Copper Imports Slapped with 50% Tariff

Copper tubing

I know it feels like we’re all trapped in a Sisyphean nightmare with all the discussions of tariffs, but don’t shoot the messenger. Trump’s latest move is a 50% tariff on copper imports is going to do a lot of harm.

You all know that the US needs to build out its industrial capacity in the face of deglobalization, and copper happens to be an important part of that. Building domestic copper production would take over a decade and all these pesky tariffs are only extending that timeline.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here come from Colorado… hiking season. Unfortunately, I can still get the news, so I know that we now have a 50% tariff courtesy of Donald Trump. That is going to be coming to copper imports beginning on August 1st. Let’s say that you are someone who is really concerned about the US copper industry. 

I am not. I’m really not. But if you are, there are a few things that you do before you get larger volumes of copper from domestic production. Number one, you go out and explore to find the deposit you’re after. Number two, you build physical infrastructure, road and rail to get to that system that can handle heavy freight. 

Third, you build a processing facility to separate the copper ore from the rest of the rock and then an intermediate processing facility to turn it to something called blister copper, which is roughly 98% pure. It gets rid of a lot of the sulfur. You then take that blister copper, and you take it to another facility that you need to build. 

That’s a proper smelter that will turn it into that, you know, the reddish orange shiny stuff that you use in everything. And then copper then goes on to be in almost everything that involves electricity. So it is an important material. But putting a 50% tariff on it on the front end retards that entire process. And from start to finish, the entire process takes somewhere between 10 and 15 years. 

So if your goal was to facilitate copper production, step one, would it be offer, say, tax credits for exploration? Go ahead and build the physical infrastructure and get started on the smelters. All of that is very power intensive. So you all sort of need some more electricity. By putting the tariff on the front end, you’re basically retarding the whole process rather than speeding it. 

That’s a problem. One. Problem two is that the Chinese are literally dying out. And while they are big players in the copper sector, and that will have to be shut out at some point, that’s not my primary concern at this point. My primary concern is we have a limited amount of time in the United States to build out our industrial plant to prepare for the Chinese just not being there, and that means roughly doubling the size of the industrial plant. 

And for that first stage, doubling the size. There are four main inputs that you need. The first one is copper that now costs 50% more than it used to or will on August 1st. The second item is steel, primarily but not exclusively for structure and interior structure support. I think I-beams that, courtesy of an existing a Trump tariff, is now 50% more than it used to be. 

Third is aluminum, primarily, but not exclusively used in cladding and especially Hvac systems. That is now 60% more than it used to be because of Trump tariffs. And the fourth thing you need is a labor force that’s willing to do the construction work. Now in the United States, historically, for the last 40 years, most of that work has been done by immigrants from Mexico. 

And Central America. But as you may have noticed, the Trump administration has basically launched a poll grim against illegal migrants. Now, I don’t want to get into a broad debate of the pros and cons of immigration at this moment, but let’s just talk about where this policy in its current form leads. The Trump administration wants to deport about a million people a year, which carried out for a few years, would basically remove the illegal migrant community in its entirety construction is the industry that they are most involved in. 

Agriculture is number two. And what the Trump administration has discovered is that going after people who have committed crimes, it’s actually kind of hard because it’s a law enforcement issue and you have to do investigations and arrest them one at a time. That’s not going to get you to a million people. So instead, they’re going after people that they know about. 

They’re going to churches. They’re revoking legal status for people who say, I’ve been brought in from Venezuela or Haiti out of economic or political persecution. They’re going to people’s court hearings where they’re going to get ruled on for a, say, a green card and arresting them before they can before the judge, because, you know, these are people where they know where they are. 

So the four inputs that we need to prepare for a post China world are now more expensive. And every time the cost of something goes up, you can do less of it. So if these policies continue for any appreciable amount of time, we can test that economic boom that I’ve been talking about for years. Goodbye. Because we will not have the industrial plant that is necessary to produce the goods. 

We need to continue to lead the lives that we have been leading. It’s almost as if a Russian agent was whispering things in Trump’s ear and trying to convince them to do the things that would be most against our best interests. Oh, wait. 

Trump and Putin Split, Ukraine Gets Aid Again

Split Screen of Putin and Trump

It looks like Trump is going through another breakup, this time with Vladimir Putin. After years of deception and lies, Putin’s most recent reneging of promises to Trump seems to be the final straw; Trump has announced that US arms shipments to Ukraine would resume.

Since the Russians failed to defend any of the “red lines” that they established during the Biden administration, Trump can send pretty much anything to Ukraine without risk of an immediate major escalation. That doesn’t mean Trump shouldn’t be careful, he just has more flexibility in providing aid than the previous administration had.

On the economic side of things, Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed slapping a 500 percent secondary tariff on any country handling Russian crude. This sounds great in theory, but in practice it’s a legal and logistical pandora’s box that’s best left sealed.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Brilliant. Sunny day. We may. May, may, may be on the edge of a significant shift in American relations with Russia and Ukraine. For those of you who have not been in a hole or drowning in conspiracy theories for the last couple of years, you will know that Vladimir Putin has been lying to Donald Trump’s face for quite some time and has gotten him in bit by bit by bit to move away from Ukraine for reasons that are very, very positive for Russia and very, very negative for the United States. 

In the long run. But time and time again, Trump has basically been made a fool of on the international stage and then has covered for Trump and either peeled back sanctions or removed weapons that were being shipped to Ukraine, and to basically take steps that will cause decades of international problems for the United States moving forward. Well, the tide may be turning. 

In the last week, we’ve had three communications between the white House and the Kremlin, all of which Putin basically lied to Trump to his face and then told Trump he wasn’t going to do anything that he didn’t want to do, including signing any sort of meaningful peace deal with Ukrainians up to and including the point where, Trump felt that he publicly needed to declare that he was sending weapons to the Ukrainians again. 

If you guys remember, a couple of weeks ago, the Defense Department basically canceled a lot of weapons shipments for weapons that we have not used in 30 years. Saying that we didn’t have enough supplies, which is exactly something that the Russians have planted into the American system because so few of the old Russians have been allowed to continue working for the Trump administration. 

Most of them have been fired, either from defense, from the Bureau, from the NSA, or from the CIA itself. Anyway, something seems to be breaking in Trump’s mind, and that kind of forces us to consider this from a couple different directions. Number one, I’m sure we all know people who have fallen for conspiracy theories, and we have all know people who have fallen for lies. 

And when you call them out, they take it personal and they blame you instead of the people who have been lying to them. And Trump is no different from any of those. However, when they do finally make the adjustment, they tend to over adjust. We’ll do it in their own way, saying that this was all part of a test and I was playing the long game or whatever it happens to be. 

But when they do finally adjust, they tend to overcompensate because they’ve been made to look really stupid, and now they feel they need to look strong again. And when the person who feels that he’s been made to look stupid and now needs to feel strong again, is the president of the United States can get really real really fast. 

So the question isn’t so much Will Trump eventually change tune? No one can decide that but him. The question is, what will he do in terms of military actions? There’s actually a fair amount of room for ramp up. One of the things that people loved and hated about how the Biden administration treated the Ukraine war is we never knew what the Russian red line was. 

Will it be providing something that’s more advanced than a bullet to the Russians? So we eased in. Will it be mid-range weaponry? Will it be aircraft? Will be the Abrams tank at every step. There was a lot of debate about whether or not this would push us to a nuclear exchange with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. A lot of people said, no, you need to do what’s right for the right reasons or just do it. 

And I think, I think there’s nukes in play. There needs to be some nuance here. And so the Biden administration may, in retrospect, have gone slower than a lot of proponents for Ukraine would have argued. But considering that if you got it wrong once. Yeah. Anyway, how it left the last year, the Biden administration is that the United States was up to and including allowing mid-range and even long range American missiles to be used by the Ukraine’s launch from Ukraine into Russia proper. 

And the Russians did nothing. So all of the roughly 80 red lines that the Russians had established proved to be false, which means that there’s really no American conventional weapons systems that could be deployed to Ukraine that are in risk of even going another level up, because all the levels that are short of direct American involvement have already been ticked. 

So it really is just a question of what sort of weapons systems the Trump administration decides it wants to share, and that could be a whole lot of things. Keep in mind that roughly 85% of the equipment that we have sent to Ukraine is stuff that the US military hasn’t used in 30 years. So we’re not talking about anything for most of this stuff that generates a shortfall in what the United States has in its reserves. 

That’s that’s for the most part, a falsity of the remaining 15%. About half of that is ammo, mostly artillery. And that is something to be concerned about. And the United States has basically quadrupled its production of artillery ammo over the time of the Ukraine war. It needs to be expanded more. And then the final little bit are things like patriots that we actually do use. 

And those are a legitimate concern. But most of the weapons systems that the Russians are using to attack Ukraine are low tech drones and missiles, that the Patriot really isn’t the appropriate weapon system for. It’s not that it doesn’t have a use, it’s just it’s not a headline issue that really changes the balance of power. So there’s a whole world full of American munitions that have been developed and deployed since 1992, that the United States could throw into this mix. 

But just keep in mind that most of them like, say, the Abrams would require additional training and perhaps technology transfer in a way that the United States really hasn’t considered at this point. And considering that the US Defense Department has been just as gutted as all the other American government agencies the people would handle, these details really aren’t present in volume anymore, making it a very technical conversation that is very much beyond the capacity of the US defense secretary. 

He was arguably the most incompetent person in the government right now. There’s no one to lead this conversation in a meaningful way like we used to have. So even when you take somebody at the top who’s likely to make a knee jerk reaction, we could get some really erratic policies here with some very, very powerful weapon systems and some very, very proprietary technology which could lead us down a lot of roads that in the long term could be more problematic than beneficial. 

That’s number one. Number two, let’s talk about the economics of it. The Trump administration, Trump specifically has started to make positive sounds about a bill going through the US Senate, sponsored by US Senator Graham of South Carolina. 

Anyway, Graham has been a Russia hawk since the beginning of the war. 

Has really been pushing the Trump administration to take a firmer line. Works pretty much hand in glove with the Biden administration on the aid packages that happened under his term, and has been visibly upset with the inclusion of basically pro-Russian and maybe even Russian agent provocateurs within the Trump administration, up to including the white House, with Tulsi Gabbard, of course, being the worst of them all. 

Anyway, this bill, if it was turned into law, would enable the US president to put a 500% secondary tariff on any country that absorbed any Russian crude. Wow, that would be fun. Now, there’s some obvious problems with the bill in its current form, and that’s one of the reasons why the Trump administration has reached out to Senator Graham’s office. 

Number one, there’s not a lot of flexibility for the US administration, which is in part by design. But if the Trump administration is more willing to engage the senator on this topic, and honestly, it would pass through the Senate with flying colors if it was put forward. It’s an issue of enforcement. Okay. Secondary sanctions are something that have yet to be done, and the US does not have the staff in place to do them. 

You basically just have to get a declaration out of what the Commerce Department, the Treasury, the State Department is saying that this country is in violation. And so bam, all of a sudden, imports from that country are going to cost six times as much as they did. It’s a bit of a lower. The boom would get everybody’s attention. But how it being enforced is a bit of a question. Second, it doesn’t necessarily cover things like the Shadow fleet. So right now, about half of Russia’s oil exports are transported by ghost tankers. Things that are either uninsured or UN flagged or unsafe or old or should have been broken down into scrap years ago. It comes out to about 2 million barrels of crude a day. 

And one of the reasons that the Biden administration never really went after the shadow fleet, it was, was unclear again how to do the enforcement. You just grab the ships on the high seas because they’re not going to dock at any Allied port because they’ll be confiscated. And if you decide that you’re going to use your Navy to basically go out and do privateering, what becomes of the ship? 

What becomes of the cargo? Is it now the property of the country that confiscated it? And all of a sudden you have sovereign countries engaging in a degree of piracy in a world where there’s something like 15,000 ships on the high sea at any given time, you’ll never get a legal framework for dealing with it, because there’s not a legal framework for how ships are handled on the high seas. 

Now, it’s just kind of this gentlemen’s agreement and a bunch of winks and nods and handshakes that everyone agrees that they want free commerce, so they let it all flow. If you start interfering with that without a mechanism, then all of a sudden all commerce everywhere to a degree becomes under threat, because the precedent will be set that a state can just go out and grab things. 

The Biden administration couldn’t figure out a mechanism to make that work without breaking down global trade, which is not something they were willing to do. The Trump administration is broadly hostile to global trade, might not think that they need a mechanism, and might just go do it, which could lead to any number of less than satisfactory secondary effects. 

So the Trump administration is entering this era where the knee is about to jerk, and it’s probably going to kick out and do some things that some people might like in the short term, but it will trigger all kinds of problems in the long term. And this is going to fall very, very clearly under the category of things that you wish for. 

Don’t always go the way that you were hoping.

Elon Musk’s America Party

Portrait of Elon Musk from Wikimedia Commons

I know what everyone is thinking. US politics are just too clean and boring, we could really use something to spice ’em up. Well, Elon Musk has the perfect thing for you! Introducing the America Party.

As a direct challenge to Trump, MAGA, and the GOP, Musk is proposing a new party. However, going down this path is a lot messier than it may seem. Musk is hoping to capture the drifting factions, as the traditional Democratic and Republican parties are in flux. But this can only play out two ways. The America Party replaces one of the other major parties or it splits an existing party and weakens it permanently.

Musk will face massive barriers to achieving this. Not only the monetary side of things (which could be the nail in the coffin for Tesla), but also the technical side of getting on ballots and finding candidates. And the most likely outcome would still be a splitting of votes with the GOP and handing the Democrats a victory.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from breezy Colorado. And today we’re gonna talk about third parties in the American political system, because none other than Elon Musk has now declared war on Trump. MAGA and the Republican Party and says he is going to launch his own party, the America Party that is intended to run in the next federal elections In the year 2028, Okay. 

Leaving aside the specific chances of a musk led party deal with that later, let’s talk about how this usually works in the United States framework. So every generation or two, the United States political system goes through a seismic upheaval when the party coalitions of the past generation or two no longer fit for the day. 

So if you go back to the last time we had a reorganization in the aftermath of the Great Depression in World War Two, we saw a lot of political factions jump sides. So, for example, big business used to all be Democrats. They became Republicans. African-Americans used to all be Republicans. Part of that was loyalty to Abraham Lincoln’s party. 

They all became Democrats. Lots of things moved around until we got into the form that were more or less into today, which is, you know, in on the right business conservatives, national security, conservative social conservatives, law and order voters, albeit under kind of the same block, whereas the Democratic bloc has urban educated elites, organized labor and a variety of minorities. 

Those two broad coalitions is where we’ve been for the last several decades. Well, that’s all in flux now. That’s all changing. The Hispanics are very much in play. The Catholics are switching into conservative voters instead of being swing voters. The business community and the national security community have been actively kicked out of the Republican coalition. And organized labor is very much in play. 

We don’t know where this is going to settle. Enter Elon Musk. The idea is if you make a new big tent party, you can attract a lot of these factions that are currently in flux and maybe, maybe temporarily. A third pull in politics, according to Musk. He says it’ll be tech driven, centrist, business friendly that’s nowhere near a big enough coalition to generate a majority party. 

But it’s more than enough to break the chances of a different party. You see, when we go through these transitions and these big tents break, you can really go one of two directions. Number one is you get a viable third party that gets enough of the vote that it eventually drives one of the other two major parties out of existence, or doesn’t do well enough to win, but it draws enough votes away that one of the two major parties then kind of absorbs it in order to get those voting blocs. 

We’ve seen that happen twice in American history. In fact, that is exactly where today’s Republican Party came from. Back in like 1854, the Whig Party was the one that was on the ropes. Then the new Republican Party rose up and basically sucked out all the support of the Whigs, and the Whigs went away. I mean, you don’t really think about the Whigs very much today, do we? 

20 years from now? Probably not going to think of the Republicans and the Democrats the same way either. That’s option number one. Option number two is you get a party that, for whatever reason, becomes bloated and maybe has too many factions for the environment. And it splits down the middle. And that is where today’s Democratic Party came from back in the 1820s, I want to say 1828, but I’m not sure about that. 

Anyway, it’s split from the Democratic Republicans into the Democrats, and the Democrats were the surviving chunk. So both of these are viable options. And what Musk is doing is perfectly capable of triggering either of them. Now, there are still a great many obstacles to come through that have to be dealt with before the America Party becomes a viable political force. 

Until very recently in the United States and actually still elected morally, we don’t have a national Republican Party and a national Democratic Party. We have 50 state parties for each group. So you got your Iowa Republicans and your Ohio Democrats and so on. It’s only under Donald Trump where he’s basically ejected most of the regional party leaders and most of the business voters and national security voters that the Republican Party has coalesced into America’s first true national party. 

But it’s a party under one dude with no line of succession and no one who at the moment seems to have the charisma, the power, or the reach to pick up the baton for when he dies. And keep in mind that Trump is older now than Biden was when Biden became president. We all remember how that ended. Trump has basically become the Castro of American politics. 

When he goes down, he probably is going to take his entire political infrastructure with him. However that happens now. Let’s see, what else do I need to cover in this madness of American politics? 

Right mosque America party. He has to start at one party. He has to start 50 parties. He has to get on local ballots and local elections. He needs to get electors. He needs to get candidates. He needs thousands of candidates. The bare minimum amount of cash that is necessary to do that on a national basis, to have any chance of national power is $100 million. 

Honestly, $1 billion would make more sense now. Musk has already given that much and more to Trump, and he has a lot more to lose if he has a falling out with Trump. So trying to shift the political balance at a national level again makes a lot of sense for him personally. The question is how much of his wealth can survive until the next political cycle? 

We’re going to take this inside. 

Where was I before? Lightning interrupted us. All right. Musk’s money. 

Tesla is the core of Musk’s corporate empire, and it is arguably the most subsidized American company in history as a percentage of its sales revenue. And now all those incentives have gone away. Tesla’s either sold enough cars that it doesn’t qualify for a lot of the startup subsidies and the Trump administration and the most recent legislation that the big beautiful bill, if you will, has basically removed any incentive for anyone to participate in things like carbon trading. 

So some of the economic assets that Tesla has built up over the last half decade are basically worthless now. And the entire Tesla corporate empire is backstopped by loans and stock in Tesla itself. So as Tesla basically goes away because there really is no future for the company in a world where there’s a trade spat with the Chinese, which is where all the batteries come from, the rest of the empire basically falls into a degree of debt that, Musk bailed out. 

And the idea of a government bailout now is probably beyond a possibility. And so we’re looking at things like SpaceX that’s probably being nationalized. Starlink is kind of above in the air, and the rest of it really isn’t worth anything. Once you take the effect that the government will no longer be subsidizing it. So Musk is going to have to draw income and equity out of Tesla before that happens. 

And the question is, in that sort of environment, does he kill his company to start a new political movement, or does he just let the company die and then he’s left with nothing? Nobody can answer that question but Musk. But all of Musk’s investors know that that is the question. I mean, is this guy going to take what capital he can out of his company and destroy it for a political play when they want him to be working full time, trying to save the companies? 

There is no winning position here if you’re an investor in anything that Tesla has touched. And whether or not this is the guy, somebody who has a tendency to be perfectly blunt ly constantly is going to be the kernel of a new political movement is kind of a stretch until you consider that that’s already happened in the last ten years. 

  

So I can’t tell you that the American party has a future. I can’t tell you that it doesn’t. I can just say that it comes with consequences of a very real and personal sort for Elon Musk and of course, for the current form of the Republican Party, because if all of the populists on the right have a choice between two different banners, then you’re looking at the Republican Party splitting and the America Party probably not getting enough support to actually get into office anywhere. 

And the Democrats, no matter how disorganized they happen to be, sweep the field. We’re at a moment where everything is in play, and it’s whoever screws up worst loses. And when I look at today’s political map, how many screw ups?

Tariff Day Is Here, Again!

Scrabble pieces showing the words USA and Tarrifs

Tariff Day is almost here and it’s looking like it might be another series of recycled tariff rates layered with vague threats.

This ongoing series of tariffs has stalled the economy, putting business investment and construction in limbo. And since there is no one to negotiate with on the American side, I’m not sure when or if any real deals/negotiations will take place. The only movement we’ve seen on this front is with the UK, and calling that a trade deal is still a bit of a stretch. Allies like Japan are starting to feel a bit betrayed by this endless cycle of tariffs.

All there is to do now is wait and see if any meaningful strategy appears from this Tariff Day.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Today is the 8th of July. We’re going to send this out today and again tomorrow for people who missed it. We’re coming up on another tariff day where Trump says he’s going to reset tariffs for pretty much every country in the world. So far today, he has released about a dozen letters that are basically read exactly the same, except for the header and one number where he’s basically told people what their tariff rates are going to be moving forward. 

Several things from this. First, the spread of countries that are in this first list go from Tunisia and Bosnia on the low end to Korea and Japan on the high end. So countries that are just nothing to countries that are firm allies, all of them got the same letter. There’s no sign of meaningful negotiations with any of them. 

Trump just picked the same number he’d had before. Maybe round it a little bit, put it in there again. Nothing has really changed. And he’s now telling them that they have until August 1st to renegotiate, which means, number two, we are still in this hell limbo. We’ve had over 150 tariff policy since the 20th of January. We now have the threat of a couple hundred. 

And no one really knows what to do. New business, construction spending. The United States has basically gone flat. Nobody wants to start a new project because nobody knows what the rules of the game are, and based by many versions of the tariffs that are in place right now, it actually penalizes people to invest in the North American supply chain system. 

It’s actually cheaper to say, build your entire manufacturing base outside of the United States and just pay the tariff once on its way in. If you want to have an integrated supply chain where countries do what they’re better at. That actually you’re penalized. Okay. What’s number three? Japan. Japan is the country to watch most closely here it is one of the countries that has now gotten the letter. 

It is a country that entered into good faith negotiations and is now a country that it’s kind of talking shit about Trump a little bit. If you remember back to Trump one, there was, about a half a dozen major trade deals that were negotiated or renegotiated, which included NAFTA, which included a trade deal with the Koreans and included a trade deal with Japan. 

And the Japanese came to the conclusion that Trump represented the future of American economic nationalism. And so they needed to figure out a way to get in on Trump’s good side, on my good side, so they could be part of the American future moving forward. And so they made quite a few concessions that had never been made in trade deals before in order to get that agreement. 

And then we get to April 2nd and Trump tears it off, and we get to July 9th and he tears it up again. And so the Japanese are left wondering, like, you know, even if you go out of your way to seek a deal with Donald Trump, even if you offer him everything he has demanded, it still means nothing. 

And that has really colored the other trade negotiations, because if Japan, the country that has bent over backwards to try to make this work by Trump’s own terms can’t get a deal, why should anyone else try? And there’s the fourth thing no one can try. Trump still hasn’t staffed up the Commerce Department or his own office, or much less the U.S. Trade Representative, which is normally responsible for negotiating trade deals. 

So if you are a country out there trying to negotiate with Trump, there’s no one to speak to because the only two people who are handling the talks are Trump himself and the Commerce secretary. And those are both full time jobs that normally are not led by trade talks. We have only ever once gotten a trade deal with anything less than ten months of negotiating. 

And so far from the rhetoric that we saw back in April that people were lining up to talk, maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. There was no one to speak with. And so no meaningful negotiations have really happened. And the only trade deal we actually have right now is with the Brits, who basically just agreed to buy a bunch of planes in order to get a lower number. 

And that was the talks. I mean, there’s a lot of real irritants in the relationship with the UK, and none of them were addressed at all. So that just leaves what the rest of us think about this. Obviously business investment is down sharply. We’re actually seeing new builds drop down to levels we haven’t seen since Covid, which is really bad. 

But the final thing to keep in mind is that this is not the end. Trump has already made it very clear that his new August 1st deadline is very loosey goosey. So August 1st is the new, July 9th is the new April 2nd. And there’s a reason why Wall Street is just kind of ignoring this. I’m sure you’ve heard of the taco trade. 

Trump always chickens out. Well, they’re now calling it Taco Tuesday, which is actually kind of funny and clever. Anyway, but until this is resolved one way or another, until you know what the numbers are. No one knows what they need to do to prepare for what’s next. And so everybody’s stopped.

Why Do the Democrats Keep Losing Ground?

Symbol of Democratic party cut out of paper

The future of the Democratic Party in the US isn’t looking too bright. When strategy and targeting don’t change for over half a century, I suppose that’s what they get.

The Dems traditional coalition was made up of organized labor, ethnic minorities, and coastal elites…which accounts for nearly 70% of the population. On the numbers alone, they should be crushing it. Yet the Democrats continue to lose ground in elections. There are several things at play here.

The educated urban liberals aren’t as unified as assumed, so the issues they champion often fail to resonate with the working class. Minorities that the democrats once turned to for numbers, like the Hispanic demographic, are now gaining wealth and leaning conservative. And many immigrants come from religious and socially conservative countries, which contributes to the drift of previously reliable Democratic voters over toward the GOP.

Democrats are realizing that their coalition is too fractured to win. Demographics won’t cut it. And counting on enough people hating Trump clearly isn’t a viable strategy either. Something big needs to change if the Democrats want a future in American politics.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Today. We’re taking a question from the Patreon page. And it’s about US politics. So we, specifically the question is, is there a future for the Democratic Party in the United States? And the short version is probably not. Just to review the Democratic Party is not what it used to be. 

It has been through several iterations since it was formed back in the 1800s. But in its most recent iteration, one that dates roughly back to, the post-World War two environment, the party basically formed around three big pillars of voters. The first is organized labor, with capital being on the Republican side of the equation. The second are ethnic minorities, with most white people edging towards the Republicans again. 

And then the third group is coastal elites, specifically of the White Tower crowd, people who live in cities and have a very different way of looking at the world than, say, rural voters who are more likely to be Republicans. Those three categories are the bulk of the system. And if you look at it just on the numbers, if you add up all racial minorities in the United States with all organized labor or blue collar workers, with everyone who’s living in the cities, it’s a super majority of the population. 

It’s pushing 70% of the total. It should, by the numbers, not only be the dominant party, but it should be the only party in the United States. And yet and yet and yet they keep losing elections by ever more impressive margins. Why? Well, a couple things to keep in mind. Number one, politics evolve. Remember, this isn’t the first form the Democrats have been in. 

I believe this is the fourth. And to think that it is static for all times is silly. Second, politics evolve in terms of the issues. Technology pushes people on different sides of the win loss ledger. Economic transformation can make some states or urban centers rise while others fall. Changes in technology change how we interact with the world. And all of these things have happened at scale in the last 35 years. 

I mean, just think about what we’ve been through since 1985. We had the nuclear scare of the Cold War than the collapse of the Cold War, than the rise of China. We’ve had the baby boomers being the predominant factor in American politics as they were entering their adult years, and now they’re all retiring, changing the financial and the budgetary shape of the entire country. 

We’ve had the onset of the digital revolution and the rise of social media, changing how we all interact with one another. Of course, we’re going to manage our politics differently, but for the Democrats, this has not been a gift. Three basic things have combined to make it nonfunctional in its current form. First, those liberal, coastal educated urban living elites are not nearly as united as you might think. 

And more importantly, they have a hard time resonating their ideas with the rank and file of the United States. Most Americans do not own six figures. Most Americans have not graduated from graduate programs. And so the sort of tunnel vision that you can get if you’re a part of this coastal elite, just doesn’t really carry out to others. 

And when you see people starting to protest for trans rights, that just doesn’t resonate for most of the country. The second issue is racial. One thing that defines your average American is race white, black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American Islander mix however you want to call it. And it has been an important aspect of American identity. But it’s not the only one, and it often finds itself clashing with other aspects of identity. 

Your education level, your region, where you’re from, how you define your sense of self, whether you’re gay or straight. All of these things are muddled together along with economic issues to give us all our sense of self. And one of the huge mistakes the Democratic Party has made over the last 30 years is to simply bet that because birth rates were higher under Hispanics than they were under whites, the country was going to become more and more and more leftist, more and more democratic. 

And that’s simply one measure. Instead, we saw two things happening with specifically the Hispanic population. Number one, they became steadily and steadily more wealthy, which tends to put them over into the Republican camp. And second, Hispanics, especially first and second generation Mexican Americans, are very strong in blue collar work, specifically the trades like electricity and welding and similar items. 

Construction. Think, well, the United States is going through an industrial renaissance where those skill sets are massively in demand. And so if you want to look at politics through the lens of the economic haves and have nots, the Hispanics have become more and more in the category of the have moving forward. So for them, tax rates have become as important, if not more for most then things like racial equality. 

And so more and more of these people have shifted over in the general direction of Trump style Republicans. And the third issue is cultural. If you’re a first or second generation Mexican-American, a first or second generation, immigrant from any background. Odds are that where you came from is less organized than the United States and less wealthy. 

You came to pursue the American Dream, which means you have some first hand experience in your family. Of what? A system with weak rule of law looks like. One of the great things that we have forgotten in this country is that most migrants have a deeper degree of religious RCD than most Americans. And so when you get a Mexican immigrant or Nigerian immigrant and they come to the United States, they are far more likely to be socially conservative than, say, the social liberals of the coasts. 

So we have all of these things happening at the same time, changing our idea of identity. And the net result is a lot of factions that used to be core to the Democratic coalition are now Tossups. Hispanics were as likely to vote for Trump as they were likely to vote for Harris. Same for people under age 30. The youth are now in play as well. 

You pull this all together and at the moment it is absolutely impossible for the Democrats to win any big election unless there’s something else very big in play. Does this mean that the Democrats are dead forever? Not quite what I’m saying. What I’m saying is they can no longer count on winning by the numbers. There has to be another issue out there that motivates. 

And the general unpopularity of Donald Trump is something that the Democrats today are counting on. But as we learned in our last federal elections, that is not enough.

The Art of Trump’s Trade Deal

Official White House Portrait of Trump for 2025

Robert Lighthizer, the former US Trade Representative during Trump’s first term, declined to return for a second term? But why?

Well, Lighthizer had all the credentials and strategy, but he saw the s*** storm he was about to walk into. Between the federal bureaucracy breakdown, the hollowed-out trade office, and the pure chaos of navigating hundreds of Trump’s trade deals at once, it wouldn’t take a genius to know to sit this one out.

The current USTR, Jamison Greer, walked into this storm on his first day and, to no fault of his own, hasn’t made any meaningful trade progress. Frankly, I’m not holding my breath for any new deals.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, taking a question from the Patreon page today. Specifically, it’s about Robert Lighthizer, who was the trade representative under the first Trump administration, but who declined to accept a trade role in the second. The question is, if Lighthizer had come in with his general strategy of isolating China been successful. For those of you who don’t remember, Lighthizer has been an old hand in American trade law going back 40 years, and has always approached it from a far more bare knuckle approach than some of the more, shall we say, genteel negotiators. 

He was really, really, brass tacks when it came to say, the Plaza Accords during the Reagan administration or trade deals with the Japanese. This time around, his general approach was to strike meaningful trade deals with all of America’s allies first, and then basically bring everybody together into a solid block to force concessions out of the Chinese. 

Now, do I think that would have been a better strategy than what the Trump administration is doing, which is basically picking a trade fight with everyone at the same time? Well, yeah, but there’s really no point in crying over spilled milk because Lighthizer did not take the job. Now the question is why not? And what does that mean for the trade authority? 

Now Robert Lighthizer is getting up there. He’s, I believe early, late 60s, early 70s. Now, I’m really not sure. Anyway. It’s not spring chicken. He’s been doing this since the Reagan administration. So it makes sense that he wouldn’t want to work Washington hours for another four years. But more importantly is the structure of what is happening at the federal government and how that limits what the trade representative can do. 

Two things here. Number one, when Trump came in, he cleared out the entire upper echelon of senior civil servants. Only about 5% of the men have been replaced. Normally when a president comes in, they just take out the top layer and leave all the people with the institutional knowledge. But Trump just fired everybody. And so all of the federal bureaucracy is basically having a problem functioning because the upper middle and upper management are simply empty. 

So there’s no one to carry out Trump’s orders. He’s got some people at the top with the secretaries and maybe a few undersecretaries. And that’s just it. And all of those people are political appointees that are basically new to the industries. So there’s no one to make sure that the president’s orders can be followed. Problem one. Problem two. 

It’s worse for the U.S. Trade Representative Office. Joe Biden was only the second president in recent American history to negotiate no new trade deals. And his trade representative, Katherine Tai, was good at her job. But she focused on enforcing the previously negotiated deals and having a bunch of memorandums of understanding. So during the four years of the Biden administration, the USTR office was slimmed down considerably. 

And now under Trump two, it has not been re expanded. So not only is the USTR missing its upper leadership, it’s missing a lot of the rank and file people who would normally negotiate trade deals. So that’s number two. Number three trade deals. They take a lot of time. There’s a lot of details. The fastest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated was with Singapore. 

That took ten months. And that’s because Singapore is a city state. It doesn’t have an agricultural sector. So there weren’t a lot of sensitive topics that really need to be ironed out. Most trade deals take in excess of three years. Some of them take significantly longer. And so if you were Robert Lighthizer and you’re looking at this and you realize you’re going to have no staff, no assistants, no deputies, and the Trump administration is going to want you to negotiate 200 trade deals at the same time. 

He was like, I’ll pass. Thanks. the person who is the USTR now is basically a former protege of Robert Lighthizer. His name is Jamison Greer. He was actually served in USTR during Trump one as Bob Lighthizer chief of staff. The guy is far from incompetent. 

He’s pretty good at what he does from my point of view. But he has those three problems. He has no deputies. He has no staff. And he’s expected to negotiate 200 trade deals at the same time. So the end result is we’re not getting anything. Of the two deals that have been agreed to so far, the two deals, the first one is with the Brits, where they basically they were planning on buying a number of Boeing jets over the next eight years. 

So they cut that order in half, said announced it. And Trump’s like it’s a deal. And that’s all that happened. And with the Chinese deal all it was was an agreement to talk. Of course there’s no one in Washington to speak with. Because there’s no staff. So, we’re kind of stalled. And I don’t blame Lighthizer for saying pass on this one.

The Revolution in Military Affairs: Weapons Sales

An F16 Fighter jet

Our series on the revolution in military affairs continues with the geopolitics of weapons sales. Why does Europe buy US weapons? And will they continue to do so?

Let’s start with the US weapons. They are designed for fighting like an American, aka fighting wars far from home against greater numbers and tough conditions. But that’s not quite what the Europeans need. The Europeans are facing off with a much closer adversary in Russia, who churns out cheap, mass-produced, short-range weapons like nobody’s business. And those Europeans should probably be taking a page out of the Russians playbook here.

So why is it that Europe continues to buy US weapons systems? Well, there’s that sweet little thing called an implicit security guarantee. You know, if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. And sure, having weapons that are consistent across NATO doesn’t hurt either. Oh, and those billions of dollars that have already been committed aren’t helping. But, that oh-so-important “implicit security guarantee” might be crumbling.

If Trump continues down his current path, the Europeans can’t be sure that Uncle Sam will step in if (and when) they need him. So, it’s looking like it might be time for a sourcing trip somewhere else…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re going to talk about the geopolitics of weapon sales, particularly American weapon sales or what the US builds, the sort of weapon systems that fields. And so therefore what it sells are largely driven by America’s own geographic options and constraints. The whole goal going back to the time of reconstruction 150 years ago, has been to make sure that if the United States is going to be involved in a war, that it happens over there and not over here. 

So we have a forward deployed military, wherever possible, that tries to keep potential violence as far away from American shores as we can, preferably away from the entirety of the Western Hemisphere. And over the decades, weapons systems that we use, have evolved to mirror that prerogative. So we started with the Monroe Doctrine and blocked sea access to the United States. 

Then we projected out on our sea lanes, and then eventually with World War One and World War Two, were actually fighting in the Eastern hemisphere in major conflicts. And the weapon systems that have evolved since then reflect the fact that the bulk of the fight happens over there. So if you look at every weapon systems that the United States has, it’s built on two basic cons or three basic concepts. 

Number one, we will always, always be outnumbered no matter where we are. And so the weapon systems have to punch much harder than everybody else is to make up for it. Second, we’re going to be fighting at the very end of a very long logistical chain, which means that the US has to excel at logistics and have allies that can help with logistics. 

And then the weapons systems themselves have to be much longer range than anything they’re fighting against, both because basing can be limited. And we have to make sure that the fight is happening as far away from our bases as they possibly can. And then the third system is these systems have to be durable. So whether it’s the F-16 or the Abrams or the now the F-35, it has to be able to fight in a contested environment that will always be contested by a greater number of things. 

And it has to be able to take as many hits as possible before it goes down. So yes, the US Abrams is the most badass tank on the planet, can take several direct hits and probably just shrug them off. Things like the F-16 can actually take anything shy of a missile hit and keep flying. And of course, the F-35. 

It’s a stealth issue. These aren’t by accident. This isn’t something that the United States just stumbled across. It’s something that we discovered with blood and with money over the decades for what was necessary for us to project power. And it affects everything from the hardware to the alliance structure. The Russians have a very different system. The Russians knew that all fights are always going to happen on their immediate periphery. 

And so they don’t need a long range system. 

They don’t need an excellent logistical tale. They don’t even need durable stuff. They want numbers. They want to be able to mass the other side with more jets than anyone else can field. They can be short range. That’s fine. They’re fighting from their own territory. They don’t need to worry about the logistical tail. They don’t have to be particular lethal. Sure. 

Maybe the opponent vessel can take eight hits. Hit him with 100. And so you go for cheap, short range and disposable. You fight with numbers, which makes the American Alliance with Europe somewhat odd. Why the U.S. wants to fight in Europe is obvious. 

Keep the fight over there and why the U.S. wants American basing rights in Europe is obvious. You want that logistical tale in place with competent people. But why? The Europeans would purchase American weapons? That’s a bit of a mystery, because ultimately the Europeans know that their fights are going to be in their near abroad. The Russians are right there. 

And if Ukraine falls over there, right, right. Right there. So you would expect the Europeans to develop systems that are much shorter range, that are much less durable, that are much cheaper, that can be fielded larger and larger numbers. And when you look at the weapons systems that the Europeans have fielded themselves, most of them crowd into that category. 

And yet they still buy weapons from the Americans. In fact, half of their military procurement is from the United States. But their weapons systems that are broadly inappropriate for their needs. They do this for two reasons. Number one is the NATO alliance. If there ever is a fight, the United States assumes immediate control of all European militaries, and interoperability of military forces is critical, especially to the United States, considering its robust logistical needs. 

The second reason is a little bit more tutti frutti. The Europeans would like the Americans to offer the Europeans as many security guarantees as possible. And while NATO is there from a legal structure, using American systems implies a degree of involvement in European militaries, because the manufacturing is in the United States, the services comes from the United States, the technicians from the United States. 

All the equipment comes through the United States, and the weaponry comes from the United States. And so maintaining that commercial relationship maintains an implicit security guarantee that is every bit as important as the article five guarantee of NATO. Or at least that’s where we were a few weeks ago. The last few weeks, the United States has proven the Trump administration has proven to the Europeans that none of this means anything. 

United States is clearly moving away from supporting article five on any issue that matters to the Europeans, most notably Ukraine and Russia. The United States is publicly debating whether it should withdraw from military command of NATO, which is the basically the same thing is withdrawing from NATO itself, since it’s illegal in the United States for any other country to command U.S. forces. 

That would mean an end to the NATO alliance. and that is the explicit security guarantee. And the Americans have already withdrawn weapons support and intelligence support for Ukraine, which is, you know, the fight of the age from the NATO point of view, especially from the European point of view. And the Europeans seen that the Trump administration is directly militarily threatening NATO allies now in places like Denmark and Greenland. 

Everyone’s wondering, why did we buy any of this stuff in the first place? If ultimately the Americans simply are going to stop supporting it. And so the Europeans, every country is basically in the midst of having a debate with itself over whether and how to stop buying American weapons systems and moving to something that is more appropriate for their needs, their geography, and especially the war that is on their horizon right now. 

A great example is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a fighter bomber with stealth capabilities. It’s perfect for the United States. It’s got stealth capabilities, got okay range, really good hitting power, very tough plane, largely pointless for everyone in Europe. It’s got too much range for what they need. Cost too much. Over $100 million per platform. And so far, the Europeans have committed to purchasing enough to spend about 75 to $80 billion. 

And then over the lifecycle of the jet, that’s another 250 to 300 billion. That’s a lot of money to spend on a relatively small number of planes that are not designed for your theater or your needs. And so the Europeans are looking to back away from all of those purchases and spend it on something that’s more appropriate. 

Now, at break of European purchase of American weaponry means a lot of things to a lot of people in a lot of places, and will require a lot of words for me to explain all the connotations. And that’s going to have to be tomorrow’s video.

Watch This Number for Recession Indicators

Photo of the word recession with storm clouds overhead

Everyone, get your calendars out and draw a big red circle around July. Why? Because a recession could be coming.

The tariff war caused a huge drop in imports from China, with transpacific shipments falling to historic lows. Trump has since backed off the gas, but the supply gap could strain US inventories. If those stockpiles run out, a recession will follow in short order. And we can say thanks to the erratic policy for this recession, as consumer demand and investments have remained steady.

But the real point of this video is to give you a tool to monitor early signs of economic trouble: first-time unemployment claims. What we’re seeing right now is a rise in claims, when all other economic signs say that unemployment should be falling. There are some specifics and nuance to this, but it’s a good starting point.

Link to the tracker: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ICNSA

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here come to you from Colorado today. We’re going to give you a benchmark that you can evaluate for the status of the United States economic expansion slash recession. Quick reminder, I’m of the belief that July is going to be the critical month. And the reason is an 

interruption in shipments, of product from the rest of the world, most notably China, when Trump started the tariff war back in early April, we quickly got into a shouting match with the Chinese that saw bilateral tariffs go over 150% and cargoes just stopped moving. 

Functionally, it wasn’t a tariff was an embargo. And we have had more transpacific shipments canceled, since then than what happened during the entirety of Covid times five. So the last of the pre tariff ships arrived in New York at the end of May. And we’re now in this complete drought and probably in July, we’re looking at the consumption rate of the American economy overwhelming what was stored in terms of inventories from companies that kind of pre surged imports into the country. 

The question is the problem is the reason I can’t be any more specific than that is that Trump then gave in on the tariffs in order to restart talks with the Chinese. He did that about a month ago now. So we’ve had roughly a two month period with almost no sailings and then they’ve restarted. No, those new sailings haven’t reached the United States yet. 

They’ve only now started to leave Chinese ports. So we’ve got this gap where product is going to be insufficient. And the question is whether the inventories that have been built up are enough, and there’s no way to know. We don’t have a good enough data on the inventories to know. But July is when the rubber is going to hit the road. 

And we’re going to find out this is a really weird recession because everything else, whether it’s capital formation, retail sales and investment levels, has actually been pretty robust, has been for a couple of years. We’re dealing with a policy recession caused by really, really crazy easy decision making. And Washington has a very Venezuelan, Zimbabwe and Greek feel to it. 

And one of the weird things about that is it means you can schedule when the, recession is going to happen because everything else is kind of holding steady. So July is when we’ll find out. Now, the reason I’m bringing this up today is because we’ve got a measure that I want to make sure that everybody understand. 

It’s called first time unemployment claims. There’s a lot of pieces of data that economists look at for various reasons. But the problem with most of this data is it’s only as good as the data collection. And usually there’s a huge lag. So for example, retail sales, great measure, but they can’t finish collating all the data right away. 

It takes 6 to 7 weeks before the data comes out. So if we have low retail sales in July because of, insufficient inventory, we’re not going to know that until September. And by then it’s too late. Same thing goes for the Department of Labor’s estimate on job creation. It’s an estimate that is based on a series of estimates that are based on a series of more estimates and surveys. 

And so I don’t want to call it a made up number. It’s one of the best things we’ve got. But it’s not a real data point. But first time unemployment claims are because when people go to file for unemployment assistance, they do it right when they lose their job. And it’s a real number. Now, the data increase from today indicated that first time unemployment claims in the United States has risen to hit 248,000 people. Under normal circumstances, I would not even blink at this number. It’s actually a pretty good number because normally when you hit 300,000 or below, it means that not a lot of people are losing their jobs. The job market is strong. It’s when you hit 400,000 jobs or higher that you’re getting the danger territory, and 3 to 400 requires a little bit of loosey goosey analysis. 

So under 300 should be fine, but it shouldn’t be rising at all. Two things going on here. The first is industrial construction spending, another number that I figure has basically been flat ever since Trump came in. We’ve now had 140 tariff changes since the 20th of January. Trump has made it very clear that, especially for a major trading partners, in the next two weeks, there’s at least another 20 tariff policies coming in. 

They are still working on secondary sanctions for Venezuela. Congress is talking secondary sanctions for Russia. And we still have semiconductor and agricultural tariffs that are supposed to be just around the corner, although the US now has been just around the corner for two months. There’s more coming and as long as that is the case, no one knows what the rules of the game are and no one wants to break ground. 

So industrial construction spending hasn’t dropped. Everyone’s still finishing the projects they were on, but this should be a job creation story and it’s not so. First time unemployment claims should be going down and they’re going up. And even though they’re still well below the threshold, I normally worry about, I’m a little bit more worried. Second problem is the baby boomers are always the baby boomers. 

Over two thirds of them are retired, which means that the balance in the economy between number of workers and number of non workers is in the process of shifting by the greatest proportion since the baby boomers entered the markets back in the 60s, which means a lot of our benchmarks might need to be readjusted because that balance is shifted. 

And when you remove that many workers from the economy, workers who are retiring, not workers who are being fired, then maybe that 300 to 400,000 arc in first time unemployment claims should actually be revised down to maybe 250 to 350, because there’s fewer people to theoretically lose their jobs. We’ll have to find a new equilibrium on that as years go ahead, all of the baby boomers will be out of the market the next few years. 

But we live in the now. Anyway, so here’s a QR code for first time unemployment claims as garnered by the fed every single week. It is one of the measures I am watching most closely and now so can you.

Trump Calls in the Marines for California’s Protests

Photo of soldiers at the California 2025 ICE protests. Image by Wikimedia commons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Los_Angeles_riots_-_June_2025_-_20250613.jpg

Anyone remember that 2011 movie called Battle Los Angeles? It’s beginning to look a lot like that again, just with a different kind of aliens this time.

Earlier this week, immigration enforcement began arresting suspected undocumented immigrants, which triggered protests. Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to LA, despite strong objections from the CA governor and LA’s mayor. Trump can legally enforce immigration laws and declare a state of emergency, so he stands on pretty firm legal ground.

The use of military forces like the Marines should be setting off alarm bells because this is not in their job description. Putting Marines that are trained for combat, into a situation where they will interact with civilians and act as law enforcement, is risky to say the least.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these protests is the scale. With CA’s size and political leaning, larger turnouts would be expected. Despite this, Trump clearly has no issues pushing California’s buttons, especially if it means political gain for him.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan coming to you from a hotel room where I’m about to give a presentation. I figured that with everything going on in California, I’d better say hello and let you know my $0.02 on what’s going on. Short version is that we have protests and a little bit of rioting in the Los Angeles area specifically. 

What happened is, a few days ago, immigration enforcement went into communities and started rounding up people that they thought may or may not be illegal. There have been several hundred arrests, and that has triggered protests and action. That has prompted Donald Trump to send in about 4000 National Guard troops from local units, over the objection of the la mayor and the California governor. 

And as of a few hours ago, 700 Marines have, joined them as well. So few things here to unpack. Step one. Does Donald Trump have the legal right to do this? Of course he does. Enforcing immigration laws is why Ice exists. So of course, Donald Trump can send in, their forces in order to root out what they see is an illegal community. Were these folks doing anything particularly bad? Not really.  

One of the things that, the Trump administration has discovered is that if you want to treat immigration as a law enforcement issue, the step one is to investigate and figure out if someone’s actually breaking a law aside from being in the country illegally. That’s what Trump campaigned on. But that takes time. And, per agent, if you can get an arrest every few days, that’s actually pretty good. 

