Breaking
Finance Global Insight
Archive

April 2025

Browsing
Stock

Stay Ahead of the Stock Market: Key Bond Market Signals Explained with Charts

Stock 5 Mins Read

It was another erratic week in the stock market. There were several market-moving events sprinkled throughout this short trading week, including earnings, escalation of tariff wars, and Chairman Jerome Powell’s remarks at the Economic Club of Chicago. This extended to wild swings in the bond market as well.

We had several positive earnings from banks and Netflix, Inc. (NFLX). Others, such as UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH), disappointed, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) lower by 1.33%.

Chairman Powell stated that tariffs could increase inflation. This would cause economic growth to slow down and unemployment to increase. The hope is that inflation is transitory, and, after it becomes stable, the Fed can continue to focus on its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability.

It’s an insecure time for investors, and many feel the pain. You’re probably wondering how long this pain will go on for. In an uncertain environment, the best you can do is turn to the bond market.

It’s All About Bonds

The recent wild swinging market activity can be encapsulated in the price action of Treasury yields. Since 2024, yields have been swinging up and down. In the past year, the 10-year Treasury yield has ranged from 3.60% to 4.81%, and when the range is this wide, it’s an indication of economic instability. Not to mention, economic instability could result in a weaker economy.

The daily chart of the 10-Year US Treasury Yield Index ($TNX) gives you an idea of the range of yields in the last year. More recently, the yield has risen from 3.89% to 4.59%, and has now pulled back to its 50-day simple moving average (SMA).

FIGURE 1. DAILY CHART OF 10-YEAR TREASURY YIELDS. Yields have been seeing some large up and down swings.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Generally, when stock prices fall, bond prices rise. Since bond yields move inversely to bond prices, you’d expect yields to fall. This scenario isn’t playing out. Instead, we’re seeing yields move erratically while bond prices remain suppressed. There needs to be stability in bond yields before a stock market recovery, and one way to do that is to monitor the chart of the Merrill Lynch Option Volatility Estimate, referred to as the MOVE Index ($MOVE).

The MOVE Index tracks bond volatility. Think of it as the bond counterpart to the Cboe Volatility Index ($VIX). The chart below displays the $MOVE/$VIX relationship, with the correlation between the two in the lower panel.

FIGURE 2. THE MOVE INDEX VS. VIX. A high correlation between the MOVE Index and VIX suggests interest rates and stock prices are tightly connected. A lower correlation would indicate stability in equities.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The two have been highly correlated since the end of March, which indicates that stocks and interest rates are tightly connected. This means the wild up and down swings in equities could continue. When the two are less correlated, we can expect equities to start settling down. Looking at the above chart, a correlation of 0.80 would be sufficient for signs of stability.

Both $VIX and $MOVE have come back slightly, but their correlation is at 0.93, which is relatively high.

Be sure to save both charts displayed in this article to your ChartLists. They could alert you to stability in the stock market ahead of other indicators.

The Bottom Line

Until stability returns, you could do the following:

  • Stay on the sidelines and keep some dry powder.
  • Invest in risk-off instruments such as gold and silver.
  • Park some of your money in defensive sectors.

Equities could slide lower before stability returns. If this happens, you could pick up some growth stocks for a bargain.

An empowered investor comes out ahead after market instability. So monitor the market closely and, when the time is right, make wise investment decisions.

End-of-Week Wrap-Up

  • S&P 500 down 1.50% on the week, at 5282.70, Dow Jones Industrial Average down 2.66% on the week at 39,142.23; Nasdaq Composite down 2.62% on the week at 16,286.45.
  • $VIX down 21.06% on the week, closing at 29.65.
  • Best performing sector for the week: Energy
  • Worst performing sector for the week: Consumer Discretionary
  • Top 5 Large Cap SCTR stocks: Palantir Technologies, Inc. (PLTR); Elbit Systems, Ltd. (ESLT); Anglogold Ashanti Ltd. (AU); Just Eat Takeaway.com (JTKWY); Kinross Gold Corp. (KGC)

On the Radar Next Week

  • Earnings season continues with Haliburton (HAL), Tesla (TSLA), Boeing Co. (BA), International Business Machines (IBM) and others reporting.
  • 30-Year Mortgage Rates
  • March New Home Sales and Building Permits
  • April S&P PMI
  • April Consumer Sentiment
  • Fed speeches from Jefferson, Harker, Kashkari, and others.

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

Keep Reading
Stock

When in Doubt, Follow the Leadership

Stock 5 Mins Read

Reflecting on the price action over this shortened holiday week, I’m struck by how the leadership trends have not really changed too much. We’ve observed bombed-out market breadth indicators, and the S&P 500 remains clearly below its 200-day moving average despite a strong upside swing off the early April market low.

But how much as the leadership of this market changed over the last couple weeks? I would argue that conditions remain fairly consistent over that period, and are still not overwhelmingly bullish.

Defensive Sectors Still Outperforming Offense

Here’s one of my favorite charts for analyzing offense vs. defense, a chart that holds a place of honor on my Market Misbehavior LIVE ChartList. We’re comparing the Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples using both cap-weighted and equal-weighted ETFs.

When the ratios are going higher, investors are favoring “things you want” over “things you need”, which implies optimism for economic growth. When the ratios slope lower, that suggests more defensive positioning as investors are skeptical of growth prospects.

We can see that the cap-weighted version of this ratio made a peak in January, while the equal-weighted version made its own top in February. Both ratios have been in a fairly consistent downtrend of lower highs and lower lows, even through last week’s sudden spike on tariff policy changes.

How bullish do I want to be when these ratios are sloping lower? Generally speaking, I’ve found that until investors start believing in the upside potential of Consumer Discretionary over the relative defense of Consumer Staples, it’s best to remain on the sidelines.

Using the RRG to Visualize Offense vs. Defense

While I often refer to relative strength ratios of sector ETFs vs. the S&P 500 index, I also enjoy leveraging the power of Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG®) to monitor a series of relative strength ratios in one simple but powerful visualization.

Here, I’m showing the 11 S&P 500 economic sectors relative to the S&P 500, and I’m highlighting Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples to monitor their relative positions. If you click “Animate” for this visualization, you’ll see that toward the end of 2024, offense was clearly outperforming defense. The XLY was in the Leading quadrant, the XLP was in the Lagging quadrant, and the rotations suggested a classic bull market configuration.

Fast-forward to February and March and you’ll see how Consumer Discretionary rotated into the Weakening and then Lagging quadrant. Meanwhile, Consumer Staples strengthened during that same period. At this point, the RRG is telling me defense over offense, in a classic bearish configuration.

Sticking With Groceries, Guns, and Gold

So, given the bearish leadership configuration in spite of a sudden bounce of the April market low, where can we find potential opportunities? I’ll highlight three ideas that I’ll summarize as “Groceries, Guns, and Gold.”

Playing off the “things you need” theme implied above, grocery retailer Kroger Co. (KR) has managed to pound out a fairly consistent pattern of higher highs and higher lows. With improving momentum and a new 12-month relative high this week, this is a chart continuing in a clear uptrend despite broad market weakness.  By the way, KR was one of the Top Ten Charts for April 2025 I presented with Grayson Roze!

Defense stocks like Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) have experienced an upside resurgence given geopolitical instability in 2025. From a technical perspective, I love how charts like NOC have rallied since mid-February, while most stocks, as well as our equity benchmarks, have been trending lower! There’s a significant resistance level to overcome around $550, but a confirmed break higher could open the door to further gains.

Gold has experienced an incredible run so far in 2025, finishing the week up 26% for the year compared to the S&P 500’s 10% loss over the same period. Similar to the chart of NOC, Newmont Corporation (NEM) is addressing a key resistance level from a major high in October 2024. But, so far in 2025, NEM has been scoring higher highs and higher lows, potentially building momentum for a break to a new all-time high.

It can be super tempting to consider the April low as “the bottom” and go all-in on growth stocks and offensive plays. But, given the lack of leadership rotation in April, I’m inclined to stick with charts that remain in strong uptrends during uncertain times.

RR#6,

Dave

P.S. Ready to upgrade your investment process? Check out my free behavioral investing course!

David Keller, CMT

President and Chief Strategist

Sierra Alpha Research LLC

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

Keep Reading
Stock

Week Ahead: What Should You Do As Nifty Marches Higher Towards The Resistance Zone?

Stock 4 Mins Read

The week that went by was a short trading week with just three trading days. However, the Indian equities continued to surge higher, demonstrating resilience, and the week ended on a positive note. In the week before this one, the Nifty was able to defend the 100-week MA; last week, it surged higher and closed just at the 50-week MA. The trading range got narrower; the Index oscillated in a 665.35-point range. The volatility, too, cooled off; the India Vix declined by 23.08% to 15.47. While staying largely stable with a strong underlying bias, the headline Index closed with a net weekly gain of 1023.10 points (+4.48%).

There are a few technical levels that need to be closely observed. The Nifty resisted the 100-day moving average (DMA) at 23395 before breaking out above that level. Zooming out to the weekly chart, the Nifty has closed at the 50-week MA, currently placed at 23885. This point and the 200-DMA at 24050 create an important resistance zone for the Nifty. While there is room for Nifty to move higher towards the 24000 level, there are strong possibilities of the markets consolidating between the 23900 and 24000 levels. While no major drawdowns are expected, there is a high chance that the upmove may at least take a breather around this level. It is important to watch Nifty’s behavior against this level.

The coming week may start on a stable note; the levels of 24,000 and 24,210 are likely to act as resistance points. The support will come lower at 23500 and then at 23345, which is the 20-week MA.

The weekly RSI is 53.94; it has formed a 14-period high, indicating a bullish trend. The weekly MACD has shown a positive crossover; it is now bullish and trades above its signal line.

The pattern analysis on the weekly chart shows that the Nifty has returned to the important level of the 50-week moving average, which it previously violated when it initiated its corrective move. This level and the 200-DMA placed at a short distance at 24050 are likely to offer resistance. This would mean that the markets are entering a major resistance zone; unless 24050 is taken out on the upside, we can expect the markets to consolidate, showing minor retracements over the coming days.

Overall, it is time for one to focus on protecting the gains at higher levels. While one may continue staying invested on the long side, new purchases must focus on the pockets that have shown the improvement of relative strength at lower levels and show strong signs of reversing their trend. Effective rotation into sectors that show improvement in their relative strength and protecting gains in the pockets that have run up hard would be important. A cautiously positive outlook is advised for the coming week.

Sector Analysis for the coming week

In our look at Relative Rotation Graphs®, we compared various sectors against CNX500 (NIFTY 500 Index), which represents over 95% of the free float market cap of all the stocks listed.

Relative Rotation Graphs (RRG) show the Nifty PSU Bank and Consumption sector Index has rolled inside the leading quadrant. The Commodities, Financial Services, Banknifty, Infrastructure, and Metal Index are also placed inside the leading quadrant. While the Metal Index is showing a weakening of relative momentum, these groups are likely to relatively outperform the broader Nifty 500 index.

There are no sectors inside the weakening quadrant.

The Pharma Sector Index has rolled inside the lagging quadrant. The IT index also continues to languish inside this quadrant, along with the Midcap 100 index. The  Realty and the Media Indices are also inside the lagging quadrant; however, they are seen sharply improving their relative momentum against the broader markets.

The Nifty PSE, Energy, and FMCG Indices are inside the improving quadrant; they are expected to continue improving on their relative performance over the coming week.

Important Note: RRG charts show the relative strength and momentum of a group of stocks. In the above Chart, they show relative performance against NIFTY500 Index (Broader Markets) and should not be used directly as buy or sell signals.  

Milan Vaishnav, CMT, MSTA

Consulting Technical Analyst

www.EquityResearch.asia | www.ChartWizard.ae

Keep Reading
Politics

Pentagon’s week of power struggles: Leak fallout and shouting matches hit Hegseth’s inner circle

Politics 5 Mins Read

Days of highly publicized departures at the Pentagon appear to have come from weeks – if not months – of simmering tensions and factional infighting, Fox News Digital can reveal. 

According to multiple defense officials, the three employees put on leave this week were never told what they were accused of leaking, were not read their rights and were given no guidance on who they could or couldn’t speak to. They were also not asked to turn over their cellphones as part of the leak probe.

At least one of the former employees is consulting with legal counsel, but none have been fired and all are awaiting the outcome of the investigation.

Top aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were placed on leave and escorted out of the building this week as the Pentagon probes unauthorized leaks: senior adviser Dan Caldwell, deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg.

Another press aide, John Ullyot, parted ways with the Pentagon because he did not want to be second-in-command of the communications shop. 

Officials denied that the three men were placed on leave because of their foreign policy views and said they saw no connection to their positions on Iran and Israel – even as reports surfaced that President Donald Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the Pentagon would not intervene if Israel attacked Iran.

Selnick was focused on operations, administration and personnel matters; Carroll was focused largely on acquisitions; and Caldwell advised mostly on the Europe portfolio. 

