iftttwall

The soft agricultural market has seen a rollercoaster of performances, with orange juice, cocoa, cattle, and coffee hitting record highs amid persistent global supply concerns. These trends show little sign of abating and are expected to continue into 2025. 

“Before it’s too late, order your espresso. It will be more expensive in 2025, and anyone trading — or observing — energy and commodity markets into the new year will need caffeine to survive,” Bloomberg Opinion and commodities columnist Javier Blas wrote in a note.

With 2025 just days away, traders eagerly search for broader commodity insights into what the new year may bring. 

Blas provided readers with five commodity themes for 2025 that he will be monitoring: 

1. The OPEC+ oil cartel is on the ropes. Having delayed a production increase by already six months, it’s unlikely that the group will be able to hike output in 2025 unless Trump comes to the rescue. Global oil demand growth in the new year is likely to reach around one million barrels a day, lower than the expected output growth from non-OPEC+ countries. The squeeze is the result of several years of high oil prices that have encouraged OPEC+’s rivals to invest in new output capacity.

Trump could alter the equation if he tightly enforces current American oil sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. For nearly four years, the Biden administration turned a blind eye on rising oil exports from both countries. If the incoming US president hits Tehran and Caracas, Saudi Arabia can use the opportunity to hike production. Otherwise, I don’t see much space for extra Saudi crude.

But Trump can create trouble for OPEC+, too, via two policies. One is his threat of a trade war, not only with Canada and Mexico, but also with the European Union and China, that could derail economic growth. The second is loosening regulations for American drilling. Trump has insisted his top priority is lower energy prices and more US oil and gas production, so, on balance, OPEC+ is likely to struggle. Yet, with Brent trading close to $70 a barrel, oil isn’t the easy short it was when it was close to $100 a barrel.

 

2. Like OPEC+, British oil major BP Plc is also on the ropes. The company has been a disaster in the stock market, down more than 20% over the last five years. At current prices, its market value has declined to about $75 billion, a fraction of the $250 billion nearly two decades ago. The company has a key date with its shareholders in early February, when it’s scheduled to update its strategy.

The strategic update may give some investors a reason to stick with the company, but it will put the spotlight on two negatives: BP will effectively issue a profit warning. It previously guided the market to expect earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation (Ebitda) as high as $49 billion in 2025. The true number is probably at least $10 billion lower. With that, share buybacks are likely to be lowered too, from a current pace of $1.75 billion a quarter to something far more affordable — say, $1 billion — to protect the balance sheet. In the oil business, the credit rating comes ahead of the shareholders. Lower earnings and a smaller share repurchase could kill investor appetite for the stock, however, and open the door for a corporate deal. I have argued in the past that the company should seek a merger with a rival and see that as a high chance in 2025. The most obvious one is Shell Plc.

 

3. Watching OPEC+ and BP will require a steady supply of coffee. Brace yourself for higher prices. Brazil and Vietnam, the world’s top producers of the Arabica and Robusta bean varieties, face a crop shortfall. This could be the fifth consecutive season where coffee consumption surpasses production , which is unprecedented. In late 2024, the price of Arabica surged to an all-time high, surpassing the nominal peak set in 1977. It may not be enough to keep the market balanced. Coffee traders believe that if the Brazilian crop doesn’t recover — something unlikely — prices may need to climb from about 350 cents a pound currently to somewhere between 400 cents and 500 cents. Coffee roasters will in turn raise retail prices, particularly for the espresso made from Arabica beans.

While you’re bracing yourself for higher-for-longer coffee, add hot chocolate to your list. The crops in West Africa, the region that accounts for 70% of the world’s cocoa production, haven’t recovered as much as previously expected, and prices are at record highs.

 

4. Coal is one of the commodities that receives less attention — despite its still-huge importance to the energy system and the fight against climate change. For years, many have considered it to be “dead” or “dying.” At the COP26 climate change conference in 2021 in Glasgow, the world agreed to “consign coal to history.” But it’s alive, omnipotent and omnipresent. In 2024, the world consumed a record amount, and 2025 will be a pivotal year to see whether a change of trend occurs.

