Robert Lighthizer: “We’re In A Cold War, A Second Cold War Now”
“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.
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.
The top law firms in New York City gave Donald Trump the high hat for years, despite his wealth, fame, and standing. But Big Law is finally putting politics aside and getting back to business.
Last month, Sullivan & Cromwell agreed to handle President Trump’s appeal in the egregious criminal case brought by posing partisan prosecutor Alvin Bragg. Last week, Paul Weiss agreed to provide $40 million of legal work on “mutually agreeable matters” in support of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives, and agreed to boot DEI too, in exchange for Trump’s agreement to terminate his Executive Order “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.”
Some decry Paul Weiss’ agreement as craven – and one young associate at another firm threatened to quit unless her law firm fights with Trump to her satisfaction. She’s missing the point, as have most of Trump’s other critics in the legal profession.
Until relatively recently, Big Law is all about business – and avoiding political risks. Leading partners at the mega-firms are practical people who behave rationally, not ideologically. And that’s how it’s supposed to work.
So, when Democratic Party lawyers tried to overwhelm Trump with egregious and extra-legallawfare, Americans rallied around him and helped him retake the presidency. Even then, Big Law refused to represent him because the risk-adjusted return of helping Donald Trump was less than shunning him. Nothing personal, just business – or so they thought.
It’s true that most lawyers, including those who pursue careers in the elite law firms, are Democrats. Two of the three law firms singled out by President Trump are among the most unbalanced of the largest 100 firms. And while Paul Weiss was closer to average, its partners donated more money to Democratic Party campaign committees in a recent cycle than any other large law firm – and one of its partners prepped Kamala Harris for her debate with Trump.
It’s also true that big law firms perceive left-wing activist groups as an outsize risk to their ability to recruit top talent, mostly from elite institutions that are also left. To mitigate that risk, firms have for many years catered to the groups’ requests for financial, policy, and legal support.
That’s why Big Law tilted further and further to the left over the last 15 years. With groups agitating from the left and with big clients who previously leaned right, such as BlackRock and members of the Business Roundtable, riding shotgun for activists, Big Law went with the flow.
These law firms contributed money to Democrats while also synchronizing their pro bono and corporate advisory work with the left’s economic activism – leveraging public sector pension investments, boycott threats, and “naming and shaming” publicity campaigns – along with legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic activism in support of “Environmental, Social and Governance” and “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiatives.
Together, the groups and the law firms harnessed much of private finance and industry to the Democrats’ agenda, putting political commissars in C-suites of American businesses under the rubric of DEI and ESG, in a stunningly successful end run around democratic legislative processes.
As Big Law attorneys midwifed this revolution, conservative activists and attorneys took note. Some opposed the status quo in private practice; others were shunned by big law after serving in the first Trump administration. Compounding the affront, some firms actually embraced those who participated in the anti-Trump lawfare, betting that Trump was finished and his lawyers would fade away.
They lost that bet and, with a volley of Executive Orders, Trump sent shock waves through the legal ecosystem, increasing the cost of participating in progressive activism and taking a big step toward purging the politicization of American business.
With that background, it’s clear that Paul Weiss’ agreement is a savvy business move that’s “sleeves off a vest.” According to the New York Times, Paul Weiss’ chairman pointed out in his firmwide email that the agreement “reaffirmed” long standing principles of the firm – and rebalances their firm politically going forward.
Paul Weiss agreed: The justice system should be fair and nonpartisan; not to hire lawyers or choose clients based on their partisan affiliation; to take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints; to affirm their commitment to merit-based hiring promotion and retention; to terminate its DEI programs; and to take on “mutually agreed” pro bono projects in support of the administration’s initiatives.
This is a win-win resolution for Paul Weiss and President Trump.
Perhaps the hardest pill for some lawyers to swallow is the termination of DEI, but the problem with DEI is not diversity or inclusion – the problem is the equity in between.
