iftttwall

Nintendo shares in Tokyo posted their biggest gain in months after Goldman analysts Minami Munakata and Haruki Kubota resumed coverage of 11 Japanese companies in the games, entertainment, and internet sector. The analysts noted that “the global games market re-entered a growth phase since 2024” and forecasted “the number of active consoles to continue renewing fresh highs globally from 2025.”

Munakata expects the near-term rollout of Nintendo Switch 2 (the successor to the Nintendo Switch) will “unlock dormant hardware and dormant users” and send “the number of active consoles to continue to renew record highs.” 

“Nintendo plans to launch the Switch 2 in 2025, with details due to be announced on April 2,” the analyst said, adding the reason for increased demand for Switch 2 is because of its “unique feature” that allows “and friends to play games together in person either as a home console or as a portable console.” 

Tune in tomorrow, March 27th, at 7 a.m. PT for a livestreamed #NintendoDirect, featuring around 30 minutes of upcoming games for Nintendo Switch. There will be no updates about Nintendo Switch 2 during this presentation.

Watch it here: https://t.co/sJFoxe0mq0 pic.twitter.com/1XeAuff5o1

— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) March 26, 2025

10 best-selling Nintendo Switch first-party titles as of Dec 2024

Munakata also pointed out that the global games industry entered into a growth phase in 2024:

Munakata reinstated coverage of Nintendo with a buy rating and a 12-month price target of ¥13,600, representing a 26% upside from Tuesday’s close. Shares in Tokyo closed up 5%.

It all comes down to console growth—which is the main reason why Munakata is bullish on gaming stocks, including both platform providers and publishers:

• Among game platformers, we recommend Sony Group (Buy), which has unique entertainment drivers such as anime streaming platform Crunchyroll in addition to its games business, and Nintendo (Buy), for which we expect a further expansion of the active user base after the launch of the Switch 2. We see scope for valuations at both to rise as the market prices in their robust fundamentals amid a supportive games market environment.

• Among game publishers, we are Buy-rated on Bandai Namco, Capcom and Konami as beneficiaries of the favorable market environment for console + PC games, and are Sell-rated on Square Enix and Nexon, for which we consider valuations stretched amid our outlook for earnings momentum to slow.

• We are Neutral on Oriental Land, which operates physical entertainment businesses, and on three internet sector stocks (Recruit Holdings, CyberAgent and LY Corp) in light of the market climate and limited upside/fair valuation.

Separately, the release of Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto VI later this year is expected to provide additional tailwinds for the gaming industry, which had been stuck in a rut for years but appears to have entered a renewed growth trajectory in 2024.

Hot on the heels of yesterday’s stellar 2Y auction, moments ago the Treasury sold $70BN in 5 year paper in an auction which may not have been quite as impressive at first sight, but which was nonetheless just as solid when taking a closer look below the surface.

The auction stopped at a high yield of 4.100%, down from 4.123% last month and the lowest since September; however, it also tailed the When Issued 4.095% by 0.5bps, the first tailing 5Y auction since October.

The bid to cover was also a bit on the light side, sliding from 2.42 in February to 2.33, the lowest since May 2024.

But this is where the weakness ended, because the internals were probably the strongest since middle 2024: Indirects were awarded 75.84%, the highest since October and well above the six auction average of 69.3%. And with Directs dropping to just 10.97%, which was the lowest since last October, and well below the 18.9% recent average. This left 13.2% to Dealers, up from 10.6% in February and the highest since, you guessed it, October.

Overall, the optics of the auction were not very strong – despite the stellar foreign demand – and the market reacted accordingly,pushing the 10Y yield higher by about 1bp near session highs on the break. Which is notable because the stock market is dumping and one would expect a rotation out of equities and into rates, but we are certainly not seeing that today.

Update (1315ET): White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just confirmed that President Trump will hold a press conference at 4pmET today to announce auto tariffs.

The level and scope of the auto tariffs are not clear, including what, if any, exemptions would be included or considered.

It’s also unclear if the tariffs would go into effect immediately or over time, and whether they would hit finished vehicles or also auto parts.

*  *  *

Following President Trump’s comments earlier in the week that he would detail the scale of auto levies in the coming days, Bloomberg reports that – citing the usual people familiar with the matter – the Trump administration is readying an announcement on auto tariffs as soon as today.

Bloomberg adds that the people shared the timing of the expected announcement on condition of anonymity, to discuss plans not yet made public. 

One of the people, though, cautioned that the president’s plans could still shift.

This is a move that would escalate Trump’s fight with global trading partners ahead of a broader tariff push next week.

The broad market was already lower but accelerated on the report…

Treasury yields also sank…

The president has said the levies will help spur growth in the domestic auto sector and force companies to move more production to the US.

The move risks disrupting operations for North American automakers, who rely on highly integrated chains across the US, Mexico and Canada; and Ford and GM shares are falling on the report.

Minutes after Bloomberg’s report, the following headlines hit: 

• *GM CEO MARY BARRA TO MEET TRUMP ADMIN. OVER TARIFFS: FREE PRESS

• *FORD CHAIR BILL FORD TO MEET TRUMP ADMIN THIS WEEK: FREE PRESS

The level and scope of the auto tariffs are not clear, including what, if any, exemptions would be included or considered. It’s also unclear if the tariffs would go into effect immediately or over time.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Columbia University student filed a lawsuit on March 24 against President Donald Trump and top administration officials, seeking to block any potential deportation efforts over her participation in pro-Palestinian protests.

Those protests had been described the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as “pro-Hamas.”

Yunseo Chung, 21, a South Korean national who moved from South Korea to the United States with her parents when she was aged 7, filed the complaint after her permanent resident status was revoked.

The lawsuit states that Chung was involved in pro-Palestinian protests—sparked by the conflict in Gaza—at Columbia University but did not make public statements or hold a high-profile role in the protests.

After Chung took part in a March 5 sit-in inside an academic building at Barnard College, the New York City Police Department issued her a desk appearance ticket and released her. The university placed her on interim suspension and restricted her access following that arrest.

A few days later, federal authorities showed up at her parents’ house to search for her and said that her legal status had been revoked. An ICE official also issued an administrative arrest warrant for Chung and searched her dorm, the lawsuit stated.

Chung has not yet been arrested, according to her attorneys. In her lawsuit, Chung called ICE’s actions an “unprecedented and unjustifiable assault” on her First Amendment rights.

She alleged that ICE’s actions were part of “attempted U.S. government repression of constitutionally protected protest activity and other forms of speech.”

The complaint also accused Trump administration officials of trying to use immigration enforcement “as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike, including Ms. Chung’s speech.”

“Officials at the highest levels of the federal government have made clear that they intend to use immigration enforcement to punish noncitizens who speak out in support of Palestinians and Palestinian rights, or who are perceived to have engaged in such speech,” she stated in the lawsuit.

A DHS spokesperson alleged that Chung engaged in concerning conduct, including when she was arrested during the sit-in at Barnard College that DHS termed “pro-Hamas.”

The DHS spokesperson did not elaborate further on the specifics of the conduct in question but said Chung was “sought for removal proceedings under the immigration laws” and will have a chance to present her case before an immigration judge.

Chung’s lawyers have filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Chung from being deported or detained while the legal case is ongoing.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), which filed the lawsuit and motion on behalf of Chung, said that without the restraining order, Chung could face “harsh detention conditions” that could cause her “significant trauma,” disrupt her studies, and limit her access to legal counsel.

“Speech concerning political change receives the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court for nearly a century has interpreted to protect noncitizens,” LCCRSF said in a statement.

The Epoch Times reached out to Chung’s attorneys for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Protests erupted at colleges across the United States, including at Columbia University, after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which prompted the Israeli military to launch a counter-offensive against Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

Trump issued a statement on his social media platform, Truth Social, earlier this month, warning that colleges that allow “illegal protests” could risk losing federal funding. The president also said that foreign students who engaged in such activities could face deportation.

“Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came,“ Trumps stated. ”American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested.”

Tom Ozimek and Reuters contributed to this report.

The US government in its 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community – which was just released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in conjunction with top officials’ testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday – has admitted that Ukraine’s battlefield prospects are fading amid the onslaught of superior Russian forces.

Currently, Moscow has “seized the upper hand” in the war over the past year, the fresh assessment warns, and “is on a path to accrue greater leverage” as peace talks with Washington are underway.

“Even though Russian President [Vladimir] Putin will be unable to achieve the total victory he envisioned when initiating the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia retains momentum as a grinding war of attrition plays to Russia’s military advantages,” the report states.

“This grinding war of attrition will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow,” it continues.

This should come as no surprise to any objective observer; however, what is surprising is the huge amount of Russian losses estimated by US intelligence. While there’s no way of verifying such information, the report claims that there are over 750,000 dead and wounded on the Russian side.

Still, the intel community emphasizes the Russian military machine’s ability to quickly replenish personnel while growing its industrial capacity to continually support the war.

On the prospect for achieving a quick peace settlement, the report notes that both Russian and Ukrainian leadership “probably still see the risks of a longer war as less than those of an unsatisfying settlement.”

“For Russia, positive battlefield trends allow for some strategic patience, and for Ukraine, conceding territory or neutrality to Russia without substantial security guarantees from the West could prompt domestic backlash and future insecurity.”

“Regardless of how and when the war in Ukraine ends, Russia’s current geopolitical, economic, military, and domestic political trends underscore its resilience and enduring potential threat to U.S. power, presence, and global interests,” it adds.

According to the DNI assessment, Russia had more than 750,000 military casualties during its war in Ukraine. By comparison, the U.S. had just over a million service members killed or wounded in World War II. The U.S. at the time had a population roughly the same size as Russia… pic.twitter.com/pG8PPUAoHl

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) March 26, 2025

But interestingly, in her Tuesday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard characterized Russia as a “formidable competitor” but stopped short of calling Moscow an adversary, which former Biden intel officials frequently did.

* * *

A note from UBS [emphasis ZH]…

US Intelligence On Russia Nuclear Capacity, China And Taiwan

The US annual threat assessment from the Director of National Intelligence carries warnings about Russia and China. The 2025 edition warned that Russia is developing a satellite capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. It said that China was making aggressive efforts to assert its sovereignty in the south and east China seas, and seems likely to increase its economic pressure on Taiwan.

Indeed the report warned that China represented the most comprehensive and robust military threat to US security. The report claimed that both Russia and China are eyeing up Greenland for natural resources.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, there was a curious aspect to the coverage of the video of a woman attacking a young man for wearing a MAGA hat. Ignored by many mainstream outlets, conservative news sites described the woman as a “Karen” who got “karma.”

The video below was viewed as a funny payback as the woman fell while chasing the man from the New York subway car. However, the incident is not karma but a crime. This is political violence perpetrated on the New York subway, and yet no one in New York seems to be calling for the arrest of this person.

If you watch the video, the woman starts by harassing the young man in the subway car. She is shown yelling, “If you f—-ing voted for Trump, you’re a racist!… He’s a racist!”

One can dismiss the verbal attacks as an exercise of free speech. However, she then repeatedly grabs and strikes the young man as she chases him from the car:

I get the sense of karma as the woman does a face plant on the subway platform while trying to continue her attack on the fleeing individual.

However, this should be neither funny nor acceptable. It is political violence and the woman appears to believe that she has a license in New York City to assault anyone wearing a MAGA hat.

This is where what I call “rage rhetoric” turns into political violence. As I wrote in my book, “The indispensable Right,” that is the curious aspect of rage:

“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.

Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. The difference between rage and reason is often one’s own views. If one agrees with underlying grievance, rage is viewed as passion or justified fury at injustice. If one disagrees with those views, it takes on a more threatening and unhinged quality. We seem to spend much of our time today raging at each other. Despite the amplification of views on both sides, there is also an increasing intolerance for opposing views. Those views are treated as simply harmful and offensive—and, therefore, intolerable. Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”

There should be zero tolerance for political violence like this on New York subways. Answer me this: if this was a man chasing and assaulting a woman from a subway car for wearing a Harris-Walz hat, would there be the same relative silence in terms of an investigation and criminal charges?

When this person moved from verbal assaults to actual physical assaults, it became a crime, not karma.

The problem is that New York only has an assault law, not a battery law. You can pursue battery as a civil tort in New York, but few Trump supporters would have faith in receiving a fair hearing before a New York jury on such a case.

The New York assault law allows for third degrees of assault charges. However, even the lowest charge of assault in the third degree requires that the individual intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another person.

§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.

A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

This could be established by the fact that she appears to strike the victim. However, it is vague and prosecutors could claim that the touching was insufficient to bring a viable case.

There is also criminal harassment under Penal § 240.26:

§ 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
…
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

I have always had qualms about some of this language in terms of vagueness and free speech, particularly subsection 3. However, subsection 1 clearly applies to physical assaults for the purpose of harassment.

The point is that police have the ability to charge this type of political violence. Yet, there is nothing but crickets from Democratic New York politicians and prosecutors. A video shows a citizen being struck and chased from the subway for wearing a MAGA hat and it is either ignored or treated as another humorous event on the New York subway system.

When did political violence become just a cost of riding the subway for conservatives or libertarians? The lack of outrage shows how this age of rage has dulled our senses to such extreme conduct. This is about conduct not speech. When this person went from raving to assault, she crossed over into the criminal code. The problem is that such protections are only meaningful if New York prosecutors and police are prepared to enforce them.

I hope that the NYPD will take this seriously and announce a search for this culprit. Otherwise, the enforcement of the criminal code becomes little more than a matter of fleeting karma.

*  *  *

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 Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow economic forecasting tool predicts an imminent recession, which is fueling investor angst. However, the New York and St. Louis Feds’ Nowcast economic forecasts predict continued economic growth in the first quarter.

Confused?

This article explores the GDPNow and Nowcast models to understand the recent forecast divergences. A better understanding of the two models helps us appreciate the current state of the economy and, therefore, better estimate the first quarter GDP. Importantly, it shows that investor angst over an imminent recession may be unwarranted.

As of March 24, 2025, these are the current forecasts for the three models:

• Atlanta Fed GDPNow: -1.80%

• St. Louis Fed Nowcast: +2.25%

• New York Fed Nowcast: +2.72%

Forecasting Accuracy

Before reviewing the differences in the models, it’s worth viewing historical data to see how well GDPNow and Nowcast forecast GDP. GDPNow and Nowcast update weekly, although, at times, GDPNow has two updates per week. For the analysis below, we only use the final, not interim, estimates for a comparison to GDP

We do not chart the New York Fed Nowcast as there is insufficient data. The y-axis is truncated as the wild economic swings in 2020 made it hard to appreciate the other data. The bar chart beneath the line graph shows the quarterly differences between the forecasts and actual GDP.

Both models have underestimated the GDP for the better part of the last four years. Since 2022, the St. Louis Nowcast has been short by 1.02% on average, while the Atlanta Fed GDPNow has been .44% below, on average. During the pre-pandemic years, the Nowcast ran almost half a percent above GDP on average, while GDPNow was about a quarter of a percent below average.

The bottom line is that the models have flaws. While they are not statistically great estimators of GDP, they are still extremely valuable. It’s important to appreciate that the data calculation underlying GDP is incredibly complex and often revised numerous times after the models’ estimates are final.

Lastly, encapsulating a nation’s economic activity in one number is impossible. Thus, any model trying to forecast GDP is bound to have problems.  

With that, let’s look at the two types of models and assess their strengths and weaknesses.

GDPNow

The Atlanta Fed GDPNow uses a bridge equation approach using the same data the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses to calculate its 13 GDP subcomponents. The term bridge equation refers to regression analysis and other statistical tools that link data being released with different time frequencies to predict the quarterly GDP.

The data in the model mimics the methodology used by the BEA. It can be thought of as a running GDP calculation.

The data feeding the model is not predicted; it’s actual data. Therefore, GDPNow estimates at the beginning of a quarter are based on limited data and can result in volatile forecasts. For example, GDPNow fell from +2.5% to -1.8%, solely on the net trade balance data in late February. While it is volatile early in periods, it does tend to produce more accurate forecasts than Nowcast after the quarter ends.

The graph below shows that GDPNow has been in a nearly 7% range just since the beginning of February.

Nowcast

The St. Louis and New York Fed Nowcasts are dynamic factor models. This means they use a lot of economic data and statistical models to determine the relationship of said data to economic GDP. Unlike GDPNow, Nowcast uses data that is not included in the BEA GDP calculations. The large amount of data helps smooth out its estimate. However, while it may be more accurate and less volatile during the quarter, its final estimates are more error-prone than GDPNow’s.

Pros/Cons Table

The following table summarizes the pros and cons of each model.

Which Is Better?

That is a tricky question to answer. They both serve a purpose for those assessing current economic activity.

As we currently see with GDPNow, its forecast can be highly volatile at the beginning of a quarter. However, it is based on the same data that will feed the BEA. In volatile quarters like the current one, it’s best to take the GDPNow forecast with a grain of salt until two months of data are in the books.

The Nowcast forecasts use a much wider array of data; therefore, they’re often more stable. However, their ending forecasts tend to be worse than GDPNow. That said, changes in the Nowcast models throughout the quarter are more telling of trend changes.

Summary

We rely on both models as they provide insight and a more balanced view. Relying on only one model can produce a flawed opinion. For instance, GDPNow warns that GDP could be below zero if specific figures, like the trade balance, remain skewed for the remainder of the month. However, the Nowcast models inform us that the broader economy is generally in good shape. If Nowcast starts rapidly catching down to GDPNow, our economic concern will rise appreciably.

Earlier this week we pointed out the striking plunge in the Treasury’s cash balance which had averaged around $800 billion for the past 18 months, and which plunged by $480 billion in the past month.

Treasury cash down $480 billion in the past month. pic.twitter.com/uV4GDNGheO

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 25, 2025

Regular readers are aware of the reason for this plunge: ever since the US hit the debt ceiling in the last days of the Biden administration, the US Treasury has been unable to issue new debt and so has been forced to draw down its cash to fund day to day operations.

Obviously, there is a limit to how much longer this can continue: after all, once the cash balance hits 0, the Treasury will have to start prioritizing payments, and eventually, it may even have to delay payments of interest or repayments of principal… better known as default.

Which brings us to the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office published this morning which warned that the federal government could run out of enough money to pay all of its bills on time as soon as August if lawmakers fail to raise or suspend the debt limit, to wit:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the debt limit remains unchanged, the government’s ability to borrow using extraordinary measures will probably be exhausted in August or September 2025. The projected exhaustion date is uncertain because the timing and amount of revenue collections and outlays over the intervening months could differ from CBO’s projections. (source)

On Monday, the Bipartisan Policy Center said that according to public data the Treasury will be forced to start defaulting on obligations sometime between mid-July and early October.

The CBO also cautioned that if the government’s borrowing needs are “significantly greater than CBO projects, the Treasury’s resources could be exhausted in late May or sometime in June, before tax payments due in mid-June are received or before additional extraordinary measures become available on June 30.”

The date is uncertain because of the unpredictable nature of tax receipts, and Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said earlier this month that it could come as early as mid-May.

Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy at Veda Partners, wrote in a Monday note to clients that an earlier “x date” would be beneficial to House Republicans and those rooting for the Trump tax plan to be initiated in a single piece of legislation as soon as possible.

The Treasury Department has been using special accounting maneuvers since Jan. 21 to avoid breaching the $36.1 trillion debt ceiling, which kicked in at the start of the year. But the department has yet to offer specific guidance on when those measures will be exhausted.

“If Republicans cannot pass their tax bill before the debt ceiling must be raised, then it will need to be handled separately, which would require Democratic support,” according to Brian Gardner, policy analyst at Stifel, said in a Monday note to clients.

President Trump and Republicans are attempting to pass a more than $4 trillion extension of the 2017 individual tax cuts, the benefits of which went mainly to wealthy Americans, according to a range of analyses. The president also wants to include more politically palatable changes – like ending taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits – which could balloon the cost to more than $11 trillion over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

To enact these cuts, the GOP is relying on a process called budget reconciliation, which enables the bill to pass the Senate with just 50 votes, according to that chamber’s internal rules. They could use that bill to also raise the debt ceiling simultaneously, but many congressional Republicans want to avoid cosigning trillions of dollars in new debt without the political cover of bipartisan support.

House Republicans want to move quickly to pass a tax cut – paid for in part by potentially unpopular cuts to Medicaid – put a win on the board for President Trump and hope that any political blowback subsides before the midterm elections in November 2026.

“Senate Republicans are not particularly interested in hiking the debt ceiling via reconciliation,” Treyz wrote, adding that Republicans in the upper chamber “are more than comfortable taking all year to write their tax bill.”

The Senate GOP caucus doesn’t feature the same proportion of ideologically driven members who are as concerned about cutting spending as they are cutting taxes, Treyz noted. Senate Republicans are meeting this week to determine whether they can forge ahead with a tax plan that features much smaller cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

“If Republicans cannot pass their tax bill before the debt ceiling must be raised, then it will need to be handled separately, which would require Democratic support,” warned Stifel’s Gardner.

Under that scenario, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will be under intense pressure to enact concessions, after facing blowback from the Democratic base following Senate Democrats’ decision to allow a government-funding bill to pass earlier this month, Gardner said.

That could set up a scenario where intense brinksmanship is seen as politically necessary for both sides, and reignite a debate over whether the Treasury can prioritize interest payments to Treasury bondholders while holding back payments for other federal obligations. “If such a scenario plays out … that will increase market volatility,” according to Gardner.

Battle lines are already being drawn on the issue, with House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar telling reporters Tuesday that when it comes to the debt ceiling, “nothing should be given away for free.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 24 declined to hear an appeal in a lawsuit led by minors that alleged the U.S. government has unconstitutionally deprived the children of rights to life and liberty by causing climate change to worsen.

Justices in an unsigned decision denied certiorari to a petition from Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana and 20 other minors. No justices offered an explanation for the decision.

Plaintiffs sued the government in 2015, alleging that the U.S. government for decades “has known that carbon dioxide (‘CO2’) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival.”

Actions taken despite that knowledge, including the approval of a liquid natural gas terminal in Oregon, endangered the youth, the suit said.

In a split decision, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel decided in 2020 that the relief the plaintiffs sought, including an order mandating the government develop a plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions, “is beyond our constitutional power.” The court instructed U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken to dismiss the case.

Aiken declined, allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint. In 2023, she ruled in favor of the minors, finding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that their constitutional rights were being infringed by the government’s actions. “The judiciary is capable and duty-bound to provide redress for the irreparable harm government fossil fuel promotion has caused,” the judge said at the time.

The Ninth Circuit in 2024 again sided with the government, upholding the 2020 ruling and telling Aiken to dismiss the litigation.

Plaintiffs lodged a petition with the Supreme Court, asking justices to intervene. That led to Monday’s denial.

“Ultimately, we didn’t get the decision we wanted today, but we’ve had many wins along the way,” Miko Vergun, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “For almost ten years, we’ve stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive, but thrive. We’ve faced extreme resistance by the federal government, yet we’ve never wavered in our resolve. All great movements have faced obstacles, but what sets them apart is the perseverance of the people behind them. We’ve shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I’m incredibly proud of the impact Juliana v. United States has made.”

Plaintiffs say their case helped influence other cases that had resulted in positive rulings, including the 2024 Montana Supreme Court ruling that found the state violated residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by issuing permits for oil, gas, and coal projects without considering impacts on the environment.

The U.S. Department of Justice welcomed the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plaintiffs in the Oregon case.

“For nearly a decade, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Juliana case have tied up the United States in litigation, persisting even after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice instructed the case to be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing,” acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson said in a statement. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion.”

The Atlantic has published the fuller chat thread from the Signal group that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was ‘inadvertently’ included in. This comes after the top Trump officials involved denied that they shared secret “attack plans” in an unsecure, unclassified setting. The President has downplayed it, defending both national security adviser Mike Walz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for both Hegseth Waltz to either resign or be fired from their top national security posts.

“When the stakes are this high, incompetence is not an option,” Warner wrote on social media Tuesday. “Pete Hegseth should resign. Mike Waltz should resign.”

And in a a letter to President Trump, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries has urged Hegseth’s termination, calling him “unqualified” and a national security risk.

“The so-called secretary of defense recklessly and casually disclosed highly sensitive war plans — including the timing of a pending attack, possible strike targets and the weapons to be used — during an unclassified national security group chat that inexplicably included a reporter,” Jeffries wrote. “His behavior shocks the conscience, risked American lives and likely violated the law.”

The newly published messages were sent on March 15 and purport to be from an account identified as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Amid the ongoing controversy, Golberg and The Atlantic are seeking to present a ‘smoking gun’ of sorts.

The messages include times of strikes and the types of aircraft being used in attacks on Yemen’s Houthis, who have for many months been sending drone and missiles against Red Sea shipping, including American warships and even at times a carrier.

The Atlantic wrote as part of the Wednesday release of the fuller messages, “There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

The magazine further stated, “If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests – or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media – the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.”

Below is a key message from the Signal group, seen among top national security officials as well as Jeffrey Goldberg: 

This Signal message shows that the U.S. secretary of defense texted a group that included a phone number unknown to him—Goldberg’s cellphone—at 11:44 a.m. This was 31 minutes before the first U.S. warplanes launched, and two hours and one minute before the beginning of a period in which a primary target, the Houthi “Target Terrorist,” was expected to be killed by these American aircraft. If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic.

The Hegseth text then continued:

• “1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
• “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
• “1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
• “MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
• “We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
• “Godspeed to our Warriors.”

Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”

I’m not going to pretend to care whether the US Govt is ably hiding its secrets — a journalist’s job is to unearth them, not help hide them — but if Goldberg had published all of this before Yemen bombing began, would the Trump WH have said: “no problem; it’s not classified?” https://t.co/UHaMxn21qr

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 26, 2025

And more from the ‘debrief’ portion or aftermath of what was apparently the first round of strikes:

At 1:48 p.m., Waltz sent the following text, containing real-time intelligence about conditions at an attack site, apparently in Sanaa: “VP. Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID. Pete, Kurilla, the IC, amazing job.” Waltz was referring here to Hegseth; General Michael E. Kurilla, the commander of Central Command; and the intelligence community, or IC. The reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets.

Six minutes later, the vice president, apparently confused by Waltz’s message, wrote, “What?”

At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.” Thirty-five minutes after that, Ratcliffe, the CIA director, wrote, “A good start,” which Waltz followed with a text containing a fist emoji, an American-flag emoji, and a fire emoji. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.

Fresh reaction from Vice President JD Vance:

It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had. But one thing in particular really stands out.

Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff. https://t.co/BUGbX6gZDZ

— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 26, 2025

The Atlantic, after coming under attack from people within the US administration, has urged, “People should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions.”

* * *

But this is ultimately the bigger issue which very few are talking about, as Washington embarks on more military adventurism in the Middle East…

The most “DC” thing ever is to reflexively twist the Signal chat story into a scandal over “classified information” and “OPSEC,” rather than a scandal over a military operation that was launched on highly dubious pretenses by people such as Hegseth, who is clearly frothing for a war to command, and communicates his desires in the most simple-minded cliches. Nobody ever applies consistent principles to the retention or transmission of “classified information,” and pretending to care about the sacrosanct nature of such information above all else is just standard DC pablum.

Never again tell me that this was an emergency that required immediate military action without congressional authorization. pic.twitter.com/G2v43h1X9E

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 25, 2025

And…

The most telling thing in the whole fiasco were the emojis. War is just a game to these people. A spectator sport.
“Kill a bunch of kids? Who cares. They shouldn’t have been born in a country that pisses us off.” https://t.co/fDDqy0iWFj

— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) March 26, 2025

Above: We present to you… the bigger, actual scandal.