Investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger says that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the CIA and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) helped orchestrate President Trump’s 2019 impeachment.

In an interview on Fox News, Shellenberger recounted how the impeachment case was brought about based on the word of a CIA analyst, left over from the Obama administration, who claimed to have heard from White House staff that Trump had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, in a phone call, to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Shellenberger said that a memo written by that analyst, which served as the basis for Trump’s impeachment, relied heavily on a report done by the OCCRP organization, was funded by USAID using taxpayer dollars.

According to Shellenberger, the OCCRP, which was created as an extension of the State Department and USAID, received tens of millions of dollars in funding which were used to attempt regime change abroad and here at home.

Shellenberger described the OCCRP’s efforts, saying, “It was a kind of public facing part you know, regime change operation like CIA, but not covert, more overt — They were doing this sort of thing abroad, creating a predicate essentially for Trump’s impeachment.”

OCCRP has claimed to have journalistic independence, yet does not operate like a normal investigative journalism organization in that it’s goals appear to include interfering in foreign political matters, including elections, aimed at regime change according to Shellenberger.

If Shellenberger is connecting the dots correctly, it would help to explain why the Democrats are so desperate to protect USAID from further fiscal scrutiny and accountability at the hands of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team members.

If a major organ of the U.S. government was using taxpayer money to try to make the case that a sitting president should be impeached, that would be highly illegal and possibly treasonous.

American Greatness Staff

The Census Bureau regularly calculates the number of people deemed to be “living in poverty” in the United States.  The figures are reported in the media with great credulity.  Here’s an article from the New York Times from September 2011 reporting the latest Census Bureau figures:  46.2 million people in poverty in the United States, constituting about 15% of the population.  This is up substantially since the onset of the recession, let alone there hasn’t been any substantial decline in the percentage since the “war on poverty” began in the 1960s (Link).  The NYT article is accompanied by the usual NYT quotes from activist organizations making not too subtle pleas for more government funding and programs to solve the problem.  For example: “’We’re risking a new underclass,’ said Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. ‘Young, less-educated adults, mainly men, can’t support their children and form stable families because they are jobless,’ he added.”

46 million people and 15% of the population is a lot of people living in “poverty.”  But then there are the equally regular reports, often coming from the conservative Heritage Foundation, that seem to contradict the idea that the people identified by the Census Bureau as living in poverty are actually living in a state of poverty as most people would understand the term.  It seems that the Census Bureau reports also provide information on material well-being, and when you go through that information you come away scratching your head as to what they are talking about when they say “poverty.”  From a February 2012 Heritage report:

•    80 percent of poor households have air conditioning.
•    Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
•    Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
•    Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
•    43 percent have Internet access.
•    One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television.

So what’s going on here?  When we think of “poverty” we think of material deprivation — hunger, poor quality housing, lack of good shoes or winter coats.  There undoubtedly is much of that in the United States.  But the Census Bureau measure of poverty is clearly not measuring that kind of material deprivation, or if it is measuring that to some degree, it is also throwing into the “poverty” definition many other things that do not involve material deprivation at all.

Instead,  “poverty” as reported by the Census Bureau is a contrived result of an artificial definition.  It is defined the way it is intentionally to make the number of people reported in “poverty” high and to keep it from ever being possible to make the number decrease.   The definition sweeps in many people whom you would never think of as poor, and the Census Bureau data makes it impossible to separate out which of those reported in “poverty” are the really poor versus the contrived poor.

I plan a series of posts on the subject of this absurd definition, as well as on the equally contrived alternative definition put forth by the Census Bureau in 2012 to deflect legitimate criticism.  The point is not that there is no poverty in the United States, but rather that we don’t have a definition that provides any useful information about how much there is or about whether the policies being used to attack the problem are having any effect.   

As a first example of the absurdity, I offer the observation that by the Census Bureau definition of “poverty,” the very “poorest” people are highly unlikely to be “poor” at all in terms of material deprivation, and in fact are highly likely to be quite wealthy in the sense of ownership of valuable assets (as opposed to current income).

