The Chinese Communist Party has been furious over Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing’s deal to sell Panama Canal ports to a consortium of investors that includes BlackRock, following pressure from President Trump as the US moves to bolster hemispheric defense—a massive security effort in which Panama plays a critical role. 

A new report from the South China Morning Post said Friday morning that Li’s flagship CK Hutchison Holdings, “will not go ahead with the expected signing of a deal next week to sell its two strategic ports at the Panama Canal … with Beijing saying it will launch an antitrust probe into the sale.”

There were multiple reports this week that Beijing was tightening the screws on Li’s CK Hutchison to stop the sale to BlackRock next week.

In one such report, The Telegraph noted, “Chinese authorities have effectively blacklisted CK Hutchison and the business interests of the Li family by telling Chinese state-backed firms they will struggle to get regulatory approval for any work involving the group.”

Here’s more from SCMP’s report:

Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s CK Hutchison Holdings will not go ahead with the expected signing of a deal next week to sell its two strategic ports at the Panama Canal, the Post has learned, with Beijing saying it will launch an antitrust probe into the sale.

The State Administration for Market Regulation said on Friday it was looking into CK Hutchison’s US$23 billion deal to sell 45 ports spread over 23 countries to a consortium led by United States investment firm BlackRock.

The investigation was announced after pro-Beijing media Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao asked whether the deal required approval from the country’s antitrust review.

“We have noticed this transaction, and will review it in accordance with the law to ensure fair competition in the market and safeguard the public interest,” a spokesman from the anti-monopoly department under market regulator said in a written reply.

The watchdog did not reveal when the investigation would be launched.

The department is responsible for conducting antitrust reviews and providing guidance to companies over their response to mitigate risk and ensure compliance overseas.

What’s evident is that the sale of the Panama ports, including Balboa and Cristobal on either side of the canal, to the consortium that includes BlackRock has put the HK billionaire in the direct firing line of the CCP. 

In a separate report on the temporarily derailed deal, the Wall Street Journal cited sources familiar with the negotiations who said the April 2nd deadline will not be met.

Here’s more color on what sources are saying:

Some of the people said the delay in signing the documents and Beijing’s regulatory review didn’t mean that the deal would be called off—only that a little more time was needed. Others said Beijing believed it might be able to force a more substantial delay or rethinking of the deal.

People involved in the negotiations and outside analysts have said they expect the deal would ultimately go through. They pointed to the risks for Beijing if it appeared to block a commercial transaction that doesn’t involve ports in mainland China or Hong Kong.

. . . 

Chinese officials have telegraphed to Hutchison that they would call in BlackRock for a regulatory review if the parties went ahead with the transaction, people familiar with the matter said. Antitrust officials have started examining BlackRock’s businesses, especially its investments in China, some of the people said.

CK Hutchison has denied the sale was politically motivated, while HK newspapers slammed the deal, calling it “a spineless kneeling, profit-seeking and unrighteous act, ignoring national interests and national justice, and betraying and selling out all Chinese people.” 

The HK paper Ta Kung Pao warned that BlackRock could charge “special docking fees” to Chinese commercial ships and “suppress China’s development” in the region. 

More broadly, the CCP is expected to fight tooth and nail to block Trump’s hemispheric strategy in the Americas—from Canada to Greenland to Panama. But this will only push Trump to escalate the trade war until the communists in Beijing say “uncle.”

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

When we finally learn the full melodrama of the so-called Signal 1-2 day “scandal” of inviting a leftwing, Trump-despising, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg onto a supposedly secure conference list, involving most of the top Trump security officials, lots of questions need asking and answering.

Most importantly, who exactly had Goldberg’s private number, and ostensibly (in error [?]) could have possibly inserted it into the cleared list of participants in the discussions? Why Goldberg, rather than some random person of some 345 million Americans? 

So why in the world would any top Trump officials or their staffers ever even have Goldberg’s private contact information—given his quite public record of a) fabricating stories with unnamed sources, and b) suffering from a decade of chronic Trump derangement syndrome? 

Did Goldberg know the mechanisms that had prompted and continued his stealthy presence on the secure discussions? 

Why did citizen Goldberg not simply come clean on day one that he realized he was mistakenly included in key national security conference communications, to which he did not belong, and thus should be obviously excluded immediately? Why stealthily listen in for eleven some days? Was the idea of informing his hosts of his own improper presence too old-fashioned morality? 

Did Goldberg’s publicizing these discreet discussions really affect in any way at all the otherwise completely successful mission to neutralize years of appeased Houthis aggression and begin to end their veritable destruction of Red Sea international maritime commerce? 

How did this blunder rank with prior diplomatic and military screw-ups? 

Did it rate with the indiscretion of Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s January 1950 Press Club speech de facto excluding South Korea from the American defense umbrella—an omission that may or may not have contributed to the June 1950 North Korean invasion of the South? 

Was it comparable to Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie’s assurance to Saddam Hussein, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait”— a needless remark that may have mistakenly green-lighted his 1990 invasion of Kuwait? 

Was it comparable to Barack Obama’s March 2012 “hot mic” quid-pro-quo assurance to Russian president Medvedev? Obama got caught in front of the world promising Putin that he would have “flexibility” on American-Eastern European missile defense—if Putin gave him “space” during his “last” election. 

And indeed, it is forgotten that both kept their promises: Obama foolishly dismantled American-sponsored Eastern European plans for missile defense, and Putin stayed put for Obama, perhaps empowering Obama’s successful election cycle—postponing his preplanned invasions of Ukraine until 2014. Careerism at the expense of national security? 

Did it rank with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, stealthily contacting his Chinese communist counterpart Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng, to warn him that he would likely prewarn the People’s Liberation Army leader, if he, Milley, had self-diagnosed his Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump as supposedly dangerously likely to trigger an existential war? 

Why would Hillary Clinton weigh in given her illegal use of a private server to transmit classified State Department information and her subsequent destruction of subpoenaed communication devices? 

Why would the serial fabulist Susan Rice weigh in, given in the election-year 2012 she flat-out lied to the nation on five Sunday news shows, claiming preposterously that the deadly preplanned terrorist attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were actually unexpected “spontaneous” demonstrations incited by anger over an anti-Muslim video? Ditto her fallacious Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “honor” narrative or her lie about the removal of Syrian WMD. 

Why would Leon Panetta weigh in, when he was one of the supposed “51 intelligence authorities” in 2020 who ridiculously claimed Hunter Biden’s FBI-authenticated laptop had all the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence disinformation effort—a lie designed to arm Joe Biden before the last 2020 debate, and which might well have affected the 2020 election and for which Panetta has never apologized? 

In the end, this was a blunder, but also what the left calls a “teachable moment”, in which a) all future similar conferences should be either held in person or its participants triple-checked on a secure line; and b) all Trump high appointees and their staffers should know enough to have nothing to do with those who wake up each morning wishing to destroy them – and go to bed each night lamenting that they have not done enough to advance that destruction.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to step in and allow the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador while a legal battle plays out in lower courts.

The move comes two days after an appeals court upheld a temporary block on the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

In their request, the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters, the Associated Press reports.

“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the request. “The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Earlier this month US District Judge James Boasberg paused the flights by ruling that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua deserve a hearing to deny they belong to the gang. Boasberg also demanded details on two flights on March 15 to determine whether the administration defied his oral and written orders to block them.

The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to overturn Boasberg’s order pausing flights, and to put that order on hold while they consider that request.

“Those orders – which are likely to extend additional weeks – now jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold,” wrote Harris.

The Supreme Court has asked lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans to respond by 10am Tuesday to the Trump admin request.

The DOJ has argued that Trump had the authority to declare TdA a foreign terrorist organization and deport them without hearings. Government lawyers also refused to release flight information on the deportations, arguing that it would reveal sources and methods behind the deportations.

“Once that secondary disclosure occurred, any opportunity for appellate review would be moot; the damage would be done, and the effect on United States foreign policy could be catastrophic,” the DOJ wrote.

The DOJ insists that the government obeyed Boasberg’s written order blocking the flights, but says that his earlier oral order while the flights were in the air weren’t enforceable. Government lawyers also contend that Trump had the authority to conduct the flights as commander-in-chief of the US military and the country’s head of foreign affairs.

Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment – saying that the lifetime Obama-appointee is “a troublemaker and agitator.”

*  *  *

Grow your own food with HEIRLOOM SEEDS (39 varieties – 4,500 seeds) from ZH Store!  Free shipping in the USA.

Are Democrats trying to spark a recession by crashing the stock market with their insanely partisan and outlier-ish survey responses?

Since President Trump was elected, ‘hard’ data – that is actual economic values – has been steady (strengthening recently). On the other hand, over the last three months, ‘Soft’ data – driven by surveys of Americans (left, right, and center) – has plunged…

Source: Bloomberg

One of the major drivers of that collapse in ‘soft’ data has been the University of Michigan sentiment survey, which has seen an unprecedented partisan divide of delusion send sentiment down (Democrats have NEVER been more fearful of the future) and inflation fears up (32 year highs thanks to Democrats)…

Source: Bloomberg

And while we have done our best, along with Goldman Sachs and Fed Chair Jay Powell, to urge investors to recognize the outlier (and partisan) nature of the UMich survey…

First, inflation expectations in the survey have become extremely partisan. 

Second, the share of respondents in the Michigan survey who are Democrats has always been consistently higher than the share of respondents who are Republicans

Third, switching from a phone-based to an online-based data collection process has led to more extreme answers on inflation expectations.

These three issues together have boosted short-term inflation expectations in the Michigan survey by about 1.3pp and long-term inflation expectations by 0.5pp since 2024Q4. In particular, the change in distribution across political parties and increased partisanship together generated an outsized 1.0pp boost to the 1-year inflation expectation in February.

…the reaction has been the same every time – stocks puked…

Every single University of Michigan survey since Trump became president has slammed the market as a result of outsized inflation expectations driven by Democrat responses. 

The S&P was down in kneejerk reaction after all six UMich reports this year (Prelim and Final).

Six out of six is not a bad track record – almost as if it was done on purpose to drag stocks down and trigger a recession (something that Trump likely would not want but wouldn’t mind the lower yields that would infer). If traders believe the Democrats’ inflation fears, why are they buying bonds?

Of course, with ‘Liberation Day’ imminent, will it be different this time?

Source: Bloomberg

Will we bounce here? Europe just folded – offering concessions – and for now, Canada is all talk.

For the traders amongst us, the next UMich print is on April 11 (prelim) and April 25 (final).

Vol markets are already looking forward to it.

Update (1030ET):

There was widespread speculation over whether President Trump had actually pardoned Trevor Milton, the former founder and CEO of the now-bankrupt Nikola.

But according to CNBC, citing a White House official, that now appears to be true.

Found the reason…​

NEW: @nikolamotor founder Trevor Milton, just pardoned by Trump for fraud, donated over $2 million to Republicans between September and December of last year, per FEC records. His largest was $920K to the Trump 47 Committee.

He’d never previously made political donations. pic.twitter.com/ngvxFQLo61

— Ken Bensinger (@kenbensinger) March 28, 2025

Did anyone have “Trump pardons Trevor Milton” in their 2025 bingo card stack? ​

*   *   *

Trevor Milton—founder and former CEO of the now-bankrupt Nikola—claimed on X late Thursday that President Trump had issued him a “full and unconditional pardon” and said the president “called me personally.”

Quick refresher on Milton: In 2023, a jury found him guilty of lying to investors about Nikola’s electric and fuel cell semi-truck technology and sentenced him to four years in prison. 

Nikola was first exposed by short seller Nathan Anderson, founder of Hindenburg Research, after the startup released a 2020 promotional video, which showed its Nikola One truck rolling down a hill to simulate full functionality.

Last month, Nikola filed for Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The defunct-startup also filed a motion seeking permission to pursue an auction and sale process under Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. 

Back to Milton, he wrote on X:

“This pardon is not just about me—it’s about every American who has been railroaded by the government, and unfortunately, that’s a lot of people. It is no wonder why trust and confidence in the Justice Department has eroded to nothing… I saw firsthand the tactics they use to guarantee convictions. I am incredibly grateful to President Trump for his courage in standing up for what is right and for granting me this sacred pardon of innocence.” 

Today I was issued a full and unconditional pardon by @realDonaldTrump himself. He called me personally to tell me.

This pardon is not just about me—it’s about every American who has been railroaded by the government, and unfortunately, that’s a lot of people. It is no wonder… pic.twitter.com/qpT0jjI6Fy

— Trevor Milton (@nikolatrevor) March 28, 2025

Milton’s video was immediately fact-checked by Community Notes, which pointed out that multiple U.S. government databases did not show evidence of a pardon.

“There is no mention of the pardon on the White House Website, or a Department of Justice catalog of presidential pardons.” 

Separately, Milton’s media team released a press release through PR Newswire, declaring:

“Founder of Nikola Motor Company, Trevor Milton, Pardoned by President Trump.” 

Here’s EV blog Electrek’s take on the situation:

So, despite us seeing no evidence yet that this pardon is actually real, maybe it’s an attempt to incept the idea of a pardon into the empty headcase of a vain ignoramus who for some reason has access to the pardon pen (despite there being a clear Constitutional remedy keeping insurrectionists like himself away from it).

It also seems quite similar to a proposed tactic by another corporate criminal, Sam Bankman-Fried. Fried had planned to “Go on Tucker Carlsen [sic], come out as a republican” in an attempt to angle for a pardon, again playing on the vanity, credulousness and love of fraud shown by the idiot-in-chief.

But then, in the last line of the press release, we get to what is perhaps the real point of this stunt – it ends with a link to a trailer for a documentary which purports to exonerate Milton. Kind of strange that someone would need to release a documentary making the case for exoneration when one has already been exonerated, isn’t it?

So, for these reasons, we think that this pardon didn’t actually happen.

. . . 

*  *   *

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

YETI is under fire this week after barring a conservative group from buying its product in a raw political stance. Clare Boothe Luce Center for Conservative Women (CBL) previously had cups made with its logo, but YETI now says that it was a mistake.

Kimberly Begg, the president of the northern Virginia-based women’s organization told Fox Business that YETI suddenly cancelled its order for its signature seafoam mugs after the order was placed and after they paid $1,608.

She said that the use of the the phrase “conservative women” was on the “political aisle.”

A YETI spokesperson told Fox Business:

“Starting with our first customized Rambler® Drinkware in 2015, we’ve used our best efforts to create and adhere to a policy that prevents customizing products aligned with any political affiliations or organizations in addition to content that could be considered obscene, vulgar, profane, discriminatory, defamatory, or hateful.”

It is not clear how this policy has been applied and whether CBL was barred as political or hateful or other criteria. I am assuming that the word “conservative” triggered the response.

Even assuming that this is evenly applied, how is “political” defined? Does this mean that the Democratic party or pro-choice groups also are stuck with cold coffee?

There are plenty of “political” groups that buy YETIs that do not have “liberal” or “conservative” in their names. Many contribute to elections or engage in lobbying. A wide range of groups have “political affiliations or organizations.” These are generally non-for-profits engaged in free speech activities. Selling them a YETI cup is no more of an endorsement than their buying hats made by Custom Ink.

The YETI policy seems hopelessly subjective and potentially . . . you guessed it . . . political.

Having been widely mocked – and quantitatvely denigrated by Goldman Sachs – this morning’s final print for UMich consumer sentiment for March is now a must watch.

As a reminder, Goldman explained that the Michigan measure has been especially susceptible to the tariff news recently for three reasons.

First, inflation expectations in the survey have become extremely partisan. 

Second, the share of respondents in the Michigan survey who are Democrats has always been consistently higher than the share of respondents who are Republicans

Third, switching from a phone-based to an online-based data collection process has led to more extreme answers on inflation expectations.

These three issues together have boosted short-term inflation expectations in the Michigan survey by about 1.3pp and long-term inflation expectations by 0.5pp since 2024Q4. In particular, the change in distribution across political parties and increased partisanship together generated an outsized 1.0pp boost to the 1-year inflation expectation in February.

So, with all that in mind, let’s see what the final data looks like – did it get even crazier?

The short answer is – YES!

UMich 1Yr inflation expectations rose to 5.0% (from 4.9% preliminary) while the 5-10Y expectations jumped to 4.1% (from 3.9% flash) – the highest since August 1992…

Source: Bloomberg

The gaping chasm of propaganda-driven fear is evident below the surface with Republicans expected 0.1% inflation while Democrats expect – wait for it – 6.5% price rises in the next year…

Source: Bloomberg

Source: Bloomberg

Bear in mind that Democrat’s 1Yr inflation expectations are now more than 2 times higher than they were in June 2021 when inflation would actually rise to 9%. Back then the Democrats were only off by a factor of 3x.

