DOGE Walks Among Us

posted by Douglas Schwartz at American Thinker 

It has become increasingly obvious that DOGE is Gorbachev’s glasnost (openness) reprised. Glasnost soon led to perestroika (reform) and the Soviet Union croaked. DOGE will play a key role in dismantling the Deep State. We’ve lost count of how many decades former congressman Ron Paul has called for auditing the bankers’ plaything, the Federal Reserve System and its 400+ PhD economists. Or more recently, when senators Sanders and Grassley teamed to demand a Pentagon audit. Not only will DOGE audit the Fed and get to the bottom of the Pentagon’s missing trillions, but the entire federal leviathan is undergoing a full MRI scan. We know the diagnosis: Stage 4 metastatic cancer throughout the system. Drs. Musk and Trump have already indicated some of the initial body parts needing surgical intervention, starting with USAID, the CIA’s cover vehicle for adventures such as Victoria Nuland’s regime change fiascos or propaganda initiatives, at home and abroad.

Once DOGE’s results are made public, and crowdsourcing digests the mass of data posted online, the verdict will come into focus. Entire agencies will no longer exist and those surviving will be substantially curtailed. Individuals will be exposed and some may face prosecution.

Trump’s second term lasts 208 weeks. In just two weeks DOGE’s initial progress has been encouraging. The timeline for DOGE’s completion is July 4, 2026, 530 days from the inauguration. In its first two weeks (2.6% of the way to the deadline) Washington’s status quo brigades mounted resistance to allowing DOGE auditors access to records. Trump responded with the same treatment Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro received. He swiftly came down hard on both to make examples of them lest others consider blocking his reforms. USAID officials are now suspended, its headquarters doors are closed, and its website is offline. According to Musk, “USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” According to Trump, USAID is “run by a bunch of radical lunatics” Bill Kristol is an early example of collateral damage. Why USAID funded gain-of-function research needs explaining.

DOGE auditors won’t randomly proceed through thousands of federal agencies and subagencies. The Department of Agriculture can wait, Trump has bigger targets. USAID is a big one, playing its part in the deaths of millions after the Cold War in places such as Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. HHS and its FDA and CDC will be additional piñatas. What spills out when they are smashed open will end careers, perhaps trigger prosecutions, and precipitate wholesale reforms. We know, for example, that even Obama ordered an end to reckless gain-of-function research. Yet somehow it survived and was offshored to China, Ukraine, and wherever. Following money trails reveals who did what.

DOGE progeny will inevitably appear at state and local levels. Open, online checkbooks of entities such as local boards of education will become manifest. The games citizens and journalists must play with FOIA requests to pry out spending details must end. Government spending is decipherable in databases and spreadsheets. There is no excuse (but considerable internal resistance) for not making details readily accessible to public scrutiny. Statutes require revision, including creating criminal penalties for failures to comply or concealing expenditures. Consider the entertaining drama of America’s favorite mayor, Tiffany Henyard of Dolton, Illinois. If her village’s books were maintained online, matters would never have gotten to this point.

Eliminating the need for servicing a significant portion of FOIA requests (including costs such as paying municipal attorneys to hamstring citizens’ inquiries) can yield savings. It is cheaper to take pre-existing digitized data and park it online -- permitting public access to what bureaucrats view -- rather than servicing each FOIA request.

Secrecy and concealment permit bureaucratic misbehavior. According to Musk, "Career Treasury officials are breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress." His solution: blockchain, presumably to match payments with statutory and programmatic requirements. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent provided DOGE auditors access to the federal payment system. Stay tuned.

Federal Medicaid spending soared 53% in the five years ending in 2023, due in large part to illegal immigrants and probably the vaccine injured. A recent Maine report reveals up to 40% of non-citizens (illegal immigrants and legal aliens) in that state have voted (or had votes cast in their names) in recent years, determined by matching MaineCare records (requiring citizenship status and date of birth to receive healthcare) with voting records. Blockchain transaction matching protocols could eliminate such fraud. The investigative group which uncovered the Maine voting irregularities published an illuminating footnote:

Since the publication of the Maine Wire’s original investigation into noncitizen voting, we have offered the opportunity to review our underlying records in person to both Republican and Democratic elected officials. While no Democrats have accepted our offer, several Republicans have, and they can attest to the veracity and accuracy of our reporting. We have also shared redacted but sensitive versions of the records underlying this reporting with the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Monitor, WGME, and any other media outlet that has requested proof of the assertions made in our reporting. The information shared with these outlets is more than enough for them to prove for themselves that noncitizens are registered to vote in Maine.

