Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer is once again speaking out against China's sinister role in fueling America's deadly fentanyl crisis, as President Donald Trump seeks to punish the communist regime for its involvement.

"There are 2000 Chinese nationals in northern Mexico working for the Sinaloa drug cartel," Schweizer, citing DEA data, told The Cats and Cosby Show on Friday. "They’re basically chemists."

"They take the precursor chemicals that, of course, arrive from China and they turn it into the deadly cocktail, which is what people are dying from. They produce pills. People who die of fentanyl overdose, they think they’re talking a Vicodin or Adderall,” he added.

Although fentanyl-related deaths in the U.S. are declining, the crisis remains a grim reality. According to the CDC, a staggering 76,226 Americans died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids—primarily fentanyl—in 2022, delivering a gut-punch to communities nationwide. Provisional data from 2023 shows a slight decline, with 74,702 deaths linked to these powerful substances. Even more striking, the latest CDC and DEA figures estimate approximately 55,126 deaths from synthetic opioids in the 12 months ending September 2024—a significant and hopeful drop, but still a sobering reminder of fentanyl’s ongoing toll.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pointed the finger at China as a key culprit in America’s fentanyl crisis, accusing Beijing of fueling the epidemic by allowing precursor chemicals to flow to Mexican cartels. In a February 2025 White House statement, Trump accused China of subsidizing companies to export fentanyl-related chemicals, describing the crisis as a “national emergency” killing “approximately two hundred Americans per day.” He’s tied this to his trade agenda, imposing a 20% tariff on Chinese imports—on top of a 10% base tariff—explicitly to pressure Beijing on fentanyl. On April 24, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Fentanyl continues to pour into our Country from China, through Mexico and Canada, killing hundreds of thousands of our people, and it better stop, NOW!”

China has consistently denied accusations that it is a primary driver of the U.S. fentanyl crisis. Chinese officials argue that the crisis is a U.S. domestic issue rooted in demand, not their supply of precursor chemicals. In March 2025, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated the root cause of the fentanyl issue lies in the United States itself. Lin also criticized the U.S. for imposing tariffs under the pretext of the fentanyl issue, calling such actions unjustified and counterproductive. 

President Donald Trump doubled down Sunday on his plan to use tariff revenue to slash - and possibly eliminate - income taxes for millions of Americans.

Photo: Fox News

The president took to Truth Social to tout his vision, claiming that his sweeping tariffs could lead to big tax breaks for workers making under $200,000 a year.

“When Tariffs cut in, many people’s Income Taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated. Focus will be on people making less than $200,000 a year,” Trump wrote.

The bold pledge comes as public anxiety grows over the economic fallout from Trump’s aggressive trade policies, which have rattled global markets and fueled fears of higher prices at home.

In the weeks since Trump slapped so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries - including a staggering 145% levy on Chinese goods, economists have sounded the alarm that the tariffs could backfire, hurting American consumers more than foreign rivals.

That said - not everyone's excited after Trump told TIME Magazine in the April 25 edition that he “love[s] the concept” of raising taxes on millionaires as a means of paying for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts.

“I certainly don’t mind having a tax increase,” Trump told TIME. 

“I would be honored to pay more, but I don’t want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we’re talking about very little.”

He said it would involve raising taxes on the wealthy to “take care of [the] middle class.”

“But I don’t want it to be used against me politically, because I’ve seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news.”

Former White House strategist Steve Bannon told News Nation’s “CUOMO” on Friday that he supported the idea.

“This is being fought behind closed doors right now, and I’m telling you, with the massive tax cut, in addition, he’s going to give the working class and the middle class, the math only works out if you actually increase taxes on the wealthy,” Bannon said.

The former White House strategist said it could help Trump politically if he decided to run again in 2028, despite the Constitution preventing a third term in the Oval Office.

However, on April 23, the day after he sat down with TIME, Trump told reporters at the White House that raising taxes on the wealthy could be “very disruptive” and could lead to a loss of money for the United States.

House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the idea in an interview with Fox News.

“I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the party that stands against that,” Johnson said on April 23.

He acknowledged that the proposal had been discussed as one of many possible ways to permanently implement personal income tax cuts in the Republicans’ final funding package.

“There were lots of ideas thrown out on the table along this process over the last year, but I would just say for everybody, just wait and see,” Johnson said.

A CBS News poll released Sunday found 69% of Americans believe the Trump administration isn't focused enough on lowering prices. Approval of Trump’s handling of the economy dropped to 42%, down from 51% in early March, Bloomberg reports.

Still, Trump’s team insists their strategy will pay off - eventually.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” defended the president’s approach, saying consumers are still spending and talks are underway with 17 key trading partners to hammer out bilateral deals.

“We have a process in place, over the next 90 days, to negotiate with them,” Bessent said. “Some of those are moving along very well, especially with the Asian countries.”

Bessent also insisted China would have no choice but to return to the negotiating table under pressure from Trump’s new tariff wall.

“Their business model is predicated on selling cheap, subsidized goods to the US,” Bessent said. “And if there’s a sudden stop in that, they will have a sudden stop in the economy, so they will negotiate.”

Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent on China: “Their business model is predicated on selling cheap, subsidized goods to the U.S., and if there is a sudden stop in that, they will have a sudden stop in the economy. So they will negotiate.” https://t.co/DDuPIh4dI1 pic.twitter.com/VZ8WvUno91

Bessent also explained America's "barbell" economy - in which there is a "financial system and tech sector that is the envy of the world" on one hand, and "a natural resource-economy led by energy" on the other end.

The U.S. has a barbell economy.

On one end, we have a financial system and tech sector that is the envy of the world.