The final March sentiment index declined to 57 from 64.7 a month earlier. The latest reading was below both the 57.9 preliminary number and the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists.

“Consumers continue to worry about the potential for pain amid ongoing economic policy developments,’’ Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement. 

“Notably, two-thirds of consumers expect unemployment to rise in the year ahead, the highest reading since 2009.’’

The survey showed the expectations index plunged 11.4 points, the sharpest drop since 2021, to 52.6 this month. The current conditions gauge decreased to a six-month low of 63.8.

Source: Bloomberg

And the political divergence is exploding there too…

Source: Bloomberg

Labor market expectations worsened considerably across demographic and political groups in a sign of subdued spending over the coming months, the report showed. Moreover, expectations among high-income consumers sank.

“This trend reveals a key vulnerability for consumers, given that strong labor markets and incomes have been the primary source of strength supporting consumer spending in recent years,’’ Hsu said.

According to Democrats, the US outlook has literally NEVER been worse: worse than the global financial crisis, worse than covid, worse than ever.

One thing we note is that if Democrats are so terrified about the loss of purchasing power in the next year, why (based on the slowing spending data this morning) are they not rushing out to buy any and everything they can before Trump’s terrible tariff tax trashes their wealth? Unless – of course – they are just making up their UMich responses as part of the #Resistance?

Starting this month, Democrats will unleash an historic spending spree as they scramble to preserve the purchasing power of their dollars ahead of what they view as runaway inflation. Unless, of course, they are just making up their UMich responses. https://t.co/k3cwmCrq3v

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 28, 2025

Finally, even Fed Chair Jerome Powell largely dismissed the Michigan survey as an outlier for longer-run expectations, and other policymakers have since echoed his remarks.

Which data series do you trust?

In what may be the first clear confirmation Trump’s plan to realign the global trader system is working, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the European Union is identifying concessions it’s willing to make to Donald Trump’s administration to secure the partial removal of the US tariffs that have already started hitting the bloc’s exports and that are set to increase after April 2.  

According to Bloomberg, EU officials were told at meetings this week in Washington that there was no way to avoid new auto and so-called reciprocal tariffs that Trump is launching next week. Discussions also began on what the contours of a potential deal to reduce them should eventually look like.

That prompted the European Commission (which handles trade matters for the EU) to start working on a “term sheet” for a potential concession agreement, which would set out areas for negotiations on the punitive trade measures, including lowering its own duties, mutual investments with the US as well as easing certain regulations and standards.

In short, Europe – led these days by France’s Macron – did what Europe always does when led by the French: it surrendered.

The reciprocal tariffs which will be unveiled on April 2 are meant to strike out against what Trump considers to be unfair levies on US goods as well as non-tariff barriers, such as domestic regulations and how countries collect taxes, including the bloc’s value-added tax, digital taxes and regulations. The EU says its VAT is a fair, non-discriminatory tax that applies equally to domestic and imported goods (for more on the framework for Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, see this).

The news, which is actually rather bad for Europe as it confirms the continent will be unable to retaliate fully and instead will be on the receiving end of Trump’s trade war, sparked a brief rally in the Euro…

… however we expect this to promptly reverse once algos realize that Europe’s ad hoc capitulation means that the US now has the unconditional upper hand.

Israel has conducted airstrikes on the Lebanese capital of Beirut for the first time since the ceasefire with Hezbollah took effect back in November.

Friday’s attack began with a threat and a warning, with the Israeli army telling people to evacuate parts of the southern Beirut suburb of Hadath. Middle East correspondents report a “heavy bombardment” of Beirut, as clearly the ceasefire is effectively dead.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun confirmed the Israeli attack, calling it a “continuation of Israel’s violation of the agreement sponsored by France and the United States.”

Aoun said “the international community must put an end to these attacks and force Israel to abide by the agreement, just as Lebanon is committed to it.”

All schools and universities in the suburb of Hadath have been ordered closed for the day by the Lebanese government, as residents fled in cars and by foot after the Israeli warning.

