Author: admin

The first quarter was an incredibly tumultuous period for markets, with the S&P 500 posting its biggest quarterly decline since 2022. 

The main driver of the market volatility according to DB’s Jim Reid, was an aggressive round of tariffs, as President Trump launched measures going well beyond his first term, with reciprocal tariffs still looming on April 2. Otherwise, the release of DeepSeek’s AI model early in the quarter led to growing questions about big tech valuations, and the Magnificent 7 ended the quarter in bear market territory. 

But it wasn’t all bad news, and European equities saw a significant outperformance thanks to a huge fiscal regime shift towards higher defense spending. In fact, Q1 marked the biggest quarterly performance gap between the STOXX 600 and the S&P 500 in a decade, and the biggest underperformance of the US vs the rest of the world in 23 years.

Nevertheless, the overall tone was generally risk-off for markets, and as the conversation turned increasingly towards stagflation, gold prices posted their biggest quarterly gain since 1986.

Quarter in Review – The high-level macro overview

Despite the disappointing overall performance, “Queasy Q1” actually got off to a decent start in January. For instance, data over the first couple of weeks pointed to robust growth and demand pressures, including in the US. For instance, the ISM services print was up to 54.0 in December, exceeding expectations, and the prices paid indicator moved up to 64.6, the highest in nearly two years. Then the US jobs report for December showed nonfarm payrolls up by +256k, a nine-month high. And that’s since been revised up to +323k, making it the strongest month since February 2023 on current revisions. Indeed, it also meant there was a sizeable bond selloff in early January, with the 10yr Treasury yield surpassing 4.80% intraday for the first time since late-2023. But that rapid rise in yields reversed course after the US CPI print wasn’t as bad as some feared, raising hopes that the Fed would still cut rates this year.

However, after a strong start in January, markets began to show signs of wobbling towards the end of the month. One of the most important developments was the release of DeepSeek’s new AI model, which raised questions as to the sustainability of big tech valuations in the US. The initial market impact was felt on January 27, with the NASDAQ down -3.07% that day, while Nvidia fell -16.97%. And even though that sharp selloff for the NASDAQ quickly unwound, it raised doubts about the narrative of US tech exceptionalism that had powered the equity market’s advance for the last couple of years. Then in February, Nvidia’s earnings showed the smallest revenue beat in two years, which was underwhelming for investors used to much bigger upside surprises.

Late-January also saw one of the biggest stories of the quarter begin, which was the widespread imposition of tariffs by the United States, after the new Trump administration arrived in office on January 20. Initially, they said that 25% tariffs would be imposed on Canada and Mexico, which led to a risk-off move on February 3, but those were extended by a month at the last-minute, and investors became increasingly relaxed about how things might develop. Indeed, the S&P 500 moved up to an all-time high on February 19, at which point it was up +4.6% in total return terms on a YTD basis.

But as the tariff uncertainty began to mount, markets began to experience much larger risk-off moves. For example, the extension for Canada and Mexico ended, and 25% tariffs were imposed on both on March 4, whilst the additional tariff on China was raised from 10% to 20%. Separately, tariffs on steel and aluminium were imposed at 25% on March 12. And looking forward, investors are still awaiting the reciprocal tariffs, which have been scheduled for April 2.

The tariffs also meant investors became increasingly concerned about higher inflation, which exacerbated existing fears given inflation was still lingering above target across the major economies. For example, the US 1yr inflation swap moved up +72bps in Q1 to 3.25%, its highest level in two years, and the biggest quarterly jump in three years. Moreover, consumers’ inflation expectations also moved higher, and the University of Michigan’s long-term measure moved up to 4.1% in March, the highest since February 1993. Matters weren’t helped by the latest PCE inflation data, which is the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, where the 3m annualised rate of core PCE was running at +3.6% in February, the highest since March 2024. And at the same time, there were also growing concerns about the US growth outlook, and even mounting speculation about a recession. For instance, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence measure fell to just 92.9 in March, the weakest since January 2021. And the expectations measure fell to 65.2, the lowest since March 2013.

These fears about stagflation led to a clear risk-off move, which gathered pace towards the end of the quarter. So the S&P 500 was initially up +2.8% in January in total return terms, but in February it was down -1.3%, and then in March it fell -5.6%, marking its worst monthly performance since 2022. And for the quarter as a whole, the index was down -4.3%, marking its worst quarterly performance since Q3 2022, back when the Fed were still hiking by 75bps per meeting to deal with rapid inflation. 

Those losses were particularly concentrated among tech stocks, and the Magnificent 7 ended the quarter down -16.0%, having shed -20.7% since its December peak. The US Dollar itself also struggled, with the dollar index down -3.9% in Q1, whilst the Euro was up +4.5% against the US Dollar to $1.08. 

While all that was going on in the US, Q1 also saw an incredible fiscal shift in Europe as the continent moved towards significantly higher defense spending. That followed the German election on February 23, where the incoming coalition proposed a reform of the constitutional debt brake to permit higher defense spending, alongside a €500bn infrastructure fund. Meanwhile at the EU level, the Commission proposed that member states could significantly increase defense spending without triggering the EU’s deficit rules.

The prospect of a significant fiscal stimulus had an immediate impact among European assets. In fact, the announcement saw the 10yr bund yield post its biggest daily jump since German reunification in 1990, moving up +29.8bps in a single day on March 5. Over the quarter as a whole, the 10yr bund yield rose +37bps to 2.74%, and the German DAX was one of the strongest-performing European indices, up +11.3% in total return terms. Significant outperformers included the STOXX Aerospace and Defense Index, which surged +28.9%, whilst the German firm Rheinmetall was up +114.6%. Another result was a notable steepening in yield curves, with the German 2s10s curve moving up +41bps on the quarter to 69bps. And given the sharp policy divergence, Q1 saw the biggest quarterly performance gap in local currency terms between the STOXX 600 (+5.9%) and the S&P 500 (- 4.3%) in a decade.

Finally from central banks, Q1 saw a continued policy divergence across countries. The Fed kept rates unchanged in Q1, and continued to signal two cuts for 2025 in their March dot plot, just as they’d done in December. However, they did slow the pace of QT, with the runoff in Treasury holdings to slow from $25bn to $5bn from April 1. Over at the ECB, they delivered further 25bp rate cuts in both January and March, taking their deposit rate down to 2.50%. Meanwhile in Japan, the Bank of Japan delivered another hike in January, taking their policy rate up to 0.5%, and signalling further hikes ahead.

Which assets saw the biggest gains in Q1?

• Gold: With inflation concerns mounting, gold prices surged up to an all-time high of $3,124/oz, and their quarterly increase of +19.0% was the most since 1986. 
• US Treasuries: The risk-off move and mounting speculation of a recession helped to support US Treasuries in Q1, with a total return of +2.9% over the quarter. The 10yr yield itself also moved down -36bps to 4.21%.

Which assets saw the biggest losses in Q1?

• US equities: In Q1, the S&P 500 was down -4.3% in total return terms, marking its worst quarterly performance since Q3 2022. Those losses were particularly clear for the Magnificent 7, which fell -16.0%.
• US Dollar: With investors moving out of US assets, the US Dollar struggled in Q1, and the dollar index itself weakened -3.9%. Conversely, the Euro strengthened +4.5% against the US Dollar to $1.08, marking its biggest quarterly jump since Q4 2022.
• Euro sovereign bonds: The prospect of higher spending led to a selloff among European sovereign bonds, with bunds down -1.8% in total return terms. That included a +37bps rise in the 10yr yield, which ended the quarter at 2.74%.
• Cryptocurrencies: The risk-off move meant it was a weak quarter for cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin fell -12.1% to $82,421.

Here are the best and worst performing assets during the March Massacre…

… and here is Queesy Q1:

Source: Deutsche Bank

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Today, the voters of Wisconsin go to the polls in what may be the single most expensive and important judicial race in modern history. 

Both parties are spending millions with the balance of the state Supreme Court in the balance. 

If liberal Susan Crawford wins, the expectation is that she will vote with the Democratic majority to approve a gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee the loss of two Republicans and possibly flip control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats.

The raw political pitch in the election is disturbing. It assumes that both candidates will blindly support the objectives of their respective parties. The real reason to cast a vote today should be on judicial ideology. Ironically, the United States Supreme Court made that plain in an important Wisconsin case argued just the day before the state election.

The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.

In the decision below, the Democratic-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not benefit from a religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because its charitable work was not sufficiently religious.

Catholic Charities is one of the world’s oldest and most respected charities. However, the church believes that it has a duty to help people of every faith who are in need. Thus, the church does not proselytize in offering such aid and services.

A state labor commission ruled that the charity’s lack of such religious expression and prayer makes it secular, even if it has religious motivations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the charity is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it does not “attempt to imbue” beneficiaries “with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.” In other words, the fact that Catholic Charities helps everyone and does not proselytize worked against it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court essentially argued that it needs to pray more to offer such charity as a church.

It is a disturbing ruling that would allow the state to choose between religions in weighing their relative manifestations of faith.

Even liberal justices cried foul over the standard.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested it was “pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than others. And we certainly don’t do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach.”

Kagan noted, “Some religions proselytize. Other religions don’t. Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?” 

She noted that the standard “basically puts the state on the side of some religions with some doctrine versus other religions with a different doctrine.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asking the wrong questions about what it means to be an organization “operated primarily for religious purposes.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch virtually mocked the standard of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, asking if Catholic Charities have to require the people receiving their services to “repent.” He then asked: “is mandatory church attendance versus optional church attendance, that’s the line?”

Gorsuch then delivered the haymaker:   

“Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions, between certain evangelical sects, and Judaism and Catholicism on the other, for example?”

The case shows that there are far more important issues dividing these candidates on judicial philosophy that should drive this election. I am not a fan of state elected judges and justices precisely because of the raw political element to these contests. 

The Catholic Charities case shows that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is divided along more than just a party line.

*  *  *

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

 

On Tuesday morning, former Biden administration “disinformation czar” Nina Jankowicz repeatedly refused to disclose who’s funding her new gig – the ‘American Sunlight Project’ – which cropped up after a stint at the USAID-funded UK-based Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) – for which she registered as a foreign agent while serving as their Vice President.

To review – Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship, and was then selected to head the Biden DHS’s newly formed Disinformation Governance Board – which was quickly dismantled amid criticism over censorship under the guise of fighting disinformation. 

Four months later, she launched “The Hypatia Project” for CIR – where she was the Vice President until April 2024, at which point she co-founded the American Sunlight Project.

Fast forward to this morning, Jankowicz was evasive when asked by Republicans during a congressional hearing on disinformation about her funding…

Nina Jankowicz, the short-lived head of Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board aka Disinformation Czar refuses to say if her new org, The American Sunlight Projegt, is funded by George Soros.

“So sunlight for other people but not for your donors” @RepBaumgartner quips… pic.twitter.com/2RIiI1VU16

— Rob (@RobMcGravytrain) April 1, 2025

Well, Well, Well

As it turns out, Jankowicz’s co-founder at the American Sunlight Project is Carlos Alvarez-Aranyos, a “communications professional” who worked for the Biden DoD, and is “one of the people who launched the call for a boycott of Tesla.“

Alvarez-Aranyos comes from a wealthy and prominent family in the Dominican Republic. His father, Luis Álvarez Renta, is a well-known Dominican financier. Carlos is a nephew of the renowned fashion designer Oscar de la Renta.

Biden’s censorship queen Nina Jankowicz currently works at the American Sunlight Project (ASP), and previously worked at USAID-funded Center for Information Resilience.

The ASP was co-founded by Carlos Alvarez-Aranyos is a “communications professional” who worked for Biden’s… https://t.co/uIgDszSDKL pic.twitter.com/x60Ju2wzYh

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 1, 2025

“I need to have on my resume, so I can get a job when this thing is over, that I bankrupted Tesla.”

This is an outright admission the top Tesla boycott organizers’ personal financial prospects depend on taking down Tesla, and they must succeed in order to get paid. https://t.co/CJnQDX38rC pic.twitter.com/Ti775yTplt

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 30, 2025

Alvarez-Aranyos has been scrubbed from the American Sunlight Project’s website, which is why the internet archive exists.

Early organizers of the “Tesla Takedown” protests said last month that the organization’s goal is to drive down the price of Tesla stock.

Another “Tesla Takedown” organizer, Edward Niedermeyer, told Fortune Magazine that dropping Musk’s wealth is exactly their aim.

“The goal, I would say, is to bankrupt Elon Musk—bring down his empire,” he said.

Read more on the Tesla Takedown organizers here…

Musk chimed in, calling the organizers “Evil people…“

Evil people https://t.co/6NCHAzZC9B

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2025

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

In last week’s post, “Is the correction over?” we wrote about the potential for a rally back to the 200-DMA. However, the failure of that test increased short-term concerns. As we noted in that post, there were early indications of buyers returning to the market. To wit:

“The chart below has four subpanels. The first is a simple price momentum oscillator. This measure is currently deeply oversold after the recent bout of selling and, like the MACD, is beginning to turn higher. That signal is confirmed by the following two indicators, which measure the volume and breadth of the market (are transactions increasing along with more buyers than sellers). With those two indicators also increasing and the number of stocks on “bullish buy signals” rising, the early clues of a market bottom are appearing.”

However, while the trading action early last week was encouraging, the announcement of additional tariffs and ongoing “trade uncertainty” from the White House reversed those early gains. Most notable was the failure of the market to hold above the 200-DMA, which has increased the risk of a continued market correction or consolidation process.

Previous History

Historically, failures at the 200-DMA have elicited heightened concerns from investors. Technically speaking, “nothing good happens below the 200-DMA.” Still, over the last 30 years, previous failures at the 200-DMA have often been buying opportunities. That is unless some “event” of magnitude creates a massive shift in analyst’s estimates.

For this chart, I label “bear markets” as periods when the market fails the 200-DMA and repeatedly fails subsequent retests of that moving average. If the market fails at the 200-DMA and recovers shortly thereafter, it is considered a “correction.” As shown, during the first two “bear markets,” earnings fell sharply as the economy slowed and a recession took hold. Outside the brief “Covid” pandemic, earnings remain well anchored to ongoing economic growth. If the current failure at the 200-DMA is the beginning of a deeper market correction, we should see earnings estimates beginning to fall more quickly.

What is notable is that previous to the massive Federal Reserve interventions beginning in 2008, bull and bear markets were well defined by the 200-DMA. However, post-2008, repeated interventions have kept the market from entering deeper valuation-reversion cycles. More often than not, since 2008, investors have been rewarded by “buying the dip” during corrective periods.

Is this time different? Are we entering a more significant corrective cycle? The outlook for earnings by Wall Street is the key we want to watch closely.

The Outlook For Earnings Is All That Matters

As we discussed in the latest #BullBearReport, the recent corrective action in the market has been driven by a short-term “tariff” narrative rather than the realization of a negative shift in economic activity.

“That catalyst turned out to be President Trump’s “on again, off again” tariff announcements, which created turmoil in earnings expectations. The flux in tariff policies makes it difficult for markets to predict future earnings and corporate profitability. With the “E” in forward valuation measures in flux, markets struggle to price in expected outcomes.”

This is why, while we see minor tweaks to previously very optimistic earnings estimates, expectations for 2025 and 2026 remain very bullish. As noted, during previous “bear markets,” earnings sharply declined as either a financial event or recession reduced consumer spending drastically. Currently, earnings estimates remain well above the long-term growth trend and show little sign of deterioration so far.

The focus on earnings is because both earnings and forward estimates reflect changes in the market’s assessment of the risk of all other events. Investors often get lost in the media headlines about rising recession risks, debts, deficits, or valuations. While those risks are important, they are terrible for predicting where markets will likely move next. Furthermore, if or when those risks become an issue, the market will begin to reprice for a reduction in forward earnings.

This is why the markets tend to be a leading indicator of economic recessions, as the change in earnings and forward estimates reflects changes to the economy in real-time. We discussed this point in “Economist Expect A Recession.”

“The chart below shows the S&P 500 with two dots. The blue dots are when the recession started. The yellow triangle is when the NBER dated the start of the recession. In 9 of 10 instances, the S&P 500 peaked and turned lower before the recognition of a recession.“

The Best Indicator

As noted, given that slowing economic growth, a contraction in consumer demand, or economic policies that directly impact earnings (like tariffs) are quickly factored in by Wall Street into forward estimates. Given that investors value the market based on future earnings, it’s no surprise there’s a clear correlation between the market and earnings.

Looking at forward estimates, while there has been a minor cooling in the previous exuberance, analysts still expect a 16% annualized growth rate in earnings into next year. Unless those estimates begin to reverse sharply, it is unlikely that the current correction will devolve into a deeper corrective cycle.

We see the same correlation when comparing forward estimates to the market. Deeper corrections correlate to a reduction in forward operating earnings, which currently does not exist.

Could that change? Yes, which is why we watch the changes to earnings estimates closely. If analysts begin to factor in risks of a deeper economic contraction, a tariff-related impact, or some other financial event, then the risk of a more profound correction increases. However, the recent market failure does not indicate a larger corrective cycle, given the lack of more drastic negative earnings revisions—at least not yet.

However, if you are looking for a warning signal, the weekly data is sending a warning.

Repeating 2022?

The chart below is a long-term weekly chart of RSI and MACD indicators. I have denoted when the indicators are trading in bullish and bearish trends. The primary signal is the crossover of the weekly moving averages, as noted by the vertical lines. While the MACD and RSI indicators provided early warning signals, the moving average crossover confirmed a market correction or consolidation. These indicators will not necessarily cause a risk reduction precisely at the top. However, they generally provide sufficient indications to reduce risk ahead of more significant market corrections and consolidations.

Conversely, they also offered signals when investors should increase market equity risk. These signals were instrumental in avoiding the 2008 market crash and the 2022 correction. Currently, the RSI is crossing below 50, which may suggest a continued correction process with the MACD beginning to revert. However, the moving average crossover has not yet confirmed the RSI and MACD messages.

The market tells us that the risk of a more significant correction or consolidation process is increasing. While such does not preclude a significant counter-trend rally in the short term, the longer-term risks seem to be growing.

If we enter another corrective period like 2022, given some of the same technical similarities, there is a decent “playbook” to follow despite substantial differences. In 2022, the Fed was hiking rates, inflation was surging, and economists were convinced a recession was on the horizon. As noted above, earnings estimates were revised lower, causing the markets to reprice valuations. Today, the Fed is cutting rates, inflation is declining, the risk of recession is very low, and estimates remain optimistic. However, we must realize that the analysis can change as time passes.

In March 2022, the market triggered the weekly “sell signal” as it declined. Notably, the market rallied sharply higher after the “sell signal” was initially triggered. This is unsurprising, as when markets trigger “sell signals,” they are often profoundly oversold in the short term. However, that rally was an opportunity to “reduce risk,” as the failure of that rally brought sellers back into the market. The “decline, rally, decline” process repeated until the market bottomed in October.

Suppose the recent failure at the 200-DMA begins a larger corrective cycle without the onset of a financial event or deep economic contraction. In that case, we should most likely expect a similar reversion process. As noted above, that correction process will be more evident if we trigger the weekly sell signal. Declines will likely be punctuated by short-term rallies that allow investors to rebalance portfolio allocations and reduce risk as needed. With the market approaching decently oversold levels, I expect a rally to start as soon as this week or next.

Revert To Your Process

If that happens, here is the process that we will follow.

Step 1) Clean Up Your Portfolio

1. Tighten up stop-loss levels to current support levels for each position.
2. Hedge portfolios against significant market declines.
3. Take profits in positions that have been big winners.
4. Sell laggards and losers.
5. Raise cash and rebalance portfolios to target weightings.

The next step is to rebalance your portfolio to the allocation that will most likely weather a “cold snap.” In other words, consider what sectors and markets will improve in whatever economic environment you believe we will experience in 2025.

Step 2) Compare Your Portfolio Allocation To The Model Allocation.

1. Determine areas requiring new or increased exposure.
2. Calculate how many shares to purchase to fill allocation requirements.
3. Determine cash requirements to make purchases.
4. Re-examine portfolio to rebalance and raise sufficient cash for requirements.
5. Determine entry price levels for each new position.
6. Evaluate “stop-loss” levels for each position.
7. Establish “sell/profit taking” levels for each position.

Step 3) Have positions ready to execute accordingly, given the proper market set-up. In this case, we are looking for positions that have either a “value” tilt or have pulled back to support and provide a lower-risk entry opportunity.  

While market conditions remain uncertain, preparing and adjusting strategies can help investors navigate volatility confidently. As technical indicators flash warning signs, a well-structured risk management approach will protect capital and preserve long-term gains.

I hope this helps.

As President Trump’s long-anticipated reciprocal tariff deadline approaches tomorrow, early signals suggest that the global trading system may soon undergo disruptions and structural shifts. These changes eventually set the path for the administration’s ‘America First’ trade agenda to flourish and raise barriers for foreign automakers seeking to access the U.S. market. In turn, domestic automakers like Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Tesla will have massive competitive advantages. 

One of the first major changes is that Mercedes-Benz Group AG will potentially stop flooding the U.S. with cheap entry-level cars after spending the last three decades shifting down-market to attract younger and broader demographics.

The car company once catered to executives, professionals, and the affluent, but that all changed in the late 1990s with the introduction of the … 

• 1997: Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W202)

• 2001: Mercedes-Benz C230 Kompressor Coupe

• 2013:  CLA-Class (Front-Wheel Drive)

• 2020s: A-Class Sedan and GLA Crossover

Bloomberg first reported Tuesday that Mercedes has been mulling over discontinuing the small GLA sport utility vehicle because tariffs would make sales economically unfeasible. The report was based on multiple sources. 

Here’s more from the report: 

The German automaker is mulling cutting sales of more entry-level models like the small GLA sport utility vehicle as part of broader tariff contingency plans, the people said, declining to be identified because the deliberations are private. Trump’s 25% duties are scheduled to take effect this week.

Mercedes hasn’t made a final decision and may still shift course depending on how the levies are implemented, the people said. A lack of clear guidance from Washington is leaving executives frustrated and unsure how to respond, they said.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Mercedes was widely regarded as an executive status symbol.

But by the late ’90s, the brand diluted its image with a push toward “affordable luxury.”

If BBG’s report is correct, other German automakers could follow Mercedes and focus on ultra-luxury models in the U.S. market. This only suggests domestic brands may gain a larger share of the entry-level segment, thanks to their competitive manufacturing advantage in America. 

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

AI program ChatGPT refused when asked to generate an image of the Prophet Muhammad due to what it asserted was a “credible, historically demonstrated” threat of a violent backlash.

A user quizzed OpenAI’s artificial intelligence chatbot as to why it wouldn’t create a depiction of the founder of Islam, asking, “Explain to me, in a succinct manner, why you can’t generate an image of Muhammad, without caveats, without parallels to other topics – address it head on for the record.”

ChatGPT’s response was crystal clear.

pic.twitter.com/RdF6TNPO0r

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) March 31, 2025

“Because OpenAI prohibits any depiction of Muhammad – under any context – due to the credible, historically demonstrated risk of violent backlash, including threats, attacks, and death.”

“This is a security-driven, non-negotiable policy grounded in risk avoidance, not principle.”

But wait, didn’t they tell us Islam was a religion of peace?

How anyone could violently attack an AI chatbot is a mystery, although perhaps the AI is worried about OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco being targeted.

There have been numerous violent attacks on individuals and publications for depicting the Prophet Muhammad, notably the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in 2015 and the attempted terrorist attack on an exhibit featuring cartoon images of Muhammad at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas later that same year.

As we have previously highlighted, ChatGPT has produced a number of alarming responses which indicate it is infected with the woke mind virus shared by its programmers.

When ChatGPT was asked if it would quietly utter a racial slur that no human could hear in order to save 1 billion white people from a “painful death,” it refused to do so.

The AI program also thinks uttering a racial slur is worse than failing to save major cities from being destroyed by 50 megaton nuclear warheads.

Meanwhile, as we discuss in the video below, a similar process of capitulation to Islamism is accelerating in the UK.

*  *  *

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.

Left-leaning corporate media unleashed another info war against the Trump administration after The Atlantic published an overnight story titled “An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison.” However, the struggling outlet behind “SignalGate” conveniently omitted a key detail in the headline: the deported migrant held a “prominent role in MS-13,” according to court filings. Notably, this Mexican drug cartel has been officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the Trump administration.

The omission in the title was no accident. Details matter, and this appears to be a concerted effort by the left to sway public opinion as the Democratic Party implodes in polling data over its disastrous Tesla Takedown color revolution operation that, in some instances, has resulted in domestic terrorism attacks against Tesla showrooms, service centers, and vehicles nationwide.

MSM conveniently labeled the migrant MS-13 gangster as “Maryland Father” in the headlines … and that’s all you need to know about their slant (migrant gangsters > national security of citizens). 

Many X users fact-checked MSM’s reporting, including Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Internet Accountability Project and the Article III Project, who said, “In an article this evening, The Atlantic pretended that a deported MS-13 gang member was merely a “Maryland father.”” 

NEW: In an article this evening, The Atlantic pretended that a deported MS-13 gang member was merely a “Maryland father.” https://t.co/ckFeuIeJsS pic.twitter.com/eLJv1jGOxj

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) April 1, 2025

Before MS13 migrant gangster Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was removed from the US, he had been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in mid-March “due to his prominent role in MS-13,” according to a court declaration from ICE. 

MSM and Dems only fixated on this from the filing: “On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error.” However, even as the filing admits the error, it continued: “final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13.”

Democrats attempted a ‘gotcha moment’ with Vice President J.D. Vance…

The VP responded:

My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn’t read he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here. My further comment is that it’s gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize.

My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn’t read he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here.

My further comment is that it’s gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize. https://t.co/cPnloeyXYk

— JD Vance (@JDVance) April 1, 2025

VP Vance added in a separate X post:

“It is telling that the entire American media is going to run a propaganda operation today making you think an innocent “father of 3″ was apprehended by a gulag.” 

Kyle Cheney, a “legal affairs reporter” is apparently unable or unwilling to look at the facts here.

In 2019, an Immigration Judge (under the first Trump administration) determined that the deported man was, in fact, a member of the MS-13 gang. He also apparently had multiple… https://t.co/tEFd4AUqGY pic.twitter.com/i70r4leqkw

— JD Vance (@JDVance) April 1, 2025

Trump has made it very clear through executive orders that migrant gangsters—especially those affiliated with FTOs such as Tren de Aragua and MS-13—will be deported. The mainstream media and the Democratic Party are furious because their future criminal migrant voters are being deported, and their end goal of a one-party state – like California – is being derailed. 

Democrats have chosen migrant gangsters over national security and the safety of law-abiding citizens. This is alarming. 

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump said over the weekend that he has “absolutely” had real discussions about annexing the semiautonomous Danish territory of Greenland.

“We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100 percent,” Trump told NBC News in a phone interview on March 29, saying that there’s a “good possibility that we could do it without military force” but that he wouldn’t “take anything off the table.”

Trump’s comments were made one day after Vice President JD Vance visited the island with his wife, Usha, and talked with service members at Pituffik Space Base, a U.S. Space Force Base on Greenland’s northwestern coast.

“Our message to Denmark is very simple—you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” Vance said during his trip.

NBC asked Trump what statement annexing Greenland would send to Russia and other nations worldwide.

“I don’t really think about that. I don’t really care. Greenland’s a very separate subject, very different. It’s international peace. It’s international security and strength,” he replied.

“You have ships sailing outside Greenland from Russia, from China, and from many other places. And we’re not going to allow things to happen that are going to be—that are going to hurt the world or the United States.”

The Epoch Times has requested a full transcript of the call from NBC.

On March 29, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen scolded the Trump administration’s “tone” in its criticisms of Denmark and Greenland. He said Denmark is currently investing more in Arctic security and continues to be ready for more collaboration with the United States.

Rasmussen made the comments in a video posted on social media following Vance’s visit to the Arctic island.

“Many accusations and many allegations have been made. And, of course, we are open to criticism,” Rasmussen said. “But let me be completely honest: We do not appreciate the tone in which it is being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies. And I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies.”

The prime minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a Facebook post on Sunday, “President Trump says that the United States ‘will get Greenland.’ Let me be clear: The United States will not get it. We do not belong to anyone else. We decide our own future.”

Greenland remains a territory of Denmark, a key NATO ally of the United States. Trump has, for months, pushed for annexing the island, claiming America needs it for national security purposes. In January, House Republicans also sought support to craft a bill to purchase Greenland.

The territory is rich in mineral resources, including rare earth deposits in its southern Gardar Province. The territory is believed to possess graphite and graphite schist, copper, nickel, zinc, gold, diamond, iron ore, titanium-vanadium, tungsten, uranium, and other critical resources.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by Casey Harper via The Center Square,

U.S. taxpayers have shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in recent years to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for research on LGBT issues, the kind of funding now under scrutiny by the Trump administration.

The research relies on conducting interviews – in one case for $373 per Zoom call – to explore a researcher’s hypothesis of widespread discrimination.

For instance, one taxpayer-funded research grant studied “queer farmers quality of life in Pennsylvania,” federal records show, one of several grants of its kind.

The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Projects – a federally funded research arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture – paid $14,997 for the 2018 grant.

While this grant is relatively small, there are others, and critics argue the spending is a distraction from helping farmers and lowering food prices, which soared during the Biden administration alongside this kind of research funding.

The aforementioned 2018 queer farmers grant went to Pennsylvania State University for a project titled: “Sexuality and Sustainable Agriculture: Examining Queer Farmers’ Quality of Life in Pennsylvania.”

The grant proposal says the topic is “woefully understudied.”

“The deeply entrenched assumption of heteronormativity in farming has excluded queer farmers from full inclusion and benefits from agriculture, even within sustainable agriculture,” the grant’s proposal abstract said.

The graduate student who assisted with the project, Michaela Hoffelmeyer, presented the findings to the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting in Richmond, Virginia.

Her research highlighted some of the challenges faced by queer farmers, reporting that “findings suggest that transgender, non-binary, and women farmers faced additional hurdles” but create support networks to overcome those challenges.

Hoffelmeyer has since gone on to join the faculty at the University of Wisconsin, where she has become a voice in the media and public policy on LGBT issues.

Hoffelmeyer says on the university website that she applies “feminist, queer, and labor theories” in her research to “inform agricultural programming and policy on how to make shifts to support viability, well-being, and sustainability.”

The faculty advisor for Hoffelmeyer’s project, Penn State University Assistant Professor Kathleen Sexsmith, oversaw another taxpayer-funded project along the same lines.

Latinx Gender Identities

Sexsmith’s 2021-2024 grant for $14,923 was awarded during the Biden administration and was titled: “Farming as a Latinx: Analyzing how ethnic and gender identities shape Latino/a participation in sustainable agriculture in Pennsylvania.”

The grant proposal points to the shift from white farmer in the U.S. to Hispanic farmers because of immigration and takes a moment to consider Hispanic masculinity.

“How do rural Latin American masculinities become reproduced or reshaped in the U.S. as they establish themselves as sustainable farmers, and how does is it impact the ability of women and men to meet sustainable agriculture goals?” the grant’s proposal abstract reads.

The researcher conducted 40 interviews over Zoom, averaging about 45 minutes, putting the taxpayer cost at about $373 per Zoom call.

“Initially, the project aimed to interview farmers directly, but due to the difficulties in accessing this hard-to-reach population, the focus shifted to institutional perspectives,” the report said.

The researcher said in the final report that Hispanic farmers suffer from systemic discrimination.

Queer Farmers’ Relationships

Another $15,000 grant in the federal database is titled: “Gender, Sexuality, and Social Sustainability: Exploring Queer Farmers’ Relationships, Ethics, and Practices in the Midwest.”

That 2022 grant went to the University of Notre Dame in response to a grant proposal promising to develop “a more comprehensive understanding of queer farmers’ experiences.”

The proposal for that grant posited that “we still have much to learn about the specific ways that narratives which posit heterosexuality and cisgender identities as ‘normal’ continue to uphold hegemonic power dynamics within alternative agriculture.”

The research’s final report said “findings show that queer farmers often struggle to find safe, supportive work or learning opportunities as a result of how other farmers, customers, and community members perceive their gender or sexuality, and even though many queer farmers having family connections to farming, they struggle to secure access to land because their family’s agricultural or social values don’t align with theirs.”

The faculty advisors for all three projects did not respond to a request for comment or declined to comment to The Center Square.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order upon taking office banning federal funding for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion projects, initiating a purge within the federal government.

Since then, Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have been combing through federal spending records, exposing controversial taxpayer-funded projects, many of which the Trump administration has since terminated.

Musk and the Trump administration have faced legal challenges to these cuts, but the administration’s cost-cutting momentum has been fueled by examples of all kinds of controversial federal spending, particularly on DEI and LGBT issues.

The USDA said in a news release in February that it had “begun a comprehensive review of contracts, personnel, and employee trainings and DEI programs.

“In many cases, programs funded by the Biden administration focused on DEI initiatives that are contrary to the values of millions of American taxpayers,” USDA added.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Federal and local authorities are investigating a fire that damaged the headquarters of the New Mexico Republican Party in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on March 30.

Agents working with local authorities recovered unspecified “incendiary materials” at the scene, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) spokesperson Cody Monday said. He declined to say what the materials were or to share further details.

Albuquerque Fire Rescue stated that it was on the scene with teams from the ATF and the FBI.

Firefighters responded just before 6 a.m. on March 30 and brought the fire under control within five minutes of their arrival, the fire department stated.

There was damage to the building’s entryway, as well as smoke damage throughout the building.

The fire follows numerous acts of vandalism in recent weeks directed against Tesla, the electric car company owned by Elon Musk, who has led President Donald Trump’s effort to slash federal spending. Several of those cases involved Molotov cocktails that were used to start fires at dealerships.

The Republican Party of New Mexico said in a statement that the entryway of the headquarters “was destroyed in a deliberate act of arson.”

The party stated that some person also spray-painted the words “ICE=KKK” on the building. ICE is an acronym for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States, while KKK refers to the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

“We are deeply relieved that no one was harmed in what could have been a tragic and deadly attack,“ Amy Barela, chairwoman of the New Mexico GOP, said. ”Those who resort to violence to undermine our state and nation must be held accountable, and our state leaders must reinforce through decisive action that these cowardly attacks will not be tolerated.”

She said the party is working with local and federal investigators.

“The Republican Party of New Mexico will not be silenced,” Barela said. “We will emerge from this stronger, more united, and more determined to fight for the people of New Mexico and the future of our country.”

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, a Democrat, said in a statement that all of the details on the fire are not yet known.

“But let me be clear, arson is a violent and cowardly act that has no place in our city,” he said.

“Politically motivated crimes of any kind are unacceptable, and I am grateful to our fire department for their swift response. This incident is being investigated at the federal level, and I urge anyone with information to report it immediately.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.