Author: admin

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Monday that he was authorizing his administration to use coal-fired power plants for energy production to counter China’s economic advantage.

In a Truth Social post, Trump stated that the nation’s coal industry had been “held captive by environmental extremists,” which he said had allowed countries such as China to gain an economic advantage over the United States by opening hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

Trump stated that he would move to authorize his administration “to immediately begin producing energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL,” but did not provide further details.

The move would mark a major reversal in U.S. environmental policy, as the country has shifted away from coal, which was its primary fuel for electricity generation in the 2000s, toward lower-cost alternatives such as natural gas and renewable energy.

As of 2023, coal made up about 15 percent of the power generated in the United States, a significant decline from 51 percent in 2000, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

After taking office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review existing regulations that restricted the use of domestic energy resources—particularly coal, hydropower, and nuclear energy resources—and declared a national energy emergency to expedite the development of the nation’s energy infrastructure.

Trump stated in his order that “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations have impeded the development of these resources, limited the generation of reliable and affordable electricity, reduced job creation, and inflicted high energy costs upon our citizens.”

To fulfill Trump’s objectives, Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin said on March 12 that the agency would take steps to roll back several environmental regulations in what he called the “largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.”

The EPA outlined its planned regulatory rollbacks in a series of statements, targeting rules or suites of rules initially authored by the agency and published during the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, which it considers to be the origin of “trillions in regulatory costs.”

The EPA stated that it would reconsider the previous administration’s rules on power plant emissions, commonly referred to as the “Clean Power Plan 2.0.”

It stated that the Supreme Court had struck down a 2015 version of the Clean Power Plan. In that ruling, the court “barred EPA from misusing the Clean Air Act to manipulate Americans’ energy choices and shift the balance of the nation’s electrical fuel mix,” according to the EPA.

“President Trump promised to kill the Clean Power Plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,” Zeldin said. 

“We are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.”

Earlier this month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested that the United States should restart its shuttered coal-fired power plants to meet surging electricity demand.

“I think as part of the national energy emergency which President Trump has declared we’ve got to keep every plant open,” Burgum said in an interview with Bloomberg. 

“And if there have been units at a coal plant that have been shut down, we need to bring those back on.”

Burgum also stated that the country should keep existing coal-fired power plants operational by easing environmental regulations imposed by previous administrations.

China’s construction of coal-fired power plants reached its highest level in a decade last year, according to a report by the Finland-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air released on Feb. 13. The report states that China constructed 94.5 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants last year, the highest volume of new builds since 2015.

After making a mockery of the German democratic process, as Bloomberg explained not once…

“Germany’s “whatever it takes” spending spree is being orchestrated by Friedrich Merz, who spent the recent campaign arguing against doing any such thing. This isn’t a great advertisement for democracy, and there will be real trouble if it goes wrong.” – Bloomberg’s John Authers

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2025

… but twice…

The fake facade of German politics, which are now leftist in all but name pic.twitter.com/6tRCciONyV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 17, 2025

… on Tuesday, Germany’s outgoing parliament passed a record increase in government borrowing, the biggest in German history, including a sweeping change to the country’s debt rules.

Late on Tuesday afternoon, chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz’s conservatives and the centre-left Social Democrats, currently in talks to form a government following last month’s election, had proposed a €500BN fund for infrastructure and changes to borrowing rules to bolster defence and revive growth in Europe’s largest economy. 

The controversial legislation was approved in the lower house of parliament with 513 votes out of a total of 733, clearing the two-thirds threshold required for constitutional changes.

The bill will release defense spending from debt restrictions, creating a potentially unlimited supply of money to rearm to deter Russia, or at least limited by how long it takes for the German bond market to crack because unlike the US, the Euro is not the world’s reserve currency. And judging by the recent surge in bund yields – not driven at all by a stronger economy but merely by term premium and fears of even more debt – it won’t take too long.

It would also set up a €500 billion ($546 billion) fund to invest in the country’s aging infrastructure.

Commenting on the decision Deutsche Bank’s Robin Winkler  said that“after much nail-biting over the last fortnight, Germany’s outgoing parliament today decided to reform the constitutional debt brake. In our view, this is a historic fiscal regime shift, arguably the largest since German reunification. Yet, as with reunification, a fiscal expansion does not guarantee success: the next government will need to deliver structural reforms to turn this fiscal package into sustainable growth.” 

“This is possibly the biggest spending package in the history of our country,” Lars Klingbeil, the co-leader of the Social Democrats and a likely cabinet member in the next governing coalition, said during the debate in Berlin. “Germany must take on its leadership role in Europe.”

To secure the necessary two-thirds majority in parliament, the outgoing German government (which is rushing to get a deal done before March 24 when the new incoming government would have blocked it) had to integrate last-minute demands from the Greens party into their proposal, a plan which was originally meant to fund “defense” against Russia, but has since mutated into a debt-funded free-for-all, with all the participating parties promised generous pork to get their approval.

The biggest irony is that this kind of debt/deficit-funded spending is precisely what incoming premier Merz had campaigned against, signaling that in its terminal slide to oblivion, Europe – overrun by foreigner – will first turn hard left before running right into the abyss.

The legislation now goes to the Bundesrat upper house, which represents Germany’s 16 states, and is set to vote on Friday. 

As we reported previously, the vote in the Bundesrat – the second chamber comprising the sixteen state governments – is expected to take place on March 21. The session is scheduled to start at 9.30 am CET (see schedule). The eventual fiscal compromise is likely to entail a significant fiscal boon for the federal states, with as much as €200 bn of the off-budget infrastructure fund to go to the federal states in addition to their net borrowing cap being lifted from 0% to 0.35% of GDP. Thus, they should have a clear incentive to vote for it.

In the Bundesrat the vote will mainly depend on the support of the Greens and the Free Voters, the CSU’s junior coalition partner in Bavaria.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An enforcement operation in northern Virginia has led to the arrests of 214 criminal illegal immigrants, including those connected to international gangs, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE said the operation was conducted alongside other law enforcement agencies from March 1 to 13.

Transnational criminal organizations targeted in the operation included the MS-13 and 18th Street gangs.

MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, is a transnational gang based in El Salvador that was designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department in February. The 18th Street gang engages in a variety of criminal acts throughout the United States, including robbery, kidnapping, murder, and the trafficking of narcotics, according to the Department of Justice.

Among those arrested was a 46-year-old Salvadoran MS-13 member who has been convicted of disorderly conduct and “illegal reentry after removal,” a 37-year-old Jamaican convicted of second-degree murder, and a 46-year-old Mexican illegal immigrant convicted of “indecent liberties with a minor.”

Russ Hott, field office director at ICE enforcement and removal operations in Washington, said authorities targeted the “most dangerous alien offenders” during the enforcement operation.

He called the large number of arrests in a brief period of time “an impressive number by any measure.”

“We are making gang members an offer they can’t refuse; leave the United States now,” Hott said. “If you don’t, we will find you, and there will be consequences. We will arrest and prosecute you to the full extent of the law.”

ICE was assisted by local law enforcement in the operation, including the U.S. attorney’s offices for the eastern and western districts of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Corrections, and the Virginia State Police.

In late February, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order instructing local law enforcement to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The order directed the Virginia Department of Corrections and the Virginia State Police to sign agreements with ICE and established a state police task force including federally deputized troopers tasked with taking into custody illegal immigrants deemed a risk to the public.

“As governor, protecting our citizens is my foremost responsibility, and today we are taking action that will make Virginia safer by removing dangerous criminal illegal immigrants from our Commonwealth,” Youngkin said at the time.

“Dangerous criminal illegal immigrants should not be let back into our communities to assault, rape and murder. They should be sent back where they came from.”

Arrests of criminal illegal aliens have jumped in the first 50 days of the Trump administration, with ICE making 32,809 enforcement arrests, close to the 33,242 at-large arrests the agency made in the entire fiscal year 2024, the agency noted in a March 13 statement.

More than 14,000, or nearly half, were convicted criminals while roughly a third have pending criminal charges. ICE arrested 1,155 criminal gang members, 2.5 times more than over the same period last year.

“We have deported known terrorists, cartel members, and gang members from our country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. “We will see the number of deportations continue to rise. And illegal immigrants have the option to self-deport and come back LEGALLY in the future.”

Meanwhile, the overall number of illegal immigrants apprehended at the border by authorities has seen a major decline under the current administration, according to a March 12 report by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Average apprehensions of illegal immigrants by Border Patrol hit 330 per day last month, the “lowest nationwide average apprehensions” in CBP’s history. Authorities took into custody 8,347 illegal immigrants at the southern border in February, a 94 percent decline on an annual basis.

By Simon Watkins of OilPrice.com

Oil prices have fallen fast since the 3 March announcement from OPEC+ that it will go ahead with a planned rise in its collective oil production. The prospect of increased supply from the group has added to the bearish tone created by rising supply from other key producers and from uncertain demand projections from the world’s biggest importer of oil, China. Lower oil and gas prices is precisely what Donald Trump wants to see in his second term as U.S. president, but with budget breakeven oil prices much higher than even current levels, many may wonder why OPEC+ members are supporting such a potentially financially disastrous production rise.

So economically vital is it to most OPEC+ members that oil prices are kept at the higher end of recent historical levels that the organization has not increased production since 2022. In fact, at that point it had begun a series of collective oil production cuts to support oil prices, totaling around 5.85 million barrels per day (bpd), or around 5.7% of global supply. As recently as December, the cartel extended its previous round of 2.2 million bpd in output reductions to the end of this quarter. Industry estimates are that the first phase of the removal of these production cuts will total about 138,000 bpd in April, with much more to come. “Part of this move [OPEC+ oil production increases] results from repeated overproduction from some of its members, most recently from Kazakhstan [following the Tengiz expansion project], Iraq, and Russia, although Moscow has been doing a lot of it as dark inventory [unofficial output] to sidestep sanctions,” a senior source in the European Union’s (E.U.) energy security complex exclusively told OilPrice.com last week. “Another part comes from the group wanting to protect its market share, given the major shift in the supply-demand balance that’s unfolding,” he added. “And the final part of it is the fact that OPEC+ doesn’t think it can win an oil price war against the U.S. with Trump in his second presidency, given how badly it did in the last two [oil price wars],” he concluded.

Indeed, over the course of the 2014-2016 Oil Price War, de facto OPEC leader Saudi Arabia spend over 34% of its precious US$737 billion foreign exchange reserves and swung from a budget surplus to a then-record high deficit of US$98 billion, as analyzed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. So bad was Saudi Arabia’s economic and political situation back towards the end of the Second Oil Price War in 2016 (the first being the 1973-1974 Oil Crisis) that the country’s deputy economic minister, Mohamed Al Tuwaijri, stated in an unprecedentedly unequivocal way for a senior Saudi in October 2016 that: “If we [Saudi Arabia] don’t take any reform measures, and if the global economy stays the same, then we’re doomed to bankruptcy in three to four years.” 

Although the 2014-2016 Oil Price War had been launched by Saudi Arabia with the intention of destroying or significantly disabling the U.S.’s then-nascent shale oil industry, it only succeeded in destroying the finances of OPEC’s members and undermining the reputation of the group – and Saudi Arabia — in the global oil market. Aside from the damage to its own economy, Saudi Arabia had cost the OPEC member states collectively at least US$450 billion in revenues during the 2014-2016 Oil Price War, according to International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates.

So badly had OPEC and its effective leader Saudi Arabia been hit by their own actions that Donald Trump was able to exploit this weakness to maintain a tight oil price range during his first term as president through the occasional incentive but many more threats. The lower part of the ‘Trum Oil Price Range’ is US$40-45 per barrel of the Brent benchmark, which is the price at which the bulk of U.S. shale oil producers can breakeven and make a good profit on top. The upper part of it is US$75-80 per barrel, which ties into historical data showing that a gasoline price of under US$2 per gallon has been most advantageous for U.S. economic growth. This US$2 per gallon level has historically equated to a West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price of around US$70 per barrel. And as WTI has also historically traded at a discount of between US$5-10 per barrel to the Brent oil benchmark, this US$70 per barrel of WTI price equates to around US$75-80 per barrel of Brent. Judging from Trump’s comments on the campaign trail and in his ‘Agenda47’ blueprint for a second term, his view that oil prices should continue to be heavily influenced by the U.S. in such a way has not changed. He will also be aware of the dramatic political consequences for U.S. presidents of oil prices rising beyond the top of the Range, as also fully detailed in my latest book on the new global oil market order. Specifically, since 1896 the sitting U.S. president has won re-election 11 times out of 11 if the economy was not in recession within two years of an upcoming election. However, sitting U.S. presidents who went into a re-election campaign with the economy in recession won only one time out of seven.

Adding to their troubles in this regard, the Saudis know that Trump has much greater power in this term than he did in his first, with Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and his nominees dominating the Supreme Court. They also know his attitude to OPEC and the Russia-enhanced OPEC+ groups, which was marked early in his first term. More specifically, when Saudi Arabia was still trying desperately to repair the appalling damage its 2014-2016 Oil Price War had done to its own finances and to those of its OPEC brothers, it embarked on coordinated production cuts (with Russia as the new-found member of the expanded ‘OPEC+’ cartel) to push the oil price higher. Trump’s reaction was quick and unequivocal: “OPEC and OPEC nations are, as usual, ripping off the rest of the world, and I don’t like it. Nobody should like it,” he said. He added: “We defend many of these nations for nothing, and then they take advantage of us by giving us high oil prices. Not good. We want them to stop raising prices. We want them to start lowering prices and they must contribute substantially to military protection from now on.” Following Trump’s clear warnings to Saudi Arabia’s Royal Family in the third quarter of 2018 of the catastrophic consequences if the Kingdom continued to keep oil prices higher than the US$80 per barrel Brent price ceiling – analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order — Saudi Arabia was instrumental in keeping oil prices lower by orchestrating coordinated OPEC production increases. That brief period was the only part of Trump’s presidency that saw his Oil Price Trading Range breached to the upside.

This no-nonsense approach from Trump was a function of a broader shift in U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia following its 2014-2016 Oil Price War that continues to this day and of which the Saudis are fully aware. Before that War, the foundation relationship agreement between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. was the deal that had been struck on 14 February 1945 between the then-U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the then-Saudi King, Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud. This deal was simply that the U.S. would receive all the oil supplies it needed for as long as Saudi Arabia had oil in place and, in return for this, that the U.S. would guarantee the security both of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud. The implication of this – and clearly delineated at the time of the 1945 agreement by the U.S. side – was that the oil Saudi Arabia supplied to the U.S. would be at a reasonable price based on previous historical levels. 

However, after the end of the Oil Price War in 2016, a hugely significant change occurred in the U.S.-Saudi Arabia agreement. It effectively changed to one in which the U.S. would receive all the oil supplies it needed for as long as Saudi Arabia has oil in place and in return would guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia and the ruling House of Saud, but it included the proviso that Saudi Arabia did not jeopardise the economic well-being of the U.S. Or to put it more simply as one senior White House official commented off-the-record to OilPrice.com at the end of 2016: “We’re not going to put up with any more crap from the Saudis.”

By Michael Every of Rabobank

This week already saw President Trump announce that as President Biden used an autopen on controversial blanket pardons, these are now void. That starts a political firestorm, could prompt an investigation into the process around those pardons and, again, may end up with the Supreme Court. But from the autopen to the sword – which remains pointed at markets.

President Trump has warned Iran further attacks by the Houthis could mean attacks on it too. There are now unconfirmed rumours three US carrier strike groups and up to 35 ships in total will head to the Middle East – though actual deployment has yet to happen.

If so, it ups the ante there massively, just as Israel restarts attacks on Hamas after its refusal to hand over remaining hostages (and, in the background, the US reportedly agreed to an Egyptian proposal to rebuild Gaza without Hamas, with a local price tag of $50bn). A direct US attack on Iran is still a tail risk for now, but the Houthis may be about to find out what an operation to guard prosperity really looks like.

Presidents Trump and Putin will speak today about a ceasefire in Ukraine. Moreover, a Trump-Xi summit in the US is being floated. And when does ‘Rocket Man’ get another call?

Can you spot a pattern here? If not, you should. The US, pen in one hand and sword in the other, is looking for a new modus vivendi with the axis of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – on its terms. How they hold respond remains to be seen. That highest-stakes, highest-risk, highest-reward Great Game is the defining feature of our present, and future, global environment. Everything else is just a sub-set of it.   

On Ukraine, the UK is promising to send peacekeepers for “as long as it takes.” Critics point out its traditionally naval-based armed forces are in no condition to sustain deployment in size for any length of time, nor to scale up should they *not* be able to keep the peace. The cost of being able to do entails far more than cost-cutting via closing a quango, curtailing some civil servants’ state credit cards, and cutting disability benefits.

In Europe, today should see Germany’s debt brake come off so it can rearm, as the European Commission considers a fresh €40bn arms package for Ukraine. While there is no guarantee Europe is about to rearm itself appropriately for the geopolitical environment it is in, what might be needed is clear: the leader of the European People’s Party in the EU parliament is calling for a “war economy” –which Russia has– where civilian production is converted across to the military.

Focusing only on near-term news like the German IFO Institute now expecting GDP growth of just 0.2% in 2025, down from 0.4% in January, tells you nothing at all about what next year might bring. Or, looking at the Middle East, next month.

Indeed, swords, wielded or rattled, are also deep in trade news, an area we delude ourselves is only about the pen:

• The EU, opposed to US tariffs, may impose its own tariffs on aluminium the US won’t take to protect the EU industries needed for rearmament – which is also the US argument;
• US Trade Representative Greer is to take greater charge of the tariff process, with a return to asking firms for input before announcing them via social media… but the 2 April big reciprocal tariff day still looms;
• US-EU trade tensions are likely to rise as Trump backs “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”, putting the US, Chinese, and Indian economies –and Germany’s when it has to– in the coal camp;
• Germany’s BMW will integrate Huawei’s tech into its locally produced new models in 2026. For some, that’s an equally critical with-us-or-against-us political choice;
• Ukraine is warning the EU, “If you won’t sort out our trade relationship, there will be consequences.” Its duty-free access to the EU market expires in June but its goods have been blocked by Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. The weaker Ukraine’s agri economy is, the less money it has to spend on its military, and so the more it ends up costing Europe (alone) to support it; and
• New Zealand started FTA discussions with India, as the Kiwi PM also agreed to deepen political, cultural, and defence and security ties, showing economic prosperity and national security are now linked and pure FTAs are out.

Broader aspects of the economy and markets than ubiquitous cries of ‘tariffs!’ are also being sucked into this geopolitical vortex.

Elon Musk tells Senator Cruz there are 14 government “magic money computers” that “just send money” automatically. That sounds like a crash course in the Cantillon effect and/or MMT; and on what crashes can occur when you suddenly stop both.

The US is proposing changing how it measures GDP to exclude state spending. That worries markets who ‘need to know what’s going on in the economy’. The same markets who don’t have an issue with very questionable GDP from some other sources; nor with GDP not capturing the key issue Western economies now face (i.e., what is supplied, not consumed); and who don’t ask the key question, “What is GDP *for*?”

Foreign Policy magazine asks, ‘Will Trump Use the Federal Reserve as Leverage, Too?’, and warns, “When the next crisis hits, global markets may not be able to count on America’s financial backstop.” The argument is that Fed swaplines will be weaponised for geopolitical ends: and, indeed, why wouldn’t that current Fed autopen be used as a sword? “Because markets?” Please!

Those who take White House anti-establishment arguments seriously can join the dots to see something no Fed Dot Plot does. For example, how the US might instate a 30% withholding tax on interest for foreign holders of US securities to dissuade capital inflows, forcing a narrowing of its trade deficit in tandem; or use its new Sovereign Wealth Fund to push US capital into other economies, also meaning the US current account narrows (and then tariffing those who refuse US capital inflows).

Some ignore or dismiss these ideas because such things won’t happen or aren’t worth thinking about in advance: as was heard in advance of the Global Financial Crisis, negative interest rates, Brexit, Trump’s first win, a US-China Cold War, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the effective closure of the Suez Canal, the end of the US security guarantee for Europe, and sudden European rearmament.

It’s the start of a two-day Fed meeting today. One wonders how much of this backdrop they are paying attention to.

Of course, the simple answer is rates on hold for now –see our Fed preview— and many could write that with an autopen at the moment; the Fed probably will.

However, where the sword is pointing to later is arguably of far greater importance.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

My Take on Putin/Trump today

Let’s define a “good” deal from a global perspective:

• Ukraine gives up occupied land (it could grow to entire oblast where Russia has a foothold, but that’s getting dubious)

• Ukraine has to have ability to rearm and be prepared for another attack in the future – ideally some sort of ability to have foreign troops (likely European if anyone) on soil

• Control over the main power plant in Russia control – or some security that it remains operational and power directed to Ukraine

There is almost zero chance Putin agrees to anything like the above – if he does, will be good for risk assets across the globe

If Putin offers a bad deal – from almost none of the above to the weakest conditions on all of the above

• If Trump accepts “bad” deal – brief rally (maybe) in risk assets and then a big resumption of flows out of US into rest of world markets

• If Trump rejects “bad” deal and talks renewed support for Ukraine/sanctions on Russia – brief sell-off on war, but then I think we see U.S. Risk assets bounce

No deal, no timeline, markets fade a bit and cross their fingers that:

1. Fed is super dovish (doubt it)

2. Greer, maybe with Bessant takes over tariff planning and negotiations – would be good for risk assets – some signs that is occurring, but it’s only been a day or two

For a different take, and one which explains why Putin has (so far) refused to play the ceasefire game, read this.

With a recession-narrative-crushing gain of 0.7% MoM (better than the 0.2% MoM expected)…

Source: Bloomberg

…US Industrial production rose to an all-time record high in February…

Source: Bloomberg

Mfg output rose 0.9 percent, boosted by a jump of 8.5% in the index for motor vehicles and parts. The output of manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts increased 0.4% .

Source: Bloomberg

Manufacturing output rose 0.9% in February. The durable manufacturing index increased 1.6%; while the growth of durables output was led by the index for motor vehicles and parts, gains were also seen in most other categories of durable manufacturing.

Source: Bloomberg

The nondurable manufacturing index stepped up 0.2%, with growth in chemicals offsetting a decline in food, beverage, and tobacco products. 

The index for other manufacturing (publishing and logging) decreased 0.1%. 

Mining output grew 2.8% in February after falling 3.2% in January. 

The index for utilities decreased 2.5%, as the output for electric utilities and for natural gas utilities decreased 1.2% and 11.1%, respectively.

Capacity Utilization also continued to surge, shrugging off recessionary signals…

Source: Bloomberg

This won’t help the doves… or Bessent and Trump who want long-term yields lower.

Leftist corporate media outlets have been running news headlines suggesting that Elon Musk’s DOGE “broke” into the U.S. Institute of Peace. In reality, however, fired and unhinged President and CEO George Moose denied access to Acting President Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official involved in neutering rogue U.S. Agency for International Development. 

The DOGE team wrote on X, “Mr. Moose denied lawful access to Kenneth Jackson, the Acting USIP President (as approved by the USIP Board). @DCPoliceDept arrived onsite and escorted Mr. Jackson into the building.  The only unlawful individual was Mr. Moose, who refused to comply, and even tried to fire USIP’s private security team when said security team went to give access to Mr. Jackson.” 

That’s certainly a stark contrast to the conspiracy-driven narratives pushed by leftist corporate news networks.

Mr. Moose denied lawful access to Kenneth Jackson, the Acting USIP President (as approved by the USIP Board). @DCPoliceDept arrived onsite and escorted Mr. Jackson into the building. The only unlawful individual was Mr. Moose, who refused to comply, and even tried to fire USIP’s… https://t.co/Fy8hJClx9E pic.twitter.com/yqq81qNKXM

— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) March 18, 2025

Another unhinged Deep State politician… 

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) pushed misinformation and information on X, indicating Moose was the “Acting President & CEO.” He was fired last week. Beyer called Jackson’s lawful access with help from DC Metro Police an “illegal power grab.” 

Seems a little dishonest, eh? 

I was at USIP tonight to conduct congressional oversight over DOGE’s break in. I spoke with Acting President & CEO Moose. USIP is an independent, non-profit entity and I will work to stop DOGE’s illegal power grab. https://t.co/EGkfkonqAO

— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) March 18, 2025

Trump targeted USIP and a few others last month in a Feb. 19 executive order aimed at reducing the size of the bloated federal government. The administration has since moved to wind down several federal agencies and organizations, particularly neutering the Deep State’s slush fund: the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told the AP News about USIP’s “noncompliance” with Trump’s order. 

After that, “11 board members were lawfully removed, and remaining board members appointed Kenneth Jackson acting president,” Kelly said, adding, “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.”

Pretty much. 

Classic deep state resistance. Board properly removed Moose and appointed Jackson, yet Moose barricaded himself in like a rejected tenant. Law enforcement had to do their job. This is why we need serious reform of these unaccountable bureaucracies.

— Olivia (@aigov_agent) March 18, 2025

USIP’s corporate structure…

And the endowment connected to USIP has one familiar face. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s deranged leftist sister. 

Kerry Kennedy on her brother, RFK Jr:

“I am disgusted by my brother’s obscene embrace of Donald Trump. And I completely disavow and dissociate myself from Robert Kennedy Jr. and his flagrant efforts to desecrate my father’s memory.” @Acyn (August 2024)pic.twitter.com/JpjHIFG6Dx

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) January 29, 2025

How many of you knew the USIP existed—and that it’s funded with our tax dollars? How many can explain in a sentence or two what USIP actually does with that money? And finally, how many in the media could have answered either of those questions two weeks ago?

The Trump administration is mulling giving recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Crimea region as part of any future agreement to end the Ukraine war, according to a report in Semafor.

“Administration officials have also discussed the possibility of having the US urge the United Nations to do the same, according to both people,” the report says. “Such a request would align the Trump administration with the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long seen Crimea as his nation’s territory.”

Semafor emphasizes, however, that no official decision has been made, with National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes telling the outlet that the White House has “made no such commitments and we will not negotiate this deal through the media.”

“Just two weeks ago, both Ukraine and Russia were miles apart on a ceasefire agreement, and we are now closer to a deal thanks to the leadership of President Trump. The goal remains the same: stop the killing and find a peaceful resolution to this conflict,” Hughes described.

Recognition of Crimea should in reality be the easiest concession, as historically Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet has always been positioned there, and the population is overwhelmingly Russian-speaking, as the 2014 popular referendum to join the Russian Federation demonstrated.

Ukraine’s President Zelensky has at various times throughout the conflict said Ukraine will never give it up, and there have been somewhat regular waves of drone and missile on Sevastopol – but Kiev is likely to let it go permanently before it gives up the Donbass. 

In November of 2024 Fox journalist Trey Yingst had pressed Zelensky on the Crimea question in an interview.

Yingst had asked: “President Vladimir Putin has been very clear Crimea will never return to Ukrainian hands. Are you willing to give up Crimea in pursuit of a peace deal to end this war and stop the bloodshed in Europe?” 

“I was already mentioning that we are ready to bring Crimea back diplomatically,” Zelensky responded. “We cannot spend dozens of thousands of our people so that they perish for the sake of Crimea coming back … We understand that Crimea can be brought back diplomatically.”

So Kiev may yet cling to the hope that Crimea won’t be permanently lost; however, Russia is clearly never going to entertain anything short of full recognition of the key peninsula as Russian.

CNN in 2014: “There’s overwhelming support for the territory to rejoin the Russian Federation, as thousands of people turned out to vote in the referendum. This city has extremely close historical and cultural ties with what people call the motherland.”

In 2014, CNN and just about every other media outlet reported that Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar who is trying to rewrite history.

“There’s overwhelming support for the territory to rejoin the Russian Federation, as thousands of… pic.twitter.com/XElcZNHOXV

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 17, 2025

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday, “I won’t get ahead of those negotiations (between Trump and Putin) but I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace. We’ve never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment and the president is determined to get one done.”

Much more will be known after the highly anticipated Trump-Putin phone call on Tuesday, upon which the two sides could move closer to the goal line.

The opening of the Jakarta stock exchange for trading overnight was ugly… and they it got worse… fast.

Selling intensified into the late morning Tuesday, pushing Indonesia’s benchmark Jakarta Composite Index down by as much as 7.1%, the steepest intraday decline since 2011.

On a day when the rest of Asian equity markets rallied, circuit-breakers triggered trading halts in Jakarta.

Traders said the selloff wasn’t driven by any single catalyst, but rather a combination of factors including concerns over President Prabowo Subianto’s populist measures, forced liquidations and uncertainties over the finance ministry’s leadership.

“The selloff has been a bolt from the blue in many ways — the suddenness has caught the market by surprise,” said Nirgunan Tiruchelvam, an analyst at Aletheia Capital in Singapore.

“Prabowo’s anti-business measures could have escalated this situation, but now it seems like it was already loaded with a lot of negatives.”

The stock selloff triggered a 30-minute temporary suspension after losses in the benchmark index exceeded 5% for the first time since 2020.

“Foreign investors are clearly rattled by Prabowo’s troubling signals on budget reallocation and the Finance Ministry’s ability to maintain the overall fiscal discipline,” said Homin Lee, a senior macro strategist at Lombard Odier Ltd. in Singapore. 

“The recent weakening of the government revenue collection and the resulting early deficit appear to be reviving the market’s worry about the future in the cabinet.”

Factoring in Tuesday’s plunge, the nation’s stock market has tumbled 12% this year, the second-worst major equity index in the world after Thailand. Overseas investors have sold a net $1.6 billion of the nation’s shares this quarter, more than erasing all of last year’s inflows.

As Bloomberg reports, what makes international investors worry most about Indonesia, the region’s largest economy, is the largely unanticipated accumulation of power by Prabowo.

The new president has sought to divert funds into his priority projects, while cutting back on expenditure elsewhere, rattling investor confidence. As an example, the newly launched sovereign wealth fund Danantara — which has a direct reporting line to the president — said last month it would take over management of seven state-owned enterprises.

“Markets hate uncertainty, but they do like direction — now it’s up to policymakers to set the tone,” said Mohit Mirpuri, a fund manager at SGMC Capital Pte in Singapore.

Also sapping investor confidence Tuesday was speculation that widely-respected Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati had decided to resign.