Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

America’s armed forces are in a state of “managed decline.” It is an irresponsible policy decision on the part of the Biden Administration as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and international terrorist build up their power and become far more belligerent. Under the current White House, the Army, Navy and Air Force have become smaller, and shrink even more.  As Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang have increased and/or modernized their nuclear forces, the U.S. deterrent will have atrophied to an increasingly dangerous level.

The Biden Administration submitted to Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget request of $849.8 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD.) Inflation will further reduce the Pentagon’s spending ability. That figure, in light of the dire and dramatically increasing threats the nation faces, is grossly inadequate.

U.S. defense spending, as part of the country’s GDP, has declined. In 1994, it was 4.22%. Today, it stands at about 3.4% of GDP.   It accounts for 1/6 of the federal budget.

The Department of Defense notes the cuts: “… our budget request reflects targeted reductions to programs.”

Key analysts state that a minimum of $867.3 billion is required. America now will have fewer fighter planes, helicopters, and drones. The plan would cut the purchase of an attack submarine, and it would slash missile defense.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) sounded a warning upon learning of the figure: “Our enemies are growing more hostile in every corner of the globe. The Chinese Communist Party is once again increasing its military spending by over seven percent. Russia shows no sign of stopping if it succeeds in Ukraine, and North Korea is going on the offense after years of playing defense. Iran is financing hundreds of attacks on our troops in the Middle East. This moment begs for a thunderous declaration of American resolve. Instead, it seems the leader of the free world would rather preside over a quiet decline in strength. For the fourth year in a row, the president has asked Congress to cut national security funding… The president’s budget fails to recognize that China wants to take control of the Pacific. It represents a commander-in-chief who refuses to expedite the delivery of tools commanders need to secure the region.”

Wicker is not alone in his concern.

According to an American Enterprise Institute study,  “…it is not enough to carry out the defense strategy, which itself is also now out of date; it trades modernization for readiness; and it leverages innovation investments with proposed process improvements. … We are ceding ground in the fight to maintain a force that is big enough and has enough of the right equipment, training, and agility to deter or fight and win the nation’s wars…The requests for procurement and research, development, test and evaluation are both cut from last year’s request. These are actual reductions, before accounting for inflation. If this sounds familiar, it should. With the increasing costs of must-pay bills for personnel and operations in the defense budget and an emphasis on non-core functions over lethality, it is really the only way to balance the books in a declining budget.”

Similarly, the Heritage Foundation notes that “In this document, his Administration’s misguided priorities are on full display. While paying lip service to the concept of China as the primary challenge for the United States, the official request fails to align spending with strategy. Most egregiously, the request fails to procure the ships, aircraft, and munitions the military needs to deter China in the Indo-Pacific. It is, in a word, insufficient to keep the American people safe.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that this is the fourth year that this is the fourth year in a row the defense budget represents a cut when inflation is taken into effect. It will result in a net loss of six ships. The Navy, under Biden, will have been reduced. One of the most urgently required vessels to deter China is the Virginia class submarine. Under the Biden budget, acquisition will be cut in half.

The cuts extend even beyond the Earth. The Space Force, required to counter the hiked threats from Russia and China above the atmosphere, will lose $600 million, representing 2% of its total budget.

Illustration: A Space Force launch. (DoD)

The New York Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling by the trial judge we closed yesterday’s article with.

“Defendant argues that CPL 30.10 (4) (a) has only been applied to cases involving nonresidents,” the Court of Appeals stated. However, “[n]owhere does this provision distinguish between residents and nonresidents and we cannot read into the statute a limitation not adopted by the legislature…If the legislature intended this tolling provision to apply only to nonresidents or that courts should factor residency into a tolling analysis, it would have said so expressly.” (Citation omitted.)

Further, “the statute [does not] contain any requirement that the tolling period apply once authorities know that a crime has been committed and, as with defendant’s proposed exclusion for New York residents, we reject defendant’s invitation to rewrite the statute to provide such limitation.”

Thus, it is irrelevant whether Donald Trump was a resident of New York or not, nor does it matter whether or not the New York County District Attorney had any intention to charge the former President with a crime at the time the offense allegedly occurred.  The time he spent outside New York stops the Statute of Limitations from running out.

But what if Donald Trump (like Weinstein) had been in and out of New York during the time period in question?  According to the Court of Appeals, “‘all periods of a day or more’ during a defendant’s absence from the state ‘should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations’…Logically, then, even a day’s absence counts.” (Citation omitted.)