Does that seem like it can’t possibly be right?  It is because your attention is being mis-directed, as by a skillful magician.  Please try to imagine, if you will, the “poorest” family that you can think of, and the set of circumstances that got them into that extreme poverty.  I guarantee you that you will not come close to figuring out who the actual “poorest” family is by the Census Bureau definition.  Done?  OK, continue.

I’ll bet that you imagined a family consisting of one or more adults who would like to work but somehow can’t  (possibly because of some horrible injury that renders them incapacitated) along with minor children.  The adults in the family don’t work a single day in the year and have no other source of income or any assets with meaningful sale or cash value.  How could you get poorer than that?

You didn’t even come close.  First of all, a family in this position is almost certainly entitled to a cash stipend from the government, probably Social Security Disability, that will pay around $10,000 +/- per year.  That’s not enough to get them out of poverty, but the $10,000 does count as income under the Census Bureau definition.  There are plenty of people much “poorer” than this.

What you have failed to understand is that the Census Bureau defines “poverty” only in terms of current cash income, completely divorced from any assets that a family may own.  It follows that merely not working can’t get you to the bottom of the scale.

Here is the Census Bureau’s statement on the methodology it uses to measure “poverty.”    It’s based on “money income.”  Anything you get in “money income” counts:  wages, welfare, social security, SSI, welfare, etc.  Anything you get that is not “money income” does not count.  They give a couple of rather big examples of what does not count:  food stamps, public housing.  They leave out many that are undoubtedly even more important: Medicare and Medicaid services, redemption of savings or of bonds, sales of assets at break even or at a loss, loan proceeds, gifts or support from family members not living together.

Now let’s consider who is at the lowest end of “poor” under this definition.  First, consider Bob and Mary.  They are 62 years old, and are starting retirement, so no more jobs.  They own a house worth about $500,000 with no mortgage and have another $500,000 in savings.  They’re millionaires!  They can take Social Security now at about $20,000 per year, at 65 at about $24,000 per year, or at 70 at about $30,000 per year.  Here’s what they decide:  They’ll consume their savings at the rate of about $40,000 per year, and put off taking Social Security until they are 70.  At today’s interest rates, their $500,000 in savings pays interest of only $2000 per year (0.4%).  That’s their only “money income”  Now we’re getting much closer to “poorest” than the people you were thinking of!  Although they are millionaires by the measure of assets, Bob and Mary will be counted in the “poverty” statistics at the $2000 income level for eight full years until their Social Security begins.  Meanwhile they own a $500,000 house with no debt and have the ability to spend about $40,000 per year essentially indefinitely.

But Bob and Mary still have about $2000 of “money income.”  Surely we can get lower than that!  How about zero?  Easy!  Consider Joe and Susan.  They are also 62 and about to take early retirement, but instead of having cash savings, they have put all of their money into an expensive house (say $5 million) and life insurance (say, another $5 million of cash value).  No “money income” there!  How to live?  Just borrow against the house and/or the life insurance – that doesn’t count as “money income”!  Joe and Susan can easily put together a spending plan of well over $100,000 per year, without any danger of running low during their remaining lives; but under the Census Bureau definition, their “money income” is a flat zero for the next eight years.  That’s what the New York Times calls “profound poverty.”

Does this seem like a preposterous scenario?  It’s actually brilliant tax planning if you have a valuable asset that, however, pays no current cash income.  Exhibit A was the family that owned the LA Dodgers, an asset that reported operating losses every year (although the team was recently sold for over $2 billion).  They lived the super high life (in excess of $100 million over several years) in substantial part by borrowing against the team.  OK, this caused some problems when they decided to get divorced.  

But, believe it or not, we’re still not at the bottom, or even close.   Why should zero be the lower limit for income?  Is it possible to have serious negative income, like, say, hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?  Can anybody say “Dewey & LeBoeuf”?  I don’t know exactly how Dewey’s financial statements are going to work out for 2012, but it’s hard to imagine any result other than hundreds of thousands of dollars per partner of negative ordinary income.  Now that’s “poverty”!  (Many ex-Dewey partners will offset this negative number by working at new jobs during 2012; but some will decide to retire, and others may well not earn enough to get back to zero.)  Of course, any long time Dewey partner is highly like to live in a big house (or maybe two houses), have multiple cars, nice vacations, etc.  More broadly, anyone who has a business that is treated as a pass-through for tax purposes and has operating losses during the year has negative income; and the larger the business and the larger the loss, the larger the negative number can be.  Somewhere in the US, there is someone who owns a very large and valuable business that for whatever reason is losing in excess of $10 million this year.  That guy is the champion of “poverty.”  But as I said, in order to be really, really “poor,” you have to be really, really rich!

