iftttwall

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

The Democratic Party is polling about 27 percent approval—and sinking.

In 2024, it lost the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and both the popular vote and the Electoral College, 312-226.

In 2024, Trump won over 46 percent of the Hispanic vote, including a majority of Hispanic men. Trump also likely captured 26 percent of the black male vote, doubling his 2020 total.

In 2024, Trump increased his 2020 vote total in every single state. And he won 89 percent of all the counties in the United States.

On every issue, Democrats sided with strident leftist movements rather than the majority of Americans.

They supported globalism over nationalism, high-priced green energy over lower gas and electricity prices, and an open border and 12 million unaudited illegal aliens over security and legal-only immigration.

They seem unconcerned with our $36 trillion debt or the deterrence lost abroad that led to two theater-wide existential wars.

Democrats stay mum about unfair trade and budget deficits. They prefer the Black Lives Matter fixation on the color of our skin rather than Martin Luther King’s emphasis on the content of our character.

They support allowing biological men to overpower women in female sports events—in opposition to 80 percent of the electorate.

Democrats faced choices after their catastrophic defeat last year.

One, they could have stopped the hemorrhaging of their base of 18-30-year-olds, black men, Hispanics, and Independents by moving toward the center.

They even could have worked with Trump and perhaps sought to take credit for joint successes.

Instead, they doubled down on “resistance” through street-theater terror-chic.

Democrat senators cut a group attack video, each echoing the potty word “sh*t.”

In a House ad, Democratic female members mimicked ninjas, kicking and punching at the camera, as if hitting their Republican opponents.

Former vice presidential candidate and Minnesota governor Tim Walz boasts about kicking the “ass” of Republicans.

“Assh*ole” is now the standard Democrat epithet for Musk, as voiced by Sen. Mark Kelly. “D*ck” is the preferred Musk slur from Sen. Tina Smith.

Xenophobia is also now Democratic chic.

Walz smears Musk, an American citizen, as a “South African nepo baby.”

Other Democrat representatives question Musk’s loyalty, asking, “Which country is he [Musk] loyal to?”

Or they further boast, “We’re [Democrats] going to send Elon back to South Africa.”

An unhinged Rep. Maxine Waters shouts that she wants First Lady Melania Trump deported, given she too is a naturalized citizen.

But those theatrics have now escalated into near overt support for violence.

Democrats are blocking the deportation of dangerous illegal aliens affiliated with the terrorist-designated Tren de Aragua.

They try to stop the deportation of resident alien Mahmoud Khalil—arch Hamas supporter, apologist for the murderers of October 7, and a spokesman for the most violent student group at Columbia.

To stop Elon Musk’s advisory Department of Government Efficiency and its identification of government waste, fraud, and abuse, leftist cabals are now terrorizing Musk’s Tesla brand nationwide.

They seek to destroy cars, dealerships, and charging stations. Individual Tesla owners are sometimes tailed, confronted, and threatened.

Democrats claim no formal role in such terror—but more or less seem to approve of its ends and means.

Left-wing comic Jimmy Kimmel winks and nods on national television about the current violent Tesla terrorist campaign.

Tim Walz celebrates the resulting drop in the Tesla stock price. As Minnesota’s governor overseeing his state’s sizable investment in Tesla, Walz could care less about trash-talking his own taxpayers’ investments.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett boasts that Musk “must be taken down.”

She brags she wants to physically assault Sen. Ted Cruz, who “has to be knocked over the head, like hard”—adding “I think you punch, I think you [sic] OK with punching.”

Crockett even mocked disabled and wheelchair-bound Texas governor Greg Abbott: “You all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there. … And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.”

Former Democratic House member and once-censured Rep. Jamaal Bowman claimed Musk was a “Nazi” and an “incompetent thief.”

Democrat Rep. Al Green was censured by the House for disrupting the Trump joint address to Congress—and led away screaming and shaking his cane at the President in failed efforts to shut down the speech.

Senator minority leader Chuck Schumer, who once issued threats to Supreme Court justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name, now boasts, “We have people going to the Republican districts and going after these Republicans who are voting for this and forcing them to either change their vote or face the consequences.”

Furious at their own increasing impotence, these contemporary Democrat Jacobins are dabbling with their own version of a reign of smut terror.

They are probably too impotent to derail the country, but they are certainly destroying themselves.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a discovery order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that would have required Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to turn over documents and respond to written questions about their role in advising cuts in certain parts of the federal government.

In a ruling issued on March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency stay of Chutkan’s March 12 order, which had largely granted limited, expedited discovery to a coalition of 13 Democratic-led states, requiring Musk and DOGE to produce documents and respond to questions within 21 days.

The appeals court ruled that Musk and DOGE had “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay” and showed that they are likely to prevail in their claim that the lower court must resolve their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery to proceed.

“In particular, petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that the district court was required to decide their motion to dismiss before allowing discovery,” the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling.

Following the appellate court ruling, Chutkan entered a minute order acknowledging the decision. She has canceled a status hearing previously scheduled for March 27.

The case, brought by New Mexico and a coalition of 12 Democratic-led states, challenges the legality of DOGE’s sweeping cost-cutting efforts, which have included the cancellation of federal grants and mass terminations of government employees from jobs identified by DOGE as unneeded.

The plaintiffs argued in their original complaint that Musk is effectively running DOGE without Senate confirmation, allegedly in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

“Oblivious to the threat this poses to the nation, President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the plaintiffs allege. 

“As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”

In a subsequent motion for a temporary restraining order against Musk and DOGE, the states further accused Musk of unlawfully exercising sweeping executive power without Senate confirmation, directing federal agencies to fire employees, cancel contracts, dismantle programs, and access sensitive government data.

In response, government lawyers urged the court to reject the emergency motion. They argued that the states had failed to show any imminent or irreparable harm, and said the restraining order sought was overly broad, legally unsupported, and disconnected from core constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs. Even if Musk were improperly appointed, they argue, sharing data with him or others at DOGE does not, by itself, constitute an illegal exercise of government power. Musk also is not empowered to act without the president’s approval, they said.

Chutkan partially sided with the Democrat-led states on March 12, ordering Musk, DOGE, and related entities to turn over documents about firing federal workers and altering government databases. She also required DOGE to identify everyone who has led or worked at the agency since President Donald Trump took office, and list all agencies where DOGE or Musk canceled contracts, cut grants, or terminated employees.

Trump and Musk have both said that DOGE has been assisting various agencies that have fired or offered buyouts to tens of thousands of federal workers since Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Musk, as a special government employee, has been tasked by Trump to lead DOGE to help fulfill his campaign pledge of reducing waste, streamlining federal operations, and cutting red tape.

The DOGE team has taken quick action to audit and pursue reforms across federal agencies. It recently reported $130 billion in savings through canceled grants, asset sales, workforce reductions, and terminated contracts and leases.

Critics of DOGE have argued that its activities raise security and oversight issues, with a number of lawsuits filed challenging its operations.

Musk recently revealed that the DOGE team has been receiving death threats on a daily basis.

“The DOGE team is getting death threats every single day,” Musk said during a March 24 White House cabinet meeting. “They’re just trying to do the right thing for the American taxpayer and for the American people.”

Authored by Alex Younger via The Mises Institute,

So much has been written about why we should end the Federal Reserve, and with the recent public demand for an audit, the message has finally reached the masses. Hopefully, if such an audit manifests, it will be the first step toward ultimately dismantling the Federal Reserve. (We should start with the extremely shady Bank Term Funding Program). But very little has been written about how to end the Federal Reserve, and that is what I wish to address here.

The How

You may read through my proposed plan and disagree with me on the details. But we must agree on this point: The key objective is to minimize any fluctuations in the current money supply as best we can. This can be done in a delicate manner that might even go unnoticed by the market, outlined in 5 steps:

1. Revoke All Federal Reserve Monetary Policy Privileges

The Federal Reserve should no longer have the ability to directly manipulate the money supply. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

2. Lock Down All Debt Assets on the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet

This refers to all assets on the balance sheet with a contractual expiration, such as US Treasuries, mortgage-backed securities, and other loan types. These assets make up roughly 99 percent of the Fed’s balance sheet. Rather than selling them, they should be allowed to expire naturally over the next 30 years—the longest duration of USTs and MBSs. During this period, the Fed may still collect interest payments on these assets and reinvest them to prevent removing those funds from the monetary base.

3. Gradually Sell Off Non-Expiring Assets

Any assets on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet that lack a contractual expiration should be sold off gradually over a period of 1 to 5 years. At present, I have been unable to find a reliable estimate of how much of this asset type exists, but I suspect it is relatively small—possibly less than a billion dollars.

4. The Federal Reserve Becomes a True Private Institution with No Special Legal Privileges

The Federal Reserve should operate as a fully private institution, stripped of any special legal banking privileges. Its only remaining advantages would be its established market position, its role in facilitating bank-to-bank lending, the interest payments from existing assets on its books, and its historical significance. This is far more than it deserves, but the primary objective must be to dismantle its power without triggering economic catastrophe.

5. If the Federal Reserve Cannot Function as a Private Bank

If the Federal Reserve fails to maintain its market position—which is likely, given that it has never truly faced competition—then major banks will need to determine among themselves how to facilitate interbank lending. They may assign central banking functions to other private institutions, operating within the limits of private banking law. Alternatively, the market may simply deem the Federal Reserve obsolete, allowing it to wither away naturally. Either outcome would be entirely acceptable.

The Balance Sheet Details

As of this writing, the Federal Reserve holds $6.8 trillion on its balance sheet. This follows a sharp 25 percent reduction from its previous $8.9 trillion over the past two years—a decrease of $2.1 trillion. In other words, the Fed initially printed $8.9 trillion and used this newly-created money to purchase assets in the market.

What has the Federal Reserve been buying? Primarily US debt. Our financial system functions like an ouroboros, with the Federal Reserve acting as a perpetual buyer of new government debt—funded by printed money. As of this writing, the Fed holds approximately $5 trillion of the national debt and artificially inflates domestic demand for it. Ending the Federal Reserve would severely restrict the government’s ability to create new debt, forcing a fundamental shift in government spending policy:

Fed Balance Sheet Composition

Currently, $4.2 trillion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet consists of US Treasury bonds (USTs), while another $2.2 trillion is made up of mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Together, these two asset classes account for $6.4 trillion, or about 94 percent of the total balance sheet. The remaining 6 percent is a mix of various other debt securities, including corporate debt, federal agency debt, and other loan types, all of which also have contractual expiration dates.

Natural Expiration of Debt Assets

Let’s consider the potential consequences of abandoning current monetary policy and requiring the Federal Reserve to let its debt assets naturally roll off the balance sheet. Debt contracts have expiration dates, meaning that once they reach maturity, they expire worthless and can simply be removed from the balance sheet without active intervention. This approach would gradually shrink the Fed’s holdings over time, reducing its influence on the financial system without the immediate shock of mass asset sales.

Here is a projection of the balance sheet over the next 30 years under this plan:

Projection of Assets Naturally Expiring on Fed Balance Sheet.

The debt expirations are front-loaded, meaning the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet would experience a sharp initial decline before tapering off over time. In the first year, we would see a significant 10 percent reduction, which would gradually level out to a 1.7 percent decrease per year. On average, the decline would be around 3.1 percent annually.

This projection assumes the Fed has purchased debt with an evenly distributed range of expiration dates across different maturity groups, which is likely accurate. In reality, the actual decline would be somewhat more volatile due to variations in the composition of the Fed’s holdings.

Not Quantitative Tightening

The key advantage of this approach is that it differs from traditional quantitative tightening. No funds would be actively removed from banks’ reserves—those reserves would remain at their current levels. Instead, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet would shrink passively as debt assets naturally expire, avoiding the disruptive liquidity drain that comes with aggressive asset sales.

To fully understand this, a brief crash course in quantitative tightening (QT) is necessary. Admittedly, there is a certain genius to the way Federal Reserve monetary policy operates. When the Fed tightens, it sells assets from its balance sheet to primary dealers (large banks) on the open market. The Federal Reserve essentially functions as a “bank for big banks,” where major US banks store their reserves much like a savings account. These reserves not only remain at the Fed but also earn interest, just like a traditional savings account. This structure allows the Fed to influence liquidity in the financial system without directly impacting the day-to-day operations of commercial banks, making its monetary policy more indirect but highly effective.

When the Fed sells assets to primary dealers, it sells to banks that already have reserve accounts at the Fed. This means the money used to purchase these assets is already parked at the Federal Reserve. When the Fed either sells securities or allows them to mature without reinvesting, two things happen simultaneously: 1) the Fed’s assets decrease as the securities leave its balance sheet; 2) the bank’s reserve account at the Fed decreases by the same amount. These two changes cancel each other out, effectively removing that portion of the monetary base from circulation. This is how quantitative tightening (QT) functions—it contracts the money supply by destroying reserves, rather than directly pulling cash from the economy.

The key difference in my proposed approach is that the Fed would continue receiving interest payments on its remaining assets for the duration of their terms. The most realistic scenario is that these funds will be used to pay interest on reserves held by banks at the Fed, allowing normal banking operations to continue without disruption. However, unless the Fed finds an alternative revenue source, the interest on reserves rate can be expected to gradually decline over the next 30 years as assets roll off the balance sheet. This slow adjustment provides banks with ample time to determine how to manage their reserves in a post-Fed environment.

Inflationary vs. Deflationary Pressures

One likely outcome of this transition would be an increase in business investment by big banks. The interest on reserves paid by the Fed has historically discouraged banks from investing in the open market. From the bank’s perspective, why would I go make a risky investment into some startup, or some business which could hit rough waters and default, when I could just park my assets at the Fed and make a risk-free 4.4 percent? Basically, the Fed has been paying banks to not loan you money.

As the Fed’s ability to pay interest on reserves diminishes over time, banks would have a stronger incentive to deploy their capital elsewhere, likely fueling greater investment in businesses, loans, and other market-driven opportunities. This new pressure on banks to seek better investment opportunities within the first five years of this transition will create an inflationary counterbalance to the deflationary pressure that naturally comes with ending the Fed.

As banks shift their reserves into the market, increased lending and investment could stimulate economic activity, offsetting the contractionary effects of removing the Fed’s artificial demand for debt. This dynamic could help stabilize prices during the transition, preventing a sudden economic shock while still moving toward a more market-driven monetary system.

Conclusion

The ideal outcomes from this arrangement would be the following:

• The Fed loses its extra-legal authority, operating solely as a private institution;

• Direct central planning of interest rates ends, eliminating monetary supply manipulation;

• Minimal fluctuation in the money supply, as bank reserves remain unaffected and the Fed continues receiving interest payments on its debt assets, preventing a liquidity drain;

• Market stability, with little disruption to economic equilibrium;

• Slight dollar appreciation, as the deflationary effects of ending the Fed are counterbalanced by banks investing their reserves;

• No rush for banks to find alternative bank-to-bank lending solutions, ensuring a smooth transition;

• No need to rewrite ACH payment systems, which currently rely on the Federal Reserve;

• Greater urgency in reducing federal debt, as an appreciating currency increases the real debt burden;

• A shift toward more prudent and productive financial behavior, as stronger purchasing power encourages saving and discourages reckless debt accumulation.

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge has declined a request by the Trump administration that she remove herself from overseeing a lawsuit challenging an executive action targeting Perkins Coie LLP, accusing the Justice Department of attacking her character in an effort to undermine the integrity of the judicial system.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling that a Trump administration filing seeking her recusal was “rife with innuendo” and that none of the claims it put forward “come close to meeting the standard for disqualification.”

“Though this adage is commonplace, and the tactic overused, it is called to mind by defendants’ pending motion to disqualify this Court: ‘When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger,’” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in a March 26 ruling.

President Donald Trump’s action issued on March 6 prevents law firm Perkins Coie from doing business with federal contractors and blocks its lawyers from accessing government officials.

Additionally, it suspends any active security clearances held by individuals at the firm, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.

Perkins Coie was hired by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

According to the presidential action issued by Trump, the law firm has engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” that has affected the United States “for decades.”

The firm sued the administration over the order in federal court in Washington on March 11, alleging Trump’s actions violated its rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a week after Trump’s executive action was first issued, Howell temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing much of it, finding the law firm was likely to win its lawsuit.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked for the case to be moved to another judge in Washington’s federal court, citing Howell’s public comments about the president and her connection with key aspects of the case.

“This Court has not kept its disdain for President Trump secret,” Chad Mizelle, acting associate attorney general at the DOJ, wrote in a motion seeking her disqualification. 

“It has voiced its thoughts loudly—both inside and outside the courtroom.”

Speaking inside the court, Mizelle also pointed to now-former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump, during which he said that Howell found “reason to believe that the former President would ‘flee from prosecution.’”

The judge also “pierced attorney-client privilege, ordering President Trump’s attorney to testify before a D.C. grand jury” investigating his alleged retention of classified documents in the South Florida case, he said.

Mizelle added that Howell also previously rejected Trump’s view that the indictments against individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol were a “national injustice” and called his supporters “sore losers.”

In her 21-page ruling, Howell wrote that when the DOJ “engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge.”

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she added.

The judge said she welcomed the Trump administration’s opportunity “to set the record straight, because facts matter.”

“Every litigating party deserves a fair and impartial hearing to determine both what the material facts are and how the law best applies to those facts,” she wrote. 

“That fundamental promise, however, does not entitle any party—not even those with the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—to demand adherence to their own version of the facts and preferred legal outcome.”

“The clear absence of any legitimate basis for disqualification requires denial” of the DOJ’s request that she recuse herself from the case, the judge said.

Howell is set to decide in the coming weeks whether to extend her block on Trump’s order against Perkins Coie.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Perkins Coie for comment.

Let’s start with this week’s chaotic events surrounding the bankrupt genetic testing startup, 23andMe Holding Co.: 

• Monday: 23andMe Files For Bankruptcy, CEO Resigns – Fate Of Americans’ DNA Data Now In Court-Supervised Sale

• Tuesday: US Official Alleges 23andMe Sold Americans’ DNA Data To Pharma Companies Owned By Foreign Adversaries

• Wednesday: 23andMe Customers Panic To Delete Genetic Data

Fast-forward to Thursday: Bloomberg reports the worst fear for 15 million 23andMe customers: US Bankruptcy Judge Brian C. Walsh has granted the defunct genetic testing startup permission to sell its massive genetic database, potentially ending up in the hands of private equity firms that will find new ways to monetize the sensitive data. 

Here’s more from the report:

Under the sale procedures, the company set quick deadlines for potential bidders, including May 7 when definitive offers are due, and a final hearing the following month.

But US Bankruptcy Judge Brian C. Walsh required the company to slow the overall pace by two weeks, in part to accommodate his schedule and in part to give creditors a chance to weigh in before the court makes a final decision on a buyer.

“My overall reaction to the timeline is that it’s pretty tight,” Walsh said at the company’s first bankruptcy hearing, held in St. Louis. At his request, the company agreed to push back the final court hearing for possible sale from June 2 to June 17.

Walsh’s ruling didn’t resolve concerns raised by the looming auction of the sensitive data or complaints from shareholders about the months 23andMe spent trying to find a buyer before filing for court protection earlier this week.

. . . 

Walsh at the hearing said speed in the sale process is partly justified because the company spent so much time trying to find a buyer before it filed bankruptcy. But the goal, he added, should be to “balance the desire to move quickly with the desire to avoid collateral damage.”

More color: 

Carole J. Ryczek, a lawyer with the US Trustee’s office, which acts as a public watchdog in bankruptcy court, told Walsh that a privacy ombudsman is necessary to oversee the sale of customers’ private genetic information.

The bankruptcy case “needs a neutral third party” involved in the sale process to protect customers, Ryczek said. Company lawyers and company investment bankers declined to comment on the value of the customer data.

Walsh declined to say whether he would support a consumer privacy ombudsman, or how he would respond to a demand by two investors that he appoint an official committee to represent shareholders. Those shareholders complained about how the company tried to sell itself before filing for court protection.

23andMe lawyer Grace Hotz argued that an ombudsman was unnecessary because of the extensive privacy policies. Under the US Bankruptcy Code, companies cannot sell personally identifiable information about a consumer unless the sale conforms to the firm’s privacy policies or until after an ombudsman is appointed.

23andMe’s shares in New York have been on a rollercoaster—from the bankruptcy news that sent them crashing below $1 at the start of the week to erupting as much as 158% earlier today after the judge granted the defunct startup permission to sell customer data…

The takeaway for consumers is to never hand over your biometric data to corporations, the government, or anyone else—those who did are now on a list that will be sold to the highest bidder. 

Moments ago, the Treasury sold the week’s final coupon auction and after a stellar stopping through 2Y sale, a mediocre, tailing 5Y, today’s 7Y was the ugliest of the lot.

Stopping at a high yield of 4.233%, the auction yielded 0.4bps more than February and also tailed then When Issued 4.227% by 0.06bps; this was the first tail for the 7Y tenor since August 2024.

The bid to cover dropped to 2.534 from 2.638, the lowest since August 2024, and obviously below the six-auction average of 2.69.

But it was the internals there were downright atrocious, as Indirects were awarded only 61.2%, down from 66.1%, and the lowest since March 22! At the same time, Directs jumped to 26.1% (the most since, yes, March 22), which left just 12.7% to Dealers.

Overall, this was the ugliest 7Y auction in years, and while not as catastrophic as the legendary Feb 2021 auction which was, for all intents and purposes, failed, the taste left in investors’ mouths after the dismal lack of foreign demand will reverberate for a long time, because it has been a while since we saw such ugly auctions on days when the market is melting down.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said this week that the Department of Energy (DOE) had further postponed the effective dates for three Biden-era home appliance mandates.

The mandates were previously postponed in February. The department has delayed “effective dates for three home appliance rules: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Efficiency Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, and Efficiency Standards for Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters,” according to the DOE’s March 24 statement.

The department has also officially withdrawn four conservation standards that applied to ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, external power supplies, and electric motors.

The decision “marks a key step in lowering costs, enhancing performance, and expanding options for American consumers,” the department said.

The Biden-era rule on central air conditioners and heat pumps amended test procedures for these appliances, with manufacturers required to use the new test procedures on their products. The effective date of the rule was Feb. 6.

Regulations on coolers, freezers, and gas water heaters amended energy conservation standards for these appliances, with the updated rules initially set to be effective from Feb. 21, and regulations for gas water heaters initially to be effective from March 11.

At the time, the DOE, under the Biden administration, said that the updates “would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.”

In 2023, consumer watchdog Alliance for Consumers calculated the cost of President Joe Biden’s regulations on appliances such as water heaters, air conditioners, gas stoves, and other devices. The watchdog found that these measures would cost the average American household more than $9,100.

In its decision to delay the effective dates of the three home appliance rules, the DOE said it acted in accordance with President Donald Trump’s Jan. 31 executive order “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.”

The presidential action aims to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” and prevent the federal regulation from imposing “massive costs on the lives of millions of Americans.”

Wright said that the DOE is taking “critical steps” to help American families prosper under the Trump administration.

“By removing burdensome regulations put in place by the Biden administration, we are returning freedom of choice to the American people, ensuring consumers can choose the home appliances that work best for their lives and budgets,” Wright said. “This power should not belong to the federal government.”

Tackling Appliance Rules

Republican lawmakers have taken action against the Biden administration’s policies targeting appliances.

In January, the House passed a resolution to repeal energy standards targeting consumer gas-fired instantaneous water heaters. Eleven lawmakers from the Democratic Party joined Republicans in voting for the resolution.

At the time, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that the American people “made it clear they want lower costs and more choices, and we are keeping our promise to undo the damage of the last administration.”

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) supported the resolution, criticizing the new standards for gas water heaters, warning that the rules would push up costs and create “unnecessary challenges,” thus significantly affecting builders and homeowners.

“The push for a shift to more expensive condensing gas water heaters presents substantial hurdles for remodeling and replacement projects, especially in older homes,” the association said in January. “Furthermore, NAHB is concerned that this rule is part of a broader agenda to phase out natural gas appliances, ultimately limiting consumer choice and driving up utility costs.”

DOE also said in February that it was developing a new energy efficiency category for natural gas tankless water heaters.

“Creating a new category for these popular and low-cost water heaters exempts these products from the Biden–Harris Administration’s onerous rules and gives the American people the power to choose the best option for their homes and budgets,” the department said.

Update: Moments ago, the Department of Health and Human Services released its plan to “save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year through a reduction in workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees as part of this latest transformation.”

HHS will “streamline the functions of the Department. Currently, the 28 divisions of the HHS contain many redundant units. The restructuring plan will consolidate them into 15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy. Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5,” the agency wrote in the press release. 

The overhaul is focused on HHS’s new priority: Ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. 

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy stated, “We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” adding, “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

*   *   * 

The Wall Street Journal has obtained documents indicating that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is preparing to announce large job cuts to overhaul the nation’s health agencies. The plan builds on broader cuts by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s DOGE to reduce the size of the bloated federal government that has plundered taxpayer monies for far too long.

Kennedy plans to cut as many as 10,000 employees from the department, adding to the 10,000 who have already left through voluntary severance offers since President Trump took office. 

Documents reviewed by WSJ indicate that, when combined with voluntary departures, the planned cuts would reduce the department’s workforce by 25%—bringing it down to 62,000 federal health employees. The plan would also halve the number of regional offices from 10 to 5. 

WSJ provided more color on the cuts:

As part of the 10,000 workers to be let go, the Trump administration plans to cut: 3,500 full-time employees from the Food and Drug Administration—or about 19% of the agency’s workforce 2,400 employees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—or about 18% of its workforce 1,200 employees from the National Institutes of Health—or about 6% of its workforce 300 employees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—or about 4% of its workforce.

More broadly, the Trump administration’s cuts to the bloated federal government and unelected bureaucracy—often called the ‘shadow government‘—are beginning to filter through the jobs data (first here) with continuing jobless claims in Washington, D.C, now at their highest level since 2021 (now here).

Jobless claims continue to rise across Virginia, DC, and Maryland – an area also known as “Deep Tristate” – where federal workers live and play with free money from taxpayers… Now the party is over:

In addition to a softening labor market across the Deep Tristate, the D.C. housing market is being flooded with inventory (more MLS data here). 

Kennedy’s HHS cuts, set to be announced later today, add to the mounting headwinds for the Deep Tristate, as cracks emerge in both the labor and housing markets. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For many of us who were long active in Democratic politics, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the party as a new generation of foul-mouthed, censorship-supporting, mob-enabling leaders take over. 

That sense returned this week when Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) claimed that the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.” 

Goldman’s latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cords of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society.

Democratic leaders have been fueling the attacks on Musk and his companies, even putting national security interests aside to seek to punish him.

Goldman (and other Democrats) have previously pushed back on criticism of Antifa and left-wing attacks. However, Goldman’s criticism of the FBI task force on these widespread attacks is otherworldly.

Goldman this week declared:

“This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ [sic] on adversaries of Musk’s [sic]. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?”

This is the political weaponization of the DOJ.

Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk.

The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to “crack down” on adversaries of Musk’s.

Where are the Republicans so opposed to “lawfare”? https://t.co/PZFbafcZ8V

— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) March 25, 2025

There are have widespread attacks on Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships, including multiple arson attacks. 

It is clearly political violence orchestrated against an American company and American property owners, including individual citizens, to push consumers away from buying Musk products and associations.

That sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism. The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

I have long criticized the expansion of terrorism definitions. However, this fits even the narrowest definitions. It is political violence designed to intimidate and harm those with opposing political views.

The fact that they are lone wolves like Daniel Clarke-Pounder, 24, who set himself on fire after throwing Molotov cocktails, does not change that criminal intent.

The Democrats have long been accused of belittling or dismissing the seriousness of such crimes. That was the case with Molotov-cocktail throwing lawyers in New York who were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.

It is also evident in the reaction to the recent attack on a conservative in the New York subway. There is a sense of license among some on the left in carrying out attacks on those on the right.

This is how rage rhetoric of leaders like Goldman can fuel violent rage in the most unhinged elements of their party. As I previously wrote:

“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.”

Once released by the rage from the confines of reason and civility, it is easy to dismiss the investigation of political violence as “political weaponization.” In attacking the FBI investigation, Goldman is the very voice of an age of rage.

*  *  *

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.”

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Boeing, the engineering company behind the failed mission that left two astronauts stranded in space, received $6.4 billion in contracts from NASA between fiscal years 2021 and 2024, according to federal data reviewed by OpenTheBooks. Only CalTech, which manages NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, received more money.

Key facts: Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft experienced a thruster malfunction during its first manned flight last June. The ship was forced to return to Earth unmanned, leaving Sunita Williams and Barry Wilmore stuck at the International Space Station.

NASA’s inspector general later released an audit of Boeing’s Exploration Upper Stage launch system — a project unrelated to Starliner, but one that sheds light on deeper issues within the company.

The audit found “quality control issues” with Boeing’s work attributed to “the lack of a sufficient number of trained and experienced aerospace workers at Boeing.”

The Defense Contract Management Agency issued 71 Corrective Action Requests to Boeing between 2021 and 2023, asking the company to fix its quality control problems. But the company was “nonresponsive in taking corrective actions,” the inspector general wrote.

The audit found the its part of the Artemis IV mission — which is supposed to take us back to the moon — is six years behind schedule and an estimated $1.8 billion over budget. It’s now expected to cost $2.8 billion by the time it is used in 2028.

The inspector general recommended that NASA work with Boeing to create a training program for the company’s employees and give Boeing “financial penalties” for not meeting quality control standards.

Boeing’s work on the launch system is documented online, but the public would have no way of finding it by checking USAspending.gov, which is supposed to catalog all federal contracts. The website lists $2.7 billion sent to Boeing for the Ares I project, which has not existed since 2010.

A NASA spokesperson said the money had been shifted to the space launcher system at the request of Congress.

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Summary: The federal government would be wise to investigate companies’ quality control before awarding them billions of dollars worth of contracts, not years after the fact.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com