Zerohedge

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Russia wants the world to know that North Korea might play a larger role in the conflict…

Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov’s acknowledgement that North Korean troops helped expel Ukraine from Kursk ended around nine months of speculation about their role in the conflict. Rumors began to circulate after Russia and North Korea updated their strategic partnership last June and reaffirmed its mutual defense clause. Western, Ukrainian, and South Korean media then alleged that North Korea sent troops to help Russia while the Kremlin reacted coyly to these reports.

It was only in late October that a clearer picture began to emerge after Putin lent credence to these claims by saying that “Images are a serious thing. If there are images, then they reflect something” upon being asked about satellite images of North Korean troop movements. He also said during the same press conference that “We know who is present there, from which European Nato countries, and how they carry out this work”, thus hinting at Russia’s motive in requesting North Korea’s assistance in Kursk.

Adversarial media’s reports about North Koreans fighting within Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders remain unconfirmed, including the disputed regions that Russia claims as its own in their entirety, but it’s now an indisputable fact that they were fighting within Russia’s universally recognized borders. Kursk region was invaded by Ukraine last August as part of an ultimately failed ploy to swap whatever it could occupy there for some of the Ukrainian-claimed land under Russian control.

Just like Ukraine reportedly requested Western assistance for fighting Russia inside its pre-2014 borders per Putin, who also accused the West of assisting Ukraine’s attacks inside Russia’s universally recognized borders, so too did Russia request North Korea’s assistance for fighting Ukraine in Kursk. His motive was therefore to reciprocally respond to the West’s direct but still unofficial military involvement in the conflict by having North Korea enter the fray on Russia’s side in a similarly clandestine manner till now.

This segues into the why North Korea would agree to Russia’s request, which was presumably for aid (agricultural, military-technical, and space-related) and experience, the latter with regard to having its troops learn how to fight a modern war in case of future hostilities with the South. Given the mutual defense basis for complying with this request, Russia could return North Korea’s favor in that event, the scenario of which might deter its enemies from provoking a war in the peninsula like Pyongyang fears.

Officially acknowledging North Korea’s role in Kursk might have been more about sending a message to Ukraine, however, since the precedent of Putin claiming that the West assists its attacks inside Russia’s universally recognized borders could lead to North Korea participating in an expanded ground offensive. 

Russia might make a major push in Sumy, Kharkov, and/or even Dniepropetrovsk regions, all universally recognized as Ukrainian, either during the ongoing peace talks or especially if they collapse.

The Damocles’ sword of large-scale North Korean involvement in any offensive might be sufficient for coercing Ukraine into concessions or crushing its forces but it could also backfire if the US doubles down on its military aid to Ukraine in response as part of a policy of “escalating to de-escalate”. In any case, Russia wants the world to know that North Korea might play a larger role in the conflict, thus making its official acknowledgement a powerful but risky diplomatic card to play at this pivotal moment.

Thursday saw President Trump and the US Treasury unleash a new sanctions pile-on against Iran, with a new rollout of secondary sanctions targeting Iranian oil and petrochemical products, sending crude prices higher on the day…

“They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” the President wrote on Truth Social in combination with a Treasury statement. It’s as yet unclear precisely how such sanctions will be implemented, with the most extreme or ‘nuclear option’ being naval intervention against vessels transporting Iranian oil.

The main warning and teeth behind it centers on the threat that any nation buying oil or petrochemicals from the Islamic Republic will be barred from doing any business with the US.

“Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions,” Trump stated in the post. Oil had quickly jumped 2% on the mid-afternoon announcement.

Trump is clearly setting out to negotiate from a position of “strength” amid his maximum pressure campaign, aimed at getting Tehran to sign on to a fresh nuclear agreement.

Talks have apparently hit some logistical hurdles, or perhaps Trump’s new secondary sanctions have resulted in jitters and renewal of anger and lack of trust from Iranian leadership:

A fourth round of Iran-US talks over Tehran’s nuclear program has been postponed.

Iran said the two countries, along with facilitators Oman, had jointly decided to postpone Saturday’s meeting in Rome for “logistical and technical reasons”. The US said the timing of the talks had not been confirmed in the first place.

Is this an intentional stall?

Surely it’s also a shot across China’s bow, given that it imports over a million barrels per day from Iran, and for years amid Tehran’s isolation has been the biggest buyer of Iranian crude.

As for when US-Iran talks might resume, after relatively ‘positive’ prior recent rounds, Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi emphasized Thursday on X that Tehran’s “determination to secure a negotiated solution” had not changed.

He wrote: “In fact, we are more determined than ever to achieve a just and balanced deal: guaranteeing an end to sanctions, and creating confidence that Iran’s nuclear program will forever remain peaceful while ensuring that Iranian rights are fully respected.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced a new policy that reduces the default withholding rate to 50 percent for recovering Social Security benefit overpayments under Title II, the federal program covering retirement and disability insurance.

The change, outlined in an “emergency message” dated April 25, comes less than a month after the agency raised the withholding rate to 100 percent of monthly benefits—up from a prior 10 percent—to recoup overpayments. The initial sharp increase drew criticism from some lawmakers and advocates, who warned that full withholding could harm some lower-income Americans who rely on Social Security to meet basic needs.

Under the updated directive, any overpayment notice issued on or after April 25 will automatically carry a 50 percent withholding rate. Beneficiaries will have 90 days to respond—either by contesting the overpayment, requesting a waiver, or negotiating a lower repayment rate. If no action is taken within that window, the SSA will start withholding half the monthly benefit until the overpayment is fully repaid.

The updated rules do not apply to Title XVI overpayments, such as those involving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, who still face the 10 percent withholding rate. The revised policy also excludes cases involving fraud or similar fault, which follow different recovery procedures.

The shift marks the third related policy change in just over a year. In March 2024, the agency lowered the default withholding rate from 100 percent to 10 percent, citing the wish to ease financial hardship for affected Americans.

“It’s unconscionable that someone would find themselves facing homelessness or unable to pay bills, because Social Security withheld their entire payment for recovery of an overpayment,” Martin O’Malley, then Commissioner of Social Security, said at the time.

That policy was reversed last month, on March 27, when SSA reinstated full 100 percent withholding, citing fiscal responsibility and an estimated $7 billion in savings over the next decade.

“We have the significant responsibility to be good stewards of the trust funds for the American people,” Lee Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, said in a statement.

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) criticized the increase as “unconscionable,” arguing that overpayments are not the fault of beneficiaries and overpaid recipients who rely on Social Security to make ends meet would face undue hardship if their entire checks were suddenly seized.

With its latest decision to cut the withholding rate in half, the SSA appears to be seeking a middle ground between fiscal responsibility and potential beneficiary hardship.

The agency disbursed roughly $1.4 trillion in benefits in fiscal year 2023 across its retirement and disability programs, according to the agency’s 2024 financial report. Of that amount, around $3.3 billion—or 0.24 percent—was classified as overpayments.

SSA’s overpayment recovery practices have come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdogs in recent years, particularly for the stress they impose on beneficiaries who may have had little or no role in the errors.

In a November 2023 letter, Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urged the agency to minimize overpayments and protect recipients from abrupt financial disruption, especially when the mistakes stem from agency error.

The Government Accountability Office has echoed those concerns, noting that the majority of disability beneficiaries who return to work eventually face overpayments—often amounting to thousands of dollars due to complex reporting rules and processing delays.

The SSA says it has launched an internal review and is working to expand data-sharing with payroll systems to help reduce payment errors.

It’s an old dictum but it remains true that you never want to interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake.  That said, it’s oh so tempting to analyze the behavior of the Democratic Party as a perfect representation of blind cultism.  How did they plunge from the heights of the Obama Administration and near complete control of American culture to the depths of the Biden Administration, the Kamala Harris campaign and the degeneracy of woke groomers?

One could follow the root back to the problem of absolutism; leftist never admit when they are wrong and they always double down because they think they are the ultimate arbiters of ethics.  Even with the abject failures of Kamala Harris during the 2024 elections the Democrats continue to claim that the “real reason” they lost, the real reason their public approval numbers are at historic lows, is because they “need to do the same things they’ve been doing, but do them harder”.  

