The US Department of State has been funding a “disinformation” tracking group through its Global Engagement Center (GEC), which reportedly works at demonetizing sites it accuses of disseminating “disinformation,” – which are overwhelmingly conservative news outlets, the Washington Examiner reports.

The Global Disinformation Index, a British organization with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups, is feeding blacklists to ad companies with the intent of defunding and shutting down websites peddling alleged “disinformation,” the Washington Examiner reported. This same “disinformation” group has received $330,000 from two State Department-backed entities linked to the highest levels of government, raising concerns from First Amendment lawyers and members of Congress.

GDI through its website maintains a “dynamic exclusion list” of the worst offenders of disinformation online, which it then distributes to ad tech companies – such as Microsoft’s Xandr – in order to try and “defund and downrank these worst offenders,” and deprive said sites of ad revenue.

According to The American Conserviative executive director Emily Doak, “They might consider TAC a ‘high-risk’ publication because we have consistently taken on the bipartisan establishment’s sacred cows, whether it’s the war in Iraq, nation-building in Afghanistan, or the harm done by free trade and open borders — and we’ve been proven right time and time again,” adding “They know they can’t say we’re wrong, only that we’re biased and ‘high-risk,’ so we will wear that designation as a badge of honor.”

In 2018, the GEC began funding Disinfo Cloud, a State Department spokesperson told the Washington Examiner. The GEC awarded roughly $300,000 to an investment group called Park Advisers, which fights “disinformation, terrorism, violent extremism, hate speech” to manage Disinfo Cloud, the spokesperson said.

Park Advisers implemented Disinfo Cloud “to provide the U.S. government and its partners with a database of the tools and technologies available to help push back against foreign propaganda and disinformation,” according to its website, which links to Disinfo Cloud’s former landing page that has since been pulled off the internet. -Washington Examiner

One State Department-funded group which supports GDI is the nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy, which receives nearly 100% of its funding from congressional appropriations ($300 million in 2021), which critics have argued is essentially giving money to a government grantmaking body despite its status as a private entity.

In 2020, $230,000 went from the NED to the AN foundation, a GDI group that also goes by the Disinformation Index Foundation. The grant was to “deepen understanding of the challenges to information integrity in the digital space” in Asia, Africa and other foreign countries, and to “assess disinformation risks of local online media ecosystems.”

The Global Engagement Center notably appeared in the Twitter Files reported by @mtaibbi https://t.co/M3LM3PkkrX

— Gabe Kaminsky (@gekaminsky) February 10, 2023

Meanwhile in September 2021, the GEC hosted the US-Paris Tech Challenge – an event which sought to “advance the development of promising and innovative technologies against disinformation and propaganda” in Europe and the UK. The event was a “collaboration with U.S. Embassy Paris, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” and several other organizations.

Civil rights experts are appalled.

“Any outfit like that engaged in censorship shouldn’t have any contact with the government because they’re tainted by association with a group that is doing something fundamentally against American values,” said Jeffrey Clark, former acting head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in a statement to the Examiner. “The government or any private entity shouldn’t be involved with this entity that’s engaged in conduct that is either legally questionable or at least morally questionable.”

In addition to Park Advisers and Disinfo Cloud, partners for the Paris challenge included the Atlantic Council, a major think tank, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and others, according to the State Department.

— Gabe Kaminsky (@gekaminsky) February 10, 2023

Meanwhile, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said: “Last year, under tremendous bipartisan pressure, I refused to reauthorize the Global Engagement Center because such a step seemed premature,” adding “The most recent allegations, if verified, confirm the need for a strict accounting of all U.S. taxpayer funds going to the GEC.”

Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) says that the Biden administration is “knee deep” in left-leaning efforts to “crack down” on speech – telling the Examiner: “House Republicans will be hauling these bad actors before Congress, and I absolutely support legislation to ban federal funding of anti-free speech groups.“

Authored by Lorenz Duchamps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The GoFundMe fundraising website removed multiple campaigns that were set up to support and raise money for a 73-year-old Arizona rancher who was arrested in late January and charged with first-degree murder after allegedly shooting and killing an illegal alien who reportedly trespassed on his property.

A spokesperson for the platform told NTD in an emailed statement that the company’s terms of service “explicitly prohibit campaigns that raise money to cover the legal defense of anyone formally charged with an alleged violent crime.”

“Consistent with this long-standing policy, any fundraising campaigns for the legal defense of someone charged with murder are removed from our platform,” the spokesperson said, noting that people who donated to the fundraising campaigns for George Alan Kelly’s legal expenses “have been fully refunded.”

On Jan. 30, authorities proceeded with the arrest of Kelly after finding the body of 48-year-old Gabriel Cuen-Butimea, an illegal immigrant who lived in Nogales, Mexico, and allegedly crossed onto Kelly’s land. Cuen-Butimea was identified from a Mexican voter registration card he carried.

According to reports, Cuen-Butimea had entered the United States illegally on multiple occasions and was deported repeatedly.

Full details about the shooting have not been made available yet, and it is unknown whether the rancher and the deceased knew each other.

Kelly is being held at the Santa Cruz County Jail in Nogales, Arizona, and his bail was set at $1 million by Justice Emilio Velasquez. Kelly requested the judge to lower his bail in order to go back home and take care of his wife, but this motion was denied by the judge, who told Kelly that his lawyer had to file a request, which has yet to be done.

“She’s there by herself … nobody to take care of her, the livestock, or the ranch,” he said, according to Nogales International. “And I’m not going anywhere. I can’t come up with a million dollars.”

Read more here…

The Biden administration’s lip service about new IRS enforcement only being targeted toward the country’s wealthiest appears to be just that: lip service.

Instead, while we have been distracted with rhetoric about billionaires paying their fair share, the Biden Administration’s IRS is actually looking to stock its coffers with the tips of waiters and waitresses across the country. This newly planned targeting of middle-class Americans was proposed this week.

Earlier this week the IRS proposed a new procedure to “improve tip reporting compliance”, as they so brilliantly put it. Fox News reported:

As part of the program, which wouldn’t go into effect until after a multi-month public comment period, the IRS could withdraw liability protection related to “rules that define tips as part of an employee’s pay” from employers that don’t cooperate.

The program can’t go into effect until it makes it through a multi-month comment period, Fox News reported. 

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., the chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax, told Fox this week: “Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Now, the IRS is going after middle-income families and working moms and dads who are just trying to make ends meet and put food on the table.” 

“My colleagues and I have warned for months that the IRS would start targeting hardworking Americans in the Biden administration’s quest for more taxpayer dollars. Now, we’re starting to see some of these concerns come to fruition,” he continued.

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., another senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, agreed. 

Smith said: “Bank surveillance efforts, 1099-Ks, 87,000 new IRS agents to target taxpayers, and now a new program to go after service industry workers’ tips are all a direct result of the Biden administration’s desire to tax working families and small businesses as much as possible.”

Smith continued: “Make no mistake: the administration’s many attempts at raising revenue are because they are unwilling to come to the table to address the debt crisis, which would require curbing their spending addiction.” 

“The days of one-party rule are over, and House Republicans will use our majority to ensure hardworking families are not subject to higher taxes and more government mandates, especially not as they struggle under soaring inflation. Accountability is here – the Biden administration has some explaining to do.”

Rep. Michelle Steel, R-Calif, commented: “When the IRS comes after you, it’s not voluntary. Families across the country are struggling with record inflation and fighting to make ends meet. The last thing waitresses and waiters need is to be targeted by their own government.”

Steel continued: “The House’s first order of business this year was to pass my bill to defund President Biden’s army of 87,000 IRS agents that were ready to increase audits on middle- and lower-income American families. This new rule doesn’t add up with President Biden’s claim that he will never come after anyone earning less than $400,000 a year. I strongly oppose this proposed rule and I urge President Biden to reverse course immediately.”

Mike Palicz, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform said the IRS’ goal is “to go and grab as much revenue as possible and from whoever they can.”

Authored by Dr. Yuhong Dong via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Do you know when Paxlovid should be used to treat COVID-19? Are you aware of the reasons for the mixed results of its phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data versus its real-life studies? Do you know what the most significant concern about Paxlovid is for its future application in treating COVID-19?

Reputed as a so-called “game-changer” oral antiviral pill to treat COVID-19, Paxlovid can prevent hospitalization and death in people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19. However, you should know that the research findings on Paxlovid are not always what they seem to be.

We will provide a balanced, unbiased review related to Paxlovid’s development history, clinical trial and real-world effectiveness data, and the drug’s advantages and limitations. We will also clarify the connection between oral antivirals and human immunity.

Summary of Key Facts

1. Paxlovid Is Not Yet Approved by the FDA

2. Paxlovid Should Be Used Soon After Virus Infection

3. Clinical Trial: 89% Efficacy With Side Effects of Dysgeusia and Diarrhea

4. Paxlovid Doesn’t Work in Younger Patients

5. In a Real-World Study, Paxlovid Has Shown Limited Effectiveness

6. Finding “Treatable” Patients Has Proven Challenging

7. Drug Resistance Is a Major Concern

8. Another Major Concern Is Paxlovid’s Interaction With Other Drugs

9. Natural Immunity Influences the Success of Paxlovid and Other Antivirals

Pfizer’s Paxlovid contains two active ingredients. The first is nirmatrelvir (PF-07321332), a protease inhibitor that interrupts the viral replication cycle.

The action of viral protease is like a pair of scissors in the hands of a tailor. The protease can cut the long synthesized viral protein (like a piece of cloth) into various fragments with different functions. The virus will combine these protein fragments into a complete virus particle.

When the protease of the virus is inhibited, the virus is not able to replicate successfully; thus, protease is often treated as a therapeutic target by the pharmaceutical industry.

The other active ingredient of Paxlovid is an old HIV drug, ritonavir. Ritonavir is an HIV protease inhibitor that can help slow down the metabolism or breakdown of nirmatrelvir, thus maintaining nirmatrelvir’s effective concentrations.

1. Paxlovid Is Not Yet Approved by the FDA

On Dec. 22, 2021, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir tablets co-packaged with ritonavir tablets) to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

On June 30, 2022, Pfizer filed a New Drug Application (NDA) with the FDA, seeking approval for Paxlovid. As of today, however, it has not been approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID-19.

2. Paxlovid Should Be Used Soon After Virus Infection

A group of researchers, mainly from Pfizer Worldwide Research, published an article in Science on Nov. 2, 2021, about the discovery and characterization of Paxlovid. In vitro antiviral activity of Paxlovid has been evaluated in multiple cellular models. In vitro testing showed that Paxlovid demonstrated potent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and other similar coronaviruses.

However, the researchers noted that Paxlovid should be given very soon after a subject is infected with COVID-19.

When given to mice as early as four hours after infection with SARS-CoV-2, a 300 or 1,000 mg/kg treatment of Paxlovid was effective in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the lungs.

This means Paxlovid should be taken as early as possible post-virus infection. That is also the rationale for the inclusion criteria: only patients within five days of symptom onset were recruited in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. In other words, if the viral infection is in a late stage and the illness is more severe, Paxlovid may not be as helpful as it is for early infection.

It is worth mentioning that the start time of giving Paxlovid treatment, four hours after the virus infected animals, was even shorter than another antiviral, molnupiravir, which was dosed at 12 hours and 36 hours after virus infection in animals.

3. Clinical Trial: 89% Efficacy With Side Effects of Dysgeusia and Diarrhea

The findings of phase 2–3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial supported by Pfizer were published on Feb. 16, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial involved 2,246 symptomatic, unvaccinated, non-hospitalized adult patients who were at high risk for developing severe COVID-19 symptoms, and symptom onset was no more than five days. They were randomly selected to receive either Paxlovid 300 mg with other standard care or a placebo with other traditional medicine twice a day for five days.

The final analysis, involving 1,379 patients, showed that Paxlovid reduced the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death by 89 percent, compared to the placebo group when given less than five days after symptom onset.

The main side effects observed with Paxlovid vs. control were dysgeusia (a taste disorder, 5.6 percent versus 0.3 percent) and diarrhea (3.1 percent versus 1.6 percent), both higher than the placebo group. This indicates potential side effects on the neurological and gastroenterological systems.

Again, consistent with the development concept of this drug and aligned with its animal data, the drug has to be taken at an early stage of infection. Most patients (66.3 percent) received the first dose of the trial drug or placebo within three days after the onset of symptoms.

In the real world, not many patients can take the drug in the first onset days, especially during the current Omicron era, as most patients may view their symptoms as a common cold and may not be aware of having contracted COVID-19.

Read more here…

Authored by Andrew Korybko via The Automatic Earth blog,

Indian media revealed in mid-January that their country had been processing and re-exporting discounted Russian oil to the West, including the US, in a move that discredited the spirit of that de facto New Cold War bloc’s anti-Russian sanctions.

Most observers brushed off those reports since they went against their worldview wherein it was taken for granted that the US-led West’s Golden Billion wouldn’t ever relieve pressure on Russia by having India serve as the middleman in their oil trade.

According to an expert quoted by Bloomberg in their latest report titled “Oil’s New Map: How India Turns Russia Crude Into The West’s Fuel”, “India’s willingness to buy more Russian crude at a steeper discount is a feature, not a bug, in the plan of Western nations to impose economic pain on Putin without imposing it on themselves.”

Another one was cited as saying that “US treasury officials have two main goals: keep the market well supplied, and deprive Russia of oil revenue.”

That other expert added that “They are aware that Indian and Chinese refiners can earn bigger margins by buying discounted Russian crude and exporting products at market prices. They’re fine with that.” This insight from Bloomberg, which is held in high regard as one of the world’s premier business outlets, completely shifts the paradigm through which observers interpret the energy dimension of the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian sanctions.

The “official narrative” up until this point was that they were aimed bankrupting the Kremlin in the hopes that it would immediately stop its ongoing special operation and perhaps even “Balkanize” if the desired economic collapse catalyzed uncontrollable socio-political processes like during the late 1980s. The New York Times recently admitted that the anti-Russian sanctions failed, however, pointing to reputable evidence that this targeted state’s economy has stopped contracting and even began to grow.

In the face of these “politically inconvenient” facts, it was thus foreseeable in hindsight that the “official narrative” would have to more comprehensively change in an attempt for the Golden Billion to “save face” before its people, ergo Bloomberg’s latest contribution to this perception management end. The public is now being gaslighted into thinking that the sanctions were never meant to bankrupt the Kremlin, stop its special operation, or “Balkanize” Russia, but just erode a little bit of its revenue.

The reality is that the outcome reported upon by Bloomberg is indeed a “bug” and not a “feature” like they’re claiming in hindsight out of desperation to revise history for self-interested soft power reasons. The Golden Billion didn’t fully forecast the lasting consequences of their sanctions since they naively took for granted that they’d immediately bankrupt the Kremlin, stop its special operation, and subsequently “Balkanize” Russia, none of which ultimately transpired.

They can’t rescind their unilateral economic restrictions though since that would be an unprecedented soft power victory for Russia, hence why they began putting feelers out across the market to explore alternative workarounds for ensuring the reliability of their imports, albeit at a premium. India’s pragmatic policy of principled neutrality towards the Ukrainian Conflict in full defiance of US demands upon it to “isolate” Russia ended up being an inadvertent godsend for the West in this context.

Had that globally significant Great Power not ramped up its purchase of Russian oil to the extent that it did in order to withstand the systemic shocks caused by the West’s sanctions and which destabilized dozens of fellow Global South states, then there wouldn’t be excess supply for re-export. After helping them meet their needs, which wasn’t part of some “5D chess master plan” between India and the West but the organic outcome of how events unfolded, they reduced their pressure upon it as a quid pro quo.

It was difficult to explain late last year why the US noticeably began reducing pressure on India to distance itself from Russia, but it was thought at the time that this was simply a delayed recognition of geostrategic reality and was being done for pragmatism’s sake to retain their strategic ties. Now, however, it appears as though India’s indispensable role in the global energy market as the middleman in facilitating the now-taboo Russian-Western energy trade played a role in the US’ policy recalibration.

From this insight, it can be concluded that India succeeded not only in resisting US-led Western pressure upon it vis-à-vis its relations with Russia, but also unwittingly ended up doing the Golden Billion a favor in the process by placing itself in the position to ensure the reliability of their energy imports. This observation speaks to its newfound role as the kingmaker in the New Cold War, which will imbue it with increasingly more influence within the global systemic transition the longer that this struggle continues.

*  *  *

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

US officials in Friday press briefings revealed that the large undercarriage of the Chinese balloon shot down off the South Carolina coast last Saturday has been located.

Officials are dubbing it the alleged spy balloon’s “reconnaissance section” – and are describing it as so large, at about 30-feet-long or more, that it will need a specialized crane or winch to recover.

This means recovery efforts could take days longer, the officials explained, also given bad weather moving into the area.

“A second U.S official also told ABC News that while the main reconnaissance section of the balloon has been found, recovery operations have been suspended until Monday because of rough waters,” ABC reports. “The official said the rough weather was outside the window under which Navy divers could safely conduct operations.”

There’s now fear that some of the debris on the ocean floor could be moved by currents related to the bad weather, for which measures are being take to track the objects.

New photographs of the ongoing recovery efforts were also released Friday, showing a large-scale effort with specialized maritime equipment underway.

Given that the ‘reconnaissance section’ of the downed balloon has still not been recovered, as the new information confirms, this makes FBI statements issued within the last two days a bit dubious. 

By mid-week, FBI and other US officials had been describing ‘surveillance’ equipment and antennas observed on the balloon; however, it was left vague whether this was based on direct forensic analysis of the recovered evidence or not, even while acknowledging the FBI was examining some of the debris.

Media headlines suggested that spy equipment had definitively been recovered, but clearly it hasn’t yet, given that the most important part of the balloon remains on the ocean floor.

By Mark Glennon of Wirepoints.

Gov. JB Pritzker has a new solution for Illinois’ shrinking population: Freedom seeking people and companies, he said Monday, will want to come to Illinois because it doesn’t ban books and interfere in the education process. The Washington Post reported last week that he will amplify that case and grow more vocal on it in coming months.

Pritzker’s Illinois is among the last places with standing to make such a claim. Before reviewing his record on that and free speech matters in general, here’s some of what he said Monday, the full video of which is here:

Well, I think broadcasting our values here in Illinois is good for the state of Illinois. That we are opposed to banning books in the state of Illinois is something that people ought to know about us. That we are not interfering with the education system in the state and the way that a teacher presents, you know, their information to their classroom, their kids, you know, that we are, we’re lifting up education, we’re not tearing it down….

And I think that, whether we’re talking about businesses that are thinking about moving here, or people that are thinking about moving here, people are choosing not to go to those states where they’re restricting freedoms, and instead coming to Illinois where we’re protecting….

And it is important, I think, for people to pay attention to it, for us to elevate it to you in the media and for us to talk about it. Because number one, it’s good for the state when people outside of Illinois hear about, and number two, when people in Illinois you know when they go to the voting booth, they may not be prepared to vote for candidates for school board or library board. And they need to be. They need to know that these people, some of the people who are running are actually part of these organizations trying to restrict freedoms.

Pritzker, however, is no champion of free speech and no opponent of dogmatism in classrooms. He has let the left’s cancel mob run free in Illinois under his governorship, in schools and everywhere else. Some examples:

• The Illinois Department of Education during his rule imposed its “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning Standards” on Illinois’ K-12 schools, despite intense opposition from many parents. The standards not only embedded racialism into curriculum but effectively told teachers what they must think, believe and teach – in broad political terms — and can disqualify teachers who don’t conform. We wrote about the standards here, here and here.
• Last year, Pritzker wrote that nobody should be allowed to run for office who doesn’t agree with his version of the January 6 Capitol Building riot. He separately described that event as “a frothing mob of traitors marching toward the capitol looking to shoot members of Congress and hang the Vice President.” Agree to those facts as Pritzker sees them or you cannot hold office — that’s his view. That would be flagrantly illegal to enforce and it was an astonishing claim for Pritzker — or any lawyer — to make.
• The University of Illinois, like some other universities, mandates the widely ridiculed, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion statements used for hiring and promoting faculty. “Loyalty oaths” for wokeness, they’ve been called, which we described here. Pritzker has never objected. Countless other examples of free speech suppression at Illinois colleges and universities are routine, which Pritzker never questions.
• Last year, prior to the election, Illinois with Pritzker’s approval, forced gas stations and grocery stores to post ads boasting of supposed relief from the state sales tax. It was forced speech at its worst.
• During the pandemic, Pritzker openly rejected any discussion or collection of information on natural immunity’s potential role in the course of the virus, echoing an establishment narrative that likewise repressed any discussion of the subject.
• Illinois in 2017 imposed mandatory implicit bias training for all public school teachers. That was before Pritzker became governor but he undoubtedly supports it and has never questioned it.
• Pritzker wrongly helped censor “The Scream” ad in the last election cycle. That ad was comprised of nothing more than a video and audio taken by a home recorder of an assault and a woman screaming. NBC wrongly took the ad down after Pritzker objected to it along with, according to NBC, some of its viewers.

School boards and libraries across the nation are facing heated objections by many parents to the lessons and books to which their children are exposed. Sometimes they indeed go too far with attempts at book banning or other mandates of their own. But lines must be drawn somewhere, particularly for young children, and reasonable people who respect free speech may have different opinions.

What’s clear, however, is that Pritzker’s Illinois is no exemplar and that Pritzker has no credibility in the debate.

We should have known.

Pritzker was put to the test while he was first a candidate.

As a trustee at Northwestern University in 2017, when Pritzker first ran for governor, he let one of higher education’s worst opponents of free speech run amok at the school. At the time, Northwestern President Morton Schapiro was being nationally criticized as “one of the most hostile university presidents toward free speech principles in the country.” That’s how Jonathan Turley, a Northwestern alum and respected law prof put it. “His pandering to those demanding speech codes and regulations should be an embarrassment for the university,” Turley wrote.

Our column on it at the time was headlined “JB Pritzker, Here’s a Simple Test of What You’re Made Of.”

Pritzker flunked that test.

He did nothing. Thanks mostly to Schapiro and the trustees like Pritzker who did nothing, Northwestern has since been routinely ranked among the worst schools on free speech issues.

In that 2017 column I wrote this:

I know J.B. Pritzker quite well through work in the venture capital community. I like him a lot, though our politics differ….

What I don’t know, however, is how far left he is — whether he has joined the intolerant left now dangerously ascending across the country, particularly on campuses.

Now we know. He’s part of it.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Ukraine is reliant on coordinates provided or confirmed by the US and its allies to launch strikes using the US-provided HIMARS rocket systems, a revelation that demonstrates Washington’s deep involvement in the war.

The HIMARS is a precision-guided artillery system, one that Ukraine has employed quite a bit in its fight against Russia. One example is a January 1 HIMARS strike on a facility housing Russian forces in Donetsk that killed at least 89 Russian soldiers, one of the deadliest Ukrainian attacks of the war.

Citing three unnamed Ukrainian officials and one unnamed US official, the Post reported that Ukraine also relies on the US for targeting coordinates for similar precision weapons, including the M270 Multiple-Launch Rocket System.

One senior Ukrainian official said that Ukrainian forces almost never launch strikes using these weapons without coordinates provided by US military personnel that are located at a military base in a different country in Europe.

Top Biden administration officials have acknowledged publicly that they have been providing Ukraine with intelligence to carry out attacks on Russian forces, but the details of that cooperation were not previously known.

The Post report said that Ukrainian officials identify targets they want to hit and the location, then provide that information to the US military for more accurate coordinates. The US military then usually sends the coordinates, although sometimes they don’t, and the Ukrainian forces don’t fire.

A senior Ukrainian official said that the cooperation shows the US can provide longer-range weapons without having to worry about them being used to hit inside Russian territory. “You’re controlling every shot anyway, so when you say, ‘We’re afraid that you’re going to use it for some other purposes,’ well, we can’t do it even if we want to,” the official said.

Late night Ukrainian HIMARS launches pic.twitter.com/VRmlaYuF1I

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) January 31, 2023

But a US official disputed the idea that Ukraine was running the targets by the US for approval and said the US only provides coordinates. Back in August, a top Ukrainian intelligence official said that they consult with the US before launching HIMARS strikes and that the US has veto power over the target. Ukraine could have more freedom now to choose its own targets as the Biden administration is less and less concerned about escalating the war.

Russia has made clear it views the US and Ukraine’s cooperation on targeting as an example of Washington’s direct role in the war, and Moscow isn’t alone in its assessment. Back in March 2022, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said the US wasn’t providing “real-time targeting intelligence” because that kind of cooperation “steps over the line to making us participate in the war.”

Texas has punted Citigroup from the syndicate that’s set to manage the Lone Star state’s largest-ever municipal bond offering, saying the bank’s policies for gun retailers discriminate against the firearms industry, Bloomberg has reported.   

On Thursday, the Texas Natural Gas Securitization Finance Corp. board reconstituted the lineup of banks that will handle the $3.4 billion offering, jettisoning Citi from a list that was first made in May 2022.   

The move comes in the wake of last month’s determination by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that Citi’s retailer rules violate a 2021 Texas law that bars the state from contracting with companies that impose anti-gun policies.  

“It has been determined that Citigroup has a policy that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association,” wrote the Texas attorney-general office’s Leslie Brock at the time. “Therefore, until further notice, we will not approve any public security issued on or after today’s date in which Citigroup purchases or underwrites the public security.” 

Following the Feb. 2018 mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Citibank announced that it would prohibit affiliated retailers from:

• Selling so-called “high-capacity” magazines
• Selling firearms to people under age 21
• Selling bump stocks
• Selling guns to people who haven’t passed a background check 

Citi paused its Texas work after the gun-discrimination law’s passage, but then resumed it two months later, and subsequently managed various transactions, including a billion-dollar DFW airport offering.

Now, however, Citi will now sit on the sidelines of a $3.4 billion offering that will help cover the cost of bailing out natural gas utilities that were hammered by the Feb. 2021’s infamous Winter Storm Uri. The financing of that burden will help spread the cost over decades.     

The National Shooting Sports Foundation pushed for the passage of the Texas gun discrimination law, and questioned Citi’s continued business with the state. 

Last month, spokesman Mark Oliva told Bloomberg the group was “extremely gratified” that Texas will enforce the law which “refuses the ability of ‘woke’ banks to profit from Texan’s tax dollars while at the same time using those profits to pursue policies that deny Texans their Constitutional rights.” 

Don’t mess with guns or oil if you want to do business with the Texas government: In October, Texas boot UBS Group from the same deal after saying it effectively “boycotts” fossil fuels.   

Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

Trades favoring disinflation are soon set to reverse as price increases prove more entrenched than anticipated.

This year, higher-duration sectors, such as tech, telcos and consumer discretionary have led stocks’ advance, while low-duration ones such as energy and utilities have underperformed. This is a reversal of the trend from late 2021, where investors started to shun high-duration stocks as inflation began to rise rapidly.

Duration is the ultimate driver of investor preferences in an inflationary cycle such as the current one. This year growth has begun to outperform value again, and cyclicals are outpacing defensives, but these obscure the bigger picture of how long-duration assets are best avoided when inflation risk is high.

Investors re-embracing higher-duration stocks is a signal they are also embracing the disinflationary narrative, one endorsed by the Fed and priced in to inflation swaps.

That narrative may soon run into trouble though. Headline inflation is falling, but this is almost all due to the drop in cyclical inflation. We can estimate cyclical and structural inflation by looking at the sub-components of CPI that are persistently above trend (structural) and those that are not (cyclical).

The chart below shows that while cyclical inflation has fallen, structural inflation is barely off its peak.

What is likely to happen is that cyclical inflation will keep falling in the near term, taking headline CPI lower. But structural inflation will remain stubborn, meaning CPI will make a higher low. At this point, cyclical inflation will begin rising again, taking headline inflation with it.

This would be a rude awakening for tech and consumer discretionary and other high-duration sectors that have risen this year. 

The bigger trend of lower-duration sectors outperforming – encapsulated in the energy vs tech stock rotation – is likely to re-assert itself sooner rather than later, taking the market lower with it.