Tag: news

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill HR 38, a bill that allows licensed concealed firearm holders to carry in other states that allow concealed carry. 

However, for Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, this bill does not go far enough. On X, he said “ I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.” 

He added, “29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?” 

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.

29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?

Under HR 38… pic.twitter.com/ddS2jECW0q

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 27, 2025

Constitutional carry is the simple concept that any lawful individual can carry a firearm without having to ask the government for permission.

Under HR 38, Massie noted that residents of constitutional carry states can carry firearms in any state that issues permits to its citizens. The recent Bruen Supreme Court decision requires all non-constitutional carry states to issue carry permits.

Massie highlighted how when HR 38 passes, residents of the 29 constitutional carry states will be able to carry in all 50 states without a permit. Though paradoxically, residents of the 21 states without constitutional carry will need permits in their own states, while visitors from constitutional carry states won’t.

In the Kentucky congressman’s view, if Congress can mandate California to allow permit-less carry for out-of-state visitors based on the Second Amendment, it only makes sense to extend this right to California residents as well. 

Massie posed the following question: “Why not pass national constitutional carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to ‘bear arms’ which is enshrined in the Constitution?”

He also called attention to how HR 38 may create a situation where a Kentucky resident could carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians themselves cannot own or carry such equipment. This appears to contradict the framework established by the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller.

In contrast, Massie’s proposed national constitutional carry bill stipulates that if a state allows possession of a particular firearm, it must also allow the carry of said firearm.

He introduced this bill as a substitute amendment to HR 38 in committee but withdrew it to avoid forcing his colleagues to choose between National Reciprocity and National Constitutional Carry. The current consensus is that HR 38 can pass the House, while Constitutional Carry may not have sufficient support.

Pro-gun organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights are firmly behind Massie’s Constitutional Carry bill. NAGR President Dudley Brown tweeted, “Massie’s bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn’s.”

Massie’s bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn’s. https://t.co/vk6qXzKUkY

— Dudley Brown (@dudleywbrown) March 27, 2025

Massie’s bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn’s.

Headline USA reached out to Brown, who said the following about Massie’s bill: 

“Massie’s Real Constitutional Carry law skips all the big-brother-may-I requirements and assumes citizens are law-abiding.  National reciprocity is a half measure compromise, as evidenced by the Senate sponsor, Sen John Cornyn.”

HR 38 was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-NC, and currently has 178 co-sponsors.

A new study ranks the best states for house flipping, using data on sale prices, remodeling costs, sales volume, and time on market. By standardizing these metrics into a single House Flipping Score, the study identifies where flipping is most profitable—higher scores mean better conditions for flippers.

Vermont tops the list of best states for house flipping with a score of 99, thanks to fast sales (32 days on market) and high transaction volume. Maine follows with a score of 95, offering the lowest remodeling costs ($27,486) among top states and similarly quick sales, the study from Badeloft shows.

New Hampshire ranks third (score: 93), combining low renovation costs with high average sale prices ($462,492). Delaware takes fourth (score: 86) with moderate remodeling expenses and solid sales volume.

Rhode Island (score: 85) has the second-fastest market (under 28 days) and low renovation expenses. Hawaii places sixth (score: 83), driven by the highest sale prices nationwide ($829,941).

Connecticut (score: 79) has the shortest time on market—just 27 days—and solid resale value. Virginia (score: 76) offers decent profits with moderate remodeling costs. North Carolina (score: 74) boasts the most active housing market among top states.

Massachusetts rounds out the top ten (score: 71) with high property values ($605,614) and a market time of 36 days.

Virginia is ranked eighth for house flipping potential, achieving a score of 76. Home improvement projects here generally require an investment of $39,215, with investors able to sell properties for an average of $382,930.

Finally, North Carolina is positioned ninth on the list of best states for house flipping, achieving a score of 74. The state features the most active housing market among the top-ranking states, with 6,649 houses sold per 100,000 residents.

A Badeloft study spokesperson said: “House flipping proves to be a profitable endeavor in many states, particularly those where the cost of remodeling is relatively low, and the potential for high sale prices is strong. It’s important to consider that prioritizing premium quality renovations is essential to maximizing the property’s value and securing a profitable return.”

“Carefully selected and stylish furnishings that complement these renovations can further enhance the home’s appeal, making it even more marketable and increasing its overall value”.

The full study data can be found here. 

Authored by Waters and Ellwanger via RealClearWorld,

President Trump’s supporters have denounced the federal judges seeking to stall or stop this administration’s government overhaul. But there is at least one person who, despite a show of outrage and condemnation, is neither surprised nor intimidated: Trump himself.

The politically appointed judges have ordered, among other actions, that federal agencies reinstate thousands of fired probationary employees; that billions of taxpayer dollars be paid to questionable USAID projects and contractors; and that foreign-born criminals deported to their native countries be returned and granted due process. Regardless of the legal merits, the American people recognize these orders as obstructions to what Trump said he would do if elected, and what voters elected him to do. Yet the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.

Two-thirds of Americans believe the “system” is broken, but for years progressive politicians and their mouthpieces posited that the system couldn’t be fixed. Intellectuals on the Left, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, said America’s flaws were “systemic” in nature: systemic racism, systemic sexism, and systemic injustice. They whined and preached but offered no solutions for the millions of Americans of all races and both genders struggling and failing to unlock their potential to succeed.

When Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he too claimed the system was broken, but not because we are racist or sexist by nature, but because the system itself is old, soft, and corrupt, with leaders grown unresponsive to the people they are supposed to serve. That core belief guided his first term and remains unchanged at the start of his second.    

For decades, politicians failed to respond to real problems because their agendas, even their identities, were phony, crafted by consultants and pollsters who aimed not for the truth, but for whichever lies or provocations were most efficacious in winning the next election. But one need not resort to craven and conspiratorial explanations of this sort, which hint that elected officials deliberately ignore the public will. The truth is simpler. They have to ignore voters, if only because they have no idea how to fix the problems we face.

In one sense, the elites’ ineptitude is understandable: we have a highly complex society that has undergone a recent, rapid, destabilization brought on by technological advance. But to admit that they simply don’t know how to address any contemporary issue would be to concede that it is only their mere status as “elites” that qualifies them to rule. Thus, to conceal their befuddlement, they explain their inaction by a vague demand that we address the “root causes” of every issue – which further justifies them in doing nothing.

The bad faith inherent to the “root causes” strategy was nowhere more obvious than at the border. For years, establishment voices told us that border security measures would fail without addressing the “root causes” of the problem: central American poverty and climate change. These appeals allowed the political class to avoid doing what they didn’t want to do (securing the border) and to manufacture a duty to do the things they did want to do (diverting American revenue to foreign aid “relief programs” and enacting more restrictive environmental policies). Aside from those interventions, they assured us, there was nothing we could do about the illegal immigration crisis.

But as it often happens, Trump called their bluff. Somehow, he managed to end the flood of illegal crossings within weeks of taking office. And contrary to the best wisdom of the “experts,” it didn’t require a grand congressional bargain like the betrayal that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) offered as a solution. Nor did it require a new climate deal. We didn’t have to make Honduras great again to stop the caravans. No – as it turned out, the answer was staring us in the face. The solution was one that could be intuited by any American voter: just secure the border. Only a class as feckless and clueless as our politicians couldn’t grasp this. But Trump understood it. And Americans see that.

Barring any real action to improve the lot of regular Americans, the lost and divided Democrats cast about for a “message” and a “messenger” to improve their chances in the next election. They believe a magic word or slogan (“nazis,” “oligarchs,” “authoritarians,” and “autocrats” all have been tried and failed), rather than concrete beliefs and plans, will “meet this moment” and win over American voters. But voters know the Democratic Party lacks anything affirmative or real.

Politicians will never make America great again, Trump said at his campaign kick-off in 2015. “They’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests. “[And] it’s destroying our country.” Unlike Bush, Obama, and Biden, Trump spoke to what people felt in the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt and the Farm Belt. He looked into the vast interior of the country and understood what many Americans knew all too well: that working hard and playing by the rules no longer guaranteed their children would be better off than they had been. 

Speaking about politicians in 2015, Trump said: “I hear their speeches. They don’t talk jobs. [They] have no competence. [They] don’t know what’s happening.” His message of “America First” was clear and authentic, and it implied real action and solid outcomes: protect jobs, livelihoods, and futures of Americans. The hapless politicians had nothing to counter.

