Posted originally on CTH on January 27, 2026 | Sundance
People might be interested in the recent stories of Canadian Premier Doug Ford and his reversal of position on Chinese EV production. Ontario Premier Ford now welcomes Chinese EVs into Canada.
Or people might be interested in the recent story of the EU announcing a historic trade deal with India. The European Union is now looking to find new markets to replace the U.S., while simultaneously agreeing to establish a new immigration/recruitment process to accept massive numbers of Indian migrants.
Yes, Canada reverses their position on trade with China, that’s odd. And somehow the EU immediately forgets their demands for India to stop buying Russian oil or face EU sanctions, another oddity. This is like watching someone you don’t like, get engaged to your smelly, fat ex-girlfriend. [Matthew 15:14]
Canada and the EU take trade and economic positions seemingly against U.S. interests. Simultaneously Mexico modifies all their trade positions to come into alignment with the USA. Yesterday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Mexico will no longer ship oil to Cuba.
What’s going on?
Well, to really understand what is happening you need to look at President Trump’s responses to all of the individual issues outlined above and take a much bigger picture view. President Trump is the master of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy.’
♦ CANADA – When President Trump was asked about Prime Minister Mark Carney creating a new trade agreement with China, President Trump responded that he didn’t care – it was irrelevant to him. Yet, simultaneously inside the USMCA President Trump has the power to veto any trade agreement between Mexico or Canada and a non-member nation.
So, why didn’t President Trump care? Easy, because in President Trump’s mind there’s not going to be a USMCA; so, he really doesn’t care if Canada runs to violate it. In real terms, Canada doing bilateral deals with other countries, especially deals potentially detrimental to the USA, only strengthens his position on dissolving the USMCA.
If Canada violates the terms and spirit of the USMCA, it makes dispatch of the unliked trade agreement even easier. Canada is helping President Trump remove the congressional justification they could use to block him. If Canada is violating the USMCA (CUSMA), Congress is kneecapped from interference.
Provoking Canada into a trade position, that puts them at a disadvantage trying to stop the dissolution of the CUSMA, stops Congress from opposing the fracture, and then opens the door to a bilateral trade agreement, is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that is entirely controlled by President Donald Trump.
[I pointed this out on the ‘Russian Sanctions’ map four years ago for a reason.]
♦ EUROPE – In the last few months, the EU has been pressuring President Trump to join them in putting sanctions against India for purchasing Russian oil. Suddenly, all those Russian energy issues are dropped, and the EU signs a trade agreement with India. Again, just like with Canada, President Trump doesn’t care; he’s working on a much bigger objective.
Both Canada and Europe are independently, out of necessity, taking action that takes apart the trade and economic system they created. At the core of the old trade system both Canada and Europe were exploiting the USA, exfiltrating wealth and skimming the independent entrepreneurial innovation that originates from within the U.S. economic system.
That necessary exploitation happened because the USA is innovative (freedom-based capitalism), while the CA/EU system is built on government control mechanisms. The CA/EU energy policy is just one impactful example of their pontificating inability to be insightful when it comes to consequences. The EU and Canada are now stuck looking for markets that will do the dirty jobs, provide them with core components, while simultaneously looking for markets for their finished products.
On the other side of the approach is President Trump, working to expand U.S. industrial dirty job capacity, create our own core components, then create finished goods entirely on our own. A complete revitalization of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base. Our U.S. GDP is currently expected to grow north of 5%. This is not happening by accident.
Additionally, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is not bragging about importing Indian IT workers in a vacuum. If the EU cannot skim off the IT capabilities of America, they have to find another Braintrust to tap. Just like the innovative dependencies of China, the EU is intellectually frigid; compliance is ingrained in their academia. Within the USA, we still have foundational disposition of ‘screw you‘ in our DNA.
Look at the advancements of Artificial Intelligence, or AI. All of the growth in that tech sector is being led by America. President Trump is taking every approach to ensure we remain the world’s dominant power in AI development. As much as Elon Musk’s quirks and quasi-friendly politics annoys me personally, strategically, on the technology side, it’s good to see him chumming around with President Trump; at least that’s what I tell myself.
♦ MEXICO – This is where it gets really, super interesting. You might remember that China was set to invest between $5 billion and $10 billion (total) in Mexico for EV auto manufacturing. In December of 2023, three Chinese auto manufacturers, MG, BYD, and Chery, announced they were going to spend billions building new EV manufacturing plants. Each Chinese manufacturer was initially going to spend between $1.5 to $2.0 billion. By March 2024, the reasoning was evident – Biden was supporting it.
When President Trump won the November 2024 election, all of those Chinese investments and plans inside Mexico were cancelled.
As we noted at the end of last year, splitting the USMCA into two bilateral trade deals, one for Mexico and one for Canada, will be one of the most interesting and long-term economically significant moves in U.S. trade history. It is going to be a lot of fun to watch these negotiations, and the pre-positioning gives us a preview of what is to come. Mexico is doing everything almost perfectly in preparation for their bilateral deal, including their stopping of oil shipments to Cuba.
This alignment follows the Mexican government passing a sweeping set of tariffs against Chinese imports. The Mexican government, led by Sheinbaum, made moves throughout 2025 to stay in alignment with a favorable U.S. trade agreement. Meanwhile, the Canadian government, led by Mark Carney, has been more antagonistic and positioning Canada to lose badly.