But the trio were united, according to one defense official with knowledge of the situation, in the fact that Hegseth’s chief of staff, Joe Kasper, had a ‘deep vendetta’ against them. Kasper issued a memo in late March directing the Pentagon to investigate unauthorized disclosures to reporters and to go so far as using lie detector tests if necessary. 

The three had raised concerns to Hegseth about Kasper’s leadership, and Kasper believed they were trying to get him fired, according to the official. 

Those tensions had boiled into ‘shouting matches in the front office,’ the official said. 

Another Pentagon official disputed those claims and insisted that any accusation the firings had to do with anything other than the unauthorized leak investigation was ‘false.’ 

‘This is not about interpersonal conflict,’ that official said. ‘There is evidence of leaking. This is about unauthorized disclosures, up to and including classified information.’ 

Legal experts say the employees don’t need to be notified of what they’re accused of doing until the investigation is concluded.

‘Being placed on paid leave is not considered a disciplinary decision. It’s considered a preliminary step to conduct an investigation, so if they think they’re being railroaded or hosed, they’ll have some due process opportunity to respond when there’s a formal decision,’ said Sean Timmons, a legal expert in military and employment law. 

‘They’ve been humiliated in the media to some extent. However, this happens every day in the federal government. Generally speaking, what’s happened so far is not necessarily considered discipline. It’s just considered a security protocol step to suspend their authorization, suspend their access to their emails, and a full, thorough independent investigation can be conducted.’

The three aides are civilian political appointees, meaning they could be fired at-will regardless of the investigation. But if they are found to have engaged in unauthorized leaking, they could have their security clearances yanked away.

‘There are very few protections when it comes to political appointees versus career civilian staff,’ said Libby Jamison, an attorney who specializes in military law. ‘For appointees, there is very broad discretion to be placed on administrative leave or reassigned.’ 

If employees are accused of leaking, a report is sent to the Defense Information System for Security, and then there is an independent review of their eligibility for access to sensitive information.

‘They’ll get a chance, potentially, to try to keep their clearance and show that they didn’t violate any security clearance protocols when it comes to handling sensitive information,’ said Timmons. ‘If it is found they were leaking information in violation of the rules, and then there’s a guideline violation for personal misconduct and for breaching of sensitive information. So they could be possibly criminally prosecuted and certainly terminated from their employment and have their clearance stripped and revoked.’

Or, if the independent officer does not find sufficient evidence to tie them to the leaks, they could return to their positions and maintain clearances. 

Ullyot, meanwhile, said that he had made clear to Hegseth from the beginning that he was ‘not interested in being number two to anyone in public affairs.’

Ullyot ran the public affairs office on an acting basis at the start of the administration, leading a memo that yanked back workspaces for legacy media outlets and reassigned them to conservative networks. Ullyot also took a jab at former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, saying his ‘corpulence’ set a bad example for Pentagon fitness standards. 

But as his temporary chief role came to a close and Sean Parnell took the Pentagon chief spokesperson job, Ullyot said he and Hegseth ‘could not come to an agreement on another good fit for me at DOD. So I informed him today that I will be leaving at the end of this week.’

Ullyot said he remains one of Hegseth’s ‘strongest supporters.’ 

The office of the secretary of defense and the three aides who were placed on leave this week either declined to comment or could not be reached for this story. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Trump says US will ‘take a pass’ on Ukraine peace efforts if Russia refuses to play ball

Politics 3 Mins Read

President Donald Trump on Friday said the U.S. will ‘just take a pass’ at peace efforts for Ukraine if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to agree to ceasefire terms. 

‘If for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say ‘you’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people,’ and we’re going to just take a pass,’ Trump told reporters. ‘But hopefully we won’t have to do that.’

The president’s comments echoed those made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio early Friday morning following a meeting in Paris with special envoy Steve Witkoff and French President Emmanuel Macron, as well as officials from Ukraine, Germany and the U.K. — the first meeting of its kind, which signaled greater European involvement in U.S. efforts to secure a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire.

While Ukraine has agreed to both full and interim ceasefire proposals, Russia has delayed any agreement for weeks, though it is for the most part still believed to be adhering to a 30-day ceasefire on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

‘If we’re so far apart this won’t happen, then the president is ready to move on,’ Rubio told reporters in Paris following his talks, which he described as ‘very positive.’

‘We’re not going to continue to fly all over the world and do meeting after meeting after meeting if no progress is being made,’ Rubio said. ‘We’re going to move on to other topics that are equally if not more important in some ways to the United States.’

It remains unclear where the U.S. would stand in not only aiding Ukraine, should Russia refuse to end its illegal invasion, but whether Trump would go through with his previous threats to enact more sanctions on Russia. 

Last month, during an interview with NBC News, Trump said he was ‘very angry’ and ‘pissed off’ after Putin first showed signs of being unwilling to engage in a ceasefire with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

‘If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,’ he said.

‘That would be that if you buy oil from Russia, you can’t do business in the United States,’ he added. ‘There will be a 25% tariff on all oil, a 25- to 50-point tariff on all oil.’

Trump would not comment on the ‘specific number of days’ Russia has before he determines whether it’s serious about ending the war, but he told reporters on Friday it needs to happen ‘quickly — we want to get it done.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Trump says career gov employees working on policy will be fired if they don’t adhere to his agenda

Politics 2 Mins Read

President Trump on Friday said that career government employees working on policy matters for the administration will be reclassified ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ – or at will employees – and will be fired if they don’t adhere to his agenda.

‘Following my Day One Executive Order, the Office of Personnel Management will be issuing new Civil Service Regulations for career government employees,’ the president wrote on Truth Social Friday afternoon. 

He added, ‘Moving forward, career government employees, working on policy matters, will be classified as ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ and will be held to the highest standards of conduct and performance.’

This comes as the Trump administration continues to fire federal employees in an effort to shrink the government. 

The administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimated the rule change in Trump’s executive order ‘Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce’ would affect around 50,000 employees or 2% of the federal workforce, the White House said in a Friday memo. 

The regulations for civil service employees ‘with important policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating, or confidential duties’ will now be considered ‘at-will’ employees, ‘without access to cumbersome adverse action procedures or appeals, overturning Biden Administration regulations that protected poor performing employees.’ 

Trump added in his post: ‘If these government workers refuse to advance the policy interests of the President, or are engaging in corrupt behavior, they should no longer have a job. This is common sense, and will allow the federal government to finally be ‘run like a business.’ We must root out corruption and implement accountability in our Federal Workforce!’ 

The White House said the ‘rule empowers federal agencies to swiftly remove employees in policy-influencing roles for poor performance, misconduct, corruption, or subversion of Presidential directives, without lengthy procedural hurdles.’

The employees aren’t required to personally support the president, but ‘must faithfully implement the law and the administration’s policies.’

The proposed rule won’t change the status of affected employees’ jobs until another executive order is issued, the White House said. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Iran’s long trail of deception fuels skepticism over new nuclear deal as talks continue

Politics 5 Mins Read

Saturday’s talks in Rome between the Trump administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran over the rogue regime’s failure to dismantle its illicit nuclear weapons program have raised pressing questions about whether Tehran will adhere to a new deal.

Speaking on ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum,’ retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News senior strategic analyst, said Iran is reintroducing its ‘playbook’ that [was] used to secure the JCPOA from Obama and termed its strategy a ‘bold-faced lie’ that led to the ‘disastrous 2015’ agreement.

Keane said Iran is repackaging the lie that it will reduce highly enriched uranium down to a low percentage and not use it for a nuclear weapon. Instead, it will employ it for civilian commercial nuclear power. Kean added that the Iranians ‘think the Trump administration is going to buy this. After all, in 2018, Trump pulled out of that very deal.’

In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the formal name for the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration, because, he argued, it failed to stop Iran’s ambitions to construct an atomic bomb. 

Fox News Digital sent a detailed press query to the State Department regarding the Islamic Republic’s history of cheating and lying when dealing with its previous pledges to not build a nuclear weapon.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital, ‘This, along with many other issues, will be decided at the negotiating table. The president has been clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon or enrichment program. As we continue to talk, we expect to refine a framework and timetable for working towards a deal that achieves the president’s objectives peacefully.’

Speaking Friday, President Trump told reporters, ‘I’m for stopping Iran very simply from having a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.’

Enrichment of uranium is the key process that enables Iran’s regime to advance its work on a deliverable nuclear weapon. 

‘Iran’s enrichment is a real, accepted matter,’ Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Wednesday. ‘We are ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the issue of enrichment is non-negotiable.’
 

Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and a former U.N. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, told Fox News Digital, ‘Under the Bush administration, zero enrichment was enshrined in U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Obama administration changed that position, allowing enrichment up to 3.67%, and this paved the way for the failed JCPOA that has allowed Iran to extort the international community ever since.’

The Obama administration’s concession to Iran to permit it to enrich uranium to 3.67% has created new problems for Trump to halt Tehran’s drive to build a weapon. Iran has exploited the right to enrich uranium to speed up its weapons program. The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency announced in February that Iran has produced dramatically more uranium that can be used in six atomic bombs and stressed that Tehran has made no progress on resolving outstanding issues.

Trump said in late March he would launch military strikes against Iran if it failed to agree to his demands for a new nuclear pact.

Prior to Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, Fox News Digital reported in 2017 that Iran tried to obtain illicit technology that could be used for military nuclear and ballistic missile programs, raising questions about a possible violation of the 2015 agreement intended to stop Tehran’s drive to become an atomic armed power, according to three German intelligence reports.

The Trump administration has outlined a two-month framework to reach a deal with Iran, John Hannah, asenior fellow at JINSA, said during a briefing about Iran’s nuclear weapons program Thursday.

Hannah served in senior advisory roles with former Vice President Dick Cheney and was intimately involved in developing U.S. strategy toward talks with Iran over Afghanistan, Iraq and the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program throughout President George W. Bush’s two terms in the White House.  

Traditionally, military pressure has influenced the Islamic Republic of Iran’s recalcitrant and anti-American leaders to make concessions. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 reportedly compelled the clerical regime’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, to briefly pause his country’s work on nuclear weapons.  

Khamenei feared American military action at the time.

Hannah said Trump’s ‘military threat is what brought Supreme Leader Khamenei to the table’ because it ‘put his own regime at risk.’ Hannah outlined what dismantlement ‘with a capital D’ would mean for Iran. He said ‘all of their enriched uranium leaves the country,’ and the centrifuges are destroyed and taken out of the country. Hannah said Iran’s secretive underground Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant and Natanz nuclear site were where Iran was caught digging tunnels in the mountains.

Hannah’s organization, JINSA, released an infographic Wednesday that focused in on Trump administration officials’ comments on verification and dismantlement.

According to a Reuters report, a senior Iranian official said Friday that Iran told the United States in talks last week it was ready to accept some limits on its uranium enrichment but needed watertight guarantees President Donald Trump would not again ditch a nuclear pact.

Tehran’s red lines ‘mandated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’ could not be compromised in the talks, the official told Reuters, describing Iran’s negotiating position on condition of anonymity.

He said those red lines meant Iran would never agree to dismantle its centrifuges for enriching uranium, halt enrichment altogether or reduce the amount of enriched uranium it stores to a level below the level it agreed in the 2015 deal that Trump abandoned.

It would also not negotiate over its missile program, which Tehran views as outside the scope of any nuclear deal.

Top U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff, in a post on X on Tuesday, said Iran must ‘stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment’ to reach a deal with Washington.

Reuters contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Politics

Pro-life father whose home FBI raided appeals ruling by ‘activist’ judge: ‘Faulty investigation’

Politics 4 Mins Read

Pro-life activist Mark Houck, who sued the Justice Department over his arrest and prosecution under the Biden administration, said his family has been blocked from settling their lawsuit by an ‘activist’ federal judge. 

Houck filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department last year, seeking restitution for what he called ‘a faulty investigation’ and ‘excessive force’ after a SWAT team of around 25 people arrested him in front of his children.

Now, Houck is appealing the judge’s decision to the Third District Court and calling on the Trump administration to follow through on ending the weaponization of the DOJ against pro-lifers such as him once and for all. He discusses the case with his wife and 40 Days for Life founder Shawn Carney in a new video shared with Fox News Digital. 

‘You live in fear of it happening again, not only to yourselves but to others, and you want to know that this administration, which rode this message to the White House, is willing to step in,’ Houck said in the video, adding, ‘and they’re doing it for other organizations, they’re doing it in the DOGE, they’re doing it with all the things, they’re cleaning house.’ 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, 40 Days for Life President Shawn Carney said: ‘I just think, Democratic or Republican, we’re tired of activist judges on both sides of the political aisle.’ 

‘Nobody likes it – and just, this guy’s a victim,’ Carney said, adding that the Justice Department ‘needs to fix this.’

News of the appeal, which is slated to be filed by 40 Days for Life on behalf of Houck, was shared exclusively with Fox News Digital. The group has already filed a Notice to Appeal to the courts. 