How much are the Census Bureau poverty statistics distorted by the inclusion of asset millionaires?  It is impossible for me to tell from anything I can find on their website.  If anyone has any pointers for me I would appreciate it.   Early retirees who consume savings for a few years before Social Security could easily be one category with significant numbers.   More about other such categories in future posts.

The Manhattan Contrarian

Pope Francis passed away two days ago, on Easter Monday. He had been the leader of the Catholic Church for just over 12 years. He presented himself as a well-intentioned and deeply religious man, none of which I ever doubted. But good intentions are the paving stones of the road to hell. I often tried to find some positive things about Francis so that I could admire him. But unfortunately I think that his overall impact on the world and on the church was overwhelmingly negative.

Thinking that he was working to uplift the poor and downtrodden of the world, Francis accepted all the most destructive prescriptions of the international Left. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that acceptable in a man claiming to be a major religious leader and asserting moral authority to tell others how to lead a good life. After a century and more of the destructive horrors of socialism, people in major leadership roles in society have a responsibility to learn about that and understand it and not continue to spread it. Even with the Soviet Union long gone, Cuba and North Korea and Venezuela and China are still out there to observe. We have a responsibility to know about them — why they fail, why they perpetuate poverty, why their people suffer. Supposedly good intentions have long since ceased to be a sufficient excuse for ignorance of something so important.

In general, Francis embraced the collectivist view of economic relations. He began with advocating generosity and compassion toward the poor, but then took that to the next step and asserted the Marxist principle that private property is essentially theft. This is from his 2020 Encyclical “Fratelli Tutti” (We Are All Brothers):

119. In the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a universal vision in their reflections on the common destination of created goods. This led them to realize that if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well.”

In multiple places, Francis blamed the ills of the world on what he called “unfettered” or “unbridled” capitalism, and asserted that the poverty of poor countries was caused by pursuit of money in rich countries. As an example, here is a piece in the Guardian from 2015 reporting on a speech that Francis had given in Bolivia:

Unbridled capitalism is the “dung of the devil,” says Pope Francis. . . . Quoting a fourth century bishop, he called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil,” and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labour for developed countries. . . . [Francis] said he supported their efforts to obtain “so elementary ad undeniably necessary a right as that of the three ‘Ls’: land, lodging and labour.”

If Francis ever recognized the critical role of private property in enabling the poor to lift themselves up out of poverty, I can’t find it anywhere.

Nowhere did Francis go more astray than on the subject of climate change. His 2015 Encyclical “Laudato Si” smacks of Gaia worship and Neo-paganism. It contains essentially every climate-related talking point of the environmental Left, and reads like it was ghostwritten for the Pope by Greenpeace. The Encyclical basically accepts the entire climate scam uncritically, perhaps most importantly the piece about climate change disproportionately harming the poor. Francis never figured out that expensive energy harms the poor far more than a degree of temperature one way or the other ever possibly could. Excerpt:

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited.

Most recently, Francis had decided to weigh in in a big way on the issue of mass migration — and once again, he picked the wrong side. On January 21, shortly after President Trump’s second inauguration, Pope Francis reportedly sent him a congratulatory message, but at the same time called Trump’s plans for large-scale deportations of illegal aliens a “disgrace.” Axios reported on that day that Francis condemned “deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment … .” In nothing that I can find did Francis ever recognize that there might be any limits to how many migrants America and the EU countries ought to take in. Was his position that once a migrant gets in, however illegally, then we are stuck with that person forever? It seemed never to occur to him that the poverty of the poor countries stems from failure of those places to honor rights in private property and free exchange (otherwise known as “capitalism” — or maybe “unfettered capitalism”).

