Brief News Matters
News Briefs For The Week Of 4 May 2025
Economic News
Why Did Liberation Day Reset Energy And Commodities Lower?
(8 May 2025) As a general rule, questions are more important than answers, and the behavior of oil and commodities since President Trump announced the Liberation Day tariffs is an excellent example of why.
Regardless of whether you subscribe to a thesis that tariffs are always inflationary or not, there is no denying that the immeidate effect of President Trump announcing the LIberation Day tariffs on April 2 was to spark an immediate plunge in the prices of oil, reformulated gasoline, and commodities in general.
Recall back in February Wall Street was contemplating the inflationary scenario of a “supply chain squeeze”. Bottlenecks in the availability of a number of raw materials—commodities, in other words—was anticipated to be driving prices higher globally. Commodity prices already had led global consumer prices higher.
Additionally, as I explored in my video podcast specifically on the likelihood of a “supply chain squeeze”, in February we were not seeing any downward trends in commodity prices. We were seeing a commodity-driven inflation scenario likely unfolding.
Then Liberation Day happened.
As with energy prices and the broad indices, there is no question but that Trump’s tariff announcement catalyzed a sharp drop in commodity prices, which is confirmed when we look at the specific prices for copper and lumber futures contracts. In the case of lumber, a rising price trend was completely reversed.
These are substantial deflationary impulses, and they are not simply energy, nor simply commodities. They were catalyzed by the Trump tariff announcement.
Why?
Would a tariff crush that much demand for raw materials? Perhaps if all the tariffs applied were of punitive variety applied to China. With countries such as the UK eager to make trade deals with the US to resolve the tariff question, that simply seems unlikely. Not impossible, but definitely improbable.
Yet if that’s not the case, what pushed energy and commodity prices lower? Why are they
Regardless of the reason, the reality is that commodity prices—the input prices for literally every manufactured good—shifted substantially lower in reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs. Input prices shifted lower and largely stayed lower.
Why?
That is the question. At present I do not claim to have the complete picture as to why. What I do know is that the price movements of energy and commodities post Liberation Day have queued up a what is likely to be a substantial bolus of deflation that now needs to work through the economy.
That’s not what the “tariffs cause inflation” monomania says should be happening.
Trade Deal #1 Is With The UK
(8 May 2025) The UK is the first country to get a trade deal done with the United States after the announcement of the Liberation Day Tariffs.
President Trump of course proclaims the deal as very good for the United States, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer celebrates the deal as a win for the United Kingdom.
Notably, the deal includes commitments to reduce non-tariff barriers as well as pledging to work on the tariff framework as well.
The devil will, of course, be in the details of the deal, which are in the process of being finalized, but the inclusion of language on non-tariff trade barriers should call everyone’s attention to how President Trump has sought to use tariffs strategically to rebalance the whole of America’s trading relationships.
This is one deal, and it is not 100% signed, sealed and delivered, but it is a deal, it is a deal under the Liberation Day tariff regime, and it is with a significant US trading partner and strategic ally post-WW2. This has to be counted as a win for Donald Trump and his strategy of using tariffs as the “big stick” in negotiations.
No One Expected The Fed To Cut Rates, And They Didn’t
(Update) Surprisingly, Chairman Powell did not get his foot caught in his mouth during his regular post-FOMC press briefing. We can know this because Wall Street largely rewarded Powell for his remarks, moving up through the briefing after dropping when the FOMC made its initial press release.
In a further sign of market approval, the US Dollar rose against the Dollar Index during the briefing.
Ironically, Powell didn’t say much during the briefing. Most of his comments were variations on a theme of “I don’t know/We don’t know.” Powell tap danced around the implicit admission that neither he nor anyone else on the Federal Open Market Committee can make sense of the current traunches of economic data. Those answers seemed to satisfy Wall STreet.
On one item, Powell does deserve a fair bit of credit: several of the reporters tried to badger him about Donald Trump’s remarks regarding firing him, and Powell refused to take the bait. He simply refused to engage on that question. Politics aside, that’s a respectable show of restraint.
(Update) As Wall Street and everyone else anticipated, the FOMC has opted to leave the federal funds rate unchanged.
In support of its goals, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage‑backed securities. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.
Proving once again that Wall Street is never satisfied, stocks—already moving down in afternoon trading—went sharply lower on the announcement.
Will Jay Powell’s upcoming press briefing push stocks lower or give them reason to rebound?
(Update) Stocks have mostly improved heading into the afternoon, although the NASDAQ is still down on the day. All expectations remain that the Fed will stand pat on rates.
(Update) While stocks have a dismal morning, Treasury yields continue to trend down. The 10-Year Treasury has shed just under 7bps in advance of this afternoon’s FOMC announcement on the federal funds rate.
Wall Street seems to have decided that market rates are going to come down no matter what Powell does on the federal funds rate.
(7 May 2025) When the Federal Open Market Committee concludes its regular two-day meeting this afternoon, exactly no one expects the Fed will cut the federal funds rate.
And when I say “no one”, I mean no one. CME Group’s Fedwatch tool puts the probability of the Fed standing pat on rates at 95%.
Wall Street is naturally still hyperventilating about the Liberation Day tariffs, and today’s clutching of pearls is all about how “challenging” the tariffs make the FOMC’s future decisions on interest rate cuts. In particular Wall Street is discomfited because it can’t figure out what it thinks the Fed should do next.
President Trump, of course, has already figured out what the Fed should do: he wants the Fed to cut the federal funds rate. With inflation down, energy prices down, and labor markets showing signs of softness even Wall Street can recognize, in Trump’s eyes the time to trim rates is now.
That is not believed to be in the cards for today’s rate decision, and probably not next month’s either. That said, the forecast is still for the Fed to trim rates later in the year.
Ultimately, both Donald Trump and Wall Street would like the Fed to trim the federal funds rate, which means the operative question is when will Jay Powell give everyone what they want?
Recession Postponed?
(5 May 2025) Wall Street investor and financial “expert” Ed Yardeni is dialing back his expectations of an imminent recession for the US economy. Believing that China and the US are doing the porcupine mating dance in a run-up to not having a trade war after all, he is lowering his recession probability estimate from 45% to 35% (pretending that the numbers are something actually calculated and not simply pulled out of his backside on a whim).
The real news here is that Wall Street doesn’t want to admit the obvious: that Wall Street was ultimately much less invested in the trade-war apocalypse scenario than the media made them out to be.
How can we know this? Treasury yields.
For the longest time during the (Biden-)Harris Reign of Error treasury yields were grotesquely inverted, with the 1-Year and 2-Year yields significantly higher than the 10-Year and 30-Year yields. In a normal yield curve, shorter term assets have lower yields and longer term assets have higher yields. The (Biden-)Harris years were not normal, to say the very least.
Things began to correct themselves in October of last year, so that the 30-Year yield rose above the 2-Year yield. The longer term Treasuries rose throughout the fourth quarter, while the shorter term Treasuries drifted slightly lower. Beginning in the first quarter of this year, yields began moving lower across the yield curve, a trend which was not seriously disrupted except for a brief “flight-to-safety” reaction after the Liberation Day tariffs were announced.
If recession or even economic turmoil were seen as imminent, the shorter term ields would be rising relative to the longer term yields and they are not. We are not seeing a return to inversion, nor anything close to it.
With all yields trending lower, Wall Street is not anticipating significant financial shocks or dislocations. Well before Liberation Day, Wall Street had ruled out any serious possibility of a major disruption in the availability of goods in US stores as a result of the tariffs and trade wars.
Does this mean there will not be an economic recession in this country? As with oil prices or PMI data, we cannot make that determination from yields alone. Nor should we overlook the ongoing jobs recession in this country—in a very real sense we already are in a recession.
It does mean that Wall Street has never been half as alarmed by the tariffs as one might surmise from April’s volatility in Stocks. Equities felt a need to rebalance in the immediate aftermath of the Liberation Day tariff announcement, but that is proving to be far more a fairly transient correction than any sort of crash.
Wall Street is not all that concerned about tariffs, and has not been. Don’t let the media do any gaslighting.
Oil Breaks Below $60/Bbl
(5 May 2025) The one clear impact of the Liberation Day tariffs has been to dramatically push the price of oil down.
The drop in oil futures is a significant deflationary impulse which will go a long way towards mitigating any inflationary pressures the Liberation Day tariffs might cause, including those arising from the trade war with China.
Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that bringing down energy prices was a significant part of his plan to address consumer price inflation. While the April Consumer Price Index print is still a week away, the Cleveland Fed’s InflationNow nowcast is projecting year on year inflation to drop in April, to just abot the Fed’s 2% YoY Holy Grail figure.