On the other end, we have a natural resource-economy led by energy.

In between is where working-class Americans have lost out—and we want to fix that. pic.twitter.com/ysVxibNIQ7

Trump has claimed that talks with China are ongoing - a claim Beijing has flatly denied. Bessent admitted he didn’t know if Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping had spoken directly, noting that Chinese officials he saw during a global finance summit last week stuck to safer topics like “financial stability” and “early warnings.”

Despite the rocky start, Bessent said he’s optimistic that a path forward could emerge, starting with a “de-escalation” and leading to an “agreement in principle” - even if a full trade deal takes longer.

Meanwhile, Trump is eyeing sweeping tax changes at home. His 2017 tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2025, and he has vowed to not only extend them but expand them, exempting workers’ tips, slashing the corporate tax rate to 15%, and possibly wiping out income taxes for working-class Americans.

The House GOP's early-April framework allows for up to $5.3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. Trade adviser Peter Navarro has suggested tariff revenue could more than cover that - a claim most economists dismiss as wildly optimistic.

Reports already show that Trump’s tariffs are expected to hit lower-income Americans harder than the wealthy, potentially complicating the president’s pitch to working families.

But Trump, undeterred, appears ready to bet that tariff-fueled tax cuts will give him a powerful message heading into the 2026 midterms, even if voters are feeling the pinch now.

Psst... click here for a preview of our new partnership at ZH Store.

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on April 26 that America’s military and commercial ships should be allowed to pass through the Panama and Suez canals “free of charge.”

“Those Canals would not exist without the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“I’ve asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio to immediately take care of, and memorialize, this situation!”

Stretching across the isthmus that connects North to South America, the Panama Canal allows ships to quickly traverse between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, carrying roughly 40 percent of U.S. container traffic yearly.

American and British leaders and businessmen discussed plans for building the canal throughout the 1800s as a way to quickly and cheaply transport goods without having to travel around the southern tip of South America to get between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The United States built the canal between 1903 and 1914.

President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, ratified by the Senate in 1978, that would set in motion the relinquishing of control of the canal to Panama. 

That finally came to fruition in 1999.

Trump has previously said that he wants to “take back” the canal and bring it under U.S. control, suggesting that he would not exclude economic or military force from regaining the shipping passageway.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the United States was partnering with Panama to secure the Panama Canal while countering China’s “malign influence.”

“The Panama Canal is key terrain that must be secured by Panama, with America and not China,” Hegseth said at a joint press conference with Panamanian Public Security Minister Frank Abrego.

The two nations signed a memorandum of understanding on bilateral security matters in the region that will see an expansion of joint training exercises between the United States and Panama while improving interoperability between their militaries, the secretary said.

The Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, was constructed in the late 1800s after plans to build the shipping corridor had been discussed since the time of Ancient Egypt.

However, recent military conflicts and terrorist attacks in the area have disrupted shipping traffic moving through the Suez Canal, forcing some ships to reroute around Africa’s southern Cape of Good Hope instead of using the corridor.

The Houthi terrorist group, backed by Iran, have caused repeated shipping disruptions in the area, according to the Atlantic Council, which estimates that the canal generated roughly $9.4 billion in revenue for Egypt in 2022–2023.

The Trump administration has approved multiple targeted strikes on the Houthis this year. Trump said the strikes would continue until the group no longer disrupts shipping between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Indian and Pakistani relations are once again in full crisis mode, and Sunday marks the third day of reports of sporadic border fire at army outposts between the nuclear-armed neighbors and historic enemies, following last Tuesday's terror attack in India-administrated Kashmir, which killed 26 Indian tourists in the mountainous, remote region.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has issued a new statement vowing that the terrorists widely being referred to as Pahalgam attackers "will be served with the harshest response" and that India will seek justice "to the ends of the earth". 

Indian Army outpost, via PTI

The Indian army over the weekend announced there has been "unprovoked" firing "initiated by Pakistan" along the Line of Control (LOC)_ which divides Kashmir into two. Pakistan in the aftermath of the accusation neither confirmed nor denied.

The New York Times described Saturday that "Pakistani solders fired at an Indian position first and India responded in kind, according to local news reports, which said that "the exchange was brief and that there were no casualties." Precise locations of these live fire incidents have not been disclosed.

Days into the crisis and land borders have been shut, visas and military exchange programs mutually canceled, and a landmark water treaty has been suspended.

Pakistan’s PM Sharif meanwhile said his country is ready to defend its sovereignty but offered willingness to establish a "neutral" international investigation into the attack.

Sharif is further scrambling to get major global powers in Pakistan's corner, as he calls for the independent investigation. He has welcomed China and Russia's participation, as well as Iran.

Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has told RIA Novosti "I think that Russia or China or even Western countries can play a very positive role in this crisis, and they can even create an investigation team … to investigate whether India is lying or Modi is telling the truth." He added, "Let the international team find out."

Shariff's office also issued the following: "The prime minister of Pakistan said that his country seeks peace in the region and that if Iran wishes to play a role in this regard, Islamabad will welcome it."

Pakistani Kashmiris play cricket unfazed by gunfire echoing from the India-Pakistan Line of Control pic.twitter.com/A376w9qGKZ

But if gunfire continues to be exchanged between the two militaries, also amid reports that Pakistani visa holders are being promptly booted from the country amid the diplomatic crisis - clashes could accelerate toward open war. The two rivals are one more major incident away, after India accused Pakistan of harboring the terrorists that massacred the civilians in Kashmir last week.

Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah has meanwhile said there must be a "decisive fight against terrorism and its origin."

Unverified videos of gunfire along disputed Line of Control have been widely circulating...

Video circulating of gunfire reportedly heard between India and Pakistan: pic.twitter.com/ML0pGbaiLS

"People of Kashmir have come out openly against terrorism and the murder of innocent people, they did this freely & spontaneously. It’s time to build on this support and avoid any misplaced action that alienates people," Abdullah wrote on X.

"Punish the guilty, show them no mercy but don’t let innocent people become collateral damage," he added, voicing fears that the local population is being subject to brutal tactics by India's police and military as they hunt for the culprits of Tuesday's attack. Will this crisis explode? The United Nations and international countries are urging both sides to walk back from the brink.

While the nevertrump world, which includes the entire US mainstream media, and a sizable portion of the US population are rooting for China in the ongoing transpacific trade war, China quietly seized a disputed reef just miles away from the Philippines’ most important military outpost in the South China Sea, in a sharp escalation of a regional dispute with the Philippines, raising the risk of a new military stand-off between the two rival claimants.

According to the FT, the China Coast Guard “implemented maritime control and exercised sovereign jurisdiction” over Sandy Cay this month, the military channel of state broadcaster CCTV reported on Saturday. It released images of four officers, wearing all black and holding the Chinese flag, declaring sovereignty over the reef in the Spratly Islands.

Sandy Cay is near a Philippine military outpost on Thitu Island, which Manila reportedly uses to track Chinese movements in the area.

The move marks the first time in many years that Beijing, which claims the South China Sea almost in its entirety, has officially planted its flag on another previously unoccupied land feature.

It comes as the Philippines and its ally the US are conducting Balikatan, their largest annual military exercise, which will include coastal defense and island seizure drills. They will be held from next week on the Philippine territory closest to the Spratlys.

Although just a sand bank measuring little more than 200 square metres, Sandy Cay has strategic value for China because international law grants it a territorial sea. That 12-nautical-mile radius overlaps with Thitu Island, the South China Sea reef the Philippines uses to track Chinese moves in the area.

Source:

The Philippine government has yet to formally respond. Both China and the Philippines have staked their claims on various islands and zones. Their dispute has been escalating, with frequent confrontations including vessels colliding and scuffles.

The White House said the reports of China seizing Sandy Cay were “deeply concerning if true”.

“Actions like these threaten regional stability and violate international law,” said James Hewitt, National Security Council spokesperson. “We are consulting closely with our own partners and remain committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”  

Beijing’s official declaration of sovereignty over Sandy Cay will raise fears that Beijing intends to build up unoccupied reefs and banks. Over the past two years, Manila has increased coastguard patrols and sent scientific teams to investigate reports of Chinese reclamation activity at Sandy Cay and three other reefs further south.

Some maritime experts argue new Chinese reclamation is unlikely because artificial islands built and militarized by Beijing over the past decade have given its military and coastguard sufficient presence and reach.

There is so far no sign of a permanent Chinese occupation of Sandy Cay or construction on it. A Philippine maritime security official said on Saturday that the Chinese coastguard had left after unfurling the flag.

But the official declaration of sovereignty indicated China could “increase their harassment against us at Pag-Asa”, he added, using the Philippine name for Thitu.  

The Philippine coastguard has been operating a monitoring base on Thitu since late 2023, but Manila is now upgrading a runway and other infrastructure on the island. The building is part of efforts to make its South China Sea reefs more habitable and push back against increasingly aggressive Chinese activity.

Thitu Island

Lyle Morris, a former Pentagon China expert now at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Sandy Cay had been a source of tension for years between China and the Philippines.

“China has established a near constant presence around Sandy Cay for years, mostly using their maritime militia vessels to surround nearby waters,” said Morris. “They have stepped up their presence ever since the Philippines began to fortify Pagasa island [Thitu] and its runway.”

Morris said the Chinese action did not pose a test for the US, saying it was more a “tactical move” targeting the Philippines.

“This puts more pressure on the Philippines to respond in some way,” Morris added. “If China were ever to physically occupy the feature, the Philippines would likely feel compelled to respond. What kind of response is unclear.”

The Chinese move also comes as Washington and Beijing are mired in a deepening trade war. US allies are also watching closely to see how the Trump administration will deal with Chinese actions in the South China Sea.

“The People’s Republic of China has been increasing its pressure on Philippines outposts for years. But it’s notable that this action comes amidst an escalating US-China trade war and is exactly the sort of action that is hard for the US to respond to, while spooking its Philippines ally,” said Mira Rapp-Hooper, former National Security Council senior director for east Asia in the Biden administration.

China’s law gives its coastguard a mandate to board and inspect foreign vessels “intruding” into waters claimed by Beijing and detain their crews. That raises the risk of clashes with Philippine military and coastguard at Thitu, in waters China now treats as its territorial sea.

China’s military assets are far stronger than the Thitu outpost. Its installations on nearby Subi Reef include surface-to-air missiles, hangars, a runway, radar and a deepwater shelter port. But because it is categorized only as a low tide elevation, Subi lacks a territorial sea under international law.

Canada will elect a new government on Monday, with former central banker Mark Carney's liberal party vying to extend their hold on power against Pierre Poilievere's conservatives. The first results are expected to come in just after 7 p.m. ET after voting hours end in the four Atlantic provinces, with the majority of results expected to be released at 9:30 p.m. when voting ends in most of the country, including in seat-rich Ontario and Quebec.

Justin Tang / Canadian Press

In January, it seemed Poilievere was a lock over the center-left Liberals, who had been in power for a decade under the leadership of unpopular PM Justin Trudeau. Conservatives had a double-digit lead in polls amid public outcry over Trudeau, inflation, and steep housing costs - leading Trudeau to bow out for a Liberal party leadership contest that saw Carney take pole position.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called Liberal Leader Mark Carney a 'grifter' on Tuesday, as the federal election campaign nears its halfway point. (Laura Proctor, Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Then, after US President Donal Trump began threatening - and imposed, 25% tariffs on many goods from Canada, Carney's fortunes shifted and he called an early election.

Carney, a former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, declared that Canada's "old relationship with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over."

"President Trump is trying to break us so that America could own us," he told a crowd at a London, Ontario rally on Friday.

Poilievere, meanwhile, had positioned himself as the ultimate candidate for change - vowing to deregulate vast swaths of the Canadian economy, and cracking down on the "woke" liberal establishment.

By mid-March, when the election was called, Carney's liberals were polling neck and neck - and now maintain a narrow lead into the home stretch.

Carney has now positioned himself as the man most ready to counter Trump's tariffs - with his supporters pointing to his strong resume.

"I'm very impressed by the stability and the serious thought process of Mark Carney," Mike Brennan of Kitchener, Ontario told the BBC outside a Carney event at a Cambridge coffee shop, about an hour outside Toronto.

Brennan, a "lifelong Liberal," says he initially wasn't going to vote in the election over his hatred of Trudeau, however the departure of the former PM has reignited support for the Liberal party.

Stay tuned...

Psst... click here for a preview of our new partnership at ZH Store.

In yet another sign of a cracking and creaking US economy, Americans are increasingly tapping Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) financing to pay for daily essentials -- even groceries -- according to a new survey released Friday by Lending Tree. 

“A lot of people are struggling and looking for ways to extend their budget,” said Lending Tree chief consumer analyst Matt Schulz. “Inflation is still a problem. Interest rates are still really high. There’s a lot of uncertainty around tariffs and other economic issues, and it’s all going to add up to a lot of people looking for ways to extend their budget however they can.”

There are plenty of concerning findings in the survey. For starters, there's the rising share of BNPL users who are buying now and paying late -- 41% say they were tardy over the past year, which is up from 34% in last year's survey. About three-quarters of the late-payers say they were late by no more than "a week or so." However, where that and other numbers are concerned, it's important to note that these stats are based on survey responses -- not the hard data of their BNPL providers. Given human nature, it's reasonable to think respondents would understate subpar behavior.   

"Which of the following things have you ever purchased using BNPL?" (via

The top two categories of BNPL purchases are clothing, shoes and accessories (41% of BNPL users) followed by technology devices (39%). However, there's been a surge in people who've used BNPL for groceries -- 25% versus 14% last year.  A whopping one-third of Gen Z BNPL-tappers say they've used the financing for groceries. Similarly, 16% of users have tapped BNPL for food delivery or takeout.

That finding comes on the heels of our March report on DoorDash signing a deal with BNPL-facilitator Klarna, to let cash-strapped consumers pay for restaurant food, groceries and other delivery orders in four equal, interest-free installments, or "at a more convenient time, such as a date that aligns with their paycheck schedules." 

So then they securitized all the DoorDash loans and sliced them into tranches to sell off to the banks

Rating agencies were slapping AAA on Chick-fil-A orders for credit scores under 500 who didn’t leave a tip pic.twitter.com/sa3YKIqLhw

Regret is a common feeling among BNPL users: 48% say they've regretted using the service on at least one purchase, while 16% say they've felt that way multiples times. The emotion is most common among Gen Z: 64% have rued making a BNPL decision, and 24% felt that way about more than one purchase. 

Timely payments on BNPL don't help your credit score, but 62% of users wrongly think they can bolster their scores by using the service and sticking to due dates. Looking forward, Lending Tree says "it's only a matter of time" until America's top two credit-scoring firms, FICO and VantageScore, factor BNPL performance into their calculations. 

"Have you ever used a buy now, pay later service like Affirm or Klarna?" via

Other findings:

• Nearly half of the respondents have used a BNPL loan, with 11% saying they've used them 6 or more times. 23% have had three or more of them running simultaneously.  
• 53% of men have used BNPL, versus 46% of female respondents. 
• 64% of Gen Zers (age 18 to 28) have used BNPL, compared to 29% of Boomers (61 to 79)

You can add the Lending Tree survey to the tall stack of evidence we recently shared, making the case that the US consumer is melting down.

Psst... click here for a preview of our new partnership at ZH Store.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law on April 23 a sweeping regulatory reform measure known as the Regulatory Reform and Efficiency Act, aimed at streamlining government processes and reducing the regulatory burden on businesses and residents.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs the newly introduced Senate Bill 14 in the State Capitol in Austin on April 23, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Senate Bill 14 creates the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor and has been characterized as the Texas version of the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) created by President Donald Trump and led by businessman Elon Musk.

The new office is tasked with identifying outdated or duplicative rules, assisting state agencies in simplifying regulatory procedures, and establishing public access to rulemaking processes through a centralized online portal.

“We are putting at the forefront of legislation the shaping, formation, and recalibration of government in the State of Texas to make it more responsive and more efficient,” Abbott said in a statement. “We in Texas will now have our own DOGE, known as the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office. This law will slash regulations, put stricter standards on new regulations that could be costly to businesses, and put a check on the growth of the administrative state.”

The governor added that the office would make the government more efficient and less costly and that the state would operate “at the speed of business.”

The bill also establishes a Texas Regulatory Efficiency Advisory Panel composed of members of the business community, academia, and regulatory law to support the office’s mission. The new office will produce regulatory analysis manuals and reduction guides, and coordinate with other state entities to improve transparency and consistency.

Abbott said the measure is important for the state’s economic health and limiting regulations.

“Texas has won the national championship for economic development for 13 years in a row—business could not be doing better,” Abbott said in remarks while signing the bill. “With one exception. Among the CEOs that I talked to every single week, there were growing concerns that were repeated time and again. The regulatory environment in Texas is getting too burdensome.”

Abbott added that although Texas is generally known as business-friendly when it comes to regulations, the regulatory environment was “not as easy to navigate as it once was.” He cited a 2024 study that showed Texas had the fifth-highest regulatory burden of any state.

Critics of the bill questioned why it was necessary, as there is already a state Sunset Advisory Commission. According to its website, the mission of that agency is “to enhance government accountability to the Legislature and people of Texas by objectively evaluating the need for and value of state programs and services.”

Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison, who voted against the bill, said in a post on X after the governor signed the bill that it “grows government, increases spending, expands bureaucracy, gives more power to the executive branch, protects the Chevron deference, and makes Texas courts more liberal than federal courts.”

In a speech on the House floor earlier in the session, Harrison said: “The point of DOGE is to cut government, reduce spending, and shrink the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, this bill does the exact opposite.”

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick dubbed the measure “DOGE Texas-style,” and said it is about cutting red tape and saving taxpayer dollars.

“Texas DOGE will ensure the Texas Miracle continues long into the 21st century,” Patrick said in a statement. “Texans understand that by cutting red tape, more money stays in the pocket of taxpayers. Our conservative approach to regulation will keep Texans prosperous and our state the best place to do business in America and across the globe.”

Speaker of the Texas House Dustin Burrows, also a Republican, called the law a win for transparency and government accountability.

“A major theme of this session is government efficiency, and today the state is delivering on its promise to cut red tape and empower Texans with greater oversight of their government,” Burrows said in the statement. “As the first bill signed by Governor Abbott into law this session, the Regulatory Reform and Efficiency Act brings our state into the 21st century in terms of government rulemaking and will strengthen economic opportunity.”

The law includes provisions for a biennial report from the office to state leadership and a mandate for rulemaking procedures to be written in plain language. It also removes judicial deference to agency interpretations of law in many court cases, allowing judges to review agency rulemaking.

Jeff Burdett, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, called the bill “a historic step for Texas small businesses.” Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Texas Association of Business, said the law follows key recommendations from the Governor’s Small Business Freedom Council and called it “a model for the nation.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Market Finds Some Hope

Last week, we discussed the issue with the spat between President Trump and the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. As noted then:

“While the markets await the next Federal Reserve meeting, the uncertainty over monetary policy weighs on markets as much as the uncertainty about tariffs. This past week, the market reversed some of its gains from the massive “tariff reprieve” surge. With the MACD back on a buy signal and money flows turning positive, buyers are tepidly stepping back into the market. The 20-DMA continues to act as overhead resistance, defining the current downtrend. While there is undoubtedly a risk of another test of recent lows, which should be expected and why caution remains advisable, a break above the 20-DMA would lead to a rally to the 50-DMA. (Monday’s article addressed the “Death Cross” and what it means for investors.)“

The market rallied above the 20-DMA this past week as investors found some “silver linings” to the ongoing tariff dispute. Despite China saying “no negotiations” had started with the U.S., comments from both President Trump and Scott Bessent suggested that the Administration would “be nice” to China and that a “very good deal” could be done between the two countries. As we have noted previously, given the more extreme oversold condition of the market, any “good news” would allow investors to push stocks higher.

As stated, the market cleared initial resistance at the 20-DMA, but there is a heavy band of resistance just ahead at the level where the market was trying to bottom ahead of the tariff announcements. Just above that is the confluence of the 50- and 200-DMAs. While markets are not overbought yet, sellers will likely re-emerge if the market pushes further into those resistance levels. As we have suggested over the last two weeks, we are likely in for a rather protracted consolidation action as the market digests ongoing trade negotiations, slower economic growth, and reduced earnings expectations. Therefore, we should expect continued pullbacks and rallies until the market resolves the seller imbalances.

What is very interesting about the recent market decline is that while professional and “older investors,” who are presumably more experienced, are very “bearish” about their investment outlook, retail investors have been “buying the dip” at the most on record going back to early 2023.

However, while you may shake your head in disbelief, buying markets when they are down has been an essentially winning strategy for dip buyers over the last decade. Of course, such should be unsurprising given repeated rounds of monetary and fiscal interventions. As previously discussed, the Fed has engendered an entire generation of young investors with a sense of “moral hazard.” To wit:

“From a market perspective, the liquidity flows from the Federal Reserve increased speculative appetites and investors piled into “zombies” with reckless abandon. Why?  Because of a lack of incentive to guard against risk as investors believe the Fed is protecting them from the consequences of risk. In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses.”

Will this time be different? Maybe. There will be a point where taking on excessive speculative risk in leveraged ETFs and options leads to poor outcomes. However, that may not be today. As such, we need to be mindful that buyers and sellers drive markets. Until the markets change investors’ speculative attitudes, we will likely continue to find support in markets even though we may think there shouldn’t be.

Such is the message of today’s discussion: learning to be “unemotional” when managing our money.

Spock And The Vulcan Approach To Investing

In “Is Risk Off Positioning Signaling A Market Low,” we discussed the extremely oversold market conditions that are beginning to suggest the market may be approaching a near-term low. That analysis was based on various indicators, including extremely negative investor sentiment, positioning, and technical oversold conditions. As we stated, the current market environment is much like 2022. The first chart below shows the 2022 market correction versus 2025. The rally that began this past week could certainly rally further. Still, as we have warned, any rally in the near term will likely be met with sellers until there is a resolution on tariffs, monetary policy, and more certainty around recession risks.

The following chart compares our weekly Technical Composite Index. You will note that the market bounced or bottomed when the technical composite reached below 20.

The current conundrum is whether the extremely low technical readings preceding this week’s rally were a technical bounce or a market bottom. Unfortunately, we won’t know until after the fact. Still, our gut instinct suggests that given the depth of the decline and the technical damage to the market overall, any significant bounce will be met with sellers. Historically, the first market low during a correction phase is not usually a bottom. Regardless, the market continues to follow the 2022 playbook closely this year, but I would not expect the rest of the year to be an exact match.

The optimistic view is that while there are never any guarantees when it comes to investing, history suggests that after such a volatile period, we tend to perform better in the future, barring the onset of a recession or credit-related event. The bad news is that these increases in volatility tend to lead investors to make many emotionally driven investment mistakes. We rationalize, try to avoid losses, fail to take action when needed, or take action when we shouldn’t—all driven by our emotions. Yet being unemotional about your money is crucial to long-term investment outcomes.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“If I ask you what’s the risk in investing, you would answer the risk of losing money. But there actually are two risks in investing: One is to lose money, and the other is to miss an opportunity.

You can eliminate either one, but you can’t eliminate both at the same time. 

So the question is how you’re going to position yourself versus these two risks: straight down the middle, more aggressive or more defensive.

I think of it like a comedy movie where a guy is considering some activity. On his right shoulder is sitting an angel in a white robe. He says: ‘No, don’t do it! It’s not prudent, it’s not a good idea, it’s not proper and you’ll get in trouble’.

On the other shoulder is the devil in a red robe with his pitchfork. He whispers: ‘Do it, you’ll get rich’. In the end, the devil usually wins.

Caution, maturity and doing the right thing are old-fashioned ideas. And when they do battle against the desire to get rich, other than in panic times the desire to get rich usually wins. That’s why bubbles are created and frauds like Bernie Madoff get money.

How do you avoid getting trapped by the devil?

I’ve been in this business for over forty-five years now, so I’ve had a lot of experience.  In addition, I am not a very emotional person. In fact, almost all the great investors I know are unemotional. If you’re emotional then you’ll buy at the top when everybody is euphoric and prices are high. Also, you’ll sell at the bottom when everybody is depressed and prices are low. You’ll be like everybody else and you will always do the wrong thing at the extremes.

Therefore, unemotionalism is one of the most important criteria for being a successful investor. And if you can’t be unemotional you should not invest your own money, period. Most great investors practice something called contrarianism. It consists of doing the right thing at the extremes which is the contrary of what everybody else is doing. So unemtionalism is one of the basic requirements for contrarianism.”

If you didn’t read that quote carefully, I would reread it.

During periods of market volatility, investors often let emotions drive decisions. However, the investors who perform best under pressure tend to think less like adrenaline-fueled traders and more like Spock from Star Trek. Emotionless, logical, and consistent, Spock’s mindset offers guidance for navigating turbulent markets. As he once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.” That mindset is exactly what investors need when fear or greed threaten sound decision-making. Here are some points to consider.

Emotion Is The Enemy of Reason

Market volatility heightens stress, which in turn amplifies emotional responses. As a result, investors often chase rallies or panic-sell during drawdowns. Spock’s detachment offers a counterpoint.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Investing means cutting through noise, avoiding speculation, and relying on data. For example, the media is jammed with emotionally charged headlines about tariff-induced trade wars, recessions, and de-dollarization. In reality, those events rarely occur. As we discussed in “Probabilities vs Possibilities:”

“The chart below is a normally distributed “bell curve” of potential events and outcomes. In simple terms, 68.26% of the time, typical outcomes occur. Economically speaking, such would be a normal recession or the avoidance of a recession. 95.44% of the time, we are most likely dealing with a range of outcomes between a reasonably deep recession and standard economic growth rates. However, there is a 2.14% chance that we could see another economic crisis like the 2008 Financial Crisis. But what about “economic armageddon?” That event where nothing matters but “gold, beanie weenies, and bunker.” That is a 0.14% possibility.”

This concept of possibilities versus possibilities is crucial to navigating investment outcomes. Spock never claimed to predict the future. Instead, he calculated the probabilities of potential outcomes. That approach mirrors sound portfolio management. Rather than trying to guess what markets will do tomorrow, successful investors assess various outcomes and plan accordingly. As Spock once stated

“Change is the essential process of all existence.”

In other words, if your current reaction to recent market volatility is to expect it to continue indefinitely, you will likely be disappointed. This is why we continually suggest managing risk, rebalancing, taking profits, and focusing on allocations. Building portfolios that account for downside risks, multiple economic scenarios, and margin of safety allows investors to remain calm when markets shift. The only thing investors need to fear is fear itself.

Emotional decisions typically underperform disciplined ones. Investors can’t eliminate volatility, but can control their reactions to it. Behavioral finance confirms this. Loss aversion, herd behavior, and recency bias drive many of the worst investment decisions.

Discipline Outperforms Reactivity

Reacting emotionally to short-term moves often destroys long-term returns. Spock’s strength was never his speed, but his steadiness.

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

The ability to step back, re-evaluate with clarity, and follow a predetermined investment process keeps portfolios aligned with goals. Legendary investor Charlie Munger confirmed this view when he stated:

“The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting.”

Patience is a strategic advantage. During volatile markets, as we have currently, it is crucial to step back and focus on the broad performance of the portfolio relative to your goals. A disciplined approach before volatility sets in is the key to navigating outcomes. Spock’s analytical mindset lends itself to rigorous risk assessment. He didn’t avoid danger; he quantified and prepared for it. Likewise, investors must separate perceived risk from actual risk. Volatility may feel like danger, but it is often simply price movement around a trend. Actual risk lies in permanent capital loss, overconcentration, or misalignment with one’s time horizon and objectives.

As we discussed previously, volatility begets volatility. Periods of low volatility always lead to high volatility, like now. However, the opposite is also true. The trick is navigating the periods of high volatility well enough to participate in the extended periods of low volatility.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, advocates for a similar analytical approach to risk:

“If you’re not worried, you need to worry. And if you’re worried, you don’t need to worry.”

In other words, constant vigilance and preparation are more productive than panic. Investing during periods of uncertainty can be dangerous; however, there are some steps to take when investing in uncertain markets.

• Have excess emergency savings, so you are not “forced” to sell during a market decline to meet obligations.
• Extend your time horizon to 5-7 years, as short-term stresses can take time to resolve.
• Don’t obsessively check your portfolio.
• Consider tax-loss harvesting (selling stocks at a loss) to offset those losses against future gains.
• Stick to your investing discipline regardless of what happens.

Spock would agree.

Emotions Cloud Opportunity Recognition

Lastly, one overlooked cost of emotional investing is the inability to recognize opportunity during downturns. As Spock once said:

“Fear is the enemy. It is the great destroyer of logic.”

One mistake that investors make when volatility strikes is to assume that since the market is going down, EVERYTHING is going down simultaneously. That is rarely the case.

“The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system’s internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. This also results in the observation that, in an externally isolated system, even with internal changes, the sum of all forms of energy must remain constant, as energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

In the financial markets, money is not created or destroyed; it merely changes form. As the old Wall Street adage states, “There is always a bull market somewhere.” In other words, as capital is extracted from one asset, that capital is reinvested into another asset. Eventually, that same flow of capital will reverse, and the asset that rose previously will become a source of liquidity to return to what was sold off. A good recent example of this is Gold versus the S&P 500 index. As shown, there is a very high negative correlation between the 36-month rate of change of the two assets. Simply put, when one rises, it becomes a source of liquidity for the falling asset.

This doesn’t mean that one asset is good or the other is bad, it just means that money is changing form.

Crucially, when volatility strikes, prices disconnect from fundamentals. Investors with emotional discipline can identify undervalued assets while others flee. Such is why the best buying opportunities occur during maximum pessimism, but few are brave or logical enough to act. As Warren Buffett put it plainly:

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

That kind of contrarian thinking requires emotional restraint. Spock would likely view investor sentiment as a signal to be observed and discounted, not followed.

Conclusion: Adopt A Vulcan Framework

As an investor, you can take a page from Spock’s playbook and approach volatility not as a crisis but as a condition. Here are some basic steps:

1. Rely on process, not prediction;
2. Focus on probabilities, not possibilities.
3. Discount possibilities that fall well outside historical norms.
4. Question assumptions, most importantly your own.
5. Suppress reactive behavior,
6. Manage risk with calm precision.

In short, do what great investors have always done: stick to a disciplined, rational approach while others lose their heads.

I realize that you are not a Vulcan and are not afforded the luxury of being raised to be devoid of emotions. Fortunately, you don’t need to be Vulcan to benefit from the mindset. But you do need to recognize that emotions, while natural, often do more harm than good in investing. So while the market has declined this year, and headlines are screaming panic, remember Spock’s most crucial wisdom:

“Live long and prosper.”

That’s the goal, after all.

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Britain’s highest court has ruled that the words “woman” and “sex” refer to “a biological woman and biological sex,” in a landmark decision that follows years of confusion, anger, and campaigning.

Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in London on Nov. 15, 2023. On April 15, Britain’s highest court ruled that the words "woman" and "sex" refer to "a biological woman and biological sex" in a landmark case. Leon Neal/Getty Images

The case sought to clarify the question of whether a person who holds an official certificate recognizing their gender as female is entitled to the same women’s rights protections under the law.

A commonly cited example was the question of whether women-only services—such as a rape crisis support group—were allowed to exclude men with a gender recognition certificate.

A gender recognition certificate means that a person’s chosen gender identity is legally recognized.

Obtaining the certificate requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, having lived as the identified gender for at least two years, and the intention to live as that self-identified gender until death.

More than 8,000 gender recognition certificates have been granted in the United Kingdom since their introduction under the Gender Recognition Act of 2005.

1. How Case Was Sparked

The case was instigated by campaign group For Women Scotland in 2022, who brought a series of legal challenges, beginning in Scotland and culminating in the UK Supreme Court, over the definition of the word “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

This legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament and mandated that 50 percent of individuals on public boards be female, including in its definition males who identify as women.

Lawyers for For Women Scotland argued that not tying the definition of sex to its “ordinary meaning” could have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights, as well as “everyday single-sex services” such as bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, and domestic violence and rape crisis centers.

Counsel for the Scottish government argued at the Supreme Court hearing in November 2024 that a person with a gender recognition certificate is “recognized in law” as having changed sex.

Celebrations outside the Supreme Court in London on April 16, 2025. The court ruled unanimously that “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” The decision allows men who identify as women, even with a gender recognition certificate, to be excluded from single-sex spaces. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

2. The Ruling

On April 15, the Supreme Court ruled that sex is rooted in biology, not whether a person has chosen to identify as a certain gender.

Delivering the judgment, Lord Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, said the central question is how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the Equality Act of 2010.

“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Hodge said.

This means that men who identify as women and who hold a gender recognition certificate may be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate.”

The judges said that while the word “biological” does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.”

The decision stated that if the word “sex” did not mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces—including changing rooms, homeless hostels, and medical services—would face “practical difficulties” and any other interpretation would render rules against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation meaningless.

The court said that this interpretation of the law does not disadvantage people who identify as transgender, who were described as a “potentially vulnerable group.”

They said the group is still protected from discrimination, and “would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination” if needed.

The justices also said that transgender-identifying people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Campaigners who described themselves as women's rights activists stand next to the suffrage activist Dame Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square in London on April 16, 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that sex is rooted in biology, not whether a person has chosen to identify as the opposite gender. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

3. Lawmakers Could Overturn Court

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal for all civil cases in the UK and of all criminal cases originating in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

It also covers a limited number of criminal cases from Scotland, which technically has a separate legal system.

However, a Supreme Court judgment in the UK carries a lot less weight than it would in the United States.

Lawmakers in the UK are not bound by a codified constitution that can only be changed through a super majority and other hurdles to ratification.

Rather, parliament can effectively negate a supreme court ruling by voting in new legislation.

So a simple majority vote by lawmakers is all that would be required to repeal that legislation and pass a new law that requires males who identify as women to be treated exactly the same as women.

4. Unanswered Questions

Since the decision, many public bodies and institutions have updated their rules, while others are still waiting for clarity.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has responsibility for the promotion and enforcement of equality and non-discrimination laws in Britain, is expected to put an updated statutory code of practice before Parliament by the summer, and said it is working “at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment” into the code for public bodies setting out their duties under the Equality Act.

This means that, currently, despite the Supreme Court ruling, the situation is far from clear.

5. Police Strip Searches

The British Transport Police became the first public body to take action when it changed its strip search policy a day after the judgment, saying that it had adopted a new “interim position” that will see transgender-identifying people in custody strip searched by an officer in line with their biological sex.

This means males in custody will be searched by male officers, while male officers who identify as trans women will no longer be able to search female detainees.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said it will be reviewing its policies, but “will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.”

Read the rest here...

With the funeral out of the way, the conclave begins and every vote will count.

During the pontificate of the late Francis, the number of cardinals worldwide shifted somewhat away from a heavy focus on Europe. However, European cardinals continue to be overrepresented when considering the share of the world's Catholics that live on the continent. The change could have implications in the vote for the next pope, which could start in a few weeks' time.

Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports that, according to various sources collected by Pew Research Center, 41 percent of cardinals eligible to vote for a new pope upon Francis' death Monday are from Europe. This is down from 50 percent in 2013, the time of the last vote.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The pope appoints cardinals and under Francis, the number of cardinals from the Asia-Pacific region grew from 10 percent to 18 percent.

The relative share of cardinals from Sub-Saharan Africa also grew from 8 percent to 12 percent.

While the share of the world's Catholics that lives in Africa is even higher, at 19 percent, it is Latin America and the Caribbean which is the most underrepresented in terms of cardinals. 

According to Vatican records, 41 percent of the world's Catholics live in the region. Under Francis, the share of Latin American and Caribbean cardinals only rose slightly, from 17 percent to 18 percent.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán firmly denied allegations made by Polish opposition leader Donald Tusk that Hungary might leave the European Union, clarifying that his intent is to reform, not abandon, the bloc.

Orbán’s comments came in response to an X post from Tusk, who suggested Orbán was openly considering a Hungarian exit from the EU — a claim that Orbán labeled as misleading.

“Prime Minister Orbán is speaking openly today about Hungary’s exit from the European Union. It was worth winning the elections so that Kaczyński’s dream of “Budapest in Warsaw” would never come true. This is also at stake in the upcoming elections,” Tusk tweeted, referencing the famous remarks made by the leader of the Polish opposition Conservatives (PiS), Jarosław Kaczyński, after his party lost the 2011 Polish election.

Addressing Tusk directly, Orbán replied on the same platform:

“Dear Donald, don’t raise your hopes too high. Hungary will not leave the EU. We will transform it with the Patriots for Europe, to restore it to what it once was when Poland and Hungary joined.”

Dear Donald,
Don’t raise your hopes too high. Hungary will not leave the EU. We will transform it with the @PatriotsEU, to restore it to what it once was when Poland and Hungary joined.

Back then, Brussels bureaucrats served the people instead of themselves. Back then,… https://t.co/AmbCyl6Q9d

He emphasized that the EU at that time was focused on serving the interests of its member states, rather than interfering in their internal politics, a criticism he frequently directs at current EU officials.

Tusk’s statement was based on Orbán’s recent appearance at a public forum, where the Hungarian leader discussed ongoing tensions with Brussels but explicitly stated that exiting the EU would be irrational. “It is not reasonable to quit,” Orbán stressed, reminding the audience of his own support for Hungary’s accession in the 2003 referendum.

Orbán also shared an anecdote of former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly asking when Hungary would leave the EU, to which he joked in response, “Mr. President, we need a better offer.”

Orbán made clear that Hungary’s interest in EU membership extends far beyond financial benefits, pointing out the importance of a single market of 400 million consumers to Hungarian exports, 85 percent of which flow to EU member states. Instead, he advocated for substantial reforms, suggesting that his newly formed group in the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe (PfE), would eventually become influential enough to “dictate” terms for the bloc’s transformation.

Tusk’s comments drew fierce criticism from Poland’s conservative politicians. PiS MEP Arkadiusz Mularczyk accused Tusk of “scaring people” instead of engaging in meaningful discussions about the EU’s challenges. Konrad Berkowicz, vice president of the right-wing Confederation party, went further, asserting that Tusk was once again embarrassing himself by needlessly antagonizing influential leaders and countries.

The debate between Tusk and Orbán comes at a sensitive political moment in Poland, ahead of the presidential elections scheduled for May 18. Rafał Trzaskowski, mayor of Warsaw and a close ally of Tusk, is seen as the frontrunner but faces growing competition from conservative rivals Karol Nawrocki of PiS and Sławomir Mentzen from Confederation.

Read more here...