None of these news outlets have filed reports of their own based on those records.

We have taken this approach toward sharing proof of our reporting while simultaneously refusing to turn over the records to Maine’s Attorney General and Secretary of State in order to protect the identity of any source(s). We have also declined to turn over our records to agents of the state in order to protect the identities of the noncitizens who may, in fact, themselves be victims of a form of identity theft. We understand the gravity of the facts conveyed in these reports and have taken unusual and extreme measures to prove that our reporting is accurate and true.

If it’s that bad in Maine, imagine the truth regarding California. It’s straightforward to conclude where DOGEian initiatives, at all government levels, are headed. Systemic government malfeasance is rampant and bipartisan. Democrats have the most at stake. We are entering an era, lasting perhaps a decade or longer, of government austerity. Debt got us here. Democrats’ power base depends on government largesse. Think teachers unions. Or postal unions for an agency hemorrhaging $6.5 billion in 2023 and $9.5 billion last year, with no end in sight for perpetually climbing deficits. Think NGOs, money laundering operations pretending not to be government agents.

Contaminated voter rolls require pruning. Think of politicians such as Maine’s senator Susan Collins, dependent on voting shenanigans. How many governors and members of Congress required voting fraud to get elected? Don’t expect Musk to stop with forensic accounting. Voting rolls are ripe for technological rehabilitation. Remember when the Left screamed that voter ID was somehow racist? That ship has sailed. Big changes lie ahead.

X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 6

 

Former Federal Reserve Adviser Arrested for Allegedly Passing US Trade Secrets to China

 A federal indictment alleged that John Rogers had been working with Chinese regime conspirators since at least 2018.

Prosecutors on Jan. 31 arrested a former senior Federal Reserve adviser, accusing him of stealing trade secrets from the agency that could allow the Chinese regime to manipulate the U.S. market.

John Harold Rogers, 63, worked for 11 years as a senior adviser for the international finance division of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the main governing body for the U.S. central bank.

A federal indictment alleged that Rogers had been working with Chinese regime conspirators since at least 2018. The Chinese handlers worked for the Chinese intelligence and security apparatus and posed as graduate students at a Chinese university, according to the filing.

Rogers, in the collaboration, allegedly solicited trade-secret information that included proprietary economic data sets, China tariff deliberations, and briefing books for specific board governors. He also allegedly solicited internal discussions and forthcoming announcements from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a 12-member body consisting of the New York Federal Reserve Bank president, the seven members of the Fed’s board, and four of the remaining 11 Federal Reserve Bank presidents that rotate on an annual basis.

Such confidential information is economically valuable, prosecutors noted. By knowing in advance U.S. economic policy, such as federal funds rate changes, the Chinese regime can gain an advantage in selling or buying U.S. bonds and securities in a manner not unlike insider trading, prosecutors said in a Department of Justice (DOJ) statement.

The Fed’s international finance division is in charge of basic research, policy analysis, and reporting of areas such as foreign economic activity, U.S. trade and capital outflow, and developments in international financial markets and institutions, the agency’s website states.

Rogers is charged with conspiracy to commit economic espionage and with making false statements. A judge ordered Rogers to be held until a detention hearing on Feb. 4, a spokesperson from the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington told The Epoch Times. The charges carry a total of 20 years in prison on top of up to $5 million in fines.

“Let this indictment serve as a warning to all who seek to betray or exploit the United States: law enforcement will find you and hold you accountable,” said interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward Martin, whom President Donald Trump appointed minutes after taking office on Jan. 20.

FBI assistant director in charge, David Sundberg, said his agency aims to protect U.S. national security interests.

“The Chinese Communist Party has expanded its economic espionage campaign to target U.S. government financial policies and trade secrets in an effort to undermine the U.S. and become the sole superpower,” he said in the DOJ statement.

Edward Martin speaks at an event in Washington on June 13, 2023.

Martin is the current interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP Photo

Meetings Under Another Purpose

One of the Chinese handlers, identified in the indictment as co-conspirator 1, presented himself as a graduate student at China’s Shandong University of Finance and Economics who was interested in learning about sensitive U.S. fiscal policy to benefit the eastern Chinese province of Shandong.

He approached Rogers in May 2013 after creating an email address that he used almost exclusively with Rogers and a handful of Rogers’s associates, according to the document. When Rogers shared that he was beginning a new project with a Chinese co-author on monetary policy, the co-conspirator allegedly invited Rogers to visit his research institute, offering to cover his airfare and hotel on the trip.

Court documents allege that Rogers took up the offer and visited China twice in 2017, telling the co-conspirator, on his second trip, that he wanted to stay in the same hotel, saying, “That place was great!”

The co-conspirator purported to be working on an essay around May 2018 and requested information about the Fed’s policy measures and timetable, including its responses to China-related issues, the indictment alleges.

Rogers emailed his colleagues for input, including on U.S.–China trade issues, Fed staff’s thinking on exchange rates, and views on the market-clearing price of the Chinese currency, prosecutors said. He boarded a Shanghai-bound flight days later. On May 10, 2018, Rogers emailed one document his colleague sent him to the co-conspirator, the indictment shows.

In September 2018, the two began to discuss their meetings in more veiled terms, according to prosecutors. At Rogers’s request, they allegedly described those activities as classes so they would appear “legitimate in the eyes of the Fed,” prosecutors noted.

Between then and February 2022, they discussed hosting about a dozen such classes in Chinese hotel rooms, according to message records the investigators intercepted.

Some of these meetings focused on forecasting Fed policy trends. One of them, initiated in late November 2018, was titled “the trend of U.S. monetary policy in 2019,” according to the indictment. The Chinese co-conspirator, the filing states, asked for an “official fed statement and presentation from current FOMC members.”

The “topic is perfect,” Rogers allegedly responded. He emailed a colleague for the “most straightforward way of accessing” the Fed’s forecast data, as far back as 1994, the prosecutors said.

Rogers allegedly held the said “class” on Dec. 10, 2018, with a man identified as “Jack,” before meeting the Chinese co-conspirator for dinner. On Dec. 20, 2018, a day after a Fed interest rate hike, Rogers allegedly wrote to the co-conspirator alerting him to the change.

The Chinese co-conspirator’s response indicates Rogers had discussed the issue during the earlier meeting.

“Aha, just like what we talked about at dinner,” the co-conspirator wrote, according to the court document.

The pair talked about setting up three more “classes” in Shanghai and Beijing to cover “how the Fed will shrink the balance-sheet in 2019” and the U.S. economic situation in the first half of 2019 in the following months, according to the federal filing.

On June 19, 2019, five days after Rogers flew to Beijing for one of the meetings, the Fed announced it would not cut rates but cut the word “patient” in describing the monetary policy outlook, a hint for future actions.

“Same as you predicted!” the co-conspirator allegedly wrote to Rogers.

Rogers allegedly obtained or attempted to access at least six trade secrets for Chinese officials, according to the indictment. Among them were a briefing book dated October 2018 titled “International Economic Topics”; a summary and assessment of a European Central Bank announcement dated March 7, 2019, labeled sensitive; a sensitive June 6, 2019, document that contains briefing notes to the Fed’s board; and spreadsheets containing proprietary information from the board, according to prosecutors.

The filing alleges that Rogers obtained the board governor’s briefing book, which contained a bold red warning “do not disseminate,” from a colleague by stating it was for his personal use as a “concrete example of ‘information flow.’”

Against his colleague’s request, Rogers allegedly forwarded the document to his personal account, court documents note. Rogers, in October 2018, also allegedly sent internal files on trade policy uncertainty and U.S. investment to the Chinese co-conspirator.

Rogers denied his China ties when the Federal Reserve Board Office of Inspector General investigated in February 2020. Asked in a recorded interview whether he had shared restricted board information with anyone outside of the board, Rogers allegedly responded, “Never.”

He insisted that he had refused money from the Chinese co-conspirator, according to the indictment.

“I set them straight,” he was quoted as saying. “Don’t put this money in front of me.”

The pair’s connection continued after that, according to court documents.

In February 2022, the co-conspirator messaged Rogers, inviting him and his wife to Shandong’s city of Qingdao for a “class,” the court filing said.

“All related expenses will be covered by us, and we can pay for the class,” the co-conspirator allegedly said.

It is unclear how or if Rogers responded to the message. But in August 2023, investigators said, Rogers emailed his former colleagues still with the Fed’s board and asked for two internal Excel spreadsheets.

In 2023, Rogers was paid approximately $450,000 as a part-time professor at a Chinese university, according to the DOJ.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/former-federal-reserve-adviser-arrested-for-allegedly-passing-us-trade-secrets-to-china-5802509?utm_source=China_article_paid&src_src=China_article_paid&utm_campaign=China-2025-02-06-ca&src_cmp=China-2025-02-06-ca&utm_medium=email&est=lX1YdP5cBSlr8q%2BdHPQrRj19AydfTQf8AhQGzG%2BMhm0%2F54mMfIRly8BcEd%2BdcnVcxMF5&utm_term=news3&utm_content=3

Ukraine’s Rare Earth and Realpolitik

posted by Charlton Allen at American Thinker 

For years, American foreign aid has followed a simple, unquestioned rule: the United States gives, and a motley assortment of allies and opportunistic nation-states take. Aside from vague diplomatic assurances, billions in taxpayer dollars flow overseas with little expectation of return. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Ukraine.

The Biden White House poured billions upon billions into military, economic, and humanitarian aid without securing tangible benefits for American industry or security. Yet despite this massive commitment, there is little clarity on how much has actually reached Ukraine—or how effectively it has been used.

President Donald Trump has shattered this framework. Instead of continuing the blank-check approach, he has tied future U.S. support for Ukraine to something concrete: access to Ukraine’s untapped reserves of rare earth elements and its vast known deposits of other critical minerals—resources vital to national defense, high-tech industries, and the foundation of modern American life.

This isn’t just a policy shift on Ukraine—it indicates a fundamental rethinking of how America engages with allies and strategic partners. For President Trump, U.S. foreign and economic policy are intertwined, and both must serve American interests first and foremost. American assistance to an ally or would-be ally is not a right; it must be earned and reciprocal.

This markedly departs from the long-standing norms of American foreign policy—an approach that, over generations, has fostered its own culture of entitlement. In Washington, foreign aid is generally treated as a one-way street, with taxpayer dollars flowing outward to every corner of the globe. Trump’s shift marks the start of a new diplomatic approach, where U.S. support is given with clear conditions, not as an open-ended handout.

No More Free Passes: The End of Unconditional Foreign Aid

For decades, U.S. foreign policy followed a Marshall Plan template, treating aid as a one-way act of goodwill and expecting little return beyond diplomatic gestures. Trump’s approach flips that model on its head. U.S. investment of billions in military and financial aid must yield strategic advantages—both in the current conflict and in America’s long-term security and economic resilience.

His proposal follows a simple, common-sense principle: If the U.S. is investing in Ukraine’s survival, then Ukraine must invest in America’s future.

Why rare earths and other strategic minerals? Because these strategic resources power everything—from missile guidance systems and advanced fighter jets to semiconductors and electric vehicle batteries. Right now, the global supply chain is dominated by China and Russia, two nations that have weaponized resource control to undermine Western economies.

Under Trump’s proposal, Ukraine would receive continued American military support and become a key supplier of critical resources that the U.S. desperately needs.

This approach accomplishes three significant objectives:

1. Weakening China’s rare earth dominance — Beijing controls 60% of global rare earth mining and over 85% of refining capacity. Securing an alternative source reduces American reliance on an adversarial regime.
2. Undercutting Russia’s economic leverage — Moscow remains a major player in global nickel, titanium, and mineral exports. Bringing Ukrainian resources online disrupts Russia’s grip on critical global markets.
3. Forcing Ukraine to be a strategic partner, not a permanent beneficiary — American taxpayers are not an ATM. Continued U.S. backing must require Ukraine to contribute to American interests rather than rely indefinitely on American generosity.

