Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Days:

"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection."

– Henri Poincare

“Sometimes a man wants to be stupid if it lets him do a thing his cleverness forbids.”

– John Steinbeck

“You're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them-if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry.”

~J.D. Salinger, “The Catcher in the Rye”

1. See what it was like watching elite US special operators fight drones and storm buildings in a Taiwan crisis scenario

2. THE PROBLEM WITH THINKING IN DIME

3. These are the people Trump picked for top roles in his administration and their connections

4. Bill Maher Praises President Trump as ‘Gracious’ and ‘Not Fake’ Recounting His White House Visit: ‘Everything I’ve Ever Not Liked About Him Was Absent’

5. A Good Man for U.S. Manufacturing Is Hard to Find

6. American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage

7. Trump is waiting for Xi to call. The Chinese see it differently

8. U.S., Iran Begin High Stakes Nuclear Talks in Oman

9. Stories vs Facts: The Real Battleground in Narrative Warfare

10. Chinese diplomat invokes Mao Zedong in vow not to 'back down' from US trade war

11. The Counteroffensive: Can Ukraine's military survive without Elon Musk's Starlink systems?

12. The Only Al-Qaida Operative to Infiltrate the Army's Special Forces

13. US-China tariff battle fuels questions about Trump’s endgame

14. Trump Showed His Pain Point in His Standoff With China

15. How TikTok’s Parent, ByteDance, Became an A.I. Powerhouse

16. Dozens sue Iran and North Korea, saying they sponsored terrorists

17. What Mao and the Korean War tell us about Chinese psyche in fight against Trump

18. Trump Wants to Merge Government Data. Here Are 314 Things It Might Know About You.

1. See what it was like watching elite US special operators fight drones and storm buildings in a Taiwan crisis scenario

While I was the USASOC G3 there were only two events that I really enjoyed. Although a lot of work by a lot of people to put together, the CAPEX was an important annual event to showcase Army SOF capabilities. (And the second was going out to Camp Mackall to take brief backs from the teams going into Robin Sage and then attending their Area Command meetings out in Pineland).

But the USASOC CAPEX has come a long way since 2007-2010.

What was always challenging for us was to showcase the long duration events of unconventional warfare that cannot be adequately demonstrated in a one day event. In the case of today's security situation this would include developing resistance capabilities among the population or creating dilemmas for China outside of Taiwan where it is exploiting countries through its One Belt One Road exploitation plan.

Multiple videos are at the link.

See what it was like watching elite US special operators fight drones and storm buildings in a Taiwan crisis scenario

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-rangers-run-chinese-invasion-taiwan-crisis-assault-ops-2025-4?utm

By Chris Panella

US Army rangers fast rope off a MH-47 Chinook as part of an airborne assault demonstration.

US Army photo by Sgt. Benjamin D. Castro

Apr 10, 2025, 5:15 AM ET

SaveSaved

US Army special operations forces showcased new capabilities and an assault operation during an immersive exercise.
The scenario reflected a potential fight during a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The operators and leadership spoke to the importance of new innovations and readiness.

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina — The low hum of a quadcopter drone cuts through the air like a buzzing bee. It's faint and difficult to track. The sound grows louder as the swarm builds.

The drones are fast and small and hard to see, but the noise of the growing swarm is becoming overwhelming. They are rushing over barren dirt roads and empty buildings.

Then the bombs begin to fall, and the explosions are deafening. People are hit, collapsing on the ground, screaming, covered in blood as dust fills the air. It's chaos.

This shocking opening act was just one element of a training exercise at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where US Army Special Operations Command held its annual Capabilities Exercise, or CAPEX, last week.

Drones swarm overhead at CAPEX. US Army Photo by 1st Lt. Allan Cogan

Open to the public, CAPEX offers a close look at what US Army Special Operations Forces are working on and how they'd respond to a potential real-world conflict. This year's scenario was a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a growing concern as China modernizes its forces.

The day began with a briefing from Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, the USASOC commanding general, on the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Braga highlighted 2027, the date Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has indicated China's military needs to be ready to invade Taiwan.

While there's no guarantee it takes that step, Braga called it "by exponential means, the greatest threat we have." Thinking about that challenge is playing a role in shaping how ARSOF operators train and the capabilities they develop.

Rangers bust into an enemy command and control center. Business Insider/Chris Panella

American special operators are in a transition period. After decades of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, they are now shifting, along with the rest of the military, toward great-power competition and potential conflict with a top adversary.

Special forces leaders have said the change requires new skillsets from operators that will affect how they approach supporting conventional forces and irregular warfare. In some respects, it will mean a return to Cold War-era roles and tactics.

Throughout the CAPEX, ARSOF personnel talked at length about what they're prioritizing. Drones and other uncrewed systems are at the forefront.

The initial, simulated drone attack from Chinese forces during the exercise left a few people "wounded," prompting ARSOF to demonstrate their crisis and medical responses. It was tense but orderly — personnel cared for superficial wounds, assessed serious injuries, and took immediate action.

Crisis response demonstrated during CAPEX. US Army photo by Sgt. Benjamin D. Castro

Taking the fight to the enemy

The drill shifted into high gear when ARSOF went on offense with a raid into enemy territory aimed at opening up a temporary air corridor for follow-on forces.

From the top of a building, BI and others watched as an assault team broke from cover, surprising its enemies with rapid M240B machine gun fire. It was loud and sudden.

The American team then took control of the area surrounding a Russian-made SCUD tactical ballistic missile.

Enemy uncrewed aerial systems flew around the area, leading to the use of counter-drone capabilities to detect, track, and ultimately neutralize them. Officials said the counter-UAS system used sensors and deployed interceptor drones to conduct a "command-link takeover" that essentially breaks the connection between drones and their operators.

That system was then used to identify the launch point of the drones. With a loitering munition and a separate drone, the assault team took out the targets.

A MH-47 Chinook aircraft from 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment flies during CAPEX. US Army photo by Spc. Joell Valenzuela

With the air corridor open, forces from the 75th Ranger Regiment and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment were then able to enter the area and target a key enemy facility: a hostile command and control center.

Two MH-47 Chinook helicopters, special operations variants of the heavy lift transport aircraft, soared in from the distant tree line.

The arrival of the Chinooks was fast. As they came in, they stirred up dirt and dust, making it hard to see two assault squads scurried down ropes, called a fast-rope insertion, from the helicopters onto the tops of adjacent buildings.

Just as quickly as they arrived, the helicopters flew off. They couldn't linger.

THE PROBLEM WITH THINKING IN DIME

warroom.armywarcollege.edu · by Matthew O'Connor · April 10, 2025

Diplomacy is, in its most basic form, the official means by which one state relates to other states or international organizations.

The acronym DIME is one of the most commonly used mental models across the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). A shorthand for the four purported “instruments of national power”—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—the construct presents a distorted view of diplomacy and perpetuates a bottom-up, checklist view of policymaking. “Thinking in DIME,” so to speak, conflates diplomacy with other policy instruments that link more naturally to tangible sources of national power, thereby obscuring the unceasing political role of the diplomatist to coordinate and marshal all kinds of national power to achieve goals abroad. This approach also encourages policymakers to think of diplomacy as akin to military instruments of power, as something to start and stop—or even combine and portion out with other swappable units of power—rather than as a fundamentally different, fundamentally political process that is never abandoned. In addition, and more dangerously, conceptualizing using DIME reinforces a natural bureaucratic tendency to subordinate strategy to resourcing by building foreign policy up from present capabilities rather than identifying the mix of capabilities needed to achieve established policy ends.

DIME Distorts the Character and Role of Diplomacy

Diplomacy is, in its most basic form, the official means by which one state relates to other states or international organizations. Relating to another state or organization, however, has two broad aspects: the instruments or practices of diplomacy and the overall management of a bilateral or multilateral relationship. “Diplomacy” can refer to either or both of these, depending on the speaker and context. Under the DIME construct, however, the “D” largely refers to the first definition of diplomacy: discrete diplomatic practices or implements that reside largely in the Department of State toolbox, such as breaking diplomatic relations, declaring a foreign diplomat persona non grata, withdrawing an ambassador in protest, démarching foreign officials, approving foreign arms sales, or placing visa bans on corrupt foreign officials.

These mechanisms of diplomacy may be effective in achieving policy goals, but they differ from military, economic, or informational tools. For starters, those three instruments encompass latent powers that the instruments can potentially transmit into real results. The United States has, using David Jablonsky’s “gauge for national power,” tremendous latent military power built on factors like personnel, equipment, weaponry, leadership, discipline, and relationships with allies. Similarly, the U.S. economy is the largest and one of the most productive in the world, fueled by natural resources, a large and growing population, international faith in dollar-denominated assets, advanced technology, an attractive market for investment, and factories that make things (including things to support the M). Dynamic ideas, cultural reach, attractive ideals, and dominance of social media and other communications platforms represent massive U.S. informational and ideological power, what E.H. Carr, one of the twentieth century’s most influential international relations authors, called the “power of persuasion.”

Giving diplomacy a letter in the DIME construct, however, encourages policymakers to imagine a matching reservoir of diplomatic power whose tap they can turn off and on—again, similar to military tools, which turn a matching latent military power into effects. Countries cooperate with diplomatic requests or demands because the proposed (or threatened) action in relation to that country will affect its security, its economy, or its international or internal influence or legitimacy. Diplomatic “power,” however, does not get this cooperation from other countries: Diplomacy changes other countries’ behavior because the arms, money, and power over opinion serve to back up the political ends that diplomacy communicates. That is, governments achieve international goals because diplomacy marshals the instruments that tap into one or more other, latent kinds of power.

The “latent power” of diplomacy, then, is its role in bringing to bear the other three instruments of power. A large wall in the U.S. Army War College that features the DIME concept asks students, “What proportions of DIME are necessary for America’s long term, national goals,” obscuring this fundamental difference between diplomacy and the other tools. Rather than an instrument to be compared to and “portioned” out with other instruments, the main function of diplomacy is the actual or proposed portioning out of the instruments of power to achieve national goals.

This is why E.H. Carr did not include diplomacy in his list of the three separate, though often interdependent, kinds of political power countries use to pursue national goals in the international sphere: military power, economic power, and power over opinion. Carr—himself a diplomat for two decades—instead, placed diplomacy as “the art of applying the instruments of power rather than a separate instrument itself…[of] negotiating with friends, enemies, and neutrals backed always by the potential application of [the other three].” Robert Worley echoes Carr, defining diplomacy as the political instrument “backed by all the instruments of power.”

Diplomacy is not, as Clausewitz famously described war, the continuation of political relations by other means.

Diplomacy Is a Constant Process

Diplomacy is not, as Clausewitz famously described war, the continuation of political relations by other means. Diplomacy is rather international political relations qua relations, interactions between countries that include “constant assessment of other countries’ power potential, perceived vital interests, relationship with other states, in an attempt to maximize one’s own country’s freedom of action with the ultimate purpose of assuring the achievement of the nation’s vital interests, the core of which is survival.” As George Kennan, accomplished diplomat and one father of the Cold War containment strategy, wrote, “Diplomacy isn’t anything in a compartment by itself. The stuff of diplomacy is in the entire fabric of our Foreign Relations with other countries, and it embraces every phase of national power and every phase of national dealing.”

As Harold Nicolson noted, the core diplomatic role, negotiation, was not an opportunistic activity but “a permanent activity.” Although individual tasks will be completed, “managing relations with the host country and addressing the many multinational issues that the host nation may be involved in are a continuing operation. Embassy work has no defined end state because relations among states are ongoing.” Even military victory does not end diplomacy, as Kennan observed: “We may defeat an enemy, but life goes on. The demands and the aspirations of people, the compulsions that worked on them before they were defeated, begin to operate again.”

In this sense, the practice of diplomacy is the practice of international politics, and just as domestic politics are unending, politics beyond borders is the art of continually applying a nation’s power to achieve its goals. The DIME construct, therefore, not only pairs three letters (IME) that conceptually match up to related powers and instruments with another (D) that is instead the method for applying all instruments, but also groups a strange “instrument” of diplomacy that—in the face of the constant re-adjustments of relations between countries—the policymaker never sets down, with the I, M, and E instruments that come in and out of the toolbox as needed.

To draw on the musical meaning of “instrument,” on the international stage high-level diplomacy—be it done by the president, a secretary of state or defense, or an ambassador at post—is less like one of the instruments and more like the conductor. It is the voice and direction given to the domestic players and the resulting sound given to foreign ears and eyes, a kind of coordinating political power to use and guide the orchestra’s parts to achieve a greater whole that the conductor alone is responsible for. Various sections of the orchestra rest or fade into the background, but the conductor never stops.

Thinking in DIME upends effective policymaking.

Policymakers ideally respond to an emerging international event or issue by deciding whether it’s in national interests to act, what the objective should be if so, what level of resources to dedicate to the action, and what instruments will best deliver that level of resources to the problem. However, as Graham Allison related in Essence of Decision when analyzing the Cuban missile crisis, the process can often go the other way: Policymakers presented options to President John F. Kennedy “based largely on the core competencies and existing plans of the organizations that made up the national security establishment (diplomatic action from the State Department, airstrikes from the U.S. Air Force, a blockade from the U.S. Navy).” Pre-existing plans and bureaucratic missions drove options, with policies emerging “as a result of the struggle among organizations to enshrine their priorities,” a form of working backwards from instruments to policy.

Is this what we want? (Source: @DefenseCharts)

There will always be this strong tendency for the immediate stewards of the various instruments of power—whether at State, DoD, or other policy agencies—to jockey for position based on organizational interests and instruments, subordinating strategy to resourcing. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recognized this danger and sought to avoid a “bottom-up” planning process based on service-specific programs by reordering military planning to promote a “top-down” system to work from ends to identify needed joint combat capabilities, properly beginning with broad requirements without regard to individual services.

The process for developing national security policy documents implicitly recognizes the proper relation of policy the instruments of power. Within the Department of State, for example, the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) guides the State/USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP), which in turn guides the writing of regional and functional bureau strategies, and finally the integrated country strategies (ICS) of each overseas mission. At the ICS level, the various embassy offices then identify the tools and processes to help achieve these detailed versions of national-level objectives, along with, when appropriate, timelines for achievement.

However, when DoD doctrine and schools conceptually group diplomacy and other diverse and ambiguous kinds of power into simplified “instruments” of national power under the DIME (or the expanded universe of MIDFIELD, or MIDLIFE, or DIMEFIL), they reinforce the tendency to build foreign policy up from present capabilities in a checklist or “lines of effort” process based on an audit of instruments at hand, rather than identifying the mix of capabilities policymakers need—or need to create—to achieve established policy ends. Rather than enriching our thinking of how to interact with the world, therefore, DIME often simplifies it in a dangerous way, allowing the bureaucratic policy model (Allison’s “governmental politics”) to thrive. Teaching instruments of power in this way to war college students ignores Jeffery Meiser’s warning against seeing strategy as “means-based planning” that is “inherently uncreative, noncritical, and limits new and adaptive thinking.”

Conclusion

All models are limited and imperfect, and the DIME model does remind professional military education graduates and other potential security policymakers to recognize and consider non-military instruments of power and reflect on the importance of diplomacy in our relations with the world. However, DoD-led attempts to mold diplomatic work, work largely done by the Department of State, to mirror its concept of the “M” ultimately hinders, rather than aids, understanding of diplomacy, which is of a fundamentally different nature than military capability. In effect, DIME is DoD trying to fit diplomacy—the unending human relationship process—into a kind of mental toolbox for policymakers to reach into and find the right tool for a current problem. Of all the parts of the DIME, diplomacy in particular resists this approach, and creates an awkward grouping of diplomacy with instruments of power limits policymakers’ strategic imagination in managing ongoing political relations with other states. Just as you will fight as you train, you will strategize as you conceptualize; misguided concepts will create fragmented and less effective strategies.

Matthew O’Connor is a senior Foreign Service Officer at the Department of State and Professor of International Studies at the U.S. Army War College. His most recent State assignment was as senior energy officer in the Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR). His assignments prior to ENR were as political-military chief at U.S. Embassy Seoul; principal officer of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) in Kaohsiung; and senior Australia desk officer in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) Office of Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island Affairs. Mr. O’Connor has also served as political-military chief at U.S. Embassy Baghdad and Consulate General Naha (Okinawa) and in the economic sections of AIT/Taipei, U.S. Embassy Tokyo, and Consulate General Shanghai.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, Department of State or the Department of Defense.

Photo Description: Strategy display in Root Hall at the U.S. Army War College.

Photo Credit: U.S. Army War College

warroom.armywarcollege.edu · by Matthew O'Connor · April 10, 2025

3. These are the people Trump picked for top roles in his administration and their connections

For anyone conducting a network analysis of the administration as well as for those who are interested in who is running our country. I wonder what a network analysis conducted by a Palintir program would look like. Imagine the in-depth analysis it would provide.

