Georges Seurat A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte 1884
Donald Trump Cares pic.twitter.com/Bkn5MVibNk
— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) March 24, 2025
Manufacturing
ELON: HERE’S HOW I BECAME VERY GOOD AT MANUFACTURING
“It's not as though I wanted to insource manufacturing, it's just that I was unable to outsource it effectively.
The idea, at the beginning of Tesla, was that we would outsource almost all the manufacturing.
But then it… pic.twitter.com/DjnDo9Ewwq
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 25, 2025
Elon
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 25, 2025
Alina
MAGA Goddess Alina Habba steps in to clean up New Jersey. Another Winning MAGA Move. pic.twitter.com/tei2Ece0pg
— Dr Trumpenstein (@DoctorCanDo) March 24, 2025
DOGE
HUGE ‼️ Elon Musk’s DOGE is targeting Consulting Firms
“DOGE is turning its attention to massive government contracts, and consulting firms are scrambling to justify their funding”
They must justify the billions in taxpayer cash they’ve been given!!
“Firms have just a week to… pic.twitter.com/a75hHHU5hG
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 25, 2025
DeSantis
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1904201240843604212
Signal
A point of clarity: so, we don't have months and months of this again, before people catch up.
Jeffrey Goldberg has no factual information that Mike Waltz invited him to the group Signal chat.
**Goldberg only knows a device, presumably attributed to Mike Waltz, added his user… https://t.co/Y0wfCOVDny
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) March 25, 2025
Bondi
BREAKING: Pam Bondi just confirmed they will be criminally investigating the fraud uncovered by DOGE!
LOCK THEM ALL UP!
pic.twitter.com/sRFvExK4o5— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 24, 2025
I have argued this for the past two years: Failure to make peace now and threats of expanding NATO after the war will result in Russia seizing its historical territories from Kharkov to Odessa.
– If Ukraine had not been robbed of its neutrality in 2014, then there would not have been any territorial claims. Even in 2022, the Istanbul peace agreement was solely focused on neutrality. We need to end this war now and end NATO expansionism
“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration..”
• Trump’s Appeals Are Piling Up For The Supreme Court (Whedon)
The Trump administration’s latest legal showdown with James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, over the deportation of Venezuelan gang members threatens to dump yet another judicial injunction on the plate of the Supreme Court. It adds yet more pressure on the justices to rule on the scope of lower court authority and interaction with the Executive Branch. Nationwide injunctions have become increasingly common in recent years. An April 2024 Harvard Law Review study found that 96 were issued from the presidency of George W. Bush to the date of publication. Overall, 86.5% of those were issued by judges appointed by members of the opposing party. Trump’s first term saw 64 injunctions while Biden only faced 14. Less than 65 days into this term, judges have imposed at least 15 such injunctions on the Trump administration in its first two months alone.
The administration has so far faced dozens of lawsuits, mostly over Trump’s executive orders and the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Most of the injunctions so far have come from judges on either the Maryland or District of Columbia courts, although the injunctions purport to be in effect nationwide. The breadth of such injunctions is sure to be raised to the Supreme Court at some point in the near future. Trump is currently fighting to freeze federal funding, deport foreign gang members, fire thousands of federal workers, reinterpret birthright citizenship and to achieve a host of other objectives. Boasberg’s case involves Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and has led to heated exchanges in the courtroom over the administration’s responsiveness to the judge’s orders. The administration on Tuesday invoked state secrets privilege when declining to provide further information on the deportation of the gang members requested by Boasberg.
“This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate, and reinforced by longstanding statute, to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States,” the government wrote to the court. “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.” The appeals process is ongoing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on Monday. That body has yet to issue a decision, but an unfavorable one is sure to result in an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.
When urging the Supreme Court to intervene, the Trump administration has highlighted the potential burdens on the top bench should nationwide injunctions become normalized and the court faces an influx of emergency appeals. The Supreme Court traditionally hears roughly 100-150 cases per year of the more than 7,000 cases seeking their intervention. The Supreme Court hears cases on a system of “certiorari,” under which a case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Any party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.
“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote while asking the court to address injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket.”
“..Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”
• Ted Cruz On Judicial Overreach From District Judges (Downs)
The judicial overreach from district judges constantly ruling against the Trump administration and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved has certainly been in the news lately, as Townhall. It’s gotten to such a level that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) weighed in with his Monday episode of “The Verdict,” the podcast co-hosted with Ben Ferguson. In discussing the newsworthy topic, Cruz issued several key reminders about these judges, as Ferguson asked for a “remedy” and a “strategy to fight back,” reminding that “it’s very frustrating,” especially those who voted for President Donald Trump’s agenda, which a majority of Americans support,
As Cruz reminded in response, “to be clear,” the judges “were in every single case, elected by no one.” For every one of these judges, they were appointed by the president and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with Cruz stressing that “no federal judge is elected.” For unelected judges, there is a few examples of checks and balances. There’s impeachment, with Republican congressmen bringing forth plans to do just that, though Cruz was not optimistic about such an option. “Impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against this abuse of power,” Cruz shared, explaining how it’s the similar process as impeaching an executive officer. While it only takes a majority in the House to impeach a judge, which could happen, “impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge,” Cruz reminded. “It is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone, impeaching is the same thing.”
Even if Republicans in the House were to unify, however, “the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are 0.00 percent,” Cruz made clear. In the Senate, Cruz reminded, you need two-thirds to convict and remove the person in office, in this case a federal judge. “Now, we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53 that means we would need at least 14 Democrats, and that’s assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left-wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero; and understand why. The Democrats in the Senate hate Trump,” he said, going on to add how these Democrats, so full of hatred against Trump, reacted to his address before a joint session of Congress earlier this month.
“These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the president, refused to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13-year-old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer.”Further, Democrats are actually quite supportive of these judges and what they’re doing. Arguably the most prominent example was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with his comments last week. Democrats, Cruz reminded, are “cheering on these injunctions,” as “they want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective.” Cruz also spoke further about the power of Congress beyond impeaching judges, which has no chance of resulting in removal. “Now, secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” the senator added.
“Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. There’s nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued a nationwide injunction? If it’s not zero, it’s damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited,” the senator highlighted, speaking of that example.However, Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”
“..“only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”
• Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority (ET)
President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope. Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations. Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene. “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”
Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action. Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences. While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process. According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years. Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House. The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms. That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party. Judges have defended the nationwide scope of their rulings. “The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care.
“The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender-affirming medical care.” In issuing a preliminary injunction on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” as plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states. Trump attempted to combat what he said to be “abuses of the legal system and the federal court” with an order on March 22 that directed the attorney general to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”
Experts have pointed to Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship as one that’s likely to reach the Supreme Court. Given a recent filing by the Trump administration, it could prompt a broader ruling about nationwide injunctions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to say “enough is enough.” She filed a petition asking the court to review three nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. She noted that the number of universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued against the current administration has already outpaced the first three years of the Biden administration. She argued that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”
“..we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”
• Even Bill Barr Thinks the Judges are Out of Line (Spencer)
When you’ve lost Bill Barr, you really don’t have a case. Even Bill Barr, who was Donald Trump’s attorney general from Feb. 2019 to Dec. 2020 but had a bitter falling-out with him, thinks that the activist far-left judges who are blocking Trump’s efforts to deport criminal migrants are going too far. This is significant because Barr is not only no friend of Trump; he is, indeed, a pillar of the old Republican establishment that hates everything about Orange Man Bad. And the way he has spoken about Trump would make you think that he was having cocktails with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff every evening.
Trump, Barr said in June 2023, is like a “defiant 9-year-old kid who is always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table defying his parents to stop him from doing it. He’s a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country’s. But our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” Yes, the guy who said that thinks that the judges are going too far. Trump and Barr first fell out over Barr’s claim that the 2020 presidential election was entirely on the up-and-up. Then Barr backed Jack Smith’s bogus legal persecution of Trump over supposedly mishandling classified documents. Affecting a pompous, above-it-all, more-in-sadness-than-in-anger pose,
Barr wrote: “For the sake of the country, our party, and a basic respect for the truth, it is time that Republicans come to grips with the hard truths about President Trump’s conduct and its implications.” And just as he somehow missed all the evidence that something was very much amiss with the 2020 election, Barr also missed the unmistakable indications that the Biden regime had weaponized the justice system to discredit and destroy its principal opponent. Barr insisted that “Trump’s indictment is not the result of unfair government persecution. This is a situation entirely of his own making. The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago document affair is cynical political propaganda.”
Barr based his claim, however, upon his negative assessment of Trump’s character more than on the facts of the case: “This is not a circumstance where he’s the victim or this is government overreach. He provoked this whole problem himself. Yes, he’s been the victim of unfair witch hunts in the past, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that he’s also a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct that leads to situations, calamitous situations, like this, which are very disruptive and hurt any political cause he’s associated with.”
Since he has this low an opinion of Trump, Barr would not have surprised anyone if he started touting the wisdom and courage of the leftist judges for blocking the whims of this “defiant 9-year-old kid.” Instead, however, Barr said: “There’s a pattern whereby these district court judges are trying to usurp the responsibility of the president in the national security area. The president is absolutely right to be frustrated and concerned about the way the courts are handling this.” Well, blow me down. This is Bill Barr talking?
Barr went even farther, saying: “The Constitution gives the president the power to make the judgments about how we deal with foreign nationals when we are animated by national security concerns. It’s his call, not a district court judge’s call.” Barr even explained how the judges are abusing the power of the judiciary: “Even where it’s appropriate for the court to play its traditional role of safeguarding the liberties of American citizens, we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”
Indeed. Or as Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan put it in 2022: “It can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through normal process.” It will be interesting to see if Kagan votes that way once this comes to the Supreme Court. Said Barr: “If they [the U.S. Supreme Court] finally stand up and decide a case instead of hanging back from these decisions, I think it’ll come out the right way. I think most of the justices appreciate how absurd this is.”
Trump wants to hear from countries what they think is fair. They won’t tell him. He wants to make a deal. They don’t know how that works.
• Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’ (ZH)
As April 2nd approaches – the day President Donald Trump is set to roll out a global tariff regime, the Financial Times reports that Trump is now considering ‘a two-step approach,’ which would split tariffs into two stages; targeted emergency tariffs now to raise money for planned tax cuts, and more after his administration has completed probes into trading partners to provide a more robust legal framework to deploy “reciprocal” tariffs (we charge them the same percentage they’re charging us). Basically while Trump and Lutnick want to go full bore now, US trade representative Jamieson Greer (a lawyer who worked for Trump’s first trade chief Robert Lighthizer), insisted they pump the brakes in order to legally justify sweeping tariffs. The dual-track strategy is poised for a high-profile unveiling on April 2, a date Trump has branded “Liberation Day,” spurring a flurry of diplomatic activity as allies seek exemptions.
Among proposals his team has been discussing is a plan to launch so-called Section 301 investigations into trading partners, while simultaneously using rarely invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim. -FT Speaking Monday, Trump vowed “substantial” tariffs on U.S. trading partners, though he also suggested the possibility of selective leniency. “They’ve charged us so much that I’m embarrassed to charge them what they’ve charged us,” Trump said – hours after announcing new tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil, including China. “But it’ll be substantial.” According to the Financial Times, officials close to the matter say the administration is eyeing an immediate deployment of tariffs using emergency authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – a provision that permits duties of up to 50% on foreign goods on trading partners.
One more obscure route, now considered a long shot, involves Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days – a stopgap measure that may not deliver the revenue or optics the former president is seeking. Lawyers and people familiar with the plans also told FT that Trump could immediately slap tariffs on vehicle imports on April 2, reviving a national security study into the global auto industry from his first term. On Monday, Trump said tariffs on cars could be announced “over the next few days.” The debate within the Trump team has at times split along functional lines. The two main points of contact have also differed in their approaches, say people familiar with the discussions. While commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has served as the administration’s chief negotiator, he has lambasted trading partners over their trade surpluses and tax policies, before demanding “a deal”.
US trade representative Jamieson Greer, a lawyer who previously worked for Trump’s first-term trade chief Bob Lighthizer, has increasingly asserted himself as the legal planner, seeking to create a durable blueprint for the president’s drive to reorder global trade. -FT. Greer has notably advocated for launching investigations into trading partners before applying tariffs, according to people familiar with his thinking. This would rely on tested trade law, but could delay tariffs by up to six months. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the final details of the reciprocal tariff plan remain under wraps, but emphasized internal alignment on the broader goal: “Although the final reciprocal tariff plan for April 2 has yet to be unveiled by President Trump, every member of the Trump administration is aligned on finally leveling the playing field for American industries and workers.”
Hard to follow even. This is what we call “convoluted”?
• The Atlantic’s Signal Story Is Quickly Falling Apart (Vespa)
So, what the hell is this story now? It’s a warning that perhaps more administrative due diligence should be applied when creating these group chats on encrypted and secure messenger apps. Still, while alarming at first, the hubbub is dying down quickly. This story in The Atlantic that secret war plans were disclosed to known anti-Trump fake news writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally added to the group, is falling apart faster than a skiff made of paper.
You can bluff that the other 2 cards in your hand we can't see make a full house—until the other players call your bet.
Gabbard & Hegseth called the bet—show your cards or fold.
The problem is that Goldberg's trademark move has always been to over-promise & under-deliver.
— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) March 25, 2025
Was it an unforced error by the Trump team? One hundred percent—they’re no angels here, but no classified information was disclosed. There were no war plans. We have a bunch of top officials speaking candidly and in generalities about anti-Houthi operations. These were unclassified discussions, and Signal is an approved app. Biden’s people used it. It was already downloaded on the devices of the principals involved. CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on those chats—no classified information was disclosed.
So unclassified info was discussed on an encrypted messaging app approved for use by staff, where all parties involved were unified under President Trump’s agenda.
They’re so bad at this lol.
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) March 25, 2025
So, it’s a nothing burger on the primary charge that this administration disclosed secret war plans to a journalist. That kills the narrative when the CIA director says nothing harmful was disclosed, and Ratcliffe is respected on both sides of the aisle. That’s three significant stories this publication has tried to trip up the administration, only to do faceplants.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed that according to CIA record management, Signal is approved for “work use.” Let’s set this record straight. Here is the truth about Signal:
-In 2016, the DNC instructed all staffers to exclusively use Signal to talk crap about Trump because it was encrypted.
-In 2017, Signal was approved by the sergeant at arms of the U.S. Senate and staff. -The use of common amongst the security community.
-Cybersecurity firm iVerify’s Rocky Cole has also stated the app has “stellar reputation and is widely used and trusted in the security community”.
-Even Edward Snowden has said that he uses Signal due to its strong encryption services.Losers and suckers in 2020 was a lie. Trump liking Nazi generals was a lie. And now, classified information being leaked on Signal has blown up in their faces. It was for sure the liberal media’s attempt to avenge the Hillary Clinton emails fiasco from 2016, which makes no sense because it was the liberal media who covered that story extensively; that wasn’t primarily a conservative media thing. The New York Times, believe it or not, had some of the most damning articles about that and the slush fund politics at the Clinton Foundation.
The Atlantic tried to drive a wedge into Trump’s inner circle. They aimed and missed again. This story died in less than 24 hours, disintegrating so fast that all the theatrics and talking points the Democrats had prepared looked out of date and unhinged. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) got all twisted up, bellowing about things that Ratcliffe never said at today’s hearing.
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904567362239504804
Meanwhile, we might have some palace intrigue: someone is talking to Politico about National Security Adviser Michael Waltz’s status, who looked like a dead man walking a few hours ago. Now, if this leaker is found, no doubt that person should be fired, not Waltz. Whatever happens, happens, but after we’ve all had a drink or two and simmered down, this is another bombshell that quickly collapsed because it’s the fake news doing its work again.
https://twitter.com/storm_paglia/status/1904548462907072950?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904548462907072950%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467
Trump responds:
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904613271249830207?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904613271249830207%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467
https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904615502959300954?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904615502959300954%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467
***
Last Note: Again, Hillary Clinton can shut her face, along with the rest of the political class who think this is some major scandal. Most people in DC use Signal, too. Hillary Clinton did all official State Department business through an unsecured server, which was not approved, and if she had asked, it wouldn’t have been permitted, per the inspector general at the time:
Was it leaked just to see the EU’s reaction?
• Disdain For Europe In US Signal Chat Horrifies EU (BBC)
“Horrific to see in black and white. But hardly surprising,” is how a top European diplomat reacted to what comes across as deep, heartfelt disdain for European allies, revealed late on Monday, European time, in an online group chat between top US security officials. Seemingly by accident, Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was also invited to the chat, which discussed planned strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen aimed at unblocking trade routes on the Suez Canal. He subsequently made the frank exchange public. In the chat, Vice-President JD Vance notes that only 3% of US trade runs through the canal, as opposed to 40% of European trade, after which he and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth complain of European “free-loading”. The monumental security breach is causing a ruckus at home, with Democrats calling for Hegseth’s resignation as a result.
Across the pond – aka the Atlantic – Europe’s leaders and policy-makers felt “sick to their stomach”, as an EU official put it to me. Officials quoted here are speaking on condition of anonymity in order to comment freely on what are volatile times in US-European relations. You won’t see comments in the public domain, so as not to rock the transatlantic boat any further. Vance first stunned European officials with his speech at last month’s Security Conference in Munich condemning the continent for having misplaced values such as protecting abortion clinics and censoring speech in the media and online. “The enemy from within,” he called it. Monday’s Signal chat strikes at the heart of a slew of tensions, discomfort and plain old fear in Europe right now, that the Trump administration can no longer be relied on as the continent’s greatest ally. At a time when Europe is facing off against a resurgent Russia.
Western Europe has looked to the US to have its back in terms of security and defence since World War Two. But it is precisely that fact that so riles the Trump administration and has cemented Europe in its mind as “freeloaders”. While the US commits 3.7% of its colossal GDP to defence, it’s taken the majority of European partners in the transatlantic defence alliance Nato until recently to cough up even 2% of GDP. Some, like big economies Spain and Italy, aren’t even there yet, though they say they plan to be soon. Europe relies heavily on the US, amongst other things, for intelligence, for aerial defence capabilities and for its nuclear umbrella.With the phasing out of conscription in most European countries, the continent also relies on the around 100,000 battle-ready US troops stationed in Europe to help act as a deterrent against potential aggressors.
Europeans have focused more on investing in welfare and social services than defence – collective or otherwise – since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Why on earth should the US pick up the slack, asks the Trump administration. On the leaked group chat, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz laments the state of Europe’s naval forces. “It will have to be the United States that reopens these [Suez] shipping lanes.” The chat then debates how to ensure that Europe remunerates the US for its actions. “If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” states a message from someone called SM – presumed to be deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller. Europe is now loudly and publicly discussing spending a lot more on its own defence – hoping to keep Donald Trump onside and an aggressive Russia at bay after Ukraine.
But Trump’s irritation with Europe is nothing new. He displayed his displeasure during his first term in office: furious about Europe’s low defence spending; incandescent over the EU’s trade surplus with the US. The United States had been long been taken for a ride and that must stop, seemed to be his sentiment. Imposing trade tariffs was one of Trump’s first responses. Then as now. Earlier this month, when Trump threatened eye-watering 200% tariffs on European alcohol in an ongoing trade tit-for-tat, he lambasted the EU as “abusive” and “hostile” for allegedly taking advantage of the US at any opportunity. Coinciding uncomfortably with the leaked Signal chat and its Euro-bashing, the EU’s trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic, along with the head of cabinet of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, arrived in Washington on Tuesday hoping to launch a charm offensive to try to stave off a new tariff onslaught.
“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said.”
• Europe Backs Off Tariffs, But … (Lyman)
In the first face off of what could turn into an all-out trade war between the U.S. and the European Union, the Europeans blinked first. European economies are already feeling the impacts of the 25% levy on global imports of steel and aluminum that went into force March 12. The European Union vowed to retaliate with around $30 billion worth of targeted tariffs on U.S. goods including a 50-percent markup on Bourbon and other American whiskey, starting April 1. Further EU taxes were set to start two weeks later. In response, Trump said the strategy was “nasty,” and he threatened a 200% markup on prices for European alcohol in the U.S. Then, this week, Europe struck back by delaying the April 1 tariffs until at least April 15. The reason, according to European Union trade spokesman Olof Gill, is to give time for “a constructive dialogue with the U.S. in order to seek a solution that avoids unnecessary harm to both economies.”
Wine producing countries were particularly worried about the 200-percent tariff threat and so it was no surprise that the implementation of the measures was reportedly pushed by France, Italy and Spain – not coincidentally, the three European countries that sell the most wine in the U.S. market. The decision on tariffs came during an unusually high-profile meeting of the European council of leaders Thursday and Friday in Brussels and in the days after, scores of analysts were almost unanimous that a trade war would hurt Europe more than the U.S. The European leaders did take more decisive stands in other areas related to the policies of the two-month-old Trump administration. That includes reiterating support for Ukraine and sending an additional $1 billion to help the country in its war against Russia.
That is a stance that has not changed despite the unexpectedly harsh welcome for Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month. Leaders also agreed to “intensify” the process toward Ukraine becoming a European Union member state. Despite Russia President Vladimir Putin’s intense opposition to that, they elected not to consider unfreezing $50 billion in Russian financial assets immobilized last year. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said she opposed the proposed U.S. ceasefire plan for Ukraine, arguing that such a move would only allow Russia to “regroup” before launching new attacks. Probably most notably, the European states agreed to dramatically increase defense spending and to coordinate their security initiatives as the 27-nation bloc looks for ways to flex its geopolitical muscles even as the U.S. withdraws security guarantees Europe has enjoyed since the end of World War II.
“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said. “We have no choice.” Apart from Europe’s at least temporary retreat on tariff policies and its renewed support for Ukraine under Zelensky and opposition to Putin’s Russia, the big takeaway from the Council of Europe meeting may be the difficult position some European leaders find themselves in as they seek to straddle the growing U.S.-Europe divide. The best example of that may be Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who supported Trump’s first term even when she was part of Italy’s political opposition (she had a prominent spot at CPAC in 2019, for example). As prime minister, she made a surprise trip to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in January, more than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration (Trump called her “a fantastic woman”). The bond between Trump and Meloni had media calling the 48-year-old Italian Europe’s “Trump Whisperer.”
But Meloni is also committed to European priorities that sometimes clash with White House priorities. That includes strong support for the Ukrainian cause, a willingness to criticize Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and the recognition that the cash-strapped Italian government cannot afford to spend dramatically more on its military (the country is under the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense) and that any disruption of trade would hit Italy harder than it would most European economies. That has put Meloni, likely Trump’s most important ally in Europe, in a tough spot, as France’s Le Monde (and many others) reported, leaving the Rome native “trapped in an awkward position on European defense and the trans-Atlantic crisis.”
“These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe..”
• EU Could Slap Meta With €1 Billion Fine, Trump Vows To Retaliate (RMX)
The European Union could fine Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta (Facebook, Instagram) €1 billion or more for violating antitrust rules, in response to President Donald Trump’s sanctions against EU companies. The European Commission (EC), the EU’s antitrust watchdog, is expected to conclude that Meta does not comply with the Digital Markets Act, sources close to the situation said. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) comes into force in 2023 and applies strict competition rules to Meta and six other internet moguls. The regulator’s focus is on data processing and business activity. According to Post sources, the fines could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the minimum and as high as $1 billion after the EC’s decision. The EU investigation into the parent company of Facebook and Instagram is expected to be concluded this week, with the commission’s enforcement measures to be announced immediately, the people said.
According to the sources, EU officials are expected to call on Meta to comply with the rules and inform the company of what changes it needs to make to comply. In addition, Apple is also in the EU commission’s crosshairs and could be fined this week or next week. Interestingly, earlier this month, Reuters reported that Apple and Meta were likely to get away with “modest fines” for violating the DMA. Theresa Ribera, the EU’s antitrust chief, had previously said that a decision on enforcement actions against both companies would be made in March. Now, that view appears to have changed. In addition to Meta and Apple, the companies considered “gatekeepers” under the DMA include Google’s Alphabet, Amazon, Booking.com, TikTok’s ByteDance and Microsoft. These are the so-called Big Tech companies.
EU regulators and other supporters say the law prevents tech giants from using anti-competitive behavior, such as abusing their market power, to squeeze out smaller rivals. The law allows Big Tech companies to be fined up to 10 percent of their global revenue for repeated violations, with the penalty going up to 20 percent of revenue. The EU launched an investigation into Meta in June last year over its “pay or opt-in” model that restricted customers. In practice, this meant that users either paid to opt out of ads on Instagram and Facebook or were given them without asking. The problem was that those who didn’t pay also agreed to Meta using their data to target ads. The EU commission said the company had failed to offer a third option. Meta argued that the EU commission had consistently used conditions to comply with the rule that went beyond the law.
In June of last year, Apple became the first company to be charged with violating the DMA, allegedly for preventing rival app developers from easily diverting customers to services outside the App Store. The EU last week again warned Apple that it must open up its iPhone operating system to app developers, just as it has done with Android. The problem with Google’s Alphabet is that it treats its in-house (i.e., its own) services “more favorably.” Amidst sharp criticism from big tech, the law has increasingly drawn the ire of President Trump, who has vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs to level the playing field. Trump issued a memo last month warning that his administration would consider countermeasures.
President Trump will not allow foreign governments to siphon off America’s tax base for their own benefit, the White House said at the time. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has specifically asked EU officials for information on how the bloc plans to enforce the Digital Markets Act. Jordan noted that six of the seven “gatekeepers” covered by the law are American-owned. “These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe,” Jordan said in his letter.
“He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”
• EU ‘Contradicting’ US On Ukraine – Lavrov (RT)
The approach taken by EU leaders on the Ukraine conflict directly contradicts the position of US President Donald Trump, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 on Tuesday, Lavrov said the bloc’s continued push for Ukraine’s NATO membership is the result of former US President Joe Biden’s decision to push the EU towards a confrontation with Russia. As a result, the EU is grappling with “an enormous number” of social and economic problems, which “probably partly explains why they are so fervently not giving up on Ukraine” and are calling for more military aid to the country, Lavrov said.
“In other words, they are in direct contradiction to the Trump administration,” he added, noting that the US president, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, had “made it clear that preliminary talks are underway on the parameters of the final settlement [of the conflict] and that NATO should be off the table.”
Ukraine has long sought NATO membership as a security guarantee for ending the conflict with Russia. Moscow, however, has cited Kiev’s NATO ambitions as one of the key causes of the conflict and has called for Ukraine’s neutrality as a foundation for any peace deal. sLavrov said Biden made “a colossal mistake” by refusing to engage with Russia and instead insisting that Ukraine join the military bloc, “thereby creating an unacceptable threat for us.” He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”
Earlier this month, the UK and France signaled an openness to sending a military contingent to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has described the plan as a pretext for deploying NATO troops in the country, warning that this could lead to a direct war between the military bloc and Russia. Lavrov has likened EU rearmament plans and calls to contain and defeat Russia to past military campaigns by Napoleon and Hitler, who had similar goals. “We’ve been through all this before,” he said. The diplomat’s comments come a day after senior Russian and US officials held 12-hour talks in Saudi Arabia aimed at resolving certain technical issues. Details of the negotiations are expected to be released later on Tuesday.
“The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea..”
• White House Reveals Details Of US-Russia Talks In Riyadh (RT)
The White House has released a short statement on the US-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, shedding some light on the more than 12-hour talks held on Monday. The “bilateral technical-level talks” focused on the situation in the Black Sea, as well as the agreement to halt strikes on “energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine” proposed by US President Donald Trump, the White House said on Tuesday. “The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” the statement reads.
The US has also pledged to “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the White House. Both Moscow and Washington remain committed to “working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace” to end the Ukraine conflict, it added. Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that the negotiations explored the possibility of reviving the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. The deal envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in exchange for the West lifting restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow declined to renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to meet its obligations.
To renew the deal, Moscow needs firm guarantees from the US, which can “only result from a direct order issued by Washington to [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky and his team,” Lavrov explained, pointing to Kiev’s habit of breaking promises. Russia’s position now “is simple: We cannot take anyone’s word at face value,” he said in an interview with Channel 1. “We need the clearest, most specific, verifiable, working guarantees and mechanisms [to revive the deal],” Lavrov stated. “We want the grain and fertilizer market to be predictable so that no one tries to kick us out of this market.”
“The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions.”
• Zelensky Announces Push To Enlist Younger Men (RT)
Ukraine must enlist more young men into its armed forces, as a number of units face a pressing need for reinforcements, according to Vladimir Zelensky. In a regular news briefing on Monday, Zelensky announced that the military leadership had approved an expansion of recruitment targeting citizens aged 18 to 24. While mandatory conscription applies to men over 24, the government is trying to encourage younger individuals to volunteer by offering an array of incentives. “I visited the front on Saturday. There is a demand from specific brigades, and we will be responding positively to it. There will be more brigades employing young specialists,” Zelensky stated. “This initiative will extend to the National Guard and border guard units, as all effective defense forces should be given every opportunity to enhance their capabilities.”
Under a recruitment campaign launched in February, young adults are promised 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) for a year of military service, as well as free dental care and the option to leave Ukraine after fulfilling their contract – an option not available to regular fighting-age men. The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions. Critics have condemned the ad campaign as demeaning to potential recruits. Last year, Zelensky reduced the minimum conscription age from 27 to 25, but refrained from further adjustments, citing concerns over the economic and demographic impact.
Western supporters have urged Kiev to enlist younger men, saying the aging Ukrainian army is struggling to fight effectively. Ukraine is intensifying its mobilization efforts as the US attempts to mediate a resolution to the conflict with Russia, leveraging Kiev’s reliance on foreign aid. Washington has convinced both sides to agree to a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. After several attacks, however, Moscow has accused Kiev of not honoring its obligation and has threatened to pull out of the 30-day partial ceasefire. Over the past few days, US officials met separately with Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia to explore the potential resumption of the Black Sea Initiative, aimed at facilitating maritime exports.
“Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.”
• US ‘Thinking About’ Easing Russia Sanctions – Trump (RT)
Moscow and Washington have committed to advancing the Black Sea Initiative as a step toward settling the Ukraine conflict, although according to the Kremlin, the deal will take effect only after the US lifts a number of sanctions hampering Russia’s trade and freedom of navigation. Both the Kremlin and the White House stated on Tuesday that, as part of the agreement, the US “will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.” Moscow’s statement further noted that the deal envisages lifting restrictions on Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international trade of food and fertilizers, as well as removing sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels, port services, and the supply of agricultural machinery and related goods to Russia.
The White House did not provide details, but President Donald Trump confirmed that his administration is indeed considering lifting some of the sanctions against Moscow. “They will be looking at them, and we’re thinking about all of them right now. There are about five or six conditions. We’re looking at all of them,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky lashed out at Washington later in the day, accusing the US of discussing the issue of sanctions with the Russian delegation without properly briefing Kiev on the matter. “We did not agree to this so that it would be in a joint document. We believe that this is a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions,” he claimed.
The US and Russia agreed to revive the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative following 12-hour talks focused on the Ukraine conflict, held on Monday in Saudi Arabia by expert groups from both countries. The agreement, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting sanctions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow eventually refused to extend the deal, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. Now, Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.
Why it couldn’t be done in one day.
• Trump Hails ‘Progress’ On Ukraine (RT)
US President Donald Trump has hailed the outcome of Washington’s negotiations with delegations from Moscow and Kiev as a significant step forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Following separate talks in Saudi Arabia this week, both Kiev and Moscow expressed readiness to observe President Trump’s proposed agreement to mutually halt strikes on energy facilities, as well as to revive the defunct Black Sea Initiative – aimed at preventing the use of force and ensuring commercial vessels are not used for military purposes. “We’ve made a lot of progress on two fronts,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday, explaining that he was referring to “Russia, Ukraine, and also the Middle East.” “We’ll see what happens. We’re in deep discussions with Russia and Ukraine, and I would say it’s going well,” the US president said.
Trump declined to disclose further details about the contacts in Riyadh but acknowledged that his administration officials are “thinking” about lifting some sanctions against Moscow to facilitate progress on the Black Sea Initiative. In response, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky accused Washington of “weakening” its position and sanctions pressure. Earlier in the day, the Kremlin released a comprehensive list of energy facilities subject to the 30-day US-brokered truce, including oil and gas processing and storage sites, pumping stations, pipelines, electricity production and distribution infrastructure, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dam facilities.
The suspension of strikes was originally proposed by Trump during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. The Russian leader agreed and immediately ordered the military to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. According to the Russian military, it had to intercept and destroy seven kamikaze drones that were already en route to targets in Ukraine. While Zelensky publicly backed the ceasefire initiative, Kiev violated the truce almost immediately, according to Moscow, with multiple energy facilities in Russia reportedly targeted by Ukrainian drones over the past week. An international oil consortium – including US firms Chevron and ExxonMobil – also condemned the attacks on its vital energy infrastructure in Russia’s Krasnodar Region.
Lab coat
https://twitter.com/MustangMan_TX/status/1904219626952688089
Phantom
https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1904282170988142818
Peanuts
Elon Musk: The DOGE team could get jobs for millions of dollars. Instead, they come here, earn peanuts, and get death threats.
“We're just trying to do the right thing for the American taxpayer and for the American people.
Thank you to the DOGE team, who are literally getting… pic.twitter.com/C6SjOZPULO
— ELON CLIPS (@ElonClipsX) March 24, 2025
Shanahan
JUST IN: Nicole Shanahan says she almost lost her life during the campaign, says she had a miscarriage at 20 weeks.
Shanahan says she lost 4 liters of blood.
"I almost lost my life… I lost over four liters of blood. You only have four liters of blood, so I lost pretty much… pic.twitter.com/VIIAkgQ3tt
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 24, 2025
Transform
You would not believe what this transforms into
— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 25, 2025
Snoopy
Charles Schultz and the original Snoopy, 1950s pic.twitter.com/1AzZZLIf5w
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 25, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