Scenes of panic ensued after the Israeli army’s Arabic spokesman said earlier, “To everyone present in the building marked in red as shown on the map and the buildings adjacent to it: You are present near facilities belonging to Hezbollah,” on X, 

Israel just leveled an entire residential building in sth #Lebanon during Ramadan pic.twitter.com/NmPomFq9oP

— HK (@HKX417) March 28, 2025

“For your safety and the safety of your families, you are obliged to evacuate these buildings immediately and stay away from them at a distance of no less than 300 meters, as shown on the map,” the warning notice added.

Israel has claimed Hezbollah has been launching attacks again into northern Israel, and is framing this new aggression on Beirut as retaliation.

Casualties are already being reported in southern Lebanon as well. The Beirut strikes “came as Israel launched a wave of attacks in southern Lebanon on Friday, including a deadly strike on Kfar Tebnit in Nabatieh.” Middle East Eye continues, “The attack killed one person and wounded eight others, including three children, Lebanon’s health ministry said.”

⚡️🇮🇱🇱🇧BREAKING:

Israel just bombed Lebanon, Israeli forces conducted 3 raids on a building in Al-Hadath, in the southern suburb of Beirut. pic.twitter.com/KKEi82uFIm

— Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) March 28, 2025

Israel has also said Friday its forces intercepted an inbound rocket from Lebanon, which Hezbollah forces denied firing.

Hezbollah is meanwhile not expected to mount much of a significant defense. As regional war correspondent Elijah Magnier explains, “Hezbollah’s deterrent posture have weakened, allowing Israel to act with increasing freedom along the northern front. Israel is preparing to strike specific targets in Beirut, particularly in the Hadath area.”

“In the coming weeks, it is expected that Israel escalate further—possibly initiating a limited war on Lebanon,” Magnier continued. “The move is tied to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s interest in maintaining a state of war to avoid domestic scrutiny and preserve his grip on power.”

Via Middle East Eye

Israel’s Knesset has passed a bill enabling greater political control over the appointment of judges, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court’s power.

The measure, which will come into effect after the October 2026 general elections, marks the first time in Israel’s history that the selection process for judges will be controlled by politicians.

It will change the composition of the nine-member committee that selects judges, comprising judges, lawmakers, and bar association representatives, overseen by the justice minister.

The bill will see representatives of the Israeli Bar Association replaced with lawyers appointed by the ruling coalition and the opposition, and give politicians veto power over lower court appointments. It will also remove any influence of the three judges who sit on the committee overseeing appointments to the Supreme Court.

The committee is currently handling petitions against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, and the reappointment of Itamar Ben Gvir as national security minister.

The bill was passed almost unanimously after the opposition boycotted the vote, with 67-1 in favor of the legislation.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin will bar the committee from naming new judges until the law comes into effect, leaving the country with only 11 supreme court justices – short of the full complement of 15.

Knesset opposition leaders condemned the legislation, saying that its sole aim is “to ensure judges are subjected to the will of politicians”.

“This is happening while 59 hostages are still held in Gaza. Instead of focusing all efforts on bringing them home and healing the divisions in the nation, this government is once again engaging in the very legislation that divided the public before October 7,” they added.

A ‘dangerous direction’

A flurry of petitions against the bill were filed by opposition parties and a government watchdog to the High Court of Justice shortly after its approval. In one of them, opposition leader Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid Party stated that the law’s approval “is not an amendment, but the eradication of an entire system“.

National Unity party chairman, and former member of the war cabinet, Benny Gantz, warned lawmakers ahead of the vote that the nation was headed in a “dangerous direction”.

Meanwhile, thousands of Israelis gathered outside the Knesset to protest the legislation.Before October 2023, the Netanyahu government pushed a package of bills seeking to overhaul the judicial system, sparking mass protests across the country.

On January 1, 2024, the Supreme Court nullified controversial legislation passed by the government in July 2023 that eliminated the court’s ability to overturn government decisions.

The legislation eliminated the Supreme Court’s reasonableness clause, a power given to the court to overturn government rulings deemed unreasonable.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political party, Likud, called the court’s decision unfortunate and said it opposed “the will of the people for unity, especially during wartime”. Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption. Since being indicted in 2019, he has railed publicly against the justice system, calling it biased against him.