From Charity to Strategic Investment

Predictably, the usual suspects are in meltdown over Trump’s shift. To them, foreign aid—especially to Ukraine—is a moral obligation, not a strategic tool. But history proves transactional diplomacy isn’t a betrayal of alliances—it strengthens them.

Consider postwar Japan and Germany. U.S. aid rebuilt their economies with strict conditions, including deep structural reforms and explicit limits on their military capabilities. This arrangement made sense during the Cold War when the U.S. needed strong economic allies but preferred to maintain direct military control in key regions. That model worked as long as the Soviet threat justified forward-positioned American forces.

However, these restrictions have left both nations militarily dependent decades later, forcing the U.S. to shoulder security commitments that outlasted their original purpose. In a world where China is ascendant and global security challenges are more diffuse, this dependency strains U.S. resources, limits our ability to pivot toward emerging threats, and risks pulling America into regional conflicts where we have little strategic interest.

Contrast this with Israel and Poland, both of which have taken a different path. Israel receives U.S. support but has developed one of the world’s most advanced defense industries, allowing it to protect itself without relying on American troops. Poland has invested heavily in its security, emerging as one of NATO’s most committed defense spenders. Rather than relying on the U.S. as a permanent guarantor, both nations have used American support as a foundation to strengthen their military capabilities.

These examples demonstrate that when aid is structured to promote self-reliance, it can create stronger, more capable allies. But Ukraine is not being treated as an ally in the traditional sense—instead, it is treated as a cause—a moral litmus test, not a strategic calculation. 

Instead of tying aid to measurable outcomes, Washington’s foreign policy class and its willing acolytes have framed Ukraine aid as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, where any hesitation is cast as a betrayal of freedom itself. But this framing is deeply flawed. The world is not neatly—nor equally—divided into democracies and dictatorships. It is a far more complex arena where authoritarianism is the rule and democracy is the exception.

In such a world, free people must do more than reflexively “stand for democracy”—they must make strategic, deliberate choices that secure their future. Simply throwing resources at a cause because it aligns with our values is not a strategy; it’s sentimentality masquerading as policy. The real measure of leadership is knowing when, where, and how to engage in ways that strengthen, rather than overextend, America’s position.

This is the fundamental difference here. Trump’s approach rejects the idea that supporting Ukraine is a blank-check obligation and instead treats it as a strategic investment—one that must advance America’s interests, not just satisfy Washington’s ideological purity tests.

Ukraine’s Strategic Transformation

• Ukraine gains economic independence — By developing its critical minerals, Ukraine secures a vital revenue stream, which is crucial because the country will face a massive rebuilding effort when this war ends. This also reduces reliance on foreign assistance while strengthening Ukraine’s long-term defense capabilities.
• China and Russia face new economic pressure — Both nations have long exploited their dominance in critical mineral production to manipulate global markets. A strong Ukraine as a new supplier changes that equation.
• America secures a sustainable supply chain — Instead of scrambling for alternatives during a crisis or remaining dependent on geopolitical adversaries, the U.S. secures a reliable, long-term source of critical minerals.

The New Standard for American Foreign Policy

Simply put, Trump’s Ukraine policy isn’t a one-off tactical maneuver—it is a blueprint for how the U.S. should engage with allies in the future.

Foreign aid should no longer be charity but rather a strategic investment with measurable returns. Hence, any nation receiving U.S. support must contribute to American security, economic resilience, or industrial capacity.

This Trump Doctrine is the realpolitik of the 21st century—a world where economic leverage is as vital as military power. The shift away from unconditional generosity is long overdue. By linking aid to access Ukraine’s untapped reserves of rare earth elements and its known deposits of critical minerals, Trump’s strategy ensures that U.S. commitments serve tangible national interests rather than vague promises of goodwill.

Ukraine is only the beginning. The old model—where taxpayer dollars flowed outward with little expectation of return—has run its course. The United States must negotiate from strength, secure advantages, and reinforce its global position.

Trump understands what the Washington elite refuses to admit: America must negotiate from strength—or risk being overextended, exhausted, and dangerously exposed to the rise of China.

Are Trump’s Tariffs Really Tariffs?

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

and:

https://victorhanson.com/are-trumps-tariffs-really-tariffs/

February 6, 2025

Hysteria has erupted here and abroad over President Trump’s threats to level trade tariffs against particular countries.

Both American and foreign critics blasted them variously as either counterproductive and suicidal or unfair, imperialistic, and xenophobic.

Certainly, tariffs are widely hated by doctrinaire economists. They complain that tariffs burden consumers with higher prices to protect weak domestic industries that, shielded from competition, will have no incentive to improve efficiency.

Their ideal is “free” trade. Supposedly a free global market alone should adjudicate which particular industry in any country can produce the greatest good for the world’s consumers, whether defined by lower prices or better quality, or both.

Even when “free trade” becomes “unfair trade”—such as China’s massive mercantile surpluses—many neoliberal economists still insist that even subsidized foreign imports are beneficial.

Cheap imports, Americans were told, supposedly still lowered prices for consumers, still forced domestic producers to economize to remain competitive, and still brought “creative destruction,” as inefficient domestic industries properly gave way to more efficient, market-driven ones.

But many exporters to the U.S. are propped up by their own governments.

They may seem more competitive only because their governments want to dump products at a loss to capture market share, subsidize their businesses’ overhead to protect domestic employment or seek to create a monopoly over a strategic industry.

Yet when Trump threatened to level tariffs against Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Venezuela, China, or the European Union, they were not primarily aimed at propping up particular inefficient U.S. industries at all.

Instead, an exasperated Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs for three reasons.

It refused to address its cartels’ illegal multibillion-dollar export of lethal fentanyl into the United States.

The cartels buy Chinese-supplied raw fentanyl with impunity, disguise it to resemble toxic drugs, and smuggle the product across a porous border.

The result over the last decade is more dead Americans from fentanyl than the total number of all U.S. soldiers lost in the wars of the twentieth century.

Second, Mexico had stonewalled all American efforts to stop their export of millions of illegal aliens into the United States—10-12 million in the last four years alone.

Mexico adds insult to injury by raking in profits from some $63 billion in remittances sent from its former resident citizens now residing in the United States and often subsidized by American taxpayers.

Third, Mexico grows its American trade surpluses each year. The imbalance is now a mind-boggling nearly $170 billion.

Trump threatened Canada because it has so far refused to police its side of an open and increasingly dangerous border. And it has racked up a $50 billion surplus by leveling asymmetrical tariffs on lots of U.S. products.

Canada also has refused to keep its NATO promises to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense.

Canada’s pathetic 1.37 percent expenditure is predicated on American magnanimity. The U.S. alone protects Canada under the American North American nuclear shield and subsidizes NATO deadbeats like Canada by funding some 16 percent of the budget of the 32-nation alliance, as well as policing the international seas.

As for Venezuela and Colombia, both communist nations have deliberately emptied their prisons to send hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens into the U.S.—many of them violent felons. They do so either out of crass self-interest, hatred, or a strategic desire to weaken America.

China is a special case.

Its entire 20th-century ascendance was based on stealing U.S. technology, dumping its products on the U.S. market below the cost of production to capture market share, and forcing American corporations to relocate, offshore, and outsource—leaving our industrial hinterland a “rustbelt.”

The European Union runs a gargantuan half-trillion-dollar surplus with the U.S.

How?

Because for nearly the last 80 years, the U.S. has subsidized its defense during the Cold War and afterwards.

Europe acts as if it is recovering from World War II, so it can hit up a supposedly limitlessly rich American patron with asymmetrical tariffs.

Consider the various Trump “tariffs” leveled by an exasperated, and now $36 trillion-indebted, America.

Almost none of them meet the traditional definitions of an industry-protecting tariff.

Instead, they are the last-gasp tools of American leverage used only when decades of bipartisan diplomacy, summits, entreaties, and empty threats have all failed.

So, Trump is not a mercantilist.

Instead, he is trying to stop the multimillion-person influx of foreign criminals, the crashing of the border by millions of illegal aliens, the cartels’ export of American-killing drugs, the violation of past trade agreements, and allies from using America to subsidize their own defense.

The Trump tariffs are the last, desperate effort to reestablish global reciprocity and keep America safe.

And our “shocked” friends, allies, and enemies privately have known that all too well. 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage