Chicago Mayor’s “Gift Room” Stocked With Jewelry, AirPods, Designer Handbags, And Luxury Shoes
Chicago released a video of its “gift room” and announced new protocols for receiving gifts after a watchdog group accused Mayor Brandon Johnson of improperly accepting and failing to report valuable items.
Mayor Brandon Johnson dismissed the watchdog’s findings as a “mischaracterization”, insisting he never personally benefited from any gifts. The move aims to increase transparency following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), according to Fox News.
Unreported gifts allegedly included jewelry, alcohol, AirPods, designer handbags, and size 14 men’s shoes, raising ethical concerns. Under new protocols effective Tuesday, officials must report gifts within 10 days, store them in a publicly viewable area, and donate excess items.
The Fox News report says that on Wednesday, the city released its first video log, showing artwork, clothing, hats, and shoes, aiming to counter OIG claims that Mayor Johnson previously denied investigators access to the gift room during a November inspection.
“A written log contains 18 pages of items, along with their location and the organization that donated the gifts,” Fox reported.
A statement from the Mayor’s office said: “These procedures reaffirm the Mayor’s commitment to ethical governance and transparency and ensure prompt disclosure of all gifts received on behalf of the City.”
The OIG report documented luxury items received between Feb. 2, 2022, and March 20, 2024, including Hugo Boss cuff links, a personalized Montblanc pen, a U.S. National Soccer Team jersey, a Gucci tote bag, a Kate Spade purse, and Carrucci size 14 shoes.
All of which are totally necessary to be a Mayor…
Meanwhile some items appeared in the Feb. 11 video log, but the tote bag, purse, and shoes were missing from the online log as of Wednesday. Other gifts, such as the cuff links and pen, lacked donor details.
Inspector General Deborah Witzburg criticized the 22-second video, calling it insufficient for transparency and presenting “practical challenges.”
“There are some things visible in the video which are maybe recognizable, but I don’t know that anybody is in a position to look at that video and find the pair of Hugo Boss cuff links or the personalized Montblanc pen,” Witzburg told Fox News Digital. “I don’t know that it lends itself to that. I’m not sure whether it’s intended to.”
She emphasized that the video does not replace public access and voiced concerns that even recently logged gifts lack information about their donors.
Democrats have cast the Trump administration’s ouster of eight senior FBI leaders as a “purge” and act of “retribution” from a weaponized Justice Department, some likening it to President Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”
But former colleagues of the terminated “G-men” say this narrative is backward. FBI officials, past and present, have marshaled significant evidence via whistleblower complaints and testimony indicating that several terminated leaders routinely used their offices for partisan purposes.
These include allegations that at least two of the fired officials, Jeffrey Veltri and Dena Perkins, manipulated the security clearance review process to personally and professionally punish conservatives, COVID-19 vaccine skeptics, and Jan. 6 whistleblowers who reported suspected bureau malfeasance, and retaliated against those who came to the whistleblowers’ defense.
A third, Timothy Dunham, is also alleged to have improperly suspended security clearances.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) read numerous accounts of alleged misconduct perpetrated by these and other officials into the record this morning as the committee considered the nomination of Kash Patel for FBI Director.
One subordinate of the three terminated individuals, a former supervisory special agent in the Security Division, “SecD,” from which Veltri and Perkins hailed, and whom Dunham oversaw, told the committee:
I witnessed abuses committed against multiple employees by FBI senior leaders, particularly by Jeff Veltri and Dena Perkins. I also saw SecD retaliate against five of its own employees for protesting these unlawful practices. Because I spoke out against these abuses, Perkins and Timothy Dunham suspended my security clearance, costing me my job and continuing employment, totaling approximately $700,000 in lost wages and retirement benefits.
Another former FBI official, Marcus Allen, told the committee that Veltri and Perkins “caused the suspension of my security clearance because I questioned whether the FBI Director was truthful to Congress and whether the FBI was obeying the law and Constitution in the January 6, 2021 investigations.” What followed left “financial and emotional damage to me and my family will never be completely restored.”
A third, Special Agent Garret O’Boyle, who has been indefinitely suspended without pay for well over two years in alleged retaliation for whistleblowing, told the committee that Veltri, Perkins, Dunham, “and other leadership up to Christopher Wray, are responsible for what happened to me and my family.”
“Ensuring that they no longer work at the FBI is not retribution; it’s responsible leadership.”
Patel has been nominated to replace Wray, who came under fire from Republicans who believed the bureau targeted Trump supporters, parents, pro-life activists, and others. The Republican allegations informed President Trump’s first-day executive order, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” and his Jan. 31 directive terminating eight high-level figures – including those overseeing branches from counterterrorism to criminal investigations and the heads of the bureau’s Miami and Washington field offices. The memo also called for a review of the work of all FBI personnel pertaining to Jan. 6, numbering 5,000 in all, for misconduct.
While no findings have been issued regarding that larger probe, the Jan. 31 memo, drafted by Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Emil Bove, suggests a legitimate rationale for terminating the FBI leaders. It notes that the bureau and they themselves were complicit in malfeasance pertaining to the Jan. 6 investigation, the weaponization of security clearances, and resisting Justice Department directives. Consequently, Bove wrote, the DOJ did not trust them “to assist in implementing the President’s agenda faithfully.”
The Justice Department did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries in connection with this story, and RCI was unable to reach Veltri, Perkins, Dunham, or the five other terminated officials.
Democrats have assailed the firings.A letter signed by all 10 Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats stated, “Our alarm has only grown in the past two weeks as this purge of experienced career prosecutors and agents has expanded … We can only assume these decisions are intended to prevent the Department from investigating national security and public corruption, while also serving as political retribution against the President’s perceived enemies and stoking fear among the dedicated and talented workforce in our nation’s premier law enforcement agency.”
Sen. Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, added: “These are people who have served our country, protected Americans and put criminals behind bars. Now they have been pushed out simply for doing their jobs.”
A central complaint of the whistleblowers is that, consistent with the Bove memo, FBI officials weaponized security clearances. Specifically, they allege that the bureau’s Security Division has baselessly suspended and/or revoked security clearances in retaliation against those who have made protected disclosures. As maintaining a security clearance is an essential condition of employment, the suspension of one’s clearance typically triggers an indefinite employment suspension without pay. The suspended are also barred from seeking outside employment or accepting gifts. The associated probes can last months and even years, with the targeted waiting first for their cases to be fully investigated and adjudicated, and then sometimes waiting still longer during an appeals process.
The process can be so onerous that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has noted that it can be leveraged to encourage disfavored employees to resign rather than fight a lengthy and costly battle.
While the FBI has denied claims that the Security Division has abused this power in recent years, Horowitz detailed misconduct in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last September. His team had seen evidence indicating that the division had used the investigation and adjudication process to punish whistleblowers.
One whose case Horowitz highlighted involved Marcus Allen, a decorated Marine Corps veteran and award-winning FBI Staff Operations Specialist. Veltri and Perkins allegedly played an integral role in targeting him.
Allen’s duties included supporting the Charlotte, N.C. field office’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in ongoing investigations and intelligence requests pertaining to Jan. 6. This included gathering and sharing relevant open-source information. In September 2021, Allen reported to his supervisors that various news outlets, including RealClearInvestigations, RealClearPolitics, and the New York Times, had reported that confidential FBI informants were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and a “significant counter-story” had formed.
Allen told his colleagues, “There is a good possibility the DC elements of our organization are not being forthright about the events of the day or the influence of government assets.” Minutes later, he forwarded his colleagues an email with a link to a video contrasting the Times’ report with then-FBI Director Wray’s testimony in March 2021 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggesting Wray may not have provided the whole truth about the FBI’s links to Jan. 6.
Suspended Without Pay 27 Months
This would set off a chain of events that would leave Allen suspended and without pay for 27 months – forced, along with his wife, to take early withdrawals from their retirement accounts to make ends meet.
Charlotte field office personnel forwarded Allen’s emails to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel, which passed them to Veltri – then-head of the Security Division section responsible for all personnel investigations.
Rather than first passing concerns to the division’s referral evaluation unit, as is customary, Veltri instigated an immediate investigation on the grounds of Allen’s potential lack of allegiance to the U.S. A successor would call this an “abortion of the process.”
Days later, Veltri received an email from the Charlotte field office, which expressed “added concerns” regarding Allen. Delivered on behalf of that office’s head, then-Special Agent in Charge Robert Wells, one of the eight FBI officials the Trump administration would terminate, it noted that Allen was one of two employees not to attest to his COVID-19 vaccination status, even though President Biden had made vaccination mandatory for all federal employees.
Veltri’s then-Assistant Section Chief Perkins used the email as justification to instruct the FBI’s Insider Threat Office to open an assessment into Allen.
That office would review Allen’s communications and conclude he harbored “hostile views towards the FBI and current administration.” To justify this characterization, it stated that Allen had sent “links from questionable sources,” including RealClearPolitics. It surmised Allen was trafficking in “extremist propaganda” and that he “may pose an insider threat to the FBI.”
Yet a subsequent probe of Allen’s communications by the FBI would find “no information validating” the basis for an investigation into Allen. Interviews with four Charlotte field office officials indicated they lacked evidence that he was disloyal, sympathized with Jan. 6 rioters, or was otherwise ill-equipped to handle his duties.
Despite the misgivings of the investigator and his supervisors on the case, IG Horowitz found that security division management – which included Veltri and Perkins – insisted that Allen’s security clearance be suspended pending investigation.
A January 2022 memorandum did just that, claiming on the basis of his emails and refusal to comply with the vaccine mandate that Allen “promoted unreliable information which indicates support for the events of January 6th” and “espoused conspiratorial views.”
According to the D.C.-based watchdog group that helped represent Allen, Empower Oversight, the agent was in limbo for 27 months while his case was investigated, adjudicated, and appealed.
When interviewed by the security division in connection with his case – some four months after his clearance and pay had been suspended – Allen, a self-described “faithful Catholic,” indicated that “the Holy Spirit compelled him” to make the disclosure that would land him in hot water.
Veltri would allegedly deride Allen for that remark, suggesting, according to another division official represented by Empower Oversight, that he “was delusional for referring to his religious belief … for disclosing wrongdoing.”
Even though, as his counsel has detailed, all line-level employees who reviewed the Allen case believed he should retain his clearance, the bureau revoked his clearance under pressure from management, purportedly including Veltri.
Three individuals within the division responsible for processing Allen’s case would be reassigned in retaliation for disclosing misconduct in the division’s targeting of him.
It was not until May 2024 – after Horowitz’s office had initiated a reprisal investigation – that Allen reached a settlement with the Justice Department, agreeing to resign in exchange for full back pay and reinstatement of his security clearance.
Horowitz’s office would issue a May 2024 memorandum providing employees claiming reprisal additional means to defend themselves against indefinite unpaid suspension in light of Allen’s tribulations.
The Case of Garret O’Boyle
In emotional testimony before Congress last fall, Allen lamented that Special Agent Garret O’Boyle was being subjected to a similarly tortuous process.
O’Boyle, a veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, alleges that he was targeted by Perkins on baseless grounds – and has been suspended without pay for nearly two-and-a-half years.
Empower Oversight, which also serves as his counsel alongside several Security Division whistleblowers, has detailed that in late 2021 and early 2022, O’Boyle began making a series of protected disclosures, first internally regarding FBI COVID-19 policies that he believed were unconstitutional and unlawful, and then to Congress concerning the politicization of the FBI.
Among the congressional disclosures was his view that the bureau may have opened a politically motivated criminal investigation into conservative muckraker Project Veritas – about which the Justice Department had made false claims in court.
In May 2022, Project Veritas published an interview with a masked FBI official making similar claims.
After applying for and being accepted to a new assignment with a start date of September 2022, in August, O’Boyle sold his Kansas home and prepared to move to Virginia with his three children and his wife, who was eight months pregnant. On the first day, upon arriving at his new post, O’Boyle was accused of leaking information to the press and had his security clearance suspended. He and his family were effectively rendered homeless, since he had not closed on his new home, and was left without an income.
The Security Division investigator on O’Boyle’s case had previously told the then-Acting Section Chief Perkins that there was no evidence O’Boyle had leaked anything to the media. Rather, he had disclosed to his superiors that he believed O’Boyle may have made protected disclosures to Congress. Yet, as Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt told the House Judiciary Committee last fall, Perkins “responded that she had already briefed the FBI’s 7th floor that SA O’Boyle was a media leaker, and did not want to correct this misunderstanding.”
Evidence suggests that Veltri and Perkins discussed O’Boyle’s transfer in advance of his move, with whistleblowers inferring that a scheme was hatched to ensnare him.
Shortly after the suspension, Veltri would be made head of the FBI’s Miami field office, its fifth-largest. He would lead the investigation into the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. At the time, earlier reports resurfaced that Veltri had demonstrated an anti-Trump bias, claims the FBI batted down.
The bureau revoked O’Boyle’s security clearance in July 2024 after it became aware he had made protected disclosures to the DOJ inspector general and in advance of coming hearings where O’Boyle’s plight was likely to be exposed.
That month, O’Boyle’s legal team, which also includes the American Center for Law & Justice and Binnall Law Group, filed a “request for reconsideration” of the revocation. That entitles O’Boyle to review the evidence used to justify the revocation. O’Boyle’s team did not receive such information until six months later, on Jan. 30, 2025. The receipt of that information triggers a 30-day period with which to prepare and submit his appeal.
“The crazy Kafkaesque system puts deadlines on the employee, but the FBI has an infinity whenever it wants – zero deadlines on its responses,” Jason Foster, Empower Oversight’s Founder and Chairman, told RCI.
Perkins reportedly pushed an unnamed adjudicator who had recommended ending O’Boyle’s suspension out of his job .
According to this adjudicator’s disclosure to Congress, “Perkins has moved several other employees who report to her for recommending decisions contrary to her interests [and] bases many of her decisions on favoritism.”
She “is considered corrupt and dishonest by FBI employees,” he said.
These claims dovetail with those of a former supervisory special agent at the Security Division — the supervisor whose testimony Chairman Grassley read into the record this morning. The agent, a Democrat, is also represented by Empower Oversight.
In a July 2024 letter summarizing some of the unnamed whistleblower’s claims, Leavitt said his client had observed that:
The outcomes of clearance investigations and adjudications were often pre-determined by the Division’s acting Deputy Assistant Director [Veltri] and the acting Section Chief [Perkins] responsible for security clearance investigations and adjudications, who often overruled line staff and even dictated the wording of documents in the clearance process.
In a related letter to Horowitz and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the FBI official of nearly 20 years disclosed, through Empower, that during his time as a Security Division investigator under the leadership of Veltri and Perkins, it was common for investigators to ask “whether employees under investigation had vocalized support for former President Donald Trump or whether they had vocalized objection to the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Veltri and Perkins allegedly would “ask in staff meetings whether employees whose clearances were under investigation had received the vaccine.”
The supervisory special agent asserted that the duo’s perspective “was that if an FBI employee fit a certain profile as a political conservative, they were viewed as security concerns and unworthy to work at the FBI.”
In April 2022, investigators overseen by Veltri and Perkins issued a questionnaire reflecting this view in connecting with a probe of a 12-year FBI veteran whose security clearance had been suspended one month prior.
Under penalty of potential disciplinary action, investigators asked co-workers of the suspended employee whether he had vocalized “support for President Trump,” “objection to COVID-19 vaccination,” or “intent to attend 01/06/2021” – a reference to the Capitol riot.
The suspension came some 15 months after the agent had self-reported, following the events of Jan. 6, that while on personal leave, he had peacefully observed activities among crowds near the Capitol. After making disclosures to Congress regarding alleged politicization and security clearance process abuses in his case and others, he would have his security clearance revoked. After appealing, with the process dragging on, the agent retired.
As for the longtime supervisory special agent who had reported on Veltri and Perkins’ misconduct, he too had his security clearance suspended. Foster told RCI that the individual who signed off on the agent’s suspension was Timothy Dunham.
Another unnamed Empower client, Foster told RCI, claims that Dunham threatened to suspend the individual’s security clearance as a means of retaliation and delayed reinstating the security clearance of another employee for over a year.
Dunham served as the executive assistant director of the FBI’s human resources branch – under which the Security Division sits – from the summer of 2023 until his termination, pursuant to the Bove memorandum.
These terminations may be only the beginning of efforts to remedy alleged malfeasance pertaining to whistleblowers. Attorney General Pam Bondi, in establishing the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group shortly after her confirmation, indicated that one of its focuses will be examining “the retaliatory targeting, and in some instances criminal prosecution, of legitimate whistleblowers.”
Musk’s xAI Reportedly In Talks For $10B Raise At $75B Valuation As Grok 3 Launch Nears
Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI, is reportedly seeking to raise more than $10 billion in new funding, which would value the startup at $75 billion. The latest fundraising round comes amid reports that Dell is finalizing a major deal with xAI to supply advanced AI servers. Additionally, earlier this week, Musk and a group of investors made an offer to acquire Microsoft-backed OpenAI.
Bloomberg cited folks familiar with the fundraising talks and noted that Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, and Valor Equity Partners will be existing investors in the deal. They said that xAI is canvassing potential investors, adding that the terms of the new funding round have yet to be finalized and could still change.
Data compiled by PitchBook shows that xAI has raised billions at a breakneck pace, with its most recent valuation at $51 billion. More recently, The New York Post reported that the AI startup could be valued at upwards of $75 billion. The company secured $6 billion in funding during a Series C round in December, following another $6 billion raise in May.
The Series C round included Andreessen Horowitz, Fidelity Investments, BlackRock, Kingdom Holdings, Lightspeed Venture Partners, MGX, Morgan Stanley, Oman Investment Authority, the Qatar Investment Authority, Sequoia, Valor, and Vy Capital, among others.
Earlier Friday, Bloomberg reported that xAI was preparing to lock in a deal with Dell for $5 billion worth of Nvidia GB200 AI servers to power its chatbot Grok and other AI services. Much of xAI’s computing is located at the 271-acre site in southwest Memphis, which the startup considers the world’s largest supercomputer.
On Monday, Musk and a group of investors made a $97.4 billion offer to purchase the nonprofit that controls OpenAI.
Sources familiar with discussions surrounding xAI’s latest fundraising round did not specify how the funds would be allocated.
Separately, Musk’s X recently wrapped up a sale of debt that had “upsized” demand from large, high-yield fund managers. Musk indicated that the social media platform’s multi-year advertising boycott by corrupt Deep State-controlled NGOs has wound down.
“Revenue should improve rapidly this year, as the advertising boycott winds down,” Musk wrote on X last week.
Talks of a potential fundraising round at xAI come as Musk revealed at the World Governments Summit in Dubai on Thursday that “Grok 3 has very powerful reasoning capabilities, so in the tests that we’ve done thus far, Grok 3 is outperforming anything that’s been released that we’re aware of, so that’s a good sign,” adding that the new chatbot would be released in a week or two.
Per NYT:
The sky is the limit for xAI’s valuation if Musk streamlines the government with AI.
Orange futures in New York are on track for the sharpest weekly drop in 57 years. Over the past several weeks, the market has been engulfed in a downright panic, with prices sliding for ten consecutive sessions. The catalyst behind the sharp selloff remains unclear.
By Friday afternoon, the weekly percentage change for orange juice futures in New York was 22.5%, marking the worst weekly decline since the first week of November 1968.
The futures spread between the March and May orange juice contracts has shifted from backwardation to contango, signaling a drastic change in market dynamics and potential easing of near-term supply constraints.
No single factor is driving the sharp decline in orange juice contracts – that we can see. There’s no word on whether drivers include improved weather conditions in Florida and Brazil or a liquidity crunch forced long positions to unwind in panic. Whatever the catalyst, the selloff was swift and severe.
The OJ crash brings to mind the movie “Trading Places,” starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, in which the duo profits from a collapse in frozen concentrated orange juice futures contracts.
The iconic line from the movie: “Sell, Mortimer! Sell!”
Taiwan Semi Weighs Buying Controlling Stake In Intel’s Factories
Earlier today we noted that one-time chip giant Intel, which has devolved to a shadow of its former self after years of catastrophic management decisions which cost former CEO Pat Gelsinger his job, just had its best week in history…
… after VP Vance, speaking at an AI summit in Paris on Tuesday, noted the Trump administration would boost domestic chip production. Momentum continued on Wednesday after a report from Robert W. Baird analysts suggested that the Trump team is working to broker a joint venture between Intel and TSMC, one which would focus on something we said last August has excess value at the Intel enterprise, namely its fabs.
Intel has 15 fabs; the fabs alone are worth $10bn/each in liquidation value.
Then moments ago, Bloomberg confirmed just that when it reported that Taiwan’s chip giant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, or TSMC, is considering taking a controlling stake in Intel Corp.’s factories to increase US chip production, at the request of Trump administration officials as the president looks to boost American manufacturing and maintain US leadership in critical technologies.
Trump’s team raised the idea of a deal between the two companies in recent meetings with officials from the Taiwanese chipmaker, a source told Bloomberg, and TSMC was receptive. It’s unclear whether Intel is open to a transaction, although at the right price, it will be.
Bloomberg notes that the talks are in very early stages, and the exact structure of a potential partnership hasn’t been established, although – again – with the stock plumbing the lowest level in decades, even a modest takeout premium would likely be considered by the board.
The intended result of the deal would see the world’s largest made-to-order chipmaker fully operating Intel’s US semiconductor factories. It also would address concerns about Intel’s deteriorating financial state, which has forced the company to slash jobs and curb its global expansion plans.
In short, this would be a takeover, although the deal remains fluid. The arrangement may involve having major American chip designers take equity stakes, according to the person, along with support from the US government. That means the venture wouldn’t solely be owned by a foreign company. TSMC is the go-to chipmaker for Apple, Nvidia and other companies developing semiconductors that power AI algorithms.
Under former CEO Pat Gelsinger, Intel embarked on an ambitious and expensive plan to restore its chipmaking lead, and the company won $7.9 billion in US government funding to support projects in four states. It’s also secured $3 billion to produce chips for the US military, all of which will be paid out over time as Intel’s plants hit key milestones. The company has received $2.2 billion as of January.
But that effort has so far failed to attract enough outside customers to make the investments worthwhile, particularly at a new site in Ohio. Intel’s own products also are losing market share, adding to the overall squeeze on its finances — just when it needs spend heavily. Gelsinger was forced out in December after the board lost confidence in his turnaround plans.
* * *
Intel shares are on track for their strongest weekly gain on record, based on Bloomberg trading data dating back to 1982. Investor enthusiasm surged after Vice President JD Vance, speaking at an AI summit in Paris on Tuesday, noted the Trump administration would boost domestic chip production. Momentum continued on Wednesday after a report from Robert W. Baird analysts suggested that the Trump team is working to broker a joint venture between Intel and TSMC.
On Tuesday, at the AI summit in Paris, VP Vance told the audience: “The Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the U.S. with American-designed and manufactured chips.”
One day later, that was followed by a note via Robert W. Baird analysts claiming that the Trump team was pushing Intel and TSMC to form a joint chip production venture.
“There are discussions from the Asia supply chain that the U.S. government will get involved in potentially the following: TSMC would send engineers to Intel’s 3nm/2nm fab, applying the company’s know-how to ensure that the fab and subsequent manufacturing projects from Intel become viable,” Baird’s Tristan Gerra told clients.
Gerra said, “The fab could be spun off into a new entity jointly owned by TSMC and Intel, and run by TSMC. The new entity would receive U.S. Chip Act funding.”
“While there is no confirmation and potential completion of this project could be lengthy, we think this move makes sense,” she noted.
On a separate note, Goldman’s Bruce Lu, Toshiya Hari, and others provided clients on Friday with a closer look at the JV rumors involving Intel and TSMC:
Media has speculated that TSMC and Intel (covered by Toshiya Hari) may be forming a joint venture to enhance U.S. chip manufacturing capabilities or that Intel may be considering spinning off its semiconductor fabrication unit to create a collaborative venture with TSMC with TSMC providing technical expertise and engineers to support advanced chip production at Intel’s fabs.
At a glance: Fundamentally, the strategic merit for a potential JV seems unclear as TSMC and Intel operate under different business models and different tool sets which would likely require extra investment e.g. for purchasing/retiring equipment. For Intel and TSMC, even when looking at comparable technology nodes, some processes and equipment used are different. Also, Intel’s equipment is generally for older process nodes, which is not the primary area of focus for capacity expansion for TSMC (i.e. TSMC’s spending currently is mostly for its N2 expansion).
Additionally, TSMC’s business strategy has been to remain independent and avoid entering into JVs that could compromise its neutral status with other clients. More importantly, TSMC’s advanced nodes technology is its own property with proprietary processes, and is a key competitive advantage. Sharing this technology with a direct competitor like Intel could undermine its market position. Additionally, TSMC has historically been very cautious about sharing its intellectual property with other companies, especially with those in direct competition within the semiconductor space. Therefore, a technology transfer agreement between TSMC and Intel would seem uncharacteristic of TSMC’s strategy.
Another outstanding issue is potential anti-trust implications of any TSMC/Intel partnership/JV given the dominant market positions of the two companies. However, to note, Intel and UMC announced a foundry collaboration in January 2024, the two companies will jointly develop a 12nm process platform. UMC will be leveraging Intel’s existing equipment in Intel’s existing fabs, with mass production timeline expected to begin in 2027 (see also: Intel/UMC new foundry collaboration; we view it as a positive strategic move for both companies, 26 January 2024).
The JV rumors have been more than enough to spark buying panic in beaten-down Intel shares.
Ongoing geopolitical turmoil, coupled with Intel’s financial and execution struggles, have generated various rumors surrounding the blue giant. In this case, significant technological and business hurdles — ranging from differences in tooling process recipes at Intel and TSMC to TSMC’s lack of incentive to aid a competitor — cast doubt on the feasibility of such a partnership.
High-Explosive Drone Pierces Shell Of Chernobyl Nuclear Plant At Very Moment Trump Pushes Ukraine Toward Peace
On Friday just prior to high-level meetings among Western security officials and Ukrainian leadership commencing in Munich, including US Vice President J.D. Vance and Zelensky, there was a dangerous incident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine’s Kyiv oblast.
Ukraine’s President Zelensky accused Russia of launching a drone equipped with a high-explosive warhead at the historic, defunct power plant, site of the April 1986 nuclear disaster and meltdown. The drone reportedly hit the protective containment shell of the Chernobyl plant.
Zelensky’s office released footage showing an impact to the giant concrete and steel shield protecting the remains of the nuclear reactor. BBC writes that “The shield is designed to prevent further radioactive material leaking out over the next century. It measures 275m (900ft) wide and 108m (354ft) tall and cost $1.6bn (£1.3bn) to construct.”
And WaPo details further of the looming potential dangers:
In 2019, construction was completed on the New Safe Confinement — a $1.7 billion arch-shaped steel structure, which would contain the destroyed reactor. The site still contained some “200 tons of highly radioactive material,” according to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which helped finance the project.
Thus the situation is deeply alarming given the potential for a new radiation leak at the site which could impact the region, or even Europe. An IAEA team on the ground said it heard an explosion at around 01:50 local time coming from the New Safe Confinement (NSC) shelter. Photos showed flames at the top of the huge structure.
The UN agency is on high alert, but issued a statement saying the drone strike did not breach the plant’s inner containment shell. The IAEA also did not attribute blame, not identifying who sent the drone.
The Kremlin strongly rejected that it was behind the incident:
“There is no talk about strikes on nuclear infrastructure, nuclear energy facilities, any such claim isn’t true, our military doesn’t do that,” Peskov told reporters in a call.
Russian state media has meanwhile been warning of efforts by bad actors to sabotage Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine, after he held a 90-minute phone call with President Vladimir Putin this week.
Serious damage to the protective shield remains, which could present an ongoing serious safety issue at the site:
Simon Evans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was head of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, which oversaw the construction of the protective dome in the 2010s.
He described the apparent strike as “an incredibly reckless attack on a vulnerable nuclear facility”.
The shield “was never built to withstand external drone attack”, he told the BBC.
Given this, why would Russia at this very moment while Trump and Putin are trying to line up peace talks launch a high-explosive drone at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant?
Cui bono?…
Raise your hand if Zelensky is desperate enough to fake a Russian attack on Chernobyl to keep the US from attempting peace talks? Is he that stupid? pic.twitter.com/cQ1dJknhrX
Zelensky has asserted that Putin is not actually ready for or seeking legitimate negotiations, contradicting recent statements coming from the Trump White House.
On Friday, he claimed: “The only country in the world that attacks such sites, occupies nuclear power plants, and wages war without any regard for the consequences is today’s Russia.”
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate has in a fresh statement said that while the drone damaged “the external integrity” of the New Safe Confinement “and equipment in the crane maintenance garage” – it remains that there are no observable radiation spikes. “Firefighting efforts and damage assessment are ongoing,” it added.
Was this a desperate CHERNOBYL 2.0 ATTEMPT? Whodunnit?
Given that Chernobyl is a name that has captured popular imagination for decades since the apocalyptic historic disaster left the vicinity basically a radiation death zone, it could present the perfect false flag opportunity for anyone wishing to prolong and escalate the war.
Only Ukraine’s Zelensky Can Negotiate With Putin, Must Avoid ‘Capitulation’: Macron
French President Emmanuel Macron just ahead of the start of Friday’s Munich Security Conference, which will run through the weekend, declared that only Ukraine’s President Zelensky can negotiate with Putin.
It was a shot across the bow warning against Trump’s peace plan, the contours of which are beginning to show, with the French leader saying it could amount to “capitulation” if Russia isn’t forced to make any serious concessions.
Macron warned in a fresh interview with the Financial Times that a “peace that is a capitulation” would be “bad news for everyone” – including the United Sates and that fundamentally it must be the Ukrainians driving the talks.
Yet the reality is that Ukraine is not in the driver’s seat on the battlefield, where the conflict is being decided. And the outcome of talks is going to reflect this lack of true military leverage.
Macron continued, “The only question at this stage is whether President Putin is genuinely, sustainably and credibly willing to agree to a ceasefire on this basis. After that, it’s up to the Ukrainians to negotiate with Russia.”
Thus Macron did make clear that he’s open to this “window of opportunity” for a negotiated solution which Trump is jump-starting. He said that “everyone has to play their role.”
There are aspects of Trump’s emerging plan that Macron appears to have welcomed, per the FT:
Nonetheless, the French president endorsed the Trump administration’s position that it was Europe’s responsibility to ensure Ukraine’s security, saying it stemmed from a generational and bipartisan shift in America’s foreign policy priorities away from Europe and towards Asia.
US unilateralism did not start with Trump’s return to power, Macron added, noting that he “did not receive a call” in advance from the Biden administration about its “Aukus” nuclear submarine deal with Australia and the UK or about its withdrawal from Afghanistan. “What Trump is saying to Europe is that it is up to you to carry the burden. And I say, it is up to us to take it on,” Macron said.
Trump policy toward Europe and ending the Ukraine war is now widely being referred to as ‘electroshock’ in various publications after the Macron interview:
The message is clear – an ‘electroshock’, as French President Emmanuel Macron called it: European countries will have to step up defense spending if they intend to protect themselves from Russian aggression.
Macron to the FT : Trump brought “ element of strategic disruption”. It’s for Zelenskyy “alone” to discuss “territorial and sovereignty issues”. And “up to the international community, with a specific role for the Europeans, to discuss security guarantees https://t.co/5O46RaDf7z
Other European leaders have displayed outright anger over what they say is going over Zelensky’s head and showing willingness to deal directly with Putin. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Friday blasted the potential for peace talks that would cut out Zelensky or the Europeans.
“A sham peace — over the heads of Ukrainians and Europeans — would gain nothing,” Baerbock said at the start of the security conference. “A sham peace would not bring lasting security, neither for the people in Ukraine nor for us in Europe or the United States,” she added, according to Reuters.
Meta Plans For New AI Humanoid Robot For “Household Chores”; Headline Fuels Stock Rally
For Meta Platforms’ multi-week stock rally to continue the upward momentum and achieve a near-term $2 trillion market capitalization, a timely late-morning report outlined the social media giant’s next big move: AI-powered humanoid robots.
Bloomberg reports that Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta plans to invest in futuristic robots that can perform human tasks. This initiative will be under a new team formed within its Reality Labs hardware division, according to sources familiar with the investment.
The humanoid robots will be trained on the most typical household chores.
Here’s more from the report:
Meta plans to work on its own humanoid robot hardware, with an initial focus on household chores. Its bigger ambition is to make the underlying AI, sensors and software for robots that will be manufactured and sold by a range of companies, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the initiative hasn’t been announced.
Meta has started discussing its plan with robotics companies, including Unitree Robotics and Figure AI Inc.
Meta’s dive into humanoid robots mirrors Elon Musk’s Tesla Optimus, a bi-pedal, autonomous humanoid robot designed to complete unsafe, repetitive, or boring tasks.
Meta confirmed the creation of the new Reality Labs team, which will focus on the development of AI-powered humanoid robots. The team will be led by Marc Whitten, who resigned earlier this month as CEO of General Motors’ Cruise self-driving car division.
“The core technologies we’ve already invested in and built across Reality Labs and AI are complementary to developing the advancements needed for robotics,” Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth wrote in a memo that Bloomberg reviewed.
The report sent Meta shares higher, up about 1.3% in the late morning trading session, into record-high territory. Shares are on track for a 20-day rally and just $150 billion shy of a $2 trillion market cap.
The timing of the Meta report was critical and added just enough momentum to keep the pump alive into the lunch hour.
Vance Hits Back At Headlines On US Military Action As His Meeting With Zelensky Begins
Update(11:50ET): Just before going into his scheduled meeting with Ukraine’s President Zelensky, Vice President J.D. Vance has pushed back against the international headlines which claimed he threatened military action against Russia if it doesn’t take a deal to end the war, based on a Friday published WSJ interview. Here’s what Vance clarified on X:
President Trump is the ultimate deal maker and will bring peace to the region by ending the war in Ukraine. As we’ve always said, American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security. This war is between Russia and Ukraine. https://t.co/8CDpLkSaY7
As we noted below, this comes on the heels of Defense Secretary Hegseth also clarifying: “To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” he said.
It’s also clear that the US administration has laid out a stance that Europe must ultimately be responsible for Ukraine’s security.
Hence, Vance’s statement also assures that American “troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security. This war is between Russia and Ukraine.”
Indeed, the WSJ made big assumptions and inferences, based on an aside in the interview, which was picked up internationally:
Trump is indeed seeking to disentangle American troops from foreign quagmires, most especially in eastern Europe, and not bog the Pentagon down further, as has been the mandate given by American voters.
* * *
Now that Trump and Putin have agreed to organize a summit in hopes of fast-tracking Ukraine peace, each side is trying to build up leverage going in, and that’s resulting in a return to some provocative and jingoistic threats.
Vice President JD Vance while at the Munich Security Conference warned that Washington could hit Russia with more sanctions and even use “military tools” on the table if it refuses to agree to a deal allowing Ukraine’s long-term independence. He issued the words to The Wall Street Journal, saying “There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage.”
“There are any number of formulations, of configurations, but we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence,” the vice president continued.
This was the most hawkish warning yet issued by the Trump administration in the context of pressing for a final Ukraine negotiated settlement with Moscow. He further assured European allies that Trump will not go into talks with Putin with “blinders on” and that “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal.”
Vance also said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
Vance is expected to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy later Friday for talks that many observers, particularly in Europe, hope will shed at least some light on Trump’s ideas for a negotiated settlement to the war.
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the conference that everyone “wants this war to end.” But “how this war ends,” he said, “will have a lasting influence on our security order and on the position of power of Europe and America in the world.”
Kiev, as well as some in Washington, have been worried that the administration squandered its biggest leverage in Defense Secretary Hegseth’s declaration earlier this week that there will be no future NATO membership for Ukraine.
“Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength, with strong and reliable security guarantees, and that NATO membership would be the most cost-effective for partners,” Zelenskyy said on X.
And then uber-hawks like Bolton sounded off, reflecting the old Republican neocon mentality which Trump has been warring against…
It is unconscionable to allow Russia to assault Ukraine’s sovereignty, recruit enemies like North Korea to aid in their fight, and then sell out the Ukrainians by conceding the loss of their territory and NATO security guarantees or membership. By making these and others…
Last year, NATO officials, including the Secretary-General himself – not infrequently talked up an “irreversible path” to eventual membership in the alliance, but those hopes were dashed with Hegseth’s speech before NATO HQ in Brussels.
“The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,” Hegseth had said, adding that security guarantees for Ukraine “must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
“To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” he said. His newest Friday remarks of a military option on the table if Putin refuses to make a deal somewhat contradicts this prior assurance. However, it’s also clear that the administration has laid out a stance that Europe must ultimately be responsible for Ukraine’s security.
The Europeans continue to express anger over Trump essentially going over Zelensky’s head and showing willingness to deal directly with Putin. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Friday blasted the potential for peace talks that would cut out Zelensky or the Europeans.
“A sham peace — over the heads of Ukrainians and Europeans — would gain nothing,” Baerbock said at the start of the security conference. “A sham peace would not bring lasting security, neither for the people in Ukraine nor for us in Europe or the United States,” she added, according to Reuters.
Zelensky remains skeptical and resistant…
Zelensky:
I don’t think that the US has a ready plan to end the war.
I will hold talks today with the US Vice President Vance on the situation in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/7jLRNbsYkC
Moscow is meanwhile cautioning that it could take months for talks to get off the ground, walking back some of its initial obvious enthusiasm – again in an attempt to maintain its leverage. State media was positively giddy when Trump spoke to Putin in a 90-minute call this week, and as Hegseth denied NATO membership for Ukraine. Neither side wants to look too ‘eager’ at this early phase. It could indeed become a long-haul before a peace deal is hopefully reached.
But the longer it takes to achieve ceasefire and peace, the more potential for some kind of destructive and shocking mass event which triggers bigger escalation between Russia and the West. Such as…
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says that a Russian attack drone carrying “a high-explosive warhead” struck the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, piercing the protective structure over reactor no. 4 — the site of the 1986 disaster. Video and photos show a large hole and fire, now… https://t.co/ObACvCOnGz
By Bas van Geffen, senior macro strategist at Rabobank
He may not like the Fed’s policies much, but President Trump sure seems to like the central bank’s methods. Yesterday was “THE BIG ONE: RECIPROCAL TARIFFS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump had flagged earlier that his team was working on reciprocal tariffs, and before the actual press announcement, this Truth gave another bit of forward guidance.
And, in fact, the entire announcement felt a little like forward guidance from the US President: the reciprocal tariffs will only be brought into effect some weeks from now, leaving room for countries to negotiate, or perhaps, lower their own tariff rates in order to avoid being hit by these new reciprocal rates.
The complexity of determining reciprocal tariffs on thousands of products from more than 150 countries could be another reason for the delay. And its not as easy as comparing current tariff rates: President Trump also explicitly mentions non-trade barriers. The US probably does not want to copy these one-for-one, since that would put part of US’ trade policies under the control of its trading partners. But discounting non-trade barriers into a fair tariff rate will be more challenging.
Furthermore, the plans include “examining non-reciprocal trade relationships, […] including any unfair, discriminatory, or extraterritorial taxes […], including a value added tax” Extraterritorial taxes is a clear hint at the Digital Services Taxes imposed by several European Union member states. But his inclusion of value-added taxes is a bit more curious, perhaps.
Why is VAT so important in reciprocal tariffs? Here is the tariff increase with and without VAT. Trump just said he will include VAT. pic.twitter.com/pdJDhYmZwT
In a Truth, he again underscored that “for purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff.” Does this mean that any country that charges a higher VAT than the US will see the difference added on in the form of an import tariff? Note that the United States do not charge a VAT; there are sales taxes that can differ per state.
Moreover, one can certainly wonder what Trump finds so unfair about VAT. The system is commonly applied on all goods sold, whether imported or domestically produced. So it appears that, within any country, a VAT does not favor domestic products over US exports.
But there may be some method to this madness. The US President wants to rebalance trade flows, and nudging countries off the VAT system might be a means to that end. If the US forces its trading partners to adopt lower VAT rates, the respective governments would have to generate revenue from other sources, say corporate or income taxes. This accomplishes two things. First, it may raise the relative costs of production in the foreign country – especially if the US is deregulating and cutting taxes at the same time. Secondly, even if the average tax rate does not change when the country switches from VAT to income tax, the relative cost of consumption decreases. And higher consumption in the trading partner might benefit US net exports to the country.
Whether this forward guidance was Trump’s plan all along, or just happy coincidence, the April 1 deadline (not a joke!) appears to be far enough away for markets to shrug most of the tariff news off. Although the tariffs could cause upheaval in global trade, there is still plenty of hopium that world leaders will try to strike a deal with the US president.
Dialogue and negotiations are certainly one element of the European Union’s response. But one of the EU’s top officials reportedly already tried this angle ahead of the steel and aluminium tariffs, and failed to de-escalate the trade tensions. So the bloc is also preparing to hit back hard. A first package of counter-tariffs is reportedly ready to be deployed, as a response to Trump’s planned tariff hike on steel and aluminium. On March 31, the suspension of counter-tariffs to Trump’s 2018 aluminium and steel tariffs expires. If the EU does not vote to extend this, these tariffs will automatically come into force again.
Moreover, since Trump’s first term, the EU has significantly extended its options to respond to any trade tensions. For example, the European Union’s new ‘Anti-Coercion Instrument’ could be deployed if Brussels believes that tariffs and other trade policies are being used to coerce a policy change elsewhere. Tariffs in order to get European countries to drop their digital services taxes, or to change their VAT system, arguably both fall into this category. The instrument is yet untested, but potentially very powerful. In addition to import and export restrictions on goods and services, it would also allow the EU to block certain foreign-direct investments and to suspend international obligations in numerous fields, including property rights.
The tariff announcement almost makes one forget that just the day before Trump blindsided European leaders by re-opening communications with President Putin. And the initial outlines of a potential agreement sketched by US Defense Secretary Hegseth led to much dismay in European capitals. The US is pivoting to the Pacific, and Europe now faces the choice to quickly scale up its own defense capabilities, or to let others decide the bloc’s future for it.
According to Politico, European leaders are still in a state that’s a “mix of fear and denial.” So far, denial also appears to be the markets’ coping mechanism for the big shifts that are afoot.
