Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 15, 2025
Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.
In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.
It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.
In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.
One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.
This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.
Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.
The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.
During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.
In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.
However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.
It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.
What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.
Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.
All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.
From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.
The ball is in Russia’s court? Russia is winning a war, not playing tennis
Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2025
The ball is in Russia’s court, according to the Trump administration regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.
The proposed truce was announced following discussions on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and representatives of the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Rubio said it was now up to Russia to reciprocate with the Ukrainian side’s purported willingness to hold a ceasefire.
In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin tactfully said that Russia was open to a ceasefire but only if it led to a complete and comprehensive peace settlement. Putin repeated that any durable resolution must address the root causes of the conflict and Russia’s fundamental strategic security concerns.
The Russian leader then met with Trump’s special envoy on Thursday. Following the discussions in Jeddah between the U.S. and the Kiev regime, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow where he met with Putin. The details of their conversation were not disclosed. But it was reported that Witkoff delivered “additional information” from Trump to Putin regarding the proposed ceasefire. It was reported that Witkoff returned to Washington with details from Putin. It may be surmised that the Russian position on its terms was reiterated. Trump hailed the discussions as “productive.”
Herein lies the rub. The essential underlying issues are the aggressive expansion of NATO and its weaponizing of a NeoNazi Ukrainian regime. The United States and its NATO partners instigated the conflict in Ukraine over several decades since at least the end of the Cold War in 1991. The past three-year war in Ukraine is but a symptom of a longer and systematic hostility. Trump seems to be cognizant of those issues.
The Trump administration has abandoned the false war-propaganda of the Biden administration. It is now acknowledged in Washington that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO axis and Russia.
As the spectacular military defeat of the NATO proxy forces in Kursk this week demonstrates – as well as the rapid gains Russia is making against the crumbling Kiev regime – the U.S.-led “Ukraine Project” has been vanquished. Russia has all but won the proxy war.
The Americans (factions within) and their NATO surrogates are trying to avoid the admission of defeat by contriving a superficial peace process that only ends up as a “frozen conflict” on Russia’s borders.
The best way to bring the war to an end is for the United States to stop arming the Kiev regime and supplying it with intelligence and logistical support.
This week Trump resumed military and intelligence supplies to the Kiev regime to coincide with the apparent offer of a ceasefire from the Ukrainian regime. That amounts to one step forward, two steps back.
It was rather risible to hear Marco Rubio, the U.S.’ top diplomat, affecting the image of an honest peace broker telling Russia that the ball was in its court to reciprocate for peace as “a compromise” with Ukraine.
The Trump administration has a misplaced view of the conflict if it thinks Russia can be pressured according to U.S. one-sided and pretentious demands.
Russia is winning a momentous war, not playing tennis.
In any case, the ball, so to speak, is and will remain firmly in the United States’ court until it accepts defeat and Russia’s victory terms. It is the U.S. and not its European vassals nor its catspaw Kiev regime that will have to make that call.
Those terms have been repeatedly stipulated by Moscow: a lasting security treaty in Europe consonant with Russia’s just and basic demands for NATO to roll back and desist from its aggressive tendencies; for Ukraine to be a neutral state in perpetuity never being a member of NATO; for the NeoNazi regime to be eradicated and the cultural rights of ethnic Russian people to be guaranteed and respected; and for the historic Russian territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye and of course Crimea to remain intact as part of the Russian Federation.
Moscow reserves the right to change the terms per conditions on the ground if the conflict persists, such as reclaiming its historic territory of Odessa, Kharkiv, Nikolaev, and enforcing a no-fire zone in Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from where the failed NATO Kursk offensive was launched last August.
On Russia’s successful recapture of Kursk, as Putin points out, there are serious contingencies that need to be dealt with even before a ceasefire is contemplated. The invaders, including NATO mercenaries, committed war crimes against civilians. Are they expected to be let go freely? This is no doubt a reason why the U.S. and Ukraine are suddenly pushing the idea for a ceasefire as a way to salvage failure and rearm.
Trump will have to deal with the reality of Russia’s dominant position: its military victory and its historically righteous cause to confront NATO aggression.
It remains to be seen now how Trump responds. He needs to disabuse arrogant misconceptions that Washington is acting as a peace broker. The U.S. is the main protagonist in a proxy war against Russia. The Kiev regime is but a bit player. Moscow has no need or inclination to engage with a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a puppet president who no longer even has the semblance of legitimacy after cancelling elections last year and ruling by martial law.
