Sometimes you have to sip coffee slowly, while taking in the landscape.

About a month ago President Donald J Trump bombed Caracas, engaged the U.S. military with a direct firefight against Venezuela military & security forces, then snatched regime dictator Nicholas Maduro out of the country to face criminal charges in the United States.

Yesterday, Maduro’s replacement, President Delcy Rodriquez, stood on the steps to the Venezuela presidential office and publicly thanked Interior Secretary Doug Bergum for the kindness and support of President Donald Trump.

That reality represents a level of hemispheric ‘ultimate boss’ that boggles the mind.  But wait, it gets better. There’s video (prompted):

Before going further to current events, let us remind ourselves of a few details.

Sandwiched between the Venezuela Maduro operation and the recent Operation Epic Fury in Iran, approximately three weeks ago, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth convened a gathering in Washington of all the defense chiefs and senior military officials from 34 Western Hemisphere countries.

As most of you will remember, securing the national security of the entire Western Hemisphere, was outlined in the national defense strategy document [SEE HERE] released by President Trump. In addition to setting the priorities for the United States focus, the report details the Trump administration perspective on the world as broken down into specific regions.  The report is a brutally honest review of the current state of geopolitical benefits, risks and threats as they pertain to vital U.S. interests. The report outlines a critically renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere.

Now, back to Secretary Bergum’s visit.

(more…)

Force Majeure is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic, or sudden legal change prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

People would be well advised to wait a few days when announcements are made before jumping to immediate conclusions. The announcement by Qatar Energy of a force majeure notification did not originate from Qatar’s inability to produce contractual LNG supplies…..

[SOURCE]

…. two days prior to this announcement, India’s top gas importer Petronet LNG Ltd issued a force majeure notice to Qatar Energy and local buyers because its LNG tanker ships were unable to reach the Ras Laffan load port due to the crisis in the Middle East.  Without ships arriving to take the LNG Qatar Energy cannot keep producing.

Qatar Energy operates 14 liquefied natural gas (LNG) trains with a total annual production capacity of 77 million tonnes {SOURCE}.  If ships don’t reach the terminals, there’s no need for Qatar Energy to keep pumping and liquifying from well heads.  It’s a downstream issue.

Bahrain made the same announcement for their refined aluminum exports {SOURCE}. Indonesian company Chandra Asri made the same announcement for petrochemicals {SOURCE}. Chevron made the same announcement two days ago after Israel shut down the Leviathan natural gas field {SOURCE}.  Thus, we see the ramifications for the entire region around the Iran conflict zone and the downstream destinations (Asia and Europe) for energy products therein.

(more…)

President Trump holds a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office.  After brief remarks of mutual appreciation, President Trump and Chancellor Merz responded to questions from the assembled press pool.

Chancellor Merz expressed support for the objective of eliminating the regime threat from Iran.  President Trump notes at the beginning how Iran is targeting civilian targets in the region and generating even more support from the Gulf states for the USA.

When asked about the British and Spanish refusal to support U.S. military logistics and deployment, President Trump let the media be aware he is not happy with the position of Spain and the U.K.  President Trump also announced [11:00 of video] an economic embargo of trade with Spain as an outcome of their position.

.

(more…)

The Supreme Court tariff ruling has created the need for U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to modify the baseline tariff approach with the approvals of President Trump.

The baseline tariffs are being reset to 10% with upward adjustment to 15% as planned.  The reciprocal tariffs will not require any substantive modifications as most of the Free Trade Agreements have been cemented with reciprocity tariffs as part of the negotiated deals.

USTR Greer appears on Bloomberg to clarify the current situation and provide some information as to the transitional baseline tariffs as now modified. Additionally, and importantly, Greer begins discussing the USMCA review and his acceptance that President Trump is openly questioning the value for us. Greer notes Mexico and Canada being used as import hubs to avoid tariffs is a big issue. WATCH:

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

*FYI, there is a lot of distracting noise in the various social media platforms about internecine MAGA battles and ego-driven points of specific interest.  CTH chooses to focus energy and attention on the substantive policy issues that will generate substantive policy outcomes for America.

(more…)

The highest court in Panama has nulled the ‘Chinese’ contract for the operation of both entrance ports on the Panama Canal.  The Panamanian government took back control and assigned operations to APM Terminals, a subsidiary of the Danish group A.P. Moller-Maersk.

The state takeover comes after a 14-month long saga begun by President Trump who reasserted American interests in the hemisphere and rejected the concept of allowing China to have strategic control over such vital North American infrastructure.

President Trump did not mince words in December of 2024 when he said, “[The Panama Canal] was not given for the benefit of others, but merely as a token of cooperation with us and Panama,” Trump concluded. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question.”  Marco Rubio was then dispatched as an intermediary in Feb 2025.

Then, last month, Panama’s Supreme Court struck down the law approving the concession contract for Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of CK Hutchison (China/Hong Kong). The court ruling also invalidated an extension granted in 2021, stripping the port operations of any current legal standing.  Now, Panama has taken over.

(MSM) – The government of Panama has seized control of two ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong conglomerate following a recent ruling by the country’s Supreme Court.

Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison said on Tuesday that Panama’s government had “made direct physical entry into the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal” and assumed “administrative and operational control” over the two ports on the Panama Canal.

(more…)

President Trump reacts to the Supreme Court ruling with much the same perspective of many MAGA supporters.

For most of us the core of MAGA policy surrounds economics; specifically, GDP growth, jobs and wages. Economic security is national security. Immigration enforcement, border security and other priorities come after MAGAnomics.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country. I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you.

When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation.

Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.

I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.”

(more…)

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority.  As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs.  WATCH (prompted):

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

(more…)

President Donald Trump delivers remarks and holds a media availability following the Supreme Court 6-3 decision on the meaning of the word “regulate.”  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The high court has indicated it will be releasing opinions on one or more of the previously argued cases on Friday February 20, Tuesday Feb 24, or Wednesday Feb 25.  The decision over tariffs triggered by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the decisions now considered highly likely to surface.

If the decision doesn’t come this Friday, a rather interesting situation unfolds.  The following week falls into the Tuesday Feb 24 State of the Union address.

Typically, several Supreme Court justices sit in front row of the House floor during the speech.  The decision could be released on the morning of the speech, or justices could actually sit in the audience – knowing the outcome and the morning after the State of the Union address, the ruling could be released.

Now, there is a possibility the ruling will not come out in this cycle, but that is diminishing possibility considering the length of time the Supreme Court has sat on this opinion.

The court knows the importance of this decision, and they obviously know the State of the Union speech is scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday the 24th.  This will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold.

(more…)

While the government of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has inked a trade agreement with China to accept cheap imported vehicles in exchange for Beijing purchasing some agricultural products, President Trump has promised those cheap Chinese EVs will never cross the border into the USA.

The Canadian polling on the issue has done a remarkable chang in the past few years.  Now, the majority of Canadians are willing to purchase cheap Chinese EVs. As outlined by Bloomberg, “More than half of Canadians, or 53%, say that knowing an EV was made in China would have no effect on their purchasing decision, according to a new poll by Nanos Research Group for Bloomberg News.”

Approximately 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles will enter the Canadian market in the first year. “The pact with China includes a provision that part of the quota will be reserved for electric vehicles priced at C$35,000 ($25,700) or less, the government has said.” {SOURCE}

The Canadian government wants a Chinese auto manufacturer, any Chinese auto manufacturer, to build factories in Canada to produce these electric vehicles.  Canada wants the jobs and economic activity because Canada is currently bleeding jobs and economic activity due to the trade conflict with the U.S.

Building cheap Chinese EVs in Canada might help offset a few thousand job losses, but building Chinese EVs in Canada only further ensures there will not be a substantive trade agreement between the USA and Canada once the USMCA (CUSMA) is dissolved.  [More on that coming]

(more…)