Month: April 2025

President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff blitz—centered on reciprocal tariffs—followed by China’s retaliatory bazooka has triggered a growth scare in markets. Commodities are tumbling, reflecting concerns over deteriorating macroeconomic conditions as the tariff war escalates. 

“Commodities taking a cue from the macro with WTI -9% to $61 (had to change this 3x to reflect lower prices) … copper down 5% and natural gas gas hovering around flat … yields break through 4% with the 10 year standing at 3.87%, dollar & Bitcoin flat,” Goldman analyst Michael Nocerino wrote in a note earlier. 

For the week, the Bloomberg Commodity Index—a commodities benchmark tracking 23 exchange-traded futures contracts across energy, metals, agriculture, and livestock—is on track to record its largest weekly decline (-4 %) in over a year. 

More specifically, Citigroup head commodity analyst Max Layton provided more color on how tariff wars will produce increasing macroeconomic headwinds that will pressure commodity prices lower. 

Layton, speaking earlier in an interview on Bloomberg Television, expects copper prices to slide an additional 8% to 10% in the coming weeks. 

He said the tariff war is set to “bring down the cost of production, whether it’s through lower oil or through just producers taking margin hits” in the next 6 to 12 months. 

On the week, CME Copper futures are set to record their worst five days since the early Covid crash, down around 11%. 

“This is a pretty amazing opportunity to be bearish and be short over the next two to three months,” Layton said.

Goldman analyst Thales Arruda told clients earlier: “As a result, we expect that the US reciprocal tariffs’ impact on commodities will largely come from their indirect negative economic growth impact.”

“We’re pricing a global recession. The tariffs are going to cause global trade barriers,” Goldman analyst Rich Privorotsky noted. 

Meanwhile, all the copper bulls who boasted their price targets in record-high territories have been forced to hit pause. That entire theme has been placed on the back burner—for now 

 

Authored by Joseph Lord and Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

Republicans have set the stage to potentially override the Senate parliamentarian as they move ahead with President Donald Trump’s policy proposals.

Republicans are seeking to pass Trump’s entire agenda—including tax cuts, energy policy, border policy, defense, and other areas—using the reconciliation process.

While this process allows the party to bypass the 60-vote filibuster threshold, which kills most partisan bills on arrival in the Senate, it’s heavily restricted. Rules governing its use prevent these types of bills from having a long-term impact on the deficit.

Ultimately, it’s up to the parliamentarian—the little-known referee in the Senate who interprets Senate rules—to decide what provisions make it into the final bill, and how long those provisions can last.

After Republicans released their resolution on April 2, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) reported that Elizabeth MacDonough, the current parliamentarian, had given an initial green light to move ahead with the proposal under the Budget Act of 1974, which enables the reconciliation process.

Other questions linger that could still slow the legislation if the parliamentarian rules against Republicans. As Republicans move forward, leaders have given some indications that they won’t necessarily rely on the parliamentarian’s ruling about how to calculate the total financial impact of the bill.

Technically, the parliamentarian’s rulings aren’t binding on what the Senate does, and can be overridden by a simple majority of senators.

But historically, lawmakers have been hesitant to do so. The Senate operates largely on the basis of established customs, traditions, and guardrails—and the parliamentarian’s role has been established for decades.

Thus, should Republicans challenge any ruling from the parliamentarian—or the parliamentarian’s right to make a ruling—Democrats could interpret this as Republicans effectively “nuking” the filibuster, and could similarly disregard the rulings of the parliamentarian themselves in the future.

Here’s what to know about the burgeoning dispute—and the possibility that Republicans will “go nuclear” to override the parliamentarian.

Who Is the Parliamentarian?

A post established in 1935, the parliamentarian primarily serves to advise senators, staff, and others on the Senate’s arcane rules and procedures.

In recent decades, their most important role has involved refereeing reconciliation bills, which both parties often use when they have a trifecta in Washington.

