Cocoa Prices Go Bitter After Hershey CEO Spots “Demand Destruction”
Cocoa futures declined in New York following comments from Hershey CEO Michele Buck, who indicated on an earnings call with investors that signs of potential demand weakness are emerging.
Earlier, Piper Sandler analyst Michael Lavery asked CEO Buck:
“You mentioned in – you mentioned in your prepared remarks, you’re seeing cocoa end-users adapting through reformulation. Could you maybe touch on what exactly you’re seeing there and if you are reformulating yourselves as well?”
Buck responded:
“We have been seeing some increased global demand across the market for cocoa alternatives. So we are seeing some folks who are pressured and who perhaps have the opportunity to switch to cocoa butter alternatives. Obviously, we’re — we do that where possible, but we’re pretty precious about the brands and what they stand for with consumers.”
And she continued (this is what caught the attention of the cocoa traders…):
“Yeah, it does create some demand destruction in the market as we see others do that.”
Bloomberg noted that Buck’s concerns about souring demand aligned with those of Mondelez CFO Luca Zaramella, who stated earlier this week that cocoa consumption is sliding in parts of the world, including North America.
The most active cocoa futures in New York nearly doubled in the latter parts of 2024 on a bleak production outlook for cocoa farms across West Africa. Contracts fell about 5% on Thursday, hovering around the $10,000 per ton level by lunch.
Last month, a Bloomberg report specified that Hershey was trying to gain approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to purchase a massive amount of cocoa through the New York exchange.
Panic Hedge? Hershey Reportedly Asks CFTC Approval To Buy Huge Cocoa Pile On NY Exchange https://t.co/F2dTAh0aQ4
“The headlines on Hershey today suggest the outlook for confectionary (cocoa) cost inflation is getting even more extreme,” Goldman’s Natasha de la Grense told clients following the Bloomberg report.
In mid-December, Goldman’s commodity derivatives analyst Hugo Fuentes told clients to “go long cocoa” as “prices are positioned for significant upside driven by structural supply deficits, under-hedged consumers, and historically low warehouse stocks.”
Signs of demand destruction may spook the cocoa rally, and potentially, some of the first signs are materializing this week with Hershey and Mondelez.
The study, published in Nature Medicine on Feb. 3, confirms that tiny plastic fragments are passing through the brain’s protective blood-brain barrier, potentially impacting health and cognitive function.
Researchers from the University of New Mexico (UNM) tested autopsy samples from 2016 and 2024. They found that over just 8 years, the amount of microplastic fragments in the brain has increased by about 50 percent. Brain samples from 2024 contained microplastics equal in weight to a plastic spoon.
Brains affected by dementia showed significantly higher concentrations of these plastic particles.
Finding such high concentrations in the brain was unexpected and alarming, Matthew Campen, lead researcher and toxicologist, told The Epoch Times during a press conference.
“People are simply being exposed to ever-increasing levels of micro- and nanoplastics,” said Campen. The particles are so small, they’re roughly the width of two COVID viruses standing side by side, he noted.
The rate of accumulation “is simply mirroring the environmental buildup and exposure.” As plastic breaks down over time, it degrades and becomes small enough to enter the human body and brain.
Plastic Pollution in Organs
Brain tissue contained 7 to 30 times more microplastics than other vital organs like the livers or kidneys, making it one of the most plastic-polluted tissues yet examined.
Researchers tested 52 human brain samples from both 2016 and 2024, all taken from the frontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for judgment, decision-making, and muscle movement.
In the brain, the microplastic concentration reached around 5,000 micrograms per gram—far higher than the liver and kidneys, which carried around 400 micrograms of plastics per gram.
The study also compared earlier brain samples from the eastern U.S. (1997–2013), which had lower microplastic levels, around 1,250 micrograms per gram. Their findings support a trend of gradual increases in plastic accumulation in the organs over time, with 2024 showing the highest levels.
To visualize the amount of microplastics in the brain, Campen held up a plastic spoon. Since the brain weighs around 1,400 grams (or three pounds), having 5,000 micrograms of plastic per gram would amount to over 5 grams of plastic in total—roughly the weight of a plastic spoon.
In deceased people with dementia, levels reached much higher levels of over 26,000 micrograms per gram. In the dementia samples, some particles were clumped together in areas with inflammation, raising concerns about a possible link between microplastics and brain tissue damage, according to the researchers.
However, while the study correlates microplastics to dementia, the study does not prove that higher plastic levels in the brain directly cause dementia symptoms.
It is also possible that the disease process itself may hinder the brain’s ability to clear out the accumulated plastics, Campen added.
Common Plastic Found in the Brain
Researchers found 12 types of plastic in the brain, with polyethylene (PE), commonly used in bottles, bags, and containers, making up 75 percent of the total. Other plastics included types commonly found in packaging, car parts, pipes, flooring, bottles, containers, fabrics, and other industrial products.
“It was notable that these are largely mirroring proportions of polymers that we do see in our environment,” Marcus Garcia, study co-author and postdoctoral researcher at UNM, explained to The Epoch Times during the press briefing.
The particles in the brain were mostly sharp nanoscale shards and flakes. These tiny particles are small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier, although Campen says it’s still unclear how exactly the particles enter the brain.
Researchers believe that micro- and nanoplastics may enter the body through eating, drinking, and breathing. These particles have been found in various parts of the body, including arteries, hearts, lungs, blood, and placentas. A study published on Jan. 30 found plastic pollution to be significantly higher in placentas from premature births.
One possible reason for the buildup, according to Garcia, is that organs like the liver and kidneys are designed to filter toxins, while the brain has more limited clearance systems.
Another theory is that brain tissue, which is about 60 percent fat, may better “trap” plastic particles.
“If you’ve ever cleaned a Tupperware bowl that had bacon grease or butter in it, you know, it takes a lot of soap and hot water. It’s really hard to get the plastics and fats apart,” Campen said. He suggests that microplastics might be “hijacking” their way into the brain along with dietary fats being metabolized.
The finding also lends concerns to plastics being used in some medical applications, like heart stents or artificial joints.
According to Campen, the physical properties of the plastic particles could be the main issue, rather than any chemical toxicity.
These plastics might obstruct blood flow in capillaries, he speculated. There is also the potential that they could interfere with the connections between brain cells. But “we just don’t know for sure.”
Bigger Picture
Despite the concerning rise in microplastics, Campen believes the data provide some optimism: The observation that plastic levels are similar in both older and younger people suggests that there may be natural processes at play to help manage or rid the body of them over time.
The researchers believe that many of these particles come from older “decades old, degraded plastics” that have been discarded and left to break down in the environment over the years, Campen said. This insight can help guide environmental policies that include older sources, rather than focusing solely on newer products.
Effective environmental policies aimed at reducing plastic pollution could help limit future exposure, Campen said. Microplastic pollution is increasing rapidly, with levels in the environment doubling every 10 to 15 years, he said, and adding that addressing the source of this pollution could help slow down this build up in our bodies.
Currently, no treatment exists to remove microplastics from the body. To help reduce exposure, Campen and his colleagues are investigating the sources of microplastics in the environment, including in soil, plants, and even meat.
“I don’t feel comfortable with this much plastic in my brain,” Campen said. “I don’t want to wait 30 more years to see what happens if the concentrations keep rising.”
Iran Inaugurates First-Ever Drone Carrier Warship In Persian Gulf
Iran on Thursday unveiled and inaugurated its first ever drone-carrier warship, which features a 180-meter long runway for UAVS, and which is capable of carry several helicopters.
Manned by the elite paramilitary Revolutionary Guard’s navy (IRGC), the vessel is dubbed Shahid Bagheri, and is further capable of launching cruise missiles.
Iran’s military and media is touting that the ship is able to travel “independently” across the globe’s oceans for up to one year, and it can go up to 22,000 nautical miles without needing to refuel in ports.
The vessel began its life as a commercial ship, and was overhauled and completely re-outfitted for as a drone carrier.
“The Revolutionary Guards took action to transform a commercial ship… into a mobile naval platform capable of carrying out drone and helicopter missions in the oceans,” said Navy Commander of the Revolutionary Guards Alireza Tangsiri.
“The addition of this ship to our fleet is an important step in increasing the defense and deterrence capability of Iran in distant waters and in maintaining our national security interests,” Tangsiri added.
State IRNA has touted that the carrier has a capacity of carrying 60 drones. A state TV broadcast unveiling the Shahid Bagheri showed at least four helicopters and three UAVs on the warship’s runway at the time of the footage.
Tehran officials are further hailing it as the “largest naval military project” in the history of the Islamic Republic.
State media footage featuring the drone carrier in action…
Chief of the Guard’s navy Adm. Ali Reza Tangsiri described that the project to transform a commercial vessel into a drone warship took over two years, and that it even features a hospital and gym for the crew.
Some military analysts in the West have criticized that Iran’s drone arsenal mainly consists of much bigger drones, and that the released footage seems to feature smaller RC jet planes.
In that sense, it would indeed be a lot of fun to launch RC planes off this thing…
It is joining the IRGC fleet in the Persian Gulf, and is now sailing after last year’s major Iranian attack on Israel using ballistic missiles and drones. Small drone warfare is becoming increasingly prominent in hotspots around the world.
For example, Russia heavily relies on Iranian suicide drones during attacks on Ukrainian cities – something which the West has fiercely condemned.
On the first day in office of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), making good on a project from his first administration.
Trump’s Jan. 20 order halted U.S. funding to the United Nations body, citing the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China,” as well as other global health concerns.
Negotiations with the group about a pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations will be suspended while the withdrawal is taking place.
Because of the 1948 joint resolution by Congress, the United States has the right to withdraw from the WHO, but it must give a one-year notice. The resolution also requires the United States to fulfill “financial obligations” to the WHO for the current fiscal year.
The Largest WHO Funder
The United States is currently the largest WHO funder, contributing about $1.28 billion during 2022–2023, the last reported year on the organization’s website. That equates to almost half of the WHO’s joint external evaluation missions for the last fiscal year.
The 2024–2025 fiscal year is shaping up similarly, with the United States serving as the largest donor by far, contributing an estimated $988 million, or roughly 14 percent of the WHO’s $6.9 billion budget.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that the United States covers about 95 percent of the WHO’s work on tuberculosis in Europe and about 60 percent in Africa and the Western Pacific, and that the WHO’s Europe office is more than 8 percent reliant on U.S. contributions.
Additionally, U.S. funding provides “the backbone of many of WHO’s large-scale emergency operations,” covering up to 40 percent of that funding.
WHO Response
WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described relations with the United States as “a good model partnership” during a press briefing in Geneva in December 2024.
“[We] have been partnering for many years, and we believe that will be the case. And I believe the U.S. leaders understand that the United States cannot be safe unless the rest of the world is safe,” he told reporters.
Following the announcement of Trump’s decision to remove the United States from the organization, Ghebreyesus spoke out, asking world leaders to push the White House to reverse the decision.
The WHO chief said during a closed-door meeting with diplomats that the United States would miss out on critical information about disease outbreaks, The Associated Press reported.
George Kyriacou, the agency’s finance director, said if the WHO’s spending continues at its current level without funding from the United States, the organization would be “very much in a hand-to-mouth type situation” regarding cash flow for at least portions of 2026.
CDC Response
Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have ordered agency employees to stop working with the WHO, effective immediately.
John Nkengasong, the CDC’s deputy director for global health, sent a memo to agency leadership on Jan. 26 calling on staff to cease collaborating with the WHO immediately and wait for further guidance. CDC staff also are not allowed to engage with the WHO, virtually or in person, and staff members are not allowed to visit the WHO offices.
Some public health experts, including Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of medicine and global health at UCLA who works with the WHO on sexually transmitted infections, have voiced concern about halting the collaboration.
“Stopping communications and meetings with WHO is a big problem,” Klausner said. “People thought there would be a slow withdrawal. This has really caught everyone with their pants down.”
Behind the Withdrawal
The Trump administration said the WHO was not able to demonstrate independence from the “inappropriate political influence” of member states and had failed to “adopt urgently needed reforms.”
The president’s executive order also cites “unfairly onerous payments” by the United States that Trump said are “far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.”
“China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO,” the order stated.
This is Trump’s second attempt to withdraw from the WHO. The president began the process in 2020 because of frustration over the WHO’s reaction to China’s coverup of details surrounding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The House Oversight and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report in December 2024 on the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it “an abject failure.”
According to the report, the WHO is accused of bending to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placing “China’s political interests ahead of its international duties.”
As part of the alleged failure, the WHO reportedly ignored warnings by Taiwan on Dec. 31, 2019, about “atypical pneumonia cases” in Wuhan, which it asked the WHO to investigate.
“The initial mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic not only potentially caused the further spread of the virus, but it created a situation where people lost trust in the global public health organization,” the report stated.
The Associated Press and Aldgra Fredly contributed to this report.
Ukraine Launches New Offensive In Kursk, Marks 6 Months Of Holding Russian Territory
Ukraine launched a fresh offensive on Russian territory in the Kursk region, Russia’s military confirmed Thursday, which marks six months since Kiev forces first crossed the border in a risky gambit to take and control territory inside Russian borders.
The defense ministry announced Russian troops had “foiled an attempted counter-offensive by the Ukrainian armed forces.” Kremlin officials have condemned the Ukrainian operation as a big distraction from the front lines in the Donbass, where Moscow is clearly winning.
What’s clear is that Zelensky sees Kursk as a big (and perhaps lone) bargaining chip. Ukraine has little leverage in what’s expected to be an upcoming negotiated peace settlement, so it looks to be trying to grab on to all it can, amid Trump pressure to engage in discussions with Moscow.
Zelensky in a Thursday social media post urged his forces to keep up the fight in Kursk. “The occupier can and should be beaten on its territory,” he wrote. “The Kursk operation clearly explains the meaning of the principle of ‘peace through strength’” – in what was also a clear appeal for external Western backers to step up support.
Kiev has also touted that its forces captured 909 Russian soldiers during the six-month offensive there. This as there was just another successful POW swap involving 300 troops (with each side releasing 150 of the imprisoned).
Zelensky said of captured Russians, “We have significantly replenished our exchange fund — hundreds and hundreds of Russian soldiers whom we are exchanging to bring Ukrainians back from captivity” in the context of the Kursk offensive.
But again, the Kremlin has emphasized that it stopped the new offensive. According to the AFP:
It said the new fighting was around the villages of Ulanok and Cherkasskaya Konopelka, southeast of the regional hub of Sudzha, which is under Ukrainian control. The area is about 10 kilometers (six miles) from the Ukrainian border.
Russia said Ukraine had deployed two mechanized battalions, tanks and armored vehicles in the attempted attack. There has been no comment on the fresh offensive from officials in Kyiv.
Russia has further claimed that Ukraine’s losses in the new assaulted totaled over 200 service members and about 50 combat and support vehicles, including eight tanks, five infantry fighting vehicles, one armored personnel carrier and 30 armored fighting vehicles, and other equipment, as cited in TASS.
But there are competing narratives on who ultimately has the upper-hand in Kursk region…
Special Report | Ukraine’s Kursk Incursion: Six Month Assessment ⬇️
A small group of Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast have complicated the Russian military’s efforts to advance in Ukraine over the last six months. Roughly a division’s worth of Ukrainian troops have undermined… pic.twitter.com/Y8NW64fdBf
— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) February 6, 2025
Still, given six months have past since the August Kursk offensive began, regaining territory has been a struggle for Russa. But President Putin has likely not made it a top priority enough to transfer forces from the Donbass, which what Kiev has hoping he would do. The Kremlin didn’t take the bait of dividing the bulk of its forces, it appears.
About 10 years ago, Louis Sola’s family maritime business was given a concession to build a marina and cruise port on Amador, a causeway located at the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal.
“This would have been the very first cruise port in the Pacific,” Sola, who now serves as the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission chairman, said.
Everything changed in 2017 when Panama signed on with the Chinese regime’s Belt and Road Initiative. The initiative required the Panamanian government to recognize Taiwan as part of China—much to the surprise and concern of the United States, which has positioned itself as an ally of Taiwan.
Panama then rescinded the concession on the land where the Sola family had planned to spend $30 million on a cruise port.
Instead, Panama nationalized the project, gave a concession to a Chinese company, and paid it $300 million to build the cruise port.
Additionally, the land that would have been used to build a marina was designated as an embassy of the People’s Republic of China.
Eventually, the Solas got the land back, and U.S. and domestic pressure ended the Chinese regime’s plans of building an embassy at Amador.
In the most recent blow to China, Panama’s president announced on Feb. 2 that it will not renew its Belt and Road agreement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—a significant win for President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign.
Beijing’s Influence
Sola’s personal story, told during a Jan. 28 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing, underscores what has become a hot-button topic—Chinese influence at the Panama Canal.
The 100-year-old strategic waterway, largely ignored in U.S. policy for decades, has taken center stage in growing tensions between Beijing and Washington.
Chinese infrastructure and ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific ends of the Panama Canal have some experts concerned that Beijing has de facto control of the strategic waterway, a potential violation of the U.S.–Panama Neutrality Treaty, which places U.S. national security at risk.
While military leaders have raised the alarm over the Chinese regime’s rising influence at the Panama Canal and throughout Latin America, the issue came to the forefront when incoming President Donald Trump announced on social media in December 2024 that the canal was “solely for Panama to manage, not China.”
Trump also complained that U.S. ships, which are the top users of the canal, were being “ripped off” with high fees, another potential violation of the treaty to deal with all nations fairly.
After taking office in January, Trump said the canal was being operated by the Chinese regime and vowed to intervene, prompting denials from Beijing and Panama.
“China is operating the Panama Canal,” Trump said during his inaugural speech. “And we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
National Security Risk
Chinese soldiers don’t have to be on the ground for the CCP to disrupt the canal and jeopardize U.S. national security should the United States be drawn into a conflict with the Chinese regime over Taiwan, according to Andrés Martínez-Fernández, a senior policy analyst for Latin America at the Heritage Foundation.
The fact that two of Panama’s five principal ports are controlled by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings—at Balboa on the Pacific side and at Cristóbal on the Atlantic side—is a significant concern for some analysts.
Equally worrisome, in 2018 a Chinese consortium headed by China’s state-owned China Harbour Engineering Company and China Communications Construction Company was awarded a $1.4 billion contract for the canal’s fourth bridge.
“The canal is very vulnerable to any kind of sabotage,” Martínez-Fernández told The Epoch Times. “We’re not talking a [Chinese] warship in order to do that.”
The canal has both economic and military significance for the United States because it represents a strategic chokepoint, making it a critical pathway for U.S. warships in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in the case of military conflict with the Chinese regime.
Some $270 billion of cargo passes through the canal each year, amounting to 5 percent of global maritime trade volume. More than 70 percent of that transits to or from U.S. ports.
The United States handed sovereignty of the Panama Canal to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999, under a treaty signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter.
The agreement included the Neutrality Treaty, in which the United States retained the right to use military force to secure the canal from foreign aggression or threats to its neutrality.
For Panama, the canal is part of its national identity and its biggest moneymaker, generating some $28 billion for the country over the past 25 years, according to Panama.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino said on Jan. 30 that it would be “impossible” to return the canal to U.S. control and that Panama could not arbitrarily remove concessions from companies linked to China, referring to the Hutchison ports.
However, Panama announced in January that it is auditing the Chinese port concessions.
Panama Ports Co., controlled by CK Hutchison Holdings, was notified of an audit shortly after Trump’s accusations that the CCP controls the waterway, according to the Panama Maritime Authority.
Martínez-Fernández said he believes the most likely diplomatic solution to the U.S. concern over national security will be to reduce Chinese presence along the canal and ports.
“These investments in this infrastructure from China, around the canal, around other parts of the region, the Caribbean, and South America just raise a lot of red flags,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Chinese regime has publicly supported Panama’s ownership and control of the canal, playing on Panama’s national identity and sovereignty to strengthen its political foothold.
Wang Yi, Chinese state councilor and CCP foreign minister, called Panama a “friend and good partner” during a 2021 phone call with Erika Mouynes, the Panamanian foreign minister.
Yi stated that China would “continue to support Panama’s efforts to defend its legitimate rights and interests on the international stage, including Panama’s sovereignty over the canal.”
Neutrality Issue
When flying into Panama, billboards advertising the Bank of China greeted visitors until recently.
According to residents in Panama who spoke with The Epoch Times, the billboards were taken down right before U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panama’s president on Feb. 2.
The billboards highlight Beijing’s influence in Panama, and Trump, in a post on social media shortly before Rubio’s visit, said Panama was attempting to take down 64 percent of signs written in Chinese.
“They are all over the [Panama Canal] Zone because China controls the Panama Canal,” Trump stated on Jan. 28. “Panama is not going to get away with this!”
Although Panama decided not to renew its Belt and Road agreement with China directly after Rubio’s visit, the fact remains that two of Panama’s key ports are controlled by a Hong Kong-based company.
CK Hutchison Holdings first won a bid to operate those two ports in 1997, but since then, Beijing has cracked down on the city’s independence and brought it firmly under the communist regime’s control.
Here’s the full interview that I gave to Sputnik Brasil about USAID, excerpts of which were published in their report titled “’Arma principal da guerra híbrida’: o que muda na política externa dos EUA com o fim da USAID?”
1. How has USAID been used by the government of United States through the years to meddle in other countries, mainly Brazil and other countries from Latin America?
USAID is infamous for funding political programs under the cover of human rights and democracy to meddle in the recipient country’s domestic affairs. This popularly takes the form of funding movements, including media projects, for exposing alleged corruption in Latin American states. The purpose is to artificially generate a groundswell of grassroots opposition to incumbent governments that manifests itself through street protests and/or surprise election showings in order to bring about political change.
Some of the locals who collaborate with these foreign-funded political projects sometimes go on to become advisors or even figures in the more pro-American governments that replace the targeted ones. Therefore, USAID doesn’t just work to remove Latin American governments, it also sometimes provides trained advisors and personnel for the next governments. This makes it a premier weapon of US Hybrid Warfare in the hemisphere.
2. Does the end of USAID mean the end of US interference in other countries’ domestic affairs? Will they just change their method instead?
New Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he’s the acting administrator of USAID as it goes through radical reforms.
Per Trump’s Executive Order suspending foreign aid for 90 days, with the exception of emergency humanitarian aid, an assessment is taking place to determine their efficiency and consistency with policy. Accordingly, many programs dealing with socio-cultural issues like LGBT will likely be cut, while foreign media funding and the training of foreign political cadres will likely continue.
3. How do you evaluate Trump’s decision to end USAID?
USAID made sense from the perspective of older American interests back when it was first founded, but it was hijacked by liberal-globalist ideologues to proselytize radical socio-cultural policies that don’t objectively align with the US’ national interests. Examples of the most ridiculous programs are being shared all across X right now. Many Americans are enraged to discover what they were funding and surprised that a lot of the money also went to domestic “NGOs” for implementing these projects.
Ending USAID was necessary since that’s the only way to implement the radical reforms that the Trump Administration envisages, which are most immediately reducing government expenditures via the Elon Musk-led “Department Of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) and then realigning those that remain with policy. Many employees are also diehard ideological opponents of Trump and all that he represents so keeping them around runs the risk that they’d try to sabotage his second term like they did his first one.
What’s essentially happening is that Trump 2.0 entered power with a detailed plan for purging hostile elements of the US’ “deep state”, which refers in this context to its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies, with some also including its administrative and other ones too. USAID was a major component of the US’ power structure for decades prior to Trump’s second term so dismantling it is considered crucial for the success of his team’s foreign policy.
4. Some US politicians have criticized the Trump Administration’s reforms of federal agencies, fearing that confidential information might leak out and even describing the overall gist of what’s going on as a “serious threat to national security”. What do they fear? Is this a sign of USAID’s connection with the CIA like Musk recently talked about?
Not every USAID employee and project is connected to the CIA, but the CIA does indeed sometimes employ the aforesaid in advance of its goals due to the relative ease with which their democracy and human rights covers enable US spies to infiltrate and/or destabilize foreign countries. Those who are criticizing Trump’s reforms are elements of the US’ power structure who stand to lose from his and Musk’s campaign to expose irresponsible government spending and political meddling abroad.
Some of them do have a point, namely that innocent USAID employees might be suspected of being spies and this could lead to credible threats against them, but the Trump Administration is willing to risk those consequences in pursuit of its ambitious reform campaign. Purging USAID, the State Department, and the “deep state” more broadly is the only way to prevent them from sabotaging Trump’s foreign policy the second time around, which he envisages revolutionizing the US’ relations with the world.
US “De Minimis” Exemption (Was) One Of The Highest In The World
As a part of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration Saturday on Canada, Mexico and China, so-called “de minimis” rules on small imports from the countries were suspended.
“De minimis” rules say that incoming goods under a certain value are not subject to import duties (and sometimes tax). As a result, the U.S. temporarily stopped accepting parcel from China and Hong Kong as many popular retailers send scores of “de minimis” shipments from these locations, including the likes of Temu or Shein. On Wednesday, the U.S. resumed the import of the packages. USPS said it was working on a solution of implementation of the new rules that would cause the least disruptions to parcel delivery.
While the rule change was explained in the case of China, but also Canada, with stopping the unregistered import of fentanyl or its ingredients to the U.S., Statista’s Katharina Buchholz points out that most of the parcels affected will come from e-commerce platforms, with Chinese imports taking up the bulk of “de minimis” shipments. Checking the parcels to impose Trump’s new additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese goods as well as any other tariffs that might apply per product category would cause a lot of extra work. However, the ability of Chinese e-commerce sellers to create large business footprints overseas while skirting many of the dues of a traditional export business has also caused discontent in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The Biden administration in September had announced steps like protecting certain industries and keeping out certain questionable products by exempting them from “de minimis” while at the same time increasing reporting requirements, citing concerns about high parcel volumes concealing illicit substances as well as trade fairness in the light of China’s burgeoning e-commerce-by-international-shipment sector. The EU is also mulling to do away with its “de minimis” rule in order to fairly charge Chinese direct sellers. Recent reporting also points out how many of the products shipped from the likes of Shein et al. are not up to quality standards, which caused complaints from consumer protection bodies.
Data republished by the Department of Commerce shows that more than 100 countries around the world employ “de minimis” in order to speed up international shipping. However, the maximum value such parcels can have varies widely.
The U.S.’ $800 threshold is one of the highest in the world while EU countries impose charges on imports of much lower value (above €150 – approximately $156).
China’s “de minimis” rules are also more strict, with any tax or duty under 50 Yuan Renminbi (approximately $7) considered void – this would for most products be in line with a value of $99 or less.
The country also already has a more refined approach to “de minimis” with a pre-registration and approval system for e-commerce traders in place that allows for higher exemptions at the discretion of the government.
Other countries have also posed additional hurdles to “de minimis”, for example exempting B2B shipments or specific goods. Others allow neighbors or certain major trade partner to take advantage of a bigger “de minimis” allowance.
A bombshell court filing alleges that an FBI informant stole some $190,000 from a Jan. 6 protestor, and that the bureau turned a blind eye to the crime to protect its source.
The court filing comes from former FBI agent and Project Veritas contractor Jared Wise, who was arrested in 2023 for his own involvement with Jan. 6. Wise had his charges dropped last month, and provided an exclusive interview to Headline USA to respond to accusations from Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe that he tried to “ensnare” O’Keefe in a plot to secretly record FBI agents.
During his interview with this publication, Wise declined to go into detail about what he did and saw on Jan. 6—saying that he intends to reveal that information soon to reporter Julie Kelly.
However, Wise publicized the information about the thieving FBI informant this week on this Twitter/X account, and he referred this reporter to a motion for vindictive prosecution, which he filed in December. That motion contains stunning details about how the FBI informant allegedly stole from him with impunity.
The person (“G.E.D.” in court documents) who reported me to the @FBI for #J6 did so only after I began to realize he had stolen a large portion of my life savings via a complex fraud scheme and I started to confront him. He correctly hoped that reporting me would protect him from… https://t.co/l2xfjm8GRG
According to Wise’s motion, in 2020 he invested in a French real estate property with a U.S. citizen residing in France. Wise identified the man only as “GED,” but Headline USA was able to track down his identity as Gregory Edmont de la Doucette by looking up a separate civil lawsuit filed in December.
The two men closed their real estate deal in September 2021. But soon thereafter, Wise began to have serious concerns about the status of his investment.
Over the next few months, Wise questioned Doucette about his investment, and accused him of running a scam.
That was when Doucette reported Wise to the FBI, he said.
“In January 2022, GED provided information to the FBI that Wise was present in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. GED provided information about Wise to the FBI to protect himself from consequences of his own crime against Wise, as he began to realize that Wise was uncovering GED’s fraud,” Wise said in his December motion.
“GED correctly believed that providing information to the FBI about Wise (GED’s own victim) and J6 would help inoculate himself from any liability related to his own scheme to defraud Wise.”
Wise was arrested in May 2023, but that didn’t dissuade him from trying to report Doucette’s alleged real estate scam to the FBI. However, the FBI refused to investigate Doucette, he said.
The FBI even went as far as investigate Wise for trying to contact Doucette, he said.
“In August 2024, the government sought new charges against Wise related to him contacting GED about GED’s fraud, but those efforts were not successful. In response to failing to secure a new indictment, the government then obtained revised release conditions which prevented Wise from having any direct or indirect contact with GED,” his motion said.
Woah I looked up Jared’s case and he details this stunning scandal in a motion he filed last December.
In a nutshell: An FBI informant allegedly stole some $190,000 from a Jan. 6 protestor, and the bureau turned a blind eye to the crime in order to protect its source. https://t.co/MOQehGEquypic.twitter.com/KLRPOU6q9G
Wise’s motion said he believes the FBI protected Doucette specifically because he was informing for the bureau.
“If the FBI were to meet with Wise and accept the information implicating GED in a complex international fraud scheme of at least $190,000 (and possibly up to $700,000 with an additional victim as alleged by a third party with direct knowledge), it would create a complicated situation in which it would need to account for criminal activity by one of its sources, and the information might also impact the prosecution of Wise,” he said.
“Hence, the easiest strategy to prevent the dilemma is to simply refuse to meet with Wise and never learn of the claims,” he said. “Wise avers that the FBI is knowingly protecting one of its sources who has conducted criminal activity, which is reminiscent of the FBI protecting mob boss Whitey Bulger for many years.”
Wise’s December motion was unsuccessful, but that became a moot point when the DOJ dropped all charges against him last month.
Wise continues to seek accountability for Doucette, who could not be reached for comment.
Wise’s December motion said he won a civil judgment against Doucette in France last September. Headline USA was unable to find that judgment, but did find a separate civil lawsuit Wise filed in federal court, also in December.
No attorney was listed for Doucette, and he does not seem to have been served with the U.S. lawsuit yet.
Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.
Tomorrow’s Jobs Report Will Finally Capture The Surge In Illegal Aliens, Lead To Another Big Negative Payrolls Revision
Remember last August when the Biden admin finally admitted it had been rigging the jobs number, when as part of its preliminary revision it vaporized 818K jobs in the past year that were never actually added, a historical negative revision (the second biggest on record) which the Fed used as justification for its panicked jumbo 50bps rate cut just a few weeks later?
Well, tomorrow that revision – along with a dramatic increase in the US population estimate by 3.5 million primarily to reflect the surge in illegal immigration – will finally flow through fully into the jobs report, as part of a bigger overhaul of the labor market by the now-Trumpian Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the results could be dramatic.
First, some background.
Each year the US Census Bureau adjusts the weights in the Current Population Survey – the source data for labor-force statistics like the unemployment rate – incorporating updated estimates of the population’s size and composition. In the latest vintage, the Census modified its approach to estimating net international migration – for obvious reasons, the main of which being that for the past 4 years the US effectively had no southern border – which had the effect of substantially boosting its estimate of the US population since 2020.
Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data for January (due for release Feb. 7) will reflect these adjustments, capturing the cumulative undercounting of the population relative to the last vintage of Census estimates.
That, according to Bloomberg, could lead to a large population adjustment this year which could raise the aggregate unemployment rate by raising the weight of recent immigrants, who tend to have higher unemployment rates than the general population. Overall, Bloomberg expects population adjustments to lift January’s unemployment rate by 5 basis points (which as everyone not named Matt Yglesias knows, is not percent but rather one hundredth of a percent).
Here are the details according to Bloomberg:
The latest vintage of the Census Bureau’s population estimates raised the level of the civilian noninstitutional population for December 2024 by around 3.6 million relative to the prior vintage a year earlier.
The main reason was changes to the methodology for estimating net immigration. Historically, Census has relied on American Community Survey (ACS) data for its estimates of net international migration. But this approach posed two challenges:
First, the ACS data is lagged. For each vintage of population estimates, Census had ACS immigration information only for the previous year, so the data failed to capture very recent trends.
Second, ACS misses some migrants. This is supported by the divergence in recent years between the ACS immigration estimates and immigration totals from administrative data from other parts of the government.
To address this, Census adjusted its methodology to incorporate 75% of the difference between the sum of immigration totals from the administrative data and the ACS data. That resulted in a higher estimate for net immigration, lifting the estimate of the total population from 2020-2024.
Of that 3.6 million, roughly 3 million are 16 and older – the relevant population for the BLS unemployment statistics.
Historically, adjustments to the population — even relatively large ones — haven’t had much impact on the unemployment rate.In some cases the adjustments have resulted in significant changes to labor-force participation or employment rates, but usually there have been offsetting effects that dampen any change.
But for tomorrow’s report there is a risk that the updated immigration estimates could lift the unemployment rate more visibly because the adjustment could increase the survey weight of workers with a higher unemployment rate.
Bottom line: Adjustments to the population controls in January’s household survey to boost the unemployment rate by ~5 bps. Together with Bloomberg’s forecast of a decline in government jobs, the unemployment rate is expected to edge up to 4.16% in January from 4.09% a month earlier.
There’s more: since the increase in the population will also raise the level of the labor force and employment, the updated employment level will imply average monthly job growth of around 150k-170k last year — narrowing the gap between the employment figures from the household survey and the estimates from the BLS’ establishment survey.
And indeed, Bloomberg cautions that the separate, benchmarking process in the establishment survey is likely to result in significant downward revisions to nonfarm-payrolls data, bringing average monthly job growth last year down to about 150k, from around 180k before revisions.
As Standard Chartered’s Steve Englander writes (full note available to pro subs), according to the abovementioned BLS estimates as of August 2024, March 2024 NFP is likely to be revised down by 818k after benchmarking to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). However, further QCEW revisions since August make a 670k downward NFP revision more likely, so the overall gap between NFP and CPS (as of end-2024) will be reduced to about 2mn from 4.3mn.
The adjustment supports Englander’s – and our – view that the surge in illegal aliens is more likely to be captured in NFP than CPS, as many of these workers were able to obtain employment authorization and work “legally” in the country. The household survey has likely understated annual employment growth by c.0.5mn during the past three years.
One problem the BLS will face is that participation rates and employment-to-population ratios for undocumented immigrants are highly uncertain. The BLS uses administrative data from other sources to bulk up population underestimates from standard Census and American Community Survey sources. However, no survey is likely to capture labor-force participation and employment among undocumented immigrants, so the BLS will probably have to make some assumptions based on legal immigrants and native-born labor-market participants. In addition, according to BLS methodology undocumented immigrants who have not been in contact with US Customs and Border Protection agents are unlikely to show up in either census population counts or BLS household employment. While these fully under-the-radar immigrants are a minority, CBO estimated them at c.800k for 2024.
An additional quirk is that the BLS puts most of its population revisions into each year’s January release (data to be released on 7 February). Its practice has been to introduce an abrupt upward or downward jump in January levels to capture the new population controls. This is arbitrary and does not align with monthly census population estimates. In practice, this means that m/m changes in population, employment, unemployment and labor-force numbers are largely meaningless, as they miss the big January shift. The 12M, 24M and 36M changes embed the population changes so they are relevant to the analysis. Ratios such as the unemployment rate, participation rate and employment to population remain meaningful on a m/m basis.
More to the point, as we first correctly reported and as the BLS subsequently admitted in August 2024, the March 2024 NFP would be revised down by 818k after benchmarking to the QCEW. However, subsequent QCEW revisions suggest a benchmark NFP reduction of around 670k. The overall gap between NFP and CPS will be reduced to 2.0mn from 4.3mn.
Of course, that’s not the full story. As we also reported in December, the subsequent QCEW release pointed to en even much weaker Q2-2024 employment growth than signalled by NFP. (see “Biden Lied About Everything: Philly Fed Finds All Jobs “Created” In Q2 Were Fake“). However, the benchmark revision will not correct for the overstatement of payrolls in Q2-2024 until the second quarter of 2026, or more than a year into the future, leaving us with another year of NFP distortions!
Yes, dear readers, the full extent of the labor market devastation under Biden – and just how fabricated the jobs report truly has been – will continue to be unveiled for years to come, long after Biden himself is gone.
