Tag: finance

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the oldest presidents ever to be inaugurated in the United States.

While Biden was 78 years old in 2021 and remains a one-term president, Trump was 70 at the time of his inauguration in 2017 and is 78 starting his second, non-consecutive term on Monday. Ronald Reagan, who was 69 years old in 1981, comes third. Like Biden, Trump’s age will be 82 when finishing his term. Biden would have been 86 years old at the end of a hypothetical second term.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, taking a look at all presidents’ ages at the time of their inauguration since 1789, no clear trend is visible.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Before Trump and Biden, presidents’ ages were actually well below average.

Barack Obama took office at 47 years and 169 days, according to Potus.com, making him the fifth youngest president at the time of inauguration.

Bill Clinton, who was 46 when he took over, was the third youngest – only John F. Kennedy (43) and Teddy Roosevelt (42) were younger.

Some of the oldest presidents hail from past centuries.

William Henry Harrison was 68 at his inauguration in 1841 (he died a month later of typhoid and pneumonia), making him the fourth-oldest president ever. James Buchanan, who took office in 1857, was the fifth-oldest president at 65.

Authored by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke via TruthOverNews.org,

In contemporary political discourse, the term “deep state” frequently arises as a catch-all phrase to describe the entrenched bureaucracy and unseen forces that shape U.S. governance. Washington, D.C., is often portrayed as the epicenter of this so-called deep state, where power dynamics operate independently of electoral outcomes. Some also refer to it as the “blob.”

While it is true that U.S. governance is steered by unelected and unaccountable entities, such as the military and intelligence complexes, the concept of the “deep state” can oversimplify the complexities of governance in Washington, D.C. It can also serve to deflect accountability from those most responsible for the damage inflicted on our country.

The deep state may appear to be a monolithic entity. However, it is, in reality, a complex web of human actors with genuine agency. Among these individuals, Barack Obama stands out as a pivotal figure whose influence and legacy have significantly shaped the political landscape over the past 17 years.

In this concluding piece of our series on Barack Obama, we explore his instrumental role in shaping U.S. policy, not just during his own presidency but also during Trump’s first term and the Biden presidency – sometimes referred to as Obama’s third and fourth terms – and how this unfortunate era may now be approaching its end.

Agency

Obama exemplifies the concept of agency within what is usually referred to as the “deep state.” His presidency not only brought about significant division and policy shifts but also laid the groundwork for a network of fanatical loyalists and ideological allies, many of whom have remained entrenched in both governmental and non-governmental institutions. These figures, many of whom are former members of the Obama administration, have undermined democracy and the will of the people across multiple presidencies.

Obama’s post-presidential endeavors—such as his political advocacy, mentorship of rising Democratic leaders, and the fact that he was the first former president since the dying Woodrow Wilson to remain in Washington—highlight his ongoing influence. Unlike the faceless bureaucracy typically associated with the term “deep state,” Obama embodies the reality of its true nature: not a monolithic entity, but a network of individuals, like him, who shape policy and public opinion, often from behind the scenes.

A closer examination reveals that many individuals who served under Obama have remained active in government roles through multiple administrations. Key figures in intelligence, defense, and other critical sectors often retain their positions or reemerge in different roles, reinforcing the perception of undemocratic continuity in American governance.

This phenomenon is not unique to the Obama administration. Historically, Washington has witnessed the recycling of officials and advisors across different presidencies, giving rise to an insider class that operates with a high degree of autonomy from the will of the people. But Obama undoubtedly took things to a new level. Here are some examples.

The Names of Permanent Washington

Antony Blinken was Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor under Obama before becoming Secretary of State under Biden. He continued disastrous Obama policies, ranging from Iran to Ukraine.

Jake Sullivan cosplayed in various national security roles under Obama before becoming National Security Advisor under Biden. In between those jobs, he was pivotal in pushing the Russia collusion hoax. While he may no longer hold a government position, his wife, Margaret Goodlander, was recently sworn in as a new member of Congress.

Victoria Nuland seeded the Ukraine war in 2014 when she was Assistant Secretary of State under Obama. She later became Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under Biden. She too played a key role in advancing the fraudulent Russia collusion narrative. Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan is a commentator at the Brookings Institution and was, until recently, a fervently anti-Trump editor-at-large at The Washington Post.

Susan Rice shifted from National Security Advisor and U.N. Ambassador under Obama to Director of the Domestic Policy Council in Biden’s administration. Rice infamously attempted to cover up Obama’s involvement in weaponizing the government against Trump through the Russia collusion hoax, particularly Obama’s role in the dismissal of General Michael Flynn.

Mary McCord was Assistant Attorney General under Obama, a position from which she too played a role in advancing the Russia collusion narrative. Later, she became legal counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives during the sham January 6th inquiry. Most recently, she has been trying to derail the appointments of Pam Bondi as Attorney General and Kash Patel as FBI Director. Her husband, Sheldon Snook, worked for Chief Justice John Roberts from 2014 to 2020. In December 2020, he authored an anti-Trump article in the left-wing rag, The Atlantic.

Lisa Monaco, another Russia collusion hoaxer, was Homeland Security Advisor under Obama and became Deputy Attorney General under Biden. She effectively led the Department of Justice’s lawfare campaign against both President Trump and the January 6 protesters.

John Carlin held a national security role under Obama and returned to the Biden administration as Deputy Attorney General to help Monaco to pursue Obama’s lawfare agenda.