♦ SUMMARY: Some people have construed the bilateral trade preference of President Trump to be the elimination of globalism in favor of nationalism in trade agreements. While the outcome of Trump’s approach indeed aligns with that theme, it is not specifically the objective of President Trump to eliminate global trade, but rather to focus on specific interests in trade that benefit the unique nature of each party involved.
Canada can embrace China, and Europe can embrace India; in the bigger picture it really doesn’t matter. These relationships only create dependencies which are the natural outcome of globalism. From President Trump’s position, what really matters is what happens within our borders and how the United States economy is positioned. This is President Trump’s singular focus.
Do you remember President Trump leaving the 2025 G7 meeting in Canada early? The final day invitation list brought Australia, Mexico, Ukraine, South Korea, South Africa, India, the United Nations and the World Bank into the G7. President Donald Trump smartly exited the G7 assembly a day early, he departed before that crowd of interests arrived. The world leaders came because the process to keep USA wealth inside the USA is against their interests. That’s why they came, and that’s why President Trump left.
Globalism, in its economic construct, is a series of dependencies. However, the opposite is also true. If nations are not dependent, they are sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed. If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies?
Posted originally on CTH on January 25, 2026 | Sundance
Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Kirsten Hillman, appears on CBS Face The Nation to discuss ongoing political and trade relations between Canada and the United States – Video and Transcript below.
During one segment of the interview, Ambassador Hillman is asked about the dissolution of the USMCA (CUSMA) trade agreement, and immediately Hillman falls back upon the same Justin Trudeau position of the government. The U.S. politicians will not allow President Trump to dissolve the USMCA.
“I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.”
Canada is counting on American political opposition to defend the economic interests of Canada. This is exactly the same position that former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau espoused in 2017 and 2018.
[Transcript] – So a lot is going on in the relationship between our two countries. We are so deeply integrated here on trade, you buy more from the U.S. than any other country. We have the world’s longest land border. We have shared defense interests through NATO, shared air defense with NORAD. Are we like in the middle of a divorce? Like, how do you describe the relationship?
AMB HILLMAN I- I- we’re not in the middle of a divorce, but we are in the middle of a change. There’s no question about it. I think that we are finding ourselves, quite frankly, in- in a situation where some of the foundations that have governed our relationship for a long time, that you know, integrated supply chains are good, that working together on strategic issues is- are important, that looking out for each other in important ways is- is a number one priority. I think in some quarters, Canadians feel that those foundations are being tested. We will adapt. We will make it through, I have no doubt about that, but it’s yeah, it’s a complicated time.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, you know, Canada had agreed to join this Board of Peace that President Trump announced out at Davos, and then overnight Thursday, the president disinvited Canada. Is this kind of public snub interfering in the relationship, and- and what does that indicate to you about what this Board of Peace is that Canada had said it did want to be a part of?
AMB HILLMAN
So we had expressed an interest in the Board of Peace a number of weeks ago, and essentially, a Board of Peace that is seeking to find peace, in particular, in Gaza and stability, is something that Canada was very much supportive of. The- the parameters of that Board of Peace had just really started to come out and- and our government was considering it, but hadn’t- hadn’t really made a decision. But I think that- that honestly, I think that the most important thing to say here, from the perspective of Canada, is that we have always and will always be promoting peace and stability and human rights around the world. We’ll do it with our allies in various fora, at NATO, at the U.N. bilaterally with like minded countries. So we’re not going to change that and- and we will give it our all in- in any fora that- that is available to us.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It- It’s kind of now described as an alternative to the United Nations. Is that something you’re comfortable with?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, we are deep supporters of the United Nations. We feel that it’s, you know, it’s not perfect, no large institution is, but having a place where the whole world can get together and express their views on issues that are important to the globe is vital. And as I say, NATO is vital, and we work with our EU counterparts and EU-Canada, you know, security discussions and in- in various other configurations. So probably all of these different fora are- are essential. The Board of Peace has yet to be fully, I think, understood, and we’ll see- we’ll- we’ll see where that goes, but the outcomes are what matter to Canada.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So your prime minister gave a national address on Thursday, and I understand he denounced authoritarianism and exclusion. He did not mention President Trump by name, but he did rebuke the claim that Trump made at Davos, that Canada lives because of the United States. You’re talking about what people receive at home, everyone has local politics, so when something like that is said, do you fear that this is starting not just a spat, but this is like a generational split between our two countries, like, how are people receiving this at home?
AMB HILLMAN
Look, I think Canadians- Canadians know that Canada lives because of Canadians, because what Canadians do for Canada, and right now, that’s where we’re trying to focus our attention. By doing what- you know, focusing our attention on what we can control as a nation for ourselves and our own economy and our own security and our own relationships around the world. The United States is always going to be a vital partner. Geography, as you said in your opener, 5,500 miles of border, deep ties, millions of Canadians and Americans that work together every day, that- that you know, do research and study and have families across the border so that- that is there, and that is something that I actually think brings strength to the relationship at times where, you know, in other- at other levels, and maybe at the political level, it- it’s more complicated.
MARGARET BRENNAN
It’s very complicated. I mean, it- it’s almost unthinkable that a phrase like authoritarianism and exclusion that that could be thought to be referring to the leader of the president of the United States?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, I think that there are concerns globally for- by our government, that we have institutions and norms, rules that have governed our countries, yours, mine, and all like minded countries for generations that are really being tested, really being tested. And- and I think what matters is how we react in the face of these tests, and for us, for our country, for our prime minister, you know, there are important implications for our country. And he’s- he’s trying to articulate a vision. And I think he is articulating a very strong vision for how we must adapt. And again, it’s- it’s about being pragmatic and principled, and that’s- that’s what we’re going to continue to be.
MARGARET BRENNAN
You have had a long career here in the United States, deeply involved with trade in particular. You helped to negotiate that free trade deal known as USMCA during the first Trump administration. President Trump was asked about it, January 13. He said, I really don’t care in terms of renewing it, there’s no real advantage. We don’t need Canada products here. Is that free trade deal doomed?
AMB HILLMAN
No, it is not doomed. That is my view. All three countries, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico did broad consultations, national consultations, with their business communities in particular, on what- how that agreement works for them. And really without exception, the American comments back were sure we’d like to maybe update this or change this a little bit, but job number one is to do no harm to this agreement, which is the economic foundation of our continental partnership and leads to very important U.S. competitiveness, and Canadian and Mexican competitiveness vis-a-vis other parts of this world. So I think there’s- I think that we have to believe that our political leaders are going to be listening to the people in the constituencies for whom that instrument was drawn up, and they’re saying, this is vital to us, do no harm.
MARGARET BRENNAN
So do you think there’s a bilateral trade deal here? Is that what the Trump administration is going for, rather than the three way deal or–
AMB HILLMAN
I- you know, I think- I- I- we hear- we hear that sometimes, we hear different things. It is important to remember that even within that agreement, there are a lot of bilateral elements, but there is- there are advantages to doing things trilaterally. There’s a lot of supply chain movement that happens between our three countries. And if you, if you break it into two, you could have different rules and disconnects there that are inefficient for business. So we’re driven- look, Canada will be driven by what the best thing to do is, as I say, for the companies and constituencies that are relying on that agreement to create jobs.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Because you heard the commerce secretary say at Davos, you know, globalism isn’t working. I mean, these free trade deals are part of that globalism. And it was just a week ago, your prime minister was in Beijing, and he described Canada’s relationship with China as more predictable than its relationship with the United States. He really meant more predictable than the Trump administration’s United States.
AMB HILLMAN
Look, there’s no question that the last number of months have been unpredictable for us in our relationship with the United States. You know, we have a trade agreement that had us virtually tariff free between our two countries, and now we have very serious tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and that’s causing a lot of challenges within our country. There are people that are losing their jobs. There are industries that are being reoriented, and it’s very difficult. So that is seen as, yes, unpredictable.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But fortress North America had been an idea. I mean, the treasury secretary talked about it, that the United States, Mexico, Canada, we could stand up together, you know, have shared values, and stand up to China. That seems dead, if Canada is really describing a new alliance here with Beijing.
AMB HILLMAN: Well, I think- I think we have to put this in perspective. The- the agreement that we did with China a few weeks ago was a very focused and surgical agreement that was largely, or almost exclusively, designed to de-escalate some tariff escalation that had happened over the past year and a bit. So over the past year and a bit, China had put very punitive tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and fish and seafood, shutting Canadians out from one of their primary markets, if not for some of them, their primary market. And so we went to Beijing to re-establish market access for our farmers and our fishers. It’s exactly what the U.S. administration did in October when they re-established market access for U.S. soy farmers, and in exchange, rolled back some tariffs and fees. So this is a very pragmatic, very focused approach. I think it’s important to put it in context.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But even Ontario’s premier said this is letting Chinese “spy cars” into your country. I think he means electric vehicles that will be cheaply made in China. Are you worried about becoming too beholden to China and its cheap manufacturing?
AMB HILLMAN: No, we’re not, because, we- the- the auto side of this agreement was again to take us back to 2023, we had the importation of vehicles made in China. Many of those were Teslas, as a matter of fact, and we’ve gone back and stuck to the level of 2023 for those imports. So this isn’t a revolutionary new thing. This is really just trying to roll back or de-escalate what had been escalated over the past year and a bit.
MARGARET BRENNAN
Well, the treasury secretary is saying that Albertans are going to have a referendum on succeeding from Canada. He seems to be urging that. What do you make of this–
AMB HILLMAN: Well–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and comments like that?
AMB HILLMAN: I think it’s important to let Albertans and Canadians manage their own very delicate domestic, you know, politics themselves. I think that that’s probably wise counsel. Having grown up in Alberta, you know, it’s a- it’s a- it’s a province that has lots of strong views about the way in which it interacts with the rest of the country, as do other parts of our nation. And those are important debates to be had, but they’re debates for our country to have within its own citizenry.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It seems to be stirring the pot there a bit, but I want to ask you what your prime minister said at Davos. He got a standing ovation for this speech. He described a ruptured global order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a new brutal reality, which he described as a predatory one. Take a listen.
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. What does this new world order look like?
AMB HILLMAN
Well, that’s a good question. I mean, I think he laid out in his- his discussion, his speech, his- his view of what is happening in our world. And it’s- it’s a world in which rules that governed every player in the globe, every country were maybe not perfectly abided by, as he said, maybe not always exactly exercised as one would hope, but still were sufficient to form the basis of the prosperity, the stability, the predictability that we all used to maximize peace and stability and- and maximize economic reality. So we’re moving away our economic benefits, and we’re moving away from that, and we have to- countries like ours, have to figure out what that means for us. I think that what it does mean for us is that we can’t walk away from our principles. We can’t walk away from our belief in rules that are to be abided by by everyone if they commit to them. But at the same time, we have to be pragmatic and we have to look inward to control what we can within our own economies to be as resilient as we possibly can within our own economies, and part of that means engaging pragmatically with a broad array of countries around the world, in trade agreements, in investment relationships and in partnerships.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sounds like Canada is picking off our friends.
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I- no, I think Canada is trying to make sure that it is the most resilient it can be for our own benefit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m being told that President Trump posted on social media just a few moments ago that Canada is against the Golden Dome over Greenland and has voted against it to choose to be closer to China. That’s how it was described to me. Yet President Trump had previously talked about Canada participating in this Golden Dome project, which isn’t yet built, but it’s supposed to be missile- layered missile defense, as I understand it. Do you know what he’s talking about, that Canada has rejected being involved?
AMB HILLMAN: No, I’m afraid I don’t, but what I can say about the Golden Dome is this, Canada is- is investing over $80 billion over the next five years in our defens-, in our defense systems, and a big part of that is Arctic defense. And a big part of our Arctic defense investments are something called over-the-horizon radar, which is a system that allows us to see the threats that are coming into the Arctic before they arrive. So that is part- and when we have talked to the president about protecting our hemisphere, we have talked about ways in which our different capabilities can work together so that we have eyes on the region and we cooperate in a way that protects both of our countries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the president has described that as Canada wanting to plug in to the system. As you understand it, that’s the better description, your own system that would coordinate?
AMB HILLMAN: Right. Much as we do across all sorts of defense systems, where we’re interoperable. We- we work together. We make our investments that make sense for Canada and defending our territory and defending our sovereignty, but we work with the Americans and- and other allies to maximize the benefits of those.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in- in short, you do think there needs to be more focus on Arctic defense, but you’re on board to help do that?
AMB HILLMAN: We’re deeply committed to Arctic defense. Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I need to ask you about NATO, because you’re also a partner at NATO. The only time that NATO’s Article 5 was ever invoked, and you know this, was after the 9/11 attacks on this country. That collective defense clause, an attack on one is an attack on all, meant that Europe and Canada, they sent troops right alongside American troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Here’s what President Trump said.
[SOUND ON TAPE BEGINS]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’ve never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.
[SOUNDS ON TAPE ENDS]
MARGARET BRENNAN
He was speaking about all NATO troops. But we did check and about 40,000 Canadians deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. 158 were killed, 635 wounded in action. What is a remark like that do to people at home?
AMB HILLMAN: You know, I think what’s most important is that we know what our Canadians have done, and I know that your American armed forces are deeply respectful and deeply appreciative of having stood side by side with Canadians in those very, very treacherous and difficult fights. We know that to be true. They know that to be true, and that’s what matters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, thank you for your time as it wraps up here in Washington.
AMB HILLMAN: Thank you for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Great to have you. We’ll be back in a moment.
Posted originally on CTH on January 22, 2026 | Sundance
This is one of those conversations that hints around the edges of what the collapse of globalism actually entails. As noted in the beginning of the WEF panel discussion by Christine Legarde, the construct of global economics was built upon a foundation of interdependent trade dependencies. If nations are no longer reliant upon other nations for sourcing of goods and services, the global construct of banking and finance then begins to collapse.
Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses.
Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies. The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse.
If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement? The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.
Global trade is now beyond goods and services and into the world of automated artificial intelligence. Legarde notes the tech sector wants/needs access to more global data in order to create the control systems of tomorrow. However, again the problem arises when sovereign nations refuse to dump their independent data into the bucket of data dependency.
If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear.
If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company. Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent.
In very real and actionable terms, some nations may sell cars without seatbelts, cultures might be different, even trans rights might not be recognized.
Yes Alice, in this independent and sovereign world they are talking about, things will be very different.
Freedom is that pesky thing to be managed. OMG! The horror of it. GASP!
“Those pesky proles might even barter with one another. Then what happens”?
Posted originally on CTH on January 21, 2026 | Sundance
After a brief return to the U.S. due to unexpected electrical issues aboard Airforce One, President Trump is now on the ground in Davos, Switzerland and about to make his speech to the international assembly gathered at the World Economic Forum 2026.
According to the schedule President Trump is expected to make his remarks at 8:30am Eastern Time. There are multiple livestreams below from domestic and international news outlets. The entire western world is watching to see what happens next.
Posted originally on CTH on January 21, 2026 | Sundance
A large U.S. delegation, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio are traveling with President Trump tonight to Davos. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and all of the key members of the cabinet are already there.
According to the official WEF schedule, President Donald Trump’s address is in the mid‑afternoon Wednesday January 21, with the Davos session set for 2:30 to 3:15 p.m. local time (8:30 to 9:15 a.m. ET).
The entire world will be watching this speech considering the geopolitical events of the past year, the current trajectory of global relationships that has been scrambled by President Trump, and anticipation of this moment being the inflection point in Western political history.
On the tech side, all of the information bots under the control of Canada, the U.K, Australia and the global intelligence apparatus will be turned on to control and shape internet opinion of President Trump’s speech. The need for control is a reaction to fear. Do not discount the stakes at play; this is beyond the trillions – this is everything. For the opposition to President Trump this is a zero-sum conflict.
Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent held a press conference earlier today to absorb and address some of the key questions from the international media assembly (SEE BELOW). Combined with feedback from Secretary Lutnick and USTR Greer, the speech content is being finalized on the flight between President Trump and Secretary Rubio.
Trump’s Davos schedule, via the White House. Depart DC Tuesday evening
Wednesday in Davos: 2:10 PM – 8:10 am ET – Greets WEF leadership 2:30 PM – 8:30 am ET – Delivers his Davos speech 3:45 PM – 9:45 am ET – Bilats and meetings 5:25 PM – 11:25 am ET – Business reception
Thursday 10:30 AM – 4:30 am ET – Board of Peace Charter Announcement
Posted originally on CTH on January 20, 2026 | Sundance
And so, it begins. The fully engaged Trump MAGAnomic team begin their outlines to the World Economic Forum in Davos with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the top line announcement, “Globalism has failed the United States of America.”
Appearing on an economic panel with various pontificating economic ministers of the elitist class, Secretary Lutnick begins to confront the panel and the audience with the big picture objective of the Trump administration. Using real world examples, current citations highlighting the behavior of the assembled political representatives, Lutnick begins to tell them exactly what the reason are for President Trump’s policy.
Why would the EU destroy it’s own energy policy? “Why would Europe agree to be ‘net-zero’ in 2030, when they don’t make a battery,” he asked. Thus, the pragmatic realism of policy intersects with the hypocritical action and creates an outcome that no one can explain. “So, if they go 2030, they are intentionally deciding to be subservient to China who makes the batteries,” he continued. This makes absolutely no sense.
Posted originally on CTH on January 20, 2026 | Sundance
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is in Davos ahead of President Trump’s visit on Wednesday and Thursday. Secretary Bessent was asked by the assembled media about current administration policy toward Greenland. WATCH:
What most people don’t understand about the strategically worded letter to Norway’s leftist Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, is how President Trump has just framed Støre as the defacto head of Brussels, representing the interests of the EU toward the framework of Greenland.
It’s not about the Nobel Peace Prize; it’s something far bigger. President Trump did not initiate contact with PM Støre; the contact was first made by Støre calling President Trump to notify him that their position was to defend Greenland against any threat from a non-NATO nation. President Trump asked how Norway was going to secure that pledge and Støre had no response.
Trump is correct; we cannot abdicate our own security to the promises of other nations. This perspective not only applies toward the USA but also applies toward the EU and is the entire reason why Trump has told NATO they need to be able to defend themselves.
Norway said it cannot defend itself from Russian threats and needs the security of the U.S. Accepting this statement Trump rightly asks: if you cannot defend yourself then how can you possibly defend Greenland. Støre had no reply. President Trump is unwilling to accept platitudes and statements in lieu of structural reality.
Prime Minister Støre previously said, “Norway’s position is firm: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Norway fully supports the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. There is broad agreement in NATO on the need to strengthen security in the Arctic, including in Greenland.”
In context President Trump’s position makes a great deal of pragmatic sense.
President Trump will not abdicate vital USA strategic security on the hope that NATO will defend our interests if needed. In fact, the quagmire and inability of Europe to defend a European country like Ukraine proves the pragmatic point. If Europe cannot organize strategic defense of Ukraine, then why the heck would Trump believe Europe would organize the strategic defense of Greenland.
Denmark cannot protect itself from China and/or Russia. Why would the United States believe Denmark could protect Greenland?
Posted originally on CTH on January 19, 2026 | Sundance
In a stunning and rapid strategy to keep the globalists from realizing what he is assembling, it is being reported that President Trump wants the Gaza Board of Peace constitution and remittance agreement signed in Davos. However, as the United Nations, European leaders and traditional globalists who comprise the WEF assembly begin to realize what Trump is putting together, they are getting triggered.
“Hey boss, they’re catching on. Better hurry up”
In essence, as people of self-appointed political importance are starting to realize, President Trump is assembling an entirely new structure for global partnerships that will likely end up with the functional obsolesce of the United Nations. Trump is selecting world leaders through the invite to a global board of peace; Gaza merely represents the initial venue.
One of the key aspects is the new global assembly will each pay their own way. No free riders this time. You want to sit at the big table, join the big club of sovereignty, assemble with a mutually respectful team of action, then pay the entrance fee to attend.
Surprise! [Remember the “Happy Trump” pin?]
(Bloomberg) — US President Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace has got off to a rough start: questioned by Europe, criticized by Israel and celebrated by friends of the Kremlin.
France’s Emmanuel Macron, for one, has come right out of the gate to decline an invitation that was also extended to strongmen such as Belarus’s autocratic leader Alexander Lukashenko. Several liberal democracies are squirming, uncertain how to respond and not wanting to offend Trump.
They don’t have long to decide.
Trump wants the full constitution and remit of the committee signed in Davos on Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter. But some elements of the small print have left invitees wondering whether to accept.
Trump is demanding that nations pay $1 billion for permanent membership of the board, Bloomberg reported, a condition since confirmed by the White House. That’s blindsided world leaders and left many bewildered, according to people familiar with the matter.
Potential members of the board — conceived last year as a Trump-headed body to oversee the redevelopment of post-war Gaza — began to filter out over the weekend. Invitees include world leaders from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Much of the concern centers on the wording of the peace board’s charter, seen by Bloomberg, which appears to place its ultimate decision-making power with Trump. That raises many questions — not least over where the payments for long-term membership would go, the people said.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
European allies are working to modify the terms and coordinate a response, people familiar with the matter said, and are seeking to persuade Arab nations to also lobby Trump for changes.
That response encapsulates much of Europe’s approach to Trump’s second term: play for time, be seen to engage, try to talk him down. The conversations are particularly challenging as they come at a sensitive moment in negotiations over Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and with Trump threatening to take Greenland, one of the people said. (read more)
“He can’t. He, he, wouldn’t” – “Oh yes, he bloody well can, and he bloody well is.” – “In case you haven’t noticed, he’s not asking for permission.”
And….
Wait for it….
Who/Where/What is the first voice to rise against this global alliance for peace?
“So far, only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly pushed back against the proposal. While he’s in favor of the Board of Peace as a concept, his office said the make-up of a separate Gaza committee serving under the board, was “not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy,” after officials from Qatar and Turkey were included.”
Wait, so Israel is not happy…. Not just about Gaza, but about, well, everything this new structure could possibly mean.
Meanwhile, “Argentina’s Javier Milei confirmed he’ll become a founding member, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has pitched herself as a mediator who is “ready to do our part.””
Can you see it now?
Leftist/Globalist United Nations imperialism is diminished. While a nationalist, respectful sovereign alliance rises.
Posted originally on CTH on January 18, 2026 | Sundance
Last week President Donald Trump officially announced the members of the Gaza Board of Peace; an organization headed by President Trump and tasked to oversee the second phase of his plan to end the Israeli conflict in Gaza, specifically the reconstruction and disarmament of Gaza and Hamas respectively. [SEE HERE]
The members of the “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump himself, includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Emissary Steve Witkoff; Jared Kushner; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; an American-Jewish billionaire named Mark Rowan; World Bank President Ajay Banga; and Deputy National Security Advisor of the United States, Robert Gabriel. President/Chairman Donald Trump has also appointed Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum as senior advisors to the Board of Peace.
At the same time, President Trump announced another executive body that would operate under the Peace Council to assist with the facilitation of a new Palestinian government, the “Gaza Executive Board.” This structure is intended to manage day to day events on the ground instead of a Hamas loyalist govt. The appointees to the executive board have upset the Netanyahu government of Israel.
According to the White House announcement, the Gaza Executive Board will include: Witkoff; Kushner; Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan; senior Qatari official Ali al-Thawadi; Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad; Tony Blair; billionaire Mark Rowan; UAE Minister Reem Al Hashimi; former Bulgarian Foreign and Defense Minister Nickolay Mladenov, who also served as the UN envoy for the Middle East peace process; U.N Representative Sigrid Kagg, and Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabbay, who specializes in real estate, technology and international investments.
Additionally, to establish security, preserve peace, and establish a durable terror-free environment, Major General Jasper Jeffers has been appointed Commander of the International Stabilization Force (ISF), where he will lead security operations, support comprehensive demilitarization, and enable the safe delivery of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials. [link]
According to Israeli media Netanyahu is not happy, and planning to protest the Turkish, Qatari and UAE appointments to Marco Rubio (not Trump):
“A very unusual statement by the prime minister against the US president, following the publication of the members of the “Executive Committee for Gaza” – which includes, among other things, the Turkish foreign minister and a senior Qatari official. “The announcement of the panel was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy,” the Prime Minister’s Office said.
“The announcement of the composition of Gaza’s Executive Committee, which is subordinate to the peace conference, was not coordinated with Israel and is contrary to its policy,” the Prime Minister’s Office said, adding that “the prime minister has instructed Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to contact US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on this matter.” (more)
Within the appointments for the executive board, the use of Turkey, Qatar and UAE officials for the governance and reconstruction of Gaza explains the recent parsing of the Muslim Brotherhood chapters as terrorist enablers. When Secretary Rubio made the terrorist designation announcement, the Turkish and Qatari Muslim Brotherhood chapters were notably absent. With the Gaza initiative ongoing, now we see coordinated pragmatism at work.
Rubio chose to focus on Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon to target the Muslim Brotherhood. As we noted, “The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were chased out of the country by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi over a decade ago. The Jordanian chapter is similarly aligned and was previously targeted by King Abdullah. The Lebanese faction is not as well known, but their support for Hamas is well understood.” {Go Deep}
A few things are obvious.
First, President Trump and Secretary Rubio knew in advance they were going to need the strong influences of Qatar and Turkey if they were going to stabilize the interim Gaza reconstruction governing system. Secondly, both Trump and Rubio knew Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn’t like that; however, pragmatically Trump and Rubio are doing what is in the best interest of the region as a whole, not being narrowly focused on Israel. Additionally, these appointments have upset the Israel-first influencer group in the U.S.
President Trump is restructuring mid-east stability without the need for direct U.S. intervention. Instead, under President Trump’s approach conflict resolution is the responsibility of the regional stakeholders with strong support from President Trump. It is a similar outlook conveyed to Europe about needing to be responsible for their own defense and security solutions while the USA role is supportive in nature.
In this approach the sharp tendrils of U.S. influence start to be untangled, and the national security focus returns to the USA domestically. Mutually beneficial national sovereignty replaces toxic and unending globalist intervention. This is a similar worldview that President Trump also takes toward trade agreements.
Multilateral trade agreements like the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TPP) or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or even the NAFTA/USMCA trade agreement are rejected in favor of direct bilateral free trade agreements with individual nations.
In Trump’s trade policy the multilateral deals are dissolved, while the bilateral deals are affirmed. The same outlook holds true for massive institutional agreements that end up with large entanglements often carrying disproportionate costs and disparate benefits. Like NATO, the USA usually ends up with the largest price tag and least benefit from the agreement.
Is NATO/Europe going to fight China over Taiwan? Of course not. If they were, Canada wouldn’t be making deals with Beijing, and Europe would not be allowing China to purchase stakeholder interests in the European car market. The same pragmatic and reasonable outlook applies right now toward how the EU has responded to the Russia/Ukraine conflict; only “willing” if the USA puts our blood and treasure on the line.
This nationalistic outlook is honestly encapsulated in this recent soundbite from President Trump when asked about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney making a trade agreement with China. President Trump genuinely doesn’t care. WATCH:
Canada can make whatever deal they want with China; however, that doesn’t mean it will work out well for Canada when the USMCA is dissolved and a new bilateral trade deal between the USA and Canada is renegotiated. Factually, it means Canada will end up in a worse economic place, just look at the history of countries that hugged Big Panda. It is their own independent right to be blind to the risk.
Despite all the warnings from President Trump, Europe became dependent on Russia for low-cost energy; how’d that work out for them? Germany now seriously regrets their green energy approach, but there’s nothing President Trump can do to stop multinational assemblies from being collectively stupid; the only thing he can do is mitigate any collateral damage to the USA.
Instead of European leaders calling President Trump every time Turkish President Recep Erdogan does something against their interests, eventually the group will learn how to engage him individually. In a world of bilateral respect, the lessons from Trump could even have the downstream effect of training the EU to drop their obsession with Russia-bad everything.
The Ukraine conflict could end when Europe finally realizes it’s much easier to turn on a Nordstream gas valve than it is to rebuild 30 German nuclear power plants. President Trump’s refusal to commit U.S. troops to Zelenskyy’s security guarantee will hopefully hasten that conversation.
The same pragmatic realism applies to Greenland. Europe will never respond to any increase in strategic threat presented by China or Russia in the Arctic, and the U.S. will shoulder all the costs if that risk were to materialize. Strategic pragmatism combined with economic realism is why President Trump is focused on the security of the North American continent.
Lastly, there is a segment of MAGA that is angered by President Trump’s interim and necessary approach to removing our foreign policy entanglements in both the European and Mideast continents. Those who are short-sighted don’t see how President Trump is strategically and factually withdrawing U.S. policy from a world of enmeshed dependencies, because in reality charity –along with security– begins at home.
Thankfully, the former Lyndon LaRouche assembly from Promethean Action have begun to recalibrate their British-centric focus, and they’ve started to look at Trump policy beyond the ramifications to London and through the more accurate prism of Trump’s global pragmatism. President Donald Trump isn’t trying to unilaterally destroy British imperialism, not directly. Instead, that old, stuffy and elitist collapse is a consequence of reestablishing independent sovereignty.
Smile, live your very best life and watch it all unfold. After all, Davos is going to be a must-watch event next week.
Posted originally on CTH on January 18, 2026 | Sundance
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on NBC to discuss the national security issues surrounding Greenland and the Trump administration’s face off against Europe and NATO. Additionally, Welker wants to protect Fed Chairman Jerome Powell against mounting evidence of his political bias and mismanagement of the Federal Reserve. Video and Transcript Below.
Joining me now is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Good morning, Kristen. Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s great to have you here, thank you for being here in person. Let’s start right there. President Trump threatening to impose steep tariffs against some of America’s closest European and NATO allies. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland say bluntly, “Greenland is not for sale.” What makes President Trump think it is?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, if we look for years, for over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland. And what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security — we’re building the golden dome, the missile system. And look, President Trump is being strategic. He is looking beyond this year. He’s looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries. In Trump 1.0, President Trump told the Europeans, “Do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.” And guess what, Kristen? Guess what is funding Russia’s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil. So America has to be in control here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to delve into everything that you said. But I just want to ask you big picture: Is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Or is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because, Kristen, let me tell you what will happen, and it might not be next year, might not be in five years. But down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world. We are the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness. U.S. projects strength.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But just very quickly, is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Is the goal to get a deal to have enhanced security in Greenland, for example?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The president believes that enhanced security is not possible without Greenland being part of the U.S.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let me press you on what you have said are national security concerns, particularly as it relates to Russia and China. Senior Democrats say there are no pressing threats on Greenland’s security from Russia or China. The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, Kristen, we have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, “Well, just take a little bit of it.” But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You bring up Crimea. The president, as far as I have heard, has not taken military force off the table. If the United States were to take Greenland by force, how would that be different than Russia’s annexation of Crimea?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Look, I believe that Europeans will understand that this is best for Greenland, best for Europe, and best for the United States.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But military action is still on the table?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I haven’t spoken with the president on that. And again, I believe that the Europeans will understand that the best outcome is for the U.S. to maintain or to receive control of Greenland.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, so far what we’ve heard and seen from the Europeans is alarm and outrage. In fact they’re, as you know, holding an emergency meeting today. And part of the issue, the president has already reached a trade deal with the EU. How can countries have confidence in trade deals moving forward if President Trump is prepared to blow them up?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, the trade deal hasn’t been finalized. And an emergency action can be very different from another trade deal. So we’re in a very good equilibrium right now with China. But if China did something to upset that balance, I think the president would be willing to act. You know, same thing with India. We were working on a trade deal with India. But the president, unlike the Europeans, started charging the Europeans 25% for buying Russian oil. So the president leverages his emergency powers to do this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I hear you saying that the deal hasn’t been finalized. And yet it was moving towards finalization. Doesn’t it undercut the United States’ word by threatening these steep new tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think it does not. What it does is it enhances United States security. And again, we have seen that Europeans are unable to push back against Russia. The U.S. — this war that never would have started in Ukraine, Kristen, we are going to settle it. But it wouldn’t have started. And what President Trump is trying to do is prevent a taking or the Russian, Chinese action in Greenland in the future. So why not be strategic? Why? Always live in the moment.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s talk about being strategic. The United States has a base in Greenland. I’ve been talking to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Denmark has given the United States a green light to beef up its security as much as is needed in Greenland. Why not take that route? Why is it necessary to take over and annex all of Greenland, something that 85% of people living in Greenland oppose?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, again let’s look back. Denmark has a terrible history with Greenlanders. There were forced sterilizations up until the ‘80s or the ‘90s. So all of a sudden, now that the U.S. has expressed an interest, there is, you know, this new interest. And again, the United States needs to be in control to prevent a war. And we do not want to get dragged into someone else’s war.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, but this is about the United States relationship with its allies, NATO allies, again reacting with alarm. They are warning that this move to annex Greenland could in fact destroy NATO. So let me just put this to you bluntly. Is Greenland or NATO more essential to the United States national security?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Both. Kristen, that’s obviously a false choice. You know, that’s an absolute —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Not from the perspective of European leaders.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the U.S. security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the U.S. pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse. The U.S., Kristen, to be clear, since 1980 the U.S. military spending versus NATO military spending, we have spent $22 trillion more than the Europeans have, that we are peace through strength, and the Europeans now are only trying to play catch-up. And that is only through President Trump. President Trump believes in NATO. But he does not believe in the American people being dragged in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, in terms of the cost that has been paid, Denmark has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States including after 9/11. In fact, it lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation apart from the United States itself, Mr. Secretary. Does President Trump want the United States to remain a part of NATO?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, we are going to remain a part of NATO. But what President Trump does not want is for a war to start and the U.S. gets dragged in. Again, we are not going to outsource our Western Hemisphere security to others.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the tariff portion of this. The president, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies. It’s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We’re all awaiting the high court’s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that? You know, same thing that what if we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world — I’ve been in financial markets for 30, 45 years — much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re saying it’s a national emergency. But you’re also saying it’s a threat. It’s years away. How can both be true, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Because you are avoiding creating the emergency, Kristen. What if during the great financial crisis, someone had raised their hand in 2005, 2006 and said, “Stop the sub-prime mortgages?” But no one did. President Trump is raising his hand. And that is preventing the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think the Supreme Court will agree with that rationale, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos. As you said earlier, we have set these trade deals. And it is very good for the United States if we are balancing our trade deficit. If you look, Europe is being overrun with Chinese goods. There is now an emergency in Europe. There is going to be an economic emergency. The Europeans will follow us. So President Trump is pre-empting this if we go back to emergencies, he put a fentanyl tariff, Mexico, Canada, China. Guess what’s happened to fentanyl deaths? If that’s an emergency, I don’t know what is. October 8th, when the Chinese threatened to put rare Earth export controls on the entire world, President Trump threatened 100% tariff. And the Chinese came to the table. And we negotiated on behalf of the whole world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let me move to the Federal Reserve. I want to ask you about the revelations this week that the Department of Justice is investigating Jerome Powell and the Fed for allegedly going over budget in the Fed building renovations. Chairman Powell responded. He fired back at this. I want to play a little bit and get your reaction on the other side.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JEROME POWELL:
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is President Trump committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, he’s committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve. But independence does not mean no oversight.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But doesn’t this undercut the independence of the Federal Reserve if the Justice Department is investigating renovations? There are renovations at the White House.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The renovations at the White House are not $700 million, more than $1 billion or $1.5 billion over budget, Kristen. And the White House, that is being paid for with private funds. If I want to buy a new chair for my office at Treasury, that is an appropriation. Just to understand, the Federal Reserve has magic money. They print their own money. So when you have no oversight, why not have a little sunlight? Kristen, I have called since last summer for the Fed to do its own internal investigation. And that has not been heeded, not been heeded. And again, I don’t know about you. If I were to receive inquiries from the Justice Department, I would answer them. They went unanswered.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you because Axios reported that you were not happy about DOJ’s investigation, that you told President Trump as much. Axios writes, “a perturbed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told President Trump late Sunday that the federal investigation into the Federal Reserve Chair made a mess and could be bad for financial markets.” That’s according to two sources familiar with the call. Is that accurate?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
You know what, Kristen? I’m not going to discuss my conversations with the president. But if I said that, I was wrong. Financial markets, stock market went up, bond yields went down. So the markets are the ultimate arbiter of over whether the Fed’s independence is being impugned. And bond yields went down. I can tell you we had two of the best bond auctions that we have had in months for U.S. treasuries. So the market is looking beyond this. And again, maybe the market wants some transparency from the Fed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One final question for you, Mr. Secretary. Some Republican senators, as you know, are threatening to block the president’s nominees over the Justice Department’s investigation. Do you think the investigation needs to be dropped in order for the Senate to confirm the president’s next pick to run the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think that that will be up to the senators. I think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But are you worried that they’ll block the president’s pick for the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I am not. I think we have four great candidates. I think that they will be quite happy with either of the four. I think we will move forward. I believe that we will probably be hearing from the banking committee soon on what they would like to see. And again, the supervision and bringing in some sunlight does not mean coercion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Thank you so much, Secretary Bessent, for being here to respond to all of the breaking
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 