This is why the progressive movement is dead in the water.  They just can’t accept that the majority of Americans fundamentally do not like them, their polices or their beliefs.  Most Americans can’t connect to the hypocrisy, and they certainly don’t want to hear criticisms of the Trump Administration by the same people who lied incessantly and failed the country in every way imaginable.

An army of naysayers, primarily among Democrats, have gone on the attack against Trump’s tariffs using obviously scripted terminology, repeating the word “chaos” over an over again in the hopes that it will stick.  In reality, most of the “chaos” has come from the political left trying to disrupt or sabotage Trump’s efforts in any way they can. It’s almost like the 2024 campaign never ended, but that’s how these people operate. 

Kamala Harris, an economic illiterate and possibly one of the most embarrassing candidates the Democrats have ever fielded, has suddenly slithered up from the wreckage of her recent White House bid to regurgitate the same predictable talking points.  She says the tariffs are creating chaos; she also claims that she predicted they would cause a recession and she’s here to say “she told us so”. 

One could argue that recession factors were already heavily present during the Biden Administration, but Democrats are hoping most people don’t actually know what a recession is.

The chaos narrative is a scheme to tap into a subset of the population that innately fears change or reform.  Keep in mind, four years of Biden and Harris brought nothing but total chaos to the US, but economically they did maintain the status quo.  The status quo being the perpetual march into stagflatiory crisis, ever higher prices, ever higher taxes and less economic freedom for the average citizen. 

What the public is desperate for is to try something different, but anytime new fiscal policies are suggested they are immediately and viciously degraded as a trigger for “chaos”. 

These arguments come from people (like Harris) that don’t have the slightest understanding of America’s financial situation.  At this stage, a recession and some moderate deflation would be a welcome development given that the Biden regime helped to inflate prices on necessities beyond what most people in the middle class can afford.  And, if Trump can actually convert tariffs into government revenues to replace the income tax as he has promised, then the economic renaissance that would result would be unmatched.

To be fair, it is in many ways a gamble.  If tariffs are applied for the long term they will require subsequent and speedy manufacturing development on US soil.  This is happening already on a limited scale.  There is also the likelihood that prices on many imported goods will rise.  However, a focus on lowering the costs of domestic necessities like food, energy and housing is what needs to be prioritized (not plastic Chinese trinkets) and sticking with the inflationary trends of globalism is not going to help.     

Harris and Democrats want to tie Trump and conservatives to the economy like an anchor and throw it overboard in the hopes that their ideological opponents will be dragged to the bottom.  They are also overestimating the public’s capacity for forgiveness when it comes to the damage the Dems have already done.  At no point have they offered any practical solutions to the dangers facing the US system. Furthermore, they are greatly underestimating the American desire to see the globalist system crash and burn.  People are cheering the death of globalism, not living in fear of it.

Authored by David Bruce Smith via RealClearPublicAffairs,

John and Abigail Adams envisioned an America with a school in every neighborhood and a well-informed citizenry that was adept in languages, literature, and music, as well as science, history, and religion. Their vision was practical until the ages recast it, little by little.

Then sometime between Joseph McCarthy and Joan Baez, the status quo of the educational system came undone.

Students who had been accustomed to a traditional 50/50 split between the humanities and the sciences were capsized academically by the surprise Sputnik launch in 1957. The U.S.’s race to space sent higher education into a tizzy, becoming fixated on improving science education above all. In the succeeding seven decades, resources have consistently risen for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), which has been to our benefit. But this has come at an unnecessary cost: the humanities have been downplayed, devalued, and dodged.

That uneven ratio has bestowed an unfortunate historic illiteracy on three generations. Most people, for example, do not know the philosophical roots of the Declaration of Independence, their rights as laid out in the Constitution, or the civic virtues their teachers should have taught them. For these three reasons, many Americans do not vote in local, state, or national elections.

Even amid this crisis of civic illiteracy, only about 18% of colleges and universities nationwide require the study of history and government in their general education programs. In years past, when the architecture of academe was different, a plethora of institutions, such as Harvard, Rice, Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, and William & Mary, proffered requirements for focused classes in American history. But their phase-out – begun in the 1960s – was practically completed by 2000.