I’m pessimistic because China has adopted coal as the cornerstone of its energy system, with renewables as a complement. The Asian nation alone consumes 30% more coal that the rest of the world altogether, endangering any progress to stop global warming.

 

5. Iron ore is, alongside coal, one of those raw materials that is often overlooked. It isn’t a mainstay of commodity investing in financial markets. But it’s key for the profitability of global mining groups and steelmakers alike. And it’s a great barometer of economic activity in China. Its price has dropped to $100 per metric ton now from more than $200 in 2021.

The new year could mark an inflection point for the commodity: Chinese steel production probably reached a zenith between 2022 and 2024, and at best, it would be able to sustain an elevated plateau in 2025. Because China nowadays produces more than half of the world’s steel, what happens there matters enormously. Crucially, iron-ore supply is going to increase next year too, including from a new source of low-cost production: Guinea in West Africa. Put the two forces together, and the iron-ore market may enter the first of several years of surpluses. Lower prices beckon in 2025.

Additional insight for the commodity trade ahead of the new year comes from a recent note by BofA’s Michael Hartnett, who stated, “The commodity bull market is just starting.”

Hartnett wrote in September that while most commodities appear to be in a secular bear market right now – once again mostly thanks to China’s economic slowdown – that is about to change: that’s because the secular commodity bull market in the 2020s (11% annualized returns) just getting started…

…. as debt, deficits, demographics, reverse-globalization, AI and net zero policies all inflationary.

For more on commodities, The Market Ear noted: “The Commodity Comeback: Secular Bull Just Getting Started?”

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Crises are never caused by building excessive exposure to high-risk assets. Crises can only happen when investors, government bodies, and households accumulate risk in assets where most believe there is little to no risk.

The 2008 crisis did not occur due to subprime mortgages. Those were the tips of the iceberg. Moreover, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, state-owned entities, guaranteed the subprime mortgage packages, which prompted numerous investors and banks to invest in them. Nobody can anticipate a crisis stemming from the potential decline in the Nvidia share price or the value of Bitcoin. In fact, if the 2008 crisis had been created by subprime mortgages, it would have been absorbed and offset in less than two weeks.

The only asset that can really create a crisis is the part of banks’ balance sheets that is considered “no risk” and, as such, requires no capital to finance their holdings: government bonds. When the price of sovereign bonds swiftly declines, the banks’ balance sheet rapidly shrinks. Even if central banks conduct quantitative easing, the spillover effect on other assets leads to the abrupt destruction of the money base and lending.

The collapse in the price of the allegedly safest asset, government bonds, comes when investors must sell their existing holdings and fail to purchase the new supply issued by the states. Persistent inflation consumes the real returns of previously purchased bonds, leading to the emergence of evident solvency problems.

In summary, a financial crisis serves as evidence of the state’s insolvency. When the lowest-risk asset abruptly loses value, the entire asset base of commercial banks dissolves and falls faster than the ability to issue shares or bank bonds. In fact, banks are unable to increase capital or add debt due to the declining demand for sovereign bonds, as banks are perceived as a leveraged bet on government debt.

Banks do not cause financial crises. What creates a crisis is regulation, which always considers lending to governments a “no-risk,” “no capital required” investment even when solvency ratios are poor. Because the currency and government debt are inextricably linked, the financial crisis first manifests in the currency, which loses its purchasing power and leads to elevated inflation, and then in sovereign bonds.

Keynesianism and the MMT fallacy have driven global public debt to record levels. Furthermore, the burden of unfunded liabilities is even larger than the trillions of dollars of government debt issued. The United States’ unfunded liabilities exceed 600% of GDP, according to the Financial Report of the United States Government, February 2024. In the European Union, according to Eurostat, France and Germany each accumulate unfunded liabilities that exceed 350% of GDP.

According to Claudio Borio of the Bank for International Settlements, a government debt glut may cause a bond market correction that could spill over into other assets. Reuters reports that large government budget deficits suggest that sovereign debt could rise by a third by 2028 to approach $130 trillion, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF) financial services trade group.