A firm culture premised on equity is inherently more fractious and unstable than one built around equality of opportunity and equal treatment. As currently conceived, “equity” is a transactional concept rooted in anger that’s conceptually unbounded. There is no limiting principle inherent to the concept of “equity.” When do you know you have achieved it? What’s the standard if it isn’t equality? This makes equity arbitrary and unbounded – it’s why when San Francisco had a commission on equity for descendants of slaves they came up with $5 million per person – a number plucked from thin air – which even if paid would lead to demands for even more.
On the other hand, equality is relational, not transactional, bounded by reciprocity and rooted in respect for, not anger at, other people, including those who have different viewpoints or backgrounds.
Diversity is a fact, inclusivity remains a virtue, and equality is a better organizational ethic than equity.
So, while there are still issues to be resolved regarding the executive orders directed at other law firms, the Paul Weiss agreement is a smart roadmap for Big Law generally, but also in dealings with the Trump administration more specifically: Focus on business and keep the politics in balance.
Richard Porter is the former National Committeeman to the RNC from Illinois.
Trump Admin Ends Taxpayer-Funded Housing For Illegal Immigrants
The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would be ending taxpayer-funded housing for illegal immigrants.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed a joint partnership to curtail what they describe as an “exploitation” of the country’s housing programs.
“We’re here signing a partnership to ensure that the wasteful misappropriations that have been going to assist the illegal aliens in our country will no longer go to assist them but instead to assist the American people,” Turner said in a video statement on X.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner walks towards the West Wing following a TV interview at the White House on Feb. 19, 2025. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo
American citizens have taken a back seat to illegal immigrants for too long, according to Turner, who said that American tax dollars should be used to benefit only U.S. citizens, especially when it comes to an issue as pressing as the nation’s housing crisis.
As part of the new memorandum, HUD will provide a full-time staff member to assist in operations at the Incident Command Center (ICC) to facilitate data-sharing and ensure taxpayer-funded housing programs are not used to benefit or harbor illegal immigrants.
Noem accused the Biden administration of failing to prioritize Americans.
“This memorandum is going to be a partnership that we will form to make sure that these housing programs are going to only people who deserve it, people who are in this country who need assistance, who want a better life for their family,” Noem said in the video.
The HUD and DHS partnership comes after Trump signed an executive order in February to direct federal agencies and departments to identify all federally-funded programs that provide financial benefits to illegal immigrants and to take corrective action.
The order seeks to “ensure taxpayer resources are not used to incentivize or support illegal immigration,” according to a fact sheet on the order.
HUD cited data from the Center for Immigration Studies that showed about 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use one or more welfare programs, creating roughly $42 billion in costs. The increase has a direct impact on housing, according to the agency. By increasing demand for housing, immigration drives up costs in areas where immigrants settle, according to the data.
The department pointed to various other issues surrounding taxpayer-funded housing programs for illegal immigrants.
“Across the country there are about 9 million residents of public and subsidized housing without proper information sharing to determine eligibility status,” the department said.
US Official Alleges 23andMe Sold Americans’ DNA Data To Pharma Companies Owned By Foreign Adversaries
On Monday, 23andMe shares crashed after the genetic testing startup filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. While the fate of millions of Americans’ DNA data is now subject to a court-supervised sale, a new report suggests much of it may have already been sold—potentially to pharmaceutical firms, including some tied to foreign adversaries.
James O’Keefe of O’Keefe Media Group published a video on Monday featuring an undercover journalist speaking with Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, who warned her, “Do not give your information to those people [23andMe]… they sell it to other people.”
The journalist asked Johnson: “Do they sell it [DNA data of customers] to Russia?”
He responded, “They sell it to everybody.”
Johnson explained: “There’s a clause in their contract, that basically says, like, we can give your information to our shareholders. So that they can do stuff. And all of their shareholders are, like pharmaceutical companies. But some of those pharmaceutical companies are based in other countries, and those pharmaceutical companies in other countries are like the property of, like the Ministry of Defense of Russia. Or, like, owned, by China.”