According to a report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, nowadays, at Columbia University, “Students must take at least nine courses to graduate with a B.A. in history. Of these courses, four must be in a chosen field of geographical, chronological, or thematic specialization, and three must be outside of the specialization, including one course removed in time and two courses removed in space.” In other words, the major requires exposure to a variety of histories – none of which need touch on America.

That gap in Columbia’s history major requirements is deeply troubling, though it at least has a Contemporary Civilization requirement in its signature core curriculum for undergraduates that addresses founding documents and key concepts of United States government. Meanwhile, at Colgate University, which has no such option in its general education requirements,

“Students choose one of two pathways to graduate with a B.A. in history. Both require nine courses. The Field of Focus (FoF) Pathway requires one history workshop, seven electives….. The FoF Pathway allows students to devise individualized, intellectually coherent specializations. Possible fields of focus include environmental history, gender and sexuality, and race and racism.”

This reorientation away from the study of American history – even as a point of reference for students who are focusing their studies on other parts of the world – is now the norm in the American academy. In the 2020–21 academic year, 18 of the top 25 public universities did not have a wide-ranging American history requirement for students seeking a B.A. in history in the major or core curriculum, nor did 24 of the 25 best national schools.

Even the legendary linchpins of the liberal arts – Amherst, Swarthmore, Vassar, Smith, Williams, and Pomona – fared poorly: 21 out of 25 colleges examined did not have an American history requirement.

The consequences of forgoing the study of American history have a powerful effect on the population. Much of what is not learned – or stays uncorrected – turns into the misinformation that is so damaging in a free and democratic society.

When 8th graders were asked in 2011 to choose a “‘belief shared by most people of the United States,’ a majority (51 percent) picked ‘The government should guarantee everybody a job,’ and only a third chose the correct answer: ‘The government should be a democracy.’”

In 2015, 10% of college graduates believed Judy Sheindlin – TV’s “Judge Judy” – was a member of the Supreme Court.

In 2019, ACTA found that 18% of American adults thought New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the architect of the New Deal, a package of programs introduced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. Twenty-six percent believed Brett Kavanaugh was the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, along with another 14% who identified Antonin Scalia, although he had been dead for two years at the time of the survey. Only 12% knew the 13th Amendment freed the slaves in the United States. And 30% thought the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.

In 2024, an ACTA survey of college students showed that fewer than half identified ideas like “free markets” and “rule of law” as core principles of American civic life. The survey also found that 60% of American college students failed to identify term lengths for members of Congress. A shocking 68% did not know that Congress is the branch that holds the power to declare war. Seventy-one percent did not know when 18-year-olds gained the right to vote.

All of these results were based on multiple-choice questions. All the respondents had to do was select the correct option out of four possibilities.  

The late Bruce Cole, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2001 to 2009, admonished, “Unlike a monarchy, a democracy is not automatically self-perpetuating. History and values have to be renewed from generation to generation.” Our failure to educate future citizens for informed civic participation compromises the country. Institutions need to take ACTA’s findings to heart and, starting with their requirements for the history major, embrace their obligation to address the crisis in civic education.  

David Bruce Smith is the founder of the Grateful American® Foundation and co-founder of the Grateful American® Book Prize.

Futures spiked, moving back to session highs and forgetting all about the bitter taste from disappointing results from Amazon and Apple, following news from Bloomberg that China was “assessing the possibility of trade talks with the US” the first sign since Donald Trump hiked tariffs last month that negotiations could begin between the two sides.

China’s Commerce Ministry said in a Friday statement that it had noted senior US officials repeatedly expressing their willingness to talk to Beijing about tariffs, and urged officials in Washington to show “sincerity” towards China.

“The US has recently sent messages to China through relevant parties, hoping to start talks with China,” the ministry added. “China is currently evaluating this.”

Of course, the Chinese spin is one in which the Trump admin reached out first, and which the US pro-China media will promptly use to hammer Trump with, resulting in an even quick denial by the president and thus, China, thereby erasing any hope of an overture, one which won’t come until both sides are quite desperate.

For now, however, the reaction to the flashing red headline was stark as &P 500 erased early losses in Asia while a gauge of regional equities also turned positive after the statement. The offshore yuan edged stronger, while the Australian dollar, a China proxy, also extended gains.

The statement signals the stalemate between the world’s two largest economies could shift, after Trump hiked US tariffs to the highest level in a century and Beijing retaliated in kind.

Trump has repeatedly said President Xi Jinping needs to contact him in order to begin tariff talks and earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it’s up to Beijing to take the first step to de-escalate the dispute; China has done the same.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The State Department recently instructed employees to report workers who exhibited anti-religious bias, including bias against Christians, according to a cable obtained by The Epoch Times.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the April 11 cable directed State Department employees to a reporting form and instructed them to provide “information regarding any Department or individual practices involving anti-religious bias during the last presidential administration (2021-2025); and recommendations to the Secretary of State to remedy any anti-religious bias at the Department.”

The cable was obtained by The Epoch Times via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Employees could provide information anonymously, Rubio said.

The submitted information would be collated, he said, to help the department contribute to an interagency report required by President Donald Trump’s February order aimed at halting anti-Christian discrimination.

“It is the policy of the United States, and the purpose of this order, to protect the religious freedoms of Americans and end the anti-Christian weaponization of government,” Trump wrote in the order, which alleged that during the Biden administration, government officials “engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” such as bringing charges against people who demonstrated outside facilities that perform abortions.

Rubio said that while the order focused on anti-Christian bias, targeting anyone for their religious beliefs violates the Constitution, so people can report other instances of anti-religious bias.

The cable listed examples such as being mistreated for requesting religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination or observing religious holidays; being forced to remove displays of religious faith from desks and clothing; and being mistreated for refusing to participate in activities with themes that ran counter to religious beliefs, such as those “related to preferred personal pronouns.”

The State Department declined to say whether any employees have been fired or otherwise disciplined for exhibiting bias against Christians. “As a general practice, we do not comment on internal personnel matters,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email on April 30.

Last week, Rubio participated in the first meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the federal government, which was created by a Trump executive order.

During that meeting, Rubio raised some of the reported allegations of bias, including claims that Christian Foreign Service officers who homeschooled their children were either reported to the IRS or threatened with a child abuse investigation, according to a Department of Justice readout.

He also disclosed that State Department employees were called “murderers” and “troublemakers” for opposing the government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.

“In one instance, an ambassador yelled at an employee, accusing the employee of wanting to kill the ambassador’s mother despite her being back in the States,” the readout stated.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an April 22 statement that “Biden’s Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses,” adding, “Thanks to President Trump, we have ended those abuses, and we will continue to work closely with every member of this Task Force to protect every American’s right to speak and worship freely.”

A China politics expert warns that the communist regime shows signs of potential collapse, driven by a worsening economy exacerbated by Trump’s aggressive tariff policies.

“At a time when China needs friends because it’s not selling goods to the U.S., it is going out of its way to antagonize not just the Philippines, not just Taiwan, but also South Korea and Australia,” Gordon Chang, senior fellow with the Gatestone Institute, told the Fox Business Network.

“This shows that… this is end-of-regime conduct, because Xi Jinping, he can’t appear to be giving in to the U.S.,” he added. “This is really very perplexing behavior, and it shows that something is very, very wrong in Beijing right now.”

Trump has shown little sign of backing down from his trade war with China, slapping a 145% tariff on Chinese imports. Beijing retaliated with 125% duties on U.S. goods. Trump insists his administration is actively negotiating with Beijing officials, but China’s Foreign Ministry has flatly denied any talks, accusing the U.S. of spreading “baseless rumors.”

The White House argues these tariffs are necessary to protect American workers and counter China’s unfair trade practices, while critics warn of skyrocketing prices, empty shelves, and a looming recession.

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that Chinese authorities have quietly waived some of the 125% retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. imports, including semiconductors, chipmaking equipment, medical products, and aviation parts. This move signals Beijing’s concern about the economic fallout from the ongoing U.S.-China trade war. While China has not publicly confirmed these exemptions.

