iftttwall

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.”

The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases.

For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions.

There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. 

However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue.

On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. 

Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief.

He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA’s has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.”

Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of Doge, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.”

There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.”

This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general.

Even before Raskin’s boost, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.”

Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward.

Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.”

These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.”

Of course, Raskin is not alone in the perils of premature celebration:

For those members like Raskin opposing the freeze on hiring and payouts, there is even an example of losing to the Freeze due to a premature celebration:

The race is far from over so both sides may want to stay focused on the finish line in the ongoing litigation.

In 2017, as Donald Trump took office with a crackdown on employment visas, former Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) IT manager Anil Kini alleges he was ordered to falsify internal organizational charts to make the company appear more manager-heavy.

Kini claims this was a cover-up to evade scrutiny over TCS’s use of L-1A manager visas, which have fewer restrictions than H-1B visas and lack minimum pay requirements, according to a new feature by Bloomberg.

Kini and two other former TCS employees filed whistleblower lawsuits under the False Claims Act, alleging the company used L-1A visas to bring in non-managerial workers. However, the cases were dismissed before the visa fraud claims were examined, with Kini’s still under appeal. He says he resisted altering the charts and was fired in 2018 after filing his lawsuit.

Federal data reviewed by Bloomberg indicates that TCS has received more L-1A approvals than the number of managers it disclosed to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, suggesting possible misuse of the visa program. TCS, which serves major U.S. tech firms, has secured more L-1A visas than any other employer in recent years.

The company denies any wrongdoing, stating that courts have already dismissed these allegations.

While Trump initially opposed employment visas, arguing they undercut American workers, his stance has shifted, now expressing support for such programs. This has created tensions between his traditional nationalist base and newer tech-industry allies. Meanwhile, legal experts note that gaming the L-1A program is common, with federal authorities uncovering nearly 200 cases of misuse in the past decade.

The Bloomberg feature says that False Claims Act lawsuits let whistleblowers sue companies on behalf of the U.S. government, often alleging corporate fraud against taxpayers. These cases gain traction when the Justice Department joins, but the DOJ declined to back any lawsuits against TCS over L-1A visa misuse, including Anil Kini’s.

TCS stated in legal filings that an internal review found “most of the issues raised” by Kini were unsubstantiated and claimed it had “already taken corrective action” on those that were. However, the company did not disclose what its inquiry revealed. A federal judge dismissed Kini’s case in February, ruling he failed to prove how TCS’ visa practices violated financial obligations to the U.S. government.

Kini, who appealed the decision, says he refused to alter organizational charts and filed two internal complaints before suing in 2017. He was fired the following year, which he calls retaliation. TCS did not comment on his dismissal. “I was proud to be working for TCS,” he said. “But then some things in life, there should be integrity in what you do.”

In another case, Vinod Govindharajan, an Indian national, alleges TCS falsely claimed he was a manager in 2013 to secure an L-1A visa, bypassing stricter H-1B rules. He says the company brought him to New Jersey, where he worked a sales job with no subordinates and was paid half of what American colleagues earned. Frustrated, he filed a 2018 complaint with the EEOC, which later found “credible documentary evidence” that TCS “frequently falsifies documents in support of L-1 visa applications.” The agency also determined Indian visa workers were underpaid and that TCS retaliated against Govindharajan for speaking out.

However, the EEOC lacks authority over immigration or employment visa wage laws, which fall under separate federal agencies. There’s no indication it shared its findings with them. An EEOC spokesperson cited confidentiality rules in declining to comment. “It was a dream of mine to move to the U.S.,” Govindharajan said. “But I was doing a sales role, nothing to do with management.”

You can read the full writeup here. 

Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearPolitics,

The United States and Europe have long shared a common political culture rooted in the ideals of the Enlightenment. These include the primacy of personal freedom; individual autonomy; the inherent equal moral standing of human beings; acceptance of diverse viewpoints; and the use of logic, intellectual rigor, and critical thinking to understand the world. The Western alliance’s raison d’etre is protecting those ideals – and the societies built on the foundation of these ideals – from authoritarian regimes.

