What GAO Found Each year, the federal government distributes billions in funding through federal highway formula grant programs (commonly referred to as formula programs) to Tribes and states to build highway infrastructure and for other purposes. These grants are distributed to recipients using statutory formulas and may be used to build and repair infrastructure and facilitate the movement of people and goods. GAO interviewed 31 selected highway program funding recipients, subrecipients, and stakeholders and then surveyed them to gauge their level of support for variables that could be used in formulas to distribute funding through potential new highway formula programs. Most of the 28 survey respondents supported 27 variables that could be used to distribute funding for potential new programs. Almost all the supported variables related to infrastructure condition, freight movement and economic vitality, safety, and system reliability. Specifically, respondents supported variables such as total lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, and bridge condition. While selected funding recipients, subrecipients, and stakeholders identified and rated variables that could be used, they generally did not support creating new federal highway formula programs. GAO found that federal data sources are available and can be used to measure 22 of the 27 supported variables. Most of the data are maintained by the Department of Transportation, primarily as part of its Transportation Performance Management program and the annual Highway Statistics Series. Of the five supported variables for which GAO did not identify a federal data source, agency officials noted privacy concerns or no requirement to collect such data, among other reasons for not collecting the data. Photo of Interstate 5, Los Angeles, California Why GAO Did This Study The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized and appropriated over $300 billion in funding for highway formula programs for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. As Congress deliberates about what to include in the next surface transportation authorization, it may create new formula programs, which it has done in some prior surface transportation authorizations. GAO was asked about variables that could be used for potential new federal highway formula programs. This report describes: (1) the views of selected stakeholders with expertise and federal highway funding recipients on variables that could be used for potential new federal highway formula programs and (2) federal data that could measure these variables. GAO reviewed applicable federal statutes and regulations, notices, and fact sheets to understand which variables are used to distribute funding under current highway formula programs. GAO used interviews and a survey to elicit views from selected federal highway funding recipients, subrecipients, and stakeholders. Specifically, GAO asked 31 interviewees to identify variables that could be used in formulas for potential new federal highway programs, and then surveyed them, receiving responses from 28 on their support for 96 suggested variables. GAO selected a non-generalizable mix of funding recipients, such as Tribes and state departments of transportation, based on their location. GAO also reviewed federal datasets and interviewed relevant agency officials to determine the availability of federal data to measure variables identified by interviewees. For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at repkoe@gao.gov.

OpenAI Blinks: Scraps For-Profit Plan After Outside Pressure

In a blog post overnight, the OpenAI Board revealed that its nonprofit arm would retain control of the chatbot company following backlash over its attempt to restructure into a for-profit business.

"We made the decision for the nonprofit to retain control of OpenAI after hearing from civic leaders and engaging in constructive dialogue with the offices of the Attorney General of Delaware and the Attorney General of California," the OpenAI Board wrote in a blog post. 

Last fall, OpenAI's Sam Altman was preparing to overhaul the company's structure and transition to a for-profit business—an effort that sparked a heated legal battle with co-founder Elon Musk, who sought to keep OpenAI 'open'.

The board provided new details about OpenAI's evolving structure:

• OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit, and is today overseen and controlled by that nonprofit. Going forward, it will continue to be overseen and controlled by that nonprofit.

• Our for-profit LLC, which has been under the nonprofit since 2019, will transition to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)–a purpose-driven company structure that has to consider the interests of both shareholders and the mission.

• The nonprofit will control and also be a large shareholder of the PBC, giving the nonprofit better resources to support many benefits.

• Our mission remains the same, and the PBC will have the same mission.

"We want our nonprofit to be the largest and most effective nonprofit in history that will be focused on using AI to enable the highest-leverage outcomes for people," Altman wrote in a letter to employees. 

He also provided details about OpenAI's evolving structure:

• OpenAI's nonprofit will remain in control of the organization after discussions with civic leaders and attorneys general from California and Delaware.

• The for-profit LLC will convert to a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)—a mission-aligned model also used by other AI labs like Anthropic and X.ai.

• This move replaces the old capped-profit structure with a simpler equity-based model, but does not represent a sale.

• The nonprofit will retain oversight and become a major shareholder in the PBC, giving it more resources to advance AI for broad societal benefit.

• A new nonprofit commission will help guide efforts to ensure AI supports public good in areas like health, education, science, and public services.

• OpenAI says this new structure will enable it to make faster and safer progress toward its mission of democratizing AGI.

Meanwhile, Marc Toberoff, lead counsel for Elon Musk in the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, told Bloomberg via email that Altman's decision to scale back for-profit plans "changes nothing."

"OpenAI's announcement is a transparent dodge that fails to address the core issues: charitable assets have been and still will be transferred for the benefit of private persons, including Altman, his investors and Microsoft," Toberoff said.

In March, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers blocked Musk's request to stop Altman from restructuring OpenAI into a for-profit company. This led the judge to expedite a trial for this fall.

Given "the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred," Rogers said, adding that an expedited trial later this year would be on "core" claim that OpenAI's structure conversion plan is unlawful and "potentially the interrelated contract-based claims."

Earlier this year, a Musk-led group offered to purchase OpenAI for around $100 billion, a bid that was quickly rejected.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 06:55

The EU Zombie Uses Trump As Cover To Further Feed On Citizens

Authored by Conor Gallagher via NakedCapitalism.com,

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving for the western misleadership class. Any anti-democratic swindle on the EU wish list is now being sold as a remedy to the Orange Man. (And if it’s not Trump, it’s Russia).

The US is no longer a reliable defense partner, they say. 

We must give more power to Brussels and send untold billions to weapons companies.

The US is no longer a reliable economic partner, they say. 

We must increase competitiveness by weakening labor and empowering finance.

The UK voters may have opted for Brexit, but London and Brussels are “defying Trump” with a “free and open trade” declaration that includes negotiations ‘on defense and security, fishing and energy, as well as a “common understanding” of which topics will be covered by intensive Brexit reset negotiations this year.’

The strange thing about these plans, however, is that they include reliance on US weapons and energy and alignment with US geopolitical and geoeconomic goals.

Let’s focus here on how the EU is pressing ahead with plans to dramatically increase defense spending due to Trump Abandonment Syndrome.

The EU Jazz Band

Recent commentary by Rosa Balfour, director of Carnegie Europe, perfectly sums up these arguments. In a piece titled “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B” she explains why the EU has no choice but to redirect social spending towards the arms industry.

Balfour’s romantic version of recent history starts on February 28. That’s when “the televised humiliation of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky” took place, and “Europe realized it could no longer rely on its longtime ally, the United States.” And here she is on the jazzy wreckage:

The shocking depth and breadth of this realization cannot be overemphasized. Political leaders in European states, the European Union, and NATO displayed composure and coordination, but behind the scenes, the soundtrack was a frantic free jazz jam session with dramatic thuds and a long pause—the silence at the realization that the European comfort zone was over.

And now, what are these composed and coordinated “political leaders” doing? They announce that Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense, make grand plans for a “coalition of the willing,” and declare that Ukraine will become a “steel porcupine”

The coalition of the willing has fallen apart. The steel porcupine was ridiculed.  And while those in the Kremlin likely aren’t losing any sleep, Europeans should be. That’s because, as Balfour writes, the European Commission “can play supporting roles by mobilizing financial resources and handling complicated in-house horse trading.”

That’s one way of putting it.

The Commission is inching its way towards invoking emergency powers to push through parts of its rearmament slush fund. It’s getting pushback from the European Parliament, but the fact is Ursula can do it anyways with minimal support from EU governments. She’s likely just waiting for the right moment. Let’s look at the status of the European militarization billions.

On March 19, the Commission introduced a 150 billion euro proposal — a first installment of what’s to be at least $900 billion— for establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) through the reinforcement of European defence industry Instrument.

It wants to move forward with it under Article 122 emergency powers which need only a qualified majority in the Council —as opposed to the usual consensus— which allows Ursula and friends to get around pesky vetoes from member countries. The procedure for 122 is as follows:

1) the Commission proposes a Council measure; following which 2) the Council adopts the measure in line with [qualified majority voting]. No additional elements or participants are envisaged.

This article allows the proposal to bypass parliamentary negotiations and go straight to the Council for negotiation and adoption. The Parliament’s role is reduced to submitting suggestions and requesting debates.

How’s that for your democratic rules-based order?

In an April 23 secret vote, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affair unanimously backed a legal opinion rejecting the Commission’s attempt to bypass it on a 150 billion euro rearmament fund.

While it is a non-binding vote, it does signal opposition to Ursula’s plan, but it’s not some principled stand for the will of the people or any romantic notion like that.

No, it’s more about dividing up slices of the pie as European weapons industry lobbyists are increasingly active in Brussels and are trying to make sure their clients are rewarded. And so much of the feeble opposition is over getting a stronger “buy European” clause in SAFE (it currently requires 65 percent of war consumables and complex systems to come from within the EU, Ukraine, or EEA/EFTA states, which includes Turkiye and Norway.

Why must Ursula’s commission sideline the Parliament and some member states in order to spend 900 billion on military purchases? They lay it out in their proposal. There’s the usual nonsense about Russia:

The EU and its Member States now face an intensifying Russian aggression against Ukraine and a growing security threat from Russia. It is also now clear that this threat will persist in the foreseeable future, considering that Russia has shifted to a war-time economy enabling a rapid scaleup of its military capabilities and replenishment of its stocks. The European Council therefore underlined, in its conclusions of 6 March 2025, that “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union”.

There’s also the Trump abandonment syndrome:

At the same time, the United States, traditionally a strong ally, is clear that it believes it is over-committed in Europe and needs to rebalance, reducing its historical role as a primary security guarantor.

One itching question is what happens to this latter selling point now that the Trump administration has tied itself to Ukraine through the so-called minerals deal, but surely if the European powers have made it this far on manufactured crises, they’ll be able to overcome that hurdle by pointing to Trump’s insistence on what they call an unjust peace for Ukraine.

And so “rearmament” by supranational emergency decree it must be—with Balfour from Carnegie and all the other plutocrat court jesters at the transatlantic think tanks cheering this on as a victory against the autocratic hordes outside the garden walls. Here’s Balfour again summarizing the mood among this crowd:

…a trajectory of change has been charted, and it has transformative potential—not just for the European continent, but also for the global reordering of post-American international relations. The jazz band has picked up rhythm, even if the melody is not fully harmonic.

I’m not sure if that’s music Balfour is listening to or the jangle of gold and silver. While it can be difficult to hear anything over the din coming from the elite ‘Spirit of 1914,’ there’s always one chord missing from the militarization genre. Surely Balfour, the jazz aficionado, must know that curiosity was considered one of the essential ingredients to the music. If we apply that to her extended jazz metaphor we might start asking some questions like:

• Why does the EU need to perform this whole militarization song and dance routine at all?

• Why can’t there be peace with Russia?

• Why did European nations help sabotage past Kiev-Moscow peace negotiations?

• Why did the EU help the US overthrow the government of Ukraine and use the country as a battering ram against Russia?

• Why does the EU elite so crave war with Russia?

• Is the EU not more secure and prosperous through friendly ties and trade with Russia?

And why must the EU, which collectively already ranks second in the world in defense expenditures, spend boatloads more? How much will make it safe, competitive, and independent?

These questions are never addressed. It’s simply treated as the natural order of things that Russia is the EU’s enemy and it must get big expensive weapons because Trump bad. The sad thing is, this relentless messaging pumped out of European media is working — at least according to the EU’s own polls. That wouldn’t be entirely surprising considering this message is endlessly pumped out of EU media.

Either way, European governments are running with it. Sixteen countries are asking the EU for fiscal leeway to spend big on defense — requests that are never made during the endless social austerity.

Yes, the citizens of the bloc will continue to see their standard of living fall, but don’t worry, EU enlargement and spending more on militarization will lead to more “competitiveness.” Can’t you feel it already:

Profit margins for Weapon and Ammunition at Rheinmetall went up from 23% to 28.5% from 2023 to 2024. Of every Euro in public money spent on weapons from Rheinmetall, the company makes 28.5% return on sales, quite spectacular even compared to other Rheinmetall business. pic.twitter.com/SvKmjNcB30

— Isabella M Weber (@IsabellaMWeber) April 28, 2025

Despite considerable hurdles for the European defense industry (and a brief cooling off period due to tariff shock), their stock prices are going through the roof as investors expect Brussels to come through with endless support.

About those hurdles…

Research by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that Europe increased its imports of weapons two-and-a-half times over in the past five years compared with the previous five years with two-thirds coming from the US.

Even others at Carnegie Europe have doubts about the EU scheme. Here’s Judy Dempsey, nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe:

Tell Poland. It is rapidly building up its defense infrastructure by purchasing  American kits. When Warsaw wanted to shop elsewhere, like in South Korea, it came under huge pressure from Washington not to do so. This is an important point. The United States wants Europe to take more responsibility for its defense but not at America’s military industrial expense. It is a major military supplier of components to many European countries. Making that break would take time and a political will for Europe to build up a common defense and procurement strategy.

Beyond the considerable political pressure, there’s also the fact that lead times when it comes to defense capabilities are long. So part of the EU’s strategy is to send billions more to Ukraine so it can build up its defense industry. The rationale is that it is a far cheaper place to manufacture weapons than Western Europe, and it already has a defense manufacturing sector up and running. Okay, then.

But are there some chinks in that logic?

For one, Ukraine is now the world’s biggest arms importer, absorbing 8.8 percent of global transfers. Two, Russian Kinzhals might have a say in the output from Ukrainian weapons manufacturers.

It’s hard to see what this all does for European competitiveness, let alone the average Josef, Jose, or Giusseppe. Here’s Balfour on this should be sold to the proles:

Politically, to ensure public support for rearming Europe and to offset the inevitable costs, defense efforts ought to be part of a broader strategy of economic and technological innovation. Indeed, these efforts could boost Europe’s stagnant economy. At the EU level, the recipes are available in recent recommendations addressing competitiveness, productivity, and technological innovation.

Indeed, Trump’s first 100 days are pushing the EU to put some momentum behind projects that have been underway for years. Tying these objectives with the enlargement of the EU to include Ukraine, Moldova, and the Western Balkans adds a new perspective to upscaling the single market. Expanding the EU and deepening the relationship with other European countries—like the UK, Switzerland, and Norway—would counter the fragmentation that great power competition and political disruption at home are inflicting on the continent.

It’s scary for its rote, simplistic confidence. Nowhere in this hopeful Powerpoint is there an appearance of the considerable downsides, which at the more disastrous end of the spectrum happen to include the complete destruction of Europe.

Perhaps the best hope is that these fools’ plans for EU rearmament plans are just a giant racket. But one could say the same about the US military industrial complex, and look at what that has unfurled: endless death and destruction and numerous lost wars. One key difference between the transatlantic militarization schemes, however, is that the US is isolated between two oceans. The EU borders not only Russia, but also a collapsing neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine, making its embrace of a military-industrial complex a far riskier proposition.

Rackets have a way of taking on a life of their own. Indeed, one could argue the EU’s current trajectory is that of a zombie driven along by its Russophobia — and redistributing money upwards in the name of that hatred. Problem is that life expectancy isn’t long for zombies and those around them.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 06:30

"We Are At A Tipping Point": Shale Giant Diamonback Says US Oil Output Has Peaked, Slashes CapEx Amid OPEC Price War

The OPEC price war has made landfall in the US.

Following our report earlier that Saudi Arabia has declared a new price war on OPEC+ quota-busters such as Kazakhstan, and non OPEC+ members such as US shale producers, today after the close Diamondback Energy, the largest independent oil producer in the Permian Basin, made a historic pronouncement today when it said that production has likely peaked in America’s prolific shale fields (something we also mentioned earlier in the day) and will decline in the months and years ahead after crude prices plummeted.

Separately, the Texas company trimmed its own full-year production forecast Monday, and said that it expects onshore oil rigs across the entire US industry to drop by almost 10% by the end of the second quarter and fall further in the months after.

“This will have a meaningful impact on our industry and our country,” Diamondback Chief Executive Officer Travis Stice wrote. “We believe we are at a tipping point for U.S. oil production.”

The outlook from Diamondback, one of the industry’s most prominent producers, marks a key shift for expectations within the sector. Before oil prices started plunging last month, most banks and research firms had forecast US shale production would grow this year and next before plateauing later in the decade. The Permian, they said, was apt to peak in the late 2020s or early 2030s depending on prices.

Not any more.

As Bloomberg notes, the US shale fields have been the engine behind the surge in US crude output over the past 15 years, making the country the world’s top producer and largely energy independent, much to the horror of OPEC. The ability of companies like Diamondback to quickly bring new wells online using hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has bedeviled OPEC. But the prospect that shale may now have reached its peak and is facing years of painful decline, poses a huge threat to US President Donald Trump’s goal to turbocharge fossil fuel production.

While analysts and pundits have long said repeatedly that US shale is poised to peak, the industry had managed to prove them wrong by innovating and driving output to fresh records year after year. 

So the assertion by Diamondback that the moment has finally come is extremely noteworthy.

“Today, geologic headwinds outweigh the tailwinds provided by improvements in technology and operational efficiency,” said Stice, who will step down as CEO at the company’s annual shareholder meeting later this month.

US oil futures, pricing in a global demand recession, have dropped about 20% since the start of April when Trump announced wide-ranging tariffs that triggered a global trade war. At the same time, OPEC and its allies have surprised markets with plans to increase oil supplies more than expected later this year in response to internal bickering, and particularly the unwillingness of some members such as Kazakhstan to comply with set production quotas.

It’s led to frustration spilling out both privately and in public comments from America’s oil bosses. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to reassure the industry during a visit to Oklahoma last month, saying turmoil from the president’s trade war is likely to be fleeting.

“We can’t help but wonder if the last ‘letter to stockholders’ written by outgoing CEO Travis Stice was intended as much for government leaders in Washington, DC as it was for FANG shareholders,” Tim Rezvan, an analyst at KeyBanc Capital Markets wrote in a note to clients.

Diamondback said the number of crews fracking wells, which it estimates has fallen 15% this year, will continue to shrink as shale operators dial back amid unprofitable oil prices. 

The company now expects to produce about 488,000 barrels of oil per day this year, when taken at the midpoint of its new guidance released Monday. That’s less than 1% lower than the roughly 492,000 barrels-per-day view it gave three months ago.

The driller is the latest US operator to announce cutbacks in recent months. EOG Resources and Matador Resources are also dialing back activity, while Nabors Industries said that shale producers plan to cut 4% of their drilling rigs by the end of the year, citing a survey of nearly half the industry.

For the immediate future, Diamondback is cutting three drilling rigs and one of its frack crews, leading to a total of $400 million slashed from its budget this year, Stice said, the clearest indication that US output is about to fall off a cliff, because if the most efficient and lowest cost producers have no choice but to throttle output what does that leave for the smaller, less efficient frackers?

“We are taking our foot off the accelerator as we approach a red light,” Stice said. “If the light turns green before we get to the stoplight, we will hit the gas again, but we are also prepared to brake if needed.”
 

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 06:15

US Approves $310M Training & Sustainment For Ukraine's F-16s After Minerals Deal Signed

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The State Department has approved a potential $310.5 million arms sale to Ukraine for training and sustainment of the country’s fleet of US-made F-16 fighter jets, signaling that the Trump administration is preparing to provide long-term military support.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said the sale will include aircraft modifications, upgrades, personnel training, maintenance, sustainment support, and other types of equipment.

Image: Office of the Ukrainian President

Several of the US’s European allies have provided Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets, and the US, under the Biden administration, was involved in training Ukrainian pilots. A report from The War Zone just revealed that the US has been providing Ukraine with decommissioned, non-operational F-16 fighter jets.

A US Air Force spokesman told The War Zone that the Air Force has "supported the sustainment of European-donated F-16s to Ukraine by providing disused and completely non-operational F-16s to Ukraine for parts."

"These F-16s were retired from active US use and are not flyable. Importantly, they lack critical components such as an engine or radar and could not be reconstituted for operational use," the statement said.

The approval of the F-16 training and sustainment deal came a few days after the Trump administration moved forward with its very first arms sale for Ukraine by notifying Congress of its plans to approve the export of unspecified "defense articles" worth $50 million or more.

That first sale is being moved forward as a direct commercial sale (DCS), a deal where the State Department gives a private company permission to sell weapons directly to a foreign government. The F-16 training and sustainment deal is a Foreign Military Sale (FMS), which involves the US government in the sale.

The US-Ukraine minerals deal signed last week also signals that the US is planning to provide long-term military support.

U.S. President Donald Trump says "tremendous hatred" between Russia and Ukraine may block peace talks. Saying 5,000 soldiers per week are dying, Trump said “if I can save 5,000 souls, I just love doing it."#UkraineWar #Trump #PeaceTalks #RussiaUkraine pic.twitter.com/dJwT2zMiei

— CGTN Europe (@CGTNEurope) May 5, 2025

Under the agreement, future US military aid will count as a contribution to a joint US-Ukraine investment fund. Critics have said this ensures the US is even more intertwined in Ukraine's fate.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 05:00

Global Press Freedom Indicator Slips

This year's World Press Freedom Index highlights the economic situation of journalists and media organizations being a major risk to press freedom, as "today’s news media are caught between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival".

Due to the economic indicator of the index decreasing by more than two points in one year and the other subindices measuring the security, social, political and legal situation of the press also losing at least some ground since 2024, the overall index entered into "difficult" territory for the first time in 2025.

"Without economic independence, there can be no free press. When news media are financially strained, they are drawn into a race to attract audiences", Anne Bocandé, RSF's Editorial Director said.

Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports that in 160 out of the 180 countries included in the report, media outlets reported achieving financial stability only “with difficulty” or “not at all.” In a third of all countries, significant news outlets shutting down were recorded, extending to developing and developed countries.

 

You will find more infographics at Statista

In the U.S., the indicator dropped much more than the global average, by 5.4 points, and news deserts where local media coverage lacks were becoming the norm, the report states. 

Additionally, the report claims that Trump administration cuts to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, affecting the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty newsrooms, added to economic difficulty and deprived over 400 million citizens worldwide of access to reliable information. 

USAID cuts also affected journalists all over the world who had received funding, including in Ukraine.

The security, social and legal situation of journalists in a worldwide average continues to be rated as "not difficult", if only slightly so at ratings between 58 and 67 points (where anything under 55 signals a difficult situation). The political situation of global media has been rated as "difficult" since last year, while the economic situation of the press has been in difficult territory for longer. 

However, in 2025, it reached a new low of just 44.1 points.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 04:15

The Czechs Are By Far The World's Biggest Beer Drinkers

Today, Czechia officially recognizes beer culture as part of its national heritage, with 96% brewed domestically.

What’s more, Czechs hold the world’s highest per capita beer consumption, a tradition dating back to 993.

Similarly, Germany and Belgium also recognize beer culture as official heritage and rank among the top beer-drinking nations, thanks to its enduring place in their national cultures.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the countries that consume the most beer per capita, based on data from Kirin Holdings.

Czechia Ranks First in Per Capita Beer Consumption

For the 31st year in a row, Czechia tops the list, even amid an annual decline.

Notably, the original Budweiser traces its roots in the country, where beer from the South Bohemian region is called “Budweiser”. In 1876, a German immigrant in the U.S. adopted the name for his brewery, paying homage to the traditional Czech style.

Below, we show the top 35 countries with the highest beer consumption per capita:

Ranking in second is Austria, where pale lagers, known as “Märzen” are the standard beer.

Meanwhile, Lithuania and Ireland follow closely behind, where the average person drinks over 100 liters of beer in a year. In Ireland, Guinness is widely considered the national beer, with the original St. James Gate brewery now over 260 years old.

Interestingly, however, both the UK and Nigeria consume more Guinness than Ireland, thanks to their vibrant beer cultures. In fact, one in 10 beers sold in the UK is a Guinness.

If we look beyond Europe, Panama, Mexico, Gabon, and South Africa also rank among the top 20 countries

To learn more about this topic from a wine-based perspective, check out this graphic on which U.S. states consume the most wine.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 02:45

European Leaders Talk Of EU Army

Authored by Mark Nayler via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Europe is once again talking about forming its own defense alliance. The idea of a European army—discussed on and off since the early days of the Cold War—was revived in February by Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian president claims that Donald Trump’s retraction of military support for Ukraine and ambivalence towards the EU shows that the bloc urgently needs its own military unit. Zelenskyy has reignited a debate that has failed to generate consensus within Europe, despite its long history.

Spain’s Socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, is the latest EU leader to echo Zelenskyy—and according to a YouGov poll conducted in 2022, 64 percent of Spaniards are on his side. On March 28, he announced that Europe needs its own defense force to combat “old imperialist impulses in Russia,” especially in light of reduced support from the US. He called for a military force “with troops from all 27 member countries, working under a single flag with the same objectives.” Sánchez also wants greater economic integration within the bloc, and recently proposed a debt mutualization scheme—which has caused division along similar lines as the idea of a 27-nation army.

Despite Sánchez’s crusading rhetoric, one suspects there’s a self-interested motivation behind his call for an EU army. He is under intense pressure from both the EU and the United States to increase Spain’s defense spending; but anti-military sentiment in the country is strong, and he governs in partnership with Sumar, a leftist alliance that opposes increased investment in arms and troops. By claiming that EU defense is a collective, rather than national, responsibility, Sánchez no doubt hopes to deflect attention from his own difficulties.

The EU does collaborate on defense to some extent. At any one time, at least one multinational Battle Group, consisting of 1,500 troops, is on standby. These reached operational capacity in 2007, but according to the multinational military headquarters Eurocorps, “issues relating to political will, usability, and financial solidarity have prevented them from being deployed.” Precisely the same problems would arise within an EU army, of course—but on a much larger scale. There is also the European Maritime Force, formed in 1995 by Spain, France, Italy, and Portugal to conduct sea control, crisis response operations, and humanitarian missions. Advocates of an EU army argue that while these collaborative forces are an important pillar of the bloc’s defense, they are not equipped for long-running conflicts. They also claim that the EU is too dependent on the US for protection—a point on which Trump 2.0 completely agrees.

The notion of an EU army was first suggested in the early 1950s as a way of building capability against the Soviet Union without rearming West Germany. Proposed by the French government, it would have consisted of the EU’s six founding members—France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, West Germany, and Belgium. A treaty creating the European Defence Community was signed in 1952, but never ratified; instead, West Germany joined NATO and the Western Union, a military alliance formed in 1948, and the idea was shelved.

This decades-old idea was revived in 2016. Then, as now, a perceived threat from Russia was intensified by the sudden withdrawal of a military heavyweight. Following the Brexit referendum, in which 52 percent of the UK opted to leave the EU, the prime ministers of Hungary and the Czech Republic called for a European army. They were joined by Ursula von der Leyen—then Germany’s defense minister—who said that Europe needed a “Schengen of defense”—a reference to the continent’s border-free Schengen Area, made up of 29 nations (four of which are outside the EU). Jean-Claude Juncker, her predecessor as president of the EU Commission, had said a year earlier that the EU needed its own army in order to “convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.” Whenever those are perceived to be in danger, the old idea of an EU army is reanimated.

Since Brexit, it has steadily gained traction. The idea was endorsed in 2018 by Angela Merkel, then the German chancellor, and French president Emmanuel Macron. A furious Trump, at that point halfway through his first term, saw it as an act of ingratitude towards NATO: “They were starting to learn German in Paris before the US came along,” he tweeted (a misleading reference to World War II). Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission since 2019, has called for a “European Defence Union,” and last month unveiled “Rearm Europe”—a five-year plan quickly rebranded “Readiness 2030,” after Spain and Italy complained that the original title was too militaristic. (Sánchez didn’t explain how that objection sits with his demand for an EU fighting force, presumably armed with more than goodwill.) Von der Leyen plans to mobilize €800 billion for the bloc’s defense over the next five years, by which point some analysts believe Russia could be ready to attack a member of NATO or the EU. Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, also supports the idea of an EU army.

But Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign affairs chief and vice president of the EU Commission, claims that it’s not necessary. What’s more important, she says, is that the bloc’s 27 armies “are capable and can effectively work together to deter our rivals and defend Europe.” She is supported by Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, who is adamant that an EU army “will not happen,” and Denmark, which has historically seen NATO as the continent’s primary defense mechanism. During its membership of the bloc, the UK opposed the idea of an EU army for the same reason, arguing that it would unnecessarily duplicate NATO.

One of the major practical difficulties is how a 27-nation army would be funded. The issue of mutual financing has also arisen over the EU’s call for members to increase their national defense budgets—and there is no agreement there, either. Rather than the cheap loans suggested by von der Leyen as part of the “Readiness 2030” plan, heavily indebted southern nations such as Spain and Italy favor common defense bonds, or grants similar to those distributed during the pandemic. The suggestion has revived a long-standing grievance amongst wealthier northern members such as Germany and the Netherlands, which are reluctant to fund joint initiatives: “No Eurobonds,” said Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof after a meeting of EU leaders in late March. Another possibility, as recently suggested by France’s economy minister, is increasing taxes, especially on the wealthy.

Sánchez claims the EU should reconsider the idea of a joint army because its individual members have been unable to find common ground on defense. But that same problem would likely prevent the creation of an EU fighting force. Since their formation almost twenty years ago, none of the EU’s Battle Groups—which typically consist of troops from three or four countries—have been activated. This hardly suggests that the bloc is ready to form a 27-nation army, controlled from Brussels and entering battle under a blue-and-gold flag.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/06/2025 - 02:00

Bangladesh Is Back At It Again With Another "Plausibly Deniable" Territorial Claim To India

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Bangladesh’s increasing alignment with China and Pakistan could imperil India’s Great Power plans...

Bangladeshi Major General (retired) A.L.M. Fazlur Rahman, who serves as chair of the National Independent Commission of Inquiry investigating the 2009 Bangladesh Rifles massacre, posted on Facebook that Bangladesh should occupy India’s Northeastern States if India goes to war with Pakistan. He later explained that preparing for this scenario might deter India, which could in turn prevent Pakistan’s possible defeat, thus averting the existential threat that India would then pose to Bangladesh.

The incumbent government, which came to power after last summer’s US-backed regime change, distanced itself from his post but the damage to bilateral trust was done. Rahman’s words followed interim Bangladeshi leader Muhammad Yunus’ scandalous comments about India’s Northeastern States during a trip to China earlier this year. They were analyzed here at the time as a veiled threat to once again host Indian-designated terrorist-separatist groups if India doesn’t make concessions to Bangladesh.

This year’s two territorial controversies thus far were preceded by Yunus’ special assistant Mahfuj Alam sharing a provocative map on X in late December that made claims to surrounding Indian states, with these sequential developments altogether ringing alarm bells in Delhi about Dhaka’s intentions. Although each were “plausibly deniable” in that no official territorial claims were made, the trend is unmistakable, and it’s that the new Bangladeshi authorities are weaponizing fears of this scenario.

From their ultra-nationalist perspective, this is a pragmatic means to rebalance what they consider to be Bangladesh’s lopsided relations with much larger India, but it risks backfiring by heightening Delhi’s threat perceptions with all that entails. In the current context of India signaling that it might launch at least one surgical strike against Pakistan in retaliation for last month’s Pahalgam terrorist attack, Indian military planners can’t confidently rule out that Pakistan might coordinate its response with Bangladesh.

To make matters worse, Rahman also wrote in his two posts that Bangladesh “needs to start discussing a joint military system with China”, which lays claim to India’s Northeastern State of Arunachal Pradesh. Seeing as how there’s always the possibility that another Indo-Pak war could lead to China intervening on Pakistan’s side, which Indian military planners call the two-front war scenario, this latest twist could lead to a three-front war as the incumbent Bangladeshi government aligns closer with both against India.

India already felt that it was becoming encircled by China over the past decade, but this might soon evolve into a siege mentality if ties with Bangladesh continue to worsen due to its officials’ rhetoric. The new regional security system that’s taking shape as Bangladesh de facto incorporates itself into the Sino-Pak nexus could decisively shift the balance of power against India. In response, India might intensify the military dimension of its strategic partnership with the US, albeit more on the US’ terms than before.

India cherishes its strategic autonomy, which is why it’s thus far declined to participate in the US’ multilateral containment of China, but that could change if the US informally makes more military-strategic support of India depend on this. 

Amidst its increasing encirclement that might soon evolve into a siege mentality as explained, India might feel that it has no choice but to concede to this so as to avoid being coerced into concessions by China, either scenario of which could imperil its Great Power plans.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 23:25

Trump Bans Federal Funding For Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research

President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon signed an executive order stopping federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research in high-risk countries like China and Iran, as well as in nations with insufficient research oversight. Joined in the Oval Office by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and National Institutes of Health official Jay Bhattacharya, Trump underscored his commitment to protecting America’s public health and national security.

The order equips U.S. research agencies to identify and terminate funding for biological research—both ongoing and future—that could threaten public safety or national security. It specifically targets federally funded studies abroad that risk triggering another pandemic, focusing on gain-of-function experiments like those conducted on bat coronaviruses by the EcoHealth Alliance and China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The measure also seeks to shield Americans from lab accidents and biosecurity incidents, such as those believed to have contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 1977 Russian flu. 

“It’s a big deal,” Trump said of the order. “It could have been that we wouldn’t have had the problem we had.”

Kennedy Jr., who emerged during the pandemic as one of the most vocal critics of vaccination mandates and forced lockdowns, celebrated the order, declaring, “In all of the history of Gain-of-Function research, we cannot point to a single good thing that has come of it."

.@SecKennedy tells the story of how America came to fund Gain-of-Function research in Wuhan: "In all of the history of Gain-of-Function research, we cannot point to a single good thing that has come of it." pic.twitter.com/D3mgDNYRyP

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 5, 2025

Bhattacharya also praised the order, noting that many scientists believe that dangerous gain-of-function research is “responsible for the COVID pandemic.”

"This is a historic day,” Bhattacharya said. “This proclamation makes it so that—most science is possess no threat to human populations—but the fraction of research that has the risk of causing a pandemic and harming every single person on the face of the earth, this executive order puts in place a framework to make sure the public has a say that if such risk is being taken, only scientists alone won’t be able to decide that.”

.@NIHDirector_Jay: "This is a historic day. The conduct of this dangerous gain-of-function research... many scientists believe is responsible for the COVID Pandemic." https://t.co/0INpPRQFBO pic.twitter.com/LwpcGP7KpZ

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 5, 2025

Back in 2014, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funneled a $3.7 million grant through EcoHealth, with nearly $600,000 sent to WIV for bat coronavirus studies—research many Republicans slam as dangerous gain-of-function experiments that could have sparked the pandemic. 

Last month, the Trump White House unveiled a revamped COVID-19 website on titled "Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19," replacing the previous COVID.gov site that provided public health resources. The new site strongly endorses the lab leak theory, asserting that the SARS-CoV-2 virus likely originated from a laboratory incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, involving gain-of-function research.

In the final days of his presidency, President Joe Biden issued a preemptive pardon of Fauci—shielding him from potential prosecution over allegations he misled Congress about the research. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 22:10

Centre-Left Labor Party Wins Australian Election, Opposition Leader Loses His Seat

Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In a result that mirrors that of the recent Canadian election, the Australian centre-right opposition has lost the election, and its leader, Peter Dutton, has lost his own seat.

Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gestures with his partner Jodie Haydon and son Nathan after winning the general election at the Labor Party election night event in Sydney, Australia on May 3, 2025. Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images

With over 80 percent of first preference votes counted, the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which had endured declining popularity over the last year, is leading in 77 electorates and narrowly ahead in another 4.

The Liberal-National Coalition leads in just 29 and is running a close race in another 10. Independents are ahead in 9, and may take one more.

For Australia, this will be the first time a prime minister has won a second term since 1998.

All 150 seats in the House of Representatives were on the line, and 40 of 76 Senate seats.

Widely predicted to be a tightly contested race, with cost-of-living pressures, affordable housing, and energy policy dominating the campaign, the ALP managed to turn around its fortunes in the last few months.

The ALP is projected to win 86 seats in total, up from the 77 it held at the previous election. To form government a party needs to win 76 seats.

The Coalition will be cut from 58 seats to just 40, and another 10 will go to independents (including the “Teals”), and none to the Greens.

However, there’s as yet no results from Western Australian (WA) seats as the polls closed later than on the east coast due to the time difference. However, WA at present is very much a red state and has re-elected a string of state ALP governments, so is likely to cement Labor’s national victory.

Australia is unique with its preferential voting system—different from a “first past the post system”—where voters can pick multiple parties on the ballot paper, and these votes can be redistributed to other candidates. Further, the country has compulsory voting, which changes the nature of campaigning with a sizeable portion of voters often less engaged with politics.

Labor Sweeps Marginal Seats Too

Labor has also held every one of its marginals, while winning most of the marginal seats previously held by the Coalition: Deakin, Bennelong, Sturt, Bass, Banks, Leichhardt, and Petrie.

The scale of the victory is illustrated by the seat of Bennelong, once a blue-ribbon Liberal stronghold represented by former Prime Minister John Howard, redistribution turned it into the most marginal of Labor seats, held until now by Jerome Laxale with a margin of just 0.04 percent.

But Laxale recorded a huge swing of 10.3 percent against the Liberal Party’s Scott Yung, turning blue to a deep red despite the Liberal Party pouring huge resources into trying to take the seat.

It’s also evident in Hughes, a seat the Labor Party hasn’t held for almost 30 years. There, the ALP’s David Moncrieff is expected to defeat the 8.9 percent margin of the Liberals’ Jenny Ware.

Such was the rejection of the opposition that in the traditionally conservative rural heartland seat of Calare, deserting his party and standing against them—often frowned upon by voters tired of internal politicking—didn’t affect newly minted independent Andrew Gee. He managed to defeat his replacement as Nationals’ candidate, Sam Farraway, with a 23.2 percent swing.

Results of that magnitude are being repeated across the country, with a national swing toward the ALP of at least 4 percent.

The only state in which the Coalition has done better than Labor is its stronghold of Queensland, where so far it’s taken 14 seats to the ALP’s 11. It’s done particularly poorly in Victoria, winning just 6 to Labor’s 22, a critical state where it hoped to pick up a few suburban seats.

Opposition Leader Loses His Seat

The most painful defeat of the Liberal-Nationals, though, must be Dutton’s seat of Dickson, which has gone to the ALP’s Ali France with a 9.3 percent swing. A situation mirrored in Canada with the defeat of Pierre Poilievre.

Dutton was challenged by a concerted campaign from Labor, but also a Teal independent.

With most people, including pollsters and politicians, predicting a close race, albeit with Labor slightly ahead and likely to form a minority government, the result was unexpected. While the final results will change once early votes and those from Western Australia are counted, it’s clear Labor will have a majority in Parliament.

And if support for the party is reflected in voting for the Senate—the results of which may not be known for as long as a month from now—then it may not have to cut deals with independents and minor parties to pursue its legislative agenda.

Falling at the Final Hurdle

The Coalition had polled well over the last year, gaining ground on the Labor government to the point where it was predicted to be a chance to even win minority government—a result that would have been historic because no party has lost government in just one term since 1931.

However, from the beginning of this year and when the election campaign officially began early last month, the Coalition began to falter, particularly with its decision to backflip or walk-back on several signature policies including a pledge to cut 41,000 public servants, forcing government workers back to the office, and even avoiding overt promotion of its civilian nuclear energy policy.

Many of these decisions came amid media and Labor Party scrutiny, and were also linked to concerted efforts to distance the centre-right party from the Make American Great Again movement. In fact, in one instance, Senator Jacinta Price walked-back the comment: “Make Australia Great Again.”

Australia's Opposition Leader Peter Dutton stands with his family as he concedes defeat in the general election at the Liberal Party election night event in Brisbane, Australia, on May 3, 2025. Patrick Hamilton/AFP via Getty Images State of Play for the Minor Parties, Independents

The Teal independents, backed by Climate 200, have held their seats, mostly with increased margins, but voters seem to have decided that the Greens aren’t needed in the lower house, losing the seats of Griffith and Brisbane (where their sitting MP came third) though, as at the time of writing, ahead in their last remaining seat of Ryan against a 5.91 percent swing to Labor.

The party may, however, retain its influence over Labor’s direction if it can hold its 12 Senate seats.

The Teals have been promoted as independent candidates to appeal to affluent, white-collar voters keen for more climate change action, and transparency in government. At the same time, their preferences will often flow to Labor as well.

Meanwhile, the suburban independent Dai Le—a former Liberal candidate—appears to have held her seat of Fowler, which had a 1.1 percent margin, with a 0.3 percent swing.

The Liberal Party, which is now faced with finding a new leader before Parliament resumes, faces the prospect of several terms in the political wilderness unless it can rebuild its structure and platform over the next three years and convince the electorate that it’s a viable alternative government.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 21:45

Chinese Space Program Copying Elon Musk's Starlink

Eric Berger, the senior space editor at Ars Technica, quoted a post on X from a China space observer detailing how Beijing appears to be copying Elon Musk's Starlink space internet company, operated by SpaceX. 

"The Chinese space program copying SpaceX? Well, I never …," Berger wrote. 

Berger quoted Blaine Curcio, founder of Orbital Gateway Consulting and an expert on China's space industry, who identified SpaceSail—a Chinese space company backed by the Shanghai municipal government—as having unveiled its "commercial" version of Starlink satellites at China Space Day 2025.

The Chinese space program copying SpaceX? Well, I never … https://t.co/3QNaLuUno4

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) May 5, 2025

The only problem China has is its launch cadence. For the year, SpaceX has 50 launches. This includes 48 Falcon 9 launches and 2 Starship launches. They have also launched 17 non-Starlink missions and 45 reused boosters. 

The latest count of Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit has surpassed 7,000, delivering high-speed internet to five million customers across 125 countries, territories, and other global markets.

SpaceX's third quarter 2024 launch report showed the US leading the global space race, launching 84% of all mass to orbit globally. This is 15 times all Chinese launches combined in the quarter, according to data from BryceTech. 

Goldman turned bullish on Starlink earlier this year. Read the note here. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 21:20

Trump Blocks Harvard From New Federal Grants

Harvard University will no longer be eligible for government grants, the White House informed the acclaimed scandal-plagued, institution on May 5. Trump's Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on Monday night to inform the university that it is not eligible for federal grants until it makes significant changes to its management, the official said.

Dear @Harvard: pic.twitter.com/XmMimXfkX0

— Secretary Linda McMahon (@EDSecMcMahon) May 5, 2025

The letter cites low public confidence in higher education, Harvard’s continued racial profiling, and takes issue with the virtually untaxed status of Harvard’s significant financial endowment.

"Perhaps most alarmingly, Harvard has failed to abide by the United States Supreme Court's ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing, and continues to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans", McMahon wrote, before advising the university to no longer seek Federal grants, "since none will be provided."

"The above concerns are only a fraction of the long list of Harvard's consistent violations of its own legal duties. Given these and other concerning allegations, this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided. Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution, and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment, and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni. You have an approximately $53 Billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact that you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise."

On Friday, President Trump threatened to go after Harvard’s tax-exempt status: “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he wrote in a social media post.

Two weeks earlier, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing its freeze on research funding is unconstitutional and “flatly unlawful” and called on the court to restore more than $2.2 billion in research dollars.

Earlier this year, the Department of Education sent Harvard a list of demands, including combating anti-Semitism on campus and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, that the university needed to fulfill or risk losing billions in federal funding, the Epoch Times reported

In its response, Harvard said it was “not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”

The Trump administration then froze $2.26 billion from the university, with nearly $9 billion in funding set aside for Harvard put under review.

The administration had also pushed for Harvard to disclose information about potential foreign ties, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to remove the university’s ability to enroll foreign students.

Weeks later, Harvard released two reports describing how Jewish, Israeli, Zionist, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and pro-Palestinian students all reported feeling marginalized or targeted over their identities and views after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the campus protests that followed.

“Especially disturbing is the reported willingness of some students to treat each other with disdain rather than sympathy, eager to criticize and ostracize, particularly when afforded the anonymity and distance that social media provides,” Garber wrote in a letter to the campus community.

Trump suggested on April 30 that his administration would no longer give government grants to Harvard if it did not agree to fulfill his demands to eliminate DEI and combat on-campus anti-Semitism.

“A grant is at our discretion, and they are really not behaving well. So it’s too bad,” Trump said.

Harvard has sued the administration to unfreeze its funds, and Garber said on Friday that it would be “highly illegal” for Trump to compel the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status.

“If the government goes through with a plan to revoke our tax-exempt status, it would … be highly illegal unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move,” Garber told The Wall Street Journal.

“The message that it sends to the educational community would be a very dire one, which suggests that political disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what might be an existential threat to so many educational institutions.”

On Monday, the White House official announcing McMahon’s letter took issue with recent Harvard data showing that less than 3 percent of surveyed faculty identify as conservative, and suggested the school could do more to bring diverse viewpoints to campus.

The official also accused the university of abandoning rigor and academic excellence, citing a plagiarism scandal involving former Harvard President Claudine Gay. All future funds to the university will be at the Trump administration’s discretion, the official said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 20:55

USDA Secretary Details Astounding Spending On Nutrition Programs, Warns Chronic Diseases Will 'Bankrupt' America

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has issued a dire warning about the United States’ chronic disease crisis, declaring that poor nutrition is fueling a healthcare cost surge that threatens to bankrupt the nation. 

During a recent Cabinet meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined plans to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) with Rollins, targeting sugary drinks and junk food that the USDA chief argues drive an unprecedented obesity epidemic.

 “We have 13 nutrition programs. Listen to this number. This is going to astound you. In America today, through USDA—this is not all the other agencies, this is just here at USDA—we spend $370 million a day on nutrition programs,” Rollins told All-In podcast host David Friedberg in an interview released Sunday. “So, not just SNAP, but food banks and all of the other ones. That’s just USDA. That is a stunning number. We’ve got to do better.”

.@SecRollins tells @friedberg the USDA spends $370 million daily on nutrition programs: "You can't solve this through government regulation."

"You can solve it through nutrition, empowering our farmers, and getting good food into these programs."pic.twitter.com/CNwCHecLMo

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) May 5, 2025

The stakes are extraordinarily high, with Rollins pointing to alarming health trends that she warns pose an existential threat to the nation’s future, disproportionately harming the country’s most vulnerable and low-income populations. 

“Why are billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk food in our supplemental nutrition program for food-insecure, lower-income populations? This contributes to an obesity and chronic disease epidemic unlike any developed country has ever seen. 74% of our adolescents would not pass the military readiness test today. This is a massive challenge facing America,” she told Friedberg, adding, “Taxpayers fund junk food and sugary drinks at the front end, leading to diabetes and other issues, while the back-end costs of treating chronic diseases are bankrupting states through Medicaid.”

Brooke Rollins joined David Friedberg to discuss her role as Secretary of Agriculture.

The highlight: her conversation on how she and RFK Jr. are working to remove sugary snacks and drinks from SNAP.

“Why are billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on sugary drinks and junk… pic.twitter.com/rCxJxVh0MR

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) May 5, 2025

Kennedy, a longtime champion of the Make America Healthy Again movement and a fierce critic of industrial food interests, is closely aligned with Rollins in transforming the nation’s food supply. “In the first administration, health care was under my portfolio in domestic policy. As conservatives, we’ve long discussed how to make America healthy again, focusing on the cost to the health care system,” Rollins said. “Enter Bobby Kennedy—while we don’t agree on everything, we align on most things. I was with him yesterday touring farms and discussing nutrition and agriculture. The opportunity for the agriculture and health leads to work together daily to solve this is key. You can’t solve it through government regulation, but through nutrition, empowering farmers, and getting good food into these programs.”

Last month, Kennedy unveiled a plan to eliminate eight artificial food dyes and colorings from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2026, collaborating with food companies to ensure a seamless transition.

ABC News reported: Federal officials are taking steps to pull the authorization for two rarely used synthetic food colorings -- Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B -- within the coming months. In addition, the six other petroleum-based dyes that federal health agencies are seeking to eliminate by the end of next year are Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2.

"I just want to urge all of you, it's not the time to stop; it's the time to redouble your efforts, because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle," Kennedy said of the historic move. "And four years from now, we're going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go to the grocery store."

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 20:30

Toward A Negotiated Settlement Of The Trump-Harvard Showdown

Authored by Peter Berkowitz via RealClearEducation,

In the high-stakes clash between the Trump administration and Harvard – fraught with peril for the White House, for America’s oldest and most famous university, and for higher education in America – both sides have hardened their stances. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration demanded supervision over reform of the university’s admissions, hiring, curriculum, and internal governance. In an April 14 email to the Harvard community, President Alan Garber rejected White House demands. The Trump administration promptly froze more than $2 billion in federal grants to Harvard and $60 million in contracts, and threatened to eliminate the university’s tax-exempt status. On April 21, Harvard sued several Trump administration officials.

Conservatives, who have been sounding the alarm about higher education’s failings for decades, have divided over how best the Trump administration should hold Harvard accountable.

On the one hand, the federal government has considerable leverage: It provides Harvard more than $500 million annually with billions in the pipeline. On the other hand, the Trump administration must respect constitutional and statutory limits on executive power. Political prudence dictates, moreover, that the president and his team consider that a sizeable majority of the public opposes increasing the federal government’s oversight of universities and that the federal government is ill-suited to the task.

Best for both sides would be a negotiated settlement. The settlement should minimize the federal government’s role in managing Harvard while ensuring that the university obeys civil-rights law, curbs progressive indoctrination, and bolsters traditional liberal education.

Harvard precipitated the crisis. The proximate cause of the Trump administration’s drastic intervention was the university’s violation of civil-rights law by indulging antisemitism and discriminating based on race.

Harvard’s indulgence of antisemitism stands in marked contrast to the alacrity with which it has protected non-Jewish minorities and women. For decades, Harvard has been narrowing the boundaries of permissible campus speech to shield students – particularly favored minorities and women – from supposedly offensive utterances, the offense of which often consists in departure from progressive orthodoxy. Yet following Iran-backed Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel, former Harvard President Claudine Gay discovered that campus free speech is wide and flexible enough to sometimes protect calling for the genocide of the Jews. Furthermore, as the university has acknowledged, it has harbored antisemitism and has been slow and ineffective in responding to campus antisemitism’s post-Oct. 7 surge.

In addition, for decades Harvard discriminated based on race. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023), the Supreme Court held that the university’s race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet despite losing in the highest court of the land, Harvard maintained DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs that classified, and doled out and withheld, benefits based on race.

Beyond the proximate cause of the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to reshape Harvard lies the longstanding cause. For decades, Harvard has betrayed liberal education. It has offered undergraduates a shambolic curriculum: Instead of concentrating on the essentials of an education for freedom – the American experiment in ordered liberty, the defining events and seminal ideas of Western civilization, and basic knowledge of non-Western civilizations – professors lard the curriculum with courses revolving around their arcane research interests. And for decades, Harvard has politicized the humanities and social sciences, promoting a progressive – and often radical – ideology that puts advocacy for left-wing social change ahead of understanding the basics of ethics, economics, culture, society, and politics.

Harvard’s hospitability to antisemitism and its race-conscious policies justified aggressive White House measures to compel the university to abide by its legal obligations or lose federal financial support. The university’s decades-long debasement of liberal education magnified the White House’s sense of urgency. But Trump administration remedies adopt a cavalier attitude toward the law and overlook the federal government’s limited competence.

The week before Harvard filed its lawsuit, City Journal published essays by Manhattan Institute senior fellows Heather MacDonald and Christopher Rufo assessing Trump administration endeavors to reform Harvard. While agreeing that reform was vital, the two eminent commentators on higher education differed over the government’s tactics.

A searing critic of universities’ war on free speech and discrimination disguised as diversity, MacDonald nonetheless worries in “The White House’s Clumsy Attack on Harvard” that the Trump team has overreached. “The administration calls for oversight of faculty hiring to ensure ‘viewpoint diversity,’ though the legal basis for such authority is unclear,” writes MacDonald. “Its demand for a ‘critical mass’ of intellectually diverse faculty is either a wry joke or unintentionally ironic. After all, the notion of a ‘critical mass’ of ‘diverse’ students was one of the flimsy concepts the Supreme Court used for decades to justify racial admissions preferences.”

In contrast, Rufo wants to fight fire with fire. In “The Right Is Winning the Battle Over Higher Education,” he argues that the left transformed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into “a vehicle for entrenching left-wing racialist ideology throughout American institutions.” Now, maintains Rufo, the right must use civil-rights law to achieve its original purpose – to establish “a framework grounded in colorblind equality.” He insists that “racial discrimination is wrong whether it targets whites, Asians, and Jews or blacks and Hispanics.” And he urges the Trump administration to “use every tool at its disposal to ensure that America’s elite universities adhere to the principle of colorblind equality.” But Rufo overlooks the Trump administration’s proclivity to reach for constitutionally and congressionally prohibited tools, and its penchant for unwisely, if lawfully, extending federal authority.

Meanwhile, Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the Trump administration overreached in the legal sphere.

Harvard’s first major allegation might be a close call. According to the university, the government’s freezing of funds and demanding of sweeping reforms of admissions, hiring, curriculum, and internal governance unconstitutionally burden Harvard’s free-speech rights. The Trump administration will probably argue that its demands do not impair Harvard’s speech but rather give the university a choice. Harvard can say what it likes and do as it pleases and, consequently, lose federal funding, to which there is no constitutional entitlement. Or Harvard can adopt measures that would make the university worthy of taxpayer dollars.

Harvard is likely to prevail on the second major allegation, which is that the Trump administration disregarded the congressionally established procedures for withholding approved federal funds. The facts are clear: The Trump administration froze federal funding for Harvard without taking the statutorily prescribed steps for suspending or terminating signed contracts and approved grants.

A court battle would bloody both parties.

Needed, therefore, is an out-of-court settlement. In dealing with the proximate cause of the showdown, a reasonable settlement should ensure that Harvard abides by civil-rights law and that the Trump administration respects constitutional and statutory limits on executive-branch power. In handling the longstanding cause, a reasonable settlement should reduce indoctrination at Harvard in favor of liberal education while obliging the government to honor the university’s academic freedom and institutional independence.

Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Stanley Kurtz has provided an excellent proposal that provides an appealing compromise concerning the longstanding cause of the Trump-Harvard showdown. In “Trump vs. Harvard: A Negotiated Solution,” which appeared online at National Review on April 21 (the day Harvard sued the Trump administration), Kurtz highlights Harvard’s “lax handling of disruptive demonstrations and antisemitic harassment” and its “pervasive leftist bias.” At the same time, Kurtz expresses skepticism about the Trump administration’s demand that Harvard place itself “into a de facto federal receivership.” But Harvard and the Trump administration, Kurtz optimistically contends, could agree to a compromise based on “model legislation called General Education Act (GEA), a limited version of which just became law in Utah, and which is likely to be considered by other states in 2026.”

A co-author of the model GEA, Kurtz sketches a modified version for Harvard. It would create within Harvard a “School of General Education, where the governing dean and the newly recruited faculty are committed to a traditional ‘great books’ approach.” While Harvard undergraduates could earn a degree in general education, “[t]he distinctive feature of this plan is that the new School of General Education is put in charge of teaching a set of great books and Western Civ–focused courses required of every student at the university in question.” Whereas the Trump approach involves intrusive federal monitoring – and Democrats would remove it immediately upon regaining the presidency – the school of general education, once established, would be difficult to abolish.

Everyone could claim victory. The Trump administration could claim credit for impelling Harvard to invest in liberal education. Harvard could take pride in maintaining its independence. Harvard students could acquire precious knowledge of their civilizational heritage while learning to exchange conflicting opinions in a spirit of curiosity, civility, and toleration. Higher education in America could adopt as a model the liberal-education reforms instituted by the nation’s oldest and most famous university. And citizens could draw inspiration from the White House’s and Harvard’s cooperating to achieve compromise and conciliation that advances the public interest.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on X @BerkowitzPeter.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 20:05

Tyson Foods Spots Potential Beef Crisis Low As Hard Work Begins For Ranchers

During Tyson Foods' earnings call on Monday, Brady Stewart—head of the company's beef and pork supply chains—offered fresh insight into what may be the emerging bottom in U.S. cattle supplies, which have fallen to their lowest levels in over 70 years. His comments came in response to a question from one Wall Street analyst.

Barclays analyst Benjamin Theurer asked Stewart about the overall environment in the beef industry:

So it feels like you only had a small volume drop-in the quarter that could almost be explained by just the leap year and some of the calendar effects. So just wanted to understand a little bit better what you're seeing in terms of supply of cattle and the cost of that into your operations and how you think about the earlier signs maybe as to some of the heifer retention? Is that building or not? So how should we think about just these throughout the cycle? Are we at the bottom or is it just still too early to tell? That would be my first question. 

Stewart explained that while cattle supply remains down year-over-year, record-high animal weights are helping to offset the decline in volume. He added that the U.S. cattle industry is likely at or near the bottom of its inventory cycle, with herd levels now at a 73-year low.

Here's the executive's response to the Barclays analyst that provides valuable insight for consumers, ranchers, and everyone in between tracking the nation's cattle supplies:

Ben, I think it's important to note that cattle on feed from a weight perspective are extremely heavy. We're at record weights throughout the business as well. So we're seeing some weight that is offsetting from a volume perspective, some of the lower headcounts we're seeing as the supply has been obviously lower than year ago.

Relative to heifer retention and I would just say this and Curt has mentioned this before, if we're not at the bottom relative to cow inventories, we can definitely see it from here as well. And I think a couple of reference points behind that certainly would be we' ve seen an extreme drop almost 18% in beef cow harvest numbers.

And then secondary to that is we have seen a drop relative to heifer on feed, which means if the heifer are not on feed, they're being retained by farmers and ranchers as well. And we're seeing a 4% drop in heifers year-over-year as well. So I think the signs are really aligning to a rebuild to start to occur. And from a liquidation standpoint, really seeing the bottom at this point as well.

At the start of the year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual Cattle Inventory report revealed that the nation's cattle supply had fallen to a 73-year low, totaling about 86.6 million head.

At the supermarket, USDA data from the end of March showed the average price for a pound of ground beef reached yet another record high of $5.79.

Commenting on Stewart's remarks is The Beef Initiative founder, Texas Slim, who said:

"Rebuilding the herd takes more than forecasts—it takes proof of work. Ranchers holding back heifers aren't chasing trends; they're investing in land, genetics, and legacy. That 18% drop in beef cow harvest isn't a collapse—it's a recalibration. If this is the bottom, it's the kind only real producers can build from."

Slim said: 

"Rebuilding America's cattle herd will take years—and critically, it must include the participation of mom-and-pop ranchers across the country. The current model, dominated by four multinational meatpackers, is unsustainable—on national security grounds." 

And continued:

"The most effective way to support this rebuilding effort is one order at a time through the ZeroHedge Rancher Direct Store. Last week's launch, in partnership with ZeroHedge, was a major success. Now, with the 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement gaining momentum, the connection between independent ranchers and consumers is set to grow stronger than ever." 

Each order puts working capital into America's mom-and-pop ranchers offering clean MAHA beef. 

Support America.

Support small ranchers.

Support the Heartland.

It's time for a food revolution.

.   .   . 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 19:40

CDPQ's Executive Vice-President and Head of CDPQ Global and Global Head of Sustainability, Marc-André Blanchard, received the 2025 Testimonial Dinner Award on April 24 in Toronto. 

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Blanchard reflected on the urgent need for engagement, trust and partnership in solving the most pressing challenges of our time.

The former diplomat shared insights from his time at the United Nations, and called for public institutions to refocus on results, for silos to be broken across sectors and for trust to be rebuilt — drop by drop — through collaboration and engaged action:

I want to begin with just one word — gratitude, but gratitude in three parts. First, the five distinguished Canadians with whom I have the privilege of being honored tonight, they each inspire me.

Anil Arora. Anil is a legend amongst the global statistician community, I saw it with my own eyes at the UN.

The honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, a life dedicated to building and strengthening resilient local communities in Canada and around the world.

Chief Crystal Smith, your focus on economic reconciliation and building innovative partnerships is exactly what we need, not only for our national reconciliation, but also globally, for a more sustainable world.

Steve Paikin, last week’s debate reminded us how lucky we have been to have had you as a pillar in journalism and in our country for so long.

And Alfred, well, your optimism and generosity and focus on action will bring all of us somewhere else.

Second, gratitude to this room, to this community, to the Public Policy Forum. And allow me a special thanks, that’s never easy to do, to my wife Monique, merci.

Our sons, Adrian and Laurent, who are here tonight. This is my family. (In French: I would never have been here without you. You are my north star.) Thanks also to all of my friends here and my former colleagues, whether from McCarthy or from the public service or at CDPQ, or all of the organizations, my alma mater. Thank you. I’ve been so lucky in my life that my life has crossed your paths, and thank you for being here.

And third, I’m grateful for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts. And don’t worry, they’re not that long. It’s a gift, and I’m deeply thankful to all of you for giving me the reason and the space to pause, reflect and share.

The first thing I recognize is this — despite our deeply troubling times, like most of you, I’m certain I stand before you as someone who remains deeply, deeply hopeful in our future. To state the obvious, the challenges that brought me into public policy and public service, the kind that shaped my purpose, are today even more complex, more urgent and more intertwined than ever before. Never has the distance between our ideals and our actions been so radically exposed, so consequential, and so necessary to bridge.

Well, I happen to know a thing or two about idealism. You know, after all, I served in the halls of the United Nations for nearly five years. And when I arrived in the spring of 2016 there was so much hope. The world had just adopted the sustainable development goals and the Paris Accord, the world would finally get to work on two of its biggest and most pressing challenges — inequality and climate change. Then, within a few months, Brexit, President Trump, a few years later, the pandemic, Syria, Ukraine.

So, I’ve lived through the great declarations and stirring speeches. I’ve also lived through the disappointments left by our institutions’ inability to deliver what is being promised to citizens. This disappointment is felt in Canada and almost everywhere else in the world. Throughout the world, it has eroded the trust in our democratic institutions. And globally, the multilateral institutions so dear to Canada are being sidestepped without much reaction by the populations.

A friend of mine, Baroness Valerie Amos, the Master of University College of Oxford, recently said people need to see the difference that institutions make in their lives, and they need to have a mechanism that enables them to have an influence on those institutions. So how do we get our institutions to deliver for the people on the ground? How do we get from our idealism and our values to results?

Well, to me, a big part of the answer is about engagement. We need results. To get results, we need people invested in the kind of change they want to see. I can think of three rules of engagement that if applied, would deliver results faster, and of scale.

First, as I mentioned, engagement must be focused on results. Populism is not an anomaly. It’s a symptom, a warning sign of deeper democratic fatigue. Populism can only thrive in the void left by a lack of real results, in the absence of meaningful, visible change in people’s lives. To succeed in delivering faster, we need to remember that excellence in public policy does not require perfection. It requires progress, delivery and results.

Engagement, therefore, must be redefined, not as dialog alone, or even worse, a process, but as a deliberate, measurable pursuit of relentless impact.

Second, engagement must break down the silos and lead to innovative partnerships of the kind we heard just before. Well, this is tougher than it sounds. And to my dear friends of the public sector, my public sector colleagues, let me tell you a well-kept secret of the private sector. The private sector has silos, too.

In today’s world, with this climate, this economy, this global uncertainty, the real breakthroughs, the ones that will shape the next generation, will come when both sectors, public and private, start truly collaborating.

Well, let me brag a little bit. So I promise, I’ve been a citizen of Toronto, I promise not to make any explicit comparison with the Eglinton line here in Toronto. But I can offer no better example than the REM (Réseau express métropolitain) in Montreal, a very innovative partnership between CDPQ and three levels of government, various Crown corporations and the private sector, involved in delivering in a very short time — started the construction in 2018, first line going up in 2023 at reasonable cost — 67 kilometers of light rail train. If there had been no trust, there would have been no REM.

Which leads me to my third and final rule. Engagement must be built and rebuilt on trust. They say that trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. And in recent years, here at home and around the world, we’ve watched too many of those buckets spill over. There is no shortcut to trust. There is only the steady, honest, often uncelebrated, work of listening, of engaging with people who disagree with us, not thinking we know better, of standing in someone else’s shoes, of doing the right thing and the right thing is often not theoretical perfection, but a good old Canadian compromise, even when it’s hard. Drip by drip. Act by act.

As we look to the future, please remember this. Every grand plan, every vision to reinvigorate our democracy, to renew our economy or realign our world will demand deep collaboration and even deeper trust. Without that trust, we’re left with talk, with the illusion of progress and none of the results. The reality is that listening builds trust and relationships. Trust and relationships accelerate action. And engagement leads to impact.

So thank you from the bottom of my heart for this honour, really. And let’s never forget that there is no challenge that we cannot overcome. After all, together we’ve built the best country in the world.

Vive le Canada et merci beaucoup.

Great speech by Marc-André Blanchard, eloquent, short, optimistic, striking the right balance between idealism and realism.

He brings the example of the REM where three levels of government were involved and nothing would have gotten done if there was no trust. 

He correctly notes:

“In today’s world, with this climate, this economy, this global uncertainty, the real breakthroughs, the ones that will shape the next generation, will come when both sectors, public and private, start truly collaborating.” 

And ends on this note:

As we look to the future, please remember this. Every grand plan, every vision to reinvigorate our democracy, to renew our economy or realign our world will demand deep collaboration and even deeper trust. Without that trust, we’re left with talk, with the illusion of progress and none of the results. The reality is that listening builds trust and relationships. Trust and relationships accelerate action. And engagement leads to impact.

Well, Marc-André Blanchard and his team at CDPQ are certainly doing their part to engage and lead to impact on responsible investing.

I recently covered CDPQ's 2024 Sustainable Investing Report where they exceeded their targets here.

Below, Marc-André Blanchard accepts the 2025 Testimonial Dinner Award. Great speech, well done.

US Government Offers $5 Million For Capture Of MS-13 Leader, FBI Top 10 Fugitive

Authored by Rachel Acenas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A reward of up to $5 million is being offered for information leading to the arrest of the highest-ranking MS-13 leader in Honduras, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Monday.

Yulan Andony Archaga Carías. FBI

Yulan Andony Archaga Carías, 43, is a Honduran national and a fugitive on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted list.

“This terrorist leader can no longer be allowed to live free as MS-13’s evil devastates communities in America and throughout the western hemisphere,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.“If you can contribute information leading to his arrest, come forward now.”

In 2021, Archaga Carías was charged in a superseding indictment in the Southern District of New York with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and firearms offenses. A co-defendant in the case is currently in U.S. custody. Three other MS-13 leaders were also charged in the indictment with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and firearms offenses. One of them is in Honduran custody, while the other two remain at large.

The search for Archaga Carías is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to crack down on transnational criminal gang activity. MS-13 and Tren de Aragua were officially designated foreign terrorist organizations by the United States on Feb. 20, 2025.

“Dismantling and ultimately eliminating MS-13 continues to be one of the FBI’s highest priorities, and we’re not stopping until that mission is complete,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in the DOJ statement. “Alongside our dedicated law enforcement partners, the FBI will find Archaga Carías—a terrorist whose reign of terror at the helm of MS-13 is coming to an end.”

The United States is paying $6 million to El Salvador to hold alleged and confirmed gang members deported by the Trump administration for one year in its maximum-security prison known as CECOT.

The Trump administration has been met with legal challenges over its deportations of such illegal immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked new deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members held in northern Texas under an 18th-century wartime law.

President Donald Trump on Monday said the deportations are a campaign promise he is fulfilling.

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country, for that matter—People that came here illegally!”

If convicted, Archaga Carías faces a maximum penalty of life in prison and a mandatory minimum penalty of 40 years in prison. A judge will determine sentencing.

The DOJ said that only tips sent to the U.S. government will be considered for the reward. Tipsters outside the country should report to an American embassy or consulate, while those in the United States can contact local FBI offices.

From NTD News

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 19:15

Trump Slams 'Radical Left Lunatics' Who Are Doing 'Impeachment Thing Again' As Dems Distance From Theander

Congressional Democrats are apparently furious that one of their members, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI), introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump, alleging that various actions such as deporting suspected MS-13 gang member Kilmar Barego Garcia, cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency without congressional approval, and Trump's tariffs are impeachable offenses.

"Members can walk away with different impressions of a conversation, and a quick check-in with staff can go a long way in avoiding confusion," said a top aide to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wrote in a letter to fellow Democratic staffers to let each other know when their bosses are about to pull some rogue shit like Thanedar.

"I don’t think any of us want to learn that their boss was added to a bill that’s been introduced from a Google Alert," wrote Andrew Heinemann, according to Politico.

Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced a resolution Monday to impeach Trump with four Democrats listed as cosponsors: Nadler of New York, plus Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Robin Kelly of Illinois and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland.

But all four of the other lawmakers who had signed onto Thanedar’s resolution have since withdrawn as cosponsors and implied that they were mistakenly added to the legislation after conversations with Thanedar.

"The Congresswoman was under the impression that the resolution was drafted and reviewed by experts from the House Judiciary Committee," said Rep. Kelly's spox, while Mfume's spokesperson said he removed himself "because he was made aware it was not cleared by Democratic leadership and not fully vetted legally — and he preferred to err on the side of caution."

Trump Slams

On Monday, President Trump slammed "Radical Left Lunatics" who are into the "Impeachment thing" again - referring to Thanedar (without naming him) as one of "two “No Name,” little respected Congressmen, total Whackjobs both, throwing the “Impeachment” of DONALD J. TRUMP around, for about the 20th time, even though they have no idea for what I would be Impeached."

The post continues;

Maybe it should be for cleaning up the MESS that they left us on the Border, or the Highest Inflation in our Country’s History or, perhaps, it should be the incompetent Withdrawal from Afghanistan, or Russia, Russia, Russia/Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, or the Attack of Israel on October 7th that only proceeded because they allowed Iran to regain Great Wealth. These Congressmen stated that, they didn’t know why they would Impeach me but, “We just want to do it.” The Republicans should start to think about expelling them from Congress for all of the crimes that they have committed, especially around Election time(s). These are very dishonest people that won’t let our Country heal! Why do we allow them to continuously use Impeachment as a weapon against the President of the United States who, by all accounts, is working hard to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. It’s the same playbook that they used in my First Term, and Republicans are not going to allow them to get away with it again. These are total LOWLIFES, who hate our Country, and everything it stands for. Perhaps we should start playing this game on them, and expel Democrats for the many crimes that they have committed — And these are REAL crimes. Remember, “Shifty” Adam Schiff demanded a Pardon, and they had to use the power of the Auto Pen, and a Full Pardon, for him and the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, to save them from Expulsion, and probably worse!

Yes, that.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 18:50

US Electricity From Fossils Fuels Dips Below 50% For The First Time Ever

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• For the first time, fossil fuels provided less than half of U.S. electricity generation in a month (March 2025).

• The shift is driven by increased renewable capacity (wind and solar), seasonal demand, and the decline of coal.

• The trend is expected to continue, driven by policy and economics, but grid reliability and regional differences remain challenges.

For the first time in history, fossil fuels supplied less than half of the United States’ electricity generation for an entire month, according to new data released by energy think tank Ember. This milestone, achieved in March 2025, represents a turning point in the evolving energy mix of the world’s largest economy.

Historically, fossil fuels—primarily coal and natural gas—have dominated U.S. electricity production. But the steady rise of renewables over the past two decades has chipped away at their dominance. In March, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear collectively overtook coal, oil, and gas, with fossil fuels accounting for just 48.9% of total generation.

However, note that this is an estimate of total generation, including small scale systems that are not connected to the grid. According to EIA data, fossil fuels still account for about 64% of electricity generation by utilities. 

What’s Driving the Shift?

Several factors converged to make this moment possible.

• First, renewable energy capacity has expanded rapidly. Wind and solar are now mainstream technologies, supported by state mandates, federal tax incentives, and falling costs. Wind generation alone grew 12% in March year-over-year, and solar jumped by a remarkable 37%.

• Second, seasonal demand patterns played a role. March is typically a shoulder month for electricity demand—warmer than winter but not yet summer hot—which tends to reduce the need for gas-fired peaking power plants. Lower demand allows zero-marginal-cost renewables like wind and solar to play a more prominent role on the grid.

• Third, coal continues its long decline. Once the backbone of U.S. power generation, coal’s share of the mix has been in free fall since the mid-2000s. In March, coal accounted for just 15% of overall electricity generation (and ~18% of electricity produced by utilities). 

Nuclear power also remains a steady contributor, generating around 19% of electricity, while hydro added another 7%. Combined, these non-fossil sources provide a rapidly growing part of the U.S. grid, with gas providing backup during peaks and seasonal extremes.

A One-Month Wonder, or a Trend?

It’s important to view this milestone in context. April’s low fossil fuel share is partly seasonal, and likely to rebound in the hotter summer months when demand for air conditioning increases and natural gas generation ramps up. Indeed, in 2023, fossil fuels still provided 60% of total annual electricity generation.

However, the trajectory is clear: renewable energy is rapidly scaling, and fossil fuels—especially coal—are losing ground.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, has accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure. Billions of dollars are now flowing into solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission upgrades. Analysts project that renewables will continue to take a growing share of the power mix, driven not just by policy, but by economics. In many parts of the country, new wind and solar projects are already the lowest-cost option for new generation.

Grid Reliability and the Energy Transition

One lingering concern is reliability. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, still provide critical dispatchable power when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. The challenge now is to scale clean, reliable alternatives, such as long-duration energy storage, advanced nuclear, and grid-interactive demand response.

There are also regional differences to consider. Some states—like California and Texas—have made significant strides in renewable integration, while others remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Building out the national transmission grid will be essential to balancing these disparities and ensuring a reliable, resilient system.

A Glimpse Into the Future

The March data doesn’t mean the U.S. has “solved” the energy transition—but it does offer a preview of what the grid could look like in the not-so-distant future. As technology improves, costs continue to fall, and policy support remains strong, it’s likely that fossil fuels will make up less than half of the annual electricity mix within this decade.

For investors, utilities, and policymakers, the message is clear: the momentum behind clean electricity is real. Those who prepare for this transition—by investing in clean infrastructure, modernizing the grid, and rethinking electricity markets—will be best positioned for the energy system of tomorrow.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/05/2025 - 18:25