General Motors executives met this week with U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran in Warren to discuss a new presidential limousine, according to the Detroit Free Press.

The meeting follows Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s call to buy Tesla stock and President Trump’s recent showcase with Elon Musk and Tesla vehicles at the White House.

GM declined to comment on government contracts, but the Secret Service said the talks focused on “advancements that could benefit the next generation of armored SUVs.”

A Secret Service spokesman confirmed to the Free Press that GM has been contracted to build a new presidential limousine, but offered no details on the design or Director Curran’s talks with the company.

“The U.S. Secret Service is always exploring emerging technology to enhance our protective operations,” said spokesman Nate Herring, adding that Curran’s visit to GM’s Tech Center focused on advancements for future armored SUVs.

“Due to operational security, we are unable to discuss the means and methods used for our protective operations,” he continued. 

The Detroit Free Press said that in September, the Department of Homeland Security and Secret Service awarded GM a $14.8 million contract to develop the next presidential limo, with the deal potentially totaling $40.8 million by 2029. Nicknamed “The Beast” since 2001, these heavily armored vehicles have long served U.S. presidents.

U.S. Rep. John James praised the contract, saying, “I’m proud to see the efforts of our Michigan autoworkers, engineers and manufacturers… This is what we do in Michigan: use our grit and genius to innovate.”

The last Beast, a custom Cadillac CT6 built in 2018, weighs 22,000 pounds, runs on diesel, and features 8-inch armor. GM previously won limo contracts in 2010 and again from 2014–2017, totaling over $50 million.

Trump, a longtime Cadillac fan, once said of his father: “His biggest luxury in life was to get a brand new, dark blue Cadillac every two years… he didn’t know about a Rolls Royce. All he liked was Cadillac, and I love it.”

“…my father liked Cadillacs and that’s good enough for me. Does that make sense? Good.”

Every few weeks, fireworks explode across the night sky in Cambodia. These displays, however, are not festive celebrations or cultural ceremonies. Rather, they are the bold salutes of online scammers marking their most lucrative swindles – each colorful burst signaling the a successful operation on an unsuspecting target.

Victims worldwide lose tens of billions of dollars annually to scams involving romance fraud, fake cryptocurrency platforms, and investment hoaxes. Once stolen, the money disappears quickly, funnelled into a complex international money-laundering network designed to swiftly erase any trace of its illegal origins. Authorities across the globe—including the FBI, China’s Ministry of Public Security, and Interpol—have tried repeatedly to curb this phenomenon. Telecom companies block suspicious numbers, banks issue urgent warnings, and law enforcement agencies execute raids. Yet the scams continue, resilient as ever, according to some actual journalism by the NY Times.

Transactions within this network are predominantly denominated in Tether, which allows scammers to swiftly move money across borders and through a web of intermediaries known as “money mules,” obscuring its illicit origins.

The Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, and coastal city Sihanoukville serve as global hubs for these sophisticated money-laundering operations. In Phnom Penh, a sprawling financial conglomerate called Huione Group presents itself as a reputable enterprise with legitimate commercial activities across Southeast Asia. Huione’s recognizable QR codes are everywhere in Cambodia, facilitating transactions at hotels, supermarkets, and restaurants. Its advertisements line highways, highlighting services ranging from banking to insurance.

Integral to the money laundering operations are individuals called “matchmakers,” trusted intermediaries who connect scammers to money mules. These mules manage the bank accounts or cryptocurrency wallets that swiftly funnel the stolen funds. Transactions are strategically divided into amounts below reporting thresholds such as $10,000, and moved quickly, often converted into Tether within hours or days, greatly complicating law enforcement’s ability to trace the money’s path.

The network profits at every step. Huione affiliates earn fees for escrow services and charge for advertisements and transactions conducted on their platforms. Remarkably, this marketplace has even launched its own cryptocurrency, further facilitating illicit financial flows.

Documents reviewed in the investigation detail a highly organized system operated by a Huione affiliate known as Huione International Pay. Based at the conglomerate’s Phnom Penh headquarters, departments within this affiliate meticulously track mule accounts in numerous countries, manage customer relations with scammers, and actively monitor relevant online platforms like Telegram.

The scale of this criminal enterprise is staggering. Analytics firms Elliptic and Chainalysis have traced approximately $26.8 billion in cryptocurrency transactions since 2021 back to the illicit marketplace run by Huione affiliates. One Telegram channel alone, aptly named “Demand and Supply,” had over 400,000 active users exchanging hundreds of daily messages about money-laundering services before being shut down briefly by Telegram after an inquiry. Within a week, another nearly identical channel emerged, quickly amassing around 250,000 members.

Although Huione Guarantee, the affiliate originally hosting the marketplace, publicly denied affiliation with the broader Huione conglomerate – going so far as to change its name – the marketplace nonetheless identified Huione Group as one of its “strategic partners and shareholders.”

Operating openly in Cambodia, Huione companies benefit from weak enforcement and ambiguous corporate structures, along with significant political connections. Notably, Hun To, a cousin of Cambodia’s prime minister, serves as a director at a Huione company. Such connections contribute to the network’s apparent impunity. John Wojcik, a threat analyst with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, explained: “The reality is even if Huione were dismantled, competitors would quickly replace it. We can already see competitors now positioning themselves.”

Cambodian regulators recently refused to renew the license for Huione’s payment service, citing its failure to “meet the renewal requirements.” In response, Huione immediately announced intentions to register new operations internationally, targeting jurisdictions like Japan and Canada. Cambodian regulators insist they are committed to ensuring financial transparency and safety, pledging cooperation with global anti-money laundering standards.