J.D. Vance restated our commitment to these ideals in two powerful speeches last week – to a Paris conference on artificial intelligence and then to the Munich Security Conference. America’s newly installed vice president directly challenged European political elites who, fearing freedom, are drifting away from these ideals as they seek to squelch popular political movements while becoming autocratic themselves. For some reason, leaders in the audience were visibly stunned. They shouldn’t have been.

Vance’s rhetorical fluency was his ticket into politics. Both his recent speeches were deftly crafted and temperately delivered. They accurately reflected MAGA’s disgust over reflexive regulation by self-loathing elites who limit freedom in the name of “democracy,” and who seek to cover up government incompetence and dishonesty by deconstructing Western culture as somehow inherently racist.

In Munich, the vice president made it clear that our shared Enlightenment ideals are central to the Trump administration’s security policy and our ongoing commitment to the alliance. In Paris, Vance proclaimed that less government interference is essential to winning the AI race, and that AI should remain free from the ceaseless demands of woke culture:

Number one, this administration will ensure that American AI technology continues to be the gold standard worldwide, and we are the partner of choice for others, foreign countries, and certainly businesses as they expand their own use of AI. Number two, we believe that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off, and we’ll make every effort to encourage pro-growth AI policies. And I like to see that deregulatory flavor making its way into a lot of the conversations at this conference. Number three, we feel very strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship.

This third point is not aimed at Europe alone, or China, for that matter. The context here is that AI is being created by human beings who have political perspectives. AI will always have an ideology or ethic. So, let’s talk directly about the perspective that will make AI as useful (and humane) as possible.

Extrapolating on Vance’s point, U.S. companies and software engineers could adopt this refrain: “Embracing the goals of the Enlightenment, American AI must avoid bias and authoritarian censorship. It must pay homage to the primacy of personal freedom, individual autonomy, and the inherent equal moral standing of human beings. It must also celebrate diverse viewpoints while also elevating the use of logic, intellectual rigor, and critical thinking to understand the world.”

Because Western elites now doubt this ideology, the Trump administration should explicitly endorse these ideals in its AI policy as emphatically as it does in its security policy.

American-developed AI should be humane, pragmatic, logical, and possess common sense, so that AI actually advances and spreads knowledge instead of being a tool for propagating dogma, stifling intellectual curiosity, or advancing creeping European-style authoritarianism.

Google’s generative AI tool, which now provides the “top” response for most queries, shows how urgently we need to reframe the AI already in the marketplace. While earlier versions of Google’s AI product were mocked for producing ahistorical imagery, the current version is still infused with a left-wing, anti-analytical, anti-American perspective. This matters because Google’s AI is now the primary source of information for the entire world.

For example, consider how Google’s generative AI answers these queries.

Is the U.S. structurally racist?

Yes, the United States is structurally racist. Structural racism is a system of policies, practices, and norms that create and maintain white supremacy. It affects the health, education, employment, and economic status of people of color and others marginalized in society.

Does DEI make companies more profitable?

According to research from McKinsey and other studies, yes, implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices can generally make companies more profitable by fostering a wider talent pool, boosting innovation, and leading to better decision-making within diverse teams, ultimately improving financial performance; companies with higher diversity in their leadership tend to outperform their peers financially.

(One of the citations actually states that the results of the McKinsey studies could not be replicated, a fact the AI ignores.)

Is healthcare ever free?

Yes, healthcare is free for everyone in some countries, but not in the United States.

(Obviously healthcare is never free – someone needs to pay the doctors and build the hospitals.)

Of course, today’s AI will be seen as primitive in just a few years, but it should be worrisome not just to the Trump administration, but to all free-thinking Americans that AI’s first draft was written by left-wing activists. AI must instead be designed to question, consider, and analyze different alternatives and express uncertainty when appropriate; AI won’t be useful, and could even be dangerous, unless it’s programmed to actually be thoughtful.

Also, American AI should be quintessentially American, reflecting the best of the culture that produced our exceptional nation. We will ultimately fail in our common cause of making America great again if U.S. history is written by its haters, its economics are explained by Marxists, and “the science” is allowed to replace the scientific method. 

Richard Porter is a lawyer in Chicago and an advisor to the Alfa Institute, a policy and idea accelerator founded by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. 