Cardinals from around the world are now gathering in Rome to select Francis’s successor. Apparently Francis has appointed approximately two-thirds of those who will participate in this process. I hope that these people will have the good sense to back the church away from the woke adventures on which Francis embarked, but I have no confidence that that will occur.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The largest union representing federal employees announced large-scale layoffs, blaming President Donald Trump.

The American Federation of Government Employees said it will be laying off half of its staff around the country, The Hill reported, letting go 200 employees — reducing its workforce from 355 workers to 150.

More than 100 employees in the union’s president’s office will be let go along with national representatives, support staff and organizers, according to The Hill.

https://1169644833dfe9a603b62067edcc2477.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-41/html/container.html

The union said despite the layoffs, it will continue to advocate for the 820,000 federal employees it represents.

“From Day 1, this administration has sought to stamp out the voices of patriotic civil servants, and these attacks on their unions are no different,” the AFGE said in a statement. “The president’s elimination of elective membership dues and the resulting layoffs are a setback, but they are not the end of AFGE — not by a longshot. [We] will not be deterred, silenced or intimidated into submission. Whether it’s in the courts, on Capitol Hill or in the press, AFGE will continue to stand tall and defend the rights of America’s civil servants as long as it takes.”

The AFGE has filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, including one that accused the Department of Government Efficiency of accessing databases containing personal information for millions of federal workers.

In March, Trump signed an executive order ending collective bargaining with federal labor unions in agencies with national security missions across the federal government.

Sam Barron ✉

Sam Barron has almost two decades of experience covering a wide range of topics including politics, crime and business

Here it is: Leftism symbolized and epitomized in the actions of a delusional, dangerously violent, woke psychotic. In spirit and in body, he’s no different from the people who run the Democratic Party. (Check out David Hogg at the DNC.) As great as it is to have another Trump term, we remain just one midterm or presidential (rigged) election away from the inmates taking over the asylum.

*******

“Protection of the public” is a myth. State and federal regulatory agencies protect (1) their own survival, and (2) various factions who pay them off. If you actually believe any government agency, at any time, protects individual rights or people in general, you’re a gullible fool. The only legitimate function of a government is to arrest, restrain and diminish people who initiate violence. This is best done on the local level, where it’s easier to hold law enforcement responsible and control their quality. Increasingly, governments don’t even do this much, and in woke-ridden areas they deliberately let violent people go. Federal agencies like the FBI, romanticized by media fiction, are openly and irredeemably politicized. Government is the root of all evil, especially in a culture whose intellectuals have gone insane and whose officials are ruthlessly, and without exception, on the take.

*******

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to permit a ban on “trans-identifying” troops.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Why does the Commander-in-Chief of the military have to gain the permission of the Supreme Court to prevent mentally ill people who don’t know their gender from being in the armed forces?

Ty Clevenger has fired off a blistering letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing the FBI of flagrantly concealing critical records about the late DNC staffer Seth Rich and the now-discredited Russia collusion narrative.

In February 2024, Clevenger demanded that the FBI hand over the Seth Rich documents they continue to conceal from the public.

The FBI’s refusal follows a pattern of obfuscation. For years, the agency denied even possessing Seth Rich’s laptop—until Clevenger’s legal efforts forced the FBI to admit they had it all along. Yet, the agency still refuses to disclose any metadata from Seth Rich’s electronic devices.

Even more damning, Clevenger has already uncovered proof that the FBI improperly withheld pages from the CrowdStrike report related to the alleged 2016 DNC hack—an event that conveniently became a political weapon against President Donald Trump.

Earlier this month, Attorney Ty Clevenger filed a motion in federal court to hold the FBI in contempt for what he calls a “deliberate and willful defiance” of a court order mandating the release of key information related to murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich.

The letter obtained by The Gateway Pundit on Thursday implicates former DOJ and intelligence officials in what Clevenger describes as a systemic cover-up designed to protect the Obama-era deep state operatives and their media allies.