Janet Yellen transitioned from Chair of the Federal Reserve under Obama to Secretary of the Treasury in Biden’s administration.

Ron Klain moved from Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden to White House Chief of Staff under Biden.

John Kerry served as Secretary of State under Obama and became the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate under Biden.

Denis McDonough went from White House Chief of Staff under Obama to Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Biden.

Samantha Power, who was U.N. Ambassador under Obama, became the Administrator of USAID under Biden.

Jen Psaki worked as Deputy Press Secretary and State Department Spokesperson under Obama before becoming White House Press Secretary under Biden.

Amos Hochstein, who helped Hunter Biden cover up his family’s corrupt entanglements in Ukraine, was Obama’s Special Envoy for Energy Affairs. He was rewarded with a similar role under Biden.

Alejandro Mayorkas was the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama before becoming Secretary of Homeland Security under Biden.

Jerome Powell served as a Federal Reserve Board Governor under Obama, became Chair under Trump, and retained the role under Biden. He’s been printing money recklessly to maintain the illusion of a thriving Biden economy.

David Shulkin was the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Obama before serving as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Trump until he was finally fired in 2018.

Norm Eisen transitioned seamlessly from his roles in the Obama Administration, including serving as Ambassador to Czechia, to leading lawfare operations against Trump at establishment front organizations such as the Brookings Institution.

Others, like Obama’s two key intelligence officials, John Brennan and James Clapper, may not have held official roles in subsequent administrations, but they were placed in highly influential legacy media outlets—Brennan at NBC and Clapper at CNN—where they could shape public discourse. Not surprisingly, it was these two men who led the infamous intelligence community letter falsely claiming that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign. Their actions played a pivotal role in undermining Trump’s chances in the 2020 election.

There are many more names, including figures such as Anthony Fauci, who were part of the unelected government before Obama’s presidency and remained in their positions afterward.

We could go on, but the point is clear: Permanent Washington is not a faceless “blob,” but a network of interconnected elites.

Trump

Donald Trump’s presidency, characterized by its outsider status posed a significant challenge to this established order. His election in 2016 was seen by many as a populist revolt against the entrenched Washington elites. However, the mechanisms of the deep state—or more accurately, the entrenched bureaucracy and long-standing networks—proved resilient and dangerously effective. It didn’t help that many of the individuals mentioned above, along with others, remained in Washington in government or quasi-government roles, actively working to undermine Trump’s presidency.

Trump’s second term presents a unique opportunity to challenge the entrenched system and potentially bring about seismic shifts in the political landscape. Whether he will be able to permanently disrupt the continuity of Washington elites or merely cause a temporary shift in power remains uncertain.

The challenge is certainly formidable. Institutional inertia runs deep, and the sophisticated networks of influence, built over decades with figures like Obama at the helm, are firmly entrenched, as are the military and intelligence complexes that operate behind the political scenes. The first step is to hire the right people and on that front Trump 47 seems to be doing a lot better than Trump 45.

There will be no fifth term for Obama—not for a while, anyway. The veil has been lifted, and Republicans are no longer falling for the same tricks. Obama’s political standing also took a significant hit from his vocal support of the disastrous candidacy of Kamala Harris. However, that doesn’t mean he won’t try to mount a comeback. His cordial interaction with Trump at President Carter’s funeral hints at possible plotting.

While our national nightmare may be ending with Biden gone and Obama out of the picture—at least for now—we must remain vigilant to ensure history does not repeat itself.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

In his last address, Joe Biden offered a Parthian shot at “oligarchs” and the dangers these “billionaires” pose to the republic. At the same time, left-wing senators hammered Trump cabinet nominees on the grounds that they would be too complacent in the face of a supposed takeover of the country by Trump’s “billionaires” and their “oligarchy.”

Many things could be said about Biden’s farewell address, but I will limit them to three.

First, Biden was attempting to copycat the warnings of outgoing president and iconic war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Some 64 years earlier—on January 17, 1961, the near day of Biden’s “farewell address,” a departing Eisenhower warned of a new “military-industrial complex” threat to the republic that had grown out of World War II and was cresting during the ongoing Cold War of the 1950s.

The fear, as Ike outlined it, was that a new small tech-corporate elite would sell the country on all sorts of expensive weapons and programs to ensure a near-permanent condition of hyper-military readiness and national insolvency.

This resulting “garrison state” would make the arms merchants and technocrats rich but also exhaust the U.S. treasury in the process. What would follow for the American people was a government octopus that demanded ever higher taxes while spending money in ways increasingly unknown or irrelevant to the public interest.

Eisenhower worried the grandees of the military-industrial complex—ex-generals revolving into defense contractor lobbyists and board members—would redefine the ancient laws of war and peace in terms of mumbo-jumbo techno-jargon. The resulting esoterica was designed to justify budget-busting defense expenditures, without enough care that the federal government would expand while the now overtaxed and overregulated citizen would be at their mercy.

Apparently, a departing Biden sought to graft his own “oligarchy” speech onto Eisenhower’s earlier blueprint.

But Ike was speaking as a successful two-term president. And he was an iconic war hero, as the architect of the successful American role in defeating Hitler—from the beaches of Normandy to the occupation of the defeated German homeland.

The postwar president Eisenhower was worried about a new world in which new nuclear-tipped missiles threatened to turn any conventional war between superpowers into nuclear Armageddon. In other words, Americans listened to Eisenhower, given his probity, gravitas, and experience—and the dangers of the new corporate-government fusion. But they have no reason to listen to Biden.

Or to paraphrase a famous quip from 1988 Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, “President Biden, you’re no Dwight Eisenhower.” Biden was removed by his own party insiders from the Democratic ticket before he did further damage to his party as he was finishing his failing one-term presidency. He left the country in shambles, at home with hyperinflation, 12 million illegal entries, a nonexistent border, spiking crime, and destroyed deterrence abroad. He humiliated the armed forces in Afghanistan, encouraging enemies that prompted two theater-wide wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Moreover, after swearing he would not pardon his own son as Hunter Biden faced numerous felony indictments and convictions, Biden did just that—thereby likely preventing further investigations into the entire corrupt Biden family.

Biden leaves office desperate to sabotage his successor, extending even to the pettiest detail, such as selling off critical steel panels essential to the construction of the border wall that he suspended.

Again, Ike had credibility; not so with Biden.

Second, until November 2024, Biden had no problems with oligarchs.

In fact, he courted and used them. And they, in turn, eagerly donated lavishly to his agenda. Multibillionaire George Soros nearly wrecked the criminal justice system by pouring millions of dollars into big-city radical district attorney races to ensure the election of left-wing ideologues who would not arrest, indict, jail, convict or incarcerate thousands of dangerous violent felons—all in pursuit of bankrupt progressive ideas like “critical legal theory” and “critical race theory”.

So happy was Biden with Soros’s nihilistic multimillion-dollar work and his lavish contributions to Biden’s two presidential runs that he awarded the Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In 2020, Meta/Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg did the bidding of the Biden campaign team by pouring $419 million into Biden-related PACs and voting groups to change voting laws and absorb the work of the registrars in key states. And on the eve of the last 2020 presidential debate, it was Facebook, under pressure from Biden lackeys, that began censoring accurate news stories about the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop, in hopes of arming Biden with a credible lie.

Biden also mumbled about “censorship” and the loss of “fact-checkers.” But when the “oligarchs” who run Apple, Facebook, and Google decided to conspire to destroy upstart conservative social media platform Parler in 2021, Biden apparently thought it was wonderful. And, of course, he uttered not a peep of criticism of oligarchic-government strangulation of the market.

So why is Biden so worried about oligarchy?

The answer is as easy as it is insulting.

“Oligarchs” like Elon Musk, David Sachs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Andreesen all realized that Biden’s ruthless team was leveraging their liberalism to use these “oligarchs” as illiberal megaphones for his own power and reelection.

When they understood that the new Democratic dream was to fuse their social media and high-tech companies with the government—but under the control of left-wing anticapitalism activists to help the obsequious and punish the free-thinking—they revolted.

In other words, they realized that their freedom was endangered by the left and that the country under Biden was descending into cultural chaos.

Third, quite unlike Biden, Trump is leveraging support from “billionaires,” many of whom have not donated to his campaign and were not previously his political supporters.

His appeal to them is not, as alleged, to further the Trump one-term presidency in political terms.

Rather, Trump, in his brief four years, has enlisted “billionaires” like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, David Sachs, and Mark Andresen in the way that Franklin Roosevelt, in 1941-1942, reached out to his other party’s millionaire captains of industry to fuel a Depression-era-recovering economy to produce the type and number of weapons to defeat Germany and Japan, who had a near decade head start. Roosevelt essentially gave these “oligarchs” and “multimillionaires” wide latitude to produce as much as they could to win the war.

The result was that shipbuilder and aluminum magnate Henry Kaiser began mass-producing historic Liberty and Freedom cargo ships in astronomical numbers to supply our troops overseas. The neo-socialist FDR even reached out to arch-paleoconservative Henry Ford. By 1949 Ford was building one B-24 heavy bomber per hour at his innovative and gargantuan Willow Run plant.

Roosevelt also created a “war production board,” staffed by the arch-conservative capitalists—and in Biden’s terms “oligarchs”—like Charles E. Wilson, the head of General Electric; William Murphy of Campbell Soup; Matthew Fox of Universal Pictures; and others, to create a national marriage of labor, capital, media, and advisors to radically reboot the nascent war effort.

The result by 1945 was that a once stagnant and virtually unarmed nation that was surprised at Pearl Harbor, in a short four years, built a navy larger than all the ships of the major combatants combined. America’s capitalists eventually fueled a GDP larger than all our major allies and enemies together. By the end of the war, they were supplying much of the entire Allied effort with everything from aviation and trucks to fuel, radios, and rations.

Trump knows that the current multitrillion-dollar annual deficits and $36 trillion debt are unsustainable—while high taxes, Draconian regulation, and profligate spending are strangulating the economy. And Trump further realizes that our dilemma is the work of both political parties in Congress and past Democrat and Republican administrations.

Trump fears the rise of China that seeks to absorb Taiwan, coerce our friends in the Pacific like Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and steal our technology.

So, he further insists that in the future, the U.S. must master emerging technologies and services—such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cyberwarfare, cryptocurrency, drones, emerging fuels like small nuclear plants, hydrogen, and mega-batteries, and deadly new weaponry from lasers to hypersonic missiles.

In that regard, he knows that the talent that created and mastered these technologies and new services are not greedy billionaires and “oligarchs,” but, if enlisted in a common cause for their fellow citizens, could become the modern successors to Kaiser, Knudson, Ford, and Wilson.

Biden’s hypocritical parting shot at “oligarchs” should be filed with his eleventh-hour crazy pardons, his final lies about pardoning his son, and the bizarre edict that unconstitutionally, as some dictator, he could pass a 28th Amendment by fiat: all the sad end of a sadder presidency.

In the weeks leading up to Donald Trump’s inauguration there has been an escalation in rhetoric from Mexico and the rest of Central America in regards to the plan for mass deportations of illegal immigrants.  The prevailing message from these neighbors to the south was, initially, that they will do anything they can to make the process difficult.  Trump, expecting this response, has used the threat of tariffs as leverage to gain cooperation.  And frankly, it’s working.

Progressive Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has been full of bluster but she is slowly and surely falling in line.  Sheibaum has been publicly combative with Trump on the issue of deportations, denying Trump’s claim that Mexico was planning to secure their border and threatening economic retaliation should tariffs be used.  She recently stated that Mexico’s policy was:

“…Not to close borders but to build bridges between governments and people”.

Whatever that means.  Analysts dealing in US/Mexico relations claim Sheinbaum is on the right track to ensure a strong ongoing relationship with Trump.  “She’s sending this message that she is a strong political leader,” said Gema Kloppe-Santamaria, a global fellow of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, pointing to recent polling that shows Sheinbaum has increased her popularity to a staggering 80% approval rating, opens new tab after her first 100 days in office.  “Trump without a doubt comes with a lot of power and legitimacy, but she does as well,” Kloppe-Santamaria added. 

But does the Mexican president’s approval rating mean anything when it comes to deportation policy?  Not really.  After all, Mexico has been a parasitic element feeding on the US economy for quite some time; it’s not surprising that a large portion of the population wants the bloodletting to continue.

For example, Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign assistance from the US every year.  In 2023 alone, the country was given over $63 billion in payoffs, right out of the pockets of American taxpayers.  This money is given to Mexico with the stated intent of “reducing irregular migration, yet illegal border crossings only skyrocketed along with subsidies.

Mexico is not alone.  Many Central and South American countries receive billions in foreign assistance from the US in the name of slowing immigration caravans.  In other words, these nations keep their borders open and allow millions of illegals to cross into the US, and then extort the US for cash to make the pain stop.  Then, when they get the money, they let even more illegals flood the border.  It’s an endless sham.

Beyond the subsidies is the exploitation of the US border as a steam valve to get rid of undesirables.  Criminals, malcontents and the poverty stricken are encouraged to migrate to the US illegally so that Mexico and other countries can avoid civil disturbances.  These corrupt governments don’t want to fix their own problems, they outsource them to the US instead. 

Border security is now a non-negotiable factor in America’s geopolitical agenda (as it should be) and the notion that the US is supposed to act as a sponge soaking up the refuse leaking out of the third world has lost all favor among native borne citizens (many legal migrants also oppose open borders).  With the majority of Americans in support the deportations are going to happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them.

Trump’s tariff strategy carries real weight, especially when it comes to Mexico.  More than 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the U.S., causing much of its economy to depend on American markets. The most prominent exports from Mexico to its northern neighbor are cars and car parts, while the U.S. purchases approximately 92% of Mexican agricultural exports.  Tariffs of 10% or more could wreck the Mexican economy within months.  They have no choice but to comply.

Mexican leaders argue that tariffs will also hurt the US, claiming that this will trigger inflation.  Claudia Sheinbaum asserts that there will also be extensive job losses in the US due to tariffs and deportations.  It’s clear she doesn’t understand how these things work.

Tariffs create job opportunities by encouraging companies to bring production back into the United States so they can avoid extra import costs.  Deportations, obviously, stop millions of illegal migrant workers from gaming the system by working under the table for much lower wages compared to American laborers.  The very presence of these people drives down the overall wage rate and makes it difficult for native born citizens to find jobs.

In terms of inflation, tariffs can raise prices on foreign goods, but illegal immigrants raise prices more.  The ten million-plus illegals that have entered the US under the Biden Administration have helped to drive up housing prices exponentially.  Their demand for goods and services creates shortages in necessities and because they are often subsidized by tax dollars through welfare programs they drive up the national debt at the same time.      

Mexico remains the leading country of origin for immigrants in the U.S., representing 23% of all migrants, according to the Pew Research Center.  Not only that, but the vast majority of migrants from other parts of the world use Mexico as an open highway to the southern border and the Mexican government does little to interfere. 

This is about to change.  The Mexican president has been adjusting her tune in the past week, stating that Mexico will be preparing to accept deported migrants.  Not only migrants from Mexico, but also those not from outside Mexico (they created the crisis by not securing their own border, so now they get to clean up the mess).   

Sheinbaum announced on Friday that her administration has outlined a contingency plan for Mexican nationals expected to be deported by the incoming United States President.   During her morning press conference, Sheinbaum announced jobs and social programs for ousted Mexicans if Trump decides to carry out his threats of mass deportations when he resumes power on January 20th.  

“We have been preparing to receive Mexicans who have a space at the border and in other places so that they can have access to social programs, employment, and be able to move within our national territory to return to their places of origin…”

It’s not that Mexico has become more reasonable in the past month; these kinds of mood changes require a sharp slap upside the skull.  It appears that Mexican and Central American authorities are finally being taken behind the woodshed after years of obstinate behavior. 

 

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“…there’s little political upside in defending the rights of undocumented shoplifters.”

– Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times.

“If past is prologue, Mr. Trump lacks the acumen to carry out his ambitious agenda. The first problem is management style. In his first term, Mr. Trump was a poor administrator because of his mercurial, polarizing style and a general indifference to facts and the hard work of governance.”

– Jack Goldsmith, The New York Times

Thus spake one Shawn McCreesh of The New York Times, America’s all-wise, all-knowing font of everlasting rectitude. But to answer his question, why blah blah: Donald Trump is glaring because he means bidness.

His bidness is to shift the paradigm on the mendaciously sanctimonious managerial class of the USA, of which The New York Times is the principal mouthpiece. DJT looks stern, does he? All that really tells you is how nervous the Old Gray Lady is. A million or more brains, from sea to shining sea are about to get vacuumed out and redecorated.

Readers of The New York Times — in their various C-suites, ivory towers, ateliers, yoga parlors, tasting rooms, bioweapon labs, and other haunts — remain utterly baffled about what is to begin today. No amount of ‘splainin’ seems to suffice. They behold the Golden Golem of Greatness (DJT) doing his dance onstage behind the cop, the Indian chief, and the cowpoke and all they can really see are their own careers going up in smoke (along with vested pensions, reputations, possibly even chattels, marriages, and health).

As I write, long before dawn, “Joe Biden” remains President of the US. You must wonder, as the hours dwindle to noon, what pardon power magic he’s saving for the final minutes of his term, while the whole nation is distracted by the spectacle in the Capitol Rotunda, the moiling dignitaries and celebrities, the solemn arrival of the elect, the snarky palaver of the cable news jockeys, the electric charge of history in the large room. . . .

It is a fact, perhaps missed by some of you, that Rep. James Comer’s House Oversight Committee just last week issued criminal referrals on James Biden (“Joe’s” brother) and First Son Hunter. Wait-a-minute, was not Hunter already pardoned for Gawd-knows how many misdeeds dating back to 2014, and (supposedly) preemptively for any alleged crimes to come ever hereafter? Part B of that may yet have to be adjudicated. A pardon is not intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Anyway, would it be difficult for a federal attorney of average ability to draw a connection between the newly referred crimes of those two and the departing President? Hence, will “Joe Biden” pardon “Joe Biden” at 11:30 this morning?

Not to mention about 1000 other current and former public officials quaking in their Beltway McMansions this frosty morning. This is part and parcel, you understand, of the massive Cleanup in Aisle Four that must happen if the agencies of our federal government can ever be trusted again. For instance, the Department of Justice.

At the end of the workday, Friday, AG Merrick Garland made a triumphal final exit from the building past a throng of cheering and clapping employees, including dozens of federal attorneys who zealously persecuted their fellow citizens under color-of-law for no good reason, or real legal predicate, and ruined many lives and households in the process. Do you suppose they get a free pass on that? And what of the three bears of Lawfare: Norm Eisen, Marc Elias, and Mary McCord, all of them present at the creation of serial affronts against the Constitution (and decency) lo this past decade. Do they just skate? I doubt it, though it might take a while to shine a light on their turpitudes.

Will “Joe Biden” wave his pardon wand over Tony Fauci, Francis Collins, Scott Gottlieb, Deborah Birx, Rochelle Walensky, and dozens of other public health officials who sprung the Covid-19 operation and the deadly vaccinations on the country? Or Ralph Baric, hunkered out of sight in his Carolina lab? You realize, of course, that the orgy of illness and death from that is hardly over. For four years under “JB” the truth has been obfuscated and buried, because none of those characters has really had to answer for anything.

So, today another door opens.

The To-Do list for Mr. Trump and his aides-de-camp is dauntingly long, the corrections needed are monumental. You might have even noticed that such corrections are badly needed all over the other countries of Western Civ, and strangely many are already following suit. The WEF-inflected governments of France, Germany, and the UK are already a’wobble, and Justin Trudeau threw in the towel two weeks ago. An Arctic blast could not be more fitting for what will move through the DC Swamp at high noon today.

That is, if Mr. Trump manages to survive the hours until his swearing-in. Godspeed Number 47! And everybody else: put your tray tables up! A patch of turbulence ahead!

*  *  *

Update: I posted the above blog ten minutes before “Joe Biden” issued his raft of pardons for Fauci, the J6 Committee members, and others. We will have to stand by to see whether a “preemptive” pardon is a legitimate legal instrument. My guess is that it is not.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A prominent leftist activist group has issued a directive to its members to wear black clothing Monday to mark President Trump’s inauguration as a “national day of mourning.”

The ‘Occupy Democrats’ Facebook group, which has over 10 million followers decreed “Don’t forget to wear all black on January 20th,” with an emoji of a broken heart.

The post was mirrored on Instagram with a whole host of TDS inspired hashtags (so last decade).

Some respondents to the message suggested “We’ll be wearing black for the next 4 years.”

Yes.

Others declared how unsafe they feel while labelling Trump a “rapist” among other vile things.

As we highlighted over the weekend, TIME magazine has published an article offering “science backed” advice to leftists who might not be able to cope on Monday.

The piece suggests that they hold group crying sessions and go “forest bathing” to avoid “spiralling.”

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

President-elect Donald Trump is set to be inaugurated early Monday afternoon in a ceremony inside the Capitol Building. This morning has already been chaotic, with reports that Trump plans to issue hundreds of executive orders, while President Joe Biden announced last-minute preemptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci and others.

The Washington Post reports that minutes into Trump’s second term, the DC non-profit public interest law firm National Security Counselors will file a lawsuit claiming Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” violates federal transparency rules. 

WaPo’s Jeff Stein obtained a 30-page complaint that will be filed later today. The complaint alleges that the nongovernmental DOGE panel violates a 1972 law requiring advisory committees to the White House to adhere to rules on disclosure, hiring, and other practices.

The lawsuit claims that DOGE meets the requirements of a “federal advisory committee,” which is required by law to have a “fairly balanced” representation. These include filing annual reports summarizing the committee’s activities with the General Services Administration, tracking minutes and other meeting documents that must be made publicly available unless exempted by law, and filing a charter with Congress. 

“DOGE is not exempted from FACA’s requirements,” NSC stated in the lawsuit, written by Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors. 

McClanahan said, “All meetings of DOGE, including those conducted through an electronic medium, must be open to the public.”

The lawsuit asks the court that any report produced by DOGE “does not reflect the views of a lawfully constituted advisory committee” and to ban Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who also leads the panel, from conducting any official business until it complies with FACA.

McClanahan told WaPo in a statement, “We’re not trying to say DOGE can’t exist. Advisory committees like DOGE have been around for decades. We’re just saying that DOGE can’t exist without following the law,” adding, “If DOGE turns around and complies with FACA, the case is over.”

Meanwhile, Sam Hammond, senior economist at the Foundation for American Innovation, said DOGE primarily implements ideas within the White House and should be exempt from FACA: “DOGE isn’t a federal advisory committee because DOGE doesn’t really exist. DOGE is a branding exercise, a shorthand for Trump’s government reform efforts.”

Hammond added: “The president is allowed to take advice from external experts without creating a formal advisory committee.”

On X, the account featuring National Security Counselors stated, “Pub interest law firm for natsec, info/privacy law. I’m not here anymore. Come find me on Bluesky.”

Bluesky is a social media app for anti-Trumpers suffering from ‘TDS’… 

The non-profit’s Director, Bradley P. Moss, is another Bluesky-er in the DC swamp.

Not a fan of Musk’s X. 

DC Swamp is poised to unleash a barrage of lawsuits against Trump. Let the chaos begin. 

As we head into the inauguration, let’s take a look at some of policy changes that we can expect from Trump 2.0.

First, the table below from Goldman’s research team, provides a useful summary of the key policy changes expected:

Below, we summarize some thoughts from a weekend call by Goldman chief political strategist, Alec Phillips, discussing the focus be for day 1 action:

1. Immigration (border control actions & deportation planning (although not expecting rapid mass deportation))
2. De-regulation (more specifically, energy de-regulation – leasing federal land, LNG export approvals etc.)

What about tariffs?

• Don’t expect day 1-2 actions here.
• Aside from anything else, Alec thinks Trump will want the first 24-48hrs of headlines and market reaction to be uniformly positive.
• China: Goldman expects fast action on China tariffs, but more like week 1-to-month 1 (rather than day1). The Goldman baseline equates to an average additional +20pp tariff rate (table of baseline views below, note Mex auto’s also in baseline (70% odds)).
• Universal: We have long-had 40% odds of a global all-imports tariff, think that’s roughly right still; but arguably see the skew around this as higher odds of some form of global tariffs, while being less likely on all imports (due to reports like WaPo etc.).
• Timings: Think any early announcement outside China would more likely be on process/launching investigation on import categories etc., rather than actual tariffs themselves. The Mar-Aug tax legislation process, and May-Jun Senate hearings may well include more detail for fiscal revenue plans.

In 2017, Trump began using executive orders immediately upon taking office, reflecting his intent to fulfil key campaign promises (he issued 7 executive orders in his first week in 2017). There is an expectation (according to Polymarket) he could be even more aggressive this time around:

Which policies matter most?

The most consequential policies for markets (particularly RoW) will be those related to trade. This is reflected in client polls:

There is an expectation that some of these trade policies could enacted quickly. For example Polymarket puts a 44% probability of tariffs on China in the next week:

What tariffs could be implemented?
 
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump emphasized the use of tariffs as a central component of his economic policy. He advocated for a universal baseline tariff ranging from 10% to 20% on all imports, aiming to protect domestic industries and reduce trade deficits. He also proposed targeted tariffs on specific countries (for example a tariff of up to 60% on Chinese goods) and specific industries (such as autos).

Goldman expects Trump to increase tariff rates on imports from China by average of 20% — less for consumer goods but by as much as 60% for non-consumer goods — and to impose some additional tariffs on auto imports. A universal 10-20% tariff on all imports is a serious risk—they assign a 40% probability—but is not their baseline.

Polling of Goldman’s clients is broadly inline with the above view, with investors assigning an average probability of 35% to a universal tariff:

What impact could this have on Europe?

Goldman estimates a 10% tariff could hit Euro area GDP by 1% and European EPS by 6-7% should the entire impact come in 2025. It is also worth noting that trade uncertainty has a significant negative impact as companies delay investments until the policy outlook becomes clearer. For example, Goldman estimates that a rise in trade policy uncertainty as large as the increase observed in the 2018-19 trade war could lower GDP growth by 0.9% in the Euro area.

Broadly speaking, EU equities (particularly exporters) and EURUSD will trade lower on any tariff announcements – even if they are limited to China/Mexico initially. The trade policy uncertainty as well as potential market share losses (for example Chinese companies dumping goods on Europe) are enough to create significant headwinds for European exporters (particularly Autos and Chemicals industries).

What are the trades?
 
The recent rally (and surprising outperformance relative to the US YTD) in EU equities provides an opportunity to add some downside hedges, according to Goldman’s Anton Tran. Any tariff announcements in the first few weeks of the new Trump administration have the potential to catch investors offside, particularly given the turn around in positioning. After reclaiming short/medium term thresholds in the last few weeks, the Goldman model suggest CTAs are now long EU delta with downside convexity in DAX and SX5E:

First, the most liquid and vanilla:

Buy 21st Mar25 98%/93% PS in DAX for 79bps

Maximum loss is premium spent. Priced indicatively.

• DAX is the most exposed to world trade of the liquid European indices
• It also had the worst 5day returns around tariff announcements in 2018-19

For those looking for a more targeted (and higher beta) custom basket:
 
Buy 21st Mar25 98%/93% PS in GSXETRFS (GS EU Tariff Exposed) for 1.45%

Maximum loss is premium spent. Priced indicatively.

• GSXETRFS is a basket composed of European companies with high US Sales exposure but limited US manufacturing presence/ high % of US exported goods, screened with a qualitative overlay.
• Names are expected to face challenges in the event of implementation of tariffs on US export goods. They had significant beta to tariff announcement days in 2018/19 (see chart below).
• Basket is OW Automobiles & Electrical Equipment names.
• For those who prefer listed product, the SXAP put spread trades at similar premium

Finally, for traders who want even more leverage and play in the exotic space, SX5E/EURUSD down/down dual binaries look interesting:

• Buy 17th Apr25 SX5E < 95% & EURUSD < 98% for 8.5% (22%/26% EQ/FX indivs)
• Maximum loss is premium spent. Priced indicatively.

Much more in the full Goldman tariff note available to pro subs.

President-elect Donald Trump will issue 10 executive orders related to immigration and the border on Monday, including declaring a national emergency at the border, NBC News reports, citing an incoming White House official.

By declaring a national emergency, the Department of Defense will be authorized to deploy the military and national guard to the border. Officials did not elaborate on how many troops would be sent, or the scope of their involvement – saying it would be up to the DoD to make those decisions.

BREAKING: Donald Trump Teases Sweeping Executive Orders on Immigration, Energy, and National Security on Day One as President.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has revealed plans to launch a flurry of executive orders immediately upon taking office, targeting key areas including… pic.twitter.com/n60QYrqVuI

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) January 20, 2025

The official also said the Trump administration would continue building the border wall and suspend refugee resettlement for at least four months.

According to the NY Times, the following is a list of notable EOs Trump will issue;

Immigration and the Border

• Close the border to asylum-seeking migrants and end asylum and birthright citizenship. The president cannot change the Constitution on his own, so it’s not yet clear how Trump plans to end the guarantee of citizenship for those born in the United States, which is in the 14th Amendment.

JD VANCE: “The most important thing that we have to do is to send a message that America is closed to illegal immigration. You are going to see dozens of executive orders on day 1 that sends a message- You are not welcome into this country illegally.” pic.twitter.com/naKq2SygIP

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 12, 2025

• Involve the U.S. military in border security. This would draw immediate legal challenges because of the strict limits in American law for how the armed forces can be deployed inside the country.

• Declare migrant crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border to be a national emergency, which would allow Mr. Trump to unilaterally unlock federal funding for border wall construction, without approval from Congress, for stricter enforcement efforts.

• Designate drug cartels as “global terrorists.”

Designating MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as Foreign Terrorist Organizations would make it illegal for anyone to provide aid or collaborate with the groups.

HUNT: Should the Trump administration separate families to execute its mass deportation plan?

REP. ZINKE: The families are part of the problem. I surmise that in Montana, what’s gonna happen is we’re gonna empower the sheriffs … the sheriffs are gonna round up. They know who’s… pic.twitter.com/po1kuBmL4k

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 20, 2025

Federal Work Force

• End remote work policies and order many agencies back to the office 4-5 days a week.

Gender and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Initiatives

• Establish biological sex definitions for federal workers and as part of revised Title IX guidance to schools

• Remove protections for transgender people in federal prisons.

• Remove protections for transgender migrants in U.S. custody.

Tariffs and Trade

• Direct federal agencies to begin an investigation into trade practices, including trade deficits, unfair currency practices, counterfeit goods and a special exemption that allows low-value goods to come into the United States tariff free.

• Assess China’s compliance with a trade deal Mr. Trump signed in 2020, as well as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which Trump signed in 2020 to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement.

• Order the government to assess the feasibility of creating an “External Revenue Service” to collect tariffs and duties.

Energy and the Environment

• Declare a national energy emergency, which could allow him to unlock powers to speed permitting for pipelines and power plants..

• Order the federal government to roll back regulations that impede domestic energy production.

• Signal an intention to loosen the limits on tailpipe pollution and fuel economy standards.

• Roll back energy-efficiency regulations for dishwashers, shower heads and gas stoves.

• Open the Alaska wilderness to more oil and gas drilling.

• Eliminate environmental justice programs across the government, which are aimed at protecting poor communities from excess pollution.

Delaying the ban on TikTok

Mr. Trump vowed early Sunday to issue an executive order to give ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese owner, more time to make a sale and satisfy a law that would ban it in the United States. The incoming White House officials previewing Mr. Trump’s executive actions on Monday did not address any executive action on the app.

President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 will be the first of its kind to boast foreign heads of state as attendees.

Trump broke with more than a century and a half of tradition to invite a wide array of national leaders and political figures to the inauguration, making the occasion historic not only for Trump, but for the guests as well.

No foreign head of state has attended the U.S. presidential inauguration since at least 1874, when the State Department began recording such things.

Trump has invited a wide array of guests, though some have elected to send proxies in their stead and others have been prevented from attending due to extenuating circumstances.

As Andrew Thornebrooke reports for The Epoch Times, aside from some heads of state and senior foreign dignitaries, the inauguration is slated to be a veritable who’s who of conservative populist leaders from across Europe, who have commonly championed the causes of economic vitality, border security, and traditional culture.

Here’s a look at the foreign leaders and political personalities expected to be in attendance:

Javier Milei, President of Argentina

Milei has made a name for himself among thought leaders for his relentless campaign to cut government spending, eliminate regulations, and pare back the country’s administrative state.

He came to the presidency at a time when Argentina had spent nearly a decade and a half in a deficit, was wracked by a poverty rate above 40 percent, and burdened with an annual inflation that eventually pushed to nearly 300 percent.

Milei has since eliminated 10 of Argentina’s 18 government ministries, capped the salaries of top bureaucrats, and fired 34,000 public employees, cutting government spending by 30 percent. As of Jan. 17, the nation is entering its first year of budget surplus in 14 years.

A political outsider, Milei has found common cause with Trump in both style and substance, and was the first foreign leader to meet with Trump following the president-elect’s victory in November.

Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy

Meloni is widely seen as a key mediator between Europe and Trump and shares many policy priorities with the president-elect including a desire to lower taxes, halt illegal immigration, and cut bureaucracy.

A former firebrand turned reformer, Meloni cemented Italy’s strength on the world stage in 2023 when she pulled the nation out of China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative, which has been widely criticized for setting debt traps for participating nations and exerting political influence through the regime’s investments.

Han Zheng, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China

Trump initially invited Chinese Communist Party (CCP) head Xi Jinping to the inauguration in an opening diplomatic gesture between the two rivals.

Xi declined to attend in person but elected to send Han as his envoy.

Han now serves in a largely symbolic role within the Chinese regime, but previously occupied several high-profile positions within the CCP, including on the regime’s Politburo Standing Committee.

During his time as a vice premier, Han was also instrumental in shaping the response of the regime to the unfolding pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, which ended with the passage of an authoritarian national security law, the mass arrest of political opponents, increased censorship, and an effective erosion of democratic norms in the territory.

Takeshi Iwaya, Foreign Minister of Japan

Iwaya previously served as Japan’s defense minister during the first Trump administration and will be the first Japanese cabinet member to ever attend the swearing-in of a U.S. president.

The minister is also expected to participate in security talks the day after the inauguration with representatives from the member states of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue: Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

The meeting will likely serve to maintain continuity in security cooperation between the nations amid ongoing tensions with communist China and North Korea.

Earlier in the month, Iwaya also traveled to U.S. allies South Korea and the Philippines to discuss similar security coordination.

Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, External Affairs Minister of India

Jaishankar previously served as foreign minister and ambassador to both the United States and China before becoming external affairs minister.

As India’s foreign minister, he has pushed back on China’s undermining of Indian markets and imbalanced trade practices.

He was also central to developing a deal with the first Trump administration to allow for the sharing of sensitive information and intelligence between the two nations, including access to India’s nautical, aeronautical, and geospatial data, a move that was subsequently condemned by the Chinese Communist Party.

Sarah Knafo, Member of the European Parliament for France

The sole member of France’s conservative Reconquete party in the European Parliament, Knafo has worked to support the president-elect’s return to the White House while also championing limits on immigration from Africa and the Middle East in France.

She is the partner of Eric Zemmour, who will also be in attendance.

Eric Zemmour, President of France’s Reconquete Party

A former journalist and one-time presidential candidate, Zemmour has led the Reconquete party since its founding.

In his current role, Zemmour has pushed for increased border security and clampdowns on illegal immigration, as well as curbs on radical Islamic ideology within France. He has also sought to balance the pan-European movement with a more traditional nationalism, saying that he believes France should remain in the European Union but that its own interests must be met first.

Nigel Farage, Leader of the United Kingdom’s Reform UK Party

Formerly the leader of the UK’s UK Independence Party and orchestrator of Brexit, Farage has also pushed against mass immigration into the UK and sought to eliminate the teaching of transgender ideology in primary schools.

Farage first came to support Trump on the campaign trail in 2016, shortly after securing a victory for Brexit. The two have since supported one another’s apparent focus on national pride and ability to act in the face of overwhelming state and media scrutiny.

Tom Van Grieken, Chairman of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang Party

Van Grieken has led the Flemish independence Vlaams Belang party to an all-time high in public support and has publicly defended Trump on multiple occasions against what he termed European media bias against the president-elect.

Tino Chrupalla, Co-Chair of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party

Chrupalla has helped to lead the AfD since 2021, pushing for policies to curb the flow of predominantly Muslim immigrants into Germany and to initiate mass deportations.

The party recently earned an endorsement from American entrepreneur Elon Musk and appears to be positioning itself as an alternative point of contact in German politics for the incoming administration.

Santiago Abascal, President of Spain’s Vox Party

Abascal helped to lead Vox to its first Parliament seats in 2019 on a platform that called for better border security, the strengthening of a unified Spanish culture, and a focus on traditional Catholic values.

Vox, under Abascal, has publicly supported Trump and his policies during his first term, the 2020 election, and the 2024 election.