On Tuesday Reuters is reporting one of the first high-level meeting between US government representatives and the post-Assad government in Syria.

Jolani’s (al-Sharaa) Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is still officially a US-designated terror group, but its Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shiban met with US Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Syria Natasha Franceschi on the sidelines of a March 18 European donors conference in Brussels on March 18.

This was reportedly for the US side to convey a list of demands, vowing that in return the HTS Syrian regime could receive sanctions relief.

The far-reaching sanctions in question had targeted the Assad government, but for years has unleashed broader suffering among the Syrian population – including lack of electricity, fuel shortages, limited medicines, and runaway inflation.

Interestingly one of the key demands is for the destruction of any remaining chemical weapons stores. Since Assad’s ouster on December 8, Israel has bombed the country repeatedly, targeting former army bases as well as known chemical weapons production sites.

The US is also reportedly demanding that foreign fighters not be installed in top government posts – though this has already happened. Self-declared President Sharaa (Jolani) himself is a former ISIS and AQ operative.

According to more details of the US list via Al Jazeera:

Syria has already appointed some foreign ex-rebels, including Uyghurs, a Jordanian and a Turk, to its defence ministry — a move that alarmed foreign governments.

Washington also asked Syria to appoint a liaison to assist US efforts to find Austin Tice, the US journalist who went missing in Syria more than a decade ago, according to the two US officials and both sources in Washington.

In return for fulfilling all the demands, Washington would provide some sanctions relief, all six sources said. The sources did not specify what relief would be offered, and said Washington did not provide a specific timeline for the conditions to be fulfilled.

Another question which remains will be the fate of Syria’s oil and gas fields in the northeast. Currently they are under US military occupation, and historically have provided enough energy to satisfy Syria’s domestic needs. 

Syria: A pro-Julani outlet with 364 thousand followers blurred the photo of Kaja Kallas after the EU pledged €5.8 billion. pic.twitter.com/LZsDgAK7y0

— Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) March 18, 2025

The Syrian Kurds have just struck a deal for integration into Syrian state institutions. This means the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) will have closer cooperation with Damascus, possibly eventually handing over the oil fields.

Authored by Bob Ivry and Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to connect lower-income Americans involved in civil disputes with free legal help. The law that established the agency stipulated that authorization for its funding would expire in 1980, when lawmakers were required to vote on whether to keep it alive.

They never did. Still, Congress has funded LSC every year since. In fiscal 2025, its 51st year, LSC’s 135 employees will spend 95% of its now $560 million annual budget paying legal groups to represent Americans in cases such as eviction, domestic violence, and disputes over government benefits, according to Ron Flagg, the agency’s president since 2020.

“LSC would welcome reauthorization,” Flagg said. “We haven’t hidden from it. Every budget cycle, we go through an exhaustive process before Congress appropriates funds — dozens of meetings with leaders of both parties. We demonstrate our return on investment, how we help 2 million Americans get life-saving legal help.” 

The Legal Services Corp. now stands as America’s oldest “Zombie” program, but it’s far from unique. At a time when the Trump administration is moving aggressively to scale back government, including eliminating the entire Education Department, it’s sobering to note that 1,503 agencies or programs live on despite expired authorizations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Another 155 will expire on Sept. 30. The Zombies, nearly half of which have been officially dead for more than a decade, persist in a budgetary netherworld. In a deep dive last year, CBO analysts were able to find dollar amounts for 491 of the programs, with total expenditures of $516 billion. They don’t know how much funding the other programs received. 

The total federal budget in 2024 was $6.8 trillion, meaning expired Zombie programs take up at least 8% of the budget, and likely much more.

“A lot of programs don’t get reauthorized because Congress is okay with how they’re operating,” said Josh Huder, former congressional staffer now at the Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute. “They continue to get annual appropriations because most members think they’re worthwhile.”

Many Zombie programs now soak up far more funding than lawmakers originally envisioned. The Federal Election Commission, for example, was expected to spend $9.4 million per year before its authorization expired in 1981. Yet the agency continued to receive funding and spent $95 million in 2024, auditors at government watchdog Open The Books found. The Federal Communications Commission was originally allocated $339.6 million per year. Its funding authorization expired in 2020, yet it spent $28.4 billion last year.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency hasn’t addressed the Zombies that are prowling the federal spreadsheets. Given DOGE’s headlong push to first root out alleged waste, fraud, and abuse and ask questions later, experts say, Zombies may offer a ripe target. 

“One could imagine that if DOGE is clued into the notion of expired authorizations, they’ll think a program is defunct,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at Brookings and professor of political science at George Washington University. She said this would be a mistake. “If Congress is still appropriating money to the programs, they’re not Zombies. They’re living, breathing agencies.”

Binder says the fault lies not with the agencies, some of which have become important enough to be household names, but Congress. Lawmakers have made it so difficult to accomplish their most fundamental tasks, such as funding the government for another year, that they hardly ever get around to doing other important things, such as reauthorizing existing programs. 

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, for example, expired in 2003. Yet in 2024, Congress spent $38.4 billion on 24 of the law’s programs, allowing legislators to influence the White House’s foreign policy and security assistance to other nations. 

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now led by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), supported the funding of 346 expired programs, more than any other committee, the CBO found. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, now chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), spent more identifiable money than any other group: $153.5 billion. 

“Congress’ job doesn’t stop when they allocate the money,” said Casey Burgat, professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. “They have to oversee it. And when they fail to do that they open themselves up to somebody else doing that. In this case, an aggressive executive branch in the form of DOGE.”

Of the 1,503 agencies or programs, 22 remain alive that required a reauthorization vote as long ago as the 1980s, according to the CBO. In addition to the Legal Services Corp., whose authorization expired in 1980, and the FEC (a 1981 reauthorization deadline), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, which oversees the country’s power grids (1984) and the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, whose data informs U.S. policymaking (1984), are among the Zombies pushing middle age. 

Congress has appropriated annual funding for EIA since its inception in 1977, the agency said in an emailed statement. “Subsequent legislation has continued to direct EIA to conduct data collection, analysis and dissemination activities consistent with our mission as the nation’s premier source of energy information.” Spokespeople for the FEC, FERC, and the CBO declined to comment.

Another Zombie, the U.S. African Development Foundation – whose authorization expired in 1987 – made headlines earlier this month when its officials blocked DOGE staff from entering their offices in Washington.

Congress has a history of denying or skipping reauthorizations. In the 1980s and 90s, former North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms became famous for holding up authorizations of the State Department, which he often found insufficiently vigilant against Communism. The frequent flare-ups between Helms and the diplomats of State earned him the nickname “Senator No.” And NASA, the widely respected space program, recently went through periods of time when Congress funded it but didn’t reauthorize it.

The CBO’s list of 1,000-plus agencies and programs with expired reauthorization deadlines offers a window into the variety and volume of federal government activity, from grants to remove lead from drinking water and protect against radon to collecting statistics on prison rape. Lawmakers seem to be nursing a mild obsession with fish. Over the years, they’ve funded without reauthorization a herring study, for instance, and programs to help Atlantic striped bass and tuna thrive. It seems part of a larger interest in wildlife, which includes conservation programs for elephants, rhinos, and tigers and the control and eradication of the venomous brown tree snake, an invasive pest infamous for devouring a scary chunk of Guam’s bird population. 

Environmental and health programs populate the list, from monitoring water quality at beaches and the Energy Star appliance program to medical care for children with asthma and funding for the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. There are also provisions for improving airport security, protection for railroad first responders, and working capital for the Department of Homeland Security. Like a cherry on top, there’s also funding for the Office of Government Ethics.

Congress, whose 29% job-approval rating in February was the highest in four years, would probably “have a hard time assembling a list of programs that they’ve authorized,” said Burgat of George Washington University. “It’s a power void.”

‘Congress Doesn’t Have the Time’

‘DOGE steps into that vacuum with constitutional limitations. In 1974, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits presidents from refusing to spend the money that Congress allocates. 

The Trump administration has challenged the constitutionality of the impoundment law, and DOGE is an ongoing test of the separation of powers between the legislative branch and the executive.

“Authorizations and appropriations are both law,” said Brookings’ Binder. “As long as Congress is voting to spend money on these programs, it would be an impoundment to close them. It would be unconstitutional.”  

To remedy the situation, Congress would have to go through the list of Zombies and decide whether to reauthorize each one, a tedious process that evidently has hovered nowhere near the top of its priority list. “Congress doesn’t have the time to do good institutional housecleaning,” Binder said. “There are a lot of little programs, but also a good deal of big ones. They don’t have the capacity to keep tabs on the authorizations.”

For now, Ron Flagg of Legal Services Corp. waits with a cautious optimism, wary about how DOGE will perceive his agency but confident that after a half century, LSC has the ability to stand up for itself.

“During the first Trump administration we got a raise in money because Congress members don’t view our work as a partisan issue,” Flagg said. “LSC has an ability to go to Congress with the facts. We publish grants, we tell you how many people were served and how many cases were closed and how technology has been advanced and how funding has been leveraged by volunteers. We’re able to make those points to Congress as part as the annual funding process. 

“I’m not sure other agencies have the same ability to advocate for the quality of their work.”

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao compares how the state income taxes have changed between 2000 and 2025. The visualized value is the difference in the top marginal tax rate, measured in percentage points (pp).

We also published just the current top rate in 2025, earlier this month for further context.

Current and historical data for this map is sourced from the Tax Foundation and Tax Policy Center.

Changes are not compared for four states—Rhode Island, Vermont, North Dakota, and Colorado—since their 2000s tax rates were charged as a percentage of federal liabilities owed.

As a result, they have been grayed out on the map and are not discussed in this article.

States Income Tax Burdens Have Broadly Fallen Since 2000

Led by Iowa (-5.18pp), 23 states reduced their top marginal income tax rate since 2000.

Furthermore, two states (Tennessee and New Hampshire) removed income taxes entirely, joining six others that do not tax incomes.

Note: Washington’s 7% tax on capital gains has been listed as an income tax by the source. This is discussed further in the next section.