Thus, as we warned in May of last year, the prosecution of Donald Trump is not time-barred, based upon the extended time periods he spent outside of New York, serving his country as President of the United States. 

This issue, while significant, is only one ruling which could impact the Trump case.

During the trial, we have witnessed several rulings which affect the former President’s ability to defend himself. For instance, in their opening statement to the jury, Prosecutors stated “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up…[t]he defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election, then covered it up.”  In fact, according to The Hill, “[a]lthough Trump faces charges of falsifying business records, prosecutors will tell jurors a story that ranges from sex to politics to accounting, attempting to convince them that Trump criminally covered up a hush money deal to influence the 2016 presidential election. The district attorney’s first oration to the jury echoed two of Trump’s other criminal cases, which revolve around his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results after losing to President Biden. “It was election fraud – pure and simple,” [the prosecutor] said in his opening remarks.”   

Donald Trump is charged with falsifying his business records to disguise a “hush money” payment made to a woman who alleged he had an affair with her.  That charge has been elevated to a felony based upon an intent to hide an underlying crime.  The crime has never been adequately specified, but it appears to involve the violation of federal elections laws that enumerate the appropriate expenditure of campaign contributions.  Now the Manhattan DA’s office is changing their theory by claiming the underlying crime is outright federal election fraud – an uncharged crime.

Further,  “[i]f Donald Trump takes the stand, prosecutors will be allowed to grill him under oath about several adverse rulings in his past civil cases, Justice Juan Merchan ruled…Prosecutors will be allowed to elicit testimony about Trump being found liable for fraudulently inflating his business assets in a suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. They will also be allowed to question him about defamatory statements he made about writer E. Jean Carroll. In a civil case last year, a federal jury determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, and in two civil cases, Trump was found liable for defaming Carroll. Merchan also ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about fines he received for violating a gag order in the business fraud case when he verbally attacked the law clerk of the judge overseeing that case.”

Even Politico had to concede that this was “a significant loss for the former president that will complicate his self-declared plan to testify in his own defense.” 

This ruling is much more than a “loss” that complicates Trump’s ability to testify in his own defense.  In fact, if Judge Merchan maintains this position, and also lets stand the prosecutor’s attempts to use proof that Trump allegedly “subverted” the 2020 Presidential election, under the Court of Appeals’ ruling in the Weinstein case, permitting these prejudicial matters into evidence is most certainly reversible error.

“Every person accused of a crime is constitutionally presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present a defense, the Court of Appeals states in People v. Weinstein.  “Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality… It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict.”

In Harvey Weinstein’s case, “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light. The synergistic effect of these errors was not harmless. The only evidence against defendant was the complainants’ testimony, and the result of the court’s rulings, on the one hand, was to bolster their credibility and diminish defendant’s character before the jury. On the other hand, the threat of a cross-examination highlighting these untested allegations undermined defendant’s right to testify. The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

In other words, several witnesses were allowed to testify against Weinstein as to sexual assaults with which Weinstein was not charged.  These witnesses could portray Weinstein as a serial sexual predator, and make it more likely that the jury would believe the victims, even if there were weaknesses and inconsistencies in their own testimony.  Moreover, the prosecution could question Weinstein about these uncharged assaults, were he to testify in his own defense.

Certainly, it is understandable for some to believe that Weinstein was, in fact, a loathsome person who deserved his conviction and sentence.  Well that may be – but remember the words of the Court of Appeals;  “the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality.”

There are those who think Donald Trump is a loathsome person, and that the former President also deserves a conviction and prison sentence.  These people justify the use of evidence of prior “bad acts,” such as allegations of trying to influence the 2020 Presidential election, or the existence of civil verdicts and contempt citations, in an effort to establish Trump’s  “propensity for criminality.”  Like the #MeToo advocates, the Trump Haters don’t care about a fair trial for the accused – they just want to see the “bad guy” punished.

If we learn one thing from the reversal of the Weinstein conviction, it’s that every defendant, no matter who they are, deserves to have a fair trial.  That rule applies to rich Hollywood Producers, former Presidents of the United States – and most importantly, to you and I.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In 2020, the New York County District Attorney’s Office scored a major conviction against a powerful Hollywood Producer – Harvey Weinstein.  As described by Forbes, “Weinstein has faced scores of sexual harassment and assault accusations since 2017…[d]uring his New York trial, Weinstein was cleared of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree.”    He was, however, convicted of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and Rape in the Third Degree, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals has reversed Weinstein’s conviction, and sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial.