Clevenger, representing plaintiff Brian Huddleston in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI (Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation), claims the agency is withholding documents that could unravel the official narrative surrounding Rich’s 2016 murder and the so-called Russian hacking of DNC emails.

The attorney argues that the FBI’s refusal to release records, including those from Rich’s work laptop, is not only a violation of FOIA but also an attempt to shield evidence that could exonerate Russia and point to an inside job at the DNC.

In his letter to Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and other Trump officials, Clevenger highlights compelling evidence suggesting Rich was the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks, not Russian hackers as alleged by the Mueller investigation and the intelligence community.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange hinted at Rich’s involvement in a 2016 interview, offering a $20,000 reward for information on his murder. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh also claimed in a sworn deposition that a trusted source confirmed Rich as the leaker.

Clevenger points to the FBI’s possession of Rich’s work laptop, a personal laptop image, a DVD, and a tape drive—items the bureau initially denied having. Despite court orders to examine these devices, the FBI has stonewalled, refusing to confirm whether it has even reviewed the laptop’s contents.

Clevenger argues this is a deliberate tactic to protect the narrative that Russian intelligence, not Rich, was behind the DNC email leak. He connects this to the U.S. v. Netyksho case, where the FBI admitted a link between Rich’s laptop and the prosecution of alleged Russian hackers.

The letter doesn’t stop at the FBI. Clevenger, also representing The Transparency Project in a separate FOIA case (The Transparency Project v. U.S. Department of Justice), accuses the CIA of potentially fabricating “Russian fingerprints” in DNC emails to frame Russia and undermine President Trump.

The CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of such records, citing national security, only fuels suspicions of a deeper cover-up. Clevenger calls on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to investigate and release these records voluntarily, aligning with President Trump’s directive to declassify Russia hoax documents.

Clevenger also raises concerns about Aaron Rich, Seth’s brother, who allegedly seized Seth’s personal computer and phone shortly after the murder. Aaron’s subsequent lawsuits against those suggesting his involvement in the email leak, including Butowsky, have been described as part of a coordinated “lawfare” campaign to silence critics.

Clevenger questions why Aaron has refused to authorize Wikileaks to disclose what it knows about Seth’s role, suggesting he may have something to hide.

In a separate letter to White House officials, including Counsel David Warrington, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Senior Counselor Stanley Woodward, Clevenger proposes bold reforms to combat the federal government’s FOIA violations.

He suggests appointing a “chief transparency officer” to prosecute bureaucrats who obstruct public access to records and advocates for legislation to criminalize FOIA violations, modeled on Texas law.

“Federal employees know there are no consequences for violating FOIA,” Clevenger writes, arguing that this impunity fuels the bureaucracy’s cover-up culture.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., encouraged President Donald Trump to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than wasting time trying to negotiate with “that kind of regime.”

Trump has said repeatedly that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Late last week, he said he was in no hurry to launch an attack over the issue.

Fetterman told The Washington Free Beacon that Trump should forget trying to negotiate with Iranian leaders and take out the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear facilities.

Waste that s**t,” Fetterman told the Free Beacon on Wednesday. “You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

It was reported Wednesday that Iran has agreed to allow in an International Atomic Energy Agency technical team in the coming days to discuss restoring camera surveillance at nuclear sites, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said, calling it an encouraging signal of Iran’s attitude toward nuclear talks with the U.S.

Such news likely did not impress Fetterman, who dismissed the possibility that a military strike on Iran would lead to a regional war.

“And remember, all of these so-called experts were all wrong,” he said. “You know, they’ve been saying for years and years Hezbollah was the ultimate bada** that kept Israel in check, and we can’t move on anything beyond that.”

However, the Iranian proxy group “couldn’t fight for s**t,” he said. “And Hamas, literally, are just a bunch of tunnel rats with junkie rockets in the back of a Toyota truck. And now the Houthis have been effectively neutered as well. So what’s left? You have Iran, and they have a nuclear facility, and it’s clearly only for weapons.”

Fetterman commended Trump for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, three years after then-President Barack Obama agreed to it.

“Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal,” Fetterman told the Free Beacon. “Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF.”

Fetterman’s remarks to the Free Beacon echoed what he said last month during his second trip to Israel in the past year.

“I don’t think you can really effectively negotiate with that regime,” he said, Jewish News Syndicate reported.

Pressed further, he said, “Oh yeah. Blow it up! Blow it up! I think we should waste what’s left of their nuclear facilities.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Charlie McCarthy ✉

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

US President Donald Trump said he is “not happy” after Russia launched its deadliest wave of attacks on Kyiv in nine months, telling President Vladimir Putin to “STOP!” as he attempts to push Ukraine to agree on a contentious ceasefire proposal.

Moscow sent 70 missiles and 145 drones toward Ukraine, mainly targeting Kyiv, in an attack that leader Volodymyr Zelensky said was aimed at pressuring the United States.

“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.

At least 12 people died in the strikes with 90 injured, according to Ukraine’s emergency services, and more casualties may be trapped under rubble. The emergency services said Moscow’s assault struck 13 locations in Kyiv, including residential buildings and civilian infrastructure.

It was the costliest attack on the city since July 2024, when 33 people were killed in an aerial barrage that targeted a hospital and residential districts.

Zelensky said during a trip to South Africa that the bombardment was “first and foremost” aimed at “pressuring the US.” He sought to push back against Trump’s efforts to corral Kyiv into making concessions, telling reporters: “The fact that Ukraine is ready to sit down at a negotiating table after (a) full ceasefire with terrorists… is a big compromise.”

And Zelensky, who was speaking to reporters shortly before Trump’s social media post, sought to highlight imbalances in the administration’s stances towards Kyiv and Moscow.

“This is (an issue of) our survival. We are very direct and transparent in this matter,” Zelensky said. “I don’t see strong pressure against Russia and new strong sanctions packages against the Russian aggression for now.”

The Ukrainian leader said Moscow’s latest attack was “one of the most complex, most daring attacks coming from Russia.” Russia’s defense ministry said it carried out “a massive strike with high-precision long-range air, land and sea-based weapons, unmanned aerial vehicles on enterprises of the aviation, missile and space, mechanical engineering and armored industries of Ukraine, production of rocket fuel and gunpowder.”

“The strike objectives were achieved. All targets were hit,” Moscow said.

A search and rescue operation is underway to find people caught under rubble, according to Ukrainian local and national authorities.

Following the attacks on Kyiv, Zelensky announced he was cutting short his visit to South Africa, where he landed late on Wednesday, to return to Ukraine.

“It is extremely important that everyone around the world sees and understands what is really happening” he said, adding that Ukraine would immediately contact its international partners regarding its requests to strengthen air defenses.

The first thing I felt was fear’

Air raid sirens blasted through Kyiv for six hours in the early hours of Thursday, as the Russian barrage gripped the city in fear. A CNN producer said they waited in a corridor with their child as missiles rained on the city, with a drone flying audibly outside their window.

Sirens are a near daily occurrence in Kyiv, but Thursday’s strikes served as an unwelcome reminder of the anxiety that pulsed through the capital in the early phases of the war. Images provided by the emergency services showed buildings engulfed in flames at some of the sites struck in the attacks.

“The first thing I felt was fear,” Iryna Dzen, a resident of an affected neighbourhood, told CNN on Wednesday. “You don’t understand anything when you wake up at night from an explosion. You are alive, but your parents, children, you don’t know if they are alive, where was the hit.”

“We went to the corridor, it was safer there, and started calling our relatives (to find out) whether they were alive or not,” she said. “And when we came (outside) and saw everything, it was a horror.”

Engineers, rescue workers and recovery dogs were searching on Wednesday for people believed to be trapped under the rubble of a home destroyed by the strikes in the Sviatoshyn district, said Ukraine’s Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

The city’s mayor Vitali Klitschko earlier urged people to take shelter. The Kyiv city military administration has since broadcast an all-clear message.

“Rescuers are doing everything they can to clear the rubble as quickly as possible,” the mayor said on Telegram. “We are currently clearing the rubble manually, we are not using any equipment because there may still be people under the rubble.”

Klymenko said eight regions of the country were targeted in what he called “a massive combined Russian attack” that also hit Zhytomyr, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Poltava, Khmelnytsky, Sumy and Zaporizhzhia.