And Trump wants to uproot people and hundreds of thousands moving into the millions. And so that just doesn’t get the numbers that Trump is after. So he’s going into places where illegal immigrants are known to congregate. In the case of this California case, they started at the Home Depot and went after the day laborers and then eventually went into the communities and places that were known to employ illegals. 

And that’s how this all got started. Can Donald Trump declare a state of emergency and mobilize the national Guard over the objections of local authorities? That’s a bit more mixed, but probably yes. The federal government political leaders have the right to declare states of emergency and bypass some of the laws that we consider to be normal, especially if you’re dealing with someone who isn’t an American citizen. 

So Governor Newsom and the LA mayor have both sued, and the initial court case will be heard, today when you’re seeing this on Thursday. But I really doubt it’s going to go their way. The courts generally give a very wide latitude to any administration when it comes to issues. Federal law enforcement, if there’s going to be a check on the president’s power in this specific instance, that’s probably going to have to come from Congress, because they’re the ones who determine when states of emergency can and cannot be declared. 

And at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be any appetite in Congress to challenge the president on this or any other issue. So this is probably going to work out just fine for Trump from a legal point of view. That, of course, leaves the practicalities. Honestly, if I were the one writing this headline, I’d be like only 17,000 people in California protest. 

I mean, the protest movement in California has this high on self-righteousness and huge. And to consider that we are now in, I reemerge April, May in the fifth month of the Trump administration, and we haven’t seen widespread protests. That’s kind of surprising to me, especially in California. So the numbers of people involved here, the level of skullduggery or violence, if that’s what you’re after, is really very, very low by normal California standards, much less by the standards of what the Trump administration say triggered the first time around. So, this is very clearly, from my point of view, Trump trying to instigate an issue, California is on the opposite side of the political aisle from this administration. It is the most powerful economy in the country, and arguably the sixth or seventh most powerful one in the world. And Trump would love to take it down a notch. Now, will that work? Well, that’s really up to the rest of the country and Congress. 

But I think it is worth pointing out that this has the potential to get really, really ugly. The military is designed to kill people. We discovered in the war on terror that we do not like it when our military is responsible for civilian control and law enforcement. They are not trained for it, and it’s only in the last 24 hours that the Marines have started to get trained on non-lethal munitions and things like riot shields. 

So they’re being deployed with minimal training, but a lot of testosterone into an environment that is becoming deliberately volatile. That is not the sort of mix I feel great about now. Legally, unless it’s things get really out of hand, the military can’t be used for law enforcement, so they’re technically there to protect, say, federal sites. The Marines are not a protection force. 

The Marines are go in there and kick some ass force. And so putting the military in this sort of position is really awkward for everybody. Now, the last time the California authorities requested government assistance for things like law enforcement was the Rodney King riots that dated back to, you know, the early 1990s. Anyone who participated in that has been long since left the federal bureaucracy. 

And another thing to consider is that Donald Trump’s gutting of the federal bureaucracy goes up, and to include the military itself. So most of the people who would tell him that this is a horrendously bad idea have already been fired, and we’re all going to have to learn the hard way.

Musk Pulls the Carpet Out from Under DOGE

Musk swings the "Chainsaw for Bureaucracy" at CPAC 2025. From wikimedia commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#/media/File:Elon_Musk_(54349592271).jpg

The leader of DOGE (aka Elon Musk) has fallen from grace with President Trump and the rest of the agency is crumbling behind him. So, where does this leave the Department of Governmental Efficiency?

DOGE’s promise to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget has gone up in smoke. The estimated savings are likely closer to ~$30 billion. You know, hiring and firing and rehiring people can get a bit expensive. And Trump’s new bill codifies only $9.5 billion in cuts, which doesn’t even scratch the surface of what was originally promised by DOGE. To add insult to injury, the new budget working through Congress adds ~$2.5 trillion to the deficit over four years (and it could be higher than that).

To be fair, cutting the federal budget is extremely difficult, so this was kind of a suicide mission from the start. Unless we want to just take a massive chunk out of defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid…but I don’t see that happening.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming from Colorado. Now that Elon Musk is no longer part of the federal government, I think it’s worth doing a little postmortem on Doge. That’s the Department of Governmental Efficiency. Very short version is after the dramatic falling out between Musk and US President Donald Trump over the last several days, the Doge leadership has basically been gutted because most of these people were folks that were either already loyal to Musk or became a loyal to Musk, and he’s now taking them all out. 

So Dodge is in the process of a not so slow motion collapse. So the question then is what has been done to this point in terms of budget cutting? And the short answer is very, very little. According to the campaign pledges made by Mr. Musk last year, he would be able to cut $2 trillion out of the annual federal budget. 

By the time the election actually was over and we got an inauguration, he said that that number would actually be closer to 1 trillion. And if that number kept getting scaled down and down and down and down and down, and the official number, on the day that he lost was 180 billion, most people say it’s closer to 150 billion. 

And the original budget office says it’s closer to actually to 20 billion, because the Doge numbers neglected to include the things that the cabinet secretaries, in the Trump administration had to do. You see, a lot of the things that the federal government does, really almost everything that the federal government does is congressionally mandated unfunded. 

So when you fire the people who are responsible for programs or try to close up programs, you then come against this legislative wall that mandated that that money actually be spent on those things. And so to not go to prison, a lot of bureau heads and a lot of cabinet secretaries going right up into Donald Trump’s leadership court itself was forced to actually rehire people or part time contractors, in which some cases were the same people that had been fired. 

Bring him back in. Well, once you add that cost back in, that’s a total of $122 billion, which brings the entire savings to somewhere between 20 and $30 billion. Also, the Trump administration has finally submitted a bill to Congress to codify some of the cuts, and that slims it down to just 9.5 billion. So we have had a lot of drama and not much has changed. 

And if you just remember back a few days, the reason that at least Prox, the proximate reason that we had such a falling out between Trump and Musk was because of the mega bill that is working its way through Congress that will include the budget. If it passes in its current form, it will increase the federal deficit by roughly $2.5 trillion over the next four years. 

And that’s before you consider some changes that the Trump administration is considering making to things like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, which will increase spending. And so we’re looking in a conservative environment of additional deficit spending of around $800 billion a year at a starting point that assumes no new funds for things like border security, that assumes no changes to the military budget, that assumes nothing of all the various spending programs that Donald Trump says he wants to engage in conservatively. 

We’re really looking more realistically at $1 trillion deficit increase per year. Now, while that’s not great and obviously is a great example of the carpets not matching the drapes, I need to underline for everyone how hard it is to cut the federal budget, especially in the way that Doge and Trump have attempted. You see, if you were to fire every single non-defense employee of the federal government, you’d only actually reduce federal spending by about 5%. There is no version of deficit control in the United States that is not centered on four things defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is well over three quarters of the total. 

And if you’re not willing to take a very, very deep gouge into those four programs, not one of them, all of them, we are not going to get anywhere near a balanced budget. So before you say X is stupid or Y is wrong, keep in mind the core math. If we don’t do this in a way that hurts a lot, it doesn’t mean anything anyway.