“The Resistance” to the first Trump administration was advanced by the machinations of bureaucrats in the vast regulatory state. But with the president rapidly dismantling that apparatus, a new strategy was needed. For the Resistance 2.0, it seems the establishment will depend on the courts to thwart the democratically-expressed will of the people. But there is a higher court in this land, where American voters serve as judge, jury, and executor.

Earlier this month at the Department of Justice, Trump warned of the “violent, vicious lawyers” who persecute the president and bully the American public to get their way. Expect these lawyers to “play the ref,” Trump said, weaving in a story about former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once threw a chair across the court and screamed like a madman at the referees for a call to be overturned. The referee wasn’t going to change the first call, Trump said of Knight’s rationale for throwing the tantrum. “But he’s going to change for the next play. And sure as hell, he did.” Trump understands that activist lawyers and progressive pundits will put heat on the judiciary, and that, on occasion, they’ll get their way.

For 10 years, Trump has confronted the political class, calling out their incompetence and dishonesty, and the voters continue to reward him. Federal judges, egged on by the politically-motivated legal establishment, may try to frustrate the president in his pursuit of long-held promises to build a better country. But Trump is building his case outside the courts – and he’s betting on a sympathetic hearing with the American people, who will note the overt evidence of bias, corruption, and incompetence, whether it occurs in the media, executive branch, or the judiciary. Judges will rule on procedure and technicalities, but the people will evaluate the legitimacy of our institutions and credibility of our leaders.

In 2028, the jury will render its verdict.

John J. Waters is a lawyer. He served as a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21. Follow him at @JohnJWaters1 on X. 

Adam Ellwanger is a professor at University of Houston – Downtown, where he teaches rhetoric and writing. Follow him at @1HereticalTruth on X.

Following sleazy Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett’s disheartening remarks about the Texas Governor’s wheelchair-bound condition, GOP analyst Scott Jennings offered some words of advice to the far-left-leaning panel during Tuesday’s edition of CNN NewsNight: 

I don’t know how Democrats appointed Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your party, but thank God.

And I think what she should do is go on TV twice as much – maybe three times as much – because everytime she appears – makes these mistakes – says something radical – it only further divides her party from the other 80% of America who can’t stand this – but the problem is – there’s an audience for this.

I heard Jimmy Kimmel’s audience cheering on Tesla vandalism; I hear that The Daily Show’s audience on a tax on Elon Musk; I hear the Human Right’s audience cheering on an attack on a man in a wheelchair.

And I realize this is what the left has become: an angry mob of people who are cheering on attacks on a guy in a wheelchair and vandalism against people who bought people … it’s pathetic.

On X, Jennings wrote that Crockett “will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up,” adding, “Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector.” 

Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) March 26, 2025

Jennings is entirely correct: The far-left has chosen the path of hate and violence, while the latest polling data from NBC News and CNN shows the party has hit its lowest approval ratings on record: 27% and 29%, respectively.

Has there ever been such a level of coordinated violence against a peaceful company?

I understand not wanting to buy a product, but this is extreme arson and destruction! https://t.co/AIL8WPt0uv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 20, 2025

Democrats believe communist revolutionary tactics of firebombing Tesla showrooms and cars are socially acceptable in the era of Trump’s law and order to win back votes – yet the imploding party is oblivious and tone deaf that the Overton Window shifted last year – and BLM-style color revolutions are no longer socially acceptable.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

The digital realm, finance, and junk food have something in common: they’re all ultra-processed, synthetic versions of Nature that have been designed to be compellingly addictive, to the detriment of our health and quality of life.

In focusing on the digital realm, money (i.e. finance, “growth,” consuming more as the measure of all that is good) and eating more of what tastes good, we now have an Ultra-Processed Life. All three– the digital realm, money in all its manifestations and junk food–are all consumed: they all taste good, i.e. generate endorphin hits, and so they draw us into their synthetic Ultra-Processed World.

We’re so busy consuming that we don’t realize they’re consuming us: in focusing on producing and consuming more goods and services as the sole measure of “the good life,” it’s never enough: if we pile up $1 million, we focus on piling up $2 million. If we pile up $2 million, we focus on accumulating $3 million. And so on, in every manifestation of money and consumption.

The digital realm consumes our lives one minute and one hour at a time, for every minute spent focusing on a screen is a minute taken from the real world, which is the only true measure of the quality of our life.