We have a U.S. Treasury Policy Advisor on tape telling us 23andMe has been sharing consumer data with “pharmaceutical companies,” including the “Ministry of Defense of Russia.”
While Johnson did not provide specifics about the shareholders or foreign entities that potentially purchased 23andMe’s vast trove of its American DNA database, a basic public forensics analysis dive into 23andMe reveals some familiar names among the top shareholders of the now-defunct unicorn startup: BlackRock, Vanguard, and Sequoia Capital.
What’s concerning is that BlackRock and Vanguard, some of the world’s largest investment companies, are large shareholders of 23andMe and have, according to public records data, high exposure to state-owned enterprises overseas.
Customers of 23andMe must only now be realizing…
If what Johnson said is even remotely true, then the genetic pool of millions of 23andMe customers potentially being sold to private companies—domestically or abroad—should be considered a national security threat.
That’s because as explained several years ago by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: “That’s what this is, where you can actually take someone’s DNA, you know, their medical profile, and you can target a biological weapon that will kill that person or take them off the battlefield or make them inoperable.”
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s…”
When Jesus was alive, the religious leader of Rome was, in fact, both Caesar and the voice of God, for Emperor Augustus had taken the position of Pontifex Maximus, the chief high priest, for himself.
A separation between church and state would occur in the late 4th century when Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, would cleave the two.
In 390 AD, in Thessalonica, a Macedonian city in the Roman Empire, the citizens murdered a Roman garrison commander for arresting the most popular Macedonian charioteer just before a major race. A seething Emperor Theodosius ordered his soldiers to slaughter the entire population. When the smoke cleared, 7,000 men, women, and children died in the Massacre of Thessalonica.
Ambrose, the most powerful man in Christianity at the time, banned the emperor from Mass. Theodosius I, an extremely devout man, would spend the next six months seeking Ambrose’s forgiveness and doing penance. Eventually, Ambrose decided the Emperor had shown sufficient contrition and allowed him back into the Church, but not before forcing him to make Christianity the official religion of the Empire and outlawing every other faith.
That was one of the first and most powerful checks on a monarch’s power in the history of Western civilization. Another would come in 1215 when English King John was forced by a group of rebellious barons to sign the Magna Carta, which provided protections for the church and guaranteed the barons a variety of liberties and rights.
Fast forward 562 years and another step towards a truly limited government would occur in Philadelphia in 1787. In an unprecedented advance for Western civilization and, frankly, humanity, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the United States. With a keen understanding of man’s nature, this document was sufficiently robust and prescient that it would last for centuries.
In a direct reaction to the English system, they wrote a constitution in which, while the primary power lay in the legislature, the power of all three branches was checked by the other two and ultimately by the citizens and the Bill of Rights.
To give some perspective on where the locus of power lay in the new constitution, compare the articles that define the powers of the three branches: Article I, the Legislature, has 2,268 words. Article II, the Executive, has 1,025 words, while Article III, the Judiciary, has a mere 377.
The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to divide the powers and put in place checks and balances so that mob rule and demagogues would not take hold of the government and bring about tyranny.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Alexander Hamilton assured all and sundry that the judiciary would be the weakest branch, writing in Federalist 81:
It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom.
He stated that a judicial usurpation of the legislature could not happen:
This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.
This, combined with Congress’s ability to impeach judges for judiciary encroachments, said Hamilton, would be sufficient to keep judicial usurpation from occurring. Hamilton was responding to the writings of Judge Robert Yates, who warned of a rapacious judiciary in Anti-Federalist No. 78.
Hamilton was wrong, and Yates was right.
Within a very short time, Hamilton’s error and Yates’ prescience became clear. Marbury v. Madison established Judicial Review in 1803, taking for the Court the ability to invalidate a law it deemed in conflict with the Constitution. Although the court would use that power only twice over America’s first 70 years, it would do so 50 times over the subsequent 75 years and over 125 times in the last 90 years. That trajectory not only reflects the extraordinary growth in the areas of American life into which the leviathan of government has inserted itself, but it also reflects a far more activist judiciary.
