Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why EU trade tactics won’t work on Beijing

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 4, 2025

The European Union’s attempt to use trade policy as leverage to shift China’s stance on Russia is faltering, as Beijing firmly resists linking economic ties to geopolitical alignments.

EU-China Ties: Geopolitics more than Trade

The July 24 meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing was widely described by international media as tense. At the close of the summit, von der Leyen reiterated that the European Union’s relationship with China stood at a “clear inflection point”—a diplomatic phrase signaling that long-standing tensions are now entangled with sharper geopolitical stakes.

Central to this strain is not merely the imbalance in trade—though China’s growing trade surplus with the EU has triggered increasing scrutiny—but rather, the political conditions under which future economic cooperation might occur. While the EU recently imposed tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese electric vehicle imports—citing market distortion and unfair subsidies—the conversation between the two leaders revealed that trade alone was not the core issue. Instead, the underlying tension revolved around China’s strategic alignment with Russia.

Behind closed doors, EU officials conveyed a pointed message: Beijing’s continued support for Moscow, particularly in the context of Russia’s military conflict with Ukraine, is an obstacle to improving trade relations. Von der Leyen was unusually blunt when she stated at the summit’s conclusion, “How China continues to interact with Putin’s war will be a determining factor for our relations going forward”. She obviously did not discuss the underlying reasons, i.e., Washington’s and EU states’ bid to expand NATO to include Ukraine and militarily encircle Russia, for Russia’s military conflict with Ukraine.

In response, President Xi Jinping pushed back against this framing. He maintained that “the challenges facing Europe today do not come from China,” and emphasized that there are “no fundamental conflicts of interest or geopolitical contradictions between China and Europe.” His comments signaled Beijing’s desire to compartmentalize its relationship with Moscow, resisting the EU’s efforts to link trade policy with foreign policy alignment.

For Brussels, however, such compartmentalization may no longer be tenable. European foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the transatlantic context. As the United States ramps up pressure on NATO allies—most of whom are in Europe—to boost defense spending and expand military capabilities, the EU finds itself under both strategic and political pressure to limit Russia’s influence. US officials have repeatedly called on European partners to take a more assertive role in confronting shared adversaries, with Russia chief among them.

How can the EU manage the so-called “threat” from Russia? One way is to boost its defence spending. But defence capacity cannot be increased overnight. It is a long-term solution. Simultaneously, therefore, Brussels is increasingly relying on its trade ties with China as a pressure tactic to strengthen its position vis-à-vis Beijing. EU officials hope that if China can somehow be weaned away from Russia, it might help them force Moscow to the negotiating table and end the ongoing conflict in ways that might protect their long-term interests. It is for this very reason that the EU has now begun sanctioning Chinese entities that may have some connection with Russia. This is pretty evident, in the EU’s decision to impose sanctions last week on two Chinese banks for their role in supplying Russia. Obviously, it annoyed Beijing, but it also sent a clear message. However, if the EU hopes that these pressures will force China to “decouple” from Moscow, it might be sorely mistaken.

Beijing won’t submit to pressure

China recently found success vis-à-vis the Trump administration’s so-called “Global War on Trade”. The US was forced to start negotiations with Beijing because the latter was able to demonstrate not only resilience but also its ability to dominate the global supply chain of critical minerals, forcing the Trump administration to roll back some export curbs on China, including a stunning reversal of the ban on sales of a key Nvidia AI chip.

In today’s context, the EU and the US are hardly the strongest of allies. With the EU fighting US tariffs separately, Beijing fully understands that there are no swords hanging over its head to quickly resolve trade or geopolitical issues with the EU in ways that may not protect Beijing’s interests. Still, while the expectation in both Washington and Brussels was that tariffs would hurt the Chinese economy hard enough for it to change its geopolitical position vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine, the Chinese economy has been performing well. In fact, it has delivered better-than-expected growth months into the trade war, according to government data, posting a record trade surplus that underscores the resilience of its exports as they pivot away from the US market. The EU economy, on the contrary, is facing sluggish growth rates in 2025 and will continue to grow very slowly in 2026. It is for this reason that when China slowed exports of rare earth minerals to Europe, it triggered a temporary shutdown of production lines at European auto parts manufacturers. And this month, China hit back at European Union curbs on government purchases of Chinese medical devices by imposing similar government procurement restrictions on European medical equipment.

The EU, therefore, must tread carefully. If the Trump administration was unable to force China into submission, Brussel’s capacity is no match either. In fact, Brussel’s core interests will be served much better if it were to 1) de-link its China policy from the US policy on China, and 2) de-link European geopolitical tensions from its ties with China. The EU can surely approach and maintain its ties with Beijing on their own merit and independently of any external factors.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

China Chokes Western Defense Supply With Minerals Stranglehold – Reports

Sputnik – 04.08.2025

China is restricting supplies of critical minerals to Western defense firms, delaying production and forcing them to seek alternatives in other markets, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing sources at the companies.