That said, if this were done for the Biden, Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, or Carter administrations I am sure there would be just as interesting results about connections within administrations. Sure there would be variations of categories but there would be many similar connections.

These are the people Trump picked for top roles in his administration and their connections

PBS · by Humera Lodhi, Associated Press · April 10, 2025

President Donald Trump prioritized loyalty as he built out a team for his second term, surrounding himself with people who served faithfully in his first administration or who worked on one or more of his three campaigns.

Those are not the only ties that connect the people in the highest ranks of his administration. Several are billionaires or campaign donors, or both. There also are media personalities, former lawmakers and people who worked on Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for slashing government that Trump insisted he had no affiliation with as he campaigned for the White House.

Some people in key roles have personal relationships with Trump that go back years, from a onetime caddy at one of Trump’s golf courses to his son’s former fiancée. Others came around after opposing Trump in the past; examples include his vice president and a handful of Republicans and Democrats who once ran against him.

These are some of the people Trump picked for top roles in his second administration — and a look at what they have in common, according to a review by The Associated Press.

Who’s who:

Tom Barrack, ambassador to Turkey

Scott Bessent, treasury secretary

Pam Bondi, attorney general

Doug Burgum, interior secretary

Lori Chavez-DeRemer, labor secretary

Doug Collins, veterans affairs secretary

Sean Duffy, transportation secretary

Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence

Jamieson Greer, trade representative

Kimberly Guilfoyle, ambassador to Greece

Kevin Hassett, National Economic Council director

Pete Hegseth, defense secretary

Pete Hoekstra, ambassador to Canada

Tom Homan, border czar

Mike Huckabee, ambassador to Israel

Jared Isaacman, NASA administrator

Ronald Johnson, ambassador to Mexico

Keith Kellogg, special envoy for Ukraine and Russia

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., health and human services secretary

Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary

Kelly Loeffler, administrator of the Small Business Administration

Howard Lutnick, commerce secretary

Dr. Marty Makary, Food and Drug Administration commissioner

Linda McMahon, education secretary

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff

Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency

Peter Navarro, White House senior counselor on trade and manufacturing

Janette Nesheiwat, surgeon general

Kristi Noem, homeland security secretary

Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Kash Patel, FBI director

David Perdue, ambassador to China

John Ratcliffe, CIA director

Brooke Rollins, agriculture secretary

Marco Rubio, secretary of state

Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff

Rodney Scott, Customs and Border Protection commissioner

Scott Turner, housing secretary

JD Vance, vice president

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget

Mike Waltz, national security adviser

Matthew Whitaker, ambassador to NATO

Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff

Steven Witkoff, special envoy

Chris Wright, energy secretary

Lee Zeldin, Environmental Protection Agency administrator

What they have in common:

Worked in the Trump administration during his first term: Rollins, Scavino, Greer, Ratcliffe, Leavitt, Patel, Kellogg, Hassett, McMahon, Whitaker, Hoekstra, Navarro, Scott, Johnson, Vought, Turner, Miller, Homan.

Is from Florida, Trump’s home when he’s not in the White House and site of his estate, Mar-a-Lago: Guilfoyle, Rubio, Waltz, Bondi, Johnson, Witkoff, Wiles, Barrack.

Gave money to Trump’s campaign or a pro-Trump PAC, according to campaign finance data: Wright, Musk, Lutnick, Loeffler, Zeldin, McMahon, Hoekstra, Bessent, Witkoff, Wiles, Barrack.

Employed by Trump’s 2016, 2020 or 2024 campaign (or for more than one): Scavino, Leavitt, Guilfoyle, Miller, Wiles.

Previously served in state or federal public office: Perdue, Burgum, Collins, Vance, Ratcliffe, Loeffler, Noem, Zeldin, Chavez-DeRemer, Rubio, Huckabee, Waltz, Bondi, Hoekstra, Turner, Duffy, Gabbard.

Formerly opposed Trump, by being openly critical of him or running against him for president: Burgum, Musk, Vance, Rubio, Kennedy, Gabbard.

Hosted a TV show, was employed by a TV network as a paid contributor or owns a social media company: Nesheiwat, Oz, Musk, Guilfoyle, Huckabee, Hegseth, Duffy.

Has a personal wealth of $1 billion or more, according to AP reporting: Musk, Lutnick, Isaacman, Loeffler, McMahon, Bessent, Witkoff, Barrack.

Was an author or contributor to the conservative policy playbook known as Project 2025: Ratcliffe, Hoekstra, Navarro, Vought, Homan.

Has a personal relationship with Trump, such as a longtime friend, business colleague or person with other close ties to Trump family members: Scavino, Guilfoyle, McMahon, Witkoff, Barrack.

Reporting and research from Sara Burnett, Lolita C. Baldor, Bill Barrow, Thomas Beaumont, Collin Binkley, Matt Brown, Cathy Bussewitz, Jill Colvin, Bernard Condon, Tara Copp, Matthew Daly, Jack Dura, Alanna Durkin Richer, Adriana Gomez Licon, Fatima Hussein, David Klepper, Matthew Lee, Aamer Madhani, Scott McFetridge, Matthew Perrone, Michelle L. Price, Amanda Seitz, Brian Slodysko, Mike Stobbe, Darlene Superville and Eric Tucker.

Insightful, trustworthy journalism, for everyone.

Your tax-deductible donation ensures our vital reporting continues to thrive. Support PBS News Hour now while all gifts are MATCHED!

PBS · by Humera Lodhi, Associated Press · April 10, 2025

4. Bill Maher Praises President Trump as ‘Gracious’ and ‘Not Fake’ Recounting His White House Visit: ‘Everything I’ve Ever Not Liked About Him Was Absent’

I usually do not go to Variety to get national security news, but...

Also take 13 minutes to watch this monologue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlopbcfXpQ

Bill Maher Praises President Trump as ‘Gracious’ and ‘Not Fake’ Recounting His White House Visit: ‘Everything I’ve Ever Not Liked About Him Was Absent’

Variety · by J. Kim Murphy · April 12, 2025

New rule: if I’m going to criticize the President of the United States, then I’m going to eat dinner with the President of the United States. That may as well have been one of the no-no’s to start Friday’s episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” which opened with the host detailing his March 31 visit to the White House to meet with President Trump. Maher, who’s been an outspoken critic of the Commander-in-chief since before his first presidential term, recounted the evening in a lengthy monologue at the top of the show.

“Let me first say that to all the people who treated this like it was some sort of summit meeting, ‘You’re ridiculous,'” Maher started off. “Like I was going to sign a treaty or something? I have no power. I’m a fucking comedian.”

Maher then touted that he got the president to sign a sheet of paper listing numerous insults that Trump had levied against Maher over the years, including “low-life” and “his show is dead.” But the host’s tone changed shortly after that.

Popular on Variety

“The guy I met is not the guy who the night before the dinner shit-Tweeted a bunch of nasty crap about how this dinner was a bad idea and what a deranged asshole I was,” Maher said. “Just for starters: he laughs. I’ve never seen him laugh in public. But he does, including at himself. He’s not fake.”

The dinner was organized by musician Kid Rock, a longtime supporter of Trump and one of his more outspoken fans from the entertainment industry. Kid Rock was present for the meeting between Maher and the president.

Maher noted a standout moment while touring the White House: “I don’t remember what we were talking about, but it must’ve been something with the 2020 election. Because I know he distinctly used the world ‘lost.’ And I said, ‘Wow, I never thought I’d hear you say that.’ He didn’t get mad. He’s much more self-aware than he lets on in public.”

The host also shared that he remained “not MAGA” and that the conversation covered his own criticisms of the Trump admin, including its collapse of President Obama’s 2015 deal with Iran to limit the country’s nuclear program. He also said that he praised Trump for signaling for DEI having “gone too far,” legislation against trans athletes and ongoing support for Israel military action in Gaza. Maher noted that his takeaway from the President’s private candor with him was “emblematic of why the Democrats are so unpopular these days.”

“Look, I get it. It doesn’t matter who he is at a private dinner with a comedian. It matters who he is on the world stage. I’m just taking it as a positive that this person exists. Because everything I’ve ever not liked about him was — I swear to God — absent, at least on this night with this guy,” Maher said, later describing the president as “gracious.” “He mostly steered the conversation to, ‘What do you think about this?’ I know: your mind is blown. So is mine.”

Maher continued: “A crazy person doesn’t live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there, which I know is fucked up. It’s just not as fucked up as I thought it was.”

Maher previously teased that he had much to share about his March 31 meeting with Trump, sharing a post on X the following morning to say, “Hey everybody, thank you for all the interest in my dinner with the president last night – I promise, all will be revealed on the next [‘Real Time’] … As it’s April 1 today, no one would believe what I said today anyway!”

Since Maher’s meeting with Trump, the administration has faced heightened criticism for inflicting mass tariffs against all U.S. trade partners, a move that led to historic daily collapses in the global stock market. After announcing the policy on April 2, President Trump has since ordered a 90-day pause on global tariffs, though the admin has hiked policies on China to 145%, spurring retaliatory tariffs from the country and putting the world’s two biggest economies in a trade war.

Maher acknowledged the change in the news cycle at the top of his monologue: “He put tariffs on every country in the world and of course the stock market plunged. And the next day he went, ‘Well, I didn’t say ‘Simon says.'”

Guests on this week’s episode of “Real Time” included Steve Bannon, Piers Morgan and Josh Rogin.

Variety · by J. Kim Murphy · April 12, 2025

5. A Good Man for U.S. Manufacturing Is Hard to Find

I recommend reading this and reflecting on this problem.

Al also recommended watching these Chinese AI generated memes to mock the tariffs. China is conducting psychological operations. How effective are these. While these should make us rally against China but instead they likely play into the deep divides in the US and those who oppose the Trump administration and its tariff plans will use them for attacks.

Viral Chinese AI video of US sweatshop workers mocks Trump’s tariffs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fHhz-KVpGU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTztojVnRU

A Good Man for U.S. Manufacturing Is Hard to Find

American factories are already having difficulty filling jobs, and not because of trade policy.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-good-man-for-u-s-manufacturing-is-hard-to-find-young-males-worker-shortage-labor-30255cce?st=Dugrr3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By Allysia Finley

April 6, 2025 4:28 pm ET

A worker at a plastic manufacturing plant in Bay City, Mich., March 14. Photo: rebecca cook/Reuters

President Trump proclaims his tariffs will bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Good luck finding workers to fill them. A common lament among employers, especially manufacturers, is they can’t find reliable, conscientious workers who can pass a drug test. Single women might commiserate: A good worker, like a good man, can be hard to find these days.

Blame government, which showers benefits on able-bodied people who don’t work while at the same time subsidizing college degrees that don’t lead to productive employment. The result is millions of idle men and millions of unfilled jobs—what an economist would call a deadweight loss to society.

Forty percent of small business owners in March reported job openings they couldn’t fill, with larger shares in construction (56%), transportation (53%) and manufacturing (47%), according to last week’s National Federation of Independent Business survey. The Labor Department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey of businesses tells a similar story. There are twice as many job openings in manufacturing than in the mid-2000s as a share of employment. Save for during the pandemic, America’s worker shortage is the worst in 50 years.

Decades ago, productivity-enhancing technology and, yes, inexpensive imports caused men who worked on shop floors to lose their jobs and drop out of the workforce. But this generation is sailing into the sunset, and there are many fewer young Americans who want to work in factories.

The labor force participation rate among working-age men is now about five percentage points lower than in the early 1980s. As a result, there are about 3.5 million fewer men between the ages of 25 and 54 in the workforce, and 1.3 million between the ages of 25 and 34, than there would have been were it not for this decline.

Labor participation among working-age women, on the other hand, recently hit a record, in part because they are having fewer children (which is related to their difficulties in finding suitable mates). At the risk of stereotyping, women are more inclined toward “helping” professions—such as services—than those that require physical labor.

So where have all the good working men gone? Some are subsisting on government benefits or living off their parents. About 17% of working-age men are on Medicaid, 7.4% on food stamps and 6.3% on Social Security (many claiming disability payouts), according to the Census Bureau. Many spend their days playing videogames and day-trading.

Friends say they’ve seen young men on dating apps claim to be working as self-employed traders, financial bloggers and even a “retired financial engineer”—apparent euphemisms for “Robinhood bros” who speculate on stocks and share tips on Reddit. When stocks were booming, many didn’t have to work in the traditional sense. After last week’s plunge, they might.

Other missing men are taking longer to finish college or are pursuing graduate degrees. Only about 41% of men complete a bachelor’s degree in four years, and about a quarter take more than six. Many high-paying vocations don’t require college degrees, but government subsidies and public K-12 schools nonetheless steer high-school students to that track.

Federal student loans won’t pay for apprenticeships, but they will cover the cost (including living expenses) of worthless graduate degrees in community organizing, creative writing, tourism, dance and more. Rarely does one need an advanced degree to enter such fields, but colleges have convinced Americans they do as a means of raking in more federal dollars.

Many millennials and Gen Z “zoomers” struggle to find jobs in their chosen fields of study and don’t want to work in others—or in jobs they view as beneath them. So some simply don’t work.

Consider: The unemployment rate among recent college grads with a sociology degree is 6.7% and their median wage is $45,000, according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Sociology grads could earn twice as much working on an auto assembly line, which pays on average $100,000 a year. Good gig, but not many want it.

The reality is that masses of young people, who have been taught that capitalism is exploitative, don’t want to work in factories. They’d rather mooch off taxpayers or their parents.

Still, many men who don’t go to college also don’t want to work in factories or other blue-collar occupations, perhaps because they don’t believe there’s dignity in such jobs. Only 31% of blue-collar workers feel that their type of work is respected, according to a Pew Research Center survey last week.

Any wonder when politicians in both parties proclaim such workers are exploited? There’s dignity in any work, a message that deserves to be emphasized by the president. The decline in work among young men is a far bigger problem for the nation’s economic and cultural vitality than the decline in manufacturing jobs. It can’t and won’t be solved with tariffs.

American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage

Major demographic shifts have put men and women on divergent paths. That’s left more women resigned to being single. ‘The numbers aren’t netting out.’

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/american-women-are-giving-up-on-marriage-54840971?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

Matt Chase

By Rachel Wolfe

March 21, 2025 8:00 pm ET

After a handful of underwhelming relationships and dozens of disappointing first dates, Andrea Vorlicek recently called off the search for a husband.

The 29-year-old always thought she’d have found her life partner by now. Instead, she’s house hunting solo and considering having kids on her own.

“I’m financially self-sufficient enough to do these things myself,” said Vorlicek, a Boston-based accountant. “I’m willing to accept being single versus settling for someone who isn’t the right fit.”

She sees her plans for an independent future as making the best of a lousy situation. “I don’t want to sit here and say I’m 100% happy,” Vorlicek said. “But I feel happier just accepting my reality. It’s mentally and emotionally a sense of peace.”

American women have never been this resigned to staying single. They are responding to major demographic shifts, including huge and growing gender gaps in economic and educational attainment, political affiliation and beliefs about what a family should look like.

“The numbers aren’t netting out,” said Daniel Cox, director of the survey center at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank. He ticked off the data points: More women than men are attending college, buying houses and focusing on their friendships and careers over dating and marriage.

Alicia Jones, center-left, and the friends she made at a singles mixer last year. Photo: Alicia Jones

Stories of women complaining about the lack of quality men have long infused pop culture—from “Pride and Prejudice” to Taylor Swift’s oeuvre. Yet women throughout history rarely questioned whether finding and securing a romantic partner should be a primary goal of adulthood.

This seems to be changing. Over half of single women said they believed they were happier than their married counterparts in a 2024 AEI survey of 5,837 adults. Just over a third of surveyed single men said the same.

A 2022 Pew survey of single adults showed only 34% of single women were looking for romance, compared with 54% of single men, down from 38% and 61% in 2019. Men were also more likely than women to say they were worried that nobody would want to date them.

A rise in earning power and a decline in the social stigma for being single has allowed more women to be choosy. “They would rather be alone than with a man who holds them back,” Cox said.

For young women especially, who tout their “boy sober” and off-the-market status on TikTok and other social media, the focus has shifted toward self-improvement, friendship and the ability to find happiness on their own. Surveys show a decline in teenage relationships, and Gen Z is having less sex than previous generations, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Crisis of connection

The share of women ages 18 to 40 who are single—that is, neither married nor cohabitating with a partner—was 51.4% in 2023, according to an analysis of census data by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group, up from 41.8% in 2000.

These numbers don’t specify whether women are looking for love or swearing it off, but more-nuanced surveys show that single women appear less interested in getting married now than they used to be. They also seem less keen on getting hitched than their male peers.

In a 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 5,073 U.S. adults, 48% of women said that being married was not too or not at all important for a fulfilling life, compared with 39% of men—up from 31% and 28% in 2019. In a 2024 Wall Street Journal/NORC poll, 58% of women aged 18 to 29 said marriage was at least somewhat essential to their vision of the American dream, compared with 66% of men.

Marriage rates for both men and women are in decline, in part owing to less pressure to pair off and higher expectations for a would-be match. “Dating apps make people feel like there might always be a better option,” said Melissa Kearney, an economist at the University of Maryland. “They view looking for a marriage partner the same way that you view looking for a job candidate.”

But men seem more satisfied with their options than women. A 2023 AEI survey of college-educated women found that half blamed their singlehood largely on an inability to find someone who meets their expectations. Less than a quarter of single men said the same.

“To the extent that some women are staying single because this is what they want, that’s great,” said Kearney. “But we have to take seriously the likelihood that many are doing it as a Plan B because they’re not finding what they’re looking for, and that should make us concerned.”

‘Boyfriends by Christmas’

Last year, Michele Kirsch told her three adult daughters she wanted them to have “boyfriends by Christmas.” She had a dream, she had told them, that each of them was standing in front of the lit-up tree next to “a hunk who liked to ski and went to a good school.”

This dream went unfulfilled, admitted Katie Kirsch, who is 30 and runs Lume, a leadership coaching startup, out of New York City. “Maybe we’re doing it wrong.”

Dating is ‘the only thing you can put 10,000 hours into and end up right where you started,’ observed Katie Kirsch, pictured in 2024. Photo: Talia Herman for WSJ

Katie spent the first half of 2024 going on three or four dates a week with men she met on apps, such as Hinge and Bumble, in the hopes of finding a husband before turning 30. By the end of the year, she had ramped down the search, calling it “the only thing you can put 10,000 hours into and end up right where you started.”

Many of the men Katie met, she said, either seemed turned off by her ambition or weren’t career-oriented enough for her. She felt discouraged by just how many of her male friends similarly said they expect their future wives to prioritize their families over their jobs.

Yet Katie’s luck may be changing. She recently started dating a man she was set up with who seems both interested in starting a family and supportive of her career. She admitted she was wary at first: “I thought it was too good to be true.”

The challenges of finding a romantic partner have been made more complicated by a growing divide in education and career prospects between men and women. In 2024 47% of American women ages 25-34 had a bachelor’s degree, according to Pew, compared with 37% of men. A bachelor’s degree increases net lifetime earnings by an estimated $1 million, according to a 2024 report from Georgetown University.

“Women are doing comparatively well when it comes to education and their early years in the labor force, and men are doing comparatively badly,” said Brad Wilcox, a fellow at the conservative Institute for Family Studies and a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. “That creates a mismatch, because people prefer to date in terms of comparable education or income.”

Men’s economic struggles seem to be having the biggest effect on women without a college degree, whose marriage rates by age 45 have plummeted from 79% to 52% for those born between 1930 and 1980, according to research by Cornell University economist Benjamin Goldman. “Young men without a degree are struggling so much as a group that there simply aren’t enough with steady jobs and earnings for non-college women to date,” said Goldman.

For Christina Ralstin, a 31-year-old wildland firefighter in rural Republic, Wash., who didn’t go to college, buying a house was confirmation she didn’t need a partner to be content. She paid $90,000 for a two-bedroom on half an acre of land in 2022.

‘If I need companionship, I volunteer at the dog shelter,’ said Christina Ralstin, pictured. Photo: Christina Ralstin

“I’ll have it paid off in the next two years, so I don’t feel like I need to be tied financially to somebody,” Ralstin said. After her last relationship ended in 2023—when she discovered he was still on Tinder—she doubted she would find someone else who aligned with her progressive views in her conservative town. So she stopped looking. “If I need companionship, I volunteer at the dog shelter.”

Single people in large cities where home prices have surged in recent years are finding that their marital status has hampered their finances. Although the wealth gap between single men and women appears to be shrinking, real-estate prices have helped drive a near doubling of the wealth gap between singles and couples from 2010 to 2022.

Married couples had $393,000 in median wealth in 2022, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, while unmarried people, including those who were partnered but not married, had $80,000. Economists say married couples are more likely to have assets such as homes and cars, which have grown in value faster than wages in recent years.

Different world views

For Alicia Jones, not having anyone else to financially depend on—or split rent with—is the worst part of being single. “Especially with the threat of layoffs, it’s much more stressful being a single person,” said Jones, who is 38 and works in communications for a real-estate company in Washington, D.C.

Her last long-term relationship ended two years ago over conflicting views of their shared future. “He wanted the white picket fence and me at home with the kids,” Jones said. This despite the fact that her salary was nearly 50% higher than his.

Alicia Jones’s last big relationship ended two years ago: ‘He wanted the white picket fence and me at home with the kids,’ even though her salary was nearly 50% higher than his. Pictured at home in D.C. in 2024 Photo: Valerie Plesch for WSJ

Jones, who identifies as politically moderate, thinks couples with kids should split household and child care responsibilities equally. She was surprised by just how few of the men she has encountered in D.C. share this view. Either they held traditional ideas about marriage or “were extremely crunchy liberal and wanted to live in a van and drive across the country.”

Before she pulled back from dating last year, Jones tried her luck at a singles event. She left with three numbers—all belonging to women who became friends, whom she now meets for drinks or dinner multiple times a month. The men at the event, the four women agreed, seemed more interested in the brewery’s board games than in the people in the room, so they spent the night getting to know one another instead.

A growing political divide between men and women has compounded the challenges of finding love. Around 39% of women ages 18 to 29 identified as liberal in 2024, according to Gallup, compared with 25% of their male peers. This gap has more than tripled in a decade: 32% of women and 28% of men called themselves liberal in 2014.

Political Gaps

Men and women aged 18 to 29 have increasingly diverging political views.

Liberal

Conservative

Women

Men

Women

2000

’10

’20

2000

’10

’20

Source: Annual averages of Gallup’s telephone surveys, generally encompassing 12,000 or more interviews with U.S. adults each year and at least 500 adults in each gender-by-age subgroup.

These differences aren’t merely about preferences or votes, explains University of Denver psychology professor Galena Rhoades, who researches romantic relationships. Rather, politics have become an expression of one’s “core values” about everything from economic inequality to bodily autonomy. “They are reflective of people’s world views,” said Rhoades.

The latest presidential election and the first months of the Trump administration have intensified this ideological rift.

Rachael Gosetti, a 33-year-old real-estate agent in Savannah, Ga., said she broke up with her boyfriend, with whom she shares a 5-year-old son, over a year ago because she was tired of doing most of the child care, cooking and scheduling while also earning almost double her boyfriend’s salary. She has yet to date anyone else in part because she worries about living in a red state with a six-week abortion ban. “I have a child that I can’t leave behind to drive to Virginia if I had a pregnancy scare, and I definitely can’t afford another child as a single mom,” she said.

Rachael Gosetti left her boyfriend because she was tired of being both the breadwinner and primary parent. Photo: Shannon Zaller

Others are intentionally heading into motherhood solo.

Tina Noohi, who is 34 and works for a health startup, still hopes that one day she’ll be swept off her feet. But she says she has spent much of the past year trying to talk herself out of her fantasies of a romantic happy ending.

Realizing she was rushing into relationships out of fear of running out her biological clock—and that her favorite part of dating had become debriefing with her friends the next day—she decided to separate her desire to find a partner from her desire to become a mom.

Noohi, who splits her time between New York City and San Diego, has lately spent hours researching the “Single Mothers by Choice” movement and started saving for a baby with a high-yield savings account. “Parenthood and romantic love don’t have to be intrinsically linked,” she said.

The only hurdle: Getting her traditional family on board.

“At first they tried to convince me that I still had plenty of time to find somebody,” said Noohi. “But they seem to have come around.”

Rachel Wolfe is a reporter covering the economy for The Wall Street Journal.

Appeared in the March 22, 2025, print edition as 'American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage Women Without Men'.

7. Trump is waiting for Xi to call. The Chinese see it differently

Excerpts:

Two senior White House officials tell CNN that the US will not reach out to China first. Trump has told his team that China must be the first to make the move, as the White House believes it is Beijing that has chosen to retaliate and further escalate the trade war.

That stance has been conveyed to Beijing for roughly two months, with Trump’s team clearly telling Chinese officials that Xi should request a call with Trump. But Beijing has repeatedly refused to arrange a leader-level phone call, according to three sources familiar with the official communications.

One hurdle, Trump’s team believes, is Xi’s desire not to be seen as weak by making the first move and approaching the US for talks.

Trump, who envisions a grand bargain with China that increases US exports, cracks down on fentanyl exports and restructures TikTok for US users, has suggested Beijing would come around.

Trump is waiting for Xi to call. The Chinese see it differently | CNN Politics

CNN · by Kylie Atwood, Kayla Tausche, Kevin Liptak, Jeremy Herb, Alayna Treene · April 10, 2025

Can China win a US tariff war?

01:47 - Source: CNN

Can China win a US tariff war?

01:47

CNN —

A tariff reprieve from President Donald Trump sent global markets soaring on Wednesday, with the White House saying it’s been in touch with dozens of countries about striking deals, lining up calls and meetings in the coming weeks.

But one country was conspicuously absent from any outreach: China

As the rest of the world received a 90-day respite, Trump escalated tariffs on China, saying the US will now charge an extra 145% on all Chinese goods that arrive in the US. In response, Beijing ratcheted up its own tariffs on American goods Friday to 125%, and the country’s leader — who Trump is urgently working to engage — warned China was “not afraid” of a prolonged trade conflict.

In private discussions hours before China announced new retaliatory tariffs, the Trump administration warned Chinese officials against such a move, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

The Chinese were also told – once again – that Chinese President Xi Jinping should request a call with US President Donald Trump.

Instead, US officials woke up to news of increased Chinese tariffs and no request for a leader level call. Xi also made comments that only dug him in further.

“For over 70 years, China’s development has relied on self-reliance and hard work — never on handouts from others, and it is not afraid of any unjust suppression,” Xi said according to state broadcaster CCTV during his meeting with the Spanish prime minister.

An unprecedented trade war between the world’s two economic superpowers is quickly taking shape, with both countries waiting for the other to blink.

Two senior White House officials tell CNN that the US will not reach out to China first. Trump has told his team that China must be the first to make the move, as the White House believes it is Beijing that has chosen to retaliate and further escalate the trade war.

That stance has been conveyed to Beijing for roughly two months, with Trump’s team clearly telling Chinese officials that Xi should request a call with Trump. But Beijing has repeatedly refused to arrange a leader-level phone call, according to three sources familiar with the official communications.

One hurdle, Trump’s team believes, is Xi’s desire not to be seen as weak by making the first move and approaching the US for talks.

Trump, who envisions a grand bargain with China that increases US exports, cracks down on fentanyl exports and restructures TikTok for US users, has suggested Beijing would come around.

“China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump said on Wednesday during an event at the White House. “You know, it’s one of those things they don’t know quite – They’re proud people.”

Looking for the proper channel

But for months, US and Chinese leaders have been talking past each other, allowing relations to sour as each country’s overtures go unanswered.

Behind the scenes, official channels at the working level are active, but high-level dialogue has not been happening. Meanwhile, unofficial channels have proven unproductive, according to three sources briefed on the situation, paving the way for a game of economic chicken with a costly and uncertain end.

China’s reliance on strict protocol and desire to prepare Xi for any call of this magnitude is fundamentally at odds with how Trump does business, some current and former officials say, which they point to as the main hangup in trying to get productive talks underway.

China has been trying to set up a back channel, like it had with President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, but so far that effort has been unsuccessful. The US objection, according to officials: The Trump administration has balked at China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi serving as the interlocutor, suggesting that Wang is not close enough to Xi’s inner circle and cannot be trusted.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi attends a press conference with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 27 in Beijing.

Jessica Lee/Pool/Getty Images

Chinese officials have been presented with the specific names of people that the Trump White House would like to engage with instead, but China won’t budge, sources say.

Further inflaming tensions, the Chinese readout of a call between Wang and Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this year appeared to misrepresent the contents of the call, Rubio later said.

“That didn’t happen, at least not on the call, or at least maybe their interpreter didn’t want to interpret it that way,” Rubio said of the Chinese claim that Rubio was warned not to overstep himself.

While some communication between the sides has been brokered by China’s ambassador to the US, the dearth of a principal-level channel has been problematic in arranging a call that the Trump administration says is necessary.

Two senior White House officials told CNN that Trump would be happy for communication to begin below the leader-level if it brought about results.

Donald Trump claims he'd "love to make a deal with China" as tariff rises to 145%

02:37 - Source: CNN

Donald Trump claims he'd "love to make a deal with China" as tariff rises to 145%

02:37

Despite Trump officials publicly saying that Trump will dictate his engagement with Xi – National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said on CNBC Thursday morning that Trump “will decide” when conversations begin – it is clear that the ball is in China’s court for the time being.

At least that’s how Trump officials see it. But that’s not the view in Beijing.

“The door to talks is open, but dialogue must be conducted on the basis of mutual respect and equality,” a spokesperson for the Chinese Commerce Ministry said Thursday. “If the US chooses confrontation, China will respond in kind. Pressure, threats, and blackmail are not the right ways to deal with China.”

Amid the standoff, the White House has sought to prioritize trade deals with Japan, South Korea and Vietnam in order to pressure Beijing, a senior White House official said.

Current and former US officials aren’t ruling out the possibility of putting in place an unexpected preparation channel for a possible Xi-Trump call, but former US officials say the key is ensuring the Chinese they aren’t sending Xi in for an ambush — especially after the tongue-lashing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received in the Oval Office.

“The Chinese in any case, are reluctant to put their leader in the position that Zelensky found himself in,” said Danny Russel, a former assistant secretary of State for East Asia and currently vice president of the Asian Society Policy Institute. “They want to ensure that some of the groundwork is laid for a meeting, and that there’s some ground rules established.”

‘Mutually-assured destruction’

Chinese officials have sought avenues to reach Trump directly, often through business leaders who have his ear.

When Xi dispatched Vice President Han Zheng to Washington as the highest-ranking Chinese envoy to ever attend a presidential swearing-in, Han also took a meeting with Elon Musk.

Han Zheng, left, Vice President of the People's Republic of China, attends Donald Trump's inauguration as the next President of the United States at the US Capitol on January 20.

Shawn Thew/Pool/Getty Images

The billionaire Tesla CEO has business in China and has also wielded enormous influence in the early days of the Trump administration. Chinese officials had hoped to establish more direct lines of communication with the new Trump administration, using Musk as an intermediary, one person familiar with the matter said. But so far, those attempts haven’t been fruitful.

China has considered kneecapping the operations of blue-chip US companies in China such as Apple, Tesla, Caterpillar and Starbucks. Ultimately, according to two sources briefed on the discussions, Beijing backed off that idea – worried that Chinese consumers would revolt, and the Chinese Communist Party could lose the potential for lucrative executive backchannels.

Getty Images

video

But the CCP is still weighing strategic options to hit back against Washington beyond simply raising import duties. China will likely begin buying soybeans and agricultural products from Brazil instead of the US heartland, as it did during Trump’s first-term trade war.

“Look at where they’re blacklisting US companies, hitting US farmers, cutting us off from critical minerals – that’s a toolkit that they’re very comfortable wielding,” said Melanie Hart, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. “They have experimented with it in many other countries. They’ve been developing it for years. They have a bunker that they’ve been building for this moment.”

Asked what pain threshold either country is willing to bear, sources in touch with both governments couldn’t say. But one thing is clear: How far either country moves into leveraging non-tariff weapons to fight back could determine how dangerous the economic conflict could become.

Beijing has banned the export of a handful of rare earth minerals required for manufacturing certain goods. Moving to ban the export of all rare earth minerals or selling off the mountain of US Treasury bonds it’s amassed would be seen as taking the conflict to the next level.

“If China moves to fully throttle the US economy, all shackles are off,” said a former US official briefed on the state of play. “A trade war of that magnitude is an act of war.”

Which country has more leverage in such a conflict depends on who you ask. Peter Navarro, Trump’s uber-hawk, has suggested Beijing can’t afford to escalate to that level. Others suggest that’s a naive depiction of an authoritarian leader wielding the full power of a non-market economy subsidized by his government.

“That’s absolutely incorrect,” one source in touch with both governments suggested of Navarro’s belief. “This is going to be mutually assured destruction.”

Some experts suggest it’s Xi who has the upper hand, having bolstered his political standing at home and earning more room to maneuver before engaging Trump.

“Xi Jinping is in a much stronger political position as a result of the perceived attacks by the Trump administration, and he is in a better position to convince the Chinese people to absorb whatever economic pain the tariffs may cause,” Russel said.

Matt Pottinger, who served as Trump’s deputy national security advisor, and Liza Tobin, who served as his China director on the National Security Council, described the divide in the Free Press as a “messy breakup” and a “zero-sum contest” whose settlement will bring consequences for the rest of the world. The superpowers, they said, are evenly matched – but have different goals.

“While Trump has seized the upper hand in the trade war, Xi is gaining ground in areas that may be even more consequential: artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and the military might required to seize the most important piece of real estate in the world – Taiwan.”

Trump’s first term regrets

During Trump’s time out of office after his loss in 2020, he frequently brooded about the shortcomings of the trade agreements he struck with China during his first term. While he enjoyed a warm relationship with Xi, including a Xi visit to Mar-a-Lago and a splashy Trump visit to Beijing in 2017, their partnership soured in the latter years of his first term.

Trump has bemoaned what he said were weak officials who allowed China to renege on some the agreements it made to purchase large amounts of American goods, including agricultural products. China has cited the Covid pandemic as the reason it did not fulfill the terms of the deal.

Back in office, Trump has discussed striking a more wide-ranging deal with China that would extend beyond trade to other areas of potential cooperation, such as new investments and commitments by China to buy more American products. Complicating that effort is the fact that a first-term trade deal aimed at selling more to China has yielded little result, and Trump’s hawkish national security team previously has expressed reservations about letting Beijing invest more in the US.

Trump also came into office vowing to crack down on fentanyl coming from China to the US. In his first days in office, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on China – along with threatened and tariffs on Canada and Mexico – citing the role of Chinese suppliers in the fentanyl trade.

Shortly after a conversation between Trump and Xi in mid-January, the CCP submitted a proposal related to curbing fentanyl production to the US Embassy in Beijing. The embassy did not respond to the proposal, which it privately derided. Beijing was furious, according to the source familiar with the two governments.

Last week, Beijing came forward with a more substantial offer, after the administration had been pushing them to do so. But it remains to be seen whether Trump would seriously consider that proposal – and any movement toward a TikTok deal – as a way to knock down tariffs that have risen exponentially and cleaved the two countries’ economies.

“Might Trump’s dealmaking instinct reassert itself and overtake his decoupling instinct?” Pottinger and Tobin asked. “But a comprehensive ‘grand bargain’ that sets aside the US-China arch-rivalry has never been more distant.”

This story has been updated with additional developments.

CNN’s Betsy Klein contributed to this report.

CNN · by Kylie Atwood, Kayla Tausche, Kevin Liptak, Jeremy Herb, Alayna Treene · April 10, 2025

8. U.S., Iran Begin High Stakes Nuclear Talks in Oman

U.S., Iran Begin High Stakes Nuclear Talks in Oman

Talks between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran’s foreign minister aimed at laying a new foundation for future negotiations

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-iran-begin-high-stakes-nuclear-talks-in-oman-fc07cdce

By Benoit Faucon

and Michael R. Gordon

April 12, 2025 10:04 am ET

The indirect talks were held at a secure compound with Oman’s foreign minister. Photo: abdelhadi ramahi/Reuters

MUSCAT, Oman—The Trump administration on Saturday began high-stake talks with Iran in Oman as it seeks to block Tehran’s path to a nuclear weapon amid threats of U.S. military action.

The American delegation was led by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, a businessman and confidant of President Trump, who is serving as Trump’s top negotiator on Middle East issues and efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Iran was represented by its Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a veteran nuclear negotiator whose mission was approved by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The goal isn’t to plunge into highly technical talks on ways to curb Iran’s nuclear activities in return for easing international sanctions, but to explore each side’s position and lay a new foundation for negotiations.

“The initial meeting is about trust building.” Witkoff told The Wall Street Journal earlier this week, “It’s about talking about why it is so important for us to get to a deal, not the exact terms of the deal.”

President Trump has said that the two sides would engage in a direct meeting, but Saturday began with a familiar pattern of indirect talks, as Iran has long insisted.

Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Jan. 2016 vs. Feb. 2025

Stockpile

Uranium purity

Centrifuges*

3.67%

<300 kg

<5,060

7,464

60%

15,470

Amount of time to produce enough weapons-grade material for a bomb

About one year

One to two weeks

Weaponization

One to two years

A few months

*2025 estimate based on centrifuge installations at Iran’s two main enrichment sites—Fordow and the Natanz FEP hall.

Sources: International Atomic Energy Agency; staff reports

The Iranian and U.S. envoys met from separate rooms at a highly secured palatial compound with Oman’s foreign minister, who will serve as an intermediary between the two sides, according to Iranian officials and state media. But the Iranian and U.S. envoys may turn to a face-to-face encounter at a later stage, officials on both sides have suggested.

“Indirect talks between Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi and U.S. envoy Witkoff have begun with the mediation of Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidy,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, the spokesman for Iran’s foreign minister, on X. “We do not expect this round of negotiations to be long,” he told state TV.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

During the meeting, Araghchi, via the Omanis, conveyed Iran’s red lines, according to Iran’s semiofficial Iranian Students’ News Agency. Tehran, which insists its program is for peaceful purposes, has said it would reject demands that it eliminate its nuclear program.

Witkoff told the Journal earlier this week that the Trump administration’s current position is that Iran should dismantle its nuclear program while suggesting that some negotiated compromises might be possible. “Where our red line will be, there can’t be weaponization of your nuclear capability,” Witkoff said.

A photo provided by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs shows Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in suit, meeting with Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidyi. Photo: -/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

If Iran balks at ending its nuclear program, Witkoff said he would take the issue to President Trump for a decision on how to proceed.

Iranian officials said they want the swift easing of U.S. sanctions that have crippled Tehran’s economy as part of a deal. They also want access to billions of dollars frozen abroad and an end to U.S. pressure on Tehran’s Chinese oil buyers as part of a broader relaxation of restrictions, Iranian and Arab officials say.

In exchange, Iran would be ready to return to the same levels of nuclear enrichment agreed under the 2015 pact that Trump withdrew the U.S. from during his first term as president, according to Iranian officials and Europeans who spoke to them.

It is unclear if such an approach would be acceptable to the Trump administration, which has yet to agree that Iran would have the right to enrich uranium under a new accord. Extensive monitoring would also be required. Witkoff flew to Oman following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg.

Write to Benoit Faucon at benoit.faucon@wsj.com and Michael R. Gordon at michael.gordon@wsj.com

9. Stories vs Facts: The Real Battleground in Narrative Warfare

Excerpts:

Why and how? Because nothing is as persuasive as a story. There is no form of argument, no logical process that can move us the way a story does. Storied assertions get beyond the rational faculty. More powerfully, stories invite people to identify themselves within it. Who one sees oneself as, and the story one sees oneself as a part of, compel action consistent with the identification required by the story. I’ve demonstrated elsewherehow stories are used by extremist recruiters to undermine the cultural narratives of the target audience and then compel action from them.

This narrative strategy has been used by terrorist groups all over the world throughout history, and by all sides of political spectrums. Terrorist recruiters don’t make logical arguments, or put up graphs, or list bullet points to make their case. They tell stories. Why? Because stories fly over the top of the rational mind. Nothing is as powerful as a story if influence is the desired effect. That’s why we tell them. So in a narrative attack, the story triggers then undermines the cultural narrative with which the target audience identifies. This undermining is particularly easy to accomplish when the target audience’s lived experience is inconsistent with their cultural narrative.

...

We are all part of the target audience now. What stories are dominating and are they stabilizing or destabilizing our cultural narrative?

This got me thinking about all the news I have been hearing about DOGE. DOGE tells stories and does not provide factual analysis. So I asked AI for some assistance.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, has been employing storytelling techniques to influence public perception of its work, often focusing on sensational narratives about government inefficiency and alleged misconduct. These stories are crafted to highlight issues such as dead people receiving Social Security benefits and noncitizens voting, aiming to bolster support for its initiatives and broader political agendas.

Key Stories Promoted by DOGE

Dead People Receiving Social Security Benefits
DOGE has amplified claims about centenarians and even individuals allegedly over 150 years old receiving Social Security benefits. Musk himself highlighted this issue during a meeting with President Trump, suggesting widespread fraud or inefficiency. However, the acting Social Security Commissioner clarified that these cases involve individuals whose records lack a date of death, meaning they are not necessarily receiving benefits. This narrative is framed to underscore inefficiencies in government recordkeeping.
Noncitizens Voting
DOGE has promoted claims that millions of noncitizens have obtained Social Security numbers through the Enumeration Beyond Entry (EBE) program and may be engaging in voter fraud. Antonio Gracias, a key figure in DOGE, asserted that thousands of noncitizens were found on voter rolls and had voted—a claim that contradicts state-level audits showing minimal evidence of such activity. This narrative aligns with conspiracy theories about "importing voters" and has been used to advocate for stricter voting policies like the SAVE Act.
Fraudulent Benefit Claims
DOGE has also spotlighted alleged fraud in government benefit systems, including assertions that undocumented immigrants are abusing Social Security programs. These claims have been presented in rallies, media appearances, and social media posts to emphasize the need for reforms targeting "waste, fraud, and abuse."

Storytelling Strategies

DOGE employs several communication strategies to amplify these narratives:

Simplification and Sensationalism
The department uses clear and emotionally charged stories that resonate with public concerns about government waste and fraud. By focusing on dramatic examples—like centenarians receiving benefits or noncitizens voting—it simplifies complex issues into digestible narratives.
Data-Driven Claims
DOGE frequently cites data to lend credibility to its stories, even when the interpretations are questionable or contested. For instance, it has used Social Security data to support claims about noncitizen voting despite legal restrictions on accessing such information.
Media Amplification
DOGE leaders have appeared on platforms like Fox News and podcasts to promote these narratives. Musk’s social media presence further amplifies these stories, ensuring they reach a broad audience.
Political Messaging
These stories are often tied to legislative efforts, such as the SAVE Act, which seeks stricter voter registration requirements. By framing its findings as urgent problems requiring immediate action, DOGE aligns its narratives with broader political goals.

Impact

DOGE’s storytelling approach is designed to evoke outrage and support for its mission while advancing political agendas tied to election integrity and government reform. However, critics argue that many of these claims are misleading or lack substantial evidence, raising concerns about the ethical implications of using sensational narratives for policy advocacy

Stories vs Facts: The Real Battleground in Narrative Warfare - HS Today

By Ajit Maan

April 11, 2025

hstoday.us · April 11, 2025

One way to lose Narrative Warfare is to fight like it is a battle over information. One way to win is to get your adversary to fight as though it is a battle over information. We have taken the losing position.

The difference between Narrative Warfare and what the military competes for, “information dominance,” is that Narrative Warfare is not conflict over information; it is competition over the meaning of information. Fighting over who gets the most information, who has the best or most recent information, or who can censor information matters less than who controls the meaning of the information. Having all the most recent, verifiable information is meaningless if adversarial forces decide what it means.

Disinformation is not the problem. An audience hostile to the truth is the problem. Hostility to the truth is not a natural phenomenon. It is a curated. One method of curation is through the weaponization of stories that target the narrative of a culture.

Narrative Warfare is not a battle of narratives. It is an assault on a culture’s narrative, specifically meaning and identity. More specifically, it is an assault on the meaning of information for the identity of the target audience.

Whoever dominates in Narrative Warfare does not simply decide arbitrary meaning, he who dominates decides the meaning of information for “me and mine;” how it matters specifically to the identities under attack.

To understand how this happens, an initial distinction is vital to grasp: Narratives and stories are different things. That separation of concepts is important because narratives and stories operate differently.

Narratives are meta-thematic, culture and identity grounding prototypes (like the common narrative archetype known as The Hero’s Journey), and usually not very conscious. Stories are specific examples of narrative. We see endless examples of stories (like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Gladiator) that reflect a general thematic narrative (like The Hero’s Journey). Stories are multiple, specific, and conscious, and reflect the narrative (both in content and structure).

One way Narrative Warfare is conducted is by using weaponized stories to undermine narratives; the conscious and specific is used to dismantle the thematic and unconscious.

Why and how? Because nothing is as persuasive as a story. There is no form of argument, no logical process that can move us the way a story does. Storied assertions get beyond the rational faculty. More powerfully, stories invite people to identify themselves within it. Who one sees oneself as, and the story one sees oneself as a part of, compel action consistent with the identification required by the story. I’ve demonstrated elsewherehow stories are used by extremist recruiters to undermine the cultural narratives of the target audience and then compel action from them.

This narrative strategy has been used by terrorist groups all over the world throughout history, and by all sides of political spectrums. Terrorist recruiters don’t make logical arguments, or put up graphs, or list bullet points to make their case. They tell stories. Why? Because stories fly over the top of the rational mind. Nothing is as powerful as a story if influence is the desired effect. That’s why we tell them. So in a narrative attack, the story triggers then undermines the cultural narrative with which the target audience identifies. This undermining is particularly easy to accomplish when the target audience’s lived experience is inconsistent with their cultural narrative.

For example, the concept of inclusion is arguably part of the American narrative that is referenced by the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and the conceptual apparatus of the Constitution. We think of ourselves as the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are a melting pot. But there is a disjunct between that narrative and the lived experience of some Americans. That disjunct is solved by storytelling that does one of two things: It either stabilizes the meaning of inclusion or it causes further rupture.

Stabilizing the meaning and, therefore, the cultural foundation of the concept would involve connecting the disaffected population to their cultural narrative. On the other hand, storytelling designed to cause further rupture and re-direction involve examples contrary to the targeted concept. That is to say that specific instances (stories) contrary to the general meaning of a concept for the identity of a population (narrative) are enlisted to undermine the latter. There are several logical fallacies involved with doing so (including confusing correlation with causation), but logic is impotent against stories. And this is only one example.

We are all part of the target audience now. What stories are dominating and are they stabilizing or destabilizing our cultural narrative?

hstoday.us · April 11, 2025

10. Chinese diplomat invokes Mao Zedong in vow not to 'back down' from US trade war

The Korean War still has meaning and continues its influence to this day.

Excerpts:

While the Korean War is often known as the “Forgotten War” in the U.S., it forms a central part of the Chinese national mythos. Though it ended in a draw, the infant People’s Liberation Army’s ability to push U.S. forces south of the 38th Parallel in the opening months of the Chinese intervention served as a major point of pride for modern Chinese.

The Korean War is a frequent feature in Chinese popular culture. It was the subject of the anti-U.S. propaganda film The Battle at Lake Changjin and its sequel. The first film became the highest-grossing Chinese film until it was surpassed by the animated movie Ne Zha 2 in February.

Chinese diplomat invokes Mao Zedong in vow not to 'back down' from US trade war

By Brady Knox

April 10, 2025 11:02 am

Washington Examiner · April 10, 2025

“As to how long this war will last, we are not the ones who can decide. It used to depend on President [Harry S.] Truman, and it will depend on President [Dwight D.] Eisenhower or whoever becomes the next U.S. president. It’s up to them. No matter how long this war is going to last, we’ll never yield! We’ll fight until we completely triumph!” he said to cheers.

“We are Chinese. We are not afraid of provocations. We don’t back down,” Mao Ning captioned the video, alongside a Chinese flag emoji.

We are Chinese. We are not afraid of provocations. We don’t back down. pic.twitter.com/vPgifasYmI

— Mao Ning 毛宁 (@SpoxCHN_MaoNing) April 10, 2025

The Chinese Embassy in the U.S. replied likewise, saying, “We don’t back down,” alongside a Chinese flag emoji.

The posting of the speech by a Chinese official referencing the last time U.S. and Chinese forces exchanged blows marks a significant escalation in rhetoric.

While the Korean War is often known as the “Forgotten War” in the U.S., it forms a central part of the Chinese national mythos. Though it ended in a draw, the infant People’s Liberation Army’s ability to push U.S. forces south of the 38th Parallel in the opening months of the Chinese intervention served as a major point of pride for modern Chinese.

The Korean War is a frequent feature in Chinese popular culture. It was the subject of the anti-U.S. propaganda film The Battle at Lake Changjin and its sequel. The first film became the highest-grossing Chinese film until it was surpassed by the animated movie Ne Zha 2 in February.

CHINA SLAPS U.S. WITH 84% RETALIATORY TARIFFS

The over-the-top depiction of Americans in the movies makes it a frequent subject of mockery on social media in the West.

Chinese propaganda depictions of Americans continues to outdo anything the West currently does pic.twitter.com/TfWfHu2b5t

— Aetius (@AetiusRF) July 12, 2023

President Donald Trump escalated his trade war against China while pausing tariffs on most other countries. The latest tariffs on Chinese goods are 125%, while those on U.S. goods are 84%.

Washington Examiner · April 10, 2025

11. The Counteroffensive: Can Ukraine's military survive without Elon Musk's Starlink systems?

Is dependence on private companies a strategic problem, weakness, or vulnerability?

The Counteroffensive: Can Ukraine's military survive without Elon Musk's Starlink systems?

kyivindependent.com · by Artem Moskalenko · April 10, 2025

After a busy day at work as a software engineer, Oleg Kutkov returns to his apartment in Kyiv. He steps out onto the balcony — but not to smoke or water the flowers. Oleg’s balcony is a workshop. There, he repairs Starlink terminals damaged at the front and sends them back to soldiers.

"At first, I used to work with Starlink as a hobby. But when I fix them now, I realize it's not just a hobby — it’s the main means of communication at the front," Oleg told the Counteroffensive.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Ukraine — including The Counteroffensive’s Kyiv office — depend on Starlink satellites, which have replaced internet networks damaged during the war. Civilians in hospitals, schools, and frontline areas all rely on it — as does the military along the entire front.

But U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk see Starlink as leverage over the Ukrainian government. Starlink is part of Musk’s company, SpaceX, and although Ukraine and its partners pay for the system’s operation, Musk can theoretically shut it off at any time.

The centrality of Starlink to Ukraine’s military success underscores just how significant a geopolitical figure Musk has become — and how the world’s richest man now wields influence far beyond his net worth. The trajectory of the war, in many ways, lies in the hands of one person.

Ukrainian soldiers understand there are no full-fledged alternatives to Starlink, but they are prepared to fight without it — because they have no choice. That might mean relying more on traditional methods of communication, including radios and cellular networks. Satellite systems from other companies may help, but they’re less efficient and can’t fully cover the front.

Since childhood, Oleg, now 36, has enjoyed taking apart and reassembling electronics. So when he learned about Starlink in 2021, it immediately piqued his interest.

He ordered his first terminal from the United States in late 2021 — before Starlink service was even available in Ukraine. His goal was to disassemble the terminal and see how it worked. He believes his was likely the first Starlink terminal in the country.

A few months later, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In late February 2022, Ukraine asked Musk to activate Starlink access. Russia was targeting communication towers and knocking out access to traditional systems. Musk — who can both give and take away — responded within hours. He announced that Starlink service was active in Ukraine and that the first terminals were on their way.

“I know Starlink is not reliable — SpaceX has already shut it down several times. But currently, there are no full-fledged alternatives.”

Oleg saw Musk’s tweet and decided to try activating his terminal. With help from his SpaceX contacts, it worked. He believes it was one of the first active Starlink terminals in Ukraine.

“It allowed me to at least somehow stay in touch and get some news,” Oleg said of his experience in Kyiv at the beginning of the invasion. “Where there was no connection due to Russian attacks, it appeared thanks to Starlink.”

While Musk supported Ukraine early in the war, he later started to undermine the Ukrainian military's operations.

In September 2023, biographer Walter Isaacson claimed Musk had secretly disabled Starlink service near occupied Crimea the previous year to disrupt a Ukrainian attack on the Russian fleet. The story was later confirmed by Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military intelligence.

In February 2023, SpaceX restricted Starlink’s use in Ukraine — specifically limiting its role in drone operations. Musk said the decision was made “to prevent World War III.” The restrictions were eventually lifted.

More recently, threats to shut down Starlink surfaced again when Trump returned to the presidency. According to Reuters, Trump administration officials warned Ukraine they would cut off Starlink access unless Ukraine agreed to a mining deal. The deal remains unsigned.

A Starlink is seen as evacuees wait to be transported to Kharkiv, Ukraine, after being evacuated during a Russian advance into Vovchansk, Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine, on May 13, 2024. (Ed Ram / For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Musk also clashed with Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski over Starlink. Although Musk later tweeted that he would never cut access, there is lingering skepticism about whether his word can be trusted.

Ukraine remains vulnerable to the possibility that Musk could pull the plug on Starlink at any time. As a result, the government is seeking alternatives.

“I know Starlink is not reliable — SpaceX has already shut it down several times. But currently, there are no full-fledged alternatives. All other options are worse,” Oleg said.

With Starlink, Ukraine’s military can coordinate operations, transmit front-line data, and monitor the battlefield — even when there’s no mobile network coverage. It also enables drone reconnaissance and precision strikes.

“Communication (via Starlink) is the basis of command and control,” said Yaroslav Honchar, head of the nonprofit Aerorozvidka, which promotes robotic military technology. “If there is communication, then there is control, and then can we talk about offense, defense, and everything else.”

Although Starlink isn’t officially available to the Russian army, reports suggest some Russian units have used it anyway.

Still, the system has its flaws. Starlink terminals aren’t designed for long-term use under battlefield conditions. They often break under extreme weather or combat stress. The most common issue Oleg sees is shrapnel damage. But he also fixes terminals that have been flooded in trenches, chewed by rodents, or tossed from moving vehicles.

“There was a case when I drained 5 liters of water from two new terminals. I dried them out, repaired them, and they started working,” Oleg said.

Ukraine’s growing interest in alternatives is driven by a desire to reduce its dependence on Musk. According to the Financial Times, the European Union is currently in talks with four companies to possibly replace Starlink for Ukraine’s armed forces: SES (Luxembourg), Hisdesat (Spain), Viasat (United Kingdom), and Eutelsat/OneWeb (France).

The first three rely on older satellite technology, with satellites orbiting around 30,000 kilometers above Earth — compared to Starlink’s 500 to 800 kilometers. This affects latency and data speed.

Eutelsat/OneWeb’s satellites are closer, orbiting around 1,200 kilometers, and are more comparable to Starlink in coverage. But the size of their network is limited — just 500 to 600 satellites versus Starlink’s more than 6,000.

Other alternatives are more rudimentary. During the Battle of Kursk, Ukrainian forces used radio and wired communications, since Starlink doesn’t work in Russia.

“We can successfully defend the country without Starlink. We did it at the very beginning of the full-scale invasion, and we can do it now," said Volodymyr Stepanets of the Narodnyi Starlink initiative, which repairs and supplies terminals. "It is more difficult, more expensive... but it is possible."

Stepanets also argues that cutting off Ukraine would hurt Musk, too. He said more than 150,000 Starlink terminals are currently in Ukraine, generating roughly $15 million per month in subscription fees.

“As a country, we are Musk's largest customer on this continent. Probably, the number of Starlink terminals in Ukraine is higher than in the whole of Europe,” he said.

The Counteroffensive contacted the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Starlink’s Ukraine office to confirm the number of terminals in use. As of publication, neither had responded.

Oleg has worked on Starlink Gen 2 terminals, which he says have a vulnerability in field use. One connector used to link the equipment is prone to moisture intrusion and often fails. To fix the issue, Oleg substituted a connector from a different company that was more water-resistant. After testing it, he recorded a video tutorial to help others do the same.

Like many Ukrainians, he adapted. He improvised. He taught others how to make do—and how to make things better. Under pressure, Ukraine’s creativity shines. And it will continue to shine, even if Elon Musk turns off the lights.

Editor’s Note: This article was published by the twice-weekly newsletter “The Counteroffensive with Tim Mak” on April 9, 2025, and has been re-published by the Kyiv Independent with permission. To subscribe to The Counteroffensive, click here. The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.

kyivindependent.com · by Artem Moskalenko · April 10, 2025

12. The Only Al-Qaida Operative to Infiltrate the Army's Special Forces

An old story. Fact or fiction?

The Only Al-Qaida Operative to Infiltrate the Army's Special Forces

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · April 9, 2025

One might think that betraying both the world's most notorious terrorism group and the West's most well-funded intelligence agency would be a shortcut to an early grave. The man who did it, however, is still alive. He gave the FBI its first look at the group that came to be called al-Qaida, all while giving special operations training to the mujahideen. Ali Mohamed may not have been the most famous terrorist in history, but he was certainly one of the most consequential.

Born into a devout Muslim Egyptian military family in 1952, Mohamed grew up close to Egypt's border with Israel. Israeli border guards would radicalize him as a teen, sowing the seeds of who later become Osama bin Laden's mole in the U.S. government's most secretive forces. It would be a series of miscommunications in the CIA, FBI and the Army that not only allowed him to come to the United States, but also join the Army's Special Forces, work as an agent of foreign terror organizations and write the al-Qaida training manual later used by the 9/11 hijackers.

Ali Abdel Saoud Mohamed, aka Ali Abul Saoud Mustafa, aka Ali Aboualacoud, aka Abu Omar, aka Haydara, aka Ahmed Bahaa Adam, aka Abu Mohammed ali Amriki, aka Ali Nasser Mohamed Taymour, aka Abu Osama, aka Bakhbola, aka Bili Bili ... the list goes on.

Mohamed's early life was nothing really extraordinary for a young man of his background. He graduated from high school in 1970, but was already convinced he needed to take his fight to the enemies of Islam. He would later tell the FBI that he didn't need a fatwa against the United States, because it was so clearly the enemy. His jihadi career began when he joined the Egyptian army in 1971 and became a special operations intelligence officer. He also, like many of his fellow officers, joined the terror group Egyptian Islamic Jihad. It was the Islamists in military intelligence that planned the assassination of President Anwar Sadat in 1981 and put assassin Khalid Al-Islambuli in the position to do it. Mohamed was taking a special foreign officer's class at Fort Bragg in North Carolina when Sadat was killed.

Despite his tenure in the Egyptian army and his extensive training, Mohamed was too religious for Egypt's leaders and left the service in 1984. His leader in Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ordered him to work for the national airline so he could acquire air piracy countermeasures. That mission accomplished, his next assignment was to infiltrate a Western intelligence agency. It didn't take long, but Mohamed bungled it from the start, according to a West Point biography of Mohamed.

With its operations in the Middle East in jeopardy from Beirut to Baghdad, the CIA needed to step up its game. So when Mohamed came to the CIA's Cairo station in 1984 looking to volunteer his services, he was almost immediately accepted. The agency sent him to Hamburg, Germany, to infiltrate a Hezbollah-connected mosque there, but he quickly outed himself to the imam as a CIA plant. His handlers might not have known, were it not for the other CIA plant they had in the mosque. Mohamed's betrayal was reported, he was dropped from the CIA's rolls and the agency tried to bar him from ever entering the United States. That ban was not enforced, and he was not only able to enter the U.S. the next year, he was able to join the U.S. Army.

At 34 years old, the former Egyptian special forces soldier was still in solid shape. He outperformed all the other recruits in his unit during basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was sent to the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, where he eventually became the supply noncommissioned officer for the 5th Special Forces Group. In 1988, he went on leave to Afghanistan, where he fought the Soviet Union with the Afghan Mujahideen. Mohamed didn't try to hide it; he even returned with Red Army belts from dead Russian troops as a gift for his commander.

Osama bin Laden fighting the Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

It was around this same time that al-Zawahiri, still Mohamed's boss in Islamic Jihad, formed al-Qaida with Osama bin Laden and fellow Egyptian Mohammed Atef. Mohamed, however, was passing classified Army Special Warfare Center materials to Islamic Jihad members in New York and New Jersey while training them to fire small arms. The documents he passed included top-secret SOF training manuals, U.S. Navy docking center locations, and the exact locations of American special operations units. But Mohamed wasn't just passing along these manuals; he was also writing one of his own.

In the late 1980s, he wrote the official al-Qaida training manual "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants," based on his own special operations training in the U.S. and Egypt. Some 180 pages long, it consists of ideology along with detailed instructions on everything from forming a sleeper cell to counterfeiting currency. He left active duty shortly after and joined the Army Reserve in California, where he'd married an American woman. For nearly a decade after leaving the service, he would be involved in every major al-Qaida operation.

Mohamed's work began with providing in-person training to al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the same time, he became a criminal informant for the FBI when he revealed a Hamas document-forging ring inside the United States. As part of al-Qaida's Africa Corps, he provided security for bin Laden's move from Afghanistan to Sudan in 1991 and also his return in 1996. He also trained al-Qaida's entire leadership in modern U.S. Army combat operations during this time period.

In the 1990s, he set up the cell that would bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and trained the Somalis who fought American intervention in Mogadishu (and the "Black Hawk Down" incident) all while moving and raising money in the United States for al-Qaida operations abroad. He also trained those involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the New York City landmark bomb plot, a one-day plan to blow up bridges, tunnels and important symbols inside the city. It was only after the bombing of the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, that Ali Mohamed was finally arrested. His most stunning achievement to this point was how he'd managed to evade capture for so long.

A rescue team looking for survivors of the bombing of the US-American embassy in the aforementioned building and the collapsed Ufundi building in Nairobi, Kenya. (Israel Defense Forces)

After getting caught revealing his CIA ties to Hezbollah in Germany, he was placed on watch lists by both the CIA and the U.S. State Department, but it was alleged that the CIA clandestinely sponsored his entry. The Army documents he leaked to Islamic Jihad were scooped up by U.S. authorities when they raided the NYC apartment of the alleged landmark bomber El-Sayyid Nosair, but were overlooked even during his 1991 trial. Mohamed also failed a lie detector test when he first tried to infiltrate the FBI in 1990. The FBI failed to even administer a test when Trans World Airlines reported that he was arrested in Rome for carrying luggage with secret compartments.

In 1993, he was caught lying to Canada's RCMP about his friend and fellow al-Qaida operative's fake passports. Finally, the FBI caught up with him after the Canadians reported the incident. This was when Mohamed gave the U.S. its first look at the al-Qaida network, describing bin Laden's plans to overthrow the Saudi government, its training camps in Sudan and even the anti-hijacking training he provided to terrorist fighters. But this report was reportedly lost in a Defense Department reorganization. Still, despite failing a polygraph, Mohamed was again set free.

It wasn't until 1997 that he admitted the full extent of his activities with al-Qaida to American authorities. He told the FBI and U.S. attorneys about his direct work with bin Laden, training the Somalis fighting Americans in Mogadishu and scouting locations for potential terror attacks. He was allowed to walk free yet again, but the FBI began to monitor his phone and movements inside the United States. In the aftermath of the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, he was secretly arrested and has been held without trial ever since at an unknown location. It is alleged that he is cooperating with the fight against the al-Qaida network and remains the greatest unanswered question in the Global War on Terrorism.

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

Whether you're thinking of joining the military, looking for post-military careers or keeping up with military life and benefits, Military.com has you covered. Subscribe to Military.com to have military news, updates and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · April 9, 2025

13. US-China tariff battle fuels questions about Trump’s endgame

So what is it? Decouple or Deal?

And a key question: how can both Xi and President Trump come out of this looking strong? Is win-win possible or is it only zero-sum?

Excerpts:

The president may be improvising with some of his moves, but his ultimate goal is likely a phase-two trade deal with China, experts said, continuing on the work of his first term. Trump signed an initial “Phase One” trade deal with China in 2020, with commitments from Beijing to boost purchases of U.S. goods but without promises to drop its tariffs. A second phase of the deal didn’t materialize before Trump left office, as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic derailed the global economy — and U.S. relations with China.

And while some think the standoff could be drawn out, a former Commerce Department official opined that Trump and Xi, both aiming to not look weak, could be eyeing a short-term fix to the ongoing trade war.

“While there’s substantial risk of a global economic meltdown caused by both leaders’ fear of looking weak at home, the odds are greater for a short-term ‘big, beautiful deal’ and medium-term acceleration of deglobalization,” the official said.

Trump’s decision to backtrack on other tariffs signals that the president’s approach to trade policy could turn on a dime as new impacts emerge.

In the meantime, the tariffs are creating “a lose-lose” situation for both countries’ economies, Zhang said.

“At best, it’s signaling a willingness to probe the contours of decoupling. At worst, it’s just economic suicide,” Busch said. “I don’t know that either side can really do this much longer … None of this is good for either side, and I sure hope both sides blink.”

US-China tariff battle fuels questions about Trump’s endgame

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5245475-trump-tariff-battle-china/

by Julia Mueller - 04/11/25 6:00 PM ET

President Trump’s escalating tariff battle with China is rattling the global economy and raising questions about how the standoff will end.

Trump this week announced a 90-day pause on his sweeping tariffs against dozens of countries, but he bumped up import taxes on China to a staggering 145 percent total. China hit back by upping its own tariffs to 125 percent on Friday, raising the stakes as the hikes roil global markets.

Trump has insisted that China “wants to make a deal” but doesn’t “know how quite to go about it,” while leaders in Beijing have capped their latest hikes, warning that the battle risks becoming “a joke in the history of the world economy.”

The tense back-and-forth between global superpowers raises questions about Trump’s endgame and the potential economic impacts of an escalating trade war, as the president contends tariffs will reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

“What’s the endgame here? Are we really going to reshore manufacturing based in China? And if we’re hitting every country on earth with additional tariffs, where are we going to see companies flee China to?” said Marc Busch, a professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University, who’s also an opinion contributor to The Hill. “They’re not coming back to the United States, so what is the endgame here?”

Trump announced the latest tariff hike on China on Wednesday, increasing it after slapping the country with 104 percent rate that day. A White House official said Thursday the rate is now 145 percent on China, given an additional 20 percent that includes sectors the reciprocal tariffs do not cover.

At the same time, Trump implemented a 90-day reprieve from the “Liberation Day” tariffs against all other trading partners, which brought quick relief to the stock market, as he cited “the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets.”

“They’ve ripped us off beyond anybody — how people stood for it sitting in my position is not even believable … but they did and all we’re doing is putting it back in shape. We’re resetting the table. And I’m sure that we’ll be able to get along very well,” Trump said Thursday, while emphasizing the respect he has for Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) was among the figures on Capitol Hill who expressed uncertainty this week about Trump’s strategy, saying Wednesday, “I don’t know what the endgame is here yet.”