Gordon Chang sounds alarm over Chinese aggression: ‘This is end of regime conduct’ https://t.co/uvAXbOsmdc @MorningsMaria @FoxBusiness pic.twitter.com/ibSp6e0K73

— Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) April 28, 2025

As we reported earlier:

On Tuesday morning, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick provided clarity on the highly anticipated auto tariff relief, confirming it will apply to all U.S.-built vehicles.

Lutnick said tariffs will apply to those produced by foreign automakers with plants in the US. He added that the relief would be phased in over three years, giving manufacturers time to shift their supply chains back to the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal offered details regarding how relief would resemble:

The decision will mean that automakers paying Trump’s automotive tariffs won’t also be charged for other duties, such as those on steel and aluminum, according to people familiar with the policy.

The move would be retroactive, the people said, meaning that automakers could be reimbursed for such tariffs already paid. The 25% tariff on finished foreign-made cars went into effect early this month.

The administration will also modify its tariffs on foreign auto parts—slated to be 25% and effective May 3—allowing automakers to be reimbursed for those tariffs up to an amount equal to 3.75% of the value of a U.S.-made car for one year. The reimbursement would fall to 2.5% of the car’s value in a second year, and then be phased out altogether.

Ford CEO Jim Farley lauded the move, providing the following statement to WSJ: “Ford welcomes and appreciates these decisions by President Trump, which will help mitigate the impact of tariffs on automakers, suppliers and consumers. We will continue to work closely with the administration in support of the president’s vision for a healthy and growing auto industry in America. Ford sees policies that encourage exports and ensure affordable supply chains to promote more domestic growth as essential.”

Authored by William Anderson via The Mises Institute,

This week, my wife and I have traveled Amtrak’s route to and from Bakersfield, California, with the Amtrak line running down the state’s Central Valley past cities like Fresno and Modesto. As our train sped down the tracks at speeds of up to 83 mph, we could see construction of the much-hyped boondoggle known simply as the California Bullet Train.

Much has been written about the proposed (and proposed really is an understatement) project, which is supposed to run entirely by electricity created from renewable resources. In 2008, California voters approved a bond issue of $9.9 billion to determine the feasibility of the proposed high-speed railroad that would link San Francisco and Los Angeles with a then-$33 billion price tag. I have weighed in myself on this project and its spiraling costs (the present estimated total cost being $135 billion…and rising), writing:

If one tries to make sense of an exercise in spending billions of dollars for a Train to Nowhere, one cannot use conventional financial logic. There is a logical process at work, but it is a logic of a different sort than what appeals to a typical reader of this page. Political logic, especially in a state like California where progressive politics dominates, veers sharply from economic and business logic.

But what does the Central Valley have to do with linking the two California cities, both of which are on the Pacific coast far away from the likes of Bakersfield and Fresno? 

There already exists a rail link between LA and San Francisco, but it is the slow-moving Amtrak that must make its way through the Coastal Range that runs down the western part of the state. 

(An aspiring rail rider would board a CalTrans train from San Francisco to San Jose, then hop aboard Amtrak’s Coast Starlight there as it passes through once a day).

It seems that the promoters of the Bullet Train also are having to bow to the state’s varied geography, which brings us back to construction in the Central Valley. As we looked out the window in the brand-new Amtrak passenger cars recently manufactured for the San Joaquins route, we saw huge concrete viaducts in various stages of completion between Bakersfield and Merced—and that was all the construction we would be able to see, since there is no construction anywhere else on the proposed route.

Understand that no private firm would build a railroad like this because it could never recoup its original costs. 

The current projected outlay of $135 billion almost surely will grow, as the project continues to miss its goals and run into more difficulties. It will be mathematically impossible for the rail line ever to turn a profit, even if it ever is completed—which is highly doubtful.

This leaves us with the line between Bakersfield and Merced, which is not scheduled for completion before 2030 and probably won’t be available until 2033. To understand the absurdity of the whole thing, one should remember that this original Bakersfield-Merced line is being built first because it has the friendliest geography—the Central Valley being flat—which means the trains can run for miles on straight tracks, avoiding the hairpin turns through the mountains that would be a feature elsewhere in the state.

(I have ridden Amtrak many times in California, including going over the Sierra Nevada and in and around the Coastal Range south of San Jose. High-speed rail could not function in these places).

But, even given the flat terrain, much of the Bakersfield-Merced line will have to run on huge concrete viaducts that are extremely costly and will take years to complete. To put it another way, if the lowest-hanging fruit for a rail line has been extremely costly, think what will be the case if they ever try to carve a path around and through the mountains that surround Los Angeles.

To put it another way, as we looked at the ongoing construction of this rail line, we were not looking at success, but rather a huge governmental failure. One would think this would be obvious to nearly everyone, but when California Governor Gavin Newsom and local politicians dedicated this rail line, the rhetoric was so delusional that it was comical. Here are some snippets:

Members of the community and Gov. Gavin Newsom gathered in Kern County where the initial operating segment is taking place. Leticia Perez, chairwoman of the Kern County board of supervisors, said that this project is important for residents of California’s rural Central Valley, providing a 171-mile system from Merced to Bakersfield.

“What is represented today is a game changer, a transformative moment for the Kern County workforce – our access to UC Merced, our access to other parts of the state,” Perez said.

“As a resident of Fresno County, the high-speed rail built right here in the valley has been a dream come true,” said Structures Superintendent Anthony Canales who has been working on the project since 2015. “This is not just a transportation program; it’s a transformation project.”

However, the Central Valley already has passenger rail courtesy of Amtrak and if what we saw on our trip with near-empty cars is an indication of the Amtrak ridership of that area, one seriously doubts that high-speed rail—while a curiosity—will make a difference for people in that valley. The local political rhetoric notwithstanding, even if this monstrosity is completed, it won’t be a “game changer” but rather a conversation piece at best.

The longevity of this failed project is a testament both to political inertia and to the love affair that progressives have with both central government economic planning and especially the high-speed rail. It is a massive malinvestment that is saddling California with huge debts that its taxpayers—most of whom will gain no benefit from the bullet train—will have to shoulder in the future. Those politicians and politically-connected contractors most responsible for this boondoggle will gain the benefits (and get to ride for free), while the victims will have to pay.

The start of this week began badly for the Pentagon, as it revealed it had ‘lost’ a fighter jet in the Red Sea amid the ongoing Yemen bombing campaign. A US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet “fell overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier while it was being towed on board” – the US military said, and supposedly while the large carrier was making an evasive turn amid inbound Houthi drones or missiles.

The Houthis have been celebrating this as a ‘win’. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has on Thursday put Iran on notice, alleging close support from Tehran to the Houthis, saying it ‘will pay’.

Hegseth addressed the Iranians in a fresh message on X, saying: “We see your lethal support to the Houthis. We know exactly what you are doing.”

“You know very well what the US military is capable of — and you were warned. You will pay the consequence at the time and place of our choosing,” he continued.

Hegseth as part of the message shared a screenshot of a prior Trump post on his Truth Social, originally written in mid-March, in which the president charged that Iran is “dictating every move” the Houthis make as well as providing arms and intelligence. 

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of Iran,” the president wrote at the time.

But the Islamic Republic has firmly rejected the accusations, highlighting that the Houthis are a political and military movement which acts independently and makes its own decisions, especially on the battlefield.

“Ansar Allah (the Houthis), as the representative of the Yemenis, makes its own strategic decisions, and Iran has no role in setting the national or operational policies of any movement in the resistance front,” Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander Hossein Salami said soon after the US renewed its bombing campaign on March 15.

The Houthis have pledged not to stop attacks on Western warships in the Red Sea as well as Israel, so long as Israel’s military remains active in Gaza. The Red Sea conflict started again almost immediately after the Hamas-Israel ceasefire and hostage exchange deal collapsed.

International shipping through the vital water-way has been essentially blocked for well over a year, and the industry has been forced to adjust. Russian and Chinese commercial vessels have been allowed safe-passage by the Houthis.

https://t.co/DKl55mmFaT pic.twitter.com/vsVttencfH

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) May 1, 2025

Hegseth’s fresh threat toward Iran strongly suggests the Iran debate is still alive and well within the administration. Trump has been urging Iran to sign a fresh nuclear deal or else face possible bombing campaign by the US, and likely Israel. Hegseth has previously been reported to be on DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s side – against the hawks and desiring climb-down in terms of Iran tensions.