Many states have switched to flat tax rates in the past 25 years, with Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Utah reducing both the rate and multiple brackets to just the one.

However, some argue that flat rates are regressive as it imposes a larger burden on low income households than higher incomes ones.

Only two states, Alabama and Virginia, have made no changes.

So, Who Increased Their Tax Rates?

Thirteen states and D.C. increased the top rate, with Washington (+7.0 pp) registering the most increase.

However Washington’s 7% flat rate is only applicable for earnings from stocks and bond sales that are above $250,000.

There is an argument that a capital gains tax is different from an income tax since it requires both a sale and declared profit to incur the tax. Furthermore, as far back as 1933, a statewide income tax in Washington was ruled unconstitutional.

However, to stay consistent with the source’s categories, it has been included as income. New Hampshire’s removal of interest and dividends tax is also counted as eliminating income taxes.

If not considering Washington, then New Jersey has seen the highest top rate increase (+4.38pp).

Finally, Massachusetts is the only state that switched from flat to marginal rates: putting in a 9% bracket for income above $1.8 million in a year.

Taxes play a huge role in how each state earns revenue. Check out: Every State’s Biggest Source of Tax Revenue for a quick overview.

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration on March 24 invoked the “state secrets privilege,” a move that could lead to the dismissal of the case against the government regarding the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador.

The “state secrets privilege” is a legal doctrine developed by the Supreme Court to protect sensitive national security information from disclosure in civil litigation. Key cases, such as Totten v. United States (1876) and Reynolds v. United States (1953), established its application, allowing the government to withhold information in litigation if its disclosure would pose a national security risk.

By using this privilege, the Trump administration won’t have to provide information about deportees. Hence, the case against the government might be dismissed.

The government’s court filing stated, “The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided in response to the Court’s March 18, 2025, Minute Order based on the state secrets privilege and the concurrently filed declarations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

While courts must review claims of privilege, they avoid excessive scrutiny to prevent revealing classified information. Recent cases such as United States v. Zubaydah (2021) and Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga (2021) have further defined the scope of this privilege.

The government has used the privilege in a variety of cases, including those involving surveillance, government contracts, and national security threats.

The move comes after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg began weighing whether the government violated his order to turn around planes deporting illegal immigrants alleged to be gang members.

Boasberg asked for details about when the planes landed and who was on board. However, the Trump administration has said that giving that information would harm “diplomatic and national security concerns.”

On March 24, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on whether to stop Boasberg’s order blocking the Trump administration from deporting alleged members of a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett seemed skeptical of the administration’s position. U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, meanwhile, asked multiple questions of both sides and seemed sympathetic to the administration’s arguments.

At one point, Millett told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign that “Nazis got better treatment” under the Alien Enemies Act than the way the administration treated suspected members of Tren de Aragua. The U.S. Department of State designated the Venezuelan gang and several other foreign gangs and cartels as foreign terrorist organizations in February.

The administration transferred hundreds of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador—invoking the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II—shortly before Boasberg issued the written order that blocked such deportations.

Sam Dorman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

By Charles Kennedy of OiPrice.com

Russia on Tuesday said that it would not make public details of the 12 hours of talks with the U.S. on Ukraine which ended on Monday amid expectations that a joint U.S.-Russia statement would be issued shortly.

“After all, this is about technical talks,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

“Technical – meaning the talks with getting into details so, certainly, the content of these talks will not be made public for sure. This is something that should not be expected,” Russian news agency TASS quoted Vladimir Putin’s spokesman as saying.

Peskov’s words raised doubts over whether any progress was made in Monday’s round of talks which took place in Saudi Arabia.

“Currently, the reports made [by the delegations] to their capitals are being analyzed, and only later it will be possible to speak of any understanding,” the Russian official said.

Peskov also declined to name which other countries could be involved in the talks.

The reports shared by the U.S. technical team with the Trump Administration seemed optimistic, sources with knowledge of the matter told CBS News on Tuesday.

The U.S.-Russia talks were held a day after separate U.S.-Ukraine talks on Sunday, which were described as “productive” by Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov.

“We have concluded our meeting with the American team.

The discussion was productive and focused — we addressed key points including energy,” Umerov posted on X on Sunday.

“President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s goal is to secure a just and lasting peace for our country and our people — and, by extension, for all of Europe. We are working to make that goal a reality.”

Last week, Putin agreed to impose a 30-day suspension on attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in exchange for an identical halt of attacks on Russian infrastructure from the Ukrainian side. However, hours after the Putin-Trump call last Tuesday, Russia and Ukraine traded accusations of hits on the energy infrastructure of the other.

The U.S. is reportedly deploying stealth bombers to a tiny island—often referred to as Washington’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier“—located between Africa and Indonesia, about 1,000 miles south of India. The island offers stealth bombers strategic access to the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the Indian Ocean. The move comes as President Trump launches a new campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who have attacked more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones in the critical maritime chokepoint known as the Bab al-Mandab Strait. 

Via Maritime expert Noam Raydan

Several open-source intelligence X accounts, including TheIntelFrog, Open Source Intel, and OSINTdefender, report that Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, large transport jets, and refueling planes have arrived or are currently en route to the military base on Diego Garcia. 

“A significant buildup is happening in Diego Garcia At least 5 USAF B-2 Spirits and 7 C-17A Globemaster IIIs have arrived over the last 3 days, or are currently en route to the island. For reference: Diego Garcia is the red pin on the map,” TheIntelFrog wrote on X. 

A significant buildup is happening in Diego Garcia

At least 5 USAF B-2 Spirits and 7 C-17A Globemaster IIIs have arrived over the last 3 days, or are currently en route to the island.

For reference: Diego Garcia is the red pin on the map. https://t.co/jLcWeqd24m pic.twitter.com/Ei3bpKHosm

— TheIntelFrog (@TheIntelFrog) March 25, 2025

More from TheIntelFrog:

B-2s heard this morning on the way to Diego Garcia being refueled over Australia.

This route to Diego Garcia is longer but requires less diplomatic clearance than transiting across the Atlantic and Europe/Middle East to Diego Garcia. https://t.co/Va1PMJPt9l

— TheIntelFrog (@TheIntelFrog) March 25, 2025

Open Source Intel said, “Four additional USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bombers are heading to Diego Garcia, raising the total to seven—an unprecedented buildup of these strategic assets at the base,” adding, “Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, is 3,500–4,000 km from the Middle East. Its location makes it a key launch point for U.S. long-range bombers like the B-2, with aerial refueling enabling regional reach.” 

NEW 🔴

Four additional USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bombers are heading to Diego Garcia, raising the total to seven—an unprecedented buildup of these strategic assets at the base.

Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, is 3,500–4,000 km from the Middle East. Its location makes it a key… pic.twitter.com/BtmxMqZBPw

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 25, 2025

And this. 

A military NOTAM confirms ramp slots B1 & B2 at Diego Garcia are closed until May 1 — signaling a sustained U.S. air deployment on the U.K.-controlled island.

This timeline overlaps with the end of Trump’s 2-month ultimatum to Iran, adding intrigue to the sudden bomber buildup… pic.twitter.com/jHYUkAq0Km

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 26, 2025

“Following the arrival earlier today of 2 B-2 “Spirit” Long-Range Strategic Stealth Bombers, with the 509th Bomb Wing from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Communications between the bombers and ground stations in San Fransisco have confirmed that another flight of 2-3 B-2s from Whiteman are currently crossing the Pacific Ocean destined for Diego Garcia. This is seeming like a much larger buildup than would be needed for strikes just against the Houthis in Yemen,” OSINTdefender said. 

Following the arrival earlier today of 2 B-2 “Spirit” Long-Range Strategic Stealth Bombers, with the 509th Bomb Wing from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Communications between the bombers and ground stations in San Fransisco have… pic.twitter.com/XcQyLMNba6

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 25, 2025

Most Americans have never heard of the tiny 38-mile-long island, nor has any journalist been allowed access in over three decades. The island features a runway long enough to accommodate B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers and massive C-5M, C-17, and C-130 military cargo planes. The U.S. hosts upwards of 5,000 military personnel and civilian contractors on the secretive island, which is considered a lynchpin of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and across the Indo-Pacific. 

Counterpunch’s Conn Hallinan noted in 2019: “Diego Garcia is central to the U.S. war in Somalia, its air attacks in Iraq and Syria, and its control of the Persian Gulf, and would be essential in any conflict with Iran.” 

Meanwhile, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz recently confirmed that the Trump Administration demanded the “full dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium for civilian use. Russia issued a statement rejecting U.S. demands, saying Tehran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. 

What happens if Tehran doesn’t play ball with Trump? Well, stealth bombers parked on the tarmac at Diego Garcia should be a huge concern. 

Authored by Patricia Adams and Lawrence Solomon via The Epoch Times,

Almost two decades ago, Canada recognized that it needed to greatly bolster its defence capabilities in the Arctic.

“Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in 2007 when at Canada’s Pacific fleet in Esquimalt, B.C. 

“We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it.”

To put Canada’s claim to the Arctic on solid footing, the government announced the construction of a deepwater port in the Far North to house an armed fleet of Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, capable of operating in ice up to one meter thick. By engaging in full operations on the East and West coasts throughout the year, Canada would be able to assert a credible claim.

“In defending our nation’s sovereignty, nothing is as fundamental as protecting Canada’s territorial integrity; our borders, our airspace and our waters,” Harper stressed.

Harper’s grand plans—they included other deep-sea ports and year-round roads to link Arctic ports with the Canadian south—never came to fruition. Canada still has no deepwater Arctic port. Rather than an Arctic flotilla engaging in full operations on both coasts, the most Canada often musters to signify its sovereignty in the High Arctic are abbreviated summertime visits. By that measure, Viking Cruises, which typically operates three or four Arctic cruises per year, has a comparable claim to the Arctic.

Harper was astute in recognizing the forces that would be descending on Canada’s Arctic. Foremost of those at the time was Russia, which has had by far the largest presence in the Arctic, and in 2007 planted a flag on the sea bed at the North Pole in preparation to claiming 460,000 square miles of underwater territory. But the United States, which hasn’t recognized Canada’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, has also been a rival.

Today, the claimants to the Arctic are ever more active. With United States Geological Survey research estimating that the north may contain 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered resources and with global warming expected to make Arctic resources exploitable, claims to the Arctic are mounting.

Russia is displaying its dominance with three dozen icebreakers, including four nuclear-powered icebreakers and a nuclear-powered cargo ship, giving it by far the world’s largest Arctic fleet. China has also emerged as a formidable entrant into the Arctic by asserting an entitlement to Arctic resources through a claim of being “a near-Arctic state.” China already has three icebreakers plying Arctic waters, with more on the way, including a nuclear-powered icebreaker expected this year. To surpass the rival fleets of both Russia and China, U.S. President Trump declared that he intends to build “40 big icebreakers.”

Canada, in comparison, has but two aging icebreakers near the end of their service life and has only recently ordered two new icebreakers, to be completed by 2030. If past experience is a predictor of future performance, however, those icebreakers won’t materialize—most of Canada’s Arctic initiatives lie moribund due to lack of funding.

Canada’s abject Arctic record was documented in a 2022 report by the Auditor General. The report stated that “long-standing issues include incomplete surveillance, insufficient data about vessel traffic in Canada’s Arctic waters, poor means of sharing information on maritime traffic, and outdated equipment. The renewal of vessels, aircraft, satellites, and infrastructure that support monitoring maritime traffic and responding to safety and security incidents has fallen behind to the point where some will likely cease to operate before they can be replaced.”

The Inuit have also become formidable players. Their Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents some 180,000 Inuit in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia, formally aspires to sovereignty. Once it determines that the time is ripe to declare sovereignty, potentially with backing by China and the U.N., Canada would have no ability to militarily prevent them from obtaining a foothold in its Arctic territory. Not that Trump would permit Canada’s north to fall into the hands of a group allied with China. To prevent it, Trump might decide to seize Canada’s northern territories, as he intends to seize neighbouring Greenland.

The Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic correctly notes that “Sovereignty is a contested concept, however, and does not have a fixed meaning.” Canada’s strongest claim to sovereignty among the many different legal opinions as to what constitutes sovereignty is generally thought to rest on the United Nations Convention of the Law of Seas (UNCLOS), to which Canada is a party.

UNCLOS provides Canada with little solace, however. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS; Russia, which is a party, states it is considering leaving UNCLOS, and China, also a party, flagrantly disregards UNCLOS rulings with which it disagrees. Ultimately, the only law throughout history that determined sovereignty has been “might makes right.” On that criterion, Canada falls woefully, hopelessly short.

With Russia, China, the United States, and the Inuit all circling to establish or strengthen claims to sovereignty over Arctic resources, a future conflict appears inevitable. Canada must immediately step up its efforts in the region. As Harper said in 2008: “To protect the North, we must control the North.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

In an exclusive interview, Kostas Bintas, Trafigura Group’s former co-head of metals and now with Mercuria Energy Group Ltd., told Bloomberg that President Trump’s tariff threat on copper could push prices to record highs and unleash unprecedented opportunities for trading profits. 

Bintas explained that massive copper inflows into the US are sending supplies lower elsewhere—most notably in top consumer China. As a result, the global market is showing signs of tightening, pushing Shanghai copper futures into their widest backwardation in over a year. Adding to the pressure, Mercuria forecasts that global demand will outstrip supply by 320,000 tons this year, and inventories ex-US will be significantly depleted. 

“We think there is something exceptional happening in the copper market,” Bintas said, adding, “Is it unreasonable to expect a copper price of $12,000 or $13,000? I’m struggling to put a number on it because this has never happened before.”

The shift of inventory to the US means the Chinese copper market will be left with low stocks… 

“China has been successful historically in rejecting high prices,” the trader said, warning, “This is the first time in recent history that another market is taking tons away from the Chinese market. That’s why it’s uncharted territory.”

Bintas runs a 40-person metals team at Mercuria and has been one of the most bullish voices in the space and called for a multiyear bull market after Covid on rising demand from all things electrification – i.e., ‘Powering Up America‘ theme and Next AI Trade. 

Former Goldman metals strategist Nick Snowdon, also at Mercuria and head of metals research at the commodity trading firm, forecasted about a year ago that average copper prices would average $15,000 a ton for 2025. 

Last week, Goldman’s Eoin Dinsmore, Lavinia Forcellese, and others provided clients with several key factors as to why they are “tactically cautious, structurally constructive” on copper:

We believe two key factors are driving the recent LME copper price strength:

1. Section 232 has lifted both the COMEX and the LME price. As the COMEX US price has increased to incorporate greater certainty on US copper tariffs, it has resulted in tighter London LME spreads and additional speculative length on the LME. While we hold to our 2025 market deficit forecast of 180kt, we think stockpiling in the US will make the world ex-US appear tighter, which may pull forward the rally we forecast for H2.

2. China sentiment has turned notably more positive. This is due to the government’s commitment to boost consumption, AI optimism, and lower than feared US tariffs on China. Positive China sentiment has been further bolstered by reports that China’s State Reserve Bureau (SRB) plans to add to its copper stockpiles in 2025. We see SRB copper purchases as defensive to address potential shortages rather than opportunistic (i.e. very price sensitive), and SRB buying would help offset any price-related demand pull-back in China. While our China economists see upside risk to their 2025 4.5% growth forecast, they argue that policymakers may ease off the gas after a decent Q1 real GDP print.

3. However, trade policy uncertainty leaves us tactically cautious. We see two-sided risks from the upcoming US trade policy update on April 2nd. While the delay to European retaliation is slightly positive, our economists expect additional product specific tariffs to be announced. Any focus on China or a hawkish line on reciprocal tariffs will be negative for copper prices. We are not anticipating a S232 copper update, as the deadline for public comments only ends on April 1st[1]. We think the front month COMEX-LME premium should drop if the trade update fails to signal a speedier than typical S232 tariff implementation.

4. We remain structurally bullish. Should the April 2nd policy announcements spare the market of negative sentiment surprises, we think the net LME tightening impact from the ongoing S232 copper investigation poses a net upside risk to our Q2-Q3 2025 $9,550/t-$9,883/t price forecast. For now, we also maintain our bullish $10,200/t Q4 2025 forecast, on the back of strong electrification demand, China stimulus offsetting the drag from tariffs, and slower mine supply growth.

US inflows of copper only suggest that Chinese buyers will face aggressive competition for the metal in global markets. 

The net bullish positions in LME copper have been elevated on the AI electrification trend since last May, while the latest tariff-driven fears push prices higher. 

Authored by Kevin Shelley via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As awareness grows of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) influence in the United States, a former congresswoman from California is shedding light on the regime’s reach in the state, across the country, and around the world.

Michelle Steel, who served in Congress from 2021 to 2025 and sat on several committees dealing with China-related issues, raised concerns about the CCP’s influence on the U.S. higher education system in a recent interview with EpochTV’s “California Insider.”

“Universities were the worst one. We have a prominent university in California called UC Berkeley … and they received $220 million from China,” Steel said.

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, universities must report to the Department of Education every six months any foreign gifts or contracts—either individually or combined—valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year.

Steel alleged the university never reported the money.

The allegations surfaced in 2023 when Education and Workforce Committee chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and then Select Committee on China chairman Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) stated in a letter to University of California–Berkeley officials that the university failed to report investments from the Chinese municipal government—$220 million of which was intended to fund a campus in Shenzhen, China—for the Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, a joint research initiative.

Tsinghua University, one of China’s top institutions, is governed by the country’s Ministry of Education.

In exchange for the money it received, the university allegedly provided exclusive tours of advanced semiconductor research facilities to Chinese delegations, including senior Chinese regime officials, according to another letter to the National Science Foundation from House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and Research and Technology Subcommittee chairman Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.).

“Allowing adversarial nations to access research facilities at the leading edge of semiconductor design is unacceptable, especially when that access is given by a U.S. research institution that receives over $700 million annually in funds from the Federal government,” the pair said in the letter.

The Epoch Times reached out to UC Berkeley for comment.

After the allegation drew public attention in 2023, the university responded by stating that while the funds were initially proposed for a Tsinghua Berkeley Shenzhen Institute campus, the campus was never built and the investment did not take place, campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof told student-run newspaper The Daily Californian in an email that year.

Mogulof said the funds were used to construct a new campus for the Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, which he clarified is owned by Tsinghua University.

However, in a report by the Daily Beast, the university acknowledged it failed to disclose a $19 million contract in 2016 with Tsinghua University.

In 2022, the CHIPS and Science Act lowered the reporting threshold to $50,000, requiring any foreign financial support at or above that amount to be reported to the director of the National Science Foundation.

Stricter rules also apply when sensitive countries are involved, Steel said.

“[Even] when you have coffee with those countries of concern. We’re talking about China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and any of these countries, then you have to report,” she said.

In addition to the risk of intellectual property theft, Steel said large foreign grants can also lead to university administrations being influenced or controlled by foreign governments.

“We saw so many universities, instead of the monies going down to the classrooms … administrations [were] getting bigger and bigger,” she said. “Universities are not corporations that have to make profits. They have to reinvest that to the students.”

Steel also expressed concern that university students could be receiving propaganda from foreign regimes instead of a proper education.

“Instead of teaching our kids how to think and how to be independent, some of the universities are brainwashing our kids, and they are getting [so much] money.”

Port Security

Steel said she is also concerned about CCP infiltration at major U.S. ports.

“In California, we have [the] two biggest ports in the U.S., [Los Angeles] and Long Beach, and 80 percent of those cranes we bought from China,” she said.

The popularity of Chinese-made cargo cranes is largely due to their lower cost, typically about three-fourths the price of those made in other countries, Steel said. Each crane can cost up to $15 million, while other models also cost millions.

Currently, the Port of Los Angeles uses 84 container cranes, and the Port of Long Beach uses 73 cranes.

In March 2024, the House Homeland Security Committee reported that cellular modems were found on cranes purchased from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries, a China-based manufacturer that produces nearly all Chinese-made cranes used at U.S. ports.

The modems, which are not included in equipment contracts, do not appear to support normal operations and could potentially be accessed remotely, the committee said.

Such cellular modems were also discovered in another port’s server room that houses those cranes’ firewalls and networking equipment.

Steel, who co-authored the report, said the modems installed in the cranes can track ship traffic and the types of goods being transported, potentially enabling espionage that could undercut trade competitors and disrupt supply chains.

“We heard that they always ask that those cranes to be in remote areas or inside because they put chips on it and … they’re collecting all these data,” she said. “It’s a national security issue.”

Steel said China has also provided South Korea and Japan access to its state-backed LOGINK software, a digital logistics platform that enables real-time cargo tracking, giving it visibility into global supply chains and potential leverage in economic or geopolitical conflicts.

“We are not using their maritime tracking system, but our allies are using it. So, you really have to watch it very closely,” she said. “You really have to advise other countries to stop using Chinese maritime tracking systems.”

Steel said the cranes could also be used to spy on U.S. Navy activities.

“It’s not just like a private shipping company is coming in. We’re talking about our naval ships going in and out, too,” she said. “That’s very, very dangerous.”

Before leaving Congress, Steel sponsored the Secure Our Ports Act, which would prohibit foreign adversaries from owning or operating critical infrastructure in the United States.

The legislation was reintroduced in January by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). It would ban state-owned enterprises of foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran—or any foreign entity partially owned by those governments—from owning, leasing, or operating port facilities in the United States.

Steel said the CCP’s influence also extends beyond the United States, describing China’s strategy as offering infrastructure development—such as dams, airports, ports, and railways—to poorer countries, eventually gaining control over key systems, especially when those nations are unable to repay their debts.

Fentanyl Crisis

Steel pointed to fentanyl as another major issue she believes China is fueling.

Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl began rising sharply in California around 2013, driven by the spread of illicitly manufactured fentanyl, which soon surpassed prescription opioids and heroin as the leading cause of overdose deaths.

In 2023, fentanyl was involved in more than 90 percent of the state’s 7,847 drug overdose deaths, according to the California Department of Public Health.

“A lot of fentanyl precursors [are] coming in,” Steel said. “When they use it inside of China, you have a death sentence. But [when it’s] taken outside of China, making money, they’re very loose.”

Steel said that while Congress was aware of China’s role in the fentanyl crisis, it wasn’t until the COVID-19 pandemic that the full scale of the problem became clear.

When the Chinese communist regime drastically reduced pharmaceutical exports during the pandemic, the sharp drop in fentanyl entering the United States revealed how much of it had originated from China, she said.

Agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration have also reported on the global flow of fentanyl and its precursors from China. The Department of Justice has issued indictments against Chinese networks accused of selling precursor chemicals to Mexican cartels, which then processed them into fentanyl for distribution in the United States.

Cartels, at the same time, have found some creative ways to smuggle fentanyl across the border, Steel said.

“They use the remote surfboards, and then they can just control it from Mexico’s side,“ she said. ”Then somebody [picks] it up from our side, so they don’t even have to go through the border.”

Although the flow of fentanyl has become more varied since it first entered the country, Steel said that at its core, China remains behind the supply chain.

Human Rights

Steel also criticized human rights abuses in China, saying innocent people—such as Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs—are being jailed and persecuted for their beliefs.

“Before they put them [in jail], they scan your body. And then one day, you wake up, if you’re lucky. If you are not, then who knows? You [might] get killed [or you might find] one of your organs is missing,” she said.

She recalled attending hearings on the CCP where some witnesses testified while covering their faces, fearing their families in China could be targeted or imprisoned.

“It’s just awful, stories that you hear [from] these people [who] came to the hearings. And they are crying, and some people wearing masks,” she said.

In some cases, she said, even the witnesses—legal American citizens—could be targeted by Chinese secret police operating inside the United States.

Shen Yun Performing Arts, whose artists practice Falun Gong, has been targeted by the CCP in similar ways. Since March 2024, the company has received dozens of emailed threats of violence during its global tour. Over the years, Chinese officials have repeatedly tried to cancel Shen Yun’s performances in various cities through blackmail and economic pressure.

Recently, Steel encountered one such incident herself.

“I just got a letter from South Korea, and they are supposed to have performances in Daegu. Daegu just canceled it because the Chinese Embassy was actually pressuring them,” she said.

Speaking on the CCP’s aggressive tactics against the performing arts company, Steel said it’s because its performances reveal a side of China that the regime does not want the world to see.

“You are trying to hide something. [That] means that you are not doing the right thing. That’s the bottom line for me,” she said.

Why Get Involved?

Steel’s efforts to uncover the CCP’s influence did not come without risk.

She recalled a conversation she had with then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy when he appointed her to the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

“Michelle, I want you to be careful. Somebody is looking at your cellphone. When you open your cellphone … you have to have those screens, that nobody from the sideways can read,” she said McCarthy told her. “And then you have to have double firewalls for your cellphone to make sure that nobody can hack them, because you know CCP is going to come after you.”

However, the risks did not deter her.

“I knew what I was getting into because both my parents fled from North Korea, from communism. I always stand up for the democracy of the country.”

She said becoming a politician was not how she originally envisioned standing up for democracy.

“I never thought that I’m going to be a politician, because I had a very shy personality, and I couldn’t speak in front of two people.”

Her mindset shifted after her mother’s shop was penalized for underpaying sales tax during a transitional period. The state tax agency accused them of tax fraud and imposed a penalty.

That experience prompted her to run for the California State Board of Equalization in 2006, and she served for eight years before being elected to the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 2015.

“I had compassion for small business taxpayers,” she said, saying that some such businesses are harassed and abused.

Running as a political “nobody,” Steel said her key to success was hard work, something she learned at a young age after moving to Japan, and later to the United States, where she constantly had to overcome language barriers and keep up with her peers.

“I slept about two to three hours. I was all over [during the election],” she said.

That work ethic carried Steel through her years in Congress, where Southern California’s coastal erosion was one of the first issues she tackled.

“My first term I was elected, we really need some more [sand] for my district, because I represented Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach,” she said.

Steel said she had meetings with every Congress member who had the power to approve sand restoration projects for her district.

“So, one time on the floor, one of the congressmen [said], ‘Oh, my Sand Lady is passing,’” she recalled.

Steel’s work has also earned praise from her colleagues. In a recent letter, Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Rules Committee chairwoman Foxx recommended her to President Donald Trump for the role of U.S. ambassador to South Korea.

In the letter obtained by The Epoch Times, the lawmakers cited Steel’s shared vision with Trump, her experience in tax and trade policy, and her fluency in Korean, Japanese, and English.

Living in America is like being in a dream factory, Steel said, where anything is possible if you work for it. It’s the freedom people have here that she values most.

“I’m just so grateful that I am an American, that … somebody who has an accent can come this far and then served at the state, served at the county, and served in Congress,” she said.

“A lot of us who were sort of united in this Cold War, particularly in the early years, it kind of brought the country together. We realized we were in a Cold War. Indeed, I think we’re in a Cold War, a second Cold War now,” former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told Tucker Carlson on a podcast last week while discussing topics ranging from the current failing trade system to trade deficits and more.

Continuing the second Cold War theme, we told readers in 2022 that “The New Cold War Has Begun.”

Over the last decade, the US spent $8.4 trillion on defense, while the rest of NATO spent a fraction of that, around $3.8 trillion.

The ‘Trump Effect‘ has created an urgent need for EU countries to boost defense spending in a world where rising geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia drive global superpowers to modernize their armed forces.

In the Americas, Trump has been bolstering efforts to increase hemispheric defense, whether stronger economic integration between the US and Canada or a hardened defense perimeter stretching from the Arctic to the Panama Canal.

Let’s visualize Trump’s hemispheric defense that ultimately will deter China … 

Lighthizer’s view of a second Cold War taking shape is correct. 

Proxy conflicts between global superpowers, an accelerating arms and AI race, economic sanctions, trade wars, and cyber warfare are some of the classic hallmarks of a new Cold War unfolding for the last decade. 

Regarding global military expenditures, Goldman analyst Germaine Khong told clients that the figure topped $2.6 trillion in 2024, accounting for 2.4% of GDP – up from 2.2% in 2021-22, with much of the increase coming from European and Asian countries. 

Khong cited the Geopolitical Risk (GPR) index, a measure of adverse geopolitical events and associated risks based on a count of newspaper headlines covering geopolitical tensions, which finds heightened perceived risk and tension amid conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as a worsening Sino-U.S. trade war. 

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Aerospace & Defense-focused funds have been ripping higher and have received inflows totaling $12 billion, with AUM quadrupling to $24 billion, according to Khong, citing fund flow data from EPFR. 

In a separate note, Goldman analyst Sven Jari Stehn and others expect EU defense spending to jump from 1.9% of GDP in 2024 to 2.8% in 2027.

We expect defence spending to increase significantly across the currency union, from 1.9% of GDP in 2024 to 2.8% by 2027 (Exhibit 1, left). We then look for defence spending to eventually reach 3% according to our analysis of Europe’s military needs. In Germany, defence spending already increased from 1.5% before 2022 to 2.1% in 2024 and will from now on be largely exempted from the constitutional debt brake (Exhibit 1, right). In France, a multi-annual budget law already enshrines defence spending of 2% until 2030, and political leaders broadly concur on further increases. In Italy and Spain, the increase in defence will start from a lower level—at 1.4% and 1.2%, respectively—and will likely proceed somewhat slower than we had previously anticipated, given recent communication by leading party leaders and the Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers.

Surging global defense spending is one of the hallmarks of the second Cold War. The ongoing arms race, strategic deterrence and posturing by superpowers, proxy wars, and shifting industrial and trade policies are all signs of a world fracturing into what appears to be a bipolar era. To combat this in the Americas, Trump will bolster hemispheric defense.