President Donald Trump threw his support behind a House budget plan calling for a $4.5 trillion tax cut, and encouraged Senate Republicans to abandon a short-term funding effort and coordinate with the House to implement “my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it.”

“The House and Senate are doing a SPECTACULAR job of working together as one unified, and unbeatable, TEAM, however, unlike the Lindsey Graham version of the very important Legislation currently being discussed, the House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to “kickstart” the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, “ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.” Trump continued.

The “Lindsey Graham version” refers to a vote scheduled this week in the Senate that would add $150 billion to military spending and increase immigration and border enforcement by $175 billion – which some Republicans say they want to move on quickly, while waiting to resolve contentious disputes over tax cuts and raising the debt ceiling.

House Speaker chimed in on X, saying that Trump “is right,” adding “House Republicans are working to deliver President Trump’s FULL agenda – not just a small part of it.“

.@realDonaldTrump is right!

House Republicans are working to deliver President Trump’s FULL agenda – not just a small part of it.

Let’s get it done, @HouseGOP! pic.twitter.com/Hw32oLAl0z

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) February 19, 2025

Trump’s comments have complicated efforts by Senate Republican leaders to drum up support for this week’s budget vote, while the House – which is taking a one-week break for the President’s Day holiday, is struggling to come up with enough votes for the budget plan because of the party’s narrow majority, Bloomberg reports.

Adopting the budget is the first step in a special process Republicans intend to use to bypass minority senate Democrats on tax and spending legislation. A budget plan would allow Republicans to overcome procedural obstacles in the Senate with a simple majority rathe than the 60 votes it would otherwise take.

The House has drafted a plan to allow $4.5 trillion in tax cuts in exchange for $2 trillion in spending cuts and a $4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. The House plan would direct $300 billion to military and border spending but the larger bill is expected to take months to hash out.

The plan which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts was approved in committee ahead of possible floor votes later this month. According to House leaders, their slim majority makes it easier to pass one bill vs. breaking it into several pieces.

 

Via SchiffGold.com,

Gold Stocks vs. Bullion: Why the Lag?

You might think that the price of physical gold and the performance of gold mining stocks should more or less always move together, since higher gold prices typically boost miners’ revenues. However, there are instances—like now—where physical gold prices surge while gold mining stocks stay flat or even decline. There are a lot of reasons this can happen, but it sometimes represents a buying opportunity.

Take 2000-2011, which of course includes the 2008 financial crisis. The price of physical gold rocketed up over 500%, but gold mining equities returned almost 700% during the same decade. During bull markets, the cost of gold production rises slower than the value per ounce of bullion, which gold miners can leverage.

However, any number of market factors could cause a gold mining stock to underperform bullion in the shorter term despite a boom in bullion prices, but the lag usually doesn’t last. This isn’t to say that gold mining stocks are a replacement for physical gold in a portfolio. Unlike physical gold, they aren’t money—they’re stocks. But they’re inextricably linked to gold, and as part of a diversified precious metals investment portfolio, Peter Schiff still recommends allocating investment capital to gold miners, especially when they appear undervalued.

Kinross Gold was down about 7% last week simply because analysts overshot the mark and expected earnings that Kinross didn’t meet. That’s in spite of an objectively strong 82% rise in earnings. But oftentimes, when markets react, they overreact. 

Gold stocks as a group are barely up today, despite gold’s $23 rise, to trade just below $2,930. I think that’s entirely due to the market’s over-reaction to Kinross’s strong earnings report not being as strong as expected, despite the stock already being extremely underpriced.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) February 13, 2025

Other times, inflationary pressure, rising prices, labor shortages, trouble at gold mines where a company is invested, legal surprises, and other factors can temporarily drag down mining stocks even as gold booms. In 2024, Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: GOLD) had to shut down a mine in Mali due to a dispute with authorities relating to new mining laws. Barrick hopes to reopen the mine, but had to revise their 2025 output projections because of the closure. 

These kinds of geopolitical risks can disrupt production and negatively impact investor confidence, causing stock prices to fall even when gold prices are rising. Unlike Kinross, however, Barrick’s recent earnings and production report caused the stock to jump. But it’s still currently undervalued relative to the boom in bullion, which is likely to continue in 2025.

Barrick Gold Corp (GOLD) 5-Day Chart

Gold stocks can also go down due to investors reacting to gold and silver spreads. With the gold/silver ratio currently around $90, investors may be unwinding their positions to take profits or cut losses. As Peter Schiff noted last Friday on X/Twitter:

“Yes, gold is down nearly $40 today, but there’s no reason for gold mining stocks to be down too. Gold is barely below $2,900, and prices are going much higher. Yet most gold stocks would be cheap at twice the price. Some of today’s decline may be unwinding of gold/silver spreads.”

Another problem with the short-term valuation of gold stocks is coming from the inability of Wall Street analysts to understand and properly model when it comes to gold and gold miners. Forecasting earnings for these mining companies, in part, means having to forecast the price of bullion itself.

Wall Street is clueless about gold. Analysts who cover Barrick Gold have to estimate future earnings to rate the stock. To do that, they also must estimate future gold prices. With gold trading today above $2,900, they now estimate a $2,400 gold price to forecast 2027 earnings.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) February 10, 2025

The Fed is not in control. Inflation is ripping as the money supply expands, prices are rising, and gold will respond with further gains. But Wall Street remains clueless about gold, which affects the valuation of mining stocks. As Peter Schiff said recently on X Spaces:

“All the Wall Street firms, when they rate these gold stocks, they assume the price of gold is going to be much lower in the future than it is now. They have no confidence in this rally. That’s why they don’t want to buy gold stocks because they expect the price of gold to fall, even though it’s going to continue to rise.”

Regardless of when Wall Street and retail investors figure it out, the yellow metal remains the undisputed safe-haven asset, especially with inflation hot and the possibility of QE later this year to “save” the system. Hard money will never change. But the broader global precious metals market is more than just physical. 

With gold mining stocks potentially outperforming bullion during certain time frames, and a pattern of being undervalued during this latest bull market, diversifying into a group of winning miners is a move worth considering as gold readies to surpass $3,000 for the first time in history.

In recent weeks, discussions have emerged around President Donald Trump’s proposal for a deal that would grant the US exclusive access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for continued military aid. Last weekend, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected the proposal, even though US officials had pitched the deal as an integral part of lasting peace in resolving the multi-year war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

Trump and top officials have articulated that the US wants a guarantee of $500 billion worth of Ukraine’s estimated trillion dollars of rare earth wealth.

Financial Times noted last week that Ukraine’s rejection of the US proposal as follows: 

Zelenskyy wants American and European security guarantees to be tied directly to any deal on the mineral reserves, according to four people familiar with the US-Ukraine negotiations. He is also keen for other countries, including EU states, to be involved in future natural resource exploitation.

But the deal proposed by Trump and delivered by Bessent only referenced the US getting Ukrainian resources in exchange for past military assistance, and did not contain any proposals for similar future assistance, according to a person familiar with the document.

If the FT’s report is accurate, the Trump administration may attempt to recoup US losses from the war by seeking a substantial stake in Ukraine’s rare earth minerals deposits. 

However, some remain skeptical that Ukraine’s rare earth mineral deposits are worth a trillion or more… 

“What Ukraine has is scorched earth; what it doesn’t have is rare earths. Surprisingly, many people — not least, US President Donald Trump — seem convinced the country has a rich mineral endowment. It’s a folly,” Bloomberg’s Javier Blas penned in an op-ed on Wednesday. 

More from Blas questioning Ukraine’s rare earths deposits:

I was puzzled. To the best of my knowledge, Ukraine has no significant rare-earth deposits other than small scandium mines. The US Geological Survey, an authority on the matter, doesn’t list the country as holding any reserves. Neither does any other database commonly used in the mining business.

Simply put, “follow the money” doesn’t work here. At best, the value of all the world’s rare-earth production rounds to $15 billion a year — emphasis on “a year.” That’s equal to the value of just two days of global oil output. Even if Ukraine had gigantic deposits, they wouldn’t be that valuable in geo-economic terms.