While “Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling ‘a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York,’” the usual groups made the usual complaints. “Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called it ‘a major step back’…Debra Katz, a prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients are ‘feeling gutted’ by the ruling…

“Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including stars such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting ‘rapist’ outside the courthouse. ‘This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,’ Judd said…” 

The New York Court of Appeals is known for being a left-of-center, activist court.  Why would it reverse a conviction for rape entered against a character as reportedly heinous as Harvey Weinstein?

Because despite its overall Progressive stance, even a notoriously leftist court knows an injustice when they see one.

The decision to reverse Weinstein’s conviction is an important one.  It underlines the necessity for fairness to all defendants, even unpopular ones accused of egregious crimes.  The decision also has application to the ongoing case proceeding in New York County Supreme Court against former President Donald Trump.

In May of 2023, we discussed the issue of whether or not Donald Trump’s indictment in New York County for actions that occurred in 2017 was beyond New York’s Statute of Limitations for prosecution of the criminal offenses with which he is charged.  At that time, we noted the language of CPL Section 30.10(4)(A)(i), which excluded the time during which a defendant “was continuously outside this state.”  

This issue is also discussed in Chapter 6 of our book, The Making of a Marty – An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump. 

We also stated that “it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.” 

Like Trump, Weinstein also spent many years outside the State of New York. “Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired. Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him. Prosecutors used records from ‘United States Customs and Border Control’ to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct. The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand.”  

Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

President Putin is using more than one pathway to enter Europe and undermine the West. While most of the world watches the conflict he initiated in Ukraine, the Russian government is actively pursuing a second front in a little noticed campaign in Cyprus. Although the corrupt Cypriot government ended its issuance of “golden passports” in 2020, Russian intelligence is functioning quietly there to transform this EU country into a Russian beachhead of illicit economic activity aimed at penetrating the capitalist West, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation.

Cyprus is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nor does it receive as much attention as those countries who are member states. That adds to its allure as a prime location for Russia to attempt to gain a European foothold. Last week a NATO report, cited in the European Daily Monitor, noted that Russian intelligence agents have been plotting to destroy European infrastructure across the continent to disrupt states supporting Ukraine. It further suggests that Putin’s immediate goal is to lay the framework for a future move against the security organization’s members. Hungary, in particular, is another country garnering Moscow’s attention as it opposes the Western response to Russian aggression.  

Russia is focusing its intelligence efforts on other European, non-NATO member countries in addition to Cyprus, including Austria, Malta, and Ireland. The NATO report suggests that Moscow has had success in disseminating the Russian political narrative in these states to advance its campaign against the West. The island of Cyprus is proving to be a good target for Moscow as it is an ethnically divided island that is part of the EU since 2004. Northern Cyprus, officially called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), is a de facto state that is only recognized by Turkey. The division precludes it from joining NATO. As Goble suggests, “it offers Russia troubled waters in which to fish.” Over the last 20 years, he points out, Cyprus’ challenges have opened it to a massive influx of Russian citizens, who now comprise approximately 10 percent of the island state’s population. Over 2,900 residents are Russians who entered until the “golden passport” program that allowed wealthy or well-connected Russians to move to Cyprus. It also provided them with documentation to travel freely throughout Europe!

Although less visible on the world’s radar than the war in Ukraine, Moscow is also being helped by Cyprus’ banks opposition to seizing Russian assets and its support in evading Western sanctions. Russia has placed tens of billions of US Dollars there for money laundering. It has been more than two years since a single Russian “diplomat” has been deported and, in fact, the Embassy has grown to over 300 staffers on this tiny island state of only 1.2 million people. The Russian embassy in Nicosia has advanced communications antennae on its roof and opened a consulate on the northern end of the island. Moscow’s Ambassador, Mura Zyazikov, is a lieutenant general in the FSB with no diplomatic experience.  The FSB, SVR (Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service), and GRU are actively using the island as a base of operations against NATO Member states, Israel, and other Western allies.

Moscow backs pro-Russian political parties who in turn influence Cypriot decisions on education, language, and other issues.  “Dmitry Khmelnitsky of the Dossier Center says that its findings should be of concern not only to Cyprus but to the West as a whole. Those who ignore what Moscow is doing because Cyprus does not follow the EU sanctions regime are missing something critical,” says Goble. “Cyprus does not seek to get rid of Russian agents and does not interfere with their work,”  Khmelnitsky concludes, “despite the fact that what the Kremlin is doing is so clearly visible.” This has an impact not only on the small island but on the EU, NATO, and the West in general.   

Earlier this year the Moscow Times reported that when the FBI became more interested in Russian business and oligarchs in Cyprus, at least 10 of the major Russian businesses operating there left. Despite the government of Cyprus’ vow to implement plans for new sanctions against Russia, it continues to ignore Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine and to shield the wealth of the 50,000 wealthy Russian citizens and oligarchs residing there. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

There is a coming conflict with Taiwan. What remains uncertain is the nature of that conflict. A newly released report this week by the Global Taiwan Institute’s (GTI) John Dotson argues that political warfare is a key component of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to undermine and achieve annexation of  Taiwan. The CCP’s goal, he says, is to force the subjugation of the island’s citizens and democratic society and place it under “full CCP political Control.” Chinese directed propaganda and disinformation, elite cooption, political subversion, and coercive military and economic actions all are connected by a prominent link – they are actions intended for psychological effect. They are also methods of political warfare in an ongoing, persistent, and multi-faceted campaign against Taiwan. 

Information warfare used by Beijing against Taipei manipulates the news to change the attitudes of the population. Is it working? Dotson says that China is successfully exercising influence of “content and editorial coverage in traditional media outlets such as newspapers and television news channels, largely by leveraging influence through local proxy figures—in particular, wealthy businesspersons who have extensive financial equities in China.” He suggests that Beijing employs a “pink model” to push pro-CCP content into social media news feeds, not unlike what China does inside the United States. Using algorithmic targeting, Beijing is able to attack selected demographic targets who are more vulnerable to disinformation. Its goal is to further sow confusion and reduce cognitive resistance to pro-CCP’s narratives. Encouraging a population to believe false information by reducing a group’s opposition to it is a common practice among intelligence agencies and politicians alike. First, a population is provided with several scenarios that are easily accepted as true. In a simple example, one might read that at noon the sun is high in the sky, the clock says 12:00 pm, and many people are eating lunch. These points are easily accepted as true.  The human brain at this point becomes more susceptible to accepting new information that may be false as it is programmed to let its guard done. The CCP follows by planting real information among false facts to make it easier to accept and digest. It doesn’t stop at disinformation, Beijing is also leveraging its toolkit in a related field, “legal warfare (法律戰), to promote its interpretation of international law and diplomatic practice.

Yet another major category of concern in the CCP’s political warfare against Taiwan is known as “gray zone operations.” These are more closely related to military actions and include activities such as the aerial and maritime encroachment of Taiwan’s territory. The goal is to erode the concept of sovereignty and security. The United States is experiencing “gray zone” operations on our own southern border. In Taiwan, these include China’s overflight of Taiwan’s airspace by military aircraft. These events are increasing in both number and intensity as they grow close to the island itself. Simultaneously, China’s PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy), through its coast guard “law enforcement” operations are challenging Taipei’s outer islands. Dotson points out that the “paramount objective in such operations is the intended psychological effect on Taiwan’s population.”

Another related area according to the GTI report is increasing economic coercion. China is attempting to deny Taiwan market access, ban its imports, and limit politically-oriented trade and investment opportunities. The intent is to “punish groups within Taiwan for developments to which Beijing objects, to isolate Taiwan internationally, and to pressure other countries and international companies to conform to Beijing’s preferred policies on Taiwan,” says Dotson. To date, Taiwan has suffered from attempts to ban Taiwan’s export of agricultural products. Beijing has also punished countries who willingly import from Taiwan and have close relations with Taipei.

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of China’s political warfare campaign against Taiwan revolves around its “united front work.” This embraces a range of measures that Dotson says include both financial and psychological cooption and include the use of front organizations and political subversion. In Taiwan, China is coopting business and political elites, funding and manipulating local organizations (temple societies) and offering support to fringe political parties that can be used to destabilize Taiwan and spread the CCP’s propaganda.

Western militaries analyze the likelihood of kinetic warfare but spend less time on the impacts of political warfare. The free world cannot overlook what is happening in Taiwan and needs to recognize that Chinese political warfare extends across the globe. Beijing may not need to physically capture the island by force if it wins using a clandestine political warfare model of conflict. Then the question becomes, “Who is next?”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

President Biden has called two key U.S. allies, India and Japan, “xenophobic.”  As noted in a Hill report “Biden grouped Japan and India alongside China and Russia as ‘xenophobic countries,’ claiming being less open to immigrants has caused the countries’ economies to struggle since the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The comment comes at a time when both of those nations are essential to American goals in the Indo-Pacific, including countering China’s massive arms buildup, North Korea’s growing nuclear prowess, and Russia’s increased presence in the region.

China now has a larger fleet than the United States, and has powerful assistance from Russia. The U.S. State Department warns that “Across much of the Indo-Pacific region, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using military and economic coercion to bully its neighbors, advance unlawful maritime claims, threaten maritime shipping lanes, and destabilize territory along the periphery of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  This predatory conduct increases the risk of miscalculation and conflict.”

Alexey Muraviev, writing for the Asia Times notes that “China is not the only potentially adversarial maritime power that is flexing its muscles in the Indo-Pacific region. Russia is becoming a cause for concern, too, even though the 2023 strategic review did not mention it….Between 2022 and October 2023, for instance, it commissioned eight new warships and auxiliaries, including four nuclear-powered and conventional submarines. On December 11, two new nuclear-powered submarines formally joined the fleet, in addition to the conventional RFS Mozhaisk submarine, which entered service last month.”

Biden making a comment that directly and clearly harms both U.S. interests and those of key allies is hardly surprising, as evidenced by his bizarre actions regarding Israel.

The Department of Defense states that “ Japan is growing and taking leadership roles that not only benefit people in the Indo-Pacific, but the global community, said Grace Park, the director for Japan policy at the Defense Department’s Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Office said…  Japan, the fourth largest economy in the world, has taken a greater security role in the past decade, Park said. Japanese leaders are reorganizing the self-defense forces in the country, fielding new military capabilities, increasing the amount spent on self-defense and more. “I believe that the United States has gained a lot from this alliance relationship,” she said.  

It will soon play an even more significant role. The Department of Defense reports that “The U.S., Australia and the United Kingdom, members of the AUKUS partnership, are considering cooperation with Japan on advanced capabilities projects. …Japan was considered because of its strengths and its close defense partnership with all three countries, said Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh, who held a press conference today. 

Japan is playing a larger role in other essential American alliances, as well. As reported in the American Military News, “The Philippines and the United States are considering the expansion of their annual “Balikatan” (shoulder-to-shoulder) military exercises carried out under the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States,  to include Japan.  

As this column has previously reported, India’s population, military strength, and strategic geographical location render it one of the world’s most important nations.  The Pentagon notes that “Over the past decade, the U.S.-India defense relationship has become indispensable in promoting peace, prosperity and stability in the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean region.”

Since the start of his Administration, President Biden has consistently engaged in policies and actions that have emboldened America’s adversaries and alienating and worried allies. The consistency of his inexplicable course of action is now clear, and the U.S. citizenry deserves an immediate explanation.

The highly partisan U.S. media has, until the current holdup of aid to Israel, turned a blind eye to Biden’s destructive foreign policies, allowing him to progress from one disaster to another.

Illustration: Pixabay

When students, trained and equipped by Hamas and its financial backers, occupy campuses and threaten Jews and anyone who disagrees with them, it is neither a peaceful protest nor an exercise of free speech. It is a terrorist attack. Those students are not peaceful protestors. They are terrorists in training. 

It has been reported that many of those arrested are not even students, but individuals with ties to terrorists or anti-American activities. Their mission is not to protest, not to persuade, but to force institutions to bend to their will. Their targets are two-fold: First, in adherence to Hamas’ anti-Semitism, an attack on not just Israelis but Jews everywhere. Second, to weaken America’s influence in the crucial Middle Eastern region.

But students do make up the majority of those involved. The blatant ignorance of so many protestors did not occur spontaneously or recently. Years of preparation went into it.  Radical extremists infiltrated the educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school, for decades with the purpose of destroying pride in America and imposing a leftist agenda.

On-air interviews of involved students have been revealing.  Beyond chanted slogans, the students appear to have little knowledge of the actual dynamics of the Middle Eastern conflict that they appear to be so passionate about.

What did come clearly though was a hair trigger response to condemn America and American institutions. That is the intentional result of many years of academic indoctrination. 

History has been taught through the prism of anti-Americanism. The extraordinary accomplishments in human freedom, the enormous good done by the nation have been obscured, while faults, even though they were corrected, are magnified.