For example, the newspaper points out, one drone manufacturer that supplies the US military was forced to delay orders for up to two months while it searched for a replacement for Chinese magnets made from rare earth metals.

Traders told the newspaper that some materials needed by the Western defense industry were now selling at prices five or more times higher than they were before China imposed the restrictions.

More than 80,000 components used by the Pentagon contain minerals that are subject to China’s export restrictions, the publication recalled. At the same time, almost all of the US military’s supply chains for these minerals depend on at least one Chinese supplier, so Beijing’s restrictions could cause major problems for the US military.

In addition, Western buyers told the newspaper that China was requesting detailed information about the purpose of the purchased minerals so that they were not used by Western companies in military production.

In early April, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that Beijing had placed 16 US companies on an export control list to control the export of dual-use goods. As the New York Times noted, Beijing has suspended the export of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, which are needed, in particular, to assemble cars, drones, robots and missiles.

In June, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that China had agreed to resume issuing rare earth export licenses to US automakers and industrial plants, but limited the permits to six months. Reuters also reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that China had not committed to granting export permits for some specialized rare earth magnets that US military suppliers need for fighter jets and missile systems.

Rare earth elements are a group of 17 metals that are widely used in high-tech devices, including computers, televisions, and smartphones, as well as in defense technologies, including missiles, lasers, transportation systems, and military communications.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Constitution, Foreign Wars, and the Tenth Amendment

By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | August 4, 2025

When a sitting U.S. president decides to commit tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to foreign conflicts, ordinary citizens seldom ask whether such largesse has a constitutional basis. Yet America was founded on the principle that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. Those powers were carefully listed in Article I of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the United States to the states or to the people. The Constitution demands that any action taken by the federal government—including funding and arming foreign belligerents—be supported by an enumerated power.

President Donald Trump’s decisions in 2025 to dramatically increase arms shipments to Ukraine and to release large bombs and precision munitions to Israel, despite accusations that Israel’s campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide, are therefore more than just foreign‐policy controversies. They challenge the constitutional structure itself. So how would the Founders evaluate the Trump administration’s approach juxtaposed with the federal government designed in 1787?

Among Congress’ powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution are the power to lay and collect taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare,” to borrow money, to regulate commerce, to declare war and raise armies, and to make laws “necessary and proper” for executing those powers. There is no clause authorizing Congress to fund or arm foreign governments to prosecute wars in which the United States is not a belligerent. James Madison explained in Federalist No. 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while the powers remaining with the states are “numerous and indefinite.” The delegated powers relate principally to “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;” the states retain authority over “the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” In other words, the Constitution authorized the federal government to provide for national defense and to wage war when necessary, but not to become the perpetual armorer for other nations’ wars.

The Bill of Rights codifies this principle with the Tenth Amendment. Thomas Jefferson invoked this principle in his 1791 opinion against chartering a national bank. He wrote that the Constitution is founded on the rule that “all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution…are reserved to the states or to the people.” To “take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,” he warned, “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson feared that if Congress could infer powers from vague phrases like “general welfare,” then “all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power” would become “completely useless.” He insisted that the general-welfare language allowed Congress only to lay taxes for the enumerated purposes, not to wield a general police power.

In July 2025, President Trump announced what Reuters described as a “weapons purchasing scheme” whereby European allies would donate Patriot missile batteries and other equipment to Ukraine and the United States would sell those allies new American replacements. Trump framed the arrangement as a way to press Russia for a ceasefire: if Moscow did not stop the war, he threatened 100% tariffs on Russian exports. Under the plan, Patriot systems were expected to arrive in Ukraine “within days,” yet American officials admitted that the scheme remained largely an unfleshed framework. Europe would foot the bill for the donated equipment while U.S. arms manufacturers would profit from replenishing their stockpiles. This arrangement appealed to Trump’s political base by making Europeans “pay” for Ukraine’s defense.

From a constitutional perspective, however, the plan is problematic. Congress’ enumerated powers include raising and supporting armies and providing for the “common defense” of the United States, not arming foreign armies. Defenders might argue that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens global stability and thus implicates U.S. national security. But even if one accepts that the fate of Ukraine indirectly affects American interests, the enumerated powers restrict Congress to means necessary for America’s defense. Nothing in Article I authorizes Congress to conscript the American taxpayer into financing a proxy war in Eastern Europe. The constitutional principle is not that Congress may do anything that might promote the general welfare of humanity; Jefferson specifically rejected that interpretation. Under a strict reading, if no U.S. declaration of war has been issued and America itself is not under attack, there is no enumerated power to funnel weapons to a foreign government.