If Trump is serious about ending the proxy war in Ukraine, he can do so promptly by ending the weapons flow to that country. His resumption of weapons supplies this week does not bode well.
Trump should also ignore the bleating of the European lackeys, in particular the British, who have nothing positive to offer. London was “intimately” involved in the latest ceasefire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine, according to the BBC. That should be seen as a warning of a dirty trick.
It is a negative sign that the U.S.-Ukraine joint statement this week in Saudi Arabia peddled vile lies about Russia abducting Ukrainian children. It was also contemptible that the statement called for “future security guarantees for Ukraine” (the aggressor!) while saying nothing about Russia’s security concerns. The absence of the latter indicates the U.S. side has little understanding about “root causes” of the conflict.
Moreover, the U.S.-Ukrainian joint statement called for the involvement of European partners in peace talks. The present crop of European leaders has no intention or capability of negotiating a lasting peace with Russia. They insist on Ukraine becoming a future member of NATO and they want to insinuate themselves into the dialogue to scupper a peace deal by deploying “peacekeeping” troops. The British and French reportedly want the U.S. to provide air cover for what would be their trip-wire troop presence, thereby escalating the war.
Will Trump be duped by the perfidious British, French and other European Russophobes? Perhaps with a false-flag provocation?
American and European political leaders have negligible credibility for offering a ceasefire to Russia, never mind a durable peace. They started this war and surreptitiously want to continue it by other means under the guise of a peace process that does not address the root causes of conflict.
That implies that the only way to deal with the root causes and to establish a lasting peace is for Russia to defeat the NATO enemy with an explicit, unconditional surrender. Can Trump’s ego handle that?
Peace begins when the guns cease, but for true peace to last, the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia must be defeated. Can the U.S. imperial deep state handle that?
Either way, we will soon see.
Provoking Russian Intervention – Part 26 of The Anglo-American War on Russia
Tales of the American Empire | March 13, 2025
The first parts of this series focus on decades of American provocations that caused the war in Ukraine, which was a plan to weaken Russia. Losing this proxy war was not considered, and no strategy exists to prevent a Russian victory. Recent interviews appeared in American corporate news that exposed even more provocations. The CIA built a series of small bases in Ukraine along Russia’s borders a decade ago to conducted covert operations in Russia.
President Joseph Biden admitted the United States had placed nuclear armed missiles in Ukraine. Russia can cite gross violations of the 1991 Belovezha Accords by Ukraine as a reason to intervene with military forces, or cite its right in the UN Charter to take enforcement actions against enemy states from World War II.
_______________________________________________________
“CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian intelligence”; ABC News; January 16, 2025;
• CIA’s deep partnership with Ukrainian…
“Biden Shares ‘Serious Concern’ for U.S. Democracy”; MSNBC interview; January 16, 2025; https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/w…
“UN Charter, former World War II enemies can be invaded by the USA or Britain”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Enem…
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”;
• The Anglo-American War on Russia
NATO countries should restore ties with Russia – bloc chief
RT | March 14, 2025
Europe and the United States should gradually normalize relations with Russia once the Ukraine conflict is over, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said.
The statement comes a day after the head of the US-led military bloc met President Donald Trump at the White House and amid ongoing efforts by Washington to establish a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev.
Trump has also expressed interest in restoring economic ties with Russia, an idea that was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Friday, Rutte recalled that he had “many dealings” and “many negotiations” with Putin while prime minister of the Netherlands.
“Long-term, Russia is there, Russia will not go away,” he said. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he argued.
Ukraine’s possible membership of the bloc is off the table in the current peace process, Rutte confirmed, a point Moscow has insisted upon.
Most EU leaders, with the notable exceptions of Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, have advocated for continued confrontation with Russia, despite the ongoing peace process.
European NATO countries have been supplying weapons to Kiev since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. Some bloc members, such as France, have floated the idea of deploying troops in Ukraine to monitor a truce. Russia has denounced the idea and insisted that any NATO contingent in Ukraine deployed without a UN mandate will be considered a legitimate target.
Moscow has accused the EU of militarizing against Russia, after the bloc’s leaders backed €800 billion ($860 bn) in debt and tax-breaks for its military industrial complex.
As NATO’s biggest financial contributor, Trump has consistently criticized the bloc’s European members for not meeting the defense expenditure targets.
NATO has maintained a hostile position towards Moscow since Crimea joined the Russian Federation in 2014 and the subsequent escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The developments led to the suspension of practical cooperation and a significant military buildup in NATO countries on Russia’s borders.