The Federalist notes that “America’s academic leaders seem powerless only because they’ve spent decades promoting the ideologies now on such brutal and ugly display… many administrators claim to be stunned. Yet those of us who’ve been following the disastrous decline of American higher education have been warning for years about the inevitable. America’s academic leaders seem powerless only because they’ve spent decades promoting the ideologies now on such brutal and ugly display. Years ago, America’s most prestigious academics made a conscious choice to elevate indoctrination over education. Training activists became their highest goal. Radical ideologies that began in Ethnic and Gender Studies swallowed once-proud social science and humanities disciplines. Their influence surged into administration, as new DEI offices redefined diversity, equity, and inclusion to mean their opposites, then spread their toxin throughout university operations. Wildly generous foreign money — with Qatar and China in the lead — anchored this noxious brew in place.

The American Enterprise Institute found that “The 1619 Project and its companion resources have spread to thousands of schools (and counting) in all 50 states, priming students to reject America’s founding principles and even literally black out the Declaration of Independence. Meanwhile, tales of politically radical K–12 instruction seem to break into the news almost daily.”

The Discovery Institute notes that “ teacher unions, rather than modeling positive social behavior, instead promote indoctrination of students on partisan political viewpoints…. Today, leaders holding high government offices at the federal and state levels are quickly exploiting an underlying principle: The less educated our citizens are regarding civics, the more pliable they are to the acceptance of radical philosophies and agenda, and the more government power can grow. The end result will be a loss of the American Dream — life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Don’t believe this? Take a look at the citizens of today’s socialist and communist countries around the world. According to Ben Shapiro, “while advocates of Marxism today disown the Stalinists and the Maoists and the Castro regime and Venezuela and North Korea, all of those nations thought they were fulfilling Marx’s dream, too.”

A Manhattan Institute review reports that “Results of a representative survey of more than 1,500 Americans aged 18 to 20 suggest that Critical Race Theory (CRT) and radical gender ideology, together known as Critical Social Justice (CSJ), is widespread in American schools. Ninety-three percent of American 18- to 20-year-olds said that they had heard about at least one of eight CSJ concepts from a teacher or other adult at school, including “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” “patriarchy,” or the idea that gender is a choice unrelated to biological sex. Additionally, 90% of respondents had heard about at least one CRT concept and 74% about at least one radical gender concept.

The campus protests are a window of what’s in store for the nation if the influence of anti-American educators continue.

The Beige Book is a Federal Reserve System publication about current economic conditions across the 12 Federal Reserve Districts. It characterizes regional economic conditions and prospects based on a variety of mostly qualitative information, gathered directly from each District’s sources. The latest edition has just been released. We present key portions of the summary here.

Overall Economic Activity

Overall economic activity expanded slightly, on balance, since late February. Ten out of twelve Districts experienced either slight or modest economic growth—up from eight in the previous report, while the other two reported no changes in activity. Consumer spending barely increased overall, but reports were quite mixed across Districts and spending categories. Several reports mentioned weakness in discretionary spending, as consumers’ price sensitivity remained elevated. Auto spending was buoyed notably in some Districts by improved inventories and dealer incentives, but sales remained sluggish in other Districts. Tourism activity increased modestly, on average, but reports varied widely. Manufacturing activity declined slightly, as only three Districts reported growth in that sector. Contacts reported slight increases in nonfinancial services activity, on average, and bank lending was roughly flat overall. Residential construction increased a little, on average, and home sales strengthened in most Districts. In contrast, nonresidential construction was flat, and commercial real estate leasing fell slightly. The economic outlook among contacts was cautiously optimistic, on balance.

Labor Markets

Employment rose at a slight pace overall, with nine Districts reporting very slow to modest increases, and the remaining three Districts reporting no changes in employment. Most Districts noted increases in labor supply and in the quality of job applicants. Several Districts reported improved retention of employees, and others pointed to staff reductions at some firms. Despite the improvements in labor supply, many Districts described persistent shortages of qualified applicants for certain positions, including machinists, trades workers, and hospitality workers. Wages grew at a moderate pace in eight Districts, with the remaining four noting only slight to modest wage increases. Multiple Districts said that annual wage growth rates had recently returned to their historical averages. On balance, contacts expected that labor demand and supply would remain relatively stable, with modest further job gains and continued moderation of wage growth back to pre-pandemic levels.

