownership in The Cost of Owning a Home Is Soaring 11/11/24). Articles like this one are increasingly common:

‘I feel trapped’: how home ownership has become a nightmare for many Americans: Scores in the US say they’re grappling with raised mortgage and loan interest rates and exploding insurance premiums.

The sums of money now required to own, insure and maintain a house are eye-watering. Annual home insurance for many is now a five-figure sum; property taxes in many states is also a five-figure sum. As for maintenance, as I discussed in This Nails It: The Doom Loop of Housing Construction Quality, the decline in quality of housing and the rising costs of repair make buying a house a potentially unaffordable venture should repairs costing tens of thousands of dollars become necessary.

Major repairs can now cost what previous generations paid for an entire house, and no, this isn’t just inflation; it’s the result of the decline of quality across the board and the gutting of labor skills to cut costs.

Here’s the Case-Shiller Index of national housing prices. Housing Bubble #2 far exceeds the extremes of unaffordability reached in Housing Bubble #1:

Here’s a snapshot of housing affordability: buying a house is now an unattainable luxury for those without top 20% incomes and help from parents.

The monthly payments as a percentage of income are at historic highs:

Property taxes are rising in many locales as valuations bubble higher and local governments seek sources of stable revenues:

Home insurance costs vary widely, but all are skewing to the upside.

As I often note, the insurance industry is not a charity, and to maintain profits as payouts for losses explode higher, rates have to climb for everyone–and more for those in regions that are now viewed as high-risk due to massive losses in fires, hurricanes, wind storms, flooding, etc.

All credit-asset bubbles pop, and that inevitable deflation of home valuations will take away the speculative punchbowl. What’s left are the costs of ownership. As these rise, they offset the rich capital gains that home owners have been counting on for decades to make ownership a worthwhile, low-risk investment.

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable. The ideas that have taken hold in the 21st century–that owning a house is a wellspring of future wealth, and everything is now a throwaway destined for the landfill–are based on faulty assumptions, assumptions that have set a banquet of consequences few will find palatable.

*  *  *

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

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tariffs are designed to shift consumer demand toward domestically produced goods. As foreign products become increasingly expensive, driven by levies such as the Trump administration’s 145% effective tariff rate on Chinese imports, consumers are starting to take notice.

Faced with rising prices for foreign goods, some consumers have turned to the internet to determine which products are still made in the United States. 

Google Trends data shows “What products are made in the USA?” reached record highs by mid-April, with data going all the way back to 2004.  

These related search queries are in “breakout” territory:

With an effective tariff rate of 145% on all Chinese goods, Beijing signaled on Wednesday that it is open to trade talks in the near term. In the tit-for-tat tariff war, China has imposed 125% duties on U.S. goods.

In recent weeks, President Trump has paused reciprocal tariffs for countries that chose not to retaliate following “Liberation Day” in early April. The White House announced this week that the administration is in talks with 75 countries to secure new trade deals. Trump held discussions with Japan overnight, calling the talks “big progress.”

Even as trade deals are expected in the coming weeks and months, the broader objective of the tariff strategy is to reshore critical supply chains essential to national security and to position the United States for dominance in the 2030s. Early internet search trend signs suggest that the tariffs are already influencing consumer behavior – this is a great start. 

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

I’d like to talk today about the role of China, the United States, and the European Union, or just Europe in general, in the context of these tariffs and the so-called trade wars.

Right now, President Donald Trump has given a 90-day reprieve from high tariffs. I think that 10% tariffs are still in existence. And they are negotiating with a number of European countries and particularly, Asian dynamic economies, such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. In addition to that, they are targeting China with tit-for-tat tariffs. And we are maybe on the brink—nobody wants it, but we might be on the brink of a trade war, which we’ve addressed in earlier videos.

But here’s my point.

What is the attitude of Europe? 

Roughly, China has a $1 trillion deficit with the world. We have about a $1 trillion deficit in trade with the world. But here’s the ratios. About a third of our deficit is with China, which makes up a third of their surplus. In addition to that, Europe makes up about a third of their surplus.

So, China has called on Europe to join forces with it to prevent all of the retaliatory tariffs that the United States has threatened Europe, which has a $200 billion surplus with us, and China, which has a nearly high $300 billion, maybe even $400 billion, who knows?

It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it, that these illiberal apparatchiks in China would think that a Western democracy would want to join them against the United States?

I don’t think that’s gonna happen. 

But the European Left is very angry at the Trump administration.

So, Choice One might be, “Well, we don’t like the Chinese and we are an ally of the Americans, who subsidize our defense, but we detest the Trump administration. So maybe, (wink and nod) we’ll either be quiet or hope China wins that trade war and the United States, under the Trump administration, backs off all tariffs.”

That would be a big mistake given their vulnerabilities they have with the United States vis-a-vis security.

The second attitude might be the Europeans will just say, “We’ll lay low. We won’t say much at all. We’ll kind of drag out our tariff negotiations with the Trump administration. And we’ll let the Chinese and the United States battle it out. And if Trump should win and he lowers the amount of trade with China, maybe that will be an opening for us to replace China as the United States chief importer.”

That is something that I don’t think will happen.

The third scenario is what I would suggest for the Europeans. They should say the following: “Despite our disagreements with the Trump administration, the United States is an ally. And we know that we have been as victimized by Chinese mercantilism, high tariffs, cheating on patents, copyrights, dumping, financial money manipulation—all the things the United States complains about, we do too. In fact, we as Europeans in a whole have about the same deficit with China as the United States does. So, we are kindred spirits. So, what we will do is, even though we have disagreements on our surplus with the United States and their efforts to reduce it, we will ally with the United States.”

And that would represent about two-thirds of China’s total trade action or monetary value. And especially, if Japan and our allies in South Korea, Taiwan would join, then China would find out that about 85% of its trade is in a block. That is, they are united. And they have common complaints against China. And China would not be able to say to the United States, “We’re going to cut deals with Vietnam and Japan and Taiwan and South Korea and the EU and leave you out in the cold.”

Instead, the Europeans and, to a lesser extent, the Asian powerhouses would join the United States and say, “You know what? We’ve been quiet. We’re afraid of China. They’re bullies. But now that you’ve stood up, we’re embolden ourselves to air the same complaints as you are and hope that you win. And maybe a byproduct of reduced trade with China from the United States will open a door. So, even though we might have to lower our tariffs, there will be more opportunity in the American market with a less prominent Chinese trade profile that we can then be welcomed in as a kindred ally.”

So, Europe has two or three choices in this proposed Chinese-American trade standoff. Nobody wants a trade war with anybody. No one wants it with China. But this is long overdue. And Europe has to decide what course they’re going to take. And for everybody’s sake, let’s hope they choose wisely.