Trump’s presidential diplomacy is surging
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 14, 2025
The US President Donald Trump by far outstrips any of his predecessors in post-cold war diplomatic history in the transparency both in connecting the public opinion with his America First ideology and in his presidential diplomacy.
Trump’s media briefings have become a daily occurrence and are an absolute ‘must’ for any serious analyst / observer of world affairs.
Trump’s press conference at the White House on Thursday during the visit of the NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte, a 48-minute event, stood out for the following signposts in his foreign policy agenda:
One. Whereas the expectation was that this was just the right occasion for Trump to reclaim the leadership of the transatlantic alliance system and “to project American power” (Rutte’s words), he was instead simply uninterested in NATO — although Rutte praised him sky-high for his contribution to making the alliance a “strong” organisation by boosting its budget.
Two. On the contrary, Trump spoke at length on the Ukraine peace process and expressed hope that the war is ending, taking even a swipe at NATO for having squandered its budget wastefully under the Biden presidency by intervening in a war that should not have happened.
By the way, Rutte is known to be a super hawk on Russia (which actually inspired President Biden to handpick him for the present job late last year.) Rutte was a prominent fixture in the family photos of the recent string of EU summits that were pioneered by French President Emmanuel Macron to choreograph the future trajectory of the Ukraine war the downstream of the perceived US retrenchment,
Three. Trump taunted Rutte openly by proposing a potential role for NATO in his major foreign policy venture to make the Greenland and integral part of the US. Trump severely questioned the basis of the claim by Denmark, a NATO member, to Greenland. Rutte tried to change the topic but Trump would have none of it and reminded him of NATO’s “relevance”. To be sure, NATO finds itself like a cat on a hot tin roof if Trump’s strong hint of a likely boost in the US troop presence in Greenland goes ahead. Trump spoke in the presence of Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Four. Trump point blank rejected the narrative that Russia posed a military threat to Europe. It not only knocks the bottom out of the legitimacy of the NATO and Europe’s intervention in Ukraine but also casts doubts on the raison d’être of the NATO. (Earlier in his remarks, Rutte had spoken forcefully of the imperative need to build up Europe’s defence industry to meet the threat from Russia.)
Five. Trump hinted that he may resume talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, which he began in the first term but got derailed as his presidency came under siege from the deep state and the neocon lobby with the support of the Democratic Party.
Six. Most important, Trump disclosed that behind the scene, much serious discussion has been taking place with Russia on the various aspects of the Ukraine crisis, including the seemingly intractable territorial issues, and the future status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station in southeastern Ukraine, which is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world, and has been under Russian control since 2022.
Trump flagged that the White House and the Kremlin as interlocutors are rather familiar by now with each other’s respective stances and the parameters of the Ukraine crisis, which has created conditions for serious negotiations going forward.
Specifically, Trump commented that the Russian reaction to the US’ offer this week of a thirty-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict is incomplete and he hopes to meet Putin in this connection. This disclosure enables us to read between the lines the various contrarian pronouncements emanating from Moscow and put in proper perspective the tenor of Putin’s statement of March 13.
There is no question that Trump spoke with great deliberation in Rutte’s presence, knowing that European capitals would be keenly listening. Trump left them in no doubt that without US participation, Europeans will chicken out no matter their rhetoric in recent days.
The ‘Trump effect’ is no longer restricted to Hungary and Slovakia. On Tuesday, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced that “We will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine .” She announced that Italy, a major NATO member country, shall not be taking part in any future European summits held in this connection. Meanwhile, Meloni’s predecessor Giuseppe Conte told Euronews that the European Commission (read Ursula von der Leyen) “is exaggerating the Russian threat” to boost military expenditure and is “throwing money away to allow all the member states to continue increasing military spending in an uncoordinated and disorderly manner.”
The bottom line is that the misadventure spearheaded by the UK and France and the EU bureaucracy in Brussels to create a “coalition of the willing” to carry the war forward in Ukraine is crash landing even before it got under way. Trump has shown no interest in Western troop deployment in Ukraine in any peacekeeping role; nor does he envisage any European participation in the US-Russia dialogue.
Above all, Trump sees this as a deal between Putin and him. He sounded confident that Russia’s concerns can be properly addressed.
Indeed, in his remarks, Trump never once mentioned Zelensky whose continuance in power Russia regards as the single biggest impediment to peace.
The video of Trump’s press conference is below:
Hamas agrees to release US-Israeli soldier following direct talks with Washington
The Cradle | March 14, 2025
Hamas revealed on 14 March that it is ready to free a US-Israeli soldier held captive in Gaza and hand over the remains of four other US-Israeli nationals in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners as part of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the devastated enclave.
The Palestinian resistance movement announced in a statement on Friday that it is willing to release the Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, who holds US citizenship, along with the remains of four other dual US-Israeli nationals.
A Hamas official speaking with Al Mayadeen explained that indirect negotiations between the two sides to implement the second phase of the agreement will commence on the same day the prisoners are released.
He indicated that the negotiations would include arrangements related to a ceasefire, the withdrawal of forces, and the release of remaining prisoners within 50 days. He also emphasized the need to immediately open the border into Gaza crossings to facilitate the entry of humanitarian and relief aid.
“We are determined to implement the ceasefire agreement in its various stages,” he stated.
A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was reached in January, resulting in the exchange of Israeli captives and Palestinian prisoners. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to proceed to the second stage of the agreement.
Netanyahu and other ministers in the Israeli government are pushing for the resumption of the war. Many in Israel demand that the more than 2 million inhabitants of Gaza be forcibly expelled to make way for Jewish settlers seeking to colonize the strip.
However, US President Donald Trump has authorized his envoy to negotiate directly with Hamas to win the return of the remaining Israeli captives who also have US citizenship.
Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth recently wrote that Israelis had been “stunned to discover that, behind its back, Trump’s envoy had flirted for weeks in Doha” with a senior Hamas official.
Iran, Russia, China reject ‘unlawful’ US sanctions after tripartite meeting
The Cradle | March 14, 2025
China, Russia, and Iran released a joint statement on 14 March demanding an end to “unlawful” US sanctions against the Islamic Republic after meetings in Beijing between the three countries, which were aimed at jumpstarting stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.
The three countries “emphasized the necessity of terminating all unlawful unilateral sanctions” after talks hosted by Beijing on Friday morning, according to the joint statement read out by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaxou.
“The three countries reiterated that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue based on the principle of mutual respect remains the only viable and practical option in this regard,” read the joint statement.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov Sergey Alexeevich and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibadi were also present.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on 12 March that Beijing would host the high-level talks regarding the nuclear issue with Russia and Iran this week, coinciding with growing tension between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian atomic energy program.
Russia also signaled earlier this month that it was willing to help facilitate negotiations between Iran and the US.
US President Donald Trump has been pushing for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing harsh economic sanctions against the country.
Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have announced their refusal to engage in negotiations under pressure, in line with the position taken by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
A letter written by Trump addressing the supreme leader, which has yet to be published, has reportedly been handed over to Araghchi by Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed (MbZ).
On 7 March, Trump said: “I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal.”
Khamenei said in response that “bully governments … insist on negotiations” which are “not aimed at solving problems; they aim at domination.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last month that Iran significantly increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium by 92.5 kilograms (203.9 pounds) since its previous report in November.
A closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting attended by representatives of the US, UK, France, and other countries was held on Wednesday. After the meeting, the UK deputy ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, accused Iran of “dramatically” enriching uranium towards weapons-grade level and said western countries will “take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon,” including the reimposition of sanctions.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.
Statement from Dr Dave Weldon following withdrawal of his nomination for CDC
WELDON’S FULL STATEMENT:




US to send upgraded long-range bombs to Ukraine – Reuters
RT | March 14, 2025
The United States has upgraded the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB) to counter Russian jamming and is set to “reintroduce” them onto the battlefield in Ukraine within days, according to a Reuters report.
The GLSDB, jointly developed by Boeing and SAAB AB, combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb with the M26 rocket motor, creating a weapon with a range of approximately 100 miles (161 kilometers).
The administration of former President Joe Biden sent an undisclosed number of GLSDB units to Kiev, but it has been “months” since Ukrainian forces last used the bomb against Russia after it proved ineffective last year, sources told Reuters.
Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities rendered precision-guided Western munitions – including GLSDB and GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shells – ”useless,” the Wall Street Journal reported in July. With their guidance systems scrambled, some of these weapons were reportedly retired within weeks of being deployed.
Since then, Boeing has introduced several upgrades, including reinforced internal connections to enhance resistance to jamming. According to Reuters sources, at least 19 GLSDBs were test-fired in “recent weeks” to assess the effectiveness of the modifications. The US has stockpiled a significant number of these relatively inexpensive bombs in Europe and is “poised” to resume shipments to Kiev within days, the publication reported.
The potential replacement comes amid reports that Ukraine has depleted its stockpile of US-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), which have a longer range of 300 km.
Kiev began using ATACMS missiles for strikes into internationally recognized Russian territory in the autumn of 2024, particularly targeting the border regions of Kursk, Bryansk, Belgorod, and Rostov. However, the stockpile was fully exhausted by late January, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.
Moscow has repeatedly warned the US and its allies against permitting long-range Ukrainian strikes, arguing that such attacks would make NATO a direct participant in the conflict due to Kiev’s reliance on Western-supplied weapons.
In response to Ukraine’s first ATACMS strikes in November last year, Russia launched its new hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile at the Yuzhmash military-industrial facility in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr.
Makary, Bhattacharya Nominations Move to Full Senate Vote, But Trump Pulls Weldon Nomination to Lead CDC
The Defender | March 13, 2025
The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions this morning canceled a scheduled hearing on the nomination of Dr. David Weldon, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Axios was the first to break the news, stating that Weldon’s “views questioning certain vaccines have garnered attention since he was nominated months ago and were sure to play a prominent role in questioning.”
The New York Times reached Weldon by phone. The former Florida congressman said he learned of the decision last night when a White House official told him that “they didn’t have the votes to confirm” his nomination.
In a statement to media, posted on X, Weldon said, “The concern of many people is that Big Pharma was behind this, which is probably true. They are probably the most powerful lobbying organization in Washington DC giving millions of dollars to politicians on both sides of the aisle.”
Meanwhile, the Senate Health committee today voted 14-9 to endorse Dr. Marty Makary to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 12-11 to endorse Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Both Makary and Bhattacharya “largely breezed through” their Senate confirmation hearings and are now set to be confirmed by a full Senate vote, according to STAT News.
Given the Republican control of the Senate, it is expected that Makary and Bhattacharya will be confirmed.
Weldon nomination pulled amid Texas measles outbreak, CDC plan to study vaccines
Weldon, 71, is a practicing internal medicine doctor and Army veteran. He represented Florida in Congress from 1995 to 2009.
The CDC has a $9 billion budget and staff of around 13,000, according to NBC.
According to the Times, Weldon said he had been excited about the opportunity to help restore the public’s confidence in the CDC and serve his country again.
Weldon had also been looking forward to working on the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) agenda to address the proliferation of chronic diseases among U.S. Americans, particularly children.
In the days leading up to Weldon’s planned hearing, numerous media outlets ran a slew of articles highlighting Weldon’s history of questioning vaccine safety.
Reuters on March 7 broke the news that the CDC was planning a study on the possible link between vaccines and autism. Some senators “have expressed concerns over Weldon’s views on vaccines,” Reuters said.
The Washington Post confirmed that the CDC planned to “leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out” why autism rates are soaring, including using the agency’s Vaccine Safety Datalink database to study any possible links between vaccines and autism.
The last-minute plan to pull Weldon’s nomination came against the backdrop of news reports about the CDC’s planned study and the West Texas measles outbreak. On March 10, Forbes reported, “Vaccine Skeptic Dave Weldon Is Up To Lead CDC As Measles And Flu Rage.”
According to Forbes, Weldon was a friend of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who “holds similar and, in some cases, seemingly more extreme views on some health matters.”
On March 12, STAT News reported, under the headline, “How CDC nominee Dave Weldon’s support for anti-vaccine theories runs long and deep” that Weldon in 2004 asked the U.S. House Appropriations Committee chair to fund an autism research center that would be led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Wakefield was the first author of the 1998 study, published and later retracted in The Lancet, that linked the MMR vaccine to autism in certain children.
According to STAT News, Weldon requested $1.9 million in the 2005 budget for the center to study “the biological origins” of childhood developmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, Congress chose not to fund it.
In 2007, Weldon introduced a bill “to improve vaccine safety research” that would have transferred the responsibility of tracking vaccine safety from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.
The bill stipulated that the independent agency would:
- Conduct or support safety research and monitor licensed vaccines.
- Develop a vaccine safety research agenda.
- Evaluate means to promote compliance with federal adverse reaction reporting requirements.
- Provide a clearinghouse for vaccine studies.
- Ensure that functions relating to vaccine monitoring or research on adverse reactions are not carried out by anyone with a conflict of interest.
- Oversee the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
- Resolve U.S. conflicts of interest related to international agreements, partnerships, and activities.
However, the bill never made it to the House floor for a vote.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Infowars reporter mysteriously killed days after network reported on Mossad-Epstein links

Infowars lead reporter Jamie White (L) (Photo via social media)
Press TV – March 13, 2025
Infowars lead reporter Jamie White has been shot dead outside his Austin apartment, two days after the network aired a report on Mossad’s links to the Epstein sex trafficking ring.
White was found injured near his car late Sunday and later died after being taken to a local hospital.
The Austin police department has claimed that the killing was “likely a random attack.”
Authorities have not yet identified the perpetrator(s).
The murder has led many, including Infowars’ founder Alex Jones, to question if the journalist was the target in a politically-motivated assassination.
“What are the chances in a town of over two million people that an Infowars lead reporter gets butchered?” Jones said in an interview after the murder.
The killing of the Infowars reporter happened two days after the network ran an extensive expose on the links between the Israeli spy service Mossad, and the sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
The show, which was hosted by Alex Jones and investigative journalist Ian Carrol, said that the sex trafficking network was a “honey trap” operation to gain blackmail on powerful individuals for the benefit of Israel.
The Epstein case is notorious for being linked to a slew of mysterious deaths.
In 2020, the home of Esther Salas, a judge investigating the case, was attacked by an assailant.
The attack left Salas’s son dead and her husband injured. The assailant was later found dead, with authorities claiming the death to be suicide.
In 2022, French modeling agent and Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel was found hanged in his prison cell while being investigated for the sex trafficking of minors.
Jeffrey Epstein himself also died under suspicious circumstances in his prison cell in 2019.
While the US government claims that his death was a suicide, many Americans believe the death to have been a murder to prevent the revelation of his connections with powerful people.
Yale suspends Iranian scholar after AI site said she supports a pro-Palestine group

Press TV – March 13, 2025
Yale Law School has suspended an Iranian scholar following accusations stemming from an Israeli AI-powered website article that highlights her advocacy for Palestine and Iran, as well as her outspoken criticism of Israeli genocide during the Gaza war.
Helyeh Doutaghi, who serves as the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project at Yale, in a public statement on Wednesday, denounced her suspension as a retaliatory action against her pro-Palestinian stance and a violation of her constitutional rights to free speech and academic freedom.
“AI is being weaponized to target students, faculty, and organizers who dare to speak out against genocide, systemic starvation, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians,” she warned, highlighting the broader implications of the misuse of artificial intelligence in academic and public discourse.
Doutaghi, an expert in international law who held the position of Associate Research Scholar at Yale Law School, was informed of an article published by an obscure AI-powered right-wing Zionist platform, Jewish Onliner, on March 3, which falsely labeled her a “terrorist.”
Doutaghi, who has been vocal about the implications of US military operations, imperialism and the US-Zionist genocide and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, reported that the accusations from the article have led to online harassment and even death threats against her.
Less than 24 hours after the article’s release, Yale Law School administration placed Doutaghi on leave.
She criticized the administration for conducting an interrogation based on AI-generated allegations without due process or providing her with sufficient time to attend an interrogation.
Doutaghi also expressed concerns about Yale’s choice of attorney for her interrogation, David Ring from the firm Wiggin and Dana, whose public profile indicates a focus on services related to Israel.
She questioned his neutrality in a case involving a pro-Palestinian academic.
“The actions of YLS constitute a blatant act of retaliation against Palestinian solidarity,” Doutaghi remarked, asserting that the administration prioritized the approval of its Zionist donors over a fair investigation.
Doutaghi pointed out that Yale’s asset managers include firms linked to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, which produce components for the F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in committing genocide, asserting that the move creates a conflict of interest that undermines academic integrity.
“This crackdown is a dangerous escalation in state repression, fostering an atmosphere of fear on campus,” said Doutaghi. “We are witnessing a new era of Zionist McCarthyism, where dissent is met with violence, and solidarity with Palestine is rendered a punishable offense.”
“Yale is bending the knee to Trump’s effort to suppress free speech, crush academic freedom, and establish a dictatorship,” Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer wrote on social media in light of her suspension.
Meanwhile, the US State Department is reportedly considering the use of AI to potentially revoke visas for international students accused of supporting Hamas, raising further concerns about the consequences of such technology on civil liberties.
On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate who helped lead last year’s solidarity protests in support of the Gaza Strip, was detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said to be deported despite having a green card.
Following the detention of Khalil, US President Donald Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” and emphasizing that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.