And how can we tell? Look at nationwide injunctions. Judges issued six nationwide injunctions against George Bush over eight years—one per every sixteen months he was in office. Barack Obama was the subject of 12 or one every eight months. In his first term, judges issued 64 nationwide injunctions, or one every 22 days. The courts retreated, with Joe Biden getting 14 or one every three months. Now, in his second term, Trump has received 12 in only six weeks; that is, one every four days. Meanwhile, in the single four-year period of his first term, he faced more of these injunctions than every president in the previous 60 years combined!
But the thing is, injunctions are found nowhere in the Constitution. Nonetheless, with almost 700 federal judges, activists can easily find fellow travelers who are more than willing to do their bidding. It’s no coincidence that the judges who have issued many of the injunctions against Trump’s executive actions have ties to hardcore leftists:
Using injunctions, a radical leftist cabal is attempting to thwart President Trump from doing the job he was elected to do, which is to enforce and execute the laws of the United States. He should not allow them to do so. Unfortunately, impeachment is not the answer because there is zero chance of getting a conviction, with half the Senate applauding the judge’s actions.
The first thing Trump should do is ignore the order. This will force SCOTUS and/or Congress to act.
The second thing he should do is strongly encourage Congress to act, regardless of what SCOTUS does. (Or doesn’t do given the Manchurians Roberts and ACB.) Congress has the ultimate constitutional power to define the courts’ jurisdiction, whether granting or restricting it. They should eliminate or restrict federal judges’ ability to issue injunctions in general or, at a minimum, prohibit nationwide injunctions.
The Founders created a system of checks and balances that has served America well for most of her history. But that system only works when the three branches remain true to their nature.
You can argue that Congress has given too much of its power to the regulatory state, but that’s a case of one branch willingly, if foolishly, ceding power to another. In the case of the Judicial Branch, we’re seeing something different. Activist judges across the country are asserting that they basically have the power to micromanage how the Executive Branch carries out its constitutional duties. They don’t, but that doesn’t matter if the Executive Branch allows it to become reality. And the reality is, they’re using Chief Justice Roberts’ treacherous “normalappellate review process” framework to run out the clock on President Trump’s term. And Trump knows it.
In 1832, in reaction to Worcester v. Georgia, President Jackson is said to have announced: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Donald Trump should state unequivocally that he will not allow activists masquerading as jurists to hijack the proper functions of the Executive Branch. Americans, like Jesus, Ambrose, and Jackson did, understand there are separate realms of governing, and for good or bad elected presidents execute the laws, not judges.
Trump Tackles Election Integrity With Sweeping Executive Order; Will Punish States That Don’t Comply
On Tuesday, President Trump signed a sweeping executive order aimed at election security.
The order will cut federal funding for states that refuse to take steps to secure their elections, tasks the Department of Homeland Security with ensuring that illegal immigrants are not voting, adds a citizenship question on the federal voting form for the first time.
It also orders the Justice Department to vigorously pursue election crimes – particularly in states that are out of compliance with federal law on election security, and seeks to ensure compliance with national election day rules.
The order also calls for the prosecution of foreign interference in US elections (like paying a British spook to produce a fabricated hoax against a candidate – which nothing is ever done about, even now?).
Watch:
🚨 POTUS signs an executive order on election integrity that includes the following provisions:
– Requires documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms.
– Conditions federal election-related funds on states complying with the integrity… pic.twitter.com/6A5zVdOAYn
Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’: Report
As April 2nd approaches – the day President Donald Trump is set to roll out a global tariff regime, the Financial Times reports that Trump is now considering ‘a two-step approach,’ which would split tariffs into two stages; targeted emergency tariffs now to raise money for planned tax cuts, and more after his administration has completed probes into trading partners to provide a more robust legal framework to deploy “reciprocal” tariffs (we charge them the same percentage they’re charging us).
Basically while Trump and Lutnick want to go full bore now, US trade representative Jamieson Greer (a lawyer who worked for Trump’s first trade chief Robert Lighthizer), insisted they pump the brakes in order to legally justify sweeping tariffs.
The dual-track strategy is poised for a high-profile unveiling on April 2, a date Trump has branded “Liberation Day,” spurring a flurry of diplomatic activity as allies seek exemptions.
Among proposals his team has been discussing is a plan to launch so-called Section 301 investigations into trading partners, while simultaneously using rarely invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim. -FT
Speaking Monday, Trump vowed “substantial” tariffs on U.S. trading partners, though he also suggested the possibility of selective leniency.“They’ve charged us so much that I’m embarrassed to charge them what they’ve charged us,” Trump said – hours after announcing new tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil, including China. “But it’ll be substantial.”
According to the Financial Times, officials close to the matter say the administration is eyeing an immediate deployment of tariffs using emergency authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – a provision that permits duties of up to 50% on foreign goods on trading partners.
One more obscure route, now considered a long shot, involves Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days – a stopgap measure that may not deliver the revenue or optics the former president is seeking.
Lawyers and people familiar with the plans also told FT that Trump could immediately slap tariffs on vehicle imports on April 2, reviving a national security study into the global auto industry from his first term.
On Monday, Trump said tariffs on cars could be announced “over the next few days.”
The debate within the Trump team has at times split along functional lines.
The two main points of contact have also differed in their approaches, say people familiar with the discussions. While commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has served as the administration’s chief negotiator, he has lambasted trading partners over their trade surpluses and tax policies, before demanding “a deal”.
US trade representative Jamieson Greer, a lawyer who previously worked for Trump’s first-term trade chief Bob Lighthizer, has increasingly asserted himself as the legal planner, seeking to create a durable blueprint for the president’s drive to reorder global trade. -FT
Greer has notably advocated for launching investigations into trading partners before applying tariffs, according to people familiar with his thinking. This would rely on tested trade law, but could delay tariffs by up to six months.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the final details of the reciprocal tariff plan remain under wraps, but emphasized internal alignment on the broader goal: “Although the final reciprocal tariff plan for April 2 has yet to be unveiled by President Trump, every member of the Trump administration is aligned on finally leveling the playing field for American industries and workers.”
Foreign governments are responding with urgency. The U.K. is weighing revisions to its digital services tax targeting U.S. tech firms, while the European Union has dispatched Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič for emergency talks with Lutnick and Greer.
Any plan unveiled on April 2 is expected to be a refinement of Trump’s original campaign promise to apply universal tariffs to all U.S. imports – a proposal that has morphed over time but remains rooted in economic nationalism.
* * *
You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp,ZeroHedge Multitool.
The Trump administration is proving once again that promises made are promises kept. After successfully releasing over 80,000 pages of files connected to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on March 18, the focus has now shifted to perhaps what should be an even more explosive collection of documents—the Jeffrey Epstein files.
As you know, there was a huge document dump of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case last month that was, to say the least, underwhelming. Part of the problem, it turns out, was that rogue officials out of the Southern District of New York office had withheld documents from the Department of Justice.
So, where’s the good stuff? Well, according to a report from Vanity Fair, it should be coming soon.
It’s the FBI’s flagship field office, with more than a thousand agents and another thousand or so civilian employees. And right now, multiple sources with knowledge of the matter say that one priority at the bureau’s New York field office is taking precedence over all others: the review and redaction of sensitive information in the Jeffrey Epstein case files, to prepare for possible publication.
“It’s literally all hands on deck,” one source familiar with the matter tells me, adding that dozens and dozens of agents are working around the clock on the case, instead of on their regular duties. “I even saw an agent walking in with a pillow,” the source added.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, appearing on Maria Bartiromo’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” spoke about this massive undertaking. Bartiromo pressed Bondi about the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Acknowledging the complexity of handling such sensitive material, Bartiromo noted, “I recognize that when you’re dealing with children, it takes much more time. You’ve got to ensure that what you’re sending out publicly is not revealing any personal information.” She then asked Bondi whether more details would be forthcoming.