Appointed by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2012, MacDonough is the first woman to occupy the post—and she’s shown herself willing to defy both parties’ wishes at times.

MacDonough, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has described her view of her role as above partisanship.

“While serving its 100 members on a day-to-day basis, I still represent the Senate. … I represent the Senate with its traditions of unfettered debate, protection of minority rights, and equal power among the states,” she said in a 2018 commencement speech at Vermont Law School, which she attended.

In 2021, during the Biden administration, MacDonough ruled against the Democrats’ plan to include a $15 minimum wage and a pathway to citizenship in reconciliation bills.

Now, she’ll have a key role in making another decision that could put her in the majority party’s sights.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough (C) provides assistance during the certification of Electoral College ballots in the presidential election, in the House chamber at the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

‘Tax Baseline Question’

Since the beginning, Senate Republicans have made clear that they hope to make any tax cuts included in their reconciliation package permanent, which would primarily include permanently extending the components of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts due to expire this year.

Under the rules of reconciliation, making any provision permanent requires compliance with the Byrd Rule—a restriction on reconciliation bills which requires that they not impact the deficit beyond a 10-year window.

Whether or not Republicans can meet this requirement depends in part on the baseline used to calculate the net impact on the deficit. There are two options: a “current policy” baseline and a “current law” baseline.

Republicans believe the current policy baseline will enable them to make their cuts permanent, and Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) used this standard in calculating the financial impact of the resolution.

While MacDonough has given approval to move the proposal forward in the reconciliation process, questions linger about whether Graham can make this call on his own. Republicans say he can.

Republicans Hesitant to Overrule

On the whole, Senate Republicans seemed hesitant to make any commitments to overruling the parliamentarian, though leaders have raised questions about whether they need MacDonough’s advice on this issue.

Following the April 1 Republican lunch, Thune and Majority Whip John Barasso (R-Wyo.) told reporters that the Budget Committee chairman could unilaterally make the legal determination on whether to use the current policy baseline.

“We think the law is very clear, and ultimately the budget committee chairman makes that determination,” Thune said. “But obviously, we are consulting regularly with the parliamentarian.”

Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) (C), accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), left, speaks to reporters after a Senate policy luncheon at the Capitol in Washington on Feb. 25, 2025. Ben Curtis/AP Photo

When asked about the possibility of overruling MacDonough, Senate Republicans expressed confidence that the current policy baseline would be chosen.

“There’s clear and unequivocal precedent on current policy as the baseline,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told The Epoch Times, citing President Barack Obama’s use of the current policy baseline to extend Bush-era tax cuts in 2013. “I have every confidence that will be the conclusion here.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told The Epoch Times that Republicans have “no choice” but to respect the ruling, and was skeptical that her decision would be overridden.

Ultimately, the stage is set for a potential testing of the parliamentarian’s authority. It’s unclear whether Republicans intend to wait for her to make a ruling before moving forward, when that ruling could come, or what the final ruling would be.

Should it go against Republicans, it’s unclear whether they would go ahead anyway, as such a move could set a precedent for Democrats to use later.

JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman has earned the crown as Tesla’s most stubborn bear. For nearly a decade, his coverage has been a broken record of bearish calls—and as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Just before Tesla shares went parabolic in 2019—ultimately soaring 1,700% over the next several years—Brinkman still pounded the table with repeated bearish calls. Now, the analyst—who seemingly holds a grudge against Elon Musk—is at it again.

Around 1Q15, Brinkman maintained a “Hold” rating on the stock, but his stance shifted shortly after that, holding a bearish outlook ever since. 

Brinkman’s pessimism continued Friday in a note to clients, telling them that Tesla has undergone “unprecedented brand damage we had earlier feared.” He noted that the sales report from earlier in the week “causes us to think that — if anything — we may have underestimated the degree of consumer reaction.”

Ahead of Wednesday’s vehicle delivery data from Tesla – Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and UBS cut estimates for 1Q deliveries between 351,000 and 375,000. The prediction market Kalshi expected 353,000, marking a 9% drop. The actual number was in the 330,000 region. 

The company reported 12,881 deliveries of its other models, including its Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X. 

“Tesla delivered 336,681 vehicles in the first three months of the year, its worst quarterly total since 2022,” Bloomberg noted, adding, “In addition to changing over production lines at each of its assembly plants to build the redesigned Model Y, the automaker was contending with Musk, its chief executive officer, becoming a more polarizing figure due to his interventions in global politics.”

As of the latest Wall Street consensus (data via Bloomberg), 55% of analysts covering Tesla maintain a “Buy” rating, 23.3% rate the stock as “Hold,” and 21.7% assign a “Sell” rating.

The clock strikes again for Tesla bears (TSLAQ crowd). But was a decade of bearishness really worth it—while missing out on gains of thousands of percent?

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

A group of 19 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on April 3 disputing President Donald Trump’s executive order that requires voters to verify they are U.S. citizens and prevents states from counting mail-in ballots they receive after Election Day.

Filed in Boston federal court, the lawsuit follows two others that challenge the order. The plaintiffs say the order “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.”

“The president’s attempt to control our elections, intimidate voters, and limit Americans’ right to vote is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and frankly, un-American,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat.

On March 25, Trump signed an executive order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” mandating voters to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. The order also aims to stop states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day for presidential and congressional elections.

Last year, the states joining in the lawsuit had allowed late ballots that were postmarked ahead of Election Day to be counted if they arrived within a specific window established by state law.

In his order, Trump cited Denmark and Sweden’s policies of not accepting late-arriving mail-in ballots regardless of when they are postmarked and said the United States should follow the same policy.

California and Nevada led the group of 19 states in arguing that Trump lacks the sole power to amend states’ election procedures. Congress, they said, has the power under the Constitution to preempt state laws for federal elections.

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress authorize the president’s attempted voting restrictions,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement.

The Democratic National Committee and Democratic congressional leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), are already challenging Trump’s order in court.

In their lawsuit, the 19 states argued that the rule violates the Constitution and the National Voting Rights Act, which allows voting as long as a person attests to their citizenship under the threat of perjury.

While Democrats have said it’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote, Republicans have raised concerns about how the lack of verification may allow some noncitizens to lie in order to register.

The attorneys general also accused Trump’s order of violating states’ constitutional authority over elections by using the loss of federal funding and potential Justice Department investigations as threats in order to compel them to comply.

In his order, Trump argued that states “fail adequately to vet voters’ citizenship, and, in recent years, the Department of Justice has failed to prioritize and devote sufficient resources for enforcement of these provisions” and alleged the Biden administration allowed illegal immigrants on state voter rolls.

When he announced the order, the president said it was required to “straighten out our elections.”

In the Biden Administration’s dying breath, they managed to help overthrow one last country in the Middle East: Syria, another notch in the neocon “7 country” wet dream General Wesley Clark revealed long ago. On December 8th of 2024, Assad was ousted.

The new leader is Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, head of the Al Nusra Front which, as Horton pointed out during the debate, was deemed simply an alias for Al Qaeda by none other than Victoria Nuland:

Last night, ZeroHedge hosted antiwar.com’s Scott Horton and Pulitzer winner Roy Gutman to debate whether ousting Assad was wise and how to deal with the new regime. Hosted by Viva Frei, the debate got a bit fiery (as is common with Horton) but covered a lot of ground and is worth listening to.

Here are some highlights for those short on time:

Is Syria run by Al Qaeda?

Gutman attempted to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian civil war, saying it was “mostly peaceful” protestors and rooted in the Syrian people’s urge to rid themselves of a dictator.

To which Scott replied bluntly: “Who’s in charge of Syria right now, Roy?”

pic.twitter.com/0n7pgw6pH7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 4, 2025

Jolani: Terrorist or Reformed?

Gutman said that the new Syrian regime is a “work in progress” and can possibly be dealt with diplomatically, emphasizing that “[Jolani is] from the middle class in Damascus.”

If that’s the case then why couldn’t we have worked with Assad, Horton asked.

“Oh, [Jolani] was a middle-class guy, huh? Yeah, so was Mohammed Atta… This is the enemy. This is treason.”

pic.twitter.com/qalqAbTcET

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) April 4, 2025

Gutman has decades of on-the-ground experience in the Middle East while Horton has an encyclopedic mind and photographic memory. We highly recommend watching to the entire discussion below or listening via Spotify:

https://t.co/80NM9CNIXE

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 3, 2025

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration has suspended several dozen federally funded research grants to Princeton University as part of its investigation into campus anti-Semitism, according to a Princeton University email published by the Daily Princetonian student newspaper.

The email, dated April 1 and sent to the campus community by university President Christopher Eisgruber, said the university received the notification from the funding agencies, including the Departments of Energy, Defense, and NASA.

Eisgruber’s email did not disclose the amount of money in question.

“The full rationale for this action is not yet clear, but I want to be clear about the principles that will guide our response,” Eisgruber’s email said.

“Princeton University will comply with the law. We are committed to fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination, and we will cooperate with the government in combating anti-Semitism.

“Princeton will also vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of this university.”

Eisgruber’s email said more information would be released following conversations with affected faculty, researchers, and grant managers.

Princeton is among the 60 elite higher education institutions currently under federal investigation for the harassment of Jewish students following Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Eisgruber and his colleagues from fellow Ivy League institutions—Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, and Yale—were among those who received March 10 letters from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

The letter reminded university presidents of existing Civil Rights laws. It noted President Donald Trump’s executive order that states colleges and universities risk the loss of federal funding if they fail to combat campus anti-Semitism.

“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a March 10 statement from the Education Department announcing the letters sent to universities. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”

The Trump administration announced on March 31 that it is examining $8.7 billion in contracts with Harvard.

In an email response to The Epoch Times, Harvard University officials said the school has taken steps in the past 15 months to address anti-Semitism on campus, but the Trump administration still believes the school has a long way to go.

“We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat anti-Semitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat anti-Semitism,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a letter sent to students and employees.

“We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.

“By doing so, we combat bias and intolerance as we create the conditions that foster the excellence in teaching and research that is at the core of our mission.”

Columbia University was the first school to lose federal funding, $400 million, due to campus anti-Semitism.

The university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, complied with nine conditions outlined by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other federal agencies before resigning on March 28.

Eisgruber is also the board chairman of the American Association of Universities, which publicly criticized the Trump administration’s education cuts and, in February, filed a federal lawsuit opposing reductions to National Institute of Health research grants to universities.

“This action is ill-conceived and self-defeating for both America’s patients and their families as well as the nation as a whole,” the association’s Feb. 10 statement said.

“We look forward to presenting our case in court.”

Eisgruber’s March 19 editorial in The Atlantic magazine criticizing the Trump administration’s actions against Columbia University is posted on Princeton’s website.

“The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned,” he wrote.

The Epoch Times contacted Princeton University and the Department of Education, which referred to the departments of Defense and Energy.

The Department of Defense declined to comment.

British comedian Russell Brand has been charged with rape, indecent assault and sexual assault over claims made by four women spanning 1999 – 2005. The move follows a September 2023 investigation by the Sunday Times, after which Brand was interviewed multiple times by police.

The 49-year-old has previously denied all allegations, calling them “very, very hurtful,” and insisting that his relationships have been “absolutely, always consensual.”

In a short statement reported by the BBC (which has been running cover for ‘in-club’ pedophiles for decades), the Metropolitan Police said it informed Brand of the charges, which allege;

• In 1999 a woman was raped in the Bournemouth area.
• In 2001 a woman was indecently assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• In 2004 a woman was orally raped and sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.
• Between 2004 and 2005, a woman was sexually assaulted in the Westminster area of London.

Brand, believed to be in the United States, has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on May 2. If he refuses to fly back to face charges, authorities may consider extradition.

In a statement, Jaswant Narwal of the Crown Prosecution Service said (via the BBC);

“We have today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Russell Brand with a number of sexual offences.

“We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary in September 2023.

“We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault. These relate to reported non-recent offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women.

“The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

The Metropolitan Police’s detective superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.

“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police. A dedicated team of investigators is available via email at CIT@met.police.uk.

“Support is also available by contacting the independent charity, Rape Crisis at 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line.”

Shortly after the allegations made headlines in 2023, he was demonetized by YouTube. 

“If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,” a YouTube spokesperson told Deadline at the time.

His content will remain on YouTube, but he will no longer be able to make money from the videos, which lean heavily into internet conspiracies about politics, Covid, and UFOs.

Sara McCorquodale, chief executive of social media analysis agency CORQ, told The Guardian that Brand makes an estimated £2,000 ($2,500) to £4,000 per video, which would equate to up to £1M a year if he published five a week. -Deadline

Brand’s channel has 6.8M subscribers.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration was sued by a nonprofit civil rights group on April 3, with the organization saying that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs on Chinese imports.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), alleges that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose the sweeping tariffs unveiled this week, as well as levies he introduced on Feb. 1 by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

NCLA filed the lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based retailer that sells home management products and imports materials from China.

The lawsuit lists Trump, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Pete Flores, and CBP as defendants.

The lawsuit comes a day after Trump announced broader levies on nearly all U.S. trading partners as part of what he described as efforts to balance trade deficits.

According to the lawsuit, the IEEPA authorizes specific emergency actions—such as imposing sanctions or freezing assets—to protect the United States from foreign threats, but it does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

“The Constitution assigns Congress exclusive power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce,” the lawsuit states.

“Presidents can impose tariffs only when Congress grants permission, which it has done in carefully drawn trade statutes.”

Typically, these statutes authorize tariffs only on industries or countries that meet “specified criteria,” and only under “specified conditions,” after following certain procedures, the lawsuit states. “Such statutes require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope.”

Trump has declared an emergency over China’s alleged role in facilitating the flow of illicit fentanyl into the United States.

The lawsuit argues his justification is a pretext for imposing tariffs with the goal of reducing U.S. trade deficits while boosting tax revenue.

“President Trump is attempting to bypass these constraints by invoking the IEEPA,” plaintiffs write in the lawsuit. 

“But in the IEEPA’s almost 50-year history, no previous president has used it to impose tariffs. Which is not surprising, since the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens.”

According to the legal filing, Trump’s tariffs on China will force Simplified to make higher tariff payments, driving up its costs and thus prices for its customers, while simultaneously reducing its profits.

The lawsuit asks the court to block the tariffs from being implemented and enforced and to undo Trump’s changes to the U.S. tariff schedule.

Trump announced on April 2 that goods imported from China, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, will be hit with a 34 percent duty under his new tariff plan. That is on top of the 20 percent tariff he imposed on China in February, bringing the total new levies to 54 percent.

Speaking from the Rose Garden at the White House, Trump stated that the tariffs will lead to increased jobs and domestic production while also lowering prices for consumers.

“This will be indeed the golden age of America,  it’s coming back we’re going to come back very strongly,” Trump said.

A spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the tariffs violate World Trade Organization rules and “undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system.”

“China firmly rejects this and will do what is necessary to defend our legitimate rights and interests,” the spokesperson said.

The Epoch Times contacted the White House for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to test President Trump, this time contradicting the US leader on the question of Ukraine’s future membership in NATO.

Trump has clearly taken it off the table, as even NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has recently recognized. But Zelensky in fresh comments said he has not given up on Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO accession.

“You know who does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO so far, but in any case, no one is removing this issue from the table for the future,” Zelensky said, as quoted in Ukrinform news agency on Friday.

“At least, we are talking about the fact that even if now someone does not want to support [Kiev joining the bloc], we will see what happens in the future,” Zelensky added.

He went on to explain in the comments that until membership in the Western military bloc happens, Kiev should be provided with “NATO-like security guarantees” by its allies and partners.

Ukraine must be “strong when getting to the negotiating table” in order to achieve a “just peace,” Zelensky said.

Earlier this week, President Trump made clear in reference to Zelensky that “he wants to be a member of NATO. Well, he was never going to be a member of NATO. He understands that.”

The issue of NATO constantly expanding right up to Russia’s borders, which especially ramped up in the mid-2000s during the Bush era, had been consistently identified by President Putin as a key motive in his ordering hundreds of thousands of Russian troops into Ukraine in February of 2022.

Russia saw its ‘special military operation’ as a continuation of a war in Donbass that was already burning since 2014, which saw CIA and Western intelligence assist Kiev in seeking to push back Russian influence. But the reality has always been that natives on the Donbass are overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and pro-Moscow.

Trump also this week while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One that negotiations have produced “a lot of good conversations about Ukraine and Russia.”

Ukraine joining NATO, as our president said, is “not at all possible,” says Putin envoy Kirill Dmitriev. “That, I think, has been widely accepted, including by the Trump administration.”

Ukraine joining NATO, as our president said, is NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE — Dmitriev

‘That, I think, has been widely accepted, including by the Trump administration’ https://t.co/ZXuezRJdJL pic.twitter.com/rpxUJUC0PP

— RT (@RT_com) April 4, 2025

“We like to see [the war] stopped as soon as possible because thousands of people have been killed in a week,” Trump said. “Europe has not been successful in dealing with President Putin, but I think I will be successful.” Ukraine’s government has been angry that the White House has pursued direct, bilateral negotiations with Moscow, effectively sidelining the Ukrainians.

Exactly one month ago we reminded readers, and the new generation of traders who may have been in kindergarten during the first trade war of 2017-2018, that a core feature of the market rollercoaster that marked Trump 1.0’s reign is crashing markets… and strategically timed trial balloons meant to push stocks sharply higher, to wit:

For those who already forgot the first Trump trade war, we are nearing the time when everyone turns apocalyptically bearish and the White House leaks a bullish “trade war deal” trial balloon.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 4, 2025

And sure enough, we got a vivid reminder of just that moments ago when Trump, on his Truth Social account, announced that he had a “very productive” call with the head of the Vietnamese communist party, adding that if Vietnam wants to cut their tariffs to “ZERO”, all they have to do is “make an agreement with the U.S.”…

… or precisely what we said two days ago when we explained that this particular trade war will be all about the deals that Trump completes as he pulls the country and market from the abyss.

That was quick: Thailand to Negotiate With the US on 36% Imposed Tariffs: PM

Next: everyone else

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 3, 2025

Everyone else…. starting with Vietnam, which as we profiled yesterday was slapped with some of the highest reciprocal tariffs…

… crushing countless US consumer companies who rely on cheap Vietnamese exports.

But wait, there’s more… because with Fed Chair Jerome Powell set to speak momentarily, Trump reminds the Fed chair who really is boss when in a subsequent post on TS, the president said that “this would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates. He is always “late,” but he could now change his image, and quickly. Energy prices are down, Interest Rates are down, Inflation is down, even Eggs are down 69%, and Jobs are UP, all within two months – A BIG WIN for America. CUT INTEREST RATES, JEROME, AND STOP PLAYING POLITICS!”

Considering recession expectations are soaring, while inflation expectations – based on the impartial market and not a bunch of Democrats “polled” by marxist professors at the University of Michigan – are collapsing…

… we would have to a agree with Trump who is surely wondering why the Fed cut rates in September when growth expectations were much higher, and why Powell isn’t doing the same now.

The market reaction was prompt, with futures reversing losses and jumping, if not so much to the implicit Powell threat, then certainly to the possibility that one after another country will now line up to get a trade deal done with Trump.