Prices

Price increases were modest, on average, running at about the same pace as in the last report. Disruptions in the Red Sea and the collapse of Baltimore’s Key Bridge caused some shipping delays but so far did not lead to widespread price increases. Movements in raw materials prices were mixed, but six Districts noted moderate increases in energy prices. Contacts in several Districts reported sharp increases in insurance rates, for both businesses and homeowners. Another frequent comment was that firms’ ability to pass cost increases on to consumers had weakened considerably in recent months, resulting in smaller profit margins. Inflation also caused strain at nonprofit entities, resulting in service reductions in some cases. On balance, contacts expected that inflation would hold steady at a slow pace moving forward. At the same time, contacts in a few Districts—mostly manufacturers—perceived upside risks to near-term inflation in both input prices and output prices.

Highlights by Federal Reserve District

Boston

Business activity expanded at a modest pace in recent weeks, and prices rose slightly. Employment was flat overall, but one retailer reported significant layoffs. Convention and tourism activity grew at a robust pace. Home sales increased on a year-over-year basis, marking a turnaround. The outlook ranged from cautiously optimistic to bullish.

New York

On balance, regional economic activity remained flat. Labor market conditions were solid and continued to normalize as labor supply and labor demand came into better balance. Consumer spending was unchanged after a weak first quarter. Housing markets strengthened, with the spring selling season picking up beyond the seasonal norm. The pace of selling price increases remained modest.

Philadelphia

On balance, business activity was flat in the current Beige Book period—after declining slightly last period. Employment edged up, despite staffing and recruitment efforts slowing to a crawl. Wage and price inflation continue to moderate; however, housing affordability continues to be a concern. Overall, the outlook is positive, as firms remained optimistic about expectations for future growth.

Cleveland

District business activity increased modestly, as did employment. Firms anticipated greater ease filling open positions, including those that have been particularly challenging, because of increased labor availability. Wage pressures continued to normalize, and some contacts reduced starting wages for new roles. Cost and price pressures changed little.

Richmond

The regional economy grew at slight pace since our previous report. Consumer spending on retail goods was mixed but spending on travel and tourism was up slightly. Fifth District port activity slowed and was impacted by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Employment growth slowed from a moderate to a modest rate in recent weeks, but wages continued to grow moderately. Price growth also remained moderate.

Atlanta

The Sixth District economy grew modestly. Labor markets continued to stabilize; wage pressures eased. Many nonlabor costs moderated. Retail sales were steady, but consumers remained price conscious. Tourism remained robust. Commercial real estate conditions slowed. Transportation activity was mixed. Manufacturing grew slightly. Loan demand was flat. Energy activity improved.

Chicago

Economic activity increased slightly. Employment increased modestly; business and consumer spending rose slightly; nonbusiness contacts saw no change in activity; and manufacturing and construction and real estate activity were flat. Prices and wages rose moderately, while financial conditions were stable. Prospects for 2024 farm income were unchanged.

St. Louis

Economic activity has continued to increase slightly since our previous report. Prices have increased modestly, as contacts are broadly feeling the pressures of increases in both labor and non-labor costs. The outlook was neutral to slightly optimistic, which is generally unchanged from our previous report, but better than one year ago.

Minneapolis

District economic activity grew slightly. Employment grew some, but labor demand was softer. Wage pressures were present but continued to ease, while price pressures ticked up. Consumer spending was mostly flat, and manufacturing slowed modestly. Commercial and residential construction improved slightly. Agricultural conditions were steady at low levels.

Kansas City

The District economy expanded modestly. Demand for auto loans and residential mortgages rose as borrowing rates declined. Demand for HELOC also increased as a means to consolidate or refinance household debt. Job gains were modest even as worker availability improved slightly.

Dallas

The Eleventh District economy expanded modestly. While activity in services and housing grew, manufacturing output, retail sales, and loan demand declined slightly. Employment growth slowed as wages, input costs, and selling prices grew at a moderate pace. Overall, Texas firms noted an uptick in uncertainty.

San Francisco

Economic activity continued to grow at a slight pace, employment levels were little changed, and prices and wages rose slightly. Retail sales were unchanged, and demand for services grew modestly. Demand for manufactured products changed little, and conditions in agriculture were mixed. Real estate activity was slightly down. Financial sector conditions were largely unchanged.

Note: This report was prepared at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston based on information collected on or before April 8, 2024. This document summarizes comments received from contacts outside the Federal Reserve System and is not a commentary on the views of Federal Reserve officials.