Bondi confirmed that updates were on the horizon, stating, “You’re absolutely right, Maria. You know, tens of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds and hundreds of victims, um, of Jeffrey Epstein.”
Bartiromo reacted with a stunned “Wow.”
Bondi assured viewers that federal authorities were making progress. “The FBI, they have been working round the clock at my directive, at [FBI Director] Kash Patel’s directive,” she said, adding that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is also involved. “Dan Bongino’s there, who is a great asset for all of us at the FBI as well.”
Pam Bondi reveals there are tens of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds of child victims tied to Jeffrey Epstein.
Bondi says the FBI is working around the clock under orders from her, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino to ensure the files are released. pic.twitter.com/aiN9ct7zUb
Bondi reiterated the need to safeguard victims while ensuring transparency. “We have to protect their identity, their personal information, to make sure they’re safe,” she said. “But other than that, we are releasing all of these documents as soon as we can get them redacted to protect the victims of… of, of all of these horrific crimes he has committed.”
Bartiromo responded, “Understood.”
Rest assured, transparency is coming, everyone.
* * *
The deep state doesn’t want you to know the truth about Epstein’s powerful connections. Want exclusive analysis of the upcoming document dump and insights mainstream media won’t share? Join PJ Media VIP today using code FIGHT for 60% off. Get ad-free access to uncensored reporting, exclusive content, and live chats with our fearless writers. Don’t miss out on the real story—support independent journalism that dares to expose the truth.
How The Signal Leak Kickstarted The “Mar-A-Lago Accord”
By Benjamin Picton of Rabobank
The Signal And The Noise
US stocks rallied sharply yesterday following an unexpectedly strong services PMI report and comments from Donald Trump suggesting that reciprocal tariffs due to take effect next week may be somewhat watered down. Trump said that he “may give a lot of countries breaks” as he would be “embarrassed” to charge the USA’s trading partners tariff rates commensurate to the barriers that US exporters face to access those markets. However, it DOES seem to be the case that a ‘Dirty 15’ countries running persistent large trade surpluses with the United States will be targeted.
The NASDAQ rose 2.27%, the S&P500 closed up 1.76% and the DOW finished 1.42% higher. European stocks struggled, as did the Nikkei, but both Hong Kong and mainland China indexes closed higher. US 10-year Treasury yields rose by almost 9bps to 4.34%, and 2-year yields we’re also up by almost 9bps to 4.04%.
Bloomberg reports comments from a unnamed White House official that sectoral tariffs (tariffs levied by product group) that had also been slated to take effect on April 2nd may now be delayed. That represents a possible short-term reprieve for autos, pharmaceuticals, lumber, copper and agriculture – which have all been nominated as likely targets for tariffs – but there is still a great deal of uncertainty about what will be announced and some of these sectors may end up having duties applied to them next week.
In another major announcement yesterday President Trump said that 25% tariffs would be applied to any country importing Venezuelan oil and the Treasury Department informed Chevron that a license for operating in Venezuela would only be extended until the end of May. Trump said that these duties would apply on top of any existing tariffs, so importers like China – who has already been stung with 20% tariffs since Trump took office – could face average duty rates of 45% or more.
China, India, Malaysia and Western Europe are all major importers of Venezuelan crude, and Gulf Coast refineries could be impacted by reduced availability of heavy crude as a result of export restrictions. Brent closed 1.16% higher at $73/bbl while the active WTI contract climbed 1.22% to $69.11/bbl.
While tariff noise captured many of the headlines overnight, there was also a curious incident whereby the Editor-in-Chief of the Atlantic magazine reported that he was mistakenly added to a private Signal group chat where plans for US strikes on the Houthis in Yemen were discussed. Participants in the chat appear to include Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz (among others).
Even more interesting than the fact that classified national security discussions were apparently held amongst senior officials via a commercial messaging app (with a journalist along for the ride) is the content of the discussions themselves. The ‘JD Vance’ account noted that “3% of US trade runs through the Suez. 40% of European trade does” and went on to say “I just hate bailing Europe out again” while adding “if there are things we can do upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities we should do it”. The Pete Hegseth account responded “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”
Participants openly discussed the United States being the only naval power “on our side of the ledger” capable of ensuring freedom of navigation through the Red Sea region. A participant speculated to be White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller added “we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
All of this is quite extraordinary, but also quite revealing of the Trump Administration’s thinking on relations with allies and partners. Nothing better highlights the transactional nature of this presidency than the raw geopolitical calculus of cabinet members discussing the need for Europe to be made to pay costs for ensuring the free flow of trade through the Suez Canal. This added trade pressure comes at a time when European industry is already losing competitiveness against American rivals, as we explore here.
As mentioned in this Daily yesterday, European officials are already sweating on whether they can rely on the United States to provide Dollar liquidity via Fed swap lines in a crisis. The logical response to this kind of uncertainty is for developed market central banks to be forced into holding more substantial foreign currency reserves, as developing market central banks typically do.
That means more bids for US Treasury securities, and another way in which the US grand strategy of holding borrowing costs low while safeguarding the global role of the Dollar, narrowing the trade deficit and rebuilding US industrial capacity to ensure hard power supremacy vis-à-vis China could play out.
Russia, Ukraine Agree To US-Brokered ‘Ceasefire At Sea’
Washington and Moscow are seeking to revive the Black Sea Grain deal, which had held for much of 2022, allowing Ukraine to ship its grain and agricultural products to global markets.
The White House on Tuesday published two readouts from successive days of talks in Riyadh with Russian and Ukrainian delegations, which feature a ceasefire at sea “to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”
And even as the two warring sides continue to send drones and missiles against the other, the US said that all involved have agreed to “develop measures for implementing” the earlier agreement to stop strikes against energy infrastructure.” But have they actually agreed? Both sides are saying yes but once again this could be very short-lived.
ZELENSKIY SAYS UKRAINE TO IMPLEMENT PARTIAL CEASEFIRE NOW
OIL EXTENDS LOSSES AS UKRAINE TO IMPLEMENT PARTIAL CEASEFIRE
KREMLIN CONFIRMS AGREEMENT ON SAFE NAVIGATION IN BLACK SEA
ZELENSKY BLASTS US RESTORING RUSSIAN AGRICULTURE EXPORTS
ZELENSKIY SAYS UKRAINE’S UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AGREED CEASEFIRE IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING US ANNOUNCEMENT
ZELENSKIY SAYS HE WILL ASK TRUMP FOR WEAPONS, NEW RUSSIAN SANCTIONS IF MOSCOW BREAKS CEASEFIRE
Movement of Russian military vessels beyond Eastern Black Sea would violate sea agreement, Ukraine says
Ukraine and Russia will also “continue working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace,” both White House statements said.
Both versions also emphasized that “the United States reiterated President Donald J. Trump’s imperative that the killing on both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict must stop, as the necessary step toward achieving an enduring peace settlement.”
The Russia-specific document further indicated that the US would help “restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.” Russia and Ukraine have yet to sign on:
Russia said on Tuesday it was willing to strike a new agreement on the safety of shipping in the Black Sea – a possible stepping stone towards a ceasefire with Ukraine – but only if the United States ordered President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to respect it.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said only such an order would provide the assurances that Russia needed.
“To that end, the United States will continue facilitating negotiations between both sides to achieve a peaceful resolution, in line with the agreements made in Riyadh,” the White House said.
But on the same day these readouts were issued, the Kremlin continued to charge that Ukraine has already continually violated the energy ceasefire.
“Ukraine continues to attack Russian civilian infrastructure, proving that Kiev does not actually want peace,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has charged.
So it remains a big question whether the energy ceasefire can ‘expand’ to include a Black Sea ceasefire, given neither has actually as yet gotten off the ground.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also said the West is giving Ukraine false hope, also through continued arms shipments and supplies.
“Without them [Western states], Ukraine would have been defeated long ago … But you see, both London and Paris are pumping Ukraine with weapons,” Lavrov said Tuesday.