When problems arise – if a mule is caught or decides to run away with the money – a matchmaker arbitrates disputes, protecting scammers through deposits held in escrow by Huione affiliates. Profits flow through the system at every step, benefiting Huione’s operations and fueling expansion into luxury goods, property, and, notably, extravagant fireworks displays.

The human cost behind these operations is considerable. Many scammers themselves are victims of human trafficking, coerced into conducting fraud under threat of violence or captivity. Captive employees live in fortified compounds, forced to spend earnings in company-controlled establishments, including restaurants, casinos, and brothels. A secondary industry flourishes alongside, with sophisticated websites and applications built by software developers, stolen data purchased from thieves, and even attractive models paid to persuade potential victims via manipulated video calls.

Despite international investigations, temporary shutdowns of online channels, and occasional arrests, the industry adapts and thrives. Scammers maintain professionalism reminiscent of large corporations, managing employees, human resources departments, and extensive infrastructure.

With each stolen dollar meticulously laundered and eventually reintegrated into legitimate economies around the world, the cycle remains difficult – nearly impossible – to break. As long as billions of illicit dollars continue to flow through Cambodia’s opaque financial networks, the scammers’ fireworks over Phnom Penh will continue, illuminating nights already heavy with human misery and lost fortunes.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“A New World Order With European Values.” Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week’s meeting of the World Forum in Berlin.

Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech.

In fairness to the Forum, “a New World Order” likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe.

As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it an unnerving message. Even putting aside the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today’s European values is alarming for free speech.

Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having “toxic ideologies.”

The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits.

There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or “European peace.”

The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support.

The very notion of a “New World Order” is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond.

This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe’s elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements.

For globalists, the late Tip O’Neill’s rule that “all politics is local” is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite.

The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as “leader of the century.”

The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called “autocrats” and “oligarchs.” The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding “open societies” and greater transnational powers.

The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of “disinformation” that fosters such dissent.

Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech.

Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech.

Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech.

There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word “censorship.” They prefer “content moderation.” They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting “false,” “hateful” or “inciteful” speech.

As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by “low-information voters” misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints.

That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship.

With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, “European peace” has come at the price of silencing many of those voices; achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence.

Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed.

That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions.

Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa’s courage as a journalist but previously criticized her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring “I will say it now: ‘The fascists are coming.’”

At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of “powerful leaders” to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide.

But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms.

In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include “xenophobia” and the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material” from viewpoints barred under the law.

Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation.

The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation.

For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over “oligarchs” and “autocrats.” Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and “good” billionaires like Soros and Gates.

Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a “New World Order Based on European Values” is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

While investors and economists are squarely focused on whether the US stock market has bottomed or if this is just a short-squeezing bear market rally, and whether the US economy is still growing or – as the Atlanta Fed GDPNow tracker strongly hints – is rapidly shrinking, a far more troubling problem has emerged for the US economy and the Trump administration: the US consumer, and especially the lower income cohort, is now fully tapped out.

Which should not be news to anyone, and certainly not regular zerohedge readers. After all, for the past few years we have been chronicling how US savings are increasingly shrinking and being replaced with credit card borrowings and other forms of debt, including the insidious Buy Now Pay Later (also known as Burrito Now Pay Later, or BNPL), which we learned is being used for food purchases because millions of Americans can’t even afford to pay for their next meal, but they will still use doordash for highly overpriced deliveries!)

And it certainly is not a Trump phenomenon, quite the contrary. Consider the following data from the Philadelphia Fed, which recently showed that the share of active credit card accounts making only the minimum payment hit a series high, 10.75% in third quarter 2024. 

In addition, more consumers are falling behind on their monthly card payments. The balance-based 30+ days past due rate increased 33 basis points year-over-year to 3.52% in third quarter 2024. This represents more than double the delinquency rate of 1.57 percent at the pandemic low in second quarter 2021.

It’s even uglier when looking at the charge-off rates by such “less than prime” card issuers like Capital One and Discovery, both of which just hit their highest charge-off rates since the global financial crisis.

And as more consumers default on their debt, more are increasingly reliant on debt, period. Going back to the Philly Fed study, it found that revolving and total card balances have hit record highs since the series started in 2012. Revolving card balances reached $645 billion in third quarter 2024, which represents 52.5% growth since a decade low of $423 billion in second quarter 2021. Total card balances have also grown, reaching a record high of $914 billion. 

Of course, it’s all circular: in response to weaker credit performance, banks are adopting more conservative lending standards. Tighter bank underwriting is resulting in a measurable decline in new card origination commitments and higher origination credit quality, seen in rising original credit scores. Card balances increased to a new series high, but year-over-year card growth slowed to a nearly three-year low. Meanwhile, nobody can afford to buy a home:
first-lien mortgage origination activity remains at series lows in a high-rate environment, as banks averaged only $55 billion in mortgage originations per quarter in the first three quarters of 2024 after originating $219 billion at the peak of originations in third quarter 2021. With high interest rates, consumers with low-rate mortgages have less financial incentive to refinance, dampening new mortgage demand. The silver lining: wxisting mortgages are performing well as delinquency rates remain low (for now).

As the Philly Fed summarizes ominously, “consumers are not only spending more, leading to higher balances, but paying off less, increasing revolving amounts. Revolving balances as a percentage of total balances have steadily climbed since the pandemic low of 65 percent in fourth quarter 2021 to 71% in third quarter 2024.”

But it’s not just the macro that is ugly; listening to some of the recent company earnings calls shows just how truly miserable the US consumer has become at the end of the Biden administration.

As Goldman Delta-One head trader Rich Privorotsky wrote a few days ago, “the (weak) consumer theme is very well understood but in case it’s unclear, we have a low end consumer problem” and here are some soundbites: 

• KSS CEO: “when you look at income level, if you’re making less than 50, that consumer is pretty constrained from a discretionary standpoint, if you’re making less than 100, it’s also pretty challenging. And you see that very clearly in the numbers”. 
• DG CEO: “What has really become apparent leaving Q4 and moving into Q1 is the trade-down is back, both the mid and upper-end trade-down, and as we moved into Q4, seems to be accelerating. We’ll know a little bit more as we pull Q1 here, but I would tell you nothing that we’ve seen so far would show that that trade-down has slowed down”. 
• ACN confirmed the impact of government spending cuts rippling through its business and noted a recent change in trend.
• FDX guidance was downbeat. “The current environment … is adding uncertainty to demand”… “I think it’s reasonable to assume that the macro-environment is not going to significantly improve at least for the first half of FY26” 

That’s just the start. As Goldman reveals in its latest Consumer Retail tracker (full note available to pro subs), commentary from earnings calls is almost uniformly ugly:

• AAP (Feb 26): There is continued softness in the consumer spending environment, with deferral in spending for maintenance and discretionary items. They expect the consumer to remain pressured in the 1H, with the macro improving in the back half of the year.
• ASO (Mar 30): Consumer spending power remained constrained throughout the holiday seasom, and they assume that consumer behavior in 4Q will continue in 2025. They also expect to see continued growth in the upper income quintiles, while there is continued softness in the lower to middle income quintiles.
• AZO (Mar 4): Discretionary sales will continue to he pressured until consumer confidence improves. Lower income consumers are under pressure and will likely continue to he under pressure.
• BBWI (Feb 27): They are not assuming any improvement in the macro or consumer sentiment in their guidance. They
• are also continuing to see value-seeking behavior along with competitive intensity.
• BBY (Mar 3): The consumer will remain resilient but is still dealing with high inflation that is driving expenses up, making them more value focused and thoughtful about big ticket purchases. However, consumers are willing to spend on high price points when there is necessity/technology innovation.
• BJ (Mar 6): Consumers remain highly value conscious and discern from discretionary purchases. Tariffs may disrupt consumer spending given consumer wallets are stretched.
• BYD.TO (Mar 19): Consumers are currently putting themselves in a position where they are unable to afford fixing their vehicle. They also face high levels of insurance premiums as used car pricing increases.
• DG (Mar 13): “Consumers have reported that their financial situation has worsened over the last year as they have been negatively impacted by inflation. Many of their customers report that they only have enough money for basic essentials, with some having to sacrifice on necessities. As they enter 2025, they are not anticipating improvement in the macro environment and assume there is continued economic pressure similar to 2026.”
• DRVN (Feb 25): “They anticipate that the ongoing inflationary environment will likely continue to pressure consumer spending for 2025, with lower income households being the most impacted. There continues to he a lot of uncertainty, specifically with inflationary pressure and tariffs.”
• EYE (Feb 26): “The first few weeks of the year have been choppy for consumer retail, they have seen some wobble in the consumer. They see immigration as one of the many factors affecting consumer sentiment, with cash paying consumers the rnost challenged.”
• FL (Mar 5): “As they moved towards February, consumers became more cautious and sensitive; however, they are seeing consumers spend during compelling activations, key shopping events, or product launches. As they enter 2025, they are recognizing heightened levels of marketplace uncertainties and experienced increased pressure in the lulls between key events.“
• LOW (Feb 26): “They are still seeing a cautious consumer leading to contin !Jed near-term pressure on DIY discretionary spending.”
• OLLI (Mar 19): “Consumers rernain under pressure, with big-ticket categories remaining softer and the consumables category becoming stronger. The higher income consumer continues to trade down and the consumer responds to deals, whether they are discretionary or nondiscretionary.”
• ORLY (Feb 6): “Pressure on consumers and continued softness in discretionary categories persisted in 4Q. However, they remain cautious for the potential of worsening economic conditions, such as high price levels, high interest rates, and high energy costs. The consumer still remains cautious, especially the lower-end consumers.“
• TGT (Mar 4): “Consumers show a willingness to splurge on newness and holiday events, but persistent economic uncertainty has led consumers to take a cautious approach towards spending. While consumer spending trends are not hack to normal, they are seeing encouraging trends in their discretionary businesses. Consumers also cottinue bo resourceful, looking for the best deals and prices.”
• WMT (Feb 20): “They are assuming a relatively stable macroeconomic environment, but acknowledge there are still some uncertainties related to consumer behavior and geopolitical conditions.”

The silver lining is that for now, the high end is doing just fine: “Italian luxury group Brunello Cucinelli Thursday said its operating profit had risen 12.9% last year and confirmed its expectations of sales growth of around 10% in 2025 and 2026.” And yet, in a surprising twist, it is the Goldman “high-income consumer” basket that has been the worst performing over the past year, down about 13% since the start of 2024, with Middle-income down 4% over the same period. The surprising winner: stocks that track the low-income consumer are actually up about 3% since Jan 1 2024.

Don’t hold your breath on this outperformance to continue, however, especially when considering that dramatic cut to EPS guidance unleashed during Q4 earnings season which is shown in the Goldman chart below, which summarizes company results vs both the bank’s estimates and consensus.

It’s not all bad news: according to the latest Consumer Checkpoint report from Bank of America which uses aggregated card data as a source of data, consumers’ credit and debit card spending per household dropped 2.3% year-over-year (YoY) in February, compared to a rise of 1.9% YoY in January. However, that decline reflected the extra leap day in February 2024, which boosted spending last year and depressed the YoY growth rate for February 2025. Seasonally adjusted (SA) spending per household rose 0.3% month-over-month (MoM), with the three-month seasonally adjusted annualized growth rate (SAAR) at 2.4%, To be sure, the latest retail sales which came in stronger than expected corroborated this modest increase.

The bank founds that while spending was relatively strong in services in February on a MoM basis, there was a continued decline in restaurant spending. Additionally, retail spending (ex- gas and restaurants) was flat MoM, after declining in January. Here, BofA speculates that “the consumer is still demonstrating some underlying forward momentum in these early months of the year, though at a more measured pace.” This is particularly the case as the weather may be responsible for some weakness in the data, although as noted below, the weather is no longer seen as the primary culprit behind spending weakness (January was a cold month, with snow and ice in the South and Northeast). February also brought winter storms to the midwestern and southern US, evident in slowing spending growth in Texas in mid-month, although spending recovered toward the end of February

Card spending growth also weakened in the D.C. area in February, possibly due to the significant snow received during the third week of February. However, other major cities in the eastern portion of the US also received winter snowstorms and they experienced a spending growth recovery. So, it could also be that recent announcements and actions to reduce the size of the federal workforce may be weighing on spending throughout the DC area.

Not surprisingly, when looking at spending across income cohorts, the top-third of households by income category have largely had higher card spending growth than middle- or lower-income peers since February 2024. This contrasts with 2023 when the opposite was true. One reason for the recovery in spending growth in the higher-income cohort appears to be stronger after-tax wage and salary growth, which accelerated over 2024 after a period of weakness in 2023. In February 2025, after-tax wage and salary growth for this cohort accelerated further, up 3.5% YoY, compared to a slowdown in growth for lower-income households, up 2.4% YoY, according to Bank of America deposit data.

Also worth noting that higher-income households tend to hold more of their overall financial assets in equities. Data from the Fed suggests that the top 20% of households by income held around 43% of their non-real estate assets in directly held corporate equities and mutual fund shares in Q3 2024, compared to around 20% for the other 80% of households. The size of overall financial wealth will generally be higher for these higher-income households, too.

Rising financial asset values over 2023 and 2024 have likely provided an additional boost to spending growth for higher-income households over the past year or so through so-called “wealth effects” – the tendency for consumers to spend more as their wealth rises. 

But how this relative boost to higher-income spending develops over the course of 2025 will depend, in part, upon how equities perform: according to BofA current levels of the S&P may suggest some of these wealth effects could dissipate this year. Worse, according to an analysis from BofA’s Michael Hartnett which we discussed over the weekend (see here), using BofA private client equity data, Hartnett estimated that US household equity wealth could fall $3tn in Q1 2025, which would explain the drop off in spending across most cohorts, not just low and medium-income households.

While stock prices are a key driver for high-income consumer spending, for lower- and middle-income households, it is elevated deposits that are likely to have been consequential in providing a tailwind or support to their spending, given they represent a larger share of their wealth. As the chart below shows, while diminishing, household savings balances are still above 2019 inflation-adjusted levels (but not for long).

Additionally, BofA notes that at this time of year, tax refunds can also be a seasonal boost to household deposits and potentially provide another tailwind, albeit temporary, to their spending. Looking at average tax refund payments into Bank of America deposit accounts over the 2025 tax filing season as of February 28, for households at the lower-end of the income distribution, the average refund was up around 4% YoY, with increases around 7% YoY for middle- and higher-income households. 

However, it’s still very early in the tax season to draw conclusions:  according to IRS data, only around a quarter of the total tax filings had been made as of February 21st as the majority are likely to come throughout March and April.

Not surprisingly, perhaps the biggest wildcard is how much consumption will inflation, unleashed by the previous administration, steal. Consider that over the past year, prices for ‘food away from home’ (e.g., restaurants) have risen by more than prices for ‘food at home’ (e.g., groceries).  But recently, prices for food at home have been increasing notably: up 0.5% MoM, following a 0.3% rise in December, and well above the average 0.14% MoM increase in 2024. While these sequential price increases are still relatively small, they are occurring after grocery prices have already risen nearly 30% since 2019. In fact, the largest MoM price increases appear to be for the grocery items that are already up the most.

This has been more obvious in some high-profile items; for example, the price of eggs rose 15% MoM in January, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), but have since fallen back. Eggs account for 2.5% of a typical grocery bill, so this increase alone may not be enough to ‘eat’ into the rest of consumer budgets. However, looking across all grocery categories, we can see that prices increased MoM for nearly 80% of typical spending in January. Additionally, meat, poultry, and fish – accounting for nearly 20% of an average grocery basket – experienced a 0.5% MoM increase

Conversely, fruit and vegetables, accounting for over 13% of a typical basket declined 0.6% MoM. However, given that imports have made up an increasing share of US food consumption, especially for non-manufactured goods like fruits and vegetables, potential tariffs may put price pressures on even more items in consumers’ grocery carts in future. This rise in grocery prices appears to be partially reflected in household spending, according to Bank of America internal data. Chart 13 shows that those with lower incomes spent around 1% MoM more on groceries in January, with smaller rises for middle- and higher-income households. While lower-income households saw a decline in February, middle- and higher-income households saw another rise. It may be that some of the recent decline in grocery spending at the lower end of the spectrum may be due to a spreading out or trading down effect, as some lower-income households head to general merchandise or discount stores to save money.

How might consumers respond to higher food prices if they continue to take a ‘bite’ out of their spending power? Chart 14 chart shows that one response to earlier food inflation was that consumers shopped for groceries more often but spent less each time. More recently though, the amount spent per transaction has increased while the number of times consumers shop has eased only slightly.

This approach of ‘more but smaller’ shops may allow consumers to focus on buying things they feel represent good value at particular stores. And a natural counterpart is households also shopping increasingly at ‘value’ grocery stores (see our piece on value groceries for more). The chart below shows that this trend is ongoing, and in February 2025, grocery spending per household at value stores rose 1.2% YoY, while it dropped 1.4% YoY for premium grocers.

Overall, if food prices continue to rise, consumers could continue to employ some of these strategies to try and limit the pass-through of higher prices onto their grocery bills, which, in turn, may reduce the risk of them needing to pull back their spending elsewhere. This is particularly relevant for lower-income households, where groceries swallow up a significant share of income.

So what does Wall Street think of all of this? For the answer we went to Goldman Consumer specialist Scott Feiler who published a note yesterday (available to pro subscribers) laying out 5 points about the health of the US consumer. Here is his assessment.

Has the US Consumer Slowed?: I would argue the debate has moved past whether or not we have seen some slowing in US consumer. We have. I think the bigger focus/question should now shift to what is already priced in as opposed to any surprise when a company notes some volatility in 1Q trends. The other debate should be whether the slowdown can quickly stabilize/reverse if the tariff outcome/headlines are not as bad as feared and confidence readings stabilize. Some thoughts on timing for a trade below…
 
1. Not Just Weather: The year started off choppy in January and February, though it was most impacting companies with exposure to adverse weather trends, especially apparel companies and restaurants. After comments from airlines, cruise lines (just modest slowing) and some data in hotels recently pointed to some slowing  (hotel the focus this past week from investors), it seems clear that the slowdown has spread some and it is not just weather related.

2. Shouldn’t This Be Known By Now? Many of the names (especially in travel) are down 20-40% into their updates. My view is the price action is ultimately going to be much more interesting to me than when a company tells you they saw some volatility in February/March. I would note CCL rallied back from –7% to close down just -1% on their comments about the macro, hotels rallied from -5% to -1% after some of their weekly data came out soft and FDX, while -6% on the day, did finish at the highs. Lastly, footwear and athletic stocks traded very well Friday, despite NKE’s weak guide and comments that they expect tariffs to have a big impact to both top and bottom-line for them.

3. It is specific to the low-income? We received this question a lot this week.  While the high-end consumer has continued to hold up better than other pockets of consumer and the confidence readings have been better vs this cohort, there have been companies speaking to a slowdown at the higher-end in the US, including Prada and Viking. Ultimately though, if the market stabilizes, so too should high income spend.

4. Is it all bad? No. I would argue we got some slightly better reads this week vs fears. Government retail sales came in better than feared, the BofA CEO spoke very constructively about the consumer, DRI (a bellwether of sorts in casual dining) noted an acceleration in their QTD trends and FIVE/SIG (while not bellwethers of spend) both spoke to better 1Q trends. While some of these may be company specific, we are not yet in an environment where it’s a coordinated across the board slowdown, even if it is impacting more companies than not.

5. Next Catalyst: The Consumer Discretionary group is -8% YTD, underperforming the market by 500 bps. Our PB data also reflects concern, as the sector has been the most sold in our PB data YTD and was net sold again this past week, despite the slight relief in the market. Despite that, I do think investors are looking to 2H of April as a long trade for the group. On the seasonal and general merchandise side, the later Easter (April 20th in 2025 vs March 31st in 2024) will create headwinds right now that become tailwinds shortly, Gross relative PB exposure is at 5-years lows in the group and there’s a hope that there could be some relief (a couple weeks of wiggle room for negotiations post April 2nd), or at least some certainty, on the tariff front by then.

Bottom line: The low – and increasingly medium – consumer is broke and struggling to make ends meet from month to month. And while the high-income consumer is anecdotally still doing well, they are increasingly trading down and judging by the market, this will be the next shoe to drop. In any case, if and when the US consumer finally falters – bearing some 70% of US economic growth on his back – that will be the trigger for the next recession, and while all the pieces were put in place by the Biden admin for the next economic contraction, it will be Trump who will be the object of the mainstream media’s propaganda ire. 

Which once again brings us to the question we asked two weeks ago: is Trump trying to push the US into a recession, one which he will blame on Biden, then promptly stimulate out of, and set both the economy and market on the correct footing into the midterms.  If so, Trump better make up his mind fast, because every day that US economy does relatively well without grinding to a halt, is one day that will make blaming Biden for the current dismal economic picture that much more difficult.

More in the full notes from Goldman (here and here) and Bank of America (here), all available to pro subscribers.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s Monday bombshell piece in The Atlantic has been met with outrage among Congressional Democrats. In the article entitled The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans – which reproduces text messages among top Trump national security officials – Goldberg explains that “US national-security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn’t think it could be real. Then the bombs started falling.”

Among some 18 individuals listed as members of a Signal group that the journalist was ‘inadvertently’ invited to included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President Vance, national security adviser Michael Waltz, Secretary of State is Marco Antonio Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Golberg wrote, “What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

The journalist goes on to identify that it was Waltz who initially added him to the group, and that as the conversation unfolded, he was shocked and alarmed that all involved seemingly didn’t notice his name was listed in the group. We should note that all of this is also very bizarre because Goldberg is so obviously and rabidly anti-Trump.

The group and thread was initially engaged in a policy conversation on how to restore US and global shipping in the Red Sea, and the question potential public backlash if a bombing campaign on Yemen once again commenced…

But then, later on March 15 the conversation continued and actually turned to operational planning and then debriefing after execution of new bombing raids.

“According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time,” Goldberg recalled. “So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.”

In the wake of the Atlantic author revealing and publishing these messages and more on Monday, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes has offered confirmation on their authenticity.

“At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” he said in a Monday afternoon statement.

“The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our national security,” Hughes said.

“Send a message”: the below is among the most interesting moments from the Signal thread released by Goldberg:

Vance elsewhere is actually the only one that calls the war in Yemen “a mistake” that doesn’t advance US interests, but expresses willingness to go along with the consensus

This high-level confirmation has provoked outrage among Dems in Congress. Below are some examples via Axios:

• “This is an outrageous national security breach and heads should roll,” Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement to Axios.
• He added: “We need a full investigation and hearing into this on the House Armed Services Committee, ASAP.”
• “We can’t chalk this up to a simple mistake — people should be fired for this,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), another Armed Services Committee member.

But Republicans are by and large shrugging it off. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, another Armed Services Committee member and former Air Force brigadier general, was cited in Axios as saying, “I’ve accidentally sent the wrong person a text. We all have.”

And more reaction…

Early reaction from Democratic senators https://t.co/Fbig0cmVbU pic.twitter.com/07It4HWKZs

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) March 24, 2025

Unfortunately, as yet none of the pushback and anger coming from Democrat leaders has focused on what we see as the real question and actual scandal–waging war in a foreign nation without Congressional approval— instead, all seem merely focused on the breach or leak aspect itself, involving ultra-sensitive national security conversations. 

Here’s how one prominent geopolitics account on X summarized what’s been gleaned from the Signal chat leak..

So just to recap:

-They didn’t think the Houthis were a real threat

-They didn’t think Americans would understand the strikes

-They did it anyway, to “send a message”

-And they did it on an unencrypted chat app with a journalist inside the group You cannot make this up.

This is how wars are started in 2025.

Jeffrey Goldberg helped start a 20-year failed war based on lies about non-existent WMDs, while we’re on the topic of actually insane national security stories as opposed to fake hysteria from dead-end neocon war pimps. https://t.co/cNKVzeUFrY

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 24, 2025

* * *

The question remains why? Why would Goldberg (of all people) be added to such a sensitive group chat? Here’s one theory that makes sense.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“What is the alternative to presidential oversight and management of the agencies listed in this branch of government? They run themselves? That claim means nothing in practice.” 

– Jeffrey Tucker

Surely you know the old joke: “What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?” (Answer: “a good start!”). There’s a reason why lawyers are so broadly despised. Law is humanity’s instrument for creating order out of the terror and chaos of nature, where anything goes. The result of law theoretically, is a civil society, where only the good, true, and right things can go.

These days, lawyers are hard at work to replace civilized order with the terror and chaos of nature — which is to say, the seeking of raw power: this is what I can do to you! That primal despotism is the motivating engine of the Democratic Party in its terminal phase, a feral, power-seeking monster. It was why, in case you hadn’t noticed, the essential drive of Woke politics was the sadistic pleasure it took in exacting its endless punishments — cancellation, personal ruin, censorship — not correcting alleged injustices against marginalized minorities. And that tells you, by the way, exactly why the J-6 defendants were treated so harshly by the likes of Judge James Boasberg, Tanya Chutkan, and their colleagues of the DC federal district.

The enabling device for that monstrous power-seeking of the Democratic Party was the colossal racketeering operation they implanted in every corner of the federal government, an insidious process that accelerated during the Obama years, eluded discipline during Trump One — with the many distracting ruses such as RussiaGate — and surged into final overdrive during the perfidious term of “Joe Biden,” America’s first false-front president.

The racketeering operation was perfectly illustrated in the DOGE’s recent deconstruction of USAID. That agency worked as a gigantic money laundering matrix to pay Democratic Party activists for the sole purpose of maintaining and expanding the party’s power — its ability to push American citizens around, control our lives, tell us how to live, how to think, and, ultimately, in the Covid-19 scam, telling us to take our shots, get lost, and die. Pitifully, a lot of those vaxx victims were the Democratic Party’s own rank and file, which shows you how psychotically suicidal the Democratic Party became.

By and large, it was conservatives who avoided the vaxxes because they were able psychologically to entertain the evidence that Covid was a nefarious set-up and that, month-by-month, the vaxxes were proving to be both ineffective and harmful. Democrats, in their Woke fugue state, could not do that. Even today, they insist that their vaxx injuries are “long Covid” and would be worse if not for the additional boosters they took. Poor dumb bunnies.

Mr. Trump was played masterfully in the initial 2020 Covid roll-out by the likes of Dr. Fauci, Deborah Birx, and the faithless Veep Mike Pence who directed the Coronavirus Task Force (and whoever was behind it). The president could not bring himself to oppose or cast doubt on their diktats and to this day he must remain embarrassed about how that all worked out. But he also probably learned to not be fooled again.

And so, after the fishy 2020 election, and during the disastrous “Biden” years, Mr. Trump had time to lay careful and comprehensive plans for ending the massive racketeering and for restructuring the federal apparatus into a leaner, more efficient, and more lawful enterprise for managing the civil society known as the USA. Which brings us to the present.

Mr. Trump’s lawfully appointed agent, Elon Musk, and his legally chartered investigative advisory unit, called DOGE, has begun making recommendations for severe cuts in agencies and employees, which have been executed by the lawfully confirmed heads of agencies, and the chief executive himself. Thus, the rapid, systematic disassembly of the Democratic Party’s grift machine and the end of its immense revenue stream. No more USAID and its thousands of NGO money laundromats. No more Department of Education and its Grant-O-Matic depredations in the universities. No more work-from home (but not really) nonsense. No more DEI reverse racism in hiring. No more flooding the swing state voting precincts with illegal aliens. No more stupid proxy war in Urkaine. No more gender pretending chaos. You see how it goes now.

Also, thus, the Democratic Party’s last resort: the federal judiciary, 235 new judges jammed into office in the twilight weeks of “Joe Biden” (as Senate Minority Leader Schumer bragged on Sunday’s TV talk circuit), plus the ones such as Boasberg, Chutkan, et al., already on the bench, primed to thwart Mr., Trump’s efforts to govern at every turn. They are the Dem’s only remaining lever of power. And they can only be activated by lawyers filing suits against Mr. Trump — hundreds having been filed in the past eight weeks. And these, as you learned in the Friday post here, are directed by attorney lawfare field marshal Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, using the many well-paid lawfare lawyers at his disposal.

In politics, momentous things often happen on weekends. This past Saturday, Mr. Trump released a White House memorandum directing the Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

More specifically, the president’s memo asserts:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in certain unethical conduct in Federal courts. Attorneys must not present legal filings “for improper purpose[s],” including “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” FRCP 11(b)(1). Attorneys must ensure that legal arguments are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”

This is the first time that legal discipline has been leveled directly at the lawfare lawyers themselves. (Election-rigging maestro Marc Elias is mentioned by name in the memo.) It means that after eight years of this noxious gamesmanship, they are going to have to start answering for their actions, they will have to lawyer-up on their own account, and they are going discover (the old saying goes) how the process is the punishment.

Next, if it is not already underway at the DOJ, Mr. Trump must direct AG Bondi to explore the parties financing this lawfare — this “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” — and you should suppose that it has been emanating from the checkbooks of George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and other wealthy seditionists, who, likewise, will have to some serious ‘splainin’ why they should not go prison. One thing for sure: the money for all this is going to dry up.

Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

New York University’s website was hacked on Saturday and its homepage replaced with purported SAT and ACT scores and GPAs for the 2024 student cohort, broken down by race.

The hacker accused NYU of illegal admissions practices based on race. The alleged data posted on the hacked page reportedly showed that Asian students had higher average ACT and SAT scores, while white students had higher GPAs, compared to Hispanic and black applicants.

The page featured a black background with green writing and the message: “On June 29 2023, racial affirmative action in college admissions was ruled illegal. Computer N–ggy Exploitation (CNE) reveals NYU continued anyway.”

The phrase “TOP SECRET//NIGINT//NONORM” was also written atop the screen.

“The page … included four accessible CSV files revealing NYU admissions data since at least 1989, including over 3 million admitted students’ applications, demographic data, city and zip codes, and citizenship status,” the Washington Square News student newspaper reported.

“The files also show Common Application data, which includes details of financial aid, rejected students, how many students applied Early Decision and personal information about siblings and parents.”

The hacker goes by the name “@bestn–gy” on X.

“There’s a lot more data from their data warehouse that could be analyzed further,” @bestn–gy wrote on X, according to a screenshot published by the New York Post. 

“I only posted (redacted) bare minimum to prove they’re breaking the law.”

“The alleged data showed Asian students performed better on ACT and SAT tests, but that white students finished with higher GPAs.”

While NYU spokesperson’s John Beckman confirmed the hack, he did not say whether the data was correct to Washington Square News or the Post.

“The University reported the hack to law enforcement, is taking steps to make sure the attackers are out of our systems, and is reviewing the University’s systems to bolster their security,” he told the news outlets.

This hacker has also taken credit for previously hacking the University of Minnesota’s website in 2023 during which 7 million social security numbers were exposed.

* * *

Extremely Popular: ReadyWise lighter / flashlight combo…

Cybertruck driver Joshua Hazel told Business Insider about Mardi Gras: “It was not like any other Mardi Gras.”

Calling the crowd “aggressive,” “hateful,” and “violent” he was one of several people who had their Cybertrucks damaged and vandalized after participating in a Mardi Gras day parade. 

What began as a high-energy celebration quickly turned into a disturbing encounter for Cybertruck owners Hazel and Christina G., who were invited to transport parade marshals in their vehicles during New Orleans’ Orpheus parade.

Hazel said he and Christina were “pumped” to be part of the event, along with three other friends, decorating their Cybertrucks with American flags at a pre-staging area. “It was all just high energy, enthusiasm, awesome,” Hazel recalled.

But by evening, the mood shifted dramatically, according to Business Insider.