In response to Trump, China’s Ministry of Finance said Thursday the U.S. had “seriously violated international economic and trade rules, disregarded the post-World War II global economic order built by the U.S. itself, and violated basic economic laws and common sense,” per a translated statement.

Beijing then brought tariffs on U.S. goods up to 125 percent Friday and said it would stop engaging in the tariff hike back-and-forth moving forward.

“If the U.S. continues to play the tariff numbers game, China will ignore it,” Chinese officials wrote in a release, according to translations.

Wendong Zhang, an economist with Cornell University and a faculty affiliate at Cornell’s Center for China Economic Research, forecast that the U.S.-China standoff “will likely persist for some time.”

That’s because there are “many sticking points” in the “deteriorating” relationship between the two global powers, Zhang told The Hill in an email, including China’s industrial policy, Chinese ownership of agricultural land in the U.S. and recent moves from the Chinese military amid tensions over Taiwan.

Both countries have recently put each other’s companies on blacklists, and the tariff spat has added drama to a potential deal on the mega-popular app TikTok, owned by China-based parent company ByteDance. The administration has also vowed to take back the Panama Canal from “China’s influence,” prompting Beijing to accuse the U.S. of “blackmail.”

At the same time, the U.S. and China remain major trading partners: The two countries traded an estimated $582.4 billion in 2024, according to data from the U.S. trade representative’s office. The trade deficit with China was at $295.4 billion, up 5.8 percent from the previous year.

“China recognizes the high retaliatory tariffs would effectively halt the trade, but feel obligated to respond politically,” Zhang said.

The White House has said the “phones are ringing off the hook” from countries eager to make trade deals with the U.S. to avoid the tariffs, and Trump has claimed that China wants to make a deal but doesn’t know where to start.

But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sidestepped questions Friday about whether Trump is waiting for Xi to make the first move.

“[Trump] would be gracious if China intends to make a deal with the United States. If China continues to retaliate, it’s not good for China … the president wants to do what’s right for the American people. He wants to see fair trade practices around the globe,” Leavitt said. “I’m not going to comment on communications that are happening or may be happening.”

Leavitt affirmed that Trump is “optimistic” about a deal.

Trump may be wanting to wait until he can have a face-to-face with Xi and announce that they “personally diffused the situation,” Zhang suggested.

Trump has said he has “a very good personal relationship” with the Chinese president, who visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida during his first term.

Both world leaders likely want to come out of this “looking tough,” said Busch, who previously served as an adviser on technical trade barriers to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the United States trade representative.

“On the economic side, I don’t think there’s any real calibration of any model here. On the political side, my sense is it’s a bigger question of: what are other countries making of this demonstration effect?” Busch said.

“You play tough with China and you escalate with China as a means of showing that you’re serious about your ability to ratchet up for not negotiating. But on the other hand, since countries understand that the U.S. is going to be tough on China no matter what, how illustrative is this, really?”

The president may be improvising with some of his moves, but his ultimate goal is likely a phase-two trade deal with China, experts said, continuing on the work of his first term. Trump signed an initial “Phase One” trade deal with China in 2020, with commitments from Beijing to boost purchases of U.S. goods but without promises to drop its tariffs. A second phase of the deal didn’t materialize before Trump left office, as the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic derailed the global economy — and U.S. relations with China.

And while some think the standoff could be drawn out, a former Commerce Department official opined that Trump and Xi, both aiming to not look weak, could be eyeing a short-term fix to the ongoing trade war.

“While there’s substantial risk of a global economic meltdown caused by both leaders’ fear of looking weak at home, the odds are greater for a short-term ‘big, beautiful deal’ and medium-term acceleration of deglobalization,” the official said.

Trump’s decision to backtrack on other tariffs signals that the president’s approach to trade policy could turn on a dime as new impacts emerge.

In the meantime, the tariffs are creating “a lose-lose” situation for both countries’ economies, Zhang said.

“At best, it’s signaling a willingness to probe the contours of decoupling. At worst, it’s just economic suicide,” Busch said. “I don’t know that either side can really do this much longer … None of this is good for either side, and I sure hope both sides blink.”

Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

14. Trump Showed His Pain Point in His Standoff With China

Trump Showed His Pain Point in His Standoff With China

Xi Jinping, who rules with absolute authority, has shown he is willing to let the Chinese people endure hardship. President Trump revealed he has limits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/business/us-china-tariffs-trump-xi.html

Credit...Dongyan Xu

By Li Yuan

Published April 11, 2025

Updated April 12, 2025, 4:52 a.m. ET

Want to stay updated on what’s happening in China? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

President Trump didn’t seem to mind as his worldwide tariffs set off stock market sell-offs and wiped out trillions of dollars in wealth.

“Be cool,” he told Americans.

Then he blinked on Wednesday afternoon in the face of financial turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields that could shake the dominant position of the dollar and the foundation of the U.S. economy.

By pausing some tariffs for dozens of countries for 90 days, he also gave away something to his main rival, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping, with whom he has engaged in a game of chicken that risks decoupling the world’s two biggest economies and turning the global economic order upside down.

Mr. Xi learned that his adversary has a pain point.

As reckless and ruthless as Mr. Trump may seem to some parts of the world, in Mr. Xi and China he is squaring off with a leader and a party state that have a long history of single-minded pursuit of policies, even when they resulted in economic and human catastrophe.

Among Chinese, a consensus among both Beijing’s critics and its supporters is that the endgame may come down to which leader will be able to make his people endure misery in the name of the national interest.

“Tariffs and even economic sanctions are not Xi Jinping’s pressure points,” Hao Qun, an exiled Chinese novelist who writes under the name Murong Xuecun, wrote on X. “He is not particularly concerned about the hardships tariffs may cause for ordinary people.”

Image

President Xi Jinping, left, and President Trump participating in a welcome ceremony in Beijing during Mr. Trump’s first term in 2017.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

Unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Xi does not speak to the Chinese public through social media platforms, although he controls all of them. Everything he says and does is choreographed. It is impossible to get into his head because the public knows little about him beyond his official facade. But insights into how he might react in his standoff with Mr. Trump can be found by looking at how he views hardship, his relations with the Chinese public and his record as the leader of a nation of 1.4 billion people.

The Chinese internet is full of nationalistic chatters about the need to “resolutely fight back and stand our ground to the very end.”

People shared a video clip of Chairman Mao Zedong talking about the Korean War: “We will fight for as long as they want to fight, and we will fight until we win completely.”

Tracking Trump’s First 100 Days ›

The Trump administration’s previous actions on China and tariffs

Earlier entries about China and tariffs

See every major action by the Trump administration ›

Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, shared comments made by Chairman Mao in 1964, calling the United States “a paper tiger.” “Don’t believe its bluff,” Chairman Mao told a French Parliament delegation visiting China. “One poke, and it’ll burst!”

Some commentators online invoked the Great Leap Forward to show the Communist Party’s ability to enforce austerity at times of difficulty. The party waged the campaign between 1958 and 1962 to rapidly industrialize China. Its policies defied science and the laws of nature, resulting in a famine and tens of millions of deaths.

While starving people in the countryside were resorting to cannibalism, Chairman Mao instructed the farmers to eat grain bran and edible wild plants. “Endure hardship for one year, two years, even three years, and we’ll turn things around,” he said.

Image

The construction site of a massive dam outside Beijing in 1958, part of Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy. About 400,000 Chinese worked on the project. Credit...Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone, via Getty Images

Mr. Xi, whom some Chinese view as Mao’s successor to the mantle, likes talking about the benefits of withstanding hardship.

Born in a revolutionary family, Mr. Xi experienced political turmoil and adversity at a young age. His father, a vice premier, was purged when Mr. Xi was 9 years old. During the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Xi’s father was severely persecuted. The son, not yet 16, had to move to a village deep in the Loess Plateau and work as a farmer.

“The seven tough years I spent living and working in the countryside were a great test for me,” he was quoted as saying in a long feature by the official Xinhua News Agency. “Whenever I encountered difficulties later on, I would think of how, even under such harsh conditions back then, I was still able to get things done.”

Our economics reporters — based in New York, London, Brussels, Berlin, Hong Kong and Seoul — are digging into every aspect of the tariffs causing global turmoil. They are joined by dozens of reporters writing about the effects on everyday people.

Here’s our latest reporting on tariffs and economic policy.

It was 2023, and China’s economy was struggling to recover from the Covid pandemic. Youth unemployment skyrocketed. Mr. Xi told young people that they should learn to “eat bitterness,” using a colloquial expression that means to endure hardships.

In a state media article about Mr. Xi’s expectations for the young generation, the word “hardship” was mentioned 37 times.

Early in 2022, it was evident that the Omicron variant was too contagious to contain, but that nearly all other countries that had embraced vaccines were able to reopen their economies. But Mr. Xi insisted that China live through his draconian “zero Covid” measures while resisting importing Western vaccines. Hundreds of millions of people endured lockdowns, daily tests and forced quarantines. Many lives and livelihoods were ruined.

In the past few years, Mr. Xi has resisted the calls of many economists and even his own officials to provide cash support to the public to boost consumption. In a 2021 speech, he urged against “welfarism,” saying, “Once welfare benefits go up, they don’t come back down.”

The truth is 600 million Chinese take home less than $140 a month and have minimum social benefits, a major reason they save so much and consume less than the economy needs.

Mr. Xi did end zero Covid eventually, but did so abruptly without proper vaccination. Many were quickly infected, seniors died and long lines formed outside crematories.

China’s chronic real estate meltdown seems to have finally pushed Mr. Xi closer to accepting the idea of helping consumers, although some economists believe it may be too late, especially in the face of the trade war.

Image

A man guiding goats in a rural area in Tai’an, China’s eastern Shandong province, in January 2023, after the country reversed it zero-Covid policy.Credit...Noel Celis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Mr. Xi does have a pain point on the economy: He can’t let things get so bad that it jeopardizes the legitimacy of the party’s rule. Nationwide protests in November 2022 helped bring the zero Covid to an end. The tariffs threaten China’s exports, which are driving the country’s economy. On Friday, Mr. Xi made his first public comments about the tariff war.

“China’s development has always relied on self-reliance and hard work; never on the charity of others, and never fearing any unjust suppression,” he was quoted saying by the state media.

As the world learned this week, Mr. Trump cannot completely ignore the financial markets or the Wall Street and tech billionaires who supported his campaign. They reached out to his cabinet members to convey their concerns. Even loyalists like Elon Musk and William A. Ackman, the hedge fund manager, expressed their disagreement with the president’s tariff policies.

It’s hard to imagine that any Chinese entrepreneurs would dare to do the same or, like Mr. Musk, have the channel to convey their concerns to Mr. Xi, who has pushed aside his political opponents and cracked down on private companies. If Mr. Trump aspires for absolute power like Mr. Xi, he has a long way to go.

I have been checking Chinese social media the past few days hunting for any well-known company or entrepreneur complaining about the trade war. I found none. Ordinary people who lamented online that they faced pay cuts or lost business because of the tariffs were shot down by nationalistic commenters and labeled “unpatriotic.”

That’s a base Mr. Trump can’t compete with.

“Submitting to hegemony has never been an option for China,” a Weibo user wrote on Thursday. “If we could kick out the Americans during the Korean War, we have nothing to fear its tariff stick. We must respond with an iron fist.” The comment was liked more than 3,000 times.

How TikTok’s Parent, ByteDance, Became an A.I. Powerhouse

A set of popular apps helped China’s ByteDance develop a key component of advanced artificial intelligence: information on how a billion people use the internet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/business/tiktok-china-bytedance-ai.html

Beijing offices for ByteDance, which spent about $11 billion last year on infrastructure for artificial intelligence.Credit...Andrea Verdelli/Bloomberg

By Meaghan Tobin

Reporting from Taipei, Taiwan

April 11, 2025

The Chinese internet giant ByteDance has made some of the world’s most popular apps: TikTok and, in China, Douyin and Toutiao.

In the United States, TikTok claims 170 million users. But in China, about 700 million use the domestic version, Douyin, and 300 million scroll the headlines on Toutiao, a news app. Every video that ByteDance’s users watch or post gives the company another data point about how people use the internet. For years, ByteDance has applied that wealth of information to make its apps more appealing, improving its ability to recommend content to keep users hooked.

ByteDance is also using the data as the linchpin of a growing business in artificial intelligence. The company has invested billions of dollars in the infrastructure needed to power A.I. systems, building vast data centers in China and Southeast Asia and buying up advanced semiconductors. ByteDance is also on an A.I. hiring spree.

ByteDance is best known outside China for TikTok, an app so popular that at least 20 governments have adopted partial bans over concerns about its influence on national security and public opinion.

Concern over how ByteDance uses data has driven lawmakers in Washington to try to force a sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations. On Friday, President Trump extended a looming deadline by 75 days into mid-June.

But in China all that data has helped ByteDance expand its business far beyond social media and gain an edge in the global race to build advanced A.I. technology.

“ByteDance has all this data, all the time, from millions of users,” said Wei Sun, a principal analyst in artificial intelligence at Counterpoint Research in Beijing.

Officials in Beijing have pushed China’s tech companies to pivot from entertainment apps to what the government sees as an existential goal: self-reliance in cutting-edge technologies that also have military applications, like semiconductors, supercomputers and artificial intelligence.

ByteDance has embraced that mission. Last year, the company spent roughly $11 billion on infrastructure like data centers, networking equipment and computer chips, according to a report by Zheshang Securities, a Chinese financial firm.

Image

Supporters of TikTok rallying a year ago in Washington.Credit...Kent Nishimura for The New York Times

The Biden administration set up rules to try to keep Chinese companies from getting access to those kinds of chips, particularly ones made by Nvidia, the Silicon Valley giant. But ByteDance has found ways to get the computing power it needs to train its systems — in part by using data centers outside China and most likely, analysts say, by buying chips made by Chinese chipmakers like Huawei and Cambricon.

Behind the Journalism

Our business coverage. Times journalists are not allowed to have any direct financial stake in companies they cover.

Here’s more on our standards and practices.

While these Chinese-made chips cannot do everything the Nvidia chips can do, they work well enough to help companies like ByteDance provide A.I. services to people and businesses in China. Chinese tech companies have been “encouraged to adopt local options” for buying chips, said Lian Jye Su, an analyst at Omdia, a market research firm.

All this spending has helped ByteDance make one of the most popular artificial intelligence apps in China. Its chatbot, Doubao, gained 60 million users within its first three months on the market last year. It was China’s most popular chatbot, beating rivals made by Baidu and Alibaba-backed Moonshot, until the start-up DeepSeek released its own this year.

ByteDance showed how closely connected its app ecosystem is with its A.I. efforts when it recently started allowing some users to chat with Doubao inside the Douyin app.

In 2021, ByteDance started Volcano Engine, a business that lets other companies pay to use the technologies that made TikTok, Douyin and Toutiao so addictive, like tools to analyze information and the algorithms that recommend videos.

Some of these services were natural applications of the technology that ByteDance developed for Douyin and TikTok, like filters that can make people appear much older or superimpose sparkly hearts on their faces. ByteDance used its experience making these filters to help companies like Haier and Hisense develop movement-tracking technology for gesture-controlled home appliances like smart televisions.

GAC Group, one of China’s largest makers of electric vehicles, is using Volcano Engine to translate and manage data for cars sold outside China. And Mercedes-Benz said last year that it would use Volcano Engine in its in-car voice assistant and navigation system in China.

ByteDance did not respond to a request for comment.

Company job postings show that ByteDance is hiring for hundreds of A.I.-related roles. The company recently directed its engineering team to focus on a milestone that tech companies like OpenAI, Google and DeepSeek are also chasing — making an A.I. system that is as smart as or smarter than humans, often referred to as artificial general intelligence.

While many Chinese companies have started A.I. projects, a much smaller number have the resources to invest in the personnel and computing power needed to advance the technology. Some experts expect that a research team somewhere in the world will make this kind of system within the next year or two.

Claire Fu contributed research from Seoul.

Meaghan Tobin covers business and tech stories in Asia with a focus on China and is based in Taipei.

A version of this article appears in print on April 12, 2025, Section B, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: ByteDance Becomes A.I. Powerhouse With Data From a Billion Users. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

16. Dozens sue Iran and North Korea, saying they sponsored terrorists

Dozens sue Iran and North Korea, saying they sponsored terrorists

Forty-eight U.S. service members, contractors, civilians and relatives say the two countries funded and armed groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/09/terrorism-lawsuit-virginia-iran-north-korea/?utm

April 9, 2025

7 min

Stephen and Jocelyn Troell take a selfie in spring 2022. The Justice Department says Stephen Troell was killed later that year in Baghdad by an Iranian hit squad. (Stephen Troell)

By Salvador Rizzo

Dozens of people who were injured or lost family members in terrorist strikes in the Middle East filed a federal lawsuit in Virginia against Iran and North Korea on Wednesday, saying the two countries provided funding, weapons and training to militant groups that targeted Americans.