Economists often remind us that trade‐offs are inescapable. Money and weapons sent overseas are resources not available for domestic defense or to be returned to the taxpayers. The Trump administration’s scheme is not cost‐free simply because European governments are paying for some of the weapons. It requires huge U.S. manufacturing capacity and could lead to backlogs for America’s own defense needs. The plan also invites entanglement: once the United States supplies an ally with advanced missile systems, its credibility becomes tied to the ally’s success. As then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams warned in 1821, America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” She is “the champion and vindicator only of her own,” and knows that if she enlists under other banners she will be “involve[d]…in all the wars of interest and intrigue…which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.” Adams cautioned that once America did so, her “fundamental maxims” would change from liberty to force and she could “become the dictatress of the world.” A policy that openly arms Ukraine while threatening tariffs on any nation buying Russian oil moves the United States closer to the dictatress Adams feared.

The Trump administration’s support for Israel has been even more direct. On January 25, 2025, Trump instructed the U.S. military to release 2,000‑pound bombs that the Joe Biden administration had withheld over concern for civilian casualties in Gaza. Trump justified the decision by saying that Israel had paid for the bombs and “they’ve been waiting for them for a long time.” When asked why he released them, he replied, “because they bought them.” The bombs had been withheld because of their potential to cause indiscriminate destruction; a single 2,000‑pound bomb can rip through thick concrete and create a wide blast radius. Humanitarian advocates had urged an arms embargo amid Israel’s assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 47,000 people and caused widespread hunger and displacement. Israel denies accusations of genocide and war crimes, but a United Nations special rapporteur reported to the Human Rights Council that there were “reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide” in Gaza had been met, citing more than 30,000 Palestinians killed.

In February 2025, the Trump administration followed up with an emergency approval of nearly $3 billion in bombs and demolition kits for Israel. The package included 35,529 general‑purpose bomb bodies for 2,000‑pound bombs and 4,000 bunker‑busting bombs, as well as thousands of 1,000‑pound bombs and Caterpillar bulldozers. The sale bypassed normal congressional review and used emergency authorities; it was the second such emergency action that month. Ari Tolany of the Center for International Policy argued that the administration’s plan to sell Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to Israel risked aiding and abetting war crimes because these weapons “have been used to level Gaza and kill thousands of civilians.”

Under the Constitution, only Congress may declare war. Yet the United States is effectively supplying the means for Israel’s war in Gaza without any congressional debate over American involvement. Even if one believes that Israel has a right to self‑defense, the question for constitutionalists is whether the federal government may finance and supply weapons for another nation’s military campaign as an ordinary matter of foreign relations. The text of Article I does not authorize Congress to provide bombs to allies to prosecute wars unconnected to America’s own defense. Therefore, the appropriation of funds for these weapons violates the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of undelegated powers.

Trump’s Ukraine plan also threatens another enumerated power: the power to regulate commerce. Article I empowers Congress “To regulate commerce with foreign nations.” But using trade sanctions or tariffs as a tool to coerce foreign nations to adopt specific foreign policies is far removed from the original understanding of regulating commerce to remove barriers and facilitate trade among states and nations. Threatening to impose 100% tariffs on any country that buys Russian oil if Moscow does not reach a ceasefire turns the commerce power into an instrument of foreign policy—precisely the sort of expansion Jefferson warned would convert the general‐welfare clause into a boundless power.

Similarly, Article I authorizes Congress to “raise and support Armies” but specifies that no appropriation for this purpose shall be for more than two years. The framers inserted this limitation to prevent standing armies from becoming instruments of tyranny. If the federal government may indefinitely support foreign armies, this temporal limitation becomes meaningless. The enumerated purpose of providing for the “common defense” cannot be stretched to include the defense of every foreign nation that faces aggression.

America’s founding statesmen repeatedly cautioned against entangling the young republic in the endless quarrels of Europe and the wider world. In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington admonished Americans to avoid intertwining their destiny with that of other countries. He asked, “Why…entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” Washington declared that “it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” He acknowledged existing treaties but insisted that it would be “unwise to extend them.”

Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment in his first inaugural address. Among what he called “essential principles of our Government” were “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” and “the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies.” He also urged a “wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another” yet “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” The principle of nonintervention is not a pacifist ideal; it flows from a recognition that involvement in foreign wars inevitably expands federal power and requires taxation and regulation, which a frugal government should avoid.

Supporters of large foreign‐aid packages often point to humanitarian concerns. Russia’s invasion has caused immense suffering in Ukraine, and Hamas’ attack on Israel in 2023 and Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza have killed tens of thousands. But genuine compassion does not justify the federal government’s ignoring the constitutional framework. If Congress can spend billions of dollars arming foreign nations whenever a humanitarian crisis arises, what remains of the Tenth Amendment’s promise that undelegated powers are reserved to the states or the people? Jefferson’s warning that a single extra‐constitutional step would lead to a boundless field of power applies with full force.

There are also practical dangers. The Trump administration’s policy of threatening massive tariffs to coerce other countries could ignite trade wars, harming American farmers and manufacturers. The Patriot missiles sent abroad may never be returned; European allies may expect America to replace them, straining the U.S. industrial base. Arming Ukraine could provoke escalation with nuclear‑armed Russia. Supplying thousands of bombs to Israel—bombs that can flatten entire city blocks—deepens America’s entanglement in a conflict that many around the world see as genocide. Already, global critics call for an arms embargo on Israel; continuing to supply munitions risks making the United States complicit in alleged war crimes. Observant economists point out that the first law of economics is scarcity and that the first law of politics is to ignore the first law of economics. By ignoring constitutional limits, politicians also ignore economic limits.

More fundamentally, unlimited foreign aid undermines accountability. When the federal government spends billions overseas, the average citizen has little influence over how that money is used. The states and local communities, whose resources are diverted through federal taxation, cannot easily reclaim them. This is precisely the tyranny Madison and Jefferson feared—a remote central government using the Treasury for purposes far beyond its delegated authority.

What might a constitutionally faithful approach to international conflicts look like? First, Congress should recognize that its powers are limited to external objects directly affecting the United States. If Americans want to support Ukraine or Israel, they are free to do so privately. States could also decide, within their own constitutional frameworks, to provide humanitarian aid. But the federal government has no enumerated power to serve as the world’s arsenal.

Second, when true national defense is implicated—for example, if foreign aggression directly threatens the United States or its treaty obligations—Congress should follow the proper procedure: debate, vote and, if necessary, declare war. There is no substitute for constitutional deliberation. As Madison observed in 1793, “the power of declaring war…ought to be fully and exclusively vested in the legislature” because the executive is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it.” Only Congress represents the states and the people and therefore can ensure that war is undertaken only when absolutely necessary.

Third, the United States should return to Washington and Jefferson’s counsel of nonpermanent alliances. Temporary alignments in emergencies are sometimes necessary, but permanent entanglements lead to endless commitments and encourage foreign governments to rely on American arms instead of pursuing their own defense or negotiating peace. As Washington put it, America should avoid “interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe,” and Jefferson urged “peace, commerce, and honest friendship…entangling alliances with none.”

A constitution of enumerated powers is more than a parchment barrier; it is the guardrail that preserves a free and self‑governing republic. The Trump administration’s decisions to supply huge quantities of arms to Ukraine and to resume shipments of massive bombs to Israel, while perhaps motivated by geopolitical calculation or partisan politics, cannot be justified by any enumerated power. They are precisely the sort of “boundless field of power” Jefferson warned against when he said that powers not delegated are reserved to the states and the people. They also run contrary to the Founders’ repeated warnings to avoid entangling alliances and foreign wars.

Sound economic thinking emphasizes that policies must be judged by their incentives and long-term consequences. Ignoring the Tenth Amendment to fund foreign wars not only erodes constitutional limits but also sets precedents that future presidents can exploit. If we accept the argument that the general welfare authorizes arming allies today, nothing prevents a president tomorrow from using the same rationale to police internal affairs of states, nationalize industries or regulate every aspect of life. In the end, constitutional government requires the humility to recognize that, however compelling a cause may seem, the federal government may act only within its delegated authority. As Adams urged Americans in 1821, let us recommend freedom abroad by the “benignant sympathy of our example,” not by sending missiles and bombs. Only by honoring the limits the Founders set can America remain both free at home and a moral force abroad.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Cutting Russia ties has cost EU €1 trillion – Moscow

RT | August 4, 2025

The EU’s decision to reduce energy and trade cooperation with Moscow over the Ukraine conflict has cost the bloc more than €1 trillion ($1.15 trillion), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said.

In an interview with Izvestia on Monday, Grushko said the figure is based on various expert estimates of the economic consequences of the EU’s decision to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, adding that it accounts for lost profits from energy and trade cooperation.

According to Grushko, trade between the EU and Russia dropped from €417 billion ($482 billion) in 2013 to €60 billion ($69 billion) in 2023 and is now “approaching zero.” He added that Europe’s economy has subsequently taken a hit and is losing competitiveness.

“Natural gas in Europe is four to five times more expensive than in the US, and electricity is two to three times higher,” he said. “That is the price Europe has to pay for ending all economic contacts with Russia.”

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that refusing Russian gas supplies had cost EU countries around €200 billion ($231 billion). In late 2024, Russian officials also estimated that total EU losses tied to sanctions against Russia had reached $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Moscow has said it has acquired a “certain immunity” to Western sanctions.

Grushko’s comments come after the EU agreed a trade deal with the US, which commits the bloc to purchasing large volumes of American energy – which Moscow says will come at a much steeper cost than that provided by Russia – and imposes 15% tariffs on key EU exports. Numerous EU politicians have described the agreement as lopsided and damaging to the bloc’s interests.

Commenting on the US-EU deal, Putin claimed that the EU had essentially lost its political sovereignty, and that this directly leads to losing economic independence.

The EU began imposing sanctions on Russia in 2014, following the start of the Ukraine crisis, and expanded them drastically in 2022. Measures have targeted banking, energy exports, and other industries. Moscow considers the sanctions illegal, saying they violate international trade rules and harm global economic stability.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Russian Intel Warns of UK Plan to Stage Tanker Incident

Sputnik – 04.08.2025

British intelligence agencies are planning to involve NATO allies in launching a large-scale crackdown on the so-called “shadow fleet” carrying Russian oil, the press bureau of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Monday.

“According to information received by the SVR, British intelligence services are planning to engage NATO allies to carry out a massive sweep of the ‘shadow fleet’. London’s idea is to trigger such a campaign with a high-profile incident involving one or several tankers. The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow them to declare Russian oil transportation a threat to global maritime navigation,” the statement said.

According to the SVR, this would give the West free rein in choosing methods of counter-action.

“In the extreme scenario, this could mean detaining any ‘suspicious’ vessels in international waters and escorting them to NATO member-state ports,” the statement added.

The plan envisions staging a major act of sabotage, the damage from which would allow the transportation of Russian oil to be deemed a threat.

“The UK intends to time the attack to maximize its media impact and use it to pressure Donald Trump’s administration. The goal is to force Washington, against its own national interests, to adopt the harshest possible secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy resources, portraying them as ‘indirect culprits of the tragedy,’” the SVR emphasized.

London allegedly plans to assign the execution of these anti-Russian attacks on tankers to Ukrainian security forces.

“Their predictably dirty work and inability to ‘cover their tracks’ are seen by the British as a guarantee of their own impunity. An international investigation would place responsibility either on Russia or – at worst – on Ukraine, similar to the sabotage of Nord Stream,” the SVR statement said.

According to the report, London’s scenario involves engineering an “accident” with an “undesirable” tanker in one of the world’s narrow maritime chokepoints, such as a strait, creating grounds for NATO countries to conduct an “emergency inspection.”

“The British are working through two potential casus belli. The first is to stage an accident with an ‘undesirable’ tanker in a narrow maritime passage. The resulting oil spill and blockage of the waterway, London believes, would give NATO states ‘sufficient’ justification to establish a precedent for ‘emergency checks’ of vessels, ostensibly to verify compliance with maritime safety and environmental regulations,” the SVR noted.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | | Leave a comment

EPA Finally Proposes To Rescind The Endangerment Finding

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 29, 2025

It’s been a long time coming. But today the EPA, through its Administrator Lee Zeldin, finally began the formal process of rescinding the so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF). The EF is the 2009 regulatory action by which the Obama-era EPA purported to determine that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger to human health and welfare.” That Finding then formed the basis for all subsequent federal greenhouse gas regulations, including efforts of Obama and Biden regulators to force the closure of all power plants running on coal and natural gas, and to mandate increased vehicle mileage to levels that no internal combustion engine could meet.

EPA initiated the rescission process today by means of an announcement in a speech by Zeldin, who appeared at an event in Indianapolis, and also through this document, titled “Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards.” The document looks to be about a couple of hundred pages long, although it’s hard to know exactly, because the pages aren’t numbered.

Long time readers here will know that I have been an active participant in efforts, beginning when President Trump first took office in 2017, to get the EF rescinded. Immediately after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, co-counsel Harry MacDougald and I filed a Petition to EPA, on behalf of the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), seeking the rescission. Here is a post I wrote in April 2017, describing the initiation of the petition process, and also linking to our Petition. But during Trump’s first term, despite the critical importance of the EF in supporting all of the burdensome “climate” regulations, EPA never undertook the rescission process. We continued to press the point, filing some seven supplements to our Petition during the four years of Trump’s first term. For example, here is a post from July 2017 announcing the first of the Supplements to our Petition, based on new research at the time.

Ultimately our Petition was denied in 2022 by the Biden EPA. We then appealed that denial to the DC Circuit, where our appeal was denied in 2023, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, where certiorari was denied in 2024.

Well, the proposal in today’s document will reverse the denial of our Petition. I can’t give you a page cite, but this quote is from the page of the EPA document that contains footnote 15:

If finalized, this action would also rescind denial[] of petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding in 2022 . . . entitled “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Action on Petitions,” 87 FR 25412 (Apr. 29, 2022). . . .

Vindication!

As to the grounds for the prospective rescission, EPA appears ready to take on both the legal and scientific bases of the EF. As to the legal analysis, the following quote comes from the page preceding footnote 42:

Section IV.A of this preamble describes our primary proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding by concluding that CAA section 202(a) does not authorize the EPA to prescribe standards for GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns or to issue standalone findings that do not apply the statutory standard for regulation as a cohesive whole. If finalized, this proposal would require rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations because we lacked statutory authority to issue them in the first instance. . . . Next, we propose that the Nation’s response to global climate change concerns generally, and specifically whether that response should include regulating GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines, is an economically and politically significant issue that triggers the major questions doctrine under UARG and West Virginia, and that Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to decide it by empowering the Administrator to “prescribe … standards” under CAA section 202(a). Throughout this section, we propose that the Endangerment Finding relied on various forms of Chevron deference to depart from the best reading of the statute and exceeded the EPA’s authority in several fundamental respects, any one of which would independently require rescission to conform to the best reading of the law.

On the subject of “climate science,” the following quote comes from the document’s pre-amble:

[T]he Administrator has serious concerns that many of the scientific underpinnings of the Endangerment Finding are materially weaker than previously believed and contradicted by empirical data, peer-reviewed studies, and scientific developments since 2009.

Then, on the page with footnote 87 there begins a lengthy section titled “Climate Science Discussion.” The gist of this entire section is that the alarmists have not proved their claims. There are lengthy paragraphs reviewing data on all the major “extreme weather” claims, and citing work showing no increasing or accelerating trends in things like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, sea level and the like. Here is a paragraph that reiterates a theme of our Petition, namely that the amount of human caused global warming cannot be separated from what may be caused by natural factors:

The Administrator is also troubled by the Endangerment Finding’s seemingly inconsistent treatment of the nature and extent of the role human action with respect to climate change. The Endangerment Finding attributes the entirety of adverse impacts from climate change to increased GHG concentrations, and it attributes virtually the entirety of increased GHG concentrations to anthropogenic emissions from all sources. But the causal role of anthropogenic emissions is not the exclusive source of these phenomena, and any projections and conclusions bearing on the issue should be appropriately discounted to reflect additional factors. Moreover, recent data and analyses suggest that attributing adverse impacts from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in a reliable manner is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis of the role of natural factors and other anthropogenic factors such as urbanization and localized population growth (2025 CWG Draft Report at 14-22, 82-92).

The process here will likely take until around the end of this year for EPA to formally enact the rescission. And then the legal battles begin — first to the DC Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. The big question: Can the administration get this process to the Supreme Court in time to avoid a reversal of this whole regulatory effort by a Democratic administration that could be elected in 2028? I would think that if the Supremes have upheld this effort of Trump’s EPA before January 2029, it will be very difficult for a subsequent administration to reverse. On the other hand, if the status as of January 2029 is that the DC Circuit has struck down EPA’s rescission and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, it would be much easier to attempt a reversal. But the ongoing failure of “net zero” energy transition plans in places like New York, California, Germany and the UK may make reversal a dead letter anyway.

I want to offer my thanks and gratitude to the small band of independent thinkers who have fought this lonely battle all these years, in the face of the billions of dollars at the hands of the climate industrial juggernaut. For particular mention: the members of CHECC (including its moving force, James Wallace); my co-counsel Harry MacDougald; the few think tanks that have taken on this issue, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who filed a Petition for rescission of the EF along with ours) and the Heartland Institute; the CO2 Coalition, including its Chair Will Happer and Executive Director Greg Wrightstone; CFACT; the Global Warming Policy Foundation (I serve on its Board); and Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That. I’m sure that there are a few that I have forgotten. Congratulations to all!

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

EV Update: Will The Market Survive The Expiration Of The Federal Tax Credit?

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | July 26, 2025

How quickly things change.

It was barely more than a year ago that climate activists and federal bureaucrats thought they had maneuvered the internal combustion engine (ICE) automobile to the brink of extinction. ICE vehicles had become like dinosaurs, inferior to their new competitors the EVs, and therefore headed for the scrap heap of history. Customers were flocking to the trendy new EVs, which were seeing rapidly rising sales.

And the all-powerful federal bureaucracy was going to give the final push to put ICE vehicles out of their misery. On June 7, 2024 President Biden’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had issued a final rule (“Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond”) jacking up mandatory average vehicle mileage to 50+ [mpg] as of 2031, with further increases to follow from there. Since no ICE vehicles bigger than a baby carriage could achieve that mileage, the only path forward for vehicle manufacturers would be rapid conversion to making only EVs. NHTSA’s mileage rule had also quickly followed an equally draconian mandate from EPA, finalized on April 18, 2024 (“Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles”) setting strict and declining limits for CO2 emissions that no ICE vehicles would be able to meet by the early 2030s. And meanwhile, 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act had extended a $7500 tax credit to buyers of new EVs through December 31, 2032.

So all the pieces were in place. By some time in the early 2030s, it would be effectively illegal to sell new ICE cars, and they would be rapidly disappearing from the roads.

Well, not so fast. Suddenly, the rapid advance of the EV may have stalled out completely. The federal regulators have reversed their direction. And customer preferences seemingly favorable to EVs may turn out to evaporate as soon as federal tax benefits end, an event now just a couple of months away.

NHTSA’s CAFE standards just got eviscerated by the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. Although the standards themselves have not yet been rescinded, the OBBB re-set the enforcement mechanism to have a maximum penalty of zero. This is from a July 8, 2025 memo from the law firm Sidley & Austin:

In one of its many changes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, eliminated civil penalties for noncompliance with federal fuel economy standards.  Specifically, Section 40006 of the Act amends the language of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) statute to reset the maximum civil penalty to $0.00.  Although the statute and its implementing regulations otherwise remain in place, this amendment removes any civil penalties for producing passenger cars and light trucks that do not meet fuel economy requirements.

As to the EPA-mandated CO2 emissions limits for vehicles, EPA announced on March 12, 2025 that it was beginning a process of reconsidering the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions rule that had just been adopted less than a year before. Excerpt:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will reconsider the Model Year 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles regulation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. In addition to imposing over $700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs, these rules provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate that takes away Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.

That one may be in the regulatory grinder for many months, but with little doubt as to what the final result will be, namely full rescission.

And the $7500 per new vehicle tax credit? After just having been extended to 2032 by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the credit has now been modified by the OBBBA to end as of September 30, 2025. From Kiplinger, July 12:

With the passage of President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax reform, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) the federal EV tax credit will expire for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. As a result, buyers have only a short window left to take advantage of these federal savings.

All of a sudden, EVs and ICE vehicles are set to compete on a completely level playing field, with no mandates or tax credits propping up the EV side of the competition. How will that turn out? It remains to be seen, but data from the first half of the year indicate that the previous rapid increase in EV sales may already be stalling out. In a reversal for a previously rapidly-growing market segment, sales of EVs in the second quarter of 2025 declined significantly from the same period the prior year. From Cox Automotive, July 14, 2025:

[S]ales of new electric vehicles (EVs) in the second quarter of 2025 were lower year over year by 6.3%, in line with the Cox Automotive forecast. A total of 310,839 new EVs were sold in the U.S, down from 331,853 in the same period a year earlier. Sales in Q2 were higher than in Q1 by 4.9%, and total EV sales through the first half of 2025 set a record at 607,089, representing a 1.5% year-over-year increase.

Cox continues to predict a spike in EV sales in the third quarter of 2025, in the run-up to the expiration of the tax credit on September 30. However, after that, it is entirely likely that there will be a significant decline. Without the government mandates and subsidies, it’s hard to see EVs expanding much beyond being a niche product used as a second (or third) vehicle by affluent buyers.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Daniel Davis: Trump’s Threats Against Russia Backfire

Glenn Diesen | August 2, 2025

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran and the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Lt. Col. Davis argues that Trump’s ultimatum is hardening the Russian position as the prospect of a peaceful settlement collapses. Sanctions have been exhausted, and there are no more weapons that can be sent that will significantly impact the battlefield. When the frontlines collapse in Ukraine, Trump may get desperate and act dangerously.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Iraq’s PMF law seen as test of sovereignty amid US objections

Al Mayadeen | August 3, 2025

Iraqi Popular Mobilization Authority chief Faleh al-Fayyad affirmed on Sunday that the vote on the draft Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) law represents a “national responsibility tied to the dignity of those who answered the call of the religious authority and defended Iraq’s sovereignty.”

In a message addressed to members of Iraq’s parliament, al-Fayyad described the moment as one that reflects loyalty to the history and sacrifices of PMF fighters, many of whom played key roles in the defeat of ISIS.

“Passing this law is not just a legislative step. It is an affirmation of the rights of those who wrote Iraq’s glory with their blood, and a recognition from the people for those who bore arms to defend Iraq and its unity,” al-Fayyad said.

Draft law guarantees rights of PMF fighters 

The legislation seeks to enshrine the rights of PMF personnel and provide a legal framework governing their structure, responsibilities, and benefits. According to Al Mayadeen’s Baghdad correspondent, the law aims to better regulate the Popular Mobilization Authority’s operations and grant it stronger legal recognition under Iraqi law.

However, the law has drawn criticism from Washington. US Senator Marco Rubio reportedly expressed “deep concern” about the legislation during recent talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani.

Rubio claimed the law would “entrench Iranian influence and empower armed groups that undermine Iraqi sovereignty,” reflecting US unease with Iraq’s growing military independence and refusal to marginalize the PMF, which has long been a target of US pressure.

PMF integral to Iraq state institutions

Al-Fayyad last year said the adoption of the service and retirement law for the PMF is the first sign of loyalty to the fighters, stressing that what has been achieved was in the spirit of Resistance and not in the spirit of a job.

Speaking at a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of the PMF, al-Fayyad said, “The PMF did not achieve what it did in the spirit of paying for fighting, as we are not mercenaries.”

While stressing that he “does not underestimate the other armed forces formations,” al-Fayyad emphasized the uniqueness of the PMF as “an entity that arose from a legitimate basis and was built on volunteerism and self-motivation,” stressing that this “identity must be preserved.”

Al-Fayyad stressed, “Bearing very heavy burdens from both close and distant quarters to maintain this entity as one representing the spirit of jihad [fighting against the enemies] and rising above partial classifications and political categorizations, above parties and above any other designation,” explaining that “the Popular Mobilization is the present shield of the nation in every confrontation and battle.”

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO member sets up gates and barriers at Russian border checkpoint

RT | August 3, 2025

Estonian authorities have begun installing metal gates and barriers at a key border crossing with Russia, local broadcaster ERR reported on Saturday citing the country’s defense ministry. The measure, reportedly aimed at bolstering security, comes amid growing tensions between Moscow and the NATO countries.

These infrastructure upgrades are located at the Narva crossing, one of the main transit points between Estonia and Russia. Metal gates are being set up at the entrance to the bridge on the Estonian side, with additional structures for pedestrian and vehicle control positioned midway across.

“The barriers help prevent vehicles from forcefully driving through the border checkpoint. Essentially, they help to prevent evasion of border control,” said Antti Eensalu, head of the Police and Border Guard Board’s Narva checkpoint, as quoted by ERR.

He added that installation work is expected to be completed next month, stressing that the upgrades would make it possible to completely shut down the checkpoint if necessary.

Authorities are reportedly planning to install similar drive-through barriers at the Luhamaa and Koidula border checkpoints in southern Estonia.

Like its Baltic neighbors Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia has adopted an increasingly hardline stance toward Russia since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, and has speculated that Russia could invade once the Ukraine conflict ends. The Kremlin has repeatedly rejected the claim and branded related measures taken by Estonia and other Baltic states as ‘Russophobic’.

On Sunday, Estonia’s Ministry of Defense announced that NATO is considering establishing a German-Dutch Allied Corps presence in the country, a move that would further expand the alliance’s footprint in the Baltic region.

Earlier this year, Estonia signaled its readiness to host allied forces operating F-35 jets, including aircraft with nuclear capabilities. The Kremlin responded that such deployments would be regarded as a direct threat to Russian national security.

In 2024, Estonia also unveiled plans to build hundreds of concrete bunkers along its entire eastern border as part of the Baltic Defense Line, a coordinated regional initiative with Latvia and Lithuania aimed at boosting collective defense readiness. Moscow has reiterated that it poses no threat to Europe, expressing doubt about the necessity of spending money on such fortifications.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Moldova Could Disappear If Pro-Western Regime Retains Power – Advisor to Regional Governor

Sputnik – 03.08.2025

CHISINAU – The state of Moldova could vanish from the world map if the pro-Western regime remains in power after the September 28 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Vlah, an adviser to Gagauzia head Yevgenia Gutsul, said on Sunday.

“The romanization of our state has been ongoing since the early days of Moldova’s independence. Back in the 1990s, a significant part of the intelligentsia and political elite set a course for uniting our country with Romania. Unfortunately, this process has not stopped for 35 years… If the pro-Western regime retains power in any way after September 28, Moldova as a state may disappear from the world’s political map,” Vlah said on Telegram.

Governments change and political parties in parliament come and go, but the strategy for incorporating Moldova into Romania remains the unchanging goal of the Moldovan-Romanian political elite, he said.

“In kindergartens and schools, children are taught the history of Romanians, ignoring our own Moldovan history. Our history is ancient and rich, starting with Stephen the Great. All key political and economic processes in the country occur under the direct influence of the neighboring state. The highest state positions are held by Romanians: the president, the prime minister, the parliament speaker. The head of Moldova’s National Bank is a Romanian woman, the judges of the Constitutional Court are Romanians, the leaders of the Information and Security Service, and so on,” Vlah emphasized.

The Moldovan government has been criticized for cracking down on the opposition and arbitrarily arresting its leaders. Gagauzia’s governor was detained at the Chisinau airport in March on charges of violating campaign finance rules and falsifying documents. Opposition lawmakers have been routinely detained at Moldovan airports for visiting Russia, while criminal cases continue piling up against government critics.

The government has also blocked over 100 Telegram channels and shut down more than a dozen media outlets, including Sputnik Moldova and several major TV channels.

August 3, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »