iftttwall

Authored by Martin Jay,

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think…

It used to be quite a common thing for people in polite society to say “imagine if women ran the world…we would certainly have less wars, right?”. Wrong. Women are running the world, well, at least the EU world. Three women to be precise. Ursula von der Leyen, EU commission boss, Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister and of course, last but not least, the EU’s own foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas. And what do all three of these women have in common, apart from having names which sound like sexually transmitted diseases? They all want war.

In line with spectacularly poor decision making right from the beginning of the Ukraine war, with probably Russian sanctions at the top of the list of stupid ideas, the EU has only one way forward in Ukraine. At whatever cost, it must come out at least not looking like it lost. The EU project is very much like an old man on a bike moving very slowly along a Dutch cyclists’ path. The fear from the elites in the EU is that if he falls off the bike, he will never get back on. The constant worry from top EU figures is that if the EU loses its momentum with press coverage and relevance in general, then a pause – any pause – could be devastating. This, you might be surprised to hear, is what EU officials themselves confided in me when I was based in the Belgian capital. Such an expression gives you an idea of how little confidence the EU has in itself as a worthy, stable long-term project.

And so the madness escalates now to such a point where we are actually looking at draining the wallets and purses of our own very poorest people to fund the ultimate EU sex toy going: an EU army.

The idea of an EU army is not new. As a notion, it’s as old as the hills as hard core federalists in Brussels have been arguing for the EU to have its own army for at least twenty years, but until now failed. The main reason for the idea not getting off the ground is that it created too many new, worrying political problems for the EU to wrangle with. In a nutshell, there was always a risk of a new political crisis that an EU army would create as member states argue over which country gets to run it, which nationality is its head, where it would be based and how politically would it be run, based on what decision making structure? (existing EU council, EU commission, member states themselves in a new set up via defence ministries). The concern was always that Germany would have too much power and then this would open an old wound about the country re-arming and rekindling memories of 1939. And we all know where that led.

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think. One of the reasons why it never got off the ground despite several serious attempts is that both the EU and member states are both confused and lack confidence about such a bold plan. They are literally concerned the idea could blow up in their faces. It’s what Americans call ‘blowback’. No, that’s nothing to do with the German foreign minister or even innuendo. It’s a military term for when a gun throws back energy in your face when it discharges and wounds whoever is holding the weapon.

For a long time the EU itself wanted the army to be very much controlled by Brussels but knew that the big guns would not wear that. And so, for them, like those in the European Commission it was about giving power away to a new body, a new layer of EU power, as though there aren’t enough institutions in Brussels which already sap away power from member states. The attitude was somewhat self-defeating. ‘If we (the commission) don’t create this entity, then Germany may well do it on their own anyway, and then we will lose the power’ is the mentality in Brussels. Indeed, Germany for at least a decade has been toying with the idea of having its own EU army, which creates a real headache for Brussels as it gives crucial power to one member state who many would argue already wields quite enough in the first place. The German parliament a few years ago leaked a document suggesting a new international army which Germany would run, which would be sent to troubled hotspots around the world and would be joined by a few allies who would play a supporting role. 

The problem with this is twofold.

One, a good number of Germans would be very unhappy about his and believe that Germany should never be allowed to return to its former military power of the 1930s. 

Secondly, under such a set-up, the EU would suffer considerably as it would throw a spotlight on its own weakness and underline how ineffective Brussels is, given that it has no military edge and that one member state has gone rogue with a geo-military policy. 

And so two scenarios present themselves: 

1. Germany being the main player in an EU army created and apparently run from Brussels – at least in appearance; or

2. Berlin running its own EU army which isn’t called an EU army but the rest of the world will consider it to be one. 

Neither of these scenarios really does the EU any favours.

But it would seem this is what these three ladies have their eye on.

Which is why they have put so much emphasis on 800 billion euros being found among EU member states contributions, so that it will have an EU badge and its centre of power would be Brussels. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK would be part of such a new, shiny EU pillar of NATO. And yet, it is Britain’s role, considered crucial, which will dilute the EU dream of it being entirely a Brussels wet dream project. In many ways, the reaction from these three women follows last year’s conference set up by Macron to create a coalition of EU member states, plus the UK, for big foreign policy ideas which would run parallel to the EU’s foreign thingy in Brussels. Defence spending and sending an EU army – which included the UK and Turkey – to places where the EU felt it could confidently flex its muscles was part of the whole plan.

