There are two types of households in the U.S.: the rich half and the poorer half.

And the data is quite striking in this regard.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, breaks down America’s wealth (the total net worth of all U.S. households) by wealth percentile, and lists the number of households in each percentile.

Data for this chart is sourced from the Federal Reserve as of Q3, 2024.

U.S. Wealth Distribution is Top Heavy

For reference, the total net worth of all U.S. households is close to $160 trillion.

The rich half own about $156 trillion (or about 98% of it). The poorer half only own about $4 trillion.

Breaking down that top half even further, the top 1% (1.3 million families) owns about $49 trillion (or about one-third of the total share) by themselves.

And going even further, about half of that $49 trillion is owned by the top 0.1%. That’s only around 136,000 households and includes all of America’s wealthiest people.

Demographics of Wealth Bands

The Federal Reserve also has some insight of how much one needs to own in each wealth band.

From their last analysis in 2022, households with less than $192,000 were the bottom 50% of the country. This band also had a higher concentration Black or Hispanic families without a bachelor’s degree.

On the other hand, to be in the top 10% (not pictured in this graphic), a household needed at least $1.92 million in 2022. Asian and White families with at least a bachelor’s degree were overrepresented here.

To find out the threshold for the top 1%, a different source, DQYDJ, estimated $13.7 million as the minimum household wealth. It takes $62 million for a household’s net worth to be in the top 0.1%.

The rich are, in fact, growing richer. Check out: The 1%’s Share of U.S. Wealth Over Time to see the gains made.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

We’re getting close to 90 days and even coming up close, in a week, 10 days, to the first 100 days of the Trump administration and this counterrevolution that he’s waging.

I thought it might be wise just to see where we are as far as the political landscape and the dynamics of the progress of this counterrevolution. 

What is President Donald Trump trying to do? 

I think I would sum it up as flooding the zone. And that is, he’s going to try to propose and enact so many radical corrections or revolutions or reforms or recalibrations that his opposition doesn’t know where to start.

So, abroad, he is looking at the Iran deal and he got rid of it. He put sanctions. 

He’s got maximum pressure. And now, the Iranian economy is about defunct. And they want to negotiate about this nuclear weapon. I don’t think they’re going to negotiate it away, but we’ll see.

And then, he’s dealing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin and trying to get a ceasefire. 

He’s basically dealt with the Houthis.

On the domestic front, there is no more illegal immigration. 

He’s basically stopped it. Now, the task is what to do with the 12 million illegal aliens that came under former President Joe Biden. And what do you do with the 20 million-plus, maybe 30 million that were here already illegally but for a longer period of time?

At the same time, he’s had a blanket mandate that in every Cabinet they will eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion and, by association, things like transsexual, biological males competing in women’s sports.

Women—lowering the physical standards so women could compete and pass these very rigorous endurance physical tests so that they would be in combat units on an equal level. No problem that they can’t. But they have to have the same physical requirements as men.

I could go on, but you see what he is doing. 

He’s doing so many radical corrections in a way that a Romney or a McCain or the Bushes, even Ronald Reagan would not have dreamed of that he feels the opposition will say, “Well, what do we do? Should we reply here? Do we put our interest here? Should we do this?”

And so, what is the strategy that the Left is using? 

They’re flooding the zone, too. But they’re doing it not with counterproposals. They don’t say, “This is what’s wrong with closing the border and we wanna reopen it. This is what’s wrong with the Houthis policy. This is what’s wrong with the trade deficit. This is what’s wrong”—no specific proposal.

They’re just flooding it with hysteria, the Spartacus talk, late-night comedy trashing him, another person arrested saying that he wants to kill Donald Trump, keying Teslas, firebombing Tesla agencies, outrageous things from Hollywood stars, videos from Congress. All of a sudden—we didn’t even know who Rep. Jasmine Crockett was. She’s filled that void.

But what I’m saying is they want to be so rambunctious, so crazy, so 360 degrees unhinged that they’ll create an image or a malu—where everybody wants to get almost in a fetal position: “Please, please make it all go away. I don’t know what Trump is doing but it’s so disturbing. Everybody’s so angry.” That is their strategy.

Now, what is Trump’s counterstrategy? 

His counterstrategy is to actually get people on the other side of the aisle in Congress or in the country at large or in the popular culture and try to at least be friendly to them so then they can say, “I don’t agree with Trump but what he’s doing might be needed.”

So, we have Bill Maher going to Mar-a-Lago and actually saying very nice things about Donald Trump.

On the one hand, we have Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fighting with a bulwark of the Left at one time, fighting with left-wing people who were calling him all sorts of names and saying that he is illiberal.

We had Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. She was in the White House. Can you believe it? She was so embarrassed about a photo-op. She had to almost cover her face.

But you can see what Trump is doing. He’s trying to get people from all sides of the Democratic and liberal progressive movement and not compromise them, but get in the picture, so then the Left will say, “Well, how can we appeal to the public and get them all angry and frenzy and hysterical when some of our major celebrities, our political figures are in Mar-a-Lago?”

Who’s gonna win? We’ll see.

“As I have always said:  The only difference between the KGB and the FBI is that the KGB has never claimed to be a legitimate law enforcement agency.” ~ Jesse Trentadue

Readers may know the name John Ashcroft, attorney general under George W. Bush.

Well, good old Ashcroft was at the heart of a high profile cover-up: the Oklahoma City bombing, according to attorney Jesse Trentadue. The following comes from a court filing provided to ZeroHedge by Trentadue, attorney to OKC bombing accomplice Terry Nichols.

For context (per Jesse from kennethtrentadue.com): Jesse is the brother of Kenneth Michael Trentadue who died in August 1995, while incarcerated at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Following the death, the Department of Justice (DOJ) immediately deemed it a suicide, denied the medical examiner access to the cell where Kenneth Trentadue was killed, ordered the cell cleaned and painted, and repeatedly asked both the medical examiner and Kenneth Trentadue’s family to authorize the cremation of his body. The medical examiner could not legally authorize cremation and the family refused, demanding that Kenneth’s body be returned to them. When Trentadue’s body was returned to the family, they removed heavy makeup and discovered bruises all over his body, from head to foot. The bruises, cuts, and other wounds depicted an obvious beating and murder.

Now for the story…

While serving his prison sentence, Nichols attempted to spark an investigation into FBI involvement in the OKC bombing. He sent a letter stating that he could provide such information to the then head of the DOJ Ashcroft.

Ashcroft did not respond to the letter but immediately forbade the media from speaking to Nichols, which resulted in 60 Minutes cancelling a sit-down interview they had scheduled with Nichols, says Trentadue. Shortly thereafter, Nichols said he received a visit from a man presenting an offer from the DOJ to undo Nichols’ death sentence if he agreed to three conditions:

• Take ownership of an anonymous warning the DOJ received saying the Murrah Building was bombed 30 minutes before it actually had been.
• Implicate Nichols’ own brother in the bombing plot.
• Reveal the location of the “Kinestick”, an explosive used in the bombing. Nichols mentioned having knowledge of an unused stache in his letter to Ashcroft. The existence of a remaining stache was not known at the time.

The existence of the mysterious call was independently corroborated in Stephen Jones’ book Others Unknown and even covered by ABC News:

ABC News 20/20 reports on how someone called the Executive Secretariat in DC about a half hour before the OKC bombing and said “the Murrah building has just been bombed” pic.twitter.com/XzMTFiCG6r

— Richard ✞ (@okc_facts) April 19, 2025

It was discovered that the DOJ proxy (Michael Selby) who visited Nichols previously worked in Ashcroft’s private security detail. Trentadue helped to further corroborate that this meeting took place by telling ZH:

After the declaration was filed, Selby called me upset as hell.  Said that I had just got him “fucking killed.”  The attorney who brought Selby into meet Nichols is Rodney Uphoff.  A law professor at the University of Missouri.  I called Uphoff and he confirmed the event.

It is strange that such an offer – giving leniency to an accomplice to one of the most horrific domestic terrorist attacks in U.S. history – would be presented by someone who does not work at the DOJ and stipulate that Nichol take credit for an anonymous tip which he did not make. 

Nichols ultimately did not accept the deal because he did not want to throw his brother under the bus.

The story, now part of official record thanks to Trentadue, serves as an interesting look into the true conspiracies that Ashcroft may have had a hand in.

To see the full spectrum of official documents that Jesse Trentadue has fought hard to force the government to release, follow his website named in honor of his brother who he believes was murdered by the FBI: http://www.kennethtrentdue.com/

And for a great interview where Trentadue discusses the contents of this article and more, listen to friend-of-ZeroHedge Scott Horton interview Jesse just last month.

As for Ashcroft, after ‘retiring’ he started a private lobbying firm that quickly secured the Israeli government as its first client.
 

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

It’s more than just a label. “Made in America” represents pride and the national spirit, says John Roy, CEO of Dawson Knives in Prescott, Arizona.

The company he heads is a prime example of that spirit. Founded more than 50 years ago by a Vietnam vet with machinery made from parts found in a local landfill, the knife company boasts that it’s “three generations strong.”

Roy believes domestic companies will thrive under the import tariffs enacted by the Trump administration.

With consumption accounting for nearly 70 percent of the U.S. economy, Roy believes there is a strong market for products made in America.

In 2023, nearly half of the goods purchased by Americans were “made in America,” according to the Department of Commerce. That figure comes with the caveat that “made in America” sometimes means “assembled in America,” with products containing imported components.

The total gross domestic purchases in the country reached $3.7 trillion, with $1.9 trillion of that amount attributable to U.S. industries.

“When you keep it domestic and your dollars here [in America], it pays off,” Roy says proudly, wearing a T-shirt and cap emblazoned with his company logo.

“We rode out a pandemic, and we’re going to ride through these tariffs,” he told The Epoch Times.

That’s not just a bold statement, Roy said.

After President Donald Trump announced a sweeping array of tariffs on April 2, Roy reported that Dawson’s knife sales increased from $11,000 to $15,000 per day.

He said the company expects orders to double from 4,000 to 8,000 for 2025. It produces 40 different models of knives, including hunting, survival, culinary, and heirloom varieties.

Roy is convinced that many American companies can withstand a global trade war by sourcing materials domestically and maximizing production efficiency.

“In order to have that efficiency, we have to really invest in computers … everything to help us down the line to make better models, better manufacturing, and reduce steps,” he said.

The company currently employs 15 people and operates within 12,000 square feet of industrial space.

Roy said many consumers prefer goods that are “completely American-made.”

He does not foresee any problems sourcing materials as long as his domestic supply remains steady within a global tariff environment.

Government policies that impact his suppliers have also been a challenge.

Roy said that a longtime steel producer and supplier in New York recently went out of business due to restrictions on coal—a key ingredient in steel production.

Dawson Knives had maintained a working relationship with the steel producer since the company started in 1973.

However, another U.S.-based company has stepped in to smelt the needed steel, Roy said.

Despite potentially higher costs for some raw materials in the United States, Roy expects that using domestic suppliers will mean fewer “headaches” related to shipping and no import duties.

He views this as a distinct advantage.

With the materials he currently has in stock, and absent any unforeseen circumstances, he expects to weather a global trade upheaval for at least a year and a half. 

Roy based his timeline on his supplier’s steel inventory for the next year and a half.

“After that, we would have to pay tariffs on steel because one component of the steel we use can only be found in Switzerland,” he said. 

“The tariffs will not affect us unless they go on for a long time.” 

Sweet Success

Jay Levine owns San Francisco Chocolate Factory, a Phoenix-based company with more than 28 years of experience.

His company currently employs four full-time staff members, who produce gourmet chocolates, fudge, and treats for special events and walk-in customers.

The chocolatier sources his ingredients domestically, making his business largely immune to tariffs.

“Everything I buy is local [or it] comes from the United States,” Levine, a Montreal native, told The Epoch Times.

He buys his apples from Washington, strawberries and nuts from other domestic suppliers. The American-grown items are not subject to import restrictions and are readily available.

The one exception is high quality Callebaut chocolate from Belgium, an ingredient that is now subject to a 10 percent import duty.

As he completes a new facility on Van Buren Street in Phoenix, Levine said his business has continued to do well despite the imposition of new tariffs.

“Quality really has no rights on it,” he said, “so you want to do top quality chocolates. All of our food products come from the United States.”

If tariffs continue, Levine said he “would switch to good [domestic] chocolate, which is locally grown here.” However, even that local supplier gets its cocoa beans from Ivory Coast.

According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, an international trade data platform, the Ivory Coast’s main imports to the United States in January included cocoa beans valued at $161 million and cocoa paste valued at $41.7 million, followed by rubber valued at $19.1 million.

The U.S. government imposed a 21 percent tariff on goods from the tiny West African country, although it was paused for 90 days to facilitate negotiations. However, all U.S. trading partners are still subject to a baseline tariff of 10 percent.

Tariffs aren’t driving the current high prices though.

“I know that chocolate has doubled [in price] in the past year—and the reason for that was just price inflation,” Levine said. “I’ve never seen chocolate so high—ever.”

Levine expressed confidence that his company can endure the current tariffs, due to a steady demand for chocolate in America.

“This is an indulgence,” he said. “People will pay extra for it.”

That being said, “they won’t be buying as much chocolate“ under the tariffs, he predicted. ”Price is a factor.”

Treading Confidently

Don’t Tread On Me was founded in 2004 and American-made shirts and hoodies are the foundation of its clothing product line.

The exception are the company’s hats, which feature American motifs with the company’s signature coiled rattlesnake emblem.

“Right now, all of the hats and beanies are [produced] overseas, but I’ve been looking into domestic options,” company president Tyler Windes told The Epoch Times.

“There aren’t very many USA hat manufacturers, so it does make it difficult sourcing those.”

Windes said that even before the recent tariff changes, the company was considering moving its hat production to the United States.

“These new policies have simply reinforced our commitment and accelerated that timeline,” Windes said.

Sourcing his hats from a domestic manufacturer has been challenging, nonetheless Windes remains hopeful that the tariffs will lead to increased investment in American textile and apparel production.

This development would make it easier for companies like his to manufacture their products fully within the United States, he said.

Read the rest here…

Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics,

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.

The quote attributed to Joseph Stalin has become the modus operandi for attacks on President Trump.

Each day brings horror stories of specific victims allegedly caught in Trump’s dastardly web: the wrongfully deported migrant, the African child whose life-saving medicine is threatened, the promising young bureaucrat felled by Elon Musk’s axe.

Even accounting for the hyperbole that casts each illegal immigrant as an angel and every government program and federal employee as doing God’s work, these anecdotes do fall somewhere between unfortunate and tragic. Would you want to trade places with these people? Their stories pull on the heartstrings of Americans, a generous and compassionate people who recoil at suffering.

But their stories are also a cynical strategy deployed by those who seek to derail Trump’s reforms by trumpeting the ”tragedy” of isolated individuals. The same crocodile tears crowd that dismissed struggling Americans’ concerns about crushing inflation, the victims of sexual violence and human trafficking of children brought about by Joe Biden’s border policies, and massive job losses as mere “statistics.”

We do not know how President Trump’s reforms will shake out. Only his most devoted acolytes could have 100% faith in his unpredictable governing style. Still, there is a strong moral case for the spirit of Trump’s actions, which has been tendentiously ignored in coverage of his first 100 days.

A million deaths is not a statistic, but a million tragedies. Trump’s reform efforts hinge on the blindingly obvious premise that tomorrow’s pain will be far worse and more widespread if we do not act today. He is a doctor addressing a sick patient; his opponents seem happy to let the grave illness metastasize. Irony doesn’t quite capture the commitment of those who see existential threats around every corner and then ignore the clear and present dangers to our country.

A fiscal meteor is heading our way; everybody knows it. But our deeply secular ruling class seems to be banking on divine intervention to save the day. That speeding rock everyone can see is, of course, our national debt, which now stands at almost $37 trillion. We added $1.3 trillion to that total in the first half of the 2025 fiscal year. Since the Reagan administration, fiscal Cassandras have warned that our spending path is unsustainable. And yet, here we are. At some point, this looming threat will become a wrecking ball, forcing huge cuts in the programs hundreds of millions of Americans count on. Those who decry the knife Trump is bringing to government jobs and services are only setting us up for the chainsaw tomorrow.

Pay me now, or pay me later – but pay me you will. This isn’t politics, it’s math.

Everybody knows this, but only Trump seems willing to do something about it.

Thanks to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, the waste, fraud, and abuse that infects so much government spending has become front-page news. These revelations should be a rousing call to action for everyone who believes in the necessity of government to improve people’s lives. They should be thanking Trump for trying to rescue their sinking ship.

Instead, they attack him. In an ideal world, Trump and Musk would be more measured in their assault on spending. They would have studied every program and job, delivering a detailed blueprint for reform. The political reality, of course, is that they had to move quickly. Our recent history has been filled with blue ribbon panels and special commissions on the deficit and debt that accomplished little. Act now, or never.

In a further irony, Trump’s progressive opponents are taking a page from the reactionary playbook, which years ago argued that, yes, slavery was wrong and integration was necessary, but change? Not just yet. In time.

The time is now because of the urgency of our crisis and because we finally have a leader who is willing to suffer slings and arrows to save us. Will Trump succeed? Ultimately, this will depend far more on the will of the people than on his vocal detractors in politics and the press. The cuts and reforms he has initiated are just the beginning. Getting our fiscal house in order will almost certainly require real, painful sacrifice from taxpayers and beneficiaries of government programs. It is still not clear if he has the will to do all that is necessary. If he does, history suggests that he will be punished instead of rewarded for this courage.

That doesn’t change the choice before us: some tragedies now or millions later.

J. Peder Zane is a RealClearInvestigations editor and columnist. He previously worked as a book review editor and book columnist for the News & Observer (Raleigh), where his writing won several national honors. Zane has also worked at the New York Times and taught writing at Duke University and Saint Augustine’s University.

Socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been spotted flying around the country on private jets—costing upwards of $15,000 per hour—while making stops on their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour to rile up deranged leftists against Elon Musk, who also enjoys the luxury of private jet travel. Ironically, AOC, Bernie, and Musk seem to have more in common than they’d like to admit.

Fox News provided new details about the so-called “champagne socialists”… 

Sanders boarded the luxury Bombardier Challenger private jet at the Meadows Field Airport in Bakersfield, California, on Tuesday afternoon, according to a photo captured by a source on the ground and shared exclusively with Fox News Digital. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, whom the source also spotted boarding the private jet, spoke at their “Fighting Oligarchy” event in Bakersfield just hours earlier.

Flight records reveal the jet landed at Sacramento Mather Airport on Tuesday evening, which is about a 20-minute drive to Folsom, California, where the self-identified Democratic socialists hosted their second rally of the day. After publication Thursday, Fox News Digital obtained new footage of Sanders and AOC exiting the private jet in Sacramento Tuesday evening from California resident Matvei Levchenko.

The jet Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez were seen boarding and deplaning made stops in Salt Lake City and Boise prior to landing in Bakersfield, according to flight records. The arrival dates match the duo’s “Fighting Oligarchy” events in Salt Lake City and Nampa, which is about a 25-minute drive from Boise Airport.

HEIGHT OF IRONY: @BernieSanders and @AOC take $15,000 an hour private jet to ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ rallies. pic.twitter.com/TpghHQ1VAp

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2025

Also, let’s not forget: when AOC and Sanders aren’t trying to destroy Elon Musk’s US companies – some of which are critical to national security – the leftists are telling Americans to give up their Cummins-powered Dodge Rams, two-stroke weedwhackers, air conditioning, gas stoves, meat, and more.

Footage:

Bernie Sanders and AOC disembark from a private jet to go ‘fight oligarchy’… Sanders has spent over $220,000 on jets so far this year. Full story here: https://t.co/olQCyWvlRh pic.twitter.com/WMqsApkoGF

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) April 18, 2025

Sanders is a three-decade broken socialist record. 

BREAKING: Bernie Sanders has some terrible news.

Donald Trump is rapidly turning America into an oligarchy. pic.twitter.com/VCfd5sxgx4

— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 11, 2025

While pretending to be anti-corporation and anti-establishment, Sanders has fallen into the Big Pharma honeytrap. 

People demand genuineness from Democrats – something the socialist cannot do as their polling data has plummeted to record lows… 

Whoops!

‘Inorganic’ – GPS Data Reveals Bernie Sanders, AOC Anti-Oligarchy Rally Was Full Of Serial Protesters https://t.co/TawQtLBvEe

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 23, 2025

Meanwhile, on tour, AoC developed a new accent. 

Oh look, AOC is doing the interchangeable accents to fit the demographic she’s in front of.

Did she take notes from Kamala?pic.twitter.com/0wfhWoVUOB

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 15, 2025

Socialist Democrats are clowns. They’ve become history’s big joke as the clown show has been exposed to the masses, yet these radical politicians continue doubling down on insanity. 

Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times,

Iran and the United States have ended their second round of talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons development and agreed to hold a third next week.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff held the second round of talks in Rome on April 19.

As with the first round of talks, which were held in the Omani capital of Muscat last week, the pair negotiated indirectly through an Omani official who shuttled messages between the two sides.

Witkoff and Araghchi interacted with one another briefly at the end of the first round of talks, but officials from the two countries have not held direct negotiations since 2015 under President Barack Obama.

The pair agreed on Saturday to meet again in Oman on April 26. Additional experts from both sides will also meet between now and that time, suggesting that there has been some movement in the second round of talks between the two countries.

The experts will discuss details of a possible deal on a technical level, according to Iran.

“The talks were held in a constructive environment and I can say that is moving forward,” Araghchi told Iranian state television. “I hope that we will be in a better position after the technical talks.”

The high-stakes talks largely hinge on Witkoff and Araghchi’s ability to find common ground on Iran’s nuclear program and regional security issues.

Araghchi said ahead of the talks that Tehran was committed to diplomacy and called on “all parties involved in the talks to seize the opportunity to reach a reasonable and logical nuclear deal.”

“Such an agreement should respect Iran’s legitimate rights and lead to the lifting of unjust sanctions on the country while addressing any doubts about its nuclear work,” Araghchi said, according to Iranian state media.

Tehran has sought to tamp down expectations of a quick deal, however, and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this week he was “neither overly optimistic nor pessimistic” that a deal would be reached.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Capability in Focus

It is unclear what the current contours of negotiations hinge on. Iranian officials last week said the initial rounds of talks would be focused on laying out each party’s position and any red lines.

To that end, U.S. President Donald Trump has made preventing Tehran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon a priority of his foreign policy platform. He appears willing to allow the Middle Eastern country to maintain its nuclear power facilities, provided its uranium enrichment is brought to lower thresholds.

“I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. [But] I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific.”

Trump first sent a letter to Khamenei in March, suggesting a new deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran refused at the time.

Since then, Trump has doubled down on his stance that the United States “can’t let [Iran] have a nuclear weapon” and has threatened to use military action against Iran if a deal is not reached.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing, and it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” Trump wrote in a March 30 social media post.

Trump also restored a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran in February, reimposing sanctions on Tehran as part of the wider effort to push Iran to the negotiating table.

Tehran does not have nuclear weapons and has continued to enrich uranium at near weapons-grade levels since Trump unilaterally terminated a bilateral nuclear agreement in 2018 that had placed limits on such activities. At the time, Trump criticized the deal as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into” and said it “gave the Iranian regime too much in exchange for too little.”

A report by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog released early in the year suggested that Iran had accelerated its production of near-weapons-grade uranium to such an extent that Tehran could likely produce about a half dozen warheads if it so chose.

Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is willing to negotiate some curbs in return for the lifting of sanctions, but wants watertight guarantees that Washington will not renege again.

46 Years of Enmity

Overcoming the historical enmity between Washington and Tehran is no easy feat. Relations between the two powers have been antagonistic for nearly half a century.

Iran was once one of the United States’ top allies in the Middle East. The Iranian monarchy purchased American-made weapons and was seen by U.S. leaders as an authoritarian but modernizing force that provided a bulwark against the spread of communism.

That relationship came to an end in 1979, when Iran’s last ruling monarch fled the nation amid popular uprisings, and power was seized by Islamist forces. Since that time, the Islamic Republic of Iran has opposed the secular modernism associated with the United States and called for the destruction of the nation of Israel.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have reached a near breaking point in recent years, however, owing in part to Iran’s financial and military support of terror groups including Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Tehran has also signed extensive military technology agreements with Russia in recent years and conducted oil-for-services deals with China that skirt international sanctions. Though it is unclear to what extent, if any, those issues will weigh on current talks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Saturday that he has ordered his forces to “stop all military activity” in Ukraine, declaring an “Easter truce” out of “humanitarian considerations” until the end of Sunday.

Putin said that all hostilities would halt between 6 pm Moscow time on Saturday (11 a.m. ET) and midnight on Monday (5 pm Sunday ET), and stated: “We assume that the Ukrainian side will follow our example.” The truce if held to will total 30 hours.

Both countries have majority Orthodox Christian populations, and in Orthodox tradition Pascha (Easter) services in churches begin around midnight and continue for several hours, followed by more celebrations later into Sunday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signaled willingness to abide by the Easter truce, but quickly after accused Moscow of already violating it. “If Russia is now suddenly ready to truly engage in a format of full and unconditional silence, Ukraine will act accordingly – mirroring Russia’s actions,” he said.

Just after 22:30 local time in Kiev the AFP news agency reported air-raid sirens, suggesting that Russia is breaking the ceasefire, though this doesn’t necessarily mean that projectiles have been inbound:

AFP says its journalists in the Ukrainian capital received an air-raid alert message and were told to proceed to shelters by sirens shortly before 22:00 local time due to a “missile threat” in the region.

Within hours after Putin’s announcement, Zelensky in a Saturday night address said, “According to the report of the commander-in-chief, Russian assault operations continue in some parts of the frontline and Russian artillery continues to fire.”

PUTIN: WE DECLARE AN EASTER TRUCE

“I order for this period to stop all the hostilities from 6:00 PM until midnight, and we expect the Ukraine to follow this example.”

🇷🇺🇺🇦 PUTIN: WE DECLARE AN EASTER TRUCE

“I order for this period to stop all the hostilities from 6:00 PM until midnight, and we expect the Ukraine to follow this example.”

Source: RT https://t.co/H7t7isEIqh pic.twitter.com/t3MDXnqE5a

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 19, 2025

Zelensky further pressed Putin to “give peace a chance” amid the reports that fighting continued in several frontline areas. According to BBC, one senior Ukrainian military official said that “his unit and others received orders to stop firing at Russian positions minutes after the truce was due to start.”

The Ukrainian leader followed by asserting that if Putin is serious about peace, he would be willing to extend the impromptu Easter ceasefire through the end of the month:

“If Russia is now suddenly ready to actually join the format of complete and unconditional silence, Ukraine will act in a mirror image, as it will on the Russian side. Silence in response to silence, strikes in defense of strikes,” Zelensky said, calling for the Easter truce to be extended to 30 days.

“This will show Russia’s true intentions, because 30 hours is enough for headlines, but not for real confidence-building measures. Thirty days can give peace a chance,” he said.

According to reporting in CNN as of Saturday evening local time:

The head of Kherson’s regional military administration, Oleksandr Prokudin, said on Saturday evening local time that a high-rise building in the Dniprovskyi district of Kherson had caught fire after being struck by drones. Russian drones also attacked the villages of Urozhayne and Stanislav, he said.

“Unfortunately, we do not observe any ceasefire. The shelling continues and civilians are under attack again,” Prokudin said. “This is another confirmation that Russia has nothing sacred.”

But it’s hard to assess the degree that this special ceasefire is holding elsewhere. There as of yet are no significant or widespread reports of fighting or attacks across various Ukrainian towns and cities, suggesting it could be effective.

277 Ukrainian soldiers returned from Russian captivity today in a POW exchange with the Russians pic.twitter.com/WD5rLXGce1

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 19, 2025

One confirmed bright point is that the two warring sides did conclude another major prisoner swap on the occasion of the Easter holiday weekend. The Russian Defense Ministry announced the military swapped 246 captured Ukrainian soldiers for the same number of Russian troops.

The “gesture of good will” further included the freeing of 31 wounded Ukrainian troops for 15 wounded Russian servicemen. All of this comes after the White House has said its patience is wearing thin, and wants to see the two sides quickly come to the negotiating table, and expects this to happen in days or within at least weeks.

JUST IN: 🇷🇺 Russian President Putin attend’s Easter service at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior. pic.twitter.com/DMluyIH0BE

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) April 19, 2025

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Last week, we discussed the “tariff reprieve” that sent stocks ripping higher in the 3rd largest one-day advance on record.

“As we said last week, any good news would cause the market to rally sharply. On Wednesday, President Trump announced a 90-day pause on the full effect of new tariffs. Interestingly, the same headline sent stocks surging on Monday but was quickly deemed “fake news” by the White House. I suspect that Monday was a “leak” by the White House to test the market response, and President Trump kept that announcement handy to stave off a further decline in the markets. Whatever the reason, the markets needed the break.”

However, this week, the market was hit following a speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, in which he stated that the administration’s tariffs could spark “higher inflation and lower growth.” If that sounds familiar, it should. In 2021, Powell noted that inflation would be transitory as the money supply exploded by 42%. He was wrong then and is likely wrong again by fixating on hypothetical tariff shocks while ignoring the deflationary “red flags” from falling oil prices, slowing consumption, declining savings rates, and rising delinquencies.

Unsurprisingly, President Trump responded to Powell’s comments very quickly, reminiscent of the feud between the two during 2018. In a post on Truth Social, President Trump wrote:

Trump is correct in his statement. The ECB’s decision to cut rates for the seventh time was unanimous. Regardless of Powell’s reason for his position, the stress on the financial system is increasing. As we noted last week, credit spreads are rising, and there is clear evidence that the economy is weakening as consumer demand softens. The Federal Reserve remains overly concerned about missing the inflation push in 2021 by not recognizing the impact of shuttering economic production and sending checks to households. As such, the Fed will likely be late once again in identifying the deflationary pressure of tariffs on economic growth. Of course, just as in 2018, the Fed began cutting rates quickly during 2019 to stem the “repo crisis”. The Fed may be wrong again.

Technical Update

While the markets await the next Federal Reserve meeting, the uncertainty over monetary policy weighs on markets as much as the uncertainty about tariffs. This past week, the market reversed some of its gains from the massive “tariff reprieve” surge. With the MACD back on a buy signal and money flows turning positive, buyers are tepidly stepping back into the market. The 20-DMA continues to act as overhead resistance, defining the current downtrend. While there is undoubtedly a risk of another test of recent lows, which should be expected and why caution remains advisable, a break above the 20-DMA would lead to a rally to the 50-DMA. (Monday’s article will address the “Death Cross” and what it means for investors.)

As is always the case, the market prices in current events and looks forward with more optimistic expectations. While there are many media headline-driven narratives, the tariffs are now a well-known factor, and markets have priced most of the impact into current prices and valuations. Furthermore, the bond market appears to have started resolving the recent “basis trade” blow-up, with bond yields and volatility declining.

Does that mean that the market is now devoid of risk? No. But, as we will discuss further in today’s commentary, we may be closing in on a near-term market low.

Let’s focus on a primary question: Is the market close to a bottom?

The Art Of Contrarianism

You have likely heard the media stat that “bears are like a ‘broken clock,’ they are right twice a day.” While it may seem true during a rising bull market, the statement exposes the ignorance of those making such a claim. If you invert the logic, such things become more evident.

“If ‘bears’ are right twice a day, then ‘bulls’ must be wrong twice a day.”

The biggest problem for investors, and the “broken clock syndrome,” is the emotional biases of being either “bullish” or “bearish.” Effectively, when individuals pick a side, they become oblivious to the risks. One of the most significant factors is “confirmation bias,” where individuals seek confirmation and ignore non-confirming data.

As investors, we should be open to all the data, weigh incoming data accordingly, and assess the risk inherent in our portfolios. That risk assessment should be an open analysis of our current positioning relative to the market environment. Being underweight equities in a rising bull market can be as harmful as being overweight in a bear market.

We believe you should not be “bullish” or “bearish.” While being “right” during the first half of the cycle is essential, it is far more critical not to be “wrong” during the second half.

Howard Marks once stated that being a “contrarian” is tough, lonely, and generally right. To wit:

“Resisting – and thereby achieving success as a contrarian – isn’t easy. Things combine to make it difficult; including natural herd tendencies and the pain imposed by being out of step, particularly when momentum invariably makes pro-cyclical actions look correct for a while. (That’s why it’s essential to remember that ‘being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.’)

Given the uncertain nature of the future, and thus the difficulty of being confident your position is the right one – especially as price moves against you – it’s challenging to be a lonely contrarian.”

Emotions and volatility make us want to avoid the risk of loss. The increased price volatility and subsequent price decline created a substantially higher level of instability. That instability creates “fear” and drives investors to the behavioral bias of “loss aversion,” ultimately leading to poor outcomes.

The fundamentally bearish arguments of valuations, earnings, a Fed policy mistake, and a recession are certainly viable outcomes. However, if “everyone” already expects those outcomes, what happens if something else occurs?

As Bob Farrell’s Rule Number 9 states:

“When all the experts and forecasts agree – something else is going to happen.

Here is some food for thought.

“The most fundamental premise of investing is to ‘buy when everyone is fearful.’ If excesses are built when everyone is on the same side of the trade, what should you do now?”

Risk Off Positioning Hits Extremes

We must evaluate the prevailing sentiment in the overall market to answer that question. Currently, market sentiment is extremely negative based on various measures, from investment positioning (what investors are doing in the market) to overall investor sentiment (how they feel about the market.}

For example, net bullish sentiment among retail and institutional investors is at some of the lowest levels on record, including during the “Financial Crisis.” The extreme negativity is interesting because the recent decline was orderly and mild compared to the chaos during the financial crisis. Yet, investors are as bearish on the current market as they were then. However, it is worth noting that during previous instances when sentiment was as negative as it is currently, such readings were near market bottoms.

Furthermore, the sharp spike in the volatility index, which is considered a “market fear gauge,” spiked to the highest levels seen since the COVID pandemic. If we combine the sentiment measures with the volatility index, we again see more extreme negative readings that often coincide with market lows rather than the beginning of larger reversions.

Other Measures Of Extremes

However, while our measures of fear and greed suggest that negative sentiment is reaching more extreme levels, other measures confirm the same. For example, the BofA survey of global investors intending to cut U.S. equities has been at its highest since the turn of the century. Such previous levels of negative sentiment on U.S. stocks have been a strong contrarian indicator for investors.

The same is shown by the rapid rotation out of U.S. stocks into foreign stocks. While many headlines are being written about that rotation, those duplicate headlines were written almost annually over the last 15 years. Due to strong economic and earnings forecasts, that rotation reverted into U.S. equities each time. In other words, the extremes in “sentiment” away from the U.S. were close to periods when investors should have been buying domestic equities.

However, the current levels are generally consistent with market lows, even when we return our focus to just U.S. equity positioning.

We see the same issue with professional funds that employ trading algorithms to manage equity exposure, which has also been reduced to levels more consistent with market lows rather than continued corrections.

Lastly, institutional funds based on volatility control have also cut exposures sharply.

With equity exposures very low, if there is any “good news” forthcoming, either economically, politically, or earnings-wise, the chase by these fund managers to increase equity exposure will fuel a significant rise in the market. For most investors, by the time they realize the correction is over, it will be far too late to take advantage of the opportunity.

Risk-Off Technical Indicators Also Suggest A Potential Low

When overall risk-off sentiment and positioning are at levels normally coincident with market bottoming processes, the technical indicators have also become so risk-off that they signal risk-on behavior. As we discussed earlier this week, Sentimentrader.com had a great breakdown of various technical indicators, all hitting extremely low levels. Those indicators run the relative strength, breadth, and market momentum gamut.

Sentimentrader tracks 21 indicators in total, which are then combined into a single indicator, giving readings of when markets are trading at more extreme bullish or bearish levels. As shown, the market is currently trading at more extreme risk-off levels. While this does not mean the market is about to rise, historically, such extreme readings have been close to market bottoms.

As Sentimentrader.com notes:

“Declines in the Risk On/Risk Off indicator below 35 have been associated with volatile periods in the market involving significant declines. “Playing defense” during these periods can, at times, help investors avoid some of the financial and psychological pain of riding significant drawdowns to the bottom fully invested. However, this indicator has gone so far to the unfavorable extreme that it might be “so bad that it’s good.”

Historically, when indicators reach such extreme levels, most previous advances or declines are likely complete. However, it does not mean that markets can not go even further into extremes before reaching a bottom. As Sentimentrader.com concluded:

“The good news is that – on a standalone basis – the signal and performance highlighted above make a compelling favorable case for stocks. The bad news is that we would never advise basing portfolio decisions on any one indicator or indicator signal. The proper message from the results above is NOT “All clear for stocks, and happy days are here again.” The proper message is “Ignore the bearish noise, manage risk, and keep an open mind to the potential for better results moving forward – but especially manage risk.”

We agree. Investors usually make psychological investment decisions during market declines to avoid further losses. That is entirely understandable, but as discussed previously, it is one of the leading causes of long-term underperformance.

We Are The Enemy, And The Enemy Is Me

The lesson is that headlines drive sentiment, and rallies can form when sentiment becomes too negative, as may be the case today. Does this mean the next major bull market rally is set to begin? No. But it does suggest that there are such high levels of negative sentiment that selling today will likely be a mistake.

The most significant problems for individuals are the “herding effect” and “loss aversion.” Notably, “loss aversion” is one of the leading factors influencing investment decisions, according to a survey from the CFA Institute.

“Loss aversion is a tendency in behavioral finance where investors are so fearful of losses that they focus on trying to avoid a loss more so than on making gains. The more one experiences losses, the more likely they are to become prone to loss aversion.” – Corporate Finance Institute

Unsurprisingly, investor psychology is one of the most significant reasons individuals consistently fail to achieve their investment goals. Our behavioral traits plague our investment decision-making.

Here is one last example. Price volatility, particularly when prices are declining rapidly, elicits our emotional response of panic. However, while rising volatility from low levels is a risk-off warning, high levels of volatility have often been a risk-on indicator. When the VIX closes above 45, which signals extreme investor fear, it has historically marked strong long-term buying opportunities. Following such spikes, the S&P 500 has more than doubled on average over five years, significantly outperforming periods of lower volatility. Opportunistic rebalancing during these dislocations can enhance long-term portfolio resilience.

George Dvorsky once wrote that:

“The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. But that doesn’t mean our brains don’t have major limitations. The lowly calculator can do math thousands of times better than we can, and our memories are often less than useless — plus, we’re subject to cognitive biases, those annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions.“

In other words:

“The most dangerous element to our success as investors…is ourselves.”

As a contrarian investor, excesses get built when everyone is on the same side of the trade.

From that basis, while it is easy to be very negative about the market currently, everyone is so bearish that the markets could respond in a manner no one expects.

We are not saying it will be the case, but we should be very open to the possibility.

The last time the U.S. faced an average tariff rate this high was in March 1933, during the first inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the time, the country was in the depths of the Great Depression, and the Dust Bowl was devastating agricultural lands.

Fast forward 80 years, and Goldman analysts don’t see history repeating itself (yet)—despite Democrats hoping for “Great Depression 2.0.” As the analysts told clients:

Around about the last time the U.S. had import tariff rates as high as we have today, the President then declared that “the only fear we have is fear itself.”

A bold statement from FDR who remained in office until the tail end of World War II, suggesting perhaps that we actually had a lot of fear back then.

Fast forward 80 years or so, and the U.S. economy is in far better shape than it was back in the 1930s. The post-pandemic echo-boom has ushered in a string of years with above-trend growth, much of which has been driven by the U.S. consumer.

Goldman analysts Chris Hussey and Sarah Herr provided clients with more color on tariffs:

Patrick Creuset sizes the potential impact of tariffs and de-globalization on trade volumes in an Apr-15 note, “Global Transportation: De-globalization: Trade Recession Roadmap.” If the effective U.S. tariff rate were to return to levels seen in the 1930s, we could see a significant drop in U.S. trade volumes. However, our economists, including Elsie Peng, Alec Phillips, and David Mericle, do note that shifts in trade flows are likely to substantially reduce the increase in the effective tariff rate in an Apr-15 US Economics Analyst, “How Much Will the Effective Tariff Rate Rise?” However, if U.S. import demand shifts away from China toward countries with higher production costs but lower U.S. tariff rates, the impact on prices of imported goods will be larger than implied by the increase in the effective tariff rate.

The U.S. average tariff rate based on recent announcements would be the highest since the 1930s

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act contributed to a c.60% drop in U.S. trade in 1931/32

Separately, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow forecast adjusted away from US GDP Q1 in ‘Great Depression’ mode last week.

Democrats have been mounting an info war with their MSM cheerleaders in their attempt to convince consumers that economic armageddon is imminent.

The analysts’ takeaway is that today’s U.S. economy is on far stronger footing than it was eight decades ago. However, what could derail the party is what Trump said last week: Jerome Powell is “playing politics” with interest rates.