First the cliff notes version: There’s an important detail to remember.  People are laughing at the long-range Russian bombers being left out in the open, vulnerable to attack. However, the bomber visibility is required as part of several nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia (SALT and START).  Our U.S. long range nuclear capable bombers, covered under the same agreements, are also visible.

Ukraine President Zelenskyy is playing with fire by targeting them, which also explains why Zelenskyy never told President Trump in advance.

The U.S and NATO have provided the means. However, #1) did Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy just exploit a vulnerability by targeting Russian long-range nuclear capable bombers?  and #2) was the CIA and NATO intelligence community a willfully blind participant knowing they would benefit?

Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), call for U.S. and Russian long range nuclear capable bombers to remain “visible and observable by national technical means of verification.”  That open visibility creates a mutual vulnerability as well as a method of surveillance and verification for both the USA and Russian Federation.

[Article III, Paragraph 7, START Treaty Overview]

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and by extension his NATO enablers, just exploited that SALT/START vulnerability and used drones to attack Russian bombers covered by USA-Russia treaties.  There are reports (and videos) now surfacing from inside Russia showing the Russian Federation moving strategic long-range mobile missile launchers into position for a counterattack against Ukraine.

This situation is obviously very fluid and let us all hope that President Trump and President Putin are in communication about this escalation as created by Zelenskyy and his enablers, even if -and probably especially if- our own intelligence agencies are part of the enabling.

Think about the ramifications of NATO enabled Ukraine targeting major Russian military assets which are vulnerable only because they are part of a previously agreed U.S-Russia negotiation to remain vulnerable.  In essence, an argument can be made by Russia that NATO -and by extension us- have targeted nuclear capable missile systems, and those systems were protected by the SALT/START treaties.  How would we respond if an adversary launched a strike against our strategic long-range nuclear capable bombers in the USA?

(more…)

The basic outline of what took place are now a bit clearer.  In what was called “Operation Spider Web” Ukraine counterintelligence operatives staged a series of semi-trucks near five strategic air bases deep inside Russia.  The trucks were loaded with explosive drones, and the drones came out and attacked the bases.  Most of the truck drivers and drone operators were captured by Russian military. It was a suicide mission.

According to Ukraine government officials the mission was a big success; however, the claim of 40 strategic long-range Russian bombers being destroyed seems more like a PR narrative than likely actual outcome.

Factually, it was a counterintelligence success to pull off such a well-coordinated significant operation deep inside the Russian Federation.  However, on the other hand this operation outlines how Russia is more like the USA than people think as it relates to the locations of their military bases and the vulnerable proximity around them.

Most Americans think of Russia as some form of locked-down totalitarian state where every square inch is under strict surveillance.  My recent travels throughout Russia highlight exactly the opposite.  Russia is far more open and unmonitored; yes, even around military bases, than our own country.  There is not a big matrix of surveillance around the Russian Federation at all.

Some of the five known attacks took place 2,000km deep into Russia. According to Axios, “Ukrainian intelligence agents launched 117 attack drones from trucks that have been covertly placed near Russian air bases — some of them in Siberia — thousands of kilometers from Ukraine. Around 40 Russian military planes — most of them strategic bombers — were reportedly hit in the attack. Zelensky said 34% of Russias strategic bombers were hit.”

I doubt the accuracy of that “40” hit target number with 117 drones; yet even if true, not all the targeted aircraft would be completely disabled.

According to CBS, “The drones hit airfields including the Belaya air base in Russia’s Irkutsk region, more than 2,500 miles from Ukraine. It is the first time that a Ukrainian drone has been seen in the region, local Gov. Igor Kobzev told AP, stressing that it did not present a threat to civilians. While White House spokespeople declined to comment on the attack, administration sources told CBS News on Sunday that the White House was not aware it was coming.”

(more…)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on CBS News to counter the false information being spread by Margaret Brennan on behalf of Wall Street corporations.  The topics of interest surround China and tariffs.

Let me clarify for the audience that does not follow closely.  Tariffs are paid by the importer based on the wholesale price of the product as delivered by the exporting country depending on the exporters’ tariff rate.  Tariffs are NOT LEVIED/PAID based on the retail price of the product as sold to the consumer.

Example:  A pair of Denim Jeans made in China for Guess Brand.  The Chinese manufacturer sells the jeans to Guess Brand for $10 a pair manufactured.  Guess sells the jeans at retail in the USA for $100 (a $90 gross profit).

A 50% tariff on China means the jeans cost Guess Brand $15 instead of $10 (an $85 gross profit).  A 50% tariff on Guess brand jeans, that retail for $100, changes the cost to the retail brand by $5.

Multinational corporations who have off shored their production and manufacturing to China are the ones screaming about tariffs.  Ultimately in the final analysis, President Trump is exposing corporatism, multinational corporate vultures; he is not necessarily just exposing China.

In the example above the company makes $85 gross profit as opposed to $90 gross profit on the pair of jeans if they do not raise the retail price.  They don’t raise the price because their profit margins are already ridiculous, and that’s why consumer prices do not go up. A 50% direct tariff on Chinese goods only marginally hits the multinational corporation.  American consumers need to understand this dynamic better.    WATCH: 

[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to ‘Face the Nation.’ We begin today with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Good morning and thank you for being here.

SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Morning, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There’s so much to get to. I want to start with China, because the Defense Secretary just said there’s an imminent military threat from China to Taiwan. Days earlier, Secretary Rubio said he’d aggressively revoked Chinese student visas. On top of that, you have curbing exports to China. Trade talks you said with Beijing are stalled, and President Trump just accused China of violating an agreement, and now says no more, ‘Mr. Nice Guy.’ Are you intentionally escalating this standoff with Beijing?

(more…)

Next week on Thursday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is scheduled to travel to Washington DC and meet with President Donald Trump in the White House.  Considering the importance of Germany to the EU economy and subsequent trade relationship with the U.S, this meeting with Merz will likely be the most important discussion toward a possible U.S-E.U. trade agreement.

Germany is the largest economy within the EU and the core industrial base of the European Union.  The number one issue for the German people is their economic status: everything else circles around this priority.

Having spent time in Hamburg, Bremen, Dresden and Frankfurt, it is very clear to me the German people are very focused on work and their vocations. Germans overall, take their economic standing very personally and seriously.

Inasmuch as Merz may have to represent the interests of the larger EU in his approach, he will undoubtedly be focused on what is in Germany’s best interest, with all else second.

For President Trump this specific German interest creates a unique facet of leverage within the larger EU trade discussion.  Because the German economy is so vital, whatever terms Germany decides are the core terms the EU will manifest in their trade and tariff negotiations.

I predict we will hear a talking point from Merz, in generally German snark, something akin to a proposal for a zero-tariff base on the import and export of heavy industrial goods (machinery) for both Germany and the USA.  I say in general German snark because passive-aggressive Chancellor Merz knows the U.S. is currently not in a position to sell Germany heavy industrial goods, and that’s entirely what President Trump is trying to recreate with the trade/tariff policy.

WASHINGTON DC – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington next week to meet United States President Donald Trump for the first time since taking office earlier this month.

The leaders will meet in the White House on Thursday and are expected to discuss the war in Ukraine, the Middle East and trade policy, German government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said in an emailed statement.

(more…)

The New York Times (think DHS embeds) are not concerned about the building of a surveillance state using cross-reference artificial intelligence systems into various government agencies; no, the New York Times (think DHS embeds) are concerned it is President Trump triggering the building of the process, and the parameters therein.

I have outlined this seemingly inevitable construct with great granular detail, that is creating the surveillance state for almost a year. Culminating in a December 2024 recap [SEE HERE] along with my position in January of this year [SEE HERE].  I do not like it, but I understand the arguments behind it.

[New York Times] – In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.

Mr. Trump has not publicly talked about the effort since. But behind the scenes, officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm.

The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)

(more…)

The President of the United States, representing the executive branch, takes aggressive emergency action on tariffs and trade to protect American fiscal sovereignty and solvency.  Both chambers of the U.S. congress, the house and senate representing the Legislative branch, affirm the action through legislative support.  Yet, a single court in the judicial branch intervenes on behalf of multinational corporate interests to block trade policy.

That is the framework of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s main point in a discussion with Fox News Bret Baier.  WATCH:

On the DOGE issue, listen to how a well-versed professional executive with years of experience in institutional reform discusses taking the DOGE team effort and integrating them into his massive agency as part of an operational efficiency overhaul.

Compare Secretary Bessent’s approach to other cabinet officials who have yet to grasp and execute the efficiency model that has been handed to them by the DOGE effort.  The contrast is remarkable.

(more…)

Pushed far enough, decisions are reached.

[VIA TRUTH SOCIAL] “The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?

I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!

With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what’s right for the Country! In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!

The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!

This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!” (source)

(more…)

Shortly before the federal appeals court decision to stay the lower court intervention, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett appeared on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the frustrating trade court decision and the pending legislation on budgets and taxes.

Director Hassett is always a solid analytical mind to follow because his job is to look into the future and see if current alignment of economic policy retains the objective of economic growth, and he does it well.  Within the interview a key point made by Hassett on the trade/tariff conflict with the court is that USTR Jamieson Greer has multiple legal pathways to support the intent of the tariffs as applied.

This is a point CTH will continue to make; both the USTR and the Dept of Commerce Secretary have alternate legal trade tools that support the tariffs.  The bottom line is that whether IEEPA is used or Sec.301/302 are used the tariff outcome remains the same, the only difference is the amount of time for the countervailing duty to trigger; put another way, ‘optimal solutions.’  WATCH:

Despite the noise and media drumbeat, Kevin Hassett continues to carry the maganomic agenda forward with a smile.  He is able to do this because all of the economic policy is grounded in America-first realism.  It can be achieved, and it will be achieved, entirely because it is achievable. Remember that!

When you reach frustration, ask yourself, “is there bread in the kitchen?”  If yes, then focus on solving the immediate non-critical problem; do not allow the dark imaginings to disrupt your focus. It’s the guys like Kevin Hassett who are keeping the bread in the kitchen.

(more…)

Two days ago, Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino sought to address frustration by promising things in the background were taking place and that is why both he and Director Kash Patel were not making media appearances.

Tonight, FBI Director Kash Patel appears on Fox News to affirm confidence in the FBI.  Tomorrow Deputy Director Dan Bongino will appear on Fox and Friends to do the same.

Director Patel rejects the notion that the FBI is institutionally corrupt and fraught with malicious actors.  Director Patel says he has been sharing information from the FBI silo with “partners in congress” and more information is going to be released. The extensive interview is in two segments, presented below:

.

Segment Two Below:

(more…)

We all knew the system would strike back. There are trillions at stake.

UPDATES AT BOTTOM: A federal trade court based out of New York has just ruled in a three-judge decision that President Trump does not have the authority within the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to initiate emergency trade tariffs.  [The Ruling is HERE]

WASHINGTON DC – A federal trade court ruled President Trump didn’t have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually every nation, voiding the levies that have sparked a global trade war and threatened to upend the world economy.

The decision on Wednesday from the Court of International Trade blocked one of the Trump administration’s most audacious assertions of executive power, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, and sets the stage for a possible appeal by the White House.

“The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” a three-judge panel wrote. (link)

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote.  The court also ordered that the tariffs that the Trump administration has collected so far be “vacated.”

UPDATE #1: I’m tearing through this ruling right now and I can find several structural flaws in the 3-judge panel decision.

[From Page 6, pdf] “…[…] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b).”… [source]

I’ve just gotten started, but that citation is just one reason why the ruling can be overturned on appeal.

(more…)