Nations are broadly immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts, but the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows those who were injured or whose family members were killed in militant strikes to seek financial damages from state sponsors of terrorism. Such lawsuits, while rare, occasionally result in multibillion-dollar judgments for victims.

The 48 plaintiffs cite reports from U.S. government agencies that say Iran and North Korea have long partnered on efforts to arm and train several designated terrorist organizations that carried out seven separate attacks on Army personnel, military contractors and U.S. civilians — starting with a deadly rocket barrage at an Iraqi air base in 2019 and ending with the Oct. 7, 2023, hostage-taking massacre in Israel.

The strikes, which also targeted Americans in Kenya and Syria, were orchestrated by al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other proxies for Iran and North Korea that aim to drive the United States out of Middle Eastern affairs, according to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

“How does our little family get in the middle of this stuff?” said Jocelyn Troell, one of the plaintiffs. Her husband, Stephen Troell, was fatally shot in Baghdad by a hit squad working for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), according to the Justice Department. “We were just trying to be a family that loved and brought hope to the Iraqi people.”

The Iranians assumed Stephen Troell, 45, was a spy working for Israel or the United States, U.S. officials said. He and his wife were ambushed Nov. 7, 2022, as they were driving home from the English-language institute where they both worked, according to filings in a U.S. criminal case against an IRGC captain, Mohammad Reza Nouri, who is alleged to have plotted the killing. Nouri and four others have been sentenced in Iraq to life in prison over Stephen Troell’s assassination.

Jocelyn Troell said her husband was driven by his Christian faith and a desire to help rebuild war-torn Iraq. He handled advertising and social media for the school. He took up Arabic and was soon joking with shop owners in their native tongue, she recalled. He set up a nonprofit to send space heaters, diapers and baby formula to those in need amid the war in Syria, she said.

“Stephen was trying to be that good that stops evil,” she said in an interview, recalling him as a “man of action” who was “willing to pay that price.”

The Troells went through 10 days of security training once they decided to move to a global hot spot, she said, but in retrospect they were “an easy target.” The Justice Department said the Tennessee couple were set upon by heavily armed gunmen in two cars, who had targeted Stephen Troell as retribution for the U.S. airstrike that killed a high-ranking Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani, in 2020. Jocelyn said time seemed to slow down as she looked her husband’s shooter in the eyes; she ducked for cover under the vehicle’s dashboard and then saw her husband get shot in the chest.

Ryan R. Sparacino, an attorney for Jocelyn Troell and the other plaintiffs, said in a statement that “Iran and North Korea’s alleged collaboration within the ‘Axis of Resistance’ equipped and financed terrorist groups ... [that] callously perpetrated these atrocities.” The lawsuit alleges that Virginia was one of the places from which the two countries “sourced funds, intelligence, and technologies,” including through a cigarette-smuggling operation Hezbollah used to generate revenue along the U.S. East Coast.

Attempts to reach Iran’s and North Korea’s missions to the United Nations were not successful Wednesday.

Lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in some cases have led courts to issue historic, albeit largely symbolic, financial awards. A federal judge in D.C. ruled that Iran bore responsibility for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, an al-Qaeda plot that killed 17 Navy sailors and injured dozens in 2000. The court awarded victims nearly $2 billion in damages last year.

A Manhattan federal judge issued a default judgment against Iran in 2016, awarding $7.5 billion to families of victims of the 9/11 attacks and $3 billion to insurers that paid out claims stemming from the al-Qaeda attack. A similar lawsuit seeking more than $100 billion from Saudi Arabia is pending. The U.S. ally has denied involvement in the 9/11 plot and last year moved to dismiss the litigation.

If Iran and North Korea do not respond to the new allegations in the Virginia case, but a judge finds they have merit, the plaintiffs could be compensated with U.S. government funds that have been collected through sanctions and fines on businesses that deal with state sponsors of terrorism. The U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund has paid out more than $7 billion in claims since it was established by law in 2015, though a bipartisan group of lawmakers says that’s a small fraction of the total value of court-approved judgments. A bill sponsored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) and several House members would add staff to help manage the victims’ compensation fund, add more congressional oversight and mandate annual payouts to eligible beneficiaries.

The plaintiffs in the Virginia case, all Americans, also include seven Army service members and a civilian contractor who suffered traumatic brain injuries from a January 2020 missile attack on al-Asad Air Base in Iraq; the family of an Army soldier who was killed two months later in a rocket attack at Camp Taji in Baghdad; and the widow of a civilian Air Force contractor who died in a 2023 drone strike in Syria. A civilian couple who said they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after “being in a sweltering bomb shelter for over 20 hours” during the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel also joined the suit.

“The anti-terrorism work that we are privileged to do allows us to give a voice to those whose lives were shattered by acts of horrific violence and to ensure the pain the victims endured is never forgotten,” said Raj Parekh, an attorney for the 48 plaintiffs and a former acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who led several high-profile prosecutions of terrorists. The damages sought from Iran and North Korea would be decided at a later phase in the litigation, if a judge approves the claims, he said.

The lawsuit includes some of the same plaintiffs who have sued the cryptocurrency exchange Binance for allegedly facilitating high-dollar transactions that kept several militant groups well funded. Both cases were filed by the law firm Sparacino PLLC. Binance has denied the claims against it, adding in a court filing that it “unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism.”

Jocelyn Troell said her motivation was to continue her husband’s legacy. Stephen Troell would want others to remember the courage and altruism that drove him to Iraq, not his tragic demise, she said.

“What can I do to change and make a difference in the world?” she said, pausing to collect herself as she recalled her husband’s final moments. “I can speak the truth, because I was there.”

Trump and the Department of Justice

HAND CURATED

View 3 more stories

By Salvador Rizzo

Salvador Rizzo covers federal courts for The Washington Post. Send him secure tips at srizzo.86 on Signal

17. What Mao and the Korean War tell us about Chinese psyche in fight against Trump

A quote we should keep in mind:

“The US intimidates certain countries, stopping them from doing business with us. But America is just a paper tiger. Don't believe it's bluff. One poke, and it'll burst!”

– Mao Zedong in 1964“

Commentary

What Mao and the Korean War tell us about Chinese psyche in fight against Trump

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/what-mao-and-the-korean-war-tell-us-about-chinese-psyche-in-fight-against-trump?utm

Yew Lun Tian

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning cited Mao Zedong to say on X that "China never bluffs – and we see through those who do."SCREENGRAB: MAO NING/X

UPDATED Apr 11, 2025, 11:18 PM

When China said on April 11 that it would match US President Donald Trump’s tariffs of 125 per cent from April 12, its message was loud and clear: Bring it on.

“China never bluffs – and we see through those who do,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning wrote on X on April 11, hours before the announcement.

Mr Trump might have hoped that by focusing his reciprocal tariff wrath on China and hiking it up to 125 per cent – later clarified by the White House that it was 145 per cent – while sparing all other countries, he can make the Chinese quaver, crumble and call for a deal.

That was never going to happen. Beijing has decided from the start that it will not come to the negotiating table under duress. Any talks can take place only on an “equal footing”, government spokespersons repeatedly said.

It’s not simply a matter of “face” or pride.

Rather, it is the Chinese taking a leaf from the playbook of Mao Zedong, the founding leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), on how he faced off the Americans during the Korean War of 1950-1953.

In 1950, Mao famously said: “A well-thrown first punch can prevent 10,000 punches later.” He believed that in the face of provocation, an early show of strength can establish credibility, set boundaries and deter future aggression.

This thinking underpinned his bold decision to enter the Korean War on the side of North Korea, even though the PRC had been founded only less than a year earlier in October 1949 and was still reeling from the devastation of the Japanese occupation and a bitter civil war.

According to the official Chinese narrative, despite being poorly equipped and outnumbered, China succeeded in repelling the “imperialist” United States, then a rising superpower, fighting on the side of South Korea.

The war gave rise to a slew of movies and songs that immortalised Chinese heroes of the war in tales of sacrifice for the nation and of triumph against the odds. The victory was held up as validation of Mao’s strategic thinking and his enduring doctrine of douzheng (struggle or fight).

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao posted on X on April 10 a black-and-white video of Mao in February 1953, almost three years into the Korean War, saying: “We will fight however long the Americans want to fight. We will fight until we achieve complete victory.”

Along with the video, Ms Mao, who is not related to the late leader, wrote: “We are Chinese. We are not afraid of provocations. We don’t back down.”

In reality, the war ended in July that year in a bloody stalemate with no clear winners.

It nevertheless gave credence to a logic popular among nationalistic commentators: If China could push back against the US even when it was so weak in the 1950s, why should China, which is the world’s second-largest economy now, shy away from the fight?

Mao famously called the US a “paper tiger” during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, from 1955 to 1975, in reference to his assessment that the US military was not invincible and that it would not dare to act upon its threats of using nuclear weapons.

During both wars, the US tried to contain China – which not only fought on the side of North Korea but also supported North Vietnam – by imposing economic sanctions and a trade embargo, a situation that seems to echo that of today, with the US fighting both a trade and tech war with the Chinese.

Ms Mao posted on April 11 a Mao quote overlaid on his photo: “The US intimidates certain countries, stopping them from doing business with us. But America is just a paper tiger. Don’t believe its bluff. One poke, and it’ll burst.”

The US under Mr Trump is probably a tiger that not many countries in the world would want to poke. Nevertheless, Mao’s thinking about the Korean War and other struggles is deeply ingrained in the psyche of generations of Chinese people. It provides the state with a convenient narrative to mentally prepare its people to endure a painful, drawn-out trade war, and to have moral courage even when the odds seem to be against them.

Not everyone buys into the argument. In response to a post on RedNote drawing parallels between Mao’s approach about the Korean War and China’s stance in today’s trade war, one user, “Gugu”, commented: “I’ve been jobless for half a year. If we keep fighting, I’ll have to retire at age 30.”

When relations were better, invoking the Korean War was considered impolite.

In 2011, Chinese pianist Lang Lang stirred controversy at the White House by performing My Motherland, the theme song for a Korean War-era film, which had anti-American lyrics like: “If the jackals and wolves come, I’ll be ready to greet them with my shotgun.”

The re-emergence of these Korean War ghosts now bodes ill for Sino-US relations.

Yew Lun Tian is a senior foreign correspondent who covers China for The Straits Times.

18. Trump Wants to Merge Government Data. Here Are 314 Things It Might Know About You.

Should we be concerned? Or are they just catching up to what China (and Meta, Google, and every other social media platform) already has collected on us? (apologies for my cynicism)

Graphics at the link.

Trump Wants to Merge Government Data. Here Are 314 Things It Might Know About You.

Elon Musk’s team is leading an effort to link government databases, to the alarm of privacy and security experts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/politics/trump-musk-data-access.html?referringSource=articleShare&smid=nytcore-ios-share&utm

Share full article
281

By Emily Badger and Sheera Frenkel

April 9, 2025

The federal government knows your mother’s maiden name and your bank account number. The student debt you hold. Your disability status. The company that employs you and the wages you earn there. And that’s just a start.

It may also know your ...

Active-duty military status
Addiction treatment records
Adjusted gross income
Adopted child’s name
Adverse credit history
Alimony paid
Business debts canceled or forgiven
Charitable contributions
Child support received
Country of birth
Country of citizenship
Credit and debit card numbers
Criminal history
Date of birth
Date of hiring
Dependent Social Security numbers
Disability entitlement
Driver’s license or state ID number
Effective tax rate
Employer name
Employment termination dates
Farm income/loss
Foreign business partners
Full name
Gambling income
Health provider name and number
High school
Home/personal phone number
Incarceration status
IP address
Marital status
Marriage certificate
Medical diagnoses
Mother’s maiden name
Moving expenses
Nonresident alien status
Parent educational attainment
Passport number
Personal bank account number
Personal email address
Personal taxpayer ID number
Place of birth
Prior status in foster care
Reason for separation (for unemployment claims)
Social Security number
Sources of income
Spouse’s demographic information
Student loan defaults
Taxable I.R.A. distributions
U.S. visa number

and at least 263 more categories of data.

Source: Agency documents assembled by The New York Times

These intimate details about the personal lives of people who live in the United States are held in disconnected data systems across the federal government — some at the Treasury, some at the Social Security Administration and some at the Department of Education, among other agencies.

The Trump administration is now trying to connect the dots of that disparate information. Last month, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the “consolidation” of these segregated records, raising the prospect of creating a kind of data trove about Americans that the government has never had before, and that members of the president’s own party have historically opposed.

The effort is being driven by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, and his lieutenants with the Department of Government Efficiency, who have sought access to dozens of databases as they have swept through agencies across the federal government. Along the way, they have elbowed past the objections of career staff, data security protocols, national security experts and legal privacy protections.

So far, the Musk group’s success has varied by agency and sometimes by the day, as differing rulings have come down from federal judges hearing more than a dozen lawsuits challenging the moves. The group has been temporarily blocked from sensitive data at several agencies, including the Social Security Administration. But on Monday, an appeals court reversed a preliminary injunction barring the group’s access at the Treasury, the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management.

And this week, the Internal Revenue Service agreed to help the Department of Homeland Security obtain closely held taxpayer data to help identify immigrants for deportation, over the objections of career employees. In the wake of that decision, the acting I.R.S. commissioner and other top officials are preparing to resign.

The categories of information shown here are drawn from 23 data systems holding personal information about the public across eight agencies that Mr. Musk’s aides are seeking to access, according to people familiar with their efforts as well as internal documents and court depositions. In all, The New York Times identified more than 300 separate fields of data about people who live in the U.S. contained in these data systems.

Personal data held in systems DOGE has sought to access

Academic rank
Active-duty military status
Addiction treatment records
Adjusted gross income
Adopted child’s gender
Adopted child’s name
Adopted child’s placement agency
Adoption credit claimed
Adoption Taxpayer ID Number
Adoptive parent name
Adoptive placement agency
Adoptive placement agency Employer ID Number
Adverse credit history
Alimony paid
Alimony received
Amount of federal taxes owed
Amount of federal taxes refunded
Amount of institutionally provided financing owed
Amount of Medicare conditional payment
Amount of student loan debt
Area of medical residency
Area of study
Auto insurance effective date of coverage
Auto insurance policy number
Automobile medical policies
Bank
Bank information (for your Medicare providers)
Biometric identifiers
Birth certificate
Business address
Business bad debt
Business bank account number
Business closures
Business debts canceled or forgiven
Business depreciation
Business entity type
Business income/loss
Business rents paid
Business repairs and maintenance costs
Business taxpayer ID number
Cancellation of debt
Capital gain/loss
Casualty and theft losses from federal declared disaster
Charitable contributions
Child and dependent care tax credit claimed
Child support received
Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship eligibility indicator
Citizenship status
Classification of instructional programs code
Clean vehicle credit claimed
Company named in consumer complaint
Consumer product complaints (including mortgages, loans, credit cards)
Cost of goods sold (for business)
Country of birth
Country of citizenship
Course of study completion date
Course of study completion status
Course of study program length
Credit and debit card numbers
Credit report information
Criminal history
Date of accident, injury or illness
Date of birth
Date of death
Date of hiring
Date of original divorce or separation agreement
Dates of employment
Dates of medical service
Deductible part of self-employment tax
Degrees
Delinquency on federal debt status
Dependency status
Dependent names
Dependent of a resident alien
Dependent of U.S. citizen/resident alien
Dependent relationship to you
Dependent Social Security numbers
Dependent/spouse of a nonresident alien holding a U.S. visa
Device ID
Digital assets received as ordinary income
Disability entitlement
Disadvantaged background status
Disability status
Dividend income
Driver’s license or state ID number
Earnings
Education and training (for unemployment claims)
Education tax credits claimed
Educator expenses paid
Effective tax rate
Employee benefit plans offered (for business)
Employee ID number
Employer account number
Employer address
Employer name
Employer reported total employees
Employer-provided adoption benefits
Employer-reported total wages paid by quarter
Employment information
Employment status
Employment termination dates
Energy efficient commercial buildings deduction
Energy efficient home improvement credit claimed
Entitlement benefits held by related Social Security number holders
Expected student enrollment
Failure to file taxes penalty
Failure to pay taxes penalty
Family court records
Family size
Farm income/loss
Federal Employer ID Number
Federal housing assistance received
Federal income tax withheld
Financial aid profile
First-time homebuyer credit claimed
Foreign activities
Foreign address
Foreign bank and financial accounts
Foreign business partners
Foreign coverage credits
Foreign earned income exclusion
Foreign interests in business
Foreign tax ID number
Free or reduced-price school lunch received
Full name
Funding arrangements of employer group health plan
Gambling income
Gender
Gross business profit
Gross business receipts or sales
Health insurance claim number
Health insurance effective date of coverage
Health insurance policy number
Health provider name and number
Health savings account deduction claimed
Health supplier name and number
High school
Higher ed institutions designated to receive FAFSA form
Home/mailing address
Home/personal phone number
Homeless status
Hospitalization records
Household employee name
Household employee Social Security number
Household employee wages
Incarcerated student indicator flag
Incarceration status
Income and assets (for student aid eligibility)
Inventions
Investment interest received
IP address
I.R.A. deduction
Job title
Jury duty pay
Late tax filing interest
Level of postsecondary education study
Login security questions and answers
Login.gov password
Marginal tax rate
Marital status
Marriage certificate
Medicaid received
Medicaid waiver payments
Medical and dental expenses paid
Medical claims payments
Medical diagnoses
Medical notes
Medical records number
Medical residency date completed
Medicare invoices (sent to your provider)
Medicare payments received (by your provider)
Military service credits
Mortgage interest paid
Mother’s maiden name
Moving expenses
Name/address of business partnership
Names of other corporate officers of an LLC
Naturalization records
Nature of medical service
Net farm profit/loss
Nonresident alien status
Nonresident alien student, professor or researcher
Number of agricultural employees employed
Number of employees
Number of family members in college
Occupation title or code
Olympic and Paralympic medals, prize money
Ordinary business income
Parent demographic information
Parent educational attainment
Parent killed in the line of duty
Parental income and assets (for student aid eligibility)
Parents’ demographic information
Passport number
Pell Grant additional eligibility indicator
Pell Grant collection status indicator
Pell Grant status
Personal and professional references (for federal job applicants)
Personal bank account number
Personal bank account routing number
Personal email address
Personal tax payment history
Personal taxpayer ID number
Photographic identifiers
Photographs of government-issued IDs
Physician name and number
Place of birth
Plans for federal grant funding (including schedules, diagrams, pictures)
Postsecondary education institution
Power of attorney name and address
Prescription drug coverage
Principal business activity
Principal business product or service
Prior status as a legally emancipated minor
Prior status as a ward of the court
Prior status as an orphan
Prior status in a legal guardianship
Prior status in foster care
Private health insurer/underwriter group name
Private health insurer/underwriter group number
Private health insurer/underwriter name
Prizes and award income received
Psychological or psychiatric health records
Qualified electric vehicle credit claimed
Railroad retirement credits
Reason for separation (for unemployment claims)
Relationships to other Social Security number holders
Rental management fees paid
Rental, royalty, partnership, etc. income/loss
Rents received
Residential clean energy credit claimed
Royalties received
Salaries and wages earned
Salary history (for federal job applicants)
Scholarship and fellowship grants received
Seasonable employer status
Self-employed health insurance deduction
Self-employment tax
Self-photograph
Sex
Social Security date of filing
Social Security number
Social Security numbers of other corporate officers of an LLC
Social Security primary insurance amount
Social Security/S.S.I. representative payee
Sources and amounts of non-Social Security income
Sources of income
Spousal income and assets (for student aid eligibility)
Spouse demographic information
Spouse of a resident alien
Spouse of U.S. citizen/resident alien
Spouse’s demographic information
Spouse’s Social Security number
Standard employee identifier
State and local taxes paid
Stock options received
Student entitlement
Student loan forbearances
Student loan amount
Student loan balances
Student loan cancellations
Student loan claims
Student loan collections
Student loan defaults
Student loan deferments
Student loan disbursement dates
Student loan disbursements
Student loan ID
Student loan interest deduction
Student loan overpayments
Student loan promissory notes
Student loan refunds
Student loan repayment plan
Student loan status
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance received
Supplemental Security Income eligibility
Supplemental Security Income eligibility amount
Supplemental Security Income payment amounts
Tax filing status (married, individual, filing jointly)
Tax preparer tax ID number
Taxable dependent care benefits
Taxable income
Taxable interest income
Taxable I.R.A. distributions
Taxable pension distributions
Taxable Social Security benefits
Taxable state/local refunds
Taxes paid on wagers
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families received
Tests for H.I.V./AIDS
Tip income
Total number of dependents
Total number of tax exemptions
Total payments to all employees
Total tax owed and paid
Type of bank account (checking/savings)
U.S. resident alien status
U.S. visa expiration date
U.S. visa number
Unaccompanied alien child status
Unaccompanied alien children sponsor status
Unemployment compensation received
Vehicle identifiers
Veteran disability determination dates
Veteran status
Visa expiration date
Wages earned while incarcerated
WIC nutrition assistance received
Work email address
Work experience (for federal job applicants)
Work phone number
Workers’ compensation coverage
Workers’ compensation offset

Source: Agency documents assembled by The New York Times

How Musk and Trump Are Working to Consolidate Government Data About You - The New York Times

If anything, this list is an undercount. Through his executive orders, Mr. Trump has sought to grant Mr. Musk’s group access to “all unclassified agency records” — a category that leaves out national security secrets but that includes personally sensitive information on virtually everyone in America.

With such data stitched together, Mr. Musk and the White House have said they could better hunt for waste, fraud and abuse.

“The way the government is defrauded is that the computer systems don’t talk to each other,” Mr. Musk said in a recent Fox News interview. Link the data, he suggested, and the government could identify swindlers who collect aid from one agency when the I.R.S. knows their income is too high or when the Social Security Administration knows their age is too low.

But critics such as privacy groups, public employee unions and immigrant rights associations who have sued to block the group’s data access warn that so much accumulated information could be used for far more than detecting fraud — and would be illegal.

This assembled data, they say, would give the government too much power, including potentially to punish critics and police immigrants. It would create a national security vulnerability that could be targeted by hostile nation states. And it would break a longstanding covenant between the federal government and the U.S. public rooted in privacy laws — that Americans who share their personal data with official agencies can trust that it will be secured and used only for narrow purposes.

Ways these agencies may have obtained your data

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau• You have filed complaints about companies or products, including about your mortgage or credit cardsEducation• You have applied for or received student loan aidGeneral Services Administration• You have used Login.gov to verify your identify on government formsHealth and Human Services• You are a doctor providing patients care and receiving payment• You have Medicare or Medicaid• Your employer reported your hiring and wages• You have received unemployment benefits• You have applied for a grant• You have sponsored an unaccompanied alien childLabor• Your employer has filed information, including with states, about your employment and wages and unemployment taxes paid• You have received unemploymentOffice of Personnel Management• You have ever applied for a job with the federal governmentSocial Security Administration• Your parents applied for a Social Security number for you at birth• You have paid Social Security taxes through your job• You have applied for or collect Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefitsTreasury• You have filed taxes or tax forms• You have been listed in tax forms filed by others• You have ever received payments from or made payments to the government

Source: Agency documents assembled by The New York Times

How Musk and Trump Are Working to Consolidate Government Data About You - The New York Times

Privacy advocates say that all this data could enable the government to punish its political opponents by weaponizing information about an individual’s personal life (bankruptcies, criminal histories, medical claims) or halting the benefits they receive (housing vouchers, retirement checks, food assistance).

“They have not demonstrated a single case in which fraud detection has required some universal governmental access to everybody’s data,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “In fact, the creation of a monster uniform database of all information on all citizens will be an invitation to fraud and political retaliation against the people.”

That is how personal data is tracked and used in authoritarian states, Mr. Raskin added. Both Russia and China stockpile data on their citizens to track opponents and squash dissent of the ruling party in government.

The White House declined to directly address how it would safeguard and use the data it is seeking to consolidate, including whether the administration is trying to create one central database, citing only its focus on fraud.

“Waste, fraud and abuse have been deeply entrenched in our broken system for far too long,” the White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement. “It takes direct access to the system to identify and fix it.”

Technologists warn that trying to match complex data sets to make decisions about government programs — including by using artificial intelligence to identify waste in government spending, as Musk allies have discussed — could produce rampant errors and real-world harm.

Trump Administration: Live Updates

Updated

April 12, 2025, 10:27 a.m. ET43 minutes ago

And national security experts note that a large collection of data about American citizens would be an enticing target for enemy nation states, hackers and cybercriminals. Countries including China, Russia and Iran have been behind major breaches of U.S. government databases in recent years, U.S. officials have said.

Private companies and data brokers that buy and sell data know plenty about Americans, too. But a crucial difference lies in what the federal government alone can do with that data, privacy advocates say. Google doesn’t control the apparatus of immigration enforcement. Target doesn’t have the power to halt Social Security payments.

“This gets to a fundamental point about privacy: It is not just the question of, ‘Does anyone else in the world know this about me?’” said John Davisson, the director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has sued the administration to block DOGE’s access to financial data at the Treasury and federal work force records at the Office of Personnel Management. “It is a question of who knows this about me, and what can they lawfully — or as a practical matter — do with that information?”

Privacy over efficiency

Congress debated that question 50 years ago as it considered passing a law to protect the privacy of Americans’ data in the wake of the Watergate scandal and with the growing computerization of personal records.

“Where will it end?” said the Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona at the time. “Will we permit all computerized systems to interlink nationwide so that every detail of our personal lives can be assembled instantly for use by a single bureaucrat or institution?”

With the passage of the 1974 Privacy Act, Americans chose privacy over efficiency, said Julian Sanchez, a libertarian privacy scholar.

“We made a very conscious choice to say we’re accepting the costs of inefficiency,” he said, “because if a unified database came into the hands of someone who wanted to put state power to some repressive purpose, their task would be made too easy by that centralization.”

At times, he said, libertarians have been called paranoid for suggesting such a scenario was still realistic in America in the 21st century.

“I think it’s very evident,” he said, “now it is.”

In Mr. Trump’s March 20 executive order, he called for “eliminating information silos” across the government. Within 30 days, the order states, “agency heads shall, to the maximum extent consistent with law, rescind or modify all agency guidance that serves as a barrier to the inter- or intra-agency sharing of unclassified information.” The administration has not specified who would be able to view data that gets consolidated across the government, but the order broadly grants wide-ranging access to federal officials “designated by the president or agency heads.”

The president also is targeting information held by states, seeking “unfettered access to comprehensive data” related to programs that receive federal funding.

The White House did not respond to the concerns raised by critics about the risks of pulling these data streams together.

Image

The federal student aid application asks about your income and assets, as well as those of your parents and spouse.Credit...studentaid.gov

Image

This I.R.S. tax return form asks about your dependents and the bank account where any deposits are refunded.Credit...irs.gov

It remains to be seen whether the courts will ultimately permit the administration’s efforts, some of which appear to run counter to the Privacy Act and other laws.

The Privacy Act prohibits agencies from disclosing personal information without your consent. Agencies also generally aren’t supposed to share data across the government for a purpose unrelated to why it was originally collected.

That means, for example, that the government shouldn’t use personal data you handed over to apply for student loans to later carry out immigration enforcement against your parents. Or use information you filed to itemize your tax deductions to later identify you as a supporter of left-leaning causes.

“The government is not necessarily supposed to be thinking creatively about how it can combine all of the information that it has ever collected about you and your family across dozens of databases over the course of your entire life to find out new things about you,” said Aman George, senior counsel with Democracy Forward, a liberal-leaning legal group that has brought some of the lawsuits against DOGE.

There are some exceptions to legal privacy standards, including for criminal investigations and for government employees who need restricted data to do their lawfully assigned jobs. But courts that have blocked DOGE’s data access, for now, have found that Mr. Musk’s team probably doesn’t have such a need given the group’s vague and shifting mandate.

“Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,” wrote district Judge Ellen L. Hollander in issuing a temporary restraining order at the Social Security Administration. “Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

Image

Posters have appeared around Washington protesting Elon Musk’s efforts to access personal data.Credit...Ben Curtis/Associated Press

The Internal Revenue Code and Social Security Act add even stricter protections to tax data. And other laws have set security standards for maintaining government data and made it a crime to access a government computer or share data without authorization.

Mr. Musk’s team, according to Times reporting and court filings, has also targeted dozens of systems that track federal employees, government acquisition and contracting, and government spending to businesses and outside entities while pursuing widespread staff reductions across the bureaucracy.

The cost of wrong results

The notion of connecting government data systems is much harder than it sounds, former officials said.

When the I.R.S. tried to study if it could identify people eligible for the earned-income tax credit about a decade ago, it ran into different programs and data sets using different definitions for “family” and “income,” said Nina Olson, the former national taxpayer advocate at the I.R.S. from 2001 to 2019.

Try matching data across an even wider array of government systems, and the incongruities would multiply.

“The data is not fit for the purpose that you’re trying to use it for,” said Ms. Olson, the executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, which is also suing the government. “And you’ll get wrong results, and there’s consequences to those wrong results.”

People could be cut off from benefits or identified for deportation for suspicious indicators that have benign explanations. However, Mr. Musk has shown little interest in the details of those explanations. He has repeatedly misrepresented data about dead people and immigrants receiving Social Security. He has suggested something nefarious must explain a surge in tax credits that can be traced to expansions of the child tax credit and pandemic relief.

What happens if a family claiming a tax credit for the first time is flagged for fraud — and has their Medicaid cut off, too?

“What will their resolution process be? Will they act first and deal with the fallout later?” said Elizabeth Laird with the Center for Democracy and Technology. “People who maybe are like, ‘Well, I got notified my data was breached 10 years ago and I’ve been fine’ — I don’t think they’ve been subjected to what we may see this used for.”

About this project

To identify the data variables shown here, The Times compiled a list of data systems DOGE has sought to access, relying on reporting and legal documents. For each data system, we then gathered the data collection elements listed in Privacy Impact Assessments or System of Records Notices required by law. Where that information was vague (for example your “tax records”), we relied on other documentation to compile more specific data fields (like the line items on a 1040 individual income tax return). In some cases, DOGE has sought access to data retrieval systems and data warehouses that pull information from many separate systems. In such cases, we tried to identify information in those interconnected systems, too.

While we identified about 80 data systems in total that have been targeted by DOGE, this analysis illustrates only those that contain personal information about the American public. We excluded data systems that hold personal information only on federal employees; those that contain primarily information about businesses and institutions; and those that manage internal processes, like setting up emails and sending out invoices. Our definition of the American public includes many smaller subpopulations, like anyone who has ever applied for a federal job, a student loan, a research grant or unemployment benefits. Data collected about those groups (for example, the college you attended if you had a student loan) may not be known by the government about everyone in America.

Nicholas Nehamas, Debra Kamin, Andrew Duehren, Alan Rappeport, Aaron Krolik, Zach Montague, Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Ryan Mac contributed reporting; Ethan Singer, Alicia Parlapiano and Larry Buchanan contributed production.

Emily Badger writes about cities and urban policy for The Times from Washington. She’s particularly interested in housing, transportation and inequality — and how they’re all connected.

Sheera Frenkel is a reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering the ways technology impacts everyday lives with a focus on social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Telegram and WhatsApp.

19.

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website

See what it was like watching elite US special operators fight drones and storm buildings in a Taiwan crisis scenario

Taking the fight to the enemy

Related stories

Special operations leader shares his tough experience as the US embassy was shuttered just before Russia invaded Ukraine

US special operators are going all in on drones so that a human never has to make 'first contact' with the enemy

THE PROBLEM WITH THINKING IN DIME

These are the people Trump picked for top roles in his administration and their connections

Who’s who:

What they have in common:

Bill Maher Praises President Trump as ‘Gracious’ and ‘Not Fake’ Recounting His White House Visit: ‘Everything I’ve Ever Not Liked About Him Was Absent’

Popular on Variety

A Good Man for U.S. Manufacturing Is Hard to Find

American factories are already having difficulty filling jobs, and not because of trade policy.

American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage

Major demographic shifts have put men and women on divergent paths. That’s left more women resigned to being single. ‘The numbers aren’t netting out.’

Crisis of connection

‘Boyfriends by Christmas’

Different world views

Political Gaps

Trump is waiting for Xi to call. The Chinese see it differently | CNN Politics

Looking for the proper channel

‘Mutually-assured destruction’

Trump’s first term regrets

U.S., Iran Begin High Stakes Nuclear Talks in Oman

Talks between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran’s foreign minister aimed at laying a new foundation for future negotiations

Key Stories Promoted by DOGE

Storytelling Strategies

Impact

Stories vs Facts: The Real Battleground in Narrative Warfare - HS Today

Chinese diplomat invokes Mao Zedong in vow not to 'back down' from US trade war

The Counteroffensive: Can Ukraine's military survive without Elon Musk's Starlink systems?

The Only Al-Qaida Operative to Infiltrate the Army's Special Forces

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

US-China tariff battle fuels questions about Trump’s endgame

Trump Showed His Pain Point in His Standoff With China

How TikTok’s Parent, ByteDance, Became an A.I. Powerhouse

Dozens sue Iran and North Korea, saying they sponsored terrorists

Commentary

What Mao and the Korean War tell us about Chinese psyche in fight against Trump

Trump Wants to Merge Government Data. Here Are 314 Things It Might Know About You.

It may also know your ...

and at least 263 more categories of data.

Personal data held in systems DOGE has sought to access

Ways these agencies may have obtained your data

Trump Administration: Live Updates

Privacy over efficiency

The cost of wrong results