Corporate media has insisted for months this would not happen if the tariff threat was realized.
Services PMI Data Prints More Red Flags
(5 May 2025) While corporate media is playing up the rise in the ISM Services Purchasing Managers’ Index, the reality remains that ISM shows the overall PMI trend for services to be a decline. The same is true for new service orders as well.
PMI data are not a perfectly reliable bellweather of recession, but the downward trend in the Services PMI is yet more indication of growing economic weakness, which tracks with the lackluster services job numbers from last friday’s jobs report.
Given that the PMI data comes in the wake of the Liberation Day tariffs, whatever impact the tariffs have had on the service sectors in the economy appears to be relatively benign. Corporate media will still blame Trump regardless.
Chevron CEO Disputes Recession Fears In Corporate Media
(4 May 2025) Chevron CEO Mike Wirth struck a largely favorable tone regarding the Trump Administration’s policies, and directly challenged the pearl-clutching within corporate media after last week’s negative GDP print. Wirth pointed out the same thing I noted in the GDP report, which was that the “contraction” was primarily the result of a surge in imports, which skewed the GDP calculation to an unusual degree.
Overall, Wirth is upbeat about America’s economic prospect, and was even willing to strike a conciliatory tone regarding President Trump’s trade and tariff policies. Like Donald Trump, Wirth wants to see engagement on these issues—more talks and more diplomacy—and is confident with how the Trump Administration is handling trade and economic issues thus far.
Wirth’s optimism tracks well with last week’s stock market recovery from its initial panic over the Liberation Day tariffs—another reminder that the economic situation may not be nearly as dire as corporate media wants you to believe it is.
India-Pakistan News
Tit-For-Tat Continues
(8 May 2025) The current state of conflict between India and Pakistan appears to be “simmering”.
India is reported as having launched several attack drones into Pakistani airspace. Pakistan claims to have shot at least some of them down.
The two countries appear to also be trading artillery fire in the disputed Kashmir region. Pakistan claims it has inflicted as many as 50 casualties in the process. The casualties have not been confirmed by India.
These tit-for-tat exchanges do not present as part of Operation Sindoor by India, nor as any response or reprisal by Pakistan. They are, however, grim reminders that the two nations very much are at odds with each other, and seem quite willing to choose war.
If the cooler heads are prevailing in either Islamabad or New Delhi, that success is being well hidden.
India Gives Details On How Attack Sites Were Chosen
(7 May 2025) India is making the case for its missile strikes in Pakistani territory, releasing a detailed rationale for the nine sites targeted in Operation Sindoor.
India is not merely giving substance for its claim the strikes were justified, by detailing chapter and verse on how each site was being utilized by a specific militant terrorist group. There is also a subtext that Pakistan has done little to curtail these groups, effectively giving them a safe haven from which to conduct terror attacks against India.
In the case of the groups Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, India explicitly accuses Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service of providing support.
While India is not explicitly accusing Islamabad government of orchestrating the Pahalgam massacre, the selection of sites and the detailed rationale now being released is evidently meant to also further the narrative that Pakistan was complicit in that terror attack, as well as others.
The missile strikes were not merely in Pakistan. They were also intended as stikes against Pakistan.
How Pakistan will respond as of this writing remains unclear.
India Does Not See Strikes As An Escalation
(7 May 2025) Perhaps unsurprisingly, India does not view its missile strikes on Pakistani territory and Pakistani-Occupied Kashmir (POK) as an escalation. To India’s way of thinking, the strikes were legimate responses to the Pahalgam terror attack last month.
India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized four primary talking points when briefing officials from other countries:
Talking about an escalation threat from Pakistan in response to the strikes, Misri asserted that if Pakistan responds, India also will.
When asked about India's multiple strikes, Misri said it was "not an escalation, but a response" to the deadly Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians.
About India's targets achieved with Operation Sindoor, India's strikes involving air, naval, and ground-based assets, Misri said a total of nine terror sites were targeted.
The UK asked if any mosques were targeted in Pakistan and POK as part of the strikes. In response, Misri said a complex was targeted which also had a terror camp.
The first one is the most worrisome. India’s position is that if Pakistan does respond, India will respond to the response. The “tit for tat” mindset could very easily fuel further escalation, dragging both countries into war.
The question for the international community: at what point do other nations tell India and Pakistan to stand down and not try to resolve this militarily.
Neither country benefits from a war. Both would benefit from renewing peace between them.
India And Pakistani Nuclear Arsenals
(7 May 2025) With India and Pakistan seemingly stumbling down a road to war, it is worth reviewing what is known about the two countries’ respective nuclear arsenals.
The latest assessment by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation puts India’s nuclear stockpile at 160 devices, all of which have yields at or below 40 kilotons. Approximately 48 of those are aerial devices and would be delivered by nuclear capable F-16 and Mirage III fighters. A further 64 warheads are believed to be deliverable by land-based ballistic missile, with an unknown number of submarine-launched missiles to complete a nuclear triad. India is believed to possess enough weapons-grade material to produce a total of 213 warheads, and is building breeder reactors to produce even more.
Pakistan’s arsenal is assessed at around 165 devices of somewhat smaller yield (5-12 kilotons), although it may have some warheads deliverable by ballistic missile with yields up to 40 kilotons. Like India, it has been actively building additional devices, and may have as many as 200. All are either aerial devices or delivered via ballistic missile.
How bad would a nuclear exchange between the two countries be? Based on a 2019 study done by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be catastrophic for the two countries. Even a “limited” nuclear exchange would produce horrific death tolls, and the resulting smoke, ash, and debris sent into the atmosphere would quite likely produce a drop in local temperatures at the very least.
If the two countries end up exchanging a large number of nuclear weapons, enough smoke, ash, and debris could be sent into the upper atmosphere to produce cooling on a global scale, and perhaps even a “nuclear winter”. That could produce enough global cooling to drastically reduce global harvests, triggering a wave of food insecurity and even famine on a global scale.
For the subcontinent, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a war both sides lose, and lose bigly. If the nuclear war is large enough, the entire world could end up losing.
That such scenarios can be projected from the two countries’ nuclear arsenals hopefully gives both countries maximum incentive to find an off-ramp to peace from their current conflict.
Death Toll In Indian Missile Strikes Rises To 31
(Update) India claims 12 casualties from Pakistani shelling.
(Update) Pakistani death toll from Indian missile strikes is now reported at 26, with an additional five civilians killed by artillery fire. India claims the strikes were “preemptive”, alleging Pakistan was not taking adequate action against what India views as “terrorist infrastructures.” Notably, India insists no civilians were targeted, and only terrorist sites were hit.
It is worth noting the latest reporting does not appear to be describing any additional attacks, but only a rising death toll as Pakistani first responders address the earlier missile attacks. There does not appear to be an ongoing exchange of hostilities.
India appears to be anticipating a Pakistani retaliation, having ordered security and civil defense drills nationwide.
Pakistan continues to condemn the attack, with its National Security Committee reserving the right to respond. Notably, the reporting has the Committee stating that Pakistan’s armed forces have already been given authorization to respond, suggesting that the Pakistani military need only select its targets for a reprisal action before commencing a response. As of this writing, there has not been a Pakistani response reported.
(7 May 2025) India’s missile strikes are now reported as having struck “several” Pakistani locations, up from an initial report of 3 which then became 9. Casualties are now reported at 19. India’s position is that it attacked “terrorist camps” connected to the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, within Indian-controlled Kashmir.
Pakistan is calling the strikes an “unprovoked and blatant act of war”—rhetoric which could mean Pakistan considers a state of war to now exist between the two nuclear armed states.
Separately, Pakistan is claiming to have shot down as many as 5 Indian aircraft, and 2 aircraft are reported to have crashed in Indian-held Kashmir.
India is also claiming that Pakistani artillery shelling has killed 3 civilians in Kashmir.
Pakistan has said it will respond, employing the familiar rhetoric of “at a time and place of its own choosing”, which could mean anything from a token Pakistani response right away to a major response days or even weeks from now—or it could mean Pakistan will not respond at all (although at this point that seems unlikely).
Social media is showing a lot of Indian support for what the Indian Army is calling “Operation Sindoor”. The missile strikes appear to be enjoying significant support within India, with many Indians tweeting out messages to the effect that the strikes were the proper retaliation for the Pahalgam attack.
If this is should prove to be all-out war, it seems likely to start out as a fairly popular war on both sides.
Both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for the two countries to resolve their conflicts peaceably, and have offered to help mediate talks to deescalate tensions. At present neither side has expressed interest in talks or mediation.
Both countries appear to be choosing war. We still do not know how much war they are prepared to choose.
Is This War?
India claims Pakistani shelling killed three civilians in Kashmir, on the heels of its earlier missile strikes within Pakistan which were reported to have killed one child.
Separately, Pakistan claims it shot down at least 5 Indian aircraft, and taken Indian soldiers prisoner.
India has also closed the main Kashmir airport, in the city of Srinagar.
If this isn’t war, it’s the next worst thing. Two nuclear-armed states are engaging in open hostilities with each other. It may not be a declared war, but bullets are flying, bombs are apparently falling, and people are dying. That sounds like a war.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is naturally urging the leaders of both countries to find a peaceful resolution to this latest conflict. However, there is little even the US Secretary of State can do if two nations are bound and determined to start shooting at each other. At the moment India and Pakistan are quite willing to shoot at each other.
This is not good.
India Escalates War Tensions With Missile Strike On Pakistan
(Update) Pakistan raises the death toll from India’s missile strikes to 8.
(6 May 2025) India and Pakistan moved closer to all-out war, with India firing missiles against three locations in Pakistani-controlled territory. One child is reported to have been killed. India’s official stance is that the strikes were against “militants”, presumably affiliates of those involved in last month’s Pahalgam terror attack.
The Indian Army commemorated the missile strike with a celebratory tweet on X, underscoring the level of tensions between the two nuclear-armed states.
The Indian army also accused Pakistan of firing artillery rounds into Indian territory prior to the missile strike.
How Pakistan will respond to this escalation remains to be seen.
Politics News
One Third Of Treasury Payments Not Properly Documented
(6 May 2025) According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s testimony before Congress, as much as one-third of payments processed by the US Treasury lacked the requisite Treasury Account Symbol. That means one-third of payments processed by the US Treasury lacked the necessary documentation to provide accountability for the payment.
Bessent’s testimony confirms disclosures made by Elon Musk earlier about lack of internal controls in the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
Bessent is not clear on how long this complacency regarding internal controls has been the norm at Treasury, but it clearly has not been of recent origin.
With one-third of payments from the Treasury improperly or inadequately documented, we have no way to know exactly how much fraud, waste, and abuse has been taking place within government finances, other than to call the level “ginormous”.
Friedrich Merz Wins On Second Bundestag Ballot
(6 May 2025) In a post-war first, Friedrich Merz has failed to secure the chancellorship on the first ballot. What was thought by many to be essentially a coronation has become a scramble to pick up the pieces.
A second vote is reportedly pending, although Alternative für Deutschland, the controversial “far right” party with the second largest representation in the Bundestag, is calling for fresh elections.
Remarkably, the CDU/CSU party and the Social Democrats (SPD) together control enough seats to meet the 316 majority threshold vote to elect a chancellor. That means that Merz was effectively sabotaged by his own governing coalition.
There are no constitutional limits on how many votes must be held in the Bundestag to elect a chancellor, but if Merz fails on the next ballot one has to wonder if Germany can avoid another snap election.
(Update) Under Germany’s Basic Law (Constitution), the Bundestag has 14 days to elect a chancellor, after which the German President must either appoint the top vote-getter or dissolve the Bundestag and hold fresh elections.
The next ballot (underway as of this writing) will tell if Merz’ failure to secure election was the result of a protest vote or an actual rebellion within the CDU.
(Update) Friedrich Merz has been elected Chancellor on a second ballot. Will his government be stable going forward? AfD earlier said it would not. 18 members of his own coalition refused to back him on the first round of voting, which suggests there are 18 members of his own coalition who could vote against him in a no-confidence motion at some point.
Interestingly, while the German DAX stock index dropped sharply after Merz lost the first vote, the stock market has had a far more muted reaction to him winning the second. To my mind that does not augur well for the stability of Merz’ governing coalition.
This Is Not A Protest. This Is A Crime
(6 May 2025) Taking over the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building at the University of Washington is a crime, the crime of criminal trespass (and quite possibly other crimes, as a dumpster fire was reported in the area). It is not a “statement”, it is not “speech”, and it certainly is not a “protest”, despite what the corporate media wants to call it.
That this is done in support of Hamas (and let us not mince words—all “pro-Palestinian protests” are indisputably gestures of support for the genocidal terrorists of Hamas) makes this action morally obscene as well as legally indefensible.
The demand by “Super UW”, the group of Hamas sympathizers involved in this criminal undertaking, that the University of Washington divest from Boeing because “Gaza” is simply an absurdity.
This is not a serious protest. This is not a serious statement of anything except the valorization of genocidal terrorism. This is a crime.
It is a mistake to treat these criminals as anything but criminals. Arrest them, indict them, incarcerate them, and return the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building to its lawful purpose of educating college students.
(Update) The “protest” has been broken up, with some 30 arrests of pro-Hamas supporters being made.
It is worth noting that the “protesters” kept their faces covered as they took over the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building. People who are legitimately seeking redress of grievances do not cover their faces and hide in the shadows. They do not set fires.
The group involved, Super UW, has been suspended from the University of Washington campus before.
Criminal trespass is not speech. Riots and riotous behavior is not speech. The media does everyone a disservice by equating this type of behavior with actual speech and actual protest. It is neither.
Government Is Still The Problem
(5 May 2025) The other day Tulsi Gabbard sat down for an extended interview with Megyn Kelly, formerly of Fox News and now an independent journalist and podcaster. Toward the end of their conversation, Megyn Kelly touched on how taxpayer dollars had flowed to Ukraine when there were (and are) many pressing needs here in the United States.
Tulsi ran down the list of communities—from Laihaina to North Carolina to West Virginia—that have been neglected by the US government. Many of these communities have been ignored for years.
Ironically—and seemingly unwittingly—Tulsi highlighted a truth that echoes from Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address, that government is still the problem in this country.
There are many things besides aid to Ukraine and subsidizing illegal aliens the government could have focused its spending of taxpayer dollars in recent years, and certainly few would argue that American citizens rebuilding their homes after natural disaster are more deserving of US government assistance than the people of Ukraine, or indeed people from any other nation on earth. Like all families, like all communities, we should take care of our own first.
However, the way we can best take care of our own is to get government, and especially the federal government out of the picture.
Even under Donald Trump, that’s not happening. While the Trump Administration’s 2026 budget priorities as sent to Congress detail a 22% reduction in discretionary non-defense spending, it still perpetuates far too much of the government bureaucracy and leaves government with far too large a role in people’s lives.
We know from the work of DOGE that the government bureaucracy is overgrown, inefficient, and counterproductive. The bureaucracy is economically harmful.
The bureaucracy needs to be eliminated.
President Trump’s “skinny” budget proposals do not go far enough. They are not the radical root-and-branch reform this country needs. We do not need to merely reduce spending. Rather, we should be eliminating bureaucracy, eliminating programs, and returning the money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes
Trump’s budget is a baby step in the right direction when a giant leap is needed.
Stephen A. Smith Should Just Say He’s Not Going To Run
(4 May 2025) Stephen A. Smith should just stop with the tap dancing about making a run for the White House in 2028.
While Smith is a forceful and articulare spokesman for the issues about which he cares deeply, he does not express those issues in a politically coherent way. In one respect, he share with Donald Trump a decidedly non-ideological basis for his political thoughts.
What Smith does not have that Donald Trump did have is a willingness to take on the Democratic Party leadership and force the party into a specific ideological realm.
Trump in 2016 seized the Republican Party and pushed it in the direction of the populist MAGA Coalition. Stephen A. Smith lacks both an equivalent coalition backing him and a willingness to engage in the intraparty contests necessary to reshape (in his words, “purge”) the Democratic Party to his liking.
WIthout that willingness to take on the shortcomings of his preferred party, there is no point to him even filing to run for office. He lacks the essential fire to run the race, let alone govern.
Trump Will Or Will Not Lower China Tariffs
(4 May 2025) The media reporting on President Trump’s attitude towards the China tariffs—and the trade war in general—remain as confused as their understanding of tariffs overall. Bloomberg is highlighting Donald Trump’s openness to modifying the tariffs over time, depending on how trade talks progress.
Axios is highlighting Trump’s determination that the tariffs remain in place, both on China and on the rest of the world.
Which makes the media reporting about as informative and as accurate as the local weather forecast—it either will or will not rain, and it will or will not be cloudy (and if you don’t like the forecast, just check back in five minutes).
The actual takeaway? The trade deals are still in negotiation and Donald Trump is not relinquishing one bit of leverage in those talks any sooner than he must.
Are the trade talks proceeding well? No one outside the Trump Administration really knows, and no one inside the Trump Administration is likely to say they aren’t. “Wait and see” is where we’re at on tariffs.
Immigration News
Even MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Concedes No Process Due Illegal Aliens
(6 May 2025) MSNBC’s own Danny Cevallos schools the “Morning Joe” crew on the process which is due illegal aliens: not much.
Illegal aliens who do not provide legitimate documents, who do not qualify for asylum, who do not establish lawful presence in the United States, and certainly those who are affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations are subject to speedy removal without the lengthy trials and hearings people generally presume to constitute “due process.”
The standard of the law is simply this: being in the country illegally is grounds for removal. A person does not need to commit additional crimes (unlawful presence is itself a crime) to be subject to deportation.
Deportation is an administrative process not a criminal sanction. The media constantly and I suspect intentionally conflates the two in order to mislead the public on the issues involved.
However, even MSNBC’s own legal experts can’t support that narrative—because the facts and the law say otherwise.
Trump Administration Will Pay Illegals $1,000 To Self Deport
(5 May 2025) Yes, the Department of Homeland Security will pay illegal aliens $1,000 to self-deport.
Specifically, illegal aliens will:
… receive both financial and travel assistance to facilitate travel back to their home country through the CBP Home App. Any illegal alien who uses the CBP Home App to self-deport will also receive a stipend of $1,000 dollars, paid after their return to their home country has been confirmed through the app.
Normal deportation procedures costs the taxpayer around $17,000 per person. With stipend, self-deportation under this program will cost the taxpayer around $4,500 per person.
Additionally, by not compelling ICE/CBP/DHS to detain and deport, people here illegally preserve future opportunities to return to the United States legally.
For the illegal alien, the first step towards obtaining legal status is to exit the country and apply to enter via the “front door” of legal immigration.
China News
China May Not Be In Shape For A Trade War
(6 May 2025) China business media outlet Caixin’s independent PMI data has proven disappointing for April.
While the Caixin PMI metrics generally print higher than the official NBS metrics, the April data still shows ongoing weakness and a general deterioration in China’s overall economy. Both the Services and Manufacturing PMI metrics have slipped to just above the 50-point threshold between expansion (>50) and contraction (<50).
That the decline involves both services and manufacturing highlights the extent to which Japanification and stagflation are becoming the key features of the Chinese economy.
Can China even hope to prevail in a trade war with stagflation as the economic backdrop?
Can China Withstand A Trade War?
(5 May 2025) China’s National Bureau of Statistics Purchaser’s Manager’s Index printed contraction for April, a sharp decline from minimal expansion at 50.5 down to 49. That the contraction came right on the heels of President Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs invites the speculation the contraction is driven by the punitive tariff measures President Trump announced.
If this is the case, does China have the resliency to withstand a trade war with the US?
With a decline in New Orders accompanying the contraction, the possibility China cannot prevail in a trade war gets considerably stronger.
China’s vulnerabilities on trade have always been far greater than corporate media has been willing to say.
Russia News
Ukraine Drone Strikes Shut Down Moscow Airport
(6 May 2025) The reporting is unclear if there was any damage inflicted in Ukraine’s latest drone strike on Moscow, but that Putin was obliged to close the airports for some four hours in the runup to Russia’s May 9 “Victory Day” celebrations is not a good look for Putin.
Kyiv punctuated the attack by warning that Muscovites are not safe, and that the May 9 festivities will not be safe. Separately, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy challenged China to explain the presence of Chinese soldiers within Russia’s ranks.
This much is certain. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are prepared to even be seen as maybe backing down. The willingness to default to war is proving an obstacle to either side seeking peace.
Middle East News
Israeli Airstrikes Cripple Yemeni Airport In Sanaa
(6 May 2025) Whether or not the Houthis are willing to “capitulate” to the US, Israel is not yet done dealing with them. In further reprisal for the missile strike on Ben Gurion Airport, Israel conducted an airstrike against Sanaa International Airport, located in Yemen’s capital city of Sanaa.
There has been no report as to casualties, although damage to the airport is reportedly significant. The goal was to deny the Houthis the use of the airfield as a means of getting resupplied from Iran, an object shared with an earlier raid on the port at Hudaydah.
The underscores the complex elements of Middle Eastern peace. It’s not enough for the Houthis to not want conflict with the United States. So long as they are in active conflict with Israel, there will be violence. Will the Houthis opt to stand down against Israel the way they are reported to have done against the US? That has not happened yet, and we have no indication that it soon will.
Houthis Capitulate?
(Update) CNN reports that the carrier USS Harry S. Truman came under Houthi fire, which would make the Houthi “capitulation” extremely short-lived.
Several grains of salt should always be taken with peace announcements involving the Middle East.
(6 May 2025) President Trump used his meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to announce the US will cease air strikes on the Houthis in return for their ceasing attacks on Red Sea shipping.
It is unclear if the Houthis mean to cease all attacks on Red Sea shipping or if they will simply cease attacking American vessels. A senior Houthi official publicly made a similar commitment in April, stating that the Houthis did not consider themselves at war with the US.
If the Houthis continue to launch missiles against Israel, however, the benefits of the Houthis “capitulation” are not likely to be meaningful. Israel would still be a target and would still engage in its own reprisal attacks, most likely with US backing and assistance.
If the Houthis have truly “capitulated”, especially in the wake of the latest Israeli reprisal strikes, then this could prove significant. The Houthis might also be simply buying time to reconstitute their missile and drone resources. Other than an absence of future attacks both on Red Sea shipping and on Israel, there is no clear way to tell.
Not reported is any indication that Iran is curtailing support for the Houthis as part of the ongoing talks with the Trump Administration over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Winding down the Houthi missile strikes might be a tactic by Iran to establish a more favorable negotiating position—or at least strike a more virtuous negotiating pose—with the US negotiating team.
There are more questions than answers emerging from this announcement.
No Surprise As Israel Bombs Houthis After Airport Missile Strike
(5 May 2025) No surprise as Israel responded to the Houthis latest missile attack on Ben Gurion Airport by striking Houthi targets in Yemen.
These are the latest attacks on the Houthis. They will not be the last. The Houthis have proven remarkably resilient and resistant to air strikes, retaining missile and drone capacities even after multiple strikes by both Israel and the United States. There is little reason to presume this attack will be any different.
Despite the seeming futility, Israel can be expected to respond when attacked, just as the US Navy flotillas in the Red Sea will respond. Not responding would only invite further attacks.
This also means that the more the Houthis press Israel the more pressure there will be for Israel to strike at the Houthis’ main sponsor—Iran.
If this keeps up, that is where this tit-for-tat air strike contest with the Houthis is headed.
Yes, Israel Means To Occupy And Keep Control Over Gaza
(5 May 2025) No one should be surprised that Israel means to keep control of Gaza going forward. No one should be surprised that Israeli politicians are unafraid to use the term “conquest” in reference to Gaza.
The Arabs in Gaza had their chance for their own “Palestinian” state. They rejected it when they chose to stand by Hamas as it waged a genocidal terror campaign against Israel. The Arabs in Gaza have chosen to stand by Hamas, refusing to release the hostages Hamas captured on October 7, 2023—an act which is unequivocally a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
As far as Israel is concerned, that the hostages have not been released and are being kept in Gaza means there are no “civilian” Arabs in Gaza. All are complicit in keeping the hostages and perpetuating the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Given the complete lack of any sustained interest among the Arabs in Gaza in distancing themselves from Hamas, Israel’s perspective has merit and has support within the Geneva Conventions. Populations which participate in hostilities become part of the hostile forces, and lose their right to claim protection under the Geneva Conventions.
By refusing to distance themselves from Hamas, the Arabs in Gaza have declared to the world they are Hamas. Israel is taking them at their word.
Houthis Launch Missile Attack On Ben Gurion Airport
(4 May 2025) The Houthis are still very much alive and threatening Israel. Overnight a Houthi ballistic missile struck Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport outside Tel Aviv. Six people have been reported injured, but no damage to airport facilities.
Flights in and out of the airport were disrupted for approximately 30 minutes.
Of particular concern is that Israel’s missile defense batteries, comprised of both US-made THAAD systems and Israel’s own Arrow system, failed to stop the missile before it landed.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamen Netanyahu has said there will be “consequences” to the attack, although whether those consequences will be directed at the Houthis themselves or at their Iranian sponsors is unclear at this time.
Iranian support for the Houthi attacks against Israel are well-established and Israel could very easily consider this attack provocation to conduct a reprisal raid on Iran—which would have ramifications for the Trump Admnistration’s ongoing talks over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Prior News
News Briefs For The Week Of 27 April 2025
News Briefs For The Week Of 20 April 2025