🚨‼️Can anyone identify this man?
Let’s make him famous in the news and on the internet. He broke the glass on this Cybertruck while the owner was volunteering for a parade on in New Orleans. He needs to be identified, please share.

pic.twitter.com/MgKZEwlDa8

— Gail Alfar (@GailAlfarATX) March 20, 2025

Christina, who requested partial anonymity out of fear of retaliation, told Business Insider, “The energy shift was just so dramatic from what we experienced.”

Spectators began throwing alcohol, shouting slurs, and pelting the trucks with heavy objects. Hazel said one man ran up and “slings a handful of beads” at full force, injuring his wife and shattering a camera panel. “There’s some thick beads, very large beads in there,” he added. Later, full beer cans were hurled at their truck “with baseball fastball throws.”

The Business Insider article says that Christina’s Cybertruck suffered similar damage. “People were pummeling the vehicle with an unknown heavy object that broke the top glass,” she said. “It feels surreal.”

The group messaged parade organizers and contacted security but said it took over an hour to exit the route. “We were really left to just sit and suffer,” Christina said. “It felt like 40 days.”

The backlash took on a political edge. Hazel and Christina said they were called Nazis and told to leave the city. Hazel, a veteran with over two decades of service, was appalled. “I’m not a Nazi in our American government, American military. That talk is just horrendous.”

Children were reportedly encouraged to flip off the vehicles and throw beads. Christina said online reactions have been equally jarring: “The celebration that some people were experiencing in causing us harm and attacking us” has been “eye-opening and scary.”

Both filed police reports. Hazel estimates his repair costs will top $7,000, including the wrap and scratched tonneau cover. Christina’s repairs have already topped $2,000, with more expected. “It’s just broken, it’s wrong,” she said. “It’s heartbreaking to see these people who have worked hard and have decided how to spend their own finances to be attacked andhave their property vandalized.”

Despite the ordeal, neither plans to back down. Hazel doubled down with a purchase of 185 Tesla shares. “We bought more Tesla shares, we’re looking at adding another Tesla to the stable,” he said. “I wouldn’t allow any kind of bullying to dictate the vehicle I drive.”

Christina, too, leaned in—ordering a collectible Cybertruck model as she left New Orleans.

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Washington has denied the Trump administration’s request to remove two orders blocking the administration’s ability to deport members of a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

In an opinion on March 24, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said he had jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that they are entitled to an individualized hearing to determine whether the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 applies to them.

Boasberg also said the plaintiffs who challenged the Trump administration’s action couldn’t be deported until a court had ruled on the merits of their challenge. He noted that they disputed that they were, in fact, members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist group.

Boasberg’s decision follows a contentious hearing on Friday, when he said the administration had used “intemperate” and “disrespectful” language.

At one point, he advised Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Drew Ensign to ensure that his team at the DOJ retained a lesson about their reputation and credibility being the most valuable treasure they possess. Boasberg and the DOJ have clashed in recent days over the nature of his authority and, in particular, whether an oral order he issued on March 15 was binding.

In filings last week, the DOJ described Boasberg’s orders as “an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people.”

Another filing on March 19 showed the administration suggesting that the case had “devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding.”

“In a series of orders this Court has requested the Government to provide it details about the movements of aircraft outside of the United States and interactions with foreign nations which have no bearing on any legal issue at stake in the case,” it said.

Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to respond just hours later in a statement last week.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

On March 24, the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments in the case. It’s just one of many testing presidential authority and making its way through the courts under the Trump administration.

Hyundai Motor Co. plans to invest $20 billion in the U.S., a move President Trump will highlight during a White House event with Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, according to Bloomberg.

A portion of the investment will fund a new steel mill in Louisiana, expected to employ 1,500 workers and supply Hyundai and Kia’s American EV production. The announcement comes amid growing trade tensions, with Trump set to roll out reciprocal tariffs on April 2 targeting countries he deems unfair to U.S. trade interests.

Hyundai’s decision mirrors a broader trend of foreign companies increasing U.S. production to avoid Trump’s escalating tariff threats.

The Bloomberg article notes that the president has already imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and has hinted at new levies on sectors like autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals. South Korea, labeled a trade abuser by Trump, may be among the nations targeted, though officials have yet to release a final list.

Trump’s aggressive tariff agenda has injected uncertainty into global markets and rattled domestic industries, particularly autos and steel. While domestic steelmakers may see short-term gains, analysts warn that high borrowing costs, inflation, and weakening demand could dampen the benefits.

Meanwhile, Trump has offered temporary relief to automakers on tariffs from Mexico and Canada, underlining his broader goal to localize supply chains and reduce reliance on foreign imports.

Recall, in recent days, the Trump team is racking up victories related to bringing investment back to the United States. Among them, Rolls-Royce also announced it was going to be ramping up production in the U.S., Yahoo Finance/The Telegraph reported.

The company, which employs 6,000 people across 11 American sites, is expediting a review that could lead to hiring more U.S. workers and expanding North American operations to avoid the brunt of rising protectionism. Insiders say the firm is “tipping the balance” toward the U.S., aligning—perhaps reluctantly—with Trump’s push to revive American manufacturing through aggressive trade policies.

Meanwhile, the UAE has pledged to invest $1.4 trillion in the U.S. over the next decade, following a meeting between President Trump and an Emirati official, Forbes reported.

The deal, which includes funding for AI, semiconductors, and U.S. manufacturing, marks a major expansion of existing ties and follows Emirati billionaire Hussain Sajwani’s earlier $20 billion commitment to U.S. data centers.