For these three wicked witches to conjure up such a Macbethian plan to slay Macron and his big idea is worrying on a Shakespearian level, to say the least. It’s hard to say at the moment of writing whether it’s a real plan, as it’s already been blocked by the Netherlands, or it’s a plan on paper designed to impress Trump at a critical moment of negotiations. Does the EU believe that these talks could go on for months, perhaps even a year or more and so therefore to send a few hundred tanks to Kiev would only bolster both Zelenksy’s and the EU’s credibility as players when neither are actually even sitting on the reserves’ bench? Possibly. Have the tanks even been built? Nope.

One witty pundit for RT, a former anchor, opined quite amusingly about the role of the UK, suggesting that London’s ability to be a global military player is out of touch with reality.

“The British defense secretary claims that the need for a weapons shopping spree actually comes from a place of deep, inner hippie-ness” Rachel Marsden wrote. 

“The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace, John Healey said, probably itching to get back home to squeeze into some bell bottoms and smash the bongo drums”.

It reminded me of the 1980s satire puppet show in the UK called ‘Spitting Images’ which cruelly depicted Ronald Reagan muttering “We want peace…a piece of Nicaragua, a piece of El Salvador”.

And what’s wrong with bell bottoms?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

American soft power operations in this new era that’ll likely follow USAID and USAGM’s far-reaching reforms under Trump 2.0 will be more creative, appealing, and effective than all that came before.

Trump’s Executive Order last week eliminating the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the rationale of which was explained here as regards to stopping the state’s funding of ideologically radical propaganda, has been condemned by critics as a deathblow to American soft power. 

That body is responsible for Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, among several other foreign-focused outlets. 

It’s therefore understandable why some are concerned about the consequences.

The reality though is that their operations will probably resume after some time, albeit through what’ll likely be public-private partnerships abroad instead of purely state-run enterprises inside the US, and only with like-minded partners that share Trump 2.0’s populist-nationalist worldview. To elaborate, the $950 million that the USAGM requested for this year could be put to more effective use funding foreign experts, influencers, media, etc. who are from the places whose public the US wants to influence.

That was already happening through USAID, which is also being gutted and transformed as was explained here in early February, so it’ll either return to its original focus on physical development projects or divide information warfare responsibilities with whatever remains of USAGM. In any case, the point is that USAGM’s influence operations and USAID’s more direct meddling ones are expected to be less centralized than before and outsourced to a much greater degree as a result of Trump 2.0’s reforms.

They’ll also be optimized by replacing their ideologically radical agenda with his team’s much more pragmatic one, which resonates with a much wider audience, and relying a lot more on informed figures abroad who have a better sense of the local pulse than DC-based bureaucrats do. The end result is that American soft power will be less visibly connected to the US, more effectively fine-tuned for targeted audiences, and promoted by what can be described as many more “agents of influence” than before.

It’s this final point that captures the essence of Trump’s reforms. As a successful businessman, Trump appreciates the free market, ergo why he envisages liberating the so-called “marketplace of ideas” from what he considers to be USAID and USAGM’s overbearing influence. Instead of keeping that marketplace “unfree” by letting them continue dictating editorial preferences, he wants to reduce their roles mostly to funding and supervising like-minded foreign contractors who’ll then function as “agents of influence”.

The problem though is that their host countries could replicate the US’ FARA like Georgia recently did to identify which broadcasters, influencers, media, etc. are receiving foreign funding and then obligate them to inform their audience of this so that they can keep it in mind when consuming their content. Additional responsibilities could also be mandated to make such arrangements too onerous for many to agree to, such as regular and detailed reporting of their activities, thus hamstringing this plan.

It’s here where the Georgian precedent is one again relevant since this example shows how aggressively the US will push back against even friendly governments that use the US’ own FARA as the model for their respective foreign agents legislation. Of course, it goes without saying that such a reaction strongly suggests that America is indeed guilty of intending to clandestinely fund foreign figures for influencing their societies, but not all targeted governments are as strong as Georgia’s to resist this pressure.

Moreover, USAID and USAGM’s ties to the CIA can lead to their successors indirectly funneling money to these same figures to help them evade scrutiny if they live in countries that have their own version of FARA, which can occur via crowdfunding as well as ad revenue from US platforms like YouTube and X. Governments could legislate that crowdfunding sites restrict foreign donations for their nationals if they want to still operate in their jurisdiction, however, and produce the names of donors upon court order.

By contrast, cracking down on US funding that might be indirectly funneled to foreign figures by the CIA via YouTube and X ad revenue at USAID and/or USAGM’s behest is more difficult, with the only realistic option being to legally treat all influencers above a certain number of followers as foreign agents. Under those circumstances, the US might encourage its “agents of influence” to flee abroad on the pretext that this infringes on their freedoms, after which they’ll continue producing their content with impunity.