Say that Ukraine was able, as if by magic, to produce 20% of the world’s rare earths. That would equal to about $3 billion annually. To reach the $500 billion mooted by Trump, the US would need to secure 150-plus years of Ukrainian output. Pure nonsense

However, Blas acknowledged that his analysis could be wrong and that Ukraine may, in fact, have substantial deposits.

He outlined two possible explanations for this:

I see two possibilities: that Trump is right — and I’m very wrong — and Ukraine has, in fact, lots of rare earths; or that he misspoke, and rather than “rare earths” he meant other minerals. Or perhaps he took the small potential of a single element — scandium2 — and extrapolated.

Let’s explore the second option, because at least it would make some sense. While Ukraine doesn’t have commercial rare-earth deposits, it does have mines housing other minerals. Before its war with Russia, Ukraine produced significant amounts of iron ore and coal. Neither are strategic, but the country had been making decent money from both. Problem? Some mines lie now in territory conquered by Russia.

Maybe Trump conflated “rare earths” with the much broader concept of “critical minerals.” Of the latter, Ukraine has some commercial mines of titanium and gallium. Both are fairly valuable and have some strategic importance, but then again, controlling either wouldn’t alter geo-economics. And they certainly aren’t worth Trump’s expressed $500 billion.

Still, the American president steadfastly referred to rare earths; not once, but several times. So then, perhaps he knows something the commodity world doesn’t. But I found no credible source that says Ukraine is brimming with reserves.

Every document someone has pointed out to me regurgitates the same conspiracy-theory claims found on the blogosphere. They tend to mistake accumulations of some rare-earth-bearing minerals as equating with a commercial mine. Many highlight the Novopoltavske deposit, discovered by the Soviets in 1970, as a potential source. While tiny amounts of rare earths are present there, digging them out seems impossible — hence why the site remains an unproductive deposit rather than a mine more than 50 years after its discovery. The Ukrainian government has described Novopoltavske as “relatively difficult” to mine and said that any rare-earth yield would be “off balance,” meaning that it’s not economical to exploit them at current prices. Worse, the mineralogy goes against it: The host source is a mineral that makes extracting the elements very hard.

The worst of the pamphlets claiming Ukraine has a rare-earths cache bears the North Atlantic Treaty Organization imprint and has been widely shared as the “Trump-is-right” proof. It was produced in December 2024 by the NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence, based in Lithuania. Although affiliated with the military alliance, bearing its name and logo, the entity and its counterparts are autonomous bodies outside the command chain. The document is provocative: “Ukraine emerges as a key potential supplier of rare earth metals such as titanium, lithium, beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium…” The list should ring every alarm. Anyone with a passing knowledge of chemistry knows none of those minerals are rare earths.

Why NATO’s imprint is attached to the report, which appears devoid of basic fact-checking, is beyond comprehension. A spokesperson told me the views reflected those of the author rather than NATO — something the document doesn’t say.

If that’s the source Trump’s advisers used to convince him of Ukraine’s rare-earth riches, it would be depressing — global politics based on copy and paste. It would suit the Kafkaesque year of 2025 well.

And this is not the first time Washington has used geology in a war zone to justify empire-building. 

Blas noted, “Back in 2010, the US announced it had discovered $1 trillion of untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, including some crucial for electric-car batteries, like lithium. The Pentagon went as far as describing Afghanistan as “the Saudi Arabia of lithium.”” 

Authored by Luis Cornelio, via Headline USA,

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller on Thursday turned a CNN interview on Tuesday into a civics lecture, humorously educating host Brianna Keilar on who runs President Donald Trump’s DOGE. 

JUST IN: Stephen Miller starts laughing at CNN’s Brianna Keilar while explaining to her how the government works as if she’s a child.

“I understand that even a temporary interruption in federal employment is a great crisis, a catastrophe for you and for CNN.”

“What the American… pic.twitter.com/omyJJXn6Gu

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 18, 2025

Miller’s remarks came in response to leftist cynicism over a court filing in which the Trump administration stated that tech mogul Elon Musk is neither an employee nor the administrator of DOGE.

Democrats have attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to thwart Musk’s involvement in DOGE, but Trump has made it clear that Musk serves as a special advisor. That basic fact appeared lost on Keilar. 

“Who is in charge of DOGE?” she asked.

“The president of the United States,” Miller replied with a noticeable smile.

“He’s the administrator of DOGE?” Keilar pressed, prompting Miller to take her on a walk down memory lane about DOGE’s beginnings. 

“No,” he shot back.

“DOGE is what was formerly U.S. Digital Service, is an agency of the federal government that reports to the Executive Office of President, which reports to the president of the United States.” 

He continued,

“The way Article II works is that: the president wins an election, and then he appoints staff—including myself, including [National Security Advisor] Mike Waltz, including [White House Chief of Staff] Susie Wiles, including Elon Musk—and those staff report to him.”

Keilar, seemingly frustrated, interjected, “Okay, well aware.” 

She then played a clip of Musk inside the Oval Office with Trump, referring to DOGE as “our” task force. Keilar seemingly attempted to suggest that Musk was, in fact, running it.

“Did you hear him there? ‘We post OUR actions. All of OUR actions are maximally transparent.’ Does Elon Musk know he’s not in charge of DOGE?” Keilar asked. 

Miller immediately shot back: 

“Again, the president runs the government, the president appoints advisors, including Elon, including myself, including all the other staff at the White House and then those staff in turn, execute the president’s commands and directions to all agencies of the federal government. This is how democracy works, something that we treasure in America.”

Miller’s response countered Democrat claims that Musk is somehow plotting a hostile takeover of the federal government, though these claims conveniently ignore that Musk is simply following Trump’s orders. 

CNN viewers wouldn’t know this if they relied on Keilar. 

Authored by Tom Mitchelhill via CoinTelegraph.com,

The launch of the highly controversial LIBRA memecoin, which Argentine President Javier Milei briefly promoted, has embroiled the crypto industry in an emerging global scandal. 

Disregarding for a moment the impact of the token’s launch on international politics — with President Milei’s own sister reportedly receiving payments from LIBRA founder Hayden Davis and Milei facing calls for impeachment — the coin has sparked major controversy involving key industry leaders in the Solana ecosystem. 

The price of SOL has also tumbled more than 17% since the launch of LIBRA on Feb. 14, falling from $204 to $169 at the time of writing, according to from Cointelegraph. 

SOL has dropped more than 17% in the last five days. Source: Cointelegraph

Meteora co-founder Ben Chow chose to resign from his role at the decentralized exchange, according to a Feb. 18 statement made on X by Jupiter’s pseudonymous founder Meow, who is also a co-founder of Meteora. 

Meow said the resignation was related to Chow’s “lack of judgement and care” relating to core aspects of Meteora’s business.

Source: Meow

Over the last three months, the Meteora platform has facilitated a series of high-profile memecoin launches for viral influencer Haliey Welch (HAWK), US President Donald Trump (TRUMP), First Lady Melania Trump (MELANIA), and most recently, Libra (LIBRA).

In the wake of these launches, several market participants have accused members of the Meteora team of insider trading and other unethical financial activity. 

DeFiTuna founder surfaces allegations against Meteora

On Feb. 18, DeFiTuna founder Moty Povolotsky — who goes by Caveman Dhirk on X — claimed that Chow had enabled a network of influencers who profited significantly from the celebrity launches, despite the threat posed to retail market participants.

Source: Moty Povolotsky

“It has been an internal secret that there is a massive spiderweb of influencers who are banking millions from the Meteora community enabled by the leadership team of Ben,” he wrote.

Moty stated that his firm had accepted an investment of $30,000 from Davis’ firm, Kelsier, on Jan. 16. However, he said that in the wake of the LIBRA launch, he “refunded Kelsier and cut all ties.”

But Meow claimed that no one from either Meteora or Jupiter had been involved in any wrongdoing regarding the launch of LIBRA or any other tokens:

“I’d like to reiterate my confidence that no one at Jupiter or Meteora committed any insider trading or financial wrongdoing, or received any tokens inappropriately.”

In an earlier Feb. 17 statement on X, Chow himself also denied any insider activity at Meteora surrounding the launch of LIBRA. 

Chow said neither he nor the Meteora team ever received or managed tokens “on the side,” nor did they have any other knowledge concerning “offchain dealings” with the tokens. 

“To maintain the high levels of confidentiality, very few people in Meteora have access to any launch information,” said Chow.

“Neither I nor the Meteora team compromised the $LIBRA launch by leaking information, nor did we purchase, receive, or manage any tokens.”

How celebrities launch memecoins on Meteora

Chow also explained the process of how celebrities and politicians go about launching a token on Meteora. 

“They typically need to hire a ‘deployer’ and/or market-maker, which is a service we do not provide,” Chow said. 

“These deployer teams are typically experts in using Meteora’s SDK or CLI and can design more sophisticated launches, as our tech allows for tons of customization. In the past, if a project did not have those resources, they would often ask me for deployer and/or market-making referrals,” he added.

He said there was nothing exclusive or unique about the relationship between Meteora and LIBRA deployer Davis.

Other industry pundits, including the pseudonymous crypto trader Curb, claimed that a Jupiter employee engaged in sniping the token’s launch. However, due to the small amounts used by the wallet address in question — ranging from $10 to $250 — it’s unlikely these were attempts at sniping and are more likely to be erratic trading behavior. 

Source: Curb

Jupiter launches investigation into LIBRA

In the wake of the LIBRA fallout, Meow announced that he would engage law firm Fenwick & West to investigate the situation and publish an independent report. 

However, after receiving backlash from legal experts on X in regard to Fenwick & West’s prior dealings with crypto firms – it is currently facing a lawsuit over claims it was directly involved in helping FTX blur its relationship with Alameda Research in 2022 – Meow said he would reevaluate his call and decide whether to engage a different law firm instead.

Since the last FOMC meeting – on Jan 29th – the market has coped admirably well with the utter avalanche of headlines spewing from Washington (and around the world). Gold has been the standout choice while stocks, bonds, oil and the dollar are all about flat…

Source: Bloomberg

The macro data has been a nightmare (for The Fed) with stagflationary impulses clear as growth surprises have been to the downside while inflation surprises have soared to the upside…

Source: Bloomberg

…which helps explain why rate-cut expectations have tumbled since the last FOMC statement…

Source: Bloomberg

Additionally, FedSpeak since the last meeting has been guardedly hawkish with Powell reiterating his ‘no rush to cut’ comments and various other Fed heads noting that the central bank is ‘in a good place’ after they removed the optimistic ‘inflation keeps trending down’ language from the prior statement.

So, bearing in mind that hot CPI and PPI (and inflation expectations from soft survey data) will not be included in these Minutes, what does The Fed want us to focus on?

Here are the initial highlights:

Fed’s on hold (confirmation)

The Fed’s 19 officials who participate in its interest-rate decisions indicated that “they would want to see further progress on inflation before making” any further cuts.

Fed blames Trump:

The minutes also cited a “high degree of uncertainty” surrounding the economy, which made it appropriate for the Fed to “take a careful approach” in considering any further changes to its key interest rate.

Fed officials said that President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs and mass deportations of migrants, as well as strong consumer spending, were factors that could push inflation higher this year.

And diving into the details:

Monetary Policy

• Some participants cited potential changes in trade and immigration policy as having potential to hinder disinflation process.

• Vast majority of participants judged risks to dual mandate objectives were roughly in balance.

• A couple of participants noted it appeared that risks to achieving inflation mandate were greater than risks to employment mandate

• Majority of participants observed that the current high degree of uncertainty made it appropriate for the Committee to take a careful approach in considering additional adjustments to the stance of monetary policy.

• Many participants noted that the Committee could hold the policy rate at a restrictive level if the economy remained strong and inflation remained elevated, while several remarked that policy could be eased if labor market conditions deteriorated, economic activity faltered, or inflation returned to 2 percent more quickly than anticipated.

Balance sheet

• Various participants noted it may be appropriate to consider pausing or slowing balance sheet runoff until resolution of debt ceiling dynamics.

• Many participants noted after conclusion of balance sheet runoff it would be appropriate to structure asset purchases to move maturity composition closer to outstanding stock of Treasury debt.

• Fed survey respondents forecast balance sheet runoff process concluding by mid-2025, slightly later than previously expected.

On financial stability risks

• Participants noted a range of factors that warranted monitoring. Several participants mentioned issues related to the banking system. A few commented that bank funding risks had lessened and that many banks had improved their ability to access the discount window; however, a couple observed that some banks had increased their reliance on reciprocal deposits, and that the stability of these deposits had not been tested in a time of stress.

• Several participants noted that some banks remained vulnerable to a rise in longer-term yields and the associated unrealized losses on bank assets.

• Several participants also mentioned potential vulnerabilities at nonbank financial institutions or nonfinancial corporations to a rise in longer-term yields or to leverage in these sectors.

• A few participants noted concerns about asset valuation pressures in equity and corporate debt markets.

• A few participants discussed vulnerabilities associated with CRE exposures, noting that risks remained, although there were some signs that the deterioration of conditions in the CRE sector was lessening.

Inflation

• A number of participants remarked that current readings of 12- month inflation were boosted by relatively high inflation readings in the first quarter of last year, and several participants noted that cumulative inflation over the past 3, 6, or 9 months showed greater progress than 12-month measures.

• Most participants commented that month-over-month inflation readings in November and December had exhibited notable progress toward the Committee’s goal of price stability, including in some key subcategories.

• Many participants, however, emphasized that additional evidence of continued disinflation would be needed to support the view that inflation was returning sustainably to 2 percent.

• Participants expected that, under appropriate monetary policy, inflation would continue to move toward 2 percent, although progress could remain uneven

• Business contacts in a number of Districts had indicated that firms would attempt to pass on to consumers higher input costs arising from potential tariffs.

• Some participants noted that some market- or survey-based measures of expected inflation had increased recently, although many participants emphasized that longer-term measures of expected inflation had remained well anchored.

• Some participants remarked that reported inflation at the beginning of the year was harder than usual to interpret because of the difficulties in fully removing seasonal effects, and a couple of participants commented that any increase in reported inflation in the first quarter due to such difficulties would imply a corresponding decrease in reported inflation in other quarters of the year.

On Policy Outlook

• In discussing risk-management considerations that could bear on the outlook for monetary policy, a majority of participants observed that the current high degree of uncertainty made it appropriate for the Committee to take a careful approach in considering additional adjustments to the stance of monetary policy.

• Factors mentioned by participants as supporting such an approach included the reduced downside risks to the outlook for the labor market and economic activity, increased upside risks to the outlook for inflation, and uncertainties concerning the neutral rate of interest, the degree of restraint from higher longer-term interest rates, or the economic effects of potential government policies.

• Many participants noted that the Committee could hold the policy rate at a restrictive level if the economy remained strong and inflation remained elevated, while several remarked that policy could be eased if labor market conditions deteriorated, economic activity faltered, or inflation returned to 2 percent more quickly than anticipated.

Read the full Fed Minutes below:

Quantum computing stocks surged in late-morning trading after Microsoft unveiled its first quantum computing chip. The rally is a welcome boost for the tech startups, which have struggled to regain upside momentum following Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s remarks in early January, which warned that quantum computers were decades away—comments that sent shares crashing. 

“Microsoft today introduced Majorana 1, the world’s first quantum chip powered by a new Topological Core architecture that it expects will realize quantum computers capable of solving meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades,” Microsoft wrote in a press release. 

It’s important to note that Microsoft stated, “Today’s announcement puts that horizon within years, not decades.” 

This contradicts Huang’s comments from Nvidia’s analyst day event, in which he said: “If you kind of said 15 years for very useful quantum computers, that would probably be on the early side. If you said 30, it’s probably on the late side.”

There seems to be a significant time gap between Microsoft’s outlook on quantum computing and that of Nvidia’s CEO.

About a week after Huang’s comments last month, MSFT published a blog declaring that 2025 is “the year to become quantum-ready.”

Jason Zander, a Microsoft executive vice president, told CNBC: “There’s a lot of speculation that we’re decades off from this,” adding, “We believe it’s more like years.”

Zander said the Microsoft quantum chip might become available through Azure Quantum cloud service by the end of the decade. 

The last month and a half has been a rollercoaster for quantum stock investors…

So, who is right on quantum chip timelines… Nvidia CEO? Or Microsoft? 

Just wait until Huang doubles down on his timeline.