The Russian attacks followed a fresh public spat between Trump and Zelensky, specifically over the future of Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.As part of its mission to seal a peace deal to end the three-year war, the US administration has proposed recognizing Russian control of Crimea, officials familiar with the details have told CNN.

Such a move would reverse a decade of US policy and could upset the widely held post-World War II consensus that international borders should not be changed by force.

Zelensky has repeatedly said Ukraine would not accept that, saying it would go against the country’s constitution. On Wednesday, Trump said Zelensky’s position was “very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia.”

“It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about!” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

Earlier on Tuesday Vice President JD Vance threatened to abandon negotiations, telling reporters during a visit to India that a “very explicit proposal” had been put to both Russia and Ukraine and that it was “time for them to either say ‘yes,’ or for the US to walk away.”

CNN’s Kylie Atwood contributed reporting.

As many problems as Trump has, the other party can’t seem to take advantage.

You’d think things couldn’t get any worse for Democrats after a March 11 NBC News survey found only 27% of Americans had a positive view of the party—its lowest rating ever in the poll.

Yet they have.

Last week Joe Biden shuffled onto a stage in Chicago to attack his successor before an audience of advocates for the disabled. The party knows Mr. Biden is a liability in public now, so there were crickets when his camp let it be known he was willing to deploy his frail, unsteady voice for Democrats in the 2026 midterms

Not to be outdone, Al Gore jumped into the action Monday at a San Francisco climate conference. He professed, “I understand very well why it is wrong to compare Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich to any other movement—it was uniquely evil, full stop.” Except he didn’t stop. “There are important lessons from the history of that emergent evil,” Mr. Gore continued, launching into a rant against President Trump. Reductio ad Hitlerum won’t convince one additional person to vote Democratic.

But at least Mr. Gore attacked Republicans. The same can’t be said of a new Democratic National Committee vice chairman, 25-year-old David Hogg. The antigun activist last week threatened to spend $20 million to defeat older incumbents in Congress. Declaring “it’s out with the ineffective and in with the effective,” Mr. Hogg named himself judge, jury and executioner for Democratic House members insufficiently left-wing or nasty toward the president. Nothing says “winning” like a national party leader publicly turning on his own elected officials.

Some Democrats were understandably unhappy. The strategist James Carville dismissed Mr. Hogg’s actions as “the most insane thing” he’s ever heard. He pointed out that, as a DNC vice chairman, Mr. Hogg has “a fiduciary duty to the Democratic Party.” So Mr. Carville asked, “Why don’t you take on a Republican? That’s your job.”

If it’s any solace for the Ragin’ Cajun, Mr. Hogg must raise his fundraising game significantly to deliver on his $20 million threat. The Federal Election Commission reports that Mr. Hogg’s Leaders We Deserve PAC raised $11.9 million last election cycle. It spent $266,000 on federal campaigns and committees but $10.7 million on operating expenses, including Mr. Hogg’s salary as PAC president.

Another problem for Democrats is the “Fighting Oligarchy” roadshow of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Since late March they’ve drawn large, enthusiastic crowds in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Utah. They promise more rallies soon. Unlike Mr. Hogg, this duo can raise money. AOC’s campaign reported it took in $9.6 million the first quarter and has $8 million cash on hand.

But the Bernie-AOC message is unlikely to attract many new voters; they’re providing a rallying place for rabid, totally committed progressives. Making this pair the Democrats’ face runs the risk of making the party appear even more out of touch with the Americans who swung the last election to Mr. Trump. Those voters wanted less inflation, lower taxes, secure borders, a stronger military, and an end to DEI nonsense. Bernie and AOC’s policies would deliver the opposite.

Despite Mr. Trump’s declining poll numbers, the next 18 months won’t be easy for Democrats. The party’s base wants unrelenting war on the president. But over what? Democrats’ favorite topic seems to be the deportation to El Salvador of a Maryland man with alleged gang ties. The White House is happy to engage in a lengthy war of words there. The man’s removal presents serious due-process issues, but Team Trump doesn’t care. They know illegal immigration is a much stronger issue for them right now than much else. Fears of inflation are rising, the stock market and consumer confidence are cratering, and economic growth likely slowing. These would all be better Democratic targets.

Democrats must keep their base happy with attacks on Mr. Trump and Republicans for the bad things they’ve done and for the good things they’ve failed to do. Democrats must also convince Americans that things are too chaotic and out of control under Mr. Trump. Though their execution has been poor so far, Democrats are certainly comfortable with those topics.

The harder part is for Democrats to offer a compelling agenda on kitchen-table issues that sways Americans who voted for Mr. Biden and other Democrats in 2020 but who turned to Mr. Trump and Republicans in 2024. Otherwise, Democrats will be betting that anger over Mr. Trump’s policies and a progressive agenda are enough to produce a massive midterm victory. That would be a stupid wager. Something tells me they’ll make it anyway.

President Trump continues to walk back his original tariff assault, and markets are pleased. They rose again Wednesday after Mr. Trump said he won’t fire the Federal Reserve Chairman and is likely to retreat from his highest China tariffs. Is this Mr. Trump’s François Mitterrand moment?

Readers of a certain age will recall how the French Socialist President swept into power in 1981 promising a far left agenda of government control over the private economy. The market reaction was brutal. Within a year he had put socialism on pause and by 1983 he had abandoned most of it. He went on to serve two terms.

Opinion: Potomac Watch

The Supreme Court’s Cases on Gender Storybooks and ObamaCare

20:271xSubscribe

Explore Audio Center

That historic U-turn comes to mind as we watch Mr. Trump execute a reversal by stages in his tariff agenda. First he carved out space for Mexico and Canada from his reciprocal tariffs. Then he put his reciprocal tariffs on everyone except China on a 90-day pause. Then the Customs bureau gave exceptions to Apple, Nvidia and big electronics companies. Now comes word that Mr. Trump may substantially cut his 145% tariff rate on China.

That’s a long way in three weeks from the declarations by White House aide Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick that there would be no tariff-rate changes. It’s hard to see this as anything other than a retreat amid the harsh reaction of financial markets, worries about recession and price increases, and a sharply negative reaction from the rest of the world—friend and foe.

The good news is that at least Mr. Trump is finally listening to reality. The CEOs of Walmart, Home Depot and Target paid a visit to the White House this week and told Mr. Trump prices would soon rise and store shelves might soon be empty as the tariff impact grows. This would be more than the “little disturbance” Mr. Trump warned about when he first unveiled his tariff barrage.

Financial markets have also had an impact, as they rise or fall based on the latest news about tariffs and Mr. Trump’s plans for Fed Chair Jerome Powell. There couldn’t have been a clearer market test in the last three weeks about the economic damage these columns warned about. The MAGA media echo chamber that praised Mr. Trump’s tariffs as strategic genius looks foolish.

Another harsh reality is that China called Mr. Trump’s bluff and seems to have won this round. When Mr. Trump imposed his tariffs in the first term, President Xi Jinping retaliated with some restraint and sent a delegation to negotiate a trade deal.

This time he retaliated in tit-for-tat fashion and pushed all of his anti-U.S. economic and diplomatic levers. He has cut off U.S. access to crucial rare-earth minerals, stopped the delivery of Boeing jets, looked elsewhere for food and natural-gas imports, and unleashed regulators against American companies.

Beijing has also warned countries not to do trade deals with the U.S. that exclude China—or else. With even U.S. allies facing Mr. Trump’s tariff assault, Beijing’s threat has resonated in a way that it never previously did. U.S. diplomatic sway is ebbing.

The question going forward is whether Mr. Trump is internalizing these economic and political lessons or merely pausing to fight his trade war another day. We doubt even Mr. Trump knows the answer, since so much of his decision-making is ad hoc. He’ll keep his universal 10% tariff in any case.

But if the President is looking for political advice, he could do worse than check out the polling cited nearby by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein. It shows that the public largely opposes his tariffs, whose damage poses the single biggest threat to his Presidency. Better to heed the polls and the verdict of Adam Smith, and take the Mitterrand path to political survival.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board