The aforesaid pretext might be sufficient for the targeted audience not to negatively judge the figures who leave to avoid complying with their government’s FARA-like legislation, thus ensuring that they still retain most of their supporters despite living abroad and therefore saving the influence operation. In that case, it wouldn’t matter if the authorities requested that YouTube or X ban those figures’ accounts from being accessed within their jurisdiction since their audience could then just use free VPNs instead.

By hook or by crook, the US’ “agents of influence” – some of whom might even operate as such without their knowledge if the CIA indirectly funnels funds to them via YouTube or X to financially incentivize them to continue creating their content – are expected to expand their audience and sway. American soft power operations in this new era that’ll likely follow USAID and USAGM’s far-reaching reforms under Trump 2.0 will therefore be more creative, appealing, and effective than all that came before.

A Bloomberg article dropped yesterday and it suggests that the new tariffs on April 2 are poised to be more targeted than originally feared; this is helping spark a risk on move across global markets, and push US futures about 0.7% higher late on Sunday. 

According to the report, “Trump is preparing a “Liberation Day” tariff announcement on April 2, unveiling so-called reciprocal tariffs he sees as retribution for tariffs and other barriers from other countries, including longtime US allies. While the announcement would remain a very significant expansion of US tariffs, it’s shaping up as more focused than the sprawling, fully global effort Trump has otherwise mused about, officials familiar with the matter say.

Trump will announce widespread reciprocal tariffs on nations or blocs but is set to exclude some, and — as of now — the administration is not planning separate, sectoral-specific tariffs to be unveiled at the same event, as Trump had once teased, officials said.”

So while we wait for more color about what Trump will unveil on Liberation Day, below we share the latest thoughts from Goldman trader John Flood on where we stand right now:

* * *

S&P clawed back 51bps last week for its first positive week since Valentine’s Day. After listening to Jay Powell on Wednesday I got the sense that the Fed Put is creeping back into the market. It is worth noting that we ended last week with Thursday (3/20) as the lightest trading volume session of the year (13.1b shares traded across all US exchanges) followed by Friday (3/21) as the highest (21.03b shares as a result of triple-witch). Friday’s MOC of +$8.1b to buy was outsized and hints at footprints of CTAs (short covers) and Pensions (+$30b Q end rebal getting started early).

I am watching for the S&P 500 to trend towards its 200dma of 5750 this week. It will be difficult to break significantly higher from the 200dma until we see longer duration investors step in as buyers (which is unlikely to happen before 4/2). Looking at aggregated 1-delta flow executed across our franchise last week the Long Only community finished with a net sell skew of -430bps (80th percentile of last 1 yr….AKA still not buyers).

This stat from our weekly PB data stood out to me: US-listed ETF shorts decreased -4%, the largest week/week covering in nearly 4 months, led by covering in Small Cap Equity, Large Cap Equity, Corporate Bond, and Sector ETFs.

Much has been made of US Fundamental L/S Gross Leverage remaining stubbornly high (204% …82rd percentile on 1 yr look back and 96th on 5 year). However, Net leverage has moved SHARPLY lower (49%….2yr low and 8th percentile on 5 yr look back). Aggregate Long/Short ratio – the ratio of longs over shorts held US Fundamental L/S (in MV terms) – has fallen to the lowest level in more than 5 years (see “Sentiment Will Swing Day-To-Day Until Investors Clear The April 2 Tariff Hurdle“)

Our PB data shows HFs as sellers of international equities: both European and Chinese equities saw risk unwinds in the past month, led by long sales, suggesting HFs have been taking profits after the sharp price outperformance in those markets. China (onshore and offshore combined) was the most notionally net bought market globally on the Prime book thru mid-February but is now modestly net sold YTD.

Last week HFs also net sold European equities for the 2nd consecutive week, driven entirely by short sales, primarily in Single Stocks. The region has now been net sold in 4 of the last 5 weeks and is net sold on a YTD basis. Gross/Net allocations to European equities now stand at 18.3% / 21.6% of total Prime book exposure, which ranks in the 66th / 75th percentiles vs. the past year and in the 93rd/94th percentiles vs. the past five years.

This chart caught my eye and I think we will see some meaningful reversion on both legs here. Per GSPB data Net allocations to North America and Europe are at their respective 5-year lows and highs…

Another great note from our portfolio strategy research team revisiting the role of foreign investors in the US equity market. Long-term data from the Fed show foreign ownership of US equities stands at an ATH. Foreign investors owned just 2% of US equities in 1960 and 7% in 2000 but 18% of US equities at the start of 2025. 49% of foreign holdings are from investors in Europe.

The sharp downgrade in the pricing of US economic growth and the underperformance of the S&P 500 (-3% YTD) relative to Europe’s STOXX 600 (+9%), China’s CSI 300 (+1%), and Japan’s TOPIX (flat) have prompted investors to inquire about the potential for foreign investor outflows.

We forecast foreign investors will remain buyers of US equities this year. The weaker USD and relative underperformance of US stocks lead us to forecast foreign investors will buy $300 billion of US equities in 2025 compared with $304 billion in 2024. In 2025, we forecast corporates will be the largest buyer of equities (+$675 billion) followed by households (+$425 billion). Mutual funds will be the largest seller of US equities (-$550 billion) followed by pension funds (-$250 billion).

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.

Police in Alexandria, Virginia are investigating after a top US attorney was found dead inside her home Saturday.

Police responded to reports of an unresponsive woman at 9:18 a.m., only to find former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), Jessica Aber, dead at the age of 43. Aber was nominated to her post by former president Joe Biden in 2021 – and resigned one day before President Donald Trump was sworn in in January.

Abner’s cause of death is currently unknown, as the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia is currently conducting its own investigation.

“We are heartbroken beyond words to learn of the passing of our friend and former colleague, U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber,” said Erik Siebert, the current U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Virginia. “She was unmatched as a leader, mentor, and prosecutor, and she is simply irreplaceable as a human being. We remain in awe of how much she accomplished in her all too brief time in this world. Her professionalism, grace, and legal acumen set the standard.

“Though we are devastated by this loss, each of us in the Eastern District of Virginia will look to her example and endeavor to live up to that standard. Jess was a proud Virginian from high school through college and throughout her career. She loved EDVA and EDVA loved her back. We remain committed to her life’s work, a commitment to seeking justice, as she would have wanted.”

Aber began her service for the EDVA in 2009. In 2015, she served on a detail assignment as counsel to the assistant AG for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice until 2016, after which she served as the deputy Chief of EDVA’s criminal division.

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

While Jeff Bezos is trying to rebrand the Washington Post as a more moderate rag – causing mass resignations last month at the thought of being less partisan – he might want to check in with the paper’s new Opinion editor after his last one rage-quit as part of the February freakout.

To wit, a transgender man wrote an op-ed with an absolutely retarded analogy, suggesting that  transgender individuals are like the bad guy at the end of “Scooby-Doo” that gets unmasked as his true self.

The terrible analogy continues…

The key word in this revelation is “really,” the adverb that means “what something is in actual fact, as opposed to what it might have been appearing, or pretending, to be.”

I’m willing to accept the fact that Mr. Withers was not who he had been pretending to be. But in other instances, “really” has (as the “Scooby-Doo” theme song goes) “some work to do now.” Is Clark Kent “really” Superman? Is Bob Dylan “really” Robert Zimmerman? Was Mark Twain “really” Samuel Clemens?

Is a butterfly “really” a caterpillar? -WaPo

The author of course then jumps into “the Trump administration’s attacks on us,” and insists “transgender women are not “really” men. We are women. We may have different histories than other women, but then, every woman has her own history.”

Make it stop…

Readers have had it…

At the bottom of the article, the comments section was absolutely lit up – as leftist WaPo readers made it clear that they’re over it, and this is exactly why they lost the election.

Let’s take a look…

“Left-of-Center Moderate” (in the 4th highest ‘recommended’ comment) writes:

Democrats are always accusing the Republicans of being the ones who “bring up trans issues”. But yet we get essays like this. And it’s not Republicans who created and regularly deploy such vocabulary as “gender assigned at birth”, “pregnant people” . . . or who put their pronouns in their email signatures. And it was at the DNC a couple of months ago that a big brouhaha developed around “adequate trans representation” on the committee.

The pendulum went way to far on this gender fluidity madness, and probably played a role in ushering in the craziness of “Trump: The Sequel”. So, like, hey, thanks trans activists and to Democratic operatives and leaders who refused to stand up to it.

“Professor Duh” writes:

The Pronoun Police cost Democrats vast numbers of votes in 2024, thanks to all their pointless preening and posturing.

They helped put Trumpolini back in office, god helps us all.

 “Mrs Sinkins” writes:

Well, here we are, straight back at the definition. What is a woman? The problem starts with the idea you present of “ a lifelong sense of myself as female”. But tellingly, you don’t say why you sense that you are female. What do you believe makes you feel female when you never inhabited a female form? I have never yet seen an explanation of this from any trans-identifying person.

Ask most natal women what makes them a woman and I would bet they would be hard pressed to tell you. Most of us never think about it, we just are. But as well as our “own history”, we share a world-wide commonality of body, of puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, motherhood, menopause, and because of those physical factors, vulnerability, which are an integral part of being a woman and which someone born male will never understand.

 “Philly Boston” writes:

In this instance, I would say it’s a matter of semantics. A woman is an adult female human just as a sow is an adult female pig and a hen is an adult female chicken. It’s a matter of biology, not identity. A person can ignore gender stereotypes about clothing and names, going so far to utilize medical intervention to make physical changes to the body, but that doesn’t change one’s biological sex.

I don’t mean any of the above to justify discriminating against anyone, simply looking to clarify the meaning of words. A biological male may be a trans woman, but that person is not actually a woman.

“Che Lastima” writes:

This has become so absurd. Let any Democratic politician take the position that “a trans man or woman is an actual man or woman” and watch them lose so badly.

Almost 80% of Americans (and 2/3 of Dems) are against trans athletes in women’s sports. This issue has been litigated to death.

“Relemtless75” writes:

This author does not understand the seriousness of the issue.

By capturing the Democratic Party, a small but powerful minority of closeted LGBTs, has managed to focus the Party’s attention to small percentage of American population, to the detriment of everything important to Average Americans, resulting in the devastating loss to Trump.

This has resulted in a severe backlash with devastating consequences to the LGBT movement from which recovery is nigh impossible.

 And the list goes on… But hey, at least they’ve identified a major problem with their party.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. In a rare move,  Judge Lawrence Van Dyke offered a video dissent to the majority opinion.The en banc panel previously upheld the state’s magazine ban, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case in light of the Bruen decision in 2022. The Ninth Circuit then returned the case to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.Benitez again ruled that the law was unconstitutional, a prior position that he viewed was strengthened by the Bruen decision.

The Ninth Circuit then, again, overruled the lower court.

In a 7-4 decision authored by senior circuit Judge Susan Graber, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, the majority wrote that “a large-capacity magazine has little function in armed self-defense, but its use by mass shooters has exacerbated the harm of those horrific events.” She added:

“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

In a belt-and-suspenders approach, the court further ruled that, even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

Three judges appointed by President Donald Trump wrote stinging dissents. 

Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”

Judge Lawrence VanDyke went further to include an actual video in which he handles guns and accessories to show why he believes the distinction between a gun and an accessory is illusory:

The judge emphasized that he was not offering the video as new factual evidence. However, it sounds much like the testimony that an expert witness would give at trial. That brought an objection from his colleague, Judge Berzon:

“True, the prejudice to the parties here is arguably minimal because Judge VanDyke has prepared his video in support of a dissent. But if a dissent can rely on a judge’s recorded factual presentation, nothing prevents a majority opinion from doing the same thing. I therefore write separately in the hope that in the future my colleagues, whether in the majority or dissent, will do exactly and only that: write. And, although I am surprised that it is necessary to do so, I write to reemphasize that as judges, we must decide cases as they are presented to us by the parties, leaving advocacy to the attorneys and testimony to the witnesses, expert and otherwise.”

The inclusion of the video is highly irregular and many judges would likely look dimly at the use of such demonstrative evidence in an appellate dissent.

The case offers another opportunity for the Court to address the outward limits of the Second Amendment. Blue states are moving to limit a variety of devices or components deemed “accessories.” If allowed to stand, it could prove a significant area of contraction for the protections for gun ownership.

The case can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, again. It will join another magazine ban case in Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha, which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be picked up by the Court.

Here is the opinion: Duncan v. Bonta

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

Federal authorities arrested 68 members of the notorious gang Tren De Aragua this week, according to a new report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“In less than 100 days, the Trump Administration has arrested 394 members of the Tren De Aragua—a vicious gang known for human trafficking, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and other heinous acts terrorizing American communities,” DHS stated.

Tren De Aragua originated in the Venezuelan state of Aragua and later spread to other South American nations and the United States. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed a presidential action which called for designating transnational organizations as terror groups. The State Department officially designated Tren De Aragua as a terrorist organization last month.

“This has allowed a whole of government approach to dismantle this criminal terrorist gang,” the agency said.

“Members of this vicious terrorist gang are responsible for the brutal assault and murder of nursing student Laken Riley and 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray,” DHS said.

Riley was murdered in February last year by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who illegally entered the United States in 2022. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Nungaray was killed in Houston in June last year, and two illegal immigrants from Venezuela were charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder.

“Tren De Aragua is a terrorist organization whose members are rapists, drug traffickers, and murderers. We will continue to make sure these dirtbags are removed from America’s streets and face justice,” said a DHS spokesperson.

This week, a coordinated effort from multiple law enforcement agencies led to the arrest of Ricardo Gonzales, 32, a high-ranking member of the Tren De Aragua, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a March 21 statement.

Gonzales had an arrest warrant for kidnapping and he is wanted for first-degree murder—charges stemming from a Jan. 28 incident in which he is accused of kidnapping three females, taking them to an alley, and shooting them in the head. Two of the victims died, while the third survived.

“This defendant’s crimes against American women are horrific, and he is exactly the type of Alien Enemy the Trump administration is fighting to remove from this country in order to make America safe again,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

Judicial Action

Trump recently issued a presidential proclamation invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportations of Venezuelans aged 14 and above who are members of the gang and are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States.

Just hours before the proclamation was issued, a lawsuit was filed by five Venezuelans who were being processed for deportation, following which, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked their deportation.

Later, Boasberg also issued an order granting class action certification for all noncitizens in the United States who would be subject to Trump’s presidential proclamation.

The Alien Enemies Act is a rarely used law that allows foreigners to be quickly deported from the United States during an invasion or war.

According to the proclamation, “evidence irrefutably demonstrates that [Tren De Aragua] has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens.”

In a restraining order issued by Boasberg, the judge said the Act “does not provide a basis for the president’s proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war.”

On March 18, a coalition of 26 Republican state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, supporting the president’s efforts.

The brief called for lifting the restraining order, arguing that Trump’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act was grounded in clear statutory and constitutional authority.

During a hearing on the case on March 21, Boasberg said the Act’s invocation to deport Tren De Aragua members has “incredibly troublesome” policy implications.

“Why was this law essentially signed in the dark and these people essentially rushed onto planes?” he asked Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign, referring to Venezuelan nationals being deported.

Ensign said the deportations were in accordance with U.S. laws, and the illegal immigrants were free to challenge the legality of their arrests. Almost 300 Venezuelan nationals suspected of being Tren De Aragua members were deported last week under Trump’s proclamation.

Just nine days after becoming Canada’s prime minister, former Goldman Sachs banker Mark Carney called an election Sunday for April 28, plunging the nation into a short but high-stakes campaign overshadowed by an escalating trade war with the United States and incendiary rhetoric from former President Donald Trump.

The election call marks the dramatic culmination of recent upheavals in Canadian politics, characterized by a rapid surge in national pride and unity amid Trump’s threats to absorb Canada as the “51st state.” These provocative comments, coupled with punishing U.S. tariffs, have reshaped the electoral landscape, breathing new life into Carney’s governing Liberal Party and eroding what was once a comfortable Conservative lead.

Until recently, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre appeared poised to coast into power, capitalizing on widespread discontent over housing shortages and the rising cost of living, issues he deftly pinned on the outgoing prime minister, Justin Trudeau. But as Trump’s aggressive stance intensified, a wave of Canadian nationalism has swept across the electorate, bolstering support for Carney’s Liberals at precisely the right moment.

According to pollster David Coletto of Abacus Data, the Conservatives maintain a narrow lead nationally – but among voters for whom Trump’s aggressive posture is paramount, Liberals lead by almost 30 points, Bloomberg reports.

Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, has sought to position himself as a steady financial hand capable of navigating this turbulent period. Within days of taking office, he distanced himself from several key Trudeau-era policies, including a consumer carbon tax and a planned capital gains tax increase. Carney also swiftly sought stronger defense and economic ties with European allies, signaling a pivot away from reliance on an increasingly unpredictable American partner.

Carney has said Trump’s 51st state rhetoric “will have to stop before we sit down and have a conversation about our broader partnership” with the US.

Both Carney and Poilievre say they’d be better at negotiating with Trump, and have talked about diversifying Canada’s trade relationships while dissolving internal barriers to trade. No party has published a full policy platform yet. -Bloomberg

Poilievre, meanwhile, launched his campaign in Gatineau, Quebec, denouncing Carney and Trudeau as elites disconnected from ordinary Canadians. He accused them of leaving the Canadian economy vulnerable to American pressure through mismanagement and excessive spending.

“After the lost Liberal decade, the question is whether Canadians can afford a fourth Liberal term,” Poilievre declared. He pledged a streamlined government, deregulation, and robust support for Canada’s oil and gas sectors.

“I know a lot of people are worried, angry and anxious, and with good reason as a result of the president’s unacceptable threats against our country,” he continued. “I share your anger and I share the worry for our future. But I also draw great resolve in knowing that we can transform the anxiety and anger into action.”

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

Yet, the shifting political narrative has complicated Poilievre’s pitch. In French-speaking Quebec, historically inclined toward sovereignty movements, support for separatist Bloc Québécois is waning as voters unify around a national cause. Conversely, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has demanded substantial concessions from Ottawa to bolster her province’s energy sector, threatening a national unity crisis unless swift action is taken.

Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party, traditionally a strong advocate for working-class voters and an ally in propping up Trudeau’s government, has seen its support dwindle. Many of its voters appear to be moving toward the Liberals, seeking to consolidate opposition to Trump’s bellicose threats.

With no full policy platforms yet unveiled by any party, Canadians are preparing for an election centered around identity, sovereignty, and economic survival. Once firmly on the defensive, Mark Carney now finds himself on the brink of a historic opportunity—turning Canadian anxiety into political momentum, reshaping the country’s future amid unprecedented external threats.

 

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

Venezuela has said it will once again accept U.S. repatriation flights carrying its nationals deported for illegally entering the United States.

Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro announced that a deal had been reached in a televised address on Saturday.

“Tomorrow, thanks to the government’s perseverance, we’ll resume flights to continue rescuing and freeing migrants from prisons in the United States,” Maduro said.

Venezuela’s Parliament President and chief negotiator with the United States, Jorge Rodriguez, said in a statement on social media, “We have agreed with the U.S. government to resume the repatriation of Venezuelan migrants with an initial flight tomorrow, Sunday.”

This will prevent illegal immigrants who are Venezuelan nationals from being deported to detention centers in El Salvador, as well as guarantee “the return of our compatriots to their nation with the safeguard of their Human Rights,” he said, referring to Venezuelan gang members currently detained in El Salvador.

“Migrating isn’t a crime, and we won’t rest until everyone who wants to return is back and we rescue our kidnapped brothers in El Salvador,” Rodriguez added.

The Epoch Times has contacted the White House for comment.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened on March 18 further harsh sanctions after Maduro on March 8 suspended taking in repatriation flights in response to the U.S. Treasury Department’s withdrawal of Chevron’s license to participate in Venezuela’s oil

A diplomatic spat erupted, with the United States threatening to send criminal illegal immigrants from Venezuela to El Salvador for detention if Caracas would not accept them.

Some 350 Venezuelan nationals had already been deported back home as part of Trump’s rapid deportation program that prioritizes removing illegal immigrants who are violent criminals or terrorists. Among them were some 180 alleged to be Tren de Aragua members who spent up to 16 days at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Tren de Aragua originated in a Venezuelan prison. Members have accompanied an exodus of millions of economic immigrants and political refugees from Venezuela seeking better living conditions after their nation’s democracy and economy came undone last decade.

In February, President Donald Trump had already designated Tren de Aragua, alongside the transnational organization Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and several drug cartels, as terrorist organizations that “threaten the security of United States nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”

As Maduro’s freeze continued, the Trump administration on March 15 invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act that allows a president to detain and deport noncitizens of hostile nations without the necessity of a judicial hearing. The Act is applicable to wartime or when there is a “predatory incursion,” or attempt or threat to invade U.S. territory. The White House said that Tren de Aragua was an invading force, and that it would act to deport gang members.

Around 250 Venezuelan illegal immigrants said to be linked with Tren de Aragua were then deported to a high-security prison in El Salvador.

Venezuela’s interior minister has denied that the deportees were members of Tren de Aragua.

Their families and lawyers say they have not been able to reach them, and have demanded Maduro secure their return to Venezuela. They argue that the Trump administration has not provided evidence that the deportees committed any crime in the United States. The Trump administration said it has the right to deport illegal immigrants, and has been prioritizing criminals and others found in their vicinity.

Maduro, in his televised address, said he held El Salvador President Nayib Bukele responsible for imprisoning his nationals, repeating that they hadn’t committed crimes in the United States or El Salvador.

“You have to guarantee their health and sooner rather than later, you have to free them and hand them over,” he told Bukele.

Court Challenge

A federal judge in the District of Columbia had issued an order temporarily barring the deportation of five Venezuelans but the administration said flights were already in the air by the time of the ruling.

The planes landed in El Salvador and Bukele posted on social media that the intervention came “too late.”

The White House has faced allegations of defying the judge’s order, which it refutes.

Judge James Boesberg has ordered the Trump administration to submit more information on its officials’ claims that they did not violate his order temporarily blocking the expulsions in a March 25 hearing.

Turkey descent into full-blown banana republic status continued on Sunday morning, when the country’s police formally arrested President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s main political rival, a decision that will trigger even more market turmoil and protests across the country. Ekrem Imamoglu, Istanbul’s mayor, was jailed on corruption charges days after being detained by police; he was also officially suspended as mayor of Istanbul, sparking an unprecedented political crisis in Turkey which may urgently require another fake coup by Erdogan as he slowly loses control.

The case – which the “Democratic” western media would be screaming about… if only it didn’t involve the second largest army in NATO – has the potential to keep Imamoglu, who denies the charges, behind bars for years and prevent him from running against Erdogan in the next elections. He is the most prominent person to be ensnared in a recent wave of detentions and investigations against opposition figures.

WATCH moment Turkish police spray angry protesters with pepper spray after boos ring out

Arrested Istanbul mayor wants MORE protests in country https://t.co/wULT2xgJKo pic.twitter.com/94X6d9UST7

— RT (@RT_com) March 23, 2025

Imamoglu’s detention on Wednesday came a day after authorities revoked his university diploma, which Turks need to run for the highest political office. The Istanbul court hearing the allegations on Sunday decided against a formal arrest on separate terror charges, but Imamoglu will remain in jail over the corruption probe.

Protests against the arrest of Istanbul mayor Imamoglu are escalating all over the country

In Bursa, police and protestors are engaging in mutual violence https://t.co/emS5SUGwZj pic.twitter.com/kfKFhnyWEa

— RT (@RT_com) March 23, 2025

Imamoglu was scheduled to be declared his party’s candidate on Sunday for the next presidential vote, scheduled for 2028. The cancellation of his university degree and decision by Turkish authorities to put him behind bars leave his political future unclear.

“We’ll together remove this black stain put on our democracy,” Imamoglu said in a statement shortly after his arrest. “I stand tall, I will never bow.”

He repeated the popular campaign slogan he used in municipal elections: “All will be good.”

His arrest suggests that Turkish authorities won’t be deterred by mass protests that have broken out in cities including Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Erdogan and his officials have accused the main opposition party of trying to sow chaos by calling people onto the streets. Of course, the opposition party wouldn’t be trying to sow chaos if its leaders hadnt’ been arrested.

WATCH moment Turkish police spray angry protesters with pepper spray after boos ring out

Arrested Istanbul mayor wants MORE protests in country https://t.co/wULT2xgJKo pic.twitter.com/94X6d9UST7

— RT (@RT_com) March 23, 2025

The 54-year-old mayor’s popularity has risen nationally since 2019, when he defeated Erdogan’s handpicked candidate in local elections. He repeated his success at the ballot box against another Erdogan ally last year, helping the main opposition Republican People’s Party, known as the CHP, inflict an unprecedented defeat on Erdogan’s AK Party.

The arrest will surely trigger a renewed selloff of Turkish assets, which cratered last week and saw the lira plunge to a now record low. The country’s stocks and currency experienced the biggest drops globally while the government’s local-currency bond yields surged. That was despite state lenders selling at least $9 billion to try to calm markets.

In an attempt to contain the collapse, Turkey’s central bank unexpectedly hiked a key overnight lending interest rate in an unscheduled meeting on Thursday. It convened executives from the nation’s top lenders on Sunday in another attempt to stem the fallout, Bloomberg reported citing people with direct knowledge of the matter.

Likely making matters even worse, the Turkish markets regulators has officially banned short-selling. Which, as we have seen in practice literally dozens of times across various moments of crisis… has never actually done anything to stop a market’s descent (and in fact often makes matters worse).

Erdogan, who had long championed low interest rates to boost economic growth, swallowed his pride and brought back former ally Mehmet Simsek as finance minister. Simsek, who used to be a Merrill Lynch bond strategist, oversaw a period in which the central bank raised interest rates to 50%, the highest since Erdogan began ruling Turkey in 2003, and kept them there long enough to attract billions of dollars of inflows from foreign investors.

Inflation, still as high as 75% last May, was finally showing signs of slowing after years of hyperinflation pushed many Turks into poverty and pushed them away from Erdogan’s ruling party.

While some of Erdogan’s critics say he’s simply trying to weaken the opposition, a charge the government has denied, saying that Imamoglu’s detention has nothing to do with the president or his party others argue Erdogan is using the shifts in the global balance of power to maximize his gains at home: he has a good rapport with Trump, who he hopes to visit at the White House next month, and enjoys close ties with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. More importantly, Turkey’s expanding military footprint makes Erdogan a key power broker in regional conflicts from Ukraine to Syria, and a useful ally for the European Union as the bloc frets about a possible US retreat.

The Turks taking to the streets over the past four days have defied various bans on protests. Istanbul’s governor placed restrictions on travel into and out of the city to stop the rallies from spreading.

Turkish authorities also immediately demanded that X bans over 700 accounts amid the unrest, to which Musk’s company responded, the demand is “unlawful” adding that the company “will always defend freedom of speech”.

For now Erdogan, the main focus of the anti-government protesters’ ire, appears unfazed. As was the case in 2013 during months of anti-government protests that began in Istanbul and spread throughout much of Turkey, the president has gradually become more confrontational.

“It’s a dead-end street,” Erdogan said after the main opposition party called on followers to organize mass protests. “The days when street terror set the direction for politics is now in the past, just like the old Turkey.”