Keynesians always say that public debt does not matter because the government can issue all it needs and has unlimited taxation power. It is simply false.

Governments cannot issue all the debt they need to finance their deficit spending. They have three clear limits:

1. The economic limit: Rising public deficits and debt cease to function as purported tools to stimulate economic growth, instead becoming a hindrance to productivity and economic development. Despite this completely false theory, most governments continue to portray themselves as engines of growth. Today, this is more evident than ever before. In the United States, every new dollar of debt brings less than 60 cents of nominal GDP growth. In France, the situation is particularly alarming, as a 6% GDP deficit results in a stagnant economy.

2. The fiscal limit: Rising taxes generate lower-than-expected receipts, and debt continues to rise. Keynesianism believes in government as an engine of growth when it is a burden that does not create wealth and only consumes what has been created by the private sector. When taxes become confiscatory, tax receipts fail to rise, and debt soars regardless.

3. The inflationary limit: more currency printing and government spending creates persistent annualised inflation, making citizens poorer and the real economy weaker.

In most developed nations, the three limits have been clearly exceeded, but it seems that no government is willing to reduce its spending, and without spending cuts, there is no debt reduction.

Irresponsible governments, forgetting that their role is to administer scarce resources rather than create debt, will trigger the next crisis. Countries like Brazil and India are seeing their currencies plummet due to concerns about the sustainability of public finances and the risk of borrowing more while inflation remains high. The euro has plummeted due to the combination of France’s fiscal woes and bureaucrats’ demands for Germany to increase its deficit spending.

As always, the next crisis will be attributed to the final drop that causes the dam to collapse, but it will also be caused—as always—by government debt. Politicians’ lack of concern stems from the fact that taxpayers, families, and businesses will bear the brunt of all the adverse consequences. When the debt crisis arises, Keynesians and astute politicians will argue that the solution demands increased public spending and debt. You and I will pay.

No government is willing to give you, as an investor, a real positive return on holdings of their debt. The most important investment decision for the next five years is to protect ourselves from currency debasement.

If you had Obama-era Deep State operatives praising the man who the establishment has demonized as a “threat to democracy” on your bingo card, come on down to claim your prize.

In what is sure to raise eyebrows across the political world, former CIA director John Brennan issued rare kind words for President-Elect Donald Trump’s second transition team, saying it has thus far operated in “more serious and professional fashion than in 2016.“

“I know that there is engagement between the Biden Department of State and the incoming Trump team,” Brennan told MSNBC’s Alicia Menendez over the weekend. 

Former CIA Director Brennan: Trump Transition “More Serious And Professional” Than 2016

Read his full comments – https://t.co/TW26WHXljY

“You have people like Marco Rubio, who has been named to be the next secretary of state, who is well steeped in these issues and also… pic.twitter.com/kueGWTaymF

— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) December 29, 2024

“You want to make sure that the incoming team has as much intelligence and analysis as possible that’s available so that when they take over on day one that they are fully informed about what the situation is,” the former CIA chief added. “I do think that there are some people in the Trump administration who are coming in and really are trying to do everything they can to be as prepared as possible on January 20th,” Brennan told MSNBC on Saturday.

“You have people like Marco Rubio who has been named to be the next secretary of state, who is well steeped in these issues and also takes them very seriously,” he concluded.

Brennan’s praise follows a long history of sharp attacks on Trump, who he recently referred to as unqualified to be president, citing his temperate and what he views as a lack of support for Ukraine against its ongoing war with Russia.

“According to me, he was not qualified at the time, and he is not qualified today. We could see in particular that he did not understand the importance of the United States’s relations with our foreign allies and partners. He has little recognition for the transatlantic relationship, for NATO,” Brennan told RTBF.

“And that would give Vladimir Putin the green light to try to almost swallow up Ukraine,” Brennan said. “And unfortunately, I think it will encourage  Putin to look hungrily toward the rest of Europe.”

In 2018, Trump spawned fury and cheers from critics and supporters alike when he revoked Brennan’s security clearance. Trump, in a statement at the time, tied his decision to revoke the security clearance to the Russia investigation,

“There’s no silence. If anything, I’m giving him a bigger voice,” Trump told reporters at the time. “Many people don’t even know who he is, and now he has a bigger voice. And that’s OK with me because I like taking on voices like that.”

The then-president also noted that he had received a “tremendous response” for the move. “Security clearances are very important to me, very important,” he stated, adding that he “never respected”the former CIA head.

Trump also said Brennan had “recently leveraged his status … to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and on television, about this administration.”

In a separate statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the decision was motivated by the “risk posed by [Brennan’s] erratic conduct and behavior.”

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., issued a blunt response to Democrats clutching their pearls over President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to deport illegal immigrants. He pointed out that Democratic presidents have previously deported millions of illegal aliens. 

In an interview on the latest episode of Fox News Sunday, Schmitt stated that former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama deported approximately 17 million foreign nationals from the country. 

Schmitt aimed his remarks at Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., who during a Senate hearing, claimed that deporting illegal aliens involves “higher prices” and “forceful removal of millions of hard-working community members.” 

In response to these claims, Schmitt said, “The idea of deporting people who are here illegally is not a new concept. In fact, the policy and the law of the United States of America for 200 years is if you come here illegally you are detained.” 

He added, “If you don’t have a valid reason, either by asylum – by the way, 9 out of 10 asylum claims are bogus – then you are deported. That is how we have always operated.” 

Schmitt accused Biden of attempting to shift attitudes towards deporting individuals without legitimate reasons for remaining in the U.S. 

“These people do not believe in borders. They think they are arbitrary lines on a map [and] that we are all world citizens and everyone should be able to come here,” he continued. 

The senator criticized the left for making American taxpayers cover the expenses for the luxury hotels of foreign nationals while looking the “other way when an illegal immigrant sets a woman on fire on a subway.” 

Schmitt referenced the case of Sebastian Zapeta-Calil, a 33-year-old illegal alien accused of setting a woman on fire inside a New York City subway train. Zapeta-Calil had previously been deported in 2018 but returned to the United States. 

This case is just one of several high-profile incidents involving illegal aliens. For example, Laken Riley, a beloved 22-year-old nursing student, was viciously murdered by José Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who was paroled into the U.S. by the Biden administration. 

Another case involved Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl from Houston, who investigators said was sexually assaulted and killed by two Venezuelan men, Franklin Pena and Johan Martinez-Rangel. 

Donald Trump:

“Within moments of my inauguration, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in America.”

They’re all going home. pic.twitter.com/eN8ZhxxYv8

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) December 28, 2024

 

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has penned a formal letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, for the first time urging EU intervention in the looming halt of Russian gas transit through Ukraine by the Zelensky government. 

He asserted that the EU’s acceptance of Kiev’s actions would be “entirely irrational and wrong” and ultimately hurt Europe itself. Fico last Friday raised the possibility that Slovakia could cut Ukraine’s electricity supplies as retribution (the country is a key foreign supplier).

“I believe that quietly accepting the Ukrainian president’s unilateral decision is entirely irrational and wrong, leading to tensions and reciprocal measures,” Fico said in the letter, subsequently cited in Bloomberg.

“It is in the interest of all EU citizens that European efforts to support Ukraine should be carried out rationally, and not in the form of self-destructive and extremely damaging gestures,” he continued, warning that the Zelensky government’s decision will lead to “reciprocal measures”.

Fico spelled out further that Russia “will easily place such a small volume of gas in other markets” and so will be able to mitigate its losses.

Bloomberg has summarized the breakdown in numbers earlier presented by the Slovak PM as follows: 

Fico, whose country is highly dependent on Russia for natural gas, estimated that European households and businesses could face an additional €40 billion to €50 billion ($42 billion to $52 billion) annually in higher gas prices and another €60 billion to €70 billion per year in extra electricity costs. 

In contrast, Russia would lose about €2 billion annually if Ukraine halts transit, he said.

Fico this month controversially met with Putin in Moscow, at a moment Russian aerial forces have been pummeling Ukraine’s power grid this past week. Slovakia’s opposition have blasted Fico as a “traitor”. 

Fico has lashed out several times in the last days: “But who cares about Slovakia, right, Mr. Zelenskyy? But when you need something to keep you from freezing in the winter, you scream in frustration,” Fico said of Ukraine’s leadership.

Zelensky responded Saturday by accusing Slovakia, which is a NATO and EU member state, of opening a “second energy front” against Ukraine on orders from Moscow. 

“What fool would give us free gas?”

Slovak Prime Minister Fico spoke about Zelensky’s unusual and stupid request. According to him, the Ukrainian leader offered him transit of Russian gas in exchange for Slovakia never paying Russia for gas until the end of the conflict.… pic.twitter.com/0YCtSO8sZm

— Zlatti71 (@Zlatti_71) December 21, 2024

“It appears that Putin gave Fico the order to open the second energy front against Ukraine at the expense of the Slovak people’s interests,” Zelensky wrote on X.

“Fico’s threats to cut off Ukraine’s emergency power supply this winter while Russia attacks our power plants and energy grid can only be explained by this,” he emphasized. He charged that Putin is “dragging Slovakia into Russia’s attempts to cause more suffering for Ukrainians.”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

This week, the Wall Street Journal released an alarming report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

The chilling suggestion is that, despite the virus ultimately killing more than 1.2 million Americans and over 7 million people worldwide, there was still an overriding interest in the administration to downplay the Chinese responsibility for the pandemic.

The Journal lays out how that unfolded, but the more disturbing question is why.

The article provides many examples of how dissenting views were marginalized and discouraged within the government. After President Trump described the virus as the “China virus” and alleged that it likely came from a lab, dismissing the lab theory became an article of faith in politics and academia.

The problem was that FBI researchers had concluded that the lab theory was the most credible explanation. But their lead researcher, Dr. Jason Bannan, was kept out of the key meeting, and their opposing research was discounted or ignored.

They were not alone. The Journal reported that Defense Department experts John Hardham, Robert Cutlip and Jean-Paul Chretien conducted a genomic analysis that found evidence of human manipulation of the virus. It also concluded that it was done using a specific technique developed by the Chinese at the Wuhan lab. They suggested that the Chinese appeared to have altered the “spike protein” that enables the virus to enter the human body in a “gain of function” operation.

They were reportedly told to stop sharing their work and warned that they had to effectively get with the team. Later, the three wrote an unclassified May 2020 paper that was prevented from being shown outside the medical intelligence center.

At the same time, letters and articles that dismissed the lab theory were organized for public consumption. The government worked with social media companies to censor those with opposing views.

Much of the media showed the same confirmation bias and intolerance. During the Trump presidency, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

One fact, however, is already well established. The suppression of the lab theory and the targeting of dissenting scientists show the true cost of censorship and viewpoint intolerance.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.

Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.

Many still hope that Congress and the incoming Trump administration will conduct a long-needed investigation into the origins to allow for a more credible and open debate. That hope was increased by the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration, to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

We have paid too high a cost to simply shrug with the media and walk away. It is a question not only of whether China is responsible for millions of deaths but of whether our own government effectively helped conceal its culpability.

*  *  *

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.”

Ukraine’s largest mobile operator, Kyivstar, has signed an agreement with Elon Musk’s Starlink to provide direct-to-cell satellite connectivity across the war-torn country. The new deal brings mobile coverage to areas where traditional ground-based cellular networks are non-existent due to Russia’s relentless targeting of critical infrastructure through drone and missile attacks.

Starlink’s direct-to-cell technology is currently being limitedly rolled out in several countries worldwide. The agreement with Kyivstar will position Ukraine as one of the first countries to implement a nationwide rollout of direct-to-cell connectivity, starting in the fourth quarter of 2025. This will allow users to send SMS and use OTT messaging services in areas without traditional ground-based network coverage.

“While this is a great solution for locations with no cellular connectivity, it is not meaningfully competitive with existing terrestrial cellular networks,” Musk has previously stated on X. 

Ukrainian infrastructure, including telecommunications networks, power grids, and other critical networks, have been regularly attacked by Russian forces. Portable Starlink terminals have been crucial in Ukraine’s war effort for military operations over the last few years. 

Kyivstar CEO Oleksandr Komarov stated, “Kyivstar has been the backbone of Ukraine’s resilience throughout the war, and we are committed to leaving no stone unturned to keep Ukraine connected.”

“Our collaboration with Starlink is a game-changer in our journey towards achieving our ‘LTE everywhere’ ambition,” Komarov said. 

It’s like a cellphone tower in space… 

Meanwhile, Starlink and T-Mobile are expected to launch commercial service in the US next year, aiming to cover 500,000 square miles of dead zones. Separately, AT&T has partnered with AST SpaceMobile, while Verizon has expressed interest in Amazon’s Project Kuiper.

Starlink is the leader in the direct-to-cell space. 

SpaceX’s @Starlink has now launched a total of 349 satellites with Direct to Cell (DTC) capabilities in less than a year.

AST SpaceMobile and Lynk have only launched 7 satellites each.

GlobalStar has dedicated only 24 satellites to Apple for its emergency satellite feature. pic.twitter.com/TNzRNVdUKR

— ALEX (@ajtourville) December 10, 2024

We expect that the weaponization of federal agencies against Musk’s companies will diminish during Trump’s second term, enabling technologies like Starlink to flourish and drive technological innovation forward.

MNI’s Chicago PMI survey plunged back near COVID lockdown lows in December, falling to a very contraction-y 36.9 (below the lowest analyst estimate of 40)…

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood, it was uniformly ugly…

• Prices paid rose at a slower pace; signaling expansion

• New orders fell at a faster pace; signaling contraction

• Employment fell at a slower pace; signaling contraction

• Inventories fell at a faster pace; signaling contraction

• Supplier deliveries rose at a faster pace; signaling expansion

• Production fell at a faster pace; signaling contraction

• Order backlogs fell at a slower pace; signaling contraction

This tumble in survey sentiment fits with the overall slump in ‘soft’ data since Trump was elected…

Source: Bloomberg

…which is odd given the small business and CEO – large business – confidence has exploded higher since his election)…

Source: Bloomberg

Does make one wonder just who the local Fed surveys are asking?

Source: Bloomberg

Partisan PMIs?

International media sources are calling it one of the most consequential foreign visits to Damascus since the fall of Assad: a Ukrainian delegation led by Zelensky’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha met with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in Damascus on Monday. 

Syria’s newly appointed foreign minister under Jolani, Asaad Hassan al-Shibani, told the Ukrainian FM that he hopes for a strong “strategic partnership” with the new Syria. Ukraine was reportedly key in helping the jihadist group HTS, a US-designated terror organization, storm across Syria in the days leading up to December 8 in the first place. 

Kiev had provided drone and intelligence support for months to the Idlib-based militants, who are al-Qaeda linked. Ukrainian officials had previously openly boasted that they would assist in hitting Russian assets and bases in Syria, in order to bog its forces down there and distract the top Russian command from the Ukrainian front lines.

Small drone warfare has been described by many analysts to have been a key component further demoralizing Syrian Army positions after Assad’s military and state institutions had been essentially hollowed out after years of grinding war and crippling Western sanctions.

“Certainly the Syrian people and the Ukrainian people have the same experience and the same suffering that we endured over 14 years,” HTS’ al-Shibani said in the Monday meeting.

“We look forward to mutual recognition of the sovereignty of the two countries so that we can complete diplomatic representation in Syria,” Sybiha added, addressing a press conference after the meeting. “We believe Ukrainian-Syrian relations will witness great development.”

Ukraine just prior to the weekend had dispatched 500 tonnes of food aid to Syria, which had long been suffering under US-led sanctions and a war-ravaged economy.

“Ukraine will remain a linchpin to food security in Syria, even if our country is engaged in a war,” Ukraine’s Sybiha declared. He took the opportunity to blast Moscow, which could lose its two major coastal Syrian bases as a result of Assad’s fall: 

“The Russian and Assad regimes supported each other because they were based on violence and torture,” Sybiha said, according to a statement.

“We believe that from a strategic point of view, the removal of Russia’s presence in Syria will contribute to the stability of not only the Syrian state but the entire Middle East and Africa.”

But interestingly, both Jolani and Zelensky have something else in common: they have both suspended elections for a period of at least years, citing the need for a wartime transition before a democratic process can be enacted. 

The Ukrainian top diplomat also met with HTS chief Abu Mohammad al-Julani…

The first official Ukrainian delegation arrives in Syria Ukraine Syria pic.twitter.com/tFLbeD2dRU

— سهيل أبو التاوو (@suheilhammoud) December 30, 2024

Jolani over the weekend gave a fresh interview interview with Al-Arabiya in which he made clear that he doesn’t expect elections to be held for up to four years. He also stated that writing a constitution for the new Syria will take three years. Perhaps he’s taking Zelensky’s martial law suspension of elections (and the West’s tacit backing of this move) as his example?

Authored by Julie Kelly via Declassified with Julie Kelly (subscribe here),

Few people worked harder over the past few years to put Donald Trump behind bars than Liz Cheney, the former (alleged) Republican congresswoman from Wyoming.

Seeking revenge for Trump’s longtime criticism of her father’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie, Cheney sought to settle a family score by imprisoning Trump over the events of January 6. “No one is above the law!,” Cheney, in her grating sanctimonious style, frequently insists.

Well, except for her.

It now appears Cheney is preparing to fight any federal and/or congressional probe into her demonstrably corrupt role as vice chairman of the January 6 Select Committee. Text messages obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga), chair of a House subcommittee looking into the J6 committee, prove that Cheney colluded behind the scenes with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, who dramatically changed her testimony after connecting with Cheney. The communications could represent witness tampering, subornation of perjury—every former White House official including the driver of the presidential vehicle on January 6 has refuted Hutchinson’s account of Trump’s behavior that day—and obstruction.

Based on the results of his ongoing inquiry, Loudermilk determined that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney” and called for the FBI to investigate her.

Cheney immediately responded by playing the victim and, of course, by blaming Donald Trump. But the American people appear uninterested in Cheney’s excuses; a new Rasmussen poll shows strong public support, including three-quarters of Republicans, for an FBI investigation into the bitter and defeated nepobaby.

If Trump’s Department of Justice decides to proceed, Cheney undoubtedly will seek immunity protections in an attempt to keep records away from federal investigators; members of Congress are entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from criminal liability related to their legislative duties.

Immunity for Me But Not For Thee or Thee or Thee

Cheney’s sycophants are already signaling that is the route she will take. During recent interviews, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a close pal of Cheney’s and fellow “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” squawker, warned the clause can prevent the FBI from accessing her communications.

Pressed by reporter Hugo Lowell during a recent podcast, Raskin pooh-poohed accusations that Cheney potentially broke the law. “That hardly is a crime in the United States,” Raskin said about Cheney’s secret collaboration with Hutchinson. “In any event, she’s completely protected by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause, which protects all of us in our legislative capacities both in terms of our direct legislative action and in doing the investigative research that needs to be done in order to legislate and to act as legislators in a comprehensive way.”

Raskin said the same during a separate interview with CBS News. “They’ve been talking about going after Liz Cheney simply for doing her legislative work in a way that is completely covered by the Speech and (sic) Debate Clause. It is not a crime for someone to go out and find witnesses to a violent insurrection.”

Now, that is really rich coming from Raskin and potentially from Cheney. As members of the J6 committee, both were instrumental in stripping privilege sought by Trump and his inner circle including his attorneys, which resulted in the production of presidential records to the Trump-hating partisans on the committee and testimony by White House officials who are usually protected by executive privilege.

But Cheney also urged the Supreme Court to act quickly in denying Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution after Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in August 2023 on four counts for his alleged role in “conspiring” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, representing the first time in history a former president faced a criminal federal indictment.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the question and troubling long term consequences for the country, Cheney acted as if the matter was a no brainer and accused anyone opposed as being, of course, a Kremlin stooge.

A few days before the court held oral arguments in Trump v US, the landmark immunity case, Cheney published an op-ed in the New York Times urging justices to move with haste. “If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic (sic) evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account,” Cheney wrote on April 22, 2024.

She further lamented how Trump tried to “delay” proceedings before her House committee by seeking privilege protections in court. “I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims…before we could gain access to White House records.” (This is untrue since Joe Biden repeatedly and quickly denied Trump’s privilege requests and Judge Tanya Chutkan, who later presided over Smith’s J6 indictment, also expedited the matter ultimately forcing the national archives to turn over presidential material that usually takes years to litigate.)

So, according to Cheney’s logic, any assertion of executive privilege—a legitimate legal argument with decades of recent case law behind it—represents a “delay tactic.” Should be fun to watch Cheney explain her hypocrisy once the privilege tables are turned.

Lawfare’s Karma Could Catch Up With Cheney

Further, the lawfare Cheney supported against Trump and his congressional allies could very well come back to bite her. A pair of recent court decisions have narrowed Speech or Debate Clause protections including those that appear tied to legislative functions.

The day after the Mar-a-Lago raid in August 2022, FBI agents seized the cell phone of Rep. Scott Perry, who was traveling with his family at the time. The FBI then sought court-approved access to thousands of records contained on his device as part of the DOJ’s investigation into Trump for Jan 6.

Perry invoked the Speech or Debate Clause in asking a D.C. judge to prevent the DOJ from obtaining roughly 2,000 messages and emails the Pennsylvania congressman said were related to official legislative business, namely, the certification of the 2020 election. But Beryl Howell, the former chief judge of the D.C. district court and unabashed Trump-hating partisan, denied almost all of Perry’s claims.

Judge Howell in January 2023:

Rep. Perry contends that he is entitled to withhold as privileged under the Clause 2,219 responsive records spanning his communications not only with fellow congressional Members and staff, but also with private individuals and officials with no formal role or function in the United States Congress, including officials with the Trump campaign, the White House, Office of the President, and the Pennsylvania State Legislature. He articulates a broad reach of the non-disclosure aspect of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege to block access in a criminal investigation to any communications he had with any person in any capacity when “he was engaged in information gathering that is ‘part of, in connection with, or in aide of a legitimate legislative act’ . . . even where it is an informal effort undertaken by an individual Member of Congress or their staff. This astonishing view of the scope of the legislative privilege would truly cloak Members of Congress with a powerful dual non-disclosure and immunity shield for virtually any of their activities that could be deemed information gathering about any matter which might engage legislative attention (emphasis added).

The D.C. appellate court in September 2023 largely upheld Howell’s order only making an exception to a handful of records pertaining to the votes planned for January 6, 2021. “Informal factfinding,” the three-judge panel including two Trump appointees concluded, “does not necessarily mean that such acts are privileged.” (Perry, by the way, was never charged.)

So, what “legislative” function did Cheney conduct when she used an encrypted app to talk to Hutchinson, who already had testified twice to the J6 committee before connecting with Cheney? Further, Hutchinson’s now provably false account of Trump’s behavior on January 6 had no role in developing legislation; in fact, the J6 committee’s final report contained only vague legislative recommendations that were never enacted by Congress. (Republicans took control of the House a few weeks after the committee issued its report.)

Cheney’s conduct also appears to fail the “investigative” test established in other court decisions. Hutchinson’s fictional tales about Trump physically confronting his security detail or throwing dishes at the wall or watching cable news as the chaos unfolded at the Capitol did not represent the fruits of an “investigation” or serve any investigative purpose.

Cheney may succeed where others failed since her immunity litigation will be handled by likeminded D.C. judges who won’t care about the appearance of hypocrisy. But watching Cheney—one of the most insufferable, self-aggrandizing, and thin-skinned politicians around—eat her own words will be a satisfying spectacle on its own.