Ultra-processed food is edible, but it isn’t nutritious. It tastes good, but it harms us in complex ways we don’t fully understand.

This is the core dynamic of the synthetic “products and services” that dominate modern life: the harm they unleash is hidden beneath a constant flow of endorphin hits, distractions, addictive media and unfilled hunger for all that is lacking in our synthetic Ultra-Processed World: a sense of security, a sense of control, a sense of being grounded, and the absence of a hunger to find synthetic comforts in a world stripped of natural comforts.

In effect, we’re hungry ghosts in this Ultra-Processed World, unable to satisfy our authentic needs in a synthetic world of artifice and inauthenticity. The more we consume, the hungrier we become for what is unavailable in an Ultra-Processed Life.

We’re told there’s no upper limit on “growth” of GDP, wealth, abundance, finance or consumption, but this is a form of insanity, for none of this “growth” addresses what’s lacking and what’s broken in our lives, the derangements generated by consuming (and being consumed by) highly profitable synthetic versions of the real world.

Insanity is often described as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So our financial system inflates yet another credit-asset bubble and we expect that this bubble won’t pop, laying waste to everyone who believed that doing the same thing would magically generate a different result.

But there is another form of insanity that’s easily confused with denial: we are blind to the artificial nature of this Ultra-Processed World and blind to its causal mechanisms: there is only one possible output of this synthetic version of Nature, and that output is a complex tangle of derangements that we seek to resolve by dulling the pain of living a deranged life.

We’re not in denial; we literally don’t see our Ultra-Processed World for what it is: a manufactured mirror world of commoditized derangements and distortions that have consumed us so completely that we’ve lost the ability to see what’s been lost.

Ultra-processed snacks offer the perfect metaphor. We can’t stop consuming more, yet the more we consume the greater the damage to our health. The worse we feel, the more we eat to distract ourselves, to get that comforting endorphin hit. It’s a feedback loop that ends in the destruction of our health and life.

Once we’ve been consumed by money, the digital realm and ultra-processed foods, we’ve lost the taste for the real world. A fresh raw carrot is sweet, but once we’re consuming a diet of sugary cold cereals and other equivalents of candy, we no longer taste the natural sweetness of a carrot; it’s been lost in the rush of synthetic extremes of salt, sugar and fat that make ultra-processed foods so addictive. To recover the taste of real food, we first have to completely abandon ultra-processed foods– Go Cold Turkey.

The idea that we can consume junk food and maintain the taste for real food in some sort of balance is delusional, for the reasons stated above: junk food destroys our taste for real food and its artificially generated addictive qualities will overwhelm our plan to “eat healthy” half the time.

Just as there is no “balance” between ultra-processed food and real food, there is no balance between the synthetic Ultra-Processed World and the real world. We choose one or the other, either by default or by design.

Credit–borrowing money created out of thin air–is the financial equivalent of ultra-processed food. The machinery that spews out the addictive glop is complicated: in the “food” factory, real ingredients are processed into addictive snacks. In finance, reverse repos, swaps, derivatives, mortgages, etc. generate a highly addictive financial product: credit.

Just as with ultra-processed food, the more credit we consume, the more it consumes us. I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

The derangements of synthetic food, digital realms and finance have yet to fully play out. Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.  Subscribe to my Substack for free

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism.

We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

There’s been another reported attack on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova conveyed to journalists a Russian military assessment saying a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack. 

But unlike some of the prior Ukrainian attacks on the area, the Kremlin is directly blaming the West, going to far as to say that orders for the new strike came directly from European capitals.

We “have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, as cited in national media.

“The command came from London,” she emphasized, describing it as part of a West-backed “terror” campaign meant to degrade and destroy Russia’s energy infrastructure. 

The Kremlin has concluded this demonstrates that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with,” she explained. The Ukrainians have done nothing to actually uphold the energy ceasefire put forward by Trump, despite that Zelensky “publicly supported” it, she said, suggesting it was all an empty game.

“Over the past 24 hours, the Kyiv regime continued its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure using various types of drones and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers,” the Russian military had also described.

Russia has alleged Ukraine launched rockets on the Sudzha facility, which had already been damaged in an earlier attack this week, along with nearly 20 drones launched at an oil refinery in the southern Saratov region.

Ukraine is meanwhile denying the Russian allegations, instead suggesting it’s a false flag orchestrated by Moscow:

On Friday, Ukraine denied claims that its forces fired on the gas metering station Sudzha and accused Russia’s military of striking the facility.

“Russia has again attacked the Sudzha gas transmission system in the Kursk region, which they do not control,” Andriy Kovalenko, an official who is responsible for countering disinformation, said on social media.

The two sides have traded blame for violating the energy ceasefire on basically a daily basis since it was proclaimed. It seems to have barely held, if at all, despite ongoing pledges from both sides to uphold it.

Large fire at the scene of the metering station attack…

Kiev has launched another assault on the Sudzha gas metering station, signaling that Zelensky has no desire at all to reduce tensions with Russia or pursue Trump’s peace plan. pic.twitter.com/H4fe75lU5u

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

The US has claimed that it is not providing intelligence for long-range attacks inside Russia by Ukraine, but only intelligence which is defensive in nature. However, Europe is still in maximum support mode, as President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer put together a ‘coalition of the willing’ to defend Ukraine.

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

The Trump administration’s decision to slap a 25% tariff on imported cars and parts is yet another move in America’s ongoing trade battles. Following the global steel and aluminum tariffs, this latest escalation puts pressure on the EU to respond. As we noted in a special report released yesterday, we believe the European Union prefers to make a deal and prevent a full-blown trade war. However, we argue that Brussels’ decision-making procedures are designed in such a way that escalation is ‘technically’ the path of least resistance. Therefore, absent an agreement, or a clear prospect thereof, European leaders will most likely strike back to any tariffs imposed by the US, even if not fully and with some delay.

We also show in this report that the use of the EU’s (so far never used) Anti-Coercion Instrument is an option open to the European Commission, especially if the US tops up this week’s measures with its already infamous reciprocal tariffs on April 2. This approach, however, would take more time, face more internal hurdles in the EU, and could provoke an even more severe counter-response from the US, one that may extend beyond economic statecraft to political or military actions. This complicates an already complex situation. Therefore, at least initially, we expect the EU to bundle its response in rebalancing measures, i.e., rebalancing tariffs. This enables the EU to react as quickly as possible. Additional countermeasures, such as quotas, will only be considered if the US implements tariffs so high that the EU cannot match the economic impact.

In our baseline scenario for the economy, we have long included a 5% tariff hike on all US imports. The current measures announced still fall within this range, so there is no immediate reason to adjust our projections for growth and inflation. However, as Trump’s tariffs continue to accumulate, and as other countries retaliate, the risk of a more significant stagflationary shock has increased. A plausible scenario for such a backdrop would be if Trump follows through on his threat of an additional 25% tariff on other selected goods, such as pharmaceuticals and chips, or, even worse (but less likely), a 25% universal tariff.

Fittingly, the US reported another astonishingly high trade deficit number for February. The deficit in goods amounted to USD 147.9 billion, on top of January’s USD 155 billion deficit. This averages to a whopping USD 1.8 trillion annualized, over 6% of US GDP. The widening deficit reflects efforts by US companies to secure goods and materials in advance of higher tariffs. In fact, much of the widening in the deficit since December 2024 can be traced to imports of gold bars, predominantly from Switzerland and the UK. The (advanced) February data suggests strong imports of industrial supplies – which not only includes gold, but also steel and aluminum – were still a key driver. But even if industrial supplies are excluded, the trade deficit would be at record levels.

US gold imports pic.twitter.com/5RpaN5DaQX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2025

Obviously, this front-running of tariffs caused quite a scare earlier in March when the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model plummeted to -2.8% annualized for 25Q1. This prompted the modelers to introduce a “gold-adjusted” version. After all, given that substantial portions of these industrial metals are likely being invested in inventories, the direct impact on GDP should be relatively neutral. However, even with gold excluded, net exports remain a considerable drag on GDP. The gold-adjusted estimate currently stands at +0.2% q/q annualized, which is not pretty.

Across the border, Banxico cut the policy rate 50bp to 9.00%, in line with our expectations. Notably, in its statement, Banxico said that “looking ahead it could continue calibrating the monetary policy stance and consider adjusting it in similar magnitudes.” As such, we now expect a 50bp cut at the next meeting in May and have added an additional 25bp cut to our forecasts. This brings us to five more cuts in 2025 to a terminal rate of 7.50%. Interestingly, Banxico notes that the risks to its inflation outlook remain skewed to the upside. However, the risk of persistence in underlying core inflation has been downgraded, now ranking below the risks of peso depreciation and tariff uncertainty. So, tariffs are leading to rate cuts.

It is worth noting that on Wednesday, the Bank of Canada also revealed in its deliberations that it would have maintained its policy rate at 3.00% instead of cutting it to 2.75%, if not for tariff uncertainty and the perceived need to alleviate concerns among consumers and businesses as the trade war impacts the economy. So here too: tariffs -> rate cuts. Of course, an extra cut here or there doesn’t address the bigger problem. Canada’s caretaker PM Mark Carney, who faces a federal election next month and has flipped the polling landscape by pushing back against Trump, has just said: “The old relationship we had with the US –based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation– is over.” That said, Canada hasn’t retaliated on the auto tariffs yet, as the US says if Canada joins up with the EU, both will see far higher tariffs.

With all the insufferable quirkiness of a drunken liberal wine-mom, EU Commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Hadja Lahbib, explains the “essentials” of an emergency go-bag in a video designed for the average European facing epic disaster should NATO (minus the US) go to war. 

The European Union has prepared a survival advisory for a 72-hour bug out bag in preparation for war against Russia.

Very delusional stuff. War will either go on for years or end within a matter of hours. pic.twitter.com/XAxtfj7Gzx

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

“In the EU we must think different because the threats are different, we must think bigger because the threats are bigger too,” Lahbib told reporters.

Roxana Mînzatu, the Commissioner for preparedness, added that the bloc is “not starting from scratch”.

“The COVID pandemic has shown that the added value of acting together in solidarity, in coordination, in the European Union framework is absolutely crucial, This is what makes us more efficient, makes us stronger,” she said.

Keep in mind, these are the same people that ridiculed the preparedness movement only ten years ago and then accused survivalists of being “hoarders” during the covid lockdowns.  Suddenly the EU elites claim to be concerned about the survival pantries of the citizenry and this may be a signal of expanding hostilities between Europe and Russia.

The advice given, however, is not useful and one can only conclude that the EU is only trying to make it look like they care should the geopolitical situation go sideways.  Hadja Lahbib’s video is not tongue-in-cheek parody – She is quite serious.  She claims that in her travels around Europe she gathered perspectives on emergency survival that were eventually applied to the EU go-bag recommendations.  

  

A true 72 hour survival kit (which is not what the EU is actually promoting here) would only be useful for short term natural disasters as a means to get to a safe place with the assumption of extensive government aid.  It could also be used to shelter in place, but again, relying on government aid and emergency services to arrive swiftly.  A long term widespread crisis like a near-peer war would require extensive preps well beyond a few days.

For example, the bare minimum standard for a survival food supply is three months.  Why?  Because that’s how long it generally takes government agencies to show up and start repairing damage to essential services (Think about what happened with FEMA in North Carolina after Hurricane Helene – That response took a whole election and a new presidential administration).  Also consider the fact that what little government aid is available during a broad spectrum crisis will end up being consumed quickly as public desperation grows. 

Beyond slow response time, needy citizens with no preps will need to consider the cost of government reliance.  What will emergency agencies demand from you in exchange for their help?  Will you disarm?  Take a battery of experimental vaccines?  Will your political background determine your access to government help?  There’s a lot to consider but the worst possible scenario is that you become a refugee completely reliant on bureaucrats for you and your family’s sustenance.

European governments are currently flirting with the notion of WWIII, yet at no point did they suggest that their citizens purchase radiation treatments like Potassium Iodide or equipment like a Geiger Counter in the event of fallout.  The almost whimsical tone on display is a far cry from the comprehensive Civil Defense efforts of the Cold War era.

In other words, if a legitimate national or international disaster did arise, most Europeans would be screwed.  It’s almost as if they are being deliberately set up for failure by EU officials.

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Creating an office of U.S. shipbuilding to facilitate America’s return to being a true maritime power is long overdue and is necessary to counter China’s growing maritime dominance.

At the end of World War II, the United States had over 100 shipyards, and its flagged fleet, the largest in the world, carried  57 percent of U.S. trade, while the majority of world trade was carried in U.S.-built ships.

Today, only about 0.2 percent of global commercial tonnage is being carried in ships built in the United States. Collectively, China, South Korea, and Japan build over 90 percent of the world’s large commercial ships. And with China building over 50 percent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, it is by far and away the world’s largest shipbuilder, with 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States.

While the lack of commercial shipbuilding capacity is not the only reason we have seen the U.S. Navy decline in size and capability, it has created an environment that makes correcting the issues plaguing the Navy very difficult. Indeed, the lack of commercial shipbuilding is arguably the root cause of our Navy’s decline in readiness, its exploding ship costs, and its inability to hold vendors accountable when they deliver underperforming ships overbudget and years behind schedule.

Examples of underperforming, overbudget ships include the Constellation-class frigate, the Littoral combat ship, the Ford-class carriers, and the massive Zumwalt destroyer. It is the failures in these key shipbuilding  programs that has led to the decline of the U.S. Navy’s size and readiness. Moreover, the vendors associated with these failed and or grossly underperforming programs have at worst received a slap on the wrist and are collectively lined up to receive many hundreds of billions more in U.S. Defense contracts over the coming decades.

Shipbuilders have been able to underdeliver with near impunity, in part due to the fact that they are the only game in town, i.e., if you cancel major defense contracts then the government-dependent companies will go out of business and there will be no shipbuilding capacity. For example, there is currently only one shipbuilder that can build and execute the Refueling and Complex Overhaul work on U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. While there are two firms that can build U.S. nuclear submarines, they are suffering from a lack of skilled labor. In the vast majority of cases, the prime contractors who build the Navy’s ships are almost wholly reliant on military contracts to survive. 

All this means that when contracts are put in place, they are not just put in place to deliver the most powerful ships at the best price, they are put in place to ensure that the company executing the contract can keep its people employed from contract to contract. Thus, contracts are strung out for many years. This makes sense, as having enough people trained up in the skills to rapidly deliver a ship or a number of ships, only to have to let them go when the ships are completed, is not a sustainable business model. Obviously, the Pentagon needs to structure contracts in such a way that defense contractors can stay in business.

However, this leads to the previously mentioned situation where is it well-nigh impossible to hold the defense contractors accountable. This brings us back to the value of having a more robust shipbuilding industry in which major shipbuilders that do business with the Pentagon, also have a robust commercial shipbuilding business. This is the way things were prior to World War II, and for a number of years after the war. For example, while Newport News Shipbuilding has long been the leading vendor when it comes to building U.S aircraft carriers, it also used to also build commercial ships.

But just as important, when the United States had a robust commercial shipbuilding industry, the pool of workers with the skills necessary to build both commercial and military vessels was much larger. This larger pool of skilled workers created a much more resilient shipbuilding environment that benefited the U.S. Navy when it came to negotiating contracts and holding shipbuilders/ship designers accountable. 

Currently, China is the world’s largest commercial and military ship shipbuilder. This means China has a whole bunch of shipyards that can build both military and commercial ships. Its massive shipbuilding industry also ensures China has a huge base of workers with the diverse sets of skills and trades necessary to build ships. The U.S. Navy used to be able to count on a large, robust shipbuilding industry that could build both commercial and military ships, but that has not been case since the 1970s.

Today, according to a Congressional Research Service report, three of the 10 commercial oil tankers selected to ship fuel for the Department of Defense (DOD) as part of the newly enacted Tanker Security Program are Chinese-built. As for dry cargo supplies for the DOD, seven of the 12 most recently built ships in the Maritime Security Fleet are Chinese-built. So, the U.S. Navy, along with the U.S. economy, is now highly dependent on ships built in in other countries, including China. This means that not only is the United States no longer a commercial maritime power, but our military is dependent on Chinese-built ships for logistical support. This is not a good state of affairs.

The new office of shipbuilding announced by President Trump earlier this month aims to correct this national security concern, but how?  Well, that is a rather complex question, but it will require streamlining of existing regulations, beefing up our steel industry, and yes, it will require government subsidies to be able to compete with China, South Korea, and Japan who all heavily subsidize their own shipping industries.

But if the United States wants to address a serious security concern, and regain its status as a true maritime superpower, taking such actions are not optional.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.