At issue are the settlement negotiations that 40 Days for Life entered into with the Justice Department in early 2025, following Trump’s inauguration.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, a Bush appointee, abruptly issued a motion to dismiss the case last month, effectively ending the negotiations that had been playing out between Houck and the Trump-led Justice Department.

It appears that the motion to dismiss the case had originally been filed by the Biden-led Justice Department, which charged Houck in 2021 for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act. 

In the video, Carney and Houck discussed the judge’s decision as well as changes in the law enforcement community more broadly, and what they hope to be new priorities of the second Trump administration.

Houck said his family is disappointed by the judge’s actions and added that ‘it reflects poorly against the Trump administration.’

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Carney lamented the dismissal of their lawsuit by Diamond, whom he called an ‘activist’ judge and accused of political bias. Nevertheless, he expressed confidence that the Trump administration would make it right. 

‘We are appealing the decision of the judge to continue the lawsuit against the DOJ,’ Carney said. ‘And of course, if we could get back on track with that, the idea is that then we would be able to settle with DOJ, since they want to settle.’

‘We have a very strong appeal,’ he said of their yet-to-be-filed brief. ‘We’re very confident about the appeal.’

The FBI and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment. 

Houck, a longtime volunteer with 40 Days for Life, was arrested in 2021 for his actions outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, which prosecutors said violated the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act.

He was acquitted by a Philadelphia jury, but could have faced up to eleven years in prison if convicted.

Both his high-profile arrest at home, and the lengthy prison sentence he could have faced if convicted, prompted outrage from pro-life groups, including 40 Days for Life, where Houck has volunteered since 2007. 

In 2023, after Houck’s acquittal, 40 Days for Life joined Houck in suing the Justice Department over the ordeal, accusing law enforcement personnel of conducting a ‘faulty investigation’ against him, and accusing law enforcement of using ‘excessive force’ in the FBI raid of his family home.

Carney has weighed in on the topic before, saying in a post on X this year that 40 Days for Life was ‘targeted constantly by the Biden DOJ.’ 

‘With 1,000,000 peaceful volunteers we will always fight for free speech for pro-life and pro-abortion Americans alike. God bless Trump and Vance for backing us up,’ said Carney. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

Harvard’s battle with the Trump administration is creating a thorny financial situation

Business 7 Mins Read

Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
Business

U.S. judge finds Google holds illegal online ad tech monopolies

Business 3 Mins Read

Alphabet’s Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing another blow to the tech giant and paving the way for U.S. antitrust prosecutors to seek a breakup of its advertising products.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, found Google liable for “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. Websites use publisher ad servers to store and manage their ad inventories.

Antitrust enforcers failed to prove a separate claim that Google had a monopoly in advertiser ad networks, she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said Google will appeal the ruling.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement, adding that the company disagrees with the decision about its publisher tools. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.’

Google’s shares were down around 2.1% at midday.

The decision clears the way for another hearing to determine what Google must do to restore competition in those markets, such as sell off parts of its business at another trial that has yet to be scheduled.

The Justice Department has said Google should have to sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and ad exchange.

However, a Google representative said Thursday that Google was optimistic it would not have to divest part of the business as part of any remedy, given the court’s view that its acquisition of advertising tech companies like DoubleClick were not anticompetitive.

Google still faces the possibility that two U.S. courts will order it to sell assets or change its business practices. A judge in Washington will hold a trial next week on the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its Chrome browser and take other measures to end its dominance in online search.

Google has previously explored selling off its ad exchange to appease European antitrust regulators, Reuters reported in September.

Brinkema oversaw a three-week trial last year on claims brought by the Justice Department and a coalition of states.

Google used classic monopoly-building tactics of eliminating competitors through acquisitions, locking customers in to using its products and controlling how transactions occurred in the online ad market, prosecutors said at trial.

Google argued the case focused on the past, when it was still working on making its tools able to connect to competitors’ products. Prosecutors also ignored competition from Amazon.com, Comcast and other technology companies as digital ad spending shifted to apps and streaming video, Google’s lawyer said.

The ruling was issued as a district court in Washington, D.C., held its fourth day of an antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the government similarly accused the company then known as Facebook of monopolizing the social networking market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

A Google representative said the partially favorable ruling in its case Thursday could point to success for Meta, as well, in defending its acquisitions from the government’s antitrust allegations.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading