Biosafety Expert Blasts New York Times for Claiming USAID Cuts Are ‘Setting the Stage for Disease Outbreaks’
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 10, 2025
Cuts in funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are “Setting the Stage for Disease Outbreaks,” according to a report last week in The New York Times.
In interviews with the Times, current and former USAID officials, members of health organizations and experts in infectious diseases described a world “made more perilous” following the Trump administration’s recent cuts to the agency.
However, biosafety expert Richard H. Ebright, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and chemical biology and lab director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University, said the Times got it backwards.
In an exclusive interview today with The Defender, Ebright shared facts not mentioned in the Times article that he said contradicts the Times’ reporting.
“The facts of the matter are that USAID’s and other agencies’ support for overseas labs and reckless overseas research has been setting the stage for disease outbreaks. Ending this insanity will set the stage for reducing disease outbreaks.”
Ebright is on the leadership team of Biosafety Now, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that “advocates for reducing numbers of high-level biocontainment laboratories and for strengthening biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management for research on pathogens.”
He has testified at U.S. House and Senate hearings on biosafety, biosecurity and biorisk management, according to Rutgers University.
Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said, “Dr. Ebright is spot on — lessening the U.S. role in funding ‘pandemic preparedness’ will reduce outbreaks, not increase them.”
Holland, who receives the print version of the Times, said the March 7 article appeared on today’s front page under the headline, “Deepening Peril of Disease As Trump Cuts Foreign Aid.”
According to Holland, the Times’ core message to readers was “be afraid.”
“The article assumes that cuts to USAID funding means that disease outbreaks will increase — while the reality is likely the opposite,” she said. “USAID has been funding ‘gain-of-function’ or bioweapons research overseas for decades, leading to undisputed lab leaks and outbreaks.”
Gain-of-function research involves experimentation to “increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens,” according to a 2016 peer-reviewed paper in Science and Engineering Ethics.
U.S. agencies spent billions constructing ‘unneeded and unsafe labs overseas’
Ebright said he found it “ironic” that the opening first line in the Times’ article mentioned “dangerous pathogens left unsecured at labs across Africa.”
He said:
“The main reason there are dangerous pathogens left unsecured at labs across Africa, and in Asia and Latin America, is that U.S. agencies — particularly USAID, DTRA, BTRP, NIH Fogarty Center, and NIH NIAID — have spent billions of dollars over the last two decades to construct unneeded and unsafe labs overseas, and to fund unneeded and reckless research on discovering and enhancing new dangerous pathogens in labs overseas.”
According to Ebright, USAID gave $60 million to the “now-debarred criminal NGO EcoHealth Alliance” to discover new dangerous pathogens, according to USAspending.gov.
EcoHealth used those funds “to conduct the wantonly reckless research in Wuhan on SARS coronaviruses that caused COVID-19, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,” Ebright said.
Ebright also said that USAID gave over $200 million to EcoHealth and its partners in Project PREDICT to discover new bioweapons agents overseas, according to USAspending.gov.
“Prior to the emergence of COVID-19,” Ebright said, “USAID was planning to launch a 6-fold-expanded, $1.2 billion megaproject, the Global Virome Project, for EcoHealth and its partners to discover even more new bioweapons agents overseas.”
The Global Virome Project was designed to discover and catalog thousands of novel viruses that could spill over in nature or pose global biosecurity risks — estimated to be 500,000 viruses or more.
Gain-of-function research has ‘no civilian application’
Ebright has been a vocal critic of gain-of-function research.
In June 2024, he testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the origins of COVID-19.
During the committee hearing, Ebright said his extensive research and gathering of documents pointed toward a lab leak.
He also said gain-of-function research on potentially dangerous pathogens — like the experiments underway at the Wuhan lab in China when COVID-19 emerged — “has no civilian application” but is easy for researchers to do and make money doing.
“Researchers undertake it because it is fast, it is easy, it requires no specialized equipment or skills, and it was prioritized for funding and has been prioritized for publication by scientific journals,” Ebright said.
“These are major incentives to researchers worldwide, in China and in the U.S.,” he pointed out.
Gain-of-function research is largely unregulated, according to Ebright, who said there needs to be an independent agency that oversees and imposes “regulation on this scientific community that has successfully resisted and obstructed regulation for two decades.”
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.
Not Just Voice of America: Deep State Mouthpieces Shut Down?
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 16.03.2025
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order dissolving the US Agency for Global Media, which funds Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia (RFA).What are US government-funded media known for?
VOA, RFE/RL and RFA routinely echoed US Democratic Party narratives, targeting not only overseas but also domestic audiences.
Russia
- RFE/RL spread unverified claims that Moscow poisoned dissidents with “exotic toxins,” from Polonium to Novichok, naming Viktor Yushchenko, the Skripals, Alexei Navalny among victims—without giving evidence.
- VOA and RFE/RL peddled Ukraine’s false claims that Russian troops committed a massacre in Bucha in April 2022, despite all Russian forces leaving the area by March 30.
Eastern and Central Europe
- VOA and RFE/RL praised Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution and the violent 2014 Euromaidan coup, providing highly favorable coverage of regime change efforts.
- RFE/RL has often targeted Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. On March 15, it reported protests against his government—but failed to mention that thousands of his supporters rallied on the national holiday.
Trump
- VOA actively pushed allegations that Trump ‘colluded’ with Russia, which were debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2019.
Asia
- RFA’s coverage revolves around China’s alleged ‘threat’ to Taiwan and promotes the militarization of the island.
- RFA paints China as a regional menace, accuses it of ‘cultural genocide’ in Tibet and stokes fears about North Korea’s nuclear capabilities against the US.
Cold War Roots and CIA Covert Operations via VOA, RFE/RL and RFA
The media’s dependence on the US foreign policy establishment – predominantly led by Democrats – has deep historical roots.
Voice of America
- Established in 1942 during World War II, the Voice of America (VOA) later became a Cold War propaganda tool against the USSR.
- A July 1950 CIA document revealed that the agency supported VOA in overcoming “Soviet jamming.” Another CIA document from 1953 discussed similar efforts in Czechoslovakia.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
- Launched in 1950 as part of psychological operations, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) was covertly funded by the CIA until 1971. Historians document how it employed former Nazi collaborators from the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.
- In 1977, The New York Times and Rolling Stone exposed the CIA’s “worldwide propaganda network,” which included at least 400 US journalists working for the agency. RFE/RL was specifically named as part of that network.
Radio Free Asia
- While the founding of Radio Free Asia (RFA) is often credited to Bill Clinton in 1994, CIA documents reveal that it had been targeting China and other Asian nations since the 1950s.
- RFA began broadcasting to mainland China in 1951 from the Philippines, Japan and Pakistan, operating under the CIA’s control until 1955.
- The agency halted RFA’s broadcasts in the mid-1950s due to low home radio ownership in China. It was later replaced by the Radio of Free Asia (ROFA), operated jointly by US and South Korean intelligence services.
For decades, the US-funded media functioned as extensions of Washington’s intelligence agencies, running psychological operations even after the Cold War ended.
Russia urges US to halt Yemen aggression, engage in dialogue
Press TV – March 16, 2025
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a phone call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called for all parties to refrain from “using force” in Yemen and engage in “political dialogue.”
“In response to argumentation put forward by American representatives, Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance for all sides to engage in political dialogue so as to find a solution that would prevent further bloodshed,” Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Sunday.
Moscow said that Rubio informed Lavrov about Washington’s decision to launch strikes against Yemen in a call that came after the two countries have relaunched dialogue since US President Donald Trump took office.
On Saturday, Trump announced on his X account that he had ordered the US military to launch “decisive and powerful military action” against Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement.
The US attacks, which began on Saturday and continued into the early hours of Sunday, have killed 31 people and wounded 101, “most of whom were children and women,” spokesperson for Yemen’s Ministry of Health, Anis al-Asbahi, posted on X.
Yemen has launched over 100 attacks targeting Israeli-bound ships since November 2023 in response to the Zionist regime’s genocidal war on Gaza, inflicting significant damage on Israel’s already strained economy and forcing the US military to engage in an expensive campaign to intercept missiles and drones, rapidly depleting US air defense stockpiles.
The recent US airstrikes came a few days after Yemen said it would resume retaliatory operations against Israeli vessels sailing off Yemen in response to the regime’s latest blockade on Gaza.
Earlier this month, the Israeli regime halted all aid coming into the Gaza Strip after it abruptly rejected entering the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal with Hamas as agreed before.
Israel aims to pressure Hamas into accepting a revision of the ceasefire agreement, allowing for the release of more Israeli captives without the withdrawal of occupation forces from the Gaza Strip.
Col. Jacques Baud: The Origin and Solution to the Ukraine War
Col. Jacques Baud with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 14, 2025
Jacques Baud, retired Colonel in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, has published several books on the origin of the Ukraine War, and he presents the conditions to bring the war to an end. Understanding what happened to the Minsk agreement is important to understand what is required to find a solution. Colonel Baud also laments the dangerous geopolitical immaturity in Europe that no longer addresses reality.
‘This isn’t war. It’s genocide’: Why the world is silent about massacres in Syria
Survivors of the violence against the Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities share their stories
RT | March 15, 2025
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant militant group in northwestern Syria, once presented itself as a local opposition force. Just over a month ago, the group was formally disbanded and became part of the Syrian Defense Ministry, yet its origins tell a far more sinister story. Born out of the ashes of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, HTS carries the same ideological DNA as the world’s most notorious terrorist network. While it has sought to rebrand itself for international legitimacy, its methods remain unchanged: Massacres, ethnic cleansing, and the systematic extermination of those who do not conform to its radical ideology.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in Syria’s coastal cities, where HTS and its foreign recruits have unleashed an unspeakable wave of violence against Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities. Entire villages have been erased, their inhabitants slaughtered in the dead of night. Yet, as these horrors unfold, the world remains indifferent, and the silence of international powers only emboldens the perpetrators.
The massacre in Latakia: A night of unimaginable horror
In one of the darkest nights in Syria’s recent history, coordinated attacks on rural Latakia resulted in mass executions. Survivors tell of masked men storming their villages, dragging families from their homes, and carrying out public executions. Those who resisted were burned inside their homes, leaving behind entire neighborhoods reduced to smoldering ruins.
Testimonies from survivors suggest that many of the perpetrators were foreign fighters, brought in from regions far from the Middle East.
“They didn’t even speak our language,” an elderly survivor told RT. “They had no idea who we were, no reason to hate us – except that they were told to.”
Entire villages have been abandoned, their populations either massacred or displaced. Satellite imagery confirms what survivors describe – rows of torched homes, mass graves hastily covered, and ghost towns where life once thrived.
The bloodbath in Tartus: A slaughter without mercy
Tartus, once a thriving coastal city, has become another graveyard. HTS fighters stormed residential areas, conducting door-to-door massacres. Families were accused of supporting the government or practicing the ‘wrong’ faith before being lined up and shot. Those who were not executed on the spot were locked inside buildings which were then torched.
A local journalist, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, described the scale of the killings:
“There were so many bodies that people stopped counting. They weren’t buried properly – just dumped into ditches.”
Foreign fighters played a leading role in these atrocities. A humanitarian worker recalled speaking with a man who had barely escaped:
“He told me he heard Chechen, Uzbek, and North African Arabic among the attackers. These weren’t local militants – these were imported killers, trained elsewhere and sent here to finish us off.”
Despite the horror, survivors insist they were never fighting for political power – only for survival. “We weren’t taking up arms to reclaim land or rule over anyone,” a displaced father from Tartus told RT. “We were just trying to stop them from killing our children in their beds.”
Jableh: The systematic erasure of a community
The violence in Jableh was particularly gruesome. Hundreds of men were rounded up, executed, and dumped into mass graves. Women and children were kidnapped, their fates unknown. Witnesses reported hearing gunfire for hours as the slaughter continued unchecked.
“They lined up all the men and took them away,” a survivor said with a voice shaking. “Later, we found their bodies piled on top of one another, shot execution-style.”
One woman who managed to escape described her captors:
“They were foreigners. Some were Arab, others were not. They had dead eyes, no emotion.
To them, we weren’t people – we were just bodies to be destroyed.”
Another survivor, now living in a refugee camp, said, “People say we were fighting for power, but we were just trying to keep our families from being butchered. No one wanted war. We just wanted to survive.”
Executioners without borders
What makes these massacres even more horrifying is the sheer number of foreign fighters involved. Witnesses and survivors consistently report hearing different languages among the attackers, sometimes even Western languages.
“These aren’t local fighters,” a displaced resident now sheltering in Damascus said.
They were trained somewhere else, then sent here to do what they do best – kill.”
The involvement of foreign jihadists suggests a well-coordinated, externally supported operation, designed not just to fight a war, but to systematically erase communities. Intelligence sources indicate that these fighters were funneled into Syria through neighboring countries, trained in camps before being deployed to slaughter civilians.
The global silence
Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide, Western and regional media continue to present the massacres as “clashes” between HTS and government forces, deliberately sidestepping the mass extermination of Syria’s Alawite community.
A Syrian human rights activist, speaking under anonymity, condemned this distortion:
“This isn’t war. It’s genocide. Yet, the world’s media avoids using that word because it doesn’t fit their political narrative.”
Western governments that once backed opposition forces are now reluctant to acknowledge the nightmare they helped unleash. By turning a blind eye, they enable the continuation of these crimes, and their silence serves as complicity in the atrocities.
The United Nations has remained largely passive, offering vague statements of concern but taking no meaningful action. Meanwhile, the perpetrators roam free, emboldened by the knowledge that no one will hold them accountable.
For the people of Latakia, Tartus, and Jableh, the message is clear: No help is coming. The world will not intervene. But history will remember. And the silence of the international community will forever be its most damning indictment.
Harvard Law School moves closer to divestment from Israel following referendum
Press TV – March 15, 2025
In the latest move by pro-Palestinian students at US universities, the Harvard Law School (HLS) student body has successfully passed a referendum urging the university to divest from the occupying Tel Aviv regime.
The resolution, which called on Harvard to “divest from weapons, surveillance technology, and other companies aiding violations of international humanitarian law, including Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine,” passed with 72.7 percent of votes in favor, with 842 students participating.
Nearly 2,000 students attend Harvard Law School, according to the university’s newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.
The university’s Palestine Solidarity Committee celebrated the move, calling it a landslide victory that took place “despite federal crackdown and admin’s repression on student activism for Palestine.”
“[US President Donald] Trump cannot repress the student movement for Palestine,” the group said in a statement amid the US president’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests across American universities
“The university must answer our call and divest from companies that profit from Palestinian annihilation,” it added.
The referendum was first proposed in a petition by student group Law Students for a Free Palestine (LSFP), which passed the 300-signature threshold needed to trigger a Student Government referendum in February.
In a press release, HLS LSFP organizer Irene Ameena commended the result as a rebuke of Trump.
“The Trump administration’s threats are meant to scare us into submission, but this referendum shows that those efforts only strengthen our solidarity with Palestine,” she said.
Thursday night’s results mark the second time a Harvard student body has voted in favor of divesting from Israel.
The call for divestment generally entails calling on institutions to cut economic and any other relevant ties with Israel as a form of protest against its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and more recently its bloody onslaught in Gaza which has killed over 61,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023.
In June last year, students at the Harvard School of Public Health voted to demand that Harvard divest from Israel, and governments at the Law School, Harvard Divinity School, and the Graduate School of Design have all made similar calls too.
Far-Right Betar group sends list of thousands of pro-Palestinian activists to Trump admin. for deportation
Press TV – March 15, 2025
The American branch of the Betar Zionist movement, Betar US, says it has sent “thousands of names” of Palestine defenders to the administration of President Donald Trump for potential arrest and deportation, as part of its new smear campaign targeting participants in pro-Palestine protests across the country.
The far-right group made the remarks on social media on Friday, stressing that “Jihadis have no place in civilized nations.”
This comes as critics have voiced concern over Betar’s activities and ongoing “deportation efforts,” which involve documenting protest attendees and reporting them to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Earlier this week, Betar said, “We told you we have been working on deportations and will continue to do so. Expect naturalized citizens to start being picked up within the month. You heard it here first. Those who support jihad and intifada and originate in terrorist states will be sent back to those lands.”
The group — which took credit for the arrest of Palestinian student-activist and US Green Card holder Mahmoud Khalil by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for protesting the Israeli regime’s brutal war on the Gaza Strip — further named Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian studying philosophy at Columbia University in New York City, as its next target.
On Friday, US immigration officers announced the arrest of another activist who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, one of the most prestigious schools in the country.
Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian from the occupied West Bank, was detained for allegedly overstaying her expired student visa, the DHS said in a statement.
She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, the statement added.
The DHS further noted that another student, Ranjani Srinivasani, who has Indian citizenship, chose to “self-deport” by leaving the US earlier this week.
The Trump administration has also set a deadline for Columbia University to cede control of one of its academic departments over a scholarship critical of Israel.
Back in January, Trump signed an executive order, pledging to deport foreign students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.
Following the detention of Khalil, Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” without providing any evidence.
He emphasized that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.
Founded in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Zionist figure, and named after Brit Yosef Trumpeldor, Betar US actively spreads Zionist propaganda and in recent months, the group has intensified efforts to identify foreign students in the US who participate in anti-Israel protests, seeking their deportation.
The extremist group is using facial recognition technology and social media to monitor and intimidate pro-Palestine activists, reporting them to US immigration authorities for potential deportation.
This crackdown on free speech has sparked outrage, with critics condemning the group’s tactics as an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League has recently designated Betar as a hate group, after it responded to the publication of a list of thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces by saying on its account on X, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”
Russia’s Kursk Region Becomes Final Resting Place for NATO’s Top Tech
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – March 15, 2025
The near-total collapse of Ukraine’s operations in Kursk region has highlighted the folly of Zelensky’s obsession with throwing his best troops and materiel into a hopeless campaign. Here’s a selection of NATO equipment that has “found its peace in Kursk’s ground” over the past month, complete with photo and video evidence.
Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that Ukraine has lost nearly 400 tanks, almost 2,800 armored vehicles and over 1,000 guns and mortars in fighting in Kursk region to date, and says over 85% of territories once occupied by Ukrainian forces have been freed.
Liberated areas contain scores of wrecked, burned out, damaged or abandoned vehicles, including some of NATO’s most advanced equipment:
M2A2 Bradley: Over 300 of these do-it-all American infantry fighting vehicles have been sent to Ukraine, with nearly half confirmed lost by Oryx. They’ve been spotted among other wrecked NATO equipment in Kursk region.
M1 Abrams: 31 of these custom-made monkey model American main battle tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. 20 lost to date. One recently spotted being towed away intact in Kursk region. Australia plans to send 49 more.
Leopard 1 AVLB Biber: Armored vehicle-launched bridge built on a German Leopard-1 tank chassis. 30+ sent to Ukraine. One recently found abandoned, in mint shape, in a Kursk village.
M777: A third of the 180 US-made 155mm howitzers sent to Ukraine have been lost, damaged, or abandoned to date, with several recently captured almost intact in Kursk region.
Stryker: Over 400 of these Canadian-built armored fighting vehicles have been transferred to Ukraine. At least 55 destroyed, some caught on Russian MoD FPV drone videos moments before meeting their fate.
BMC Kirpi II: 200 of these Turkish MRAPs have been sent to serve in Ukraine’s elite units. Scores destroyed, damaged or captured by Russian forces, including in Kursk.
HMMWV: 5,000 of these ubiquitous US vehicles, better known as Humvees, have been delivered to Ukraine. Scores captured on Russian FPV drone cam footage in Kursk region.
Roshel Senator: Over 1,700 of the Canadian-built armored cars have been delivered to Ukraine. Also spotted in Russian FPV drone videos.
MAXXPRO: About 440 these Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) have been sent to Ukraine by the US, with at least 197 lost to date, including in fighting for Kursk.
M113: 1,000+ of these ancient tracked APCs have been sent to Ukraine by the US and allies, with nearly 300 destroyed to date, including in Kursk region.
BATT UMG: Ukraine has received 116 of these US-made vehicles. Rarely seen, some are known to have met their fate on the battlefields of Kursk.
Bushmaster PMV: About 120 of these Australian-made Protected Mobility Vehicles have gone to Ukraine, some ending up in Kursk region, and at least 25 lost to date.
M240: Besides heavy equipment, an array of NATO small arms has also been destroyed or captured in Kursk as well, among them the FN M240 7.62mm machinegun, delivered to Ukraine by the US and France. In February, a Russian trooper in Kursk captured an M240 after storming a Ukrainian position and bringing the gun back to friendly lines.
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
