To our Jewish readers: "Chag Pesach Sameach!"

Trade War: Bond Markets Were Apparently the Canary in the Coal Mine

Let's start with a pop quiz. Take a look at these two pictures:

One of these photos is of Donald Trump, and was taken this week during the speech where he bragged to the NRCC about his "war on the world." The other is of Andrew Jackson, taken just months before he died, by which point he was suffering from numerous chronic conditions, and had lost all his teeth. Can you tell which one is Trump and which one is Jackson? Not easy, is it?

The point here is that Donald Trump does not sound well these days, and he does not look well either. So, it's entirely possible there's some fundamental level of dysfunction that is playing a role in these bizarro, on-again, off-again trade wars. Congress thought it addressed this problem in 1967, with the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, but unwisely designed a system where people who are likely to be sycophants are the decision-makers. And no president, save perhaps Richard Nixon, has been better than Trump at surrounding himself with sycophantic lackeys. So, he could be really far gone, and still be in power.

As usual, it is Congress' fault. Here is Sec. 4 of the 25th Amendment.:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Congress could take the decision-making power away from the cabinet and assign it to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate. Just sayin'. If Congress were to do that, the U.S. would become more like a parliamentary system, where the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the parliament. It might be better than having the president's lackeys make the call (or not making it).

Anyhow, now that a bit of time has passed since Trump declared the latest trade war "armistice," we thought we'd do as best we can to make sense of everything. And we're going to do it by trying to answer three questions. Away we go:

1. What just happened?

Again, leaving open the possibility that there is some sort of dysfunction playing a role here, it appears that the 180 on the heavy-duty tariffs was prompted by developments in the bond market. We briefly noted this yesterday, but 24 hours later, it's clear there was definitely a big problem. Major holders of U.S. bonds were dumping their holdings, in huge quantities. And by "major holders," we don't mean, say, "Warren Buffett." We mean "Japan," which is the single-largest holder of U.S. bonds, and has been the single-largest seller since the new tariffs were announced.

When people—or countries—start dumping bonds, it has two effects, one abstract, one concrete. The abstract effect is that it signals a lack of confidence in the U.S. economy. The concrete effect is that it makes it harder for the U.S. government to sell new bonds. In response, the government has to increase the yield, which makes borrowing more expensive. Since much government spending is funded by borrowing, then more expensive borrowing means larger deficits, with all the deleterious effects that entails.

These two dynamics—reduced confidence in the U.S. economy, coupled with higher deficits—can push a flourishing economy into a recession, and can push an economy in recession into a depression. The latter outcome is, according to reporting yesterday from The Wall Street Journal, what really spooked the administration. Allegedly, Trump was willing to accept recession-level pain, but not depression-level pain. We don't know if we buy this, since we are very, very skeptical that Trump even knows what the difference between a recession and a depression is (other than knowing that one is worse than the other). But that's the reporting.

Incidentally, yesterday Trump had another one of those Cabinet meetings where everyone had to go around the table and shower him with praise telling him how amazing he is. This certainly does nothing to dissuade us from thinking that he is not mentally well right now.

2. What next?

Let us commence this section by making clear that, when we ask "What's next?", we are referring to the next 45 days or so.

Following the excellent day the stock market had on Wednesday, Trump actually had the (characteristic) temerity to claim credit for the dramatic rise in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. That is like him claiming credit for the Hands Off protests attracting so many people. And, in any case, the bounce-back did not actually recover all the ground that had been lost. Further, yesterday was another down day. The Dow Jones was down 1,014.79 points (2.50%), the S&P 500 was down 188.85 (3.46%), the Nasdaq was down 737.66 (4.31%). Overall, each of the three indices is down about 7% since the new wave of tariffs was announced.

While the markets responded joyously to the (temporary?) suspension of the crazypants tariffs, the euphoria eventually wore off, and cold, hard reality set back in. While the second-wave tariffs are not currently in effect, the first round most definitely is. That means that, unless there is yet another reversal from the White House, things are still going to get more expensive (and WAY more expensive if those goods happen to come from China). The Budget Lab at Yale has already crunched the numbers, and says that between tariffs and inflation, the average household is going to experience a decline of $4,689 in disposable income. And yesterday afternoon, as if to punctuate this point, the CPI released its monthly figures, and reported that the price of eggs has reached a record high—$6.27/dozen on average, nationwide. This despite the fact that, on Monday, Trump claimed that egg prices were down 79%. Either he's lying and he thinks the American people are stupid, or his mind is failing. We report, you decide.

Beyond the fact that the trade war is still on, and that inflation and a recession are still very probable, there's also the fact that the relationship between the U.S. and other nations is now badly damaged. Trump could announce tomorrow that he's thought better of his plans, and that all new tariffs are canceled, and it still wouldn't reset things to status quo ante tariffs, because America's trade partners are going to be less enthusiastic, and are going to be more aggressive about looking for new trade partners. To take but one example, new Canadian PM Mark Carney said: "The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over. It's clear the U.S. is no longer a reliable partner." Carney is not bluffing, and he's not alone among national leaders in thinking in that way. There's no way for Trump (or his successors) to fix that anytime soon (if ever). And while Wall Street can't quite know what the impact will be, the uncertainty nonetheless has to be priced into future projections.

3. What is going to happen in 90 days?

It is hard to know what the hell Donald Trump is thinking. So, it's even harder to know what he will do in 90 days, when the current moratorium is supposed to end. That said, there are three possibilites that seem plausible to us.

Before we get to those three possibilities, let's start with what's NOT plausible. There is a fair bit of scuttlebutt that Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro is now on the outs, because he misrepresented or misunderstood what the response to the crazypants tariffs would be. His loss means that Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent's star is apparently on the rise, at least for now.

However, even with some greater amount of influence and authority, and even with a much better understanding of economics and markets than either Navarro OR Trump has, there is zero chance that Bessent can work out substantive new trade agreements with dozens of other nations in just 90 days. Recall that, for example, the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCTA) took eight rounds of negotiating and a year and a half to hammer out. And that agreement only involved three nations, and didn't actually change things very much. Just dealing with the E.U. is a challenge several orders of magnitude greater. And then, add to that all the other nations that Trump targeted. Heck, Bessent doesn't even speak Penguin.

So, what COULD happen? Trump clearly enjoys it when he snaps his fingers, and the world is plunged into turmoil. That means we could envision him re-implementing the tariffs again, and then suspending them again a day or two later. At this point, we do not believe he's willing or able to actually go through with the type of trade war he proposed last week. We don't really believe he's even willing to go through with the trade war as it currently stands. The U.S. vs. China stuff? Maybe, but he's just not willing to bear the economic and political costs of the rest.

The second outcome we can imagine, and it would unfold the same as the first, and could very well happen in harmony with the first, is that Trump re-implements the tariffs, the stock market plunges, he and/or his buddies snap up a bunch of stocks at reduced prices, and then he "suspends" the trade war yet again. We are not generally fans of conspiratorial thinking but, in this case, the conspiracy actually makes more sense than the public explanations being offered by the White House. Enough sense that many Democrats (and some economic analysts) are now wondering openly if this is just a big insider-trading scheme.

The third possibility is that at some point in the next [X] days, maybe before 90 days have elapsed, or maybe after Trump has granted himself an extension, some minor changes are made in the trade arrangements between the U.S. and other nations, Trump declares that he has secured a major victory, announces that his Nobel prizes for both Economics and Peace can be mailed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, and the trade war is over. This is pretty much what happened with the USMCTA, and we imagine it's the most likely outcome here. (Z)

In the House: Budget Blueprint Passed, but Johnson Can't Break out the Champagne Just Yet

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pulled a rabbit out of a hat yesterday, and persuaded a bunch of far-right holdouts, who had declared the Senate's budget blueprint to be "DEAD ON ARRIVAL," to reverse course and to allow the process to move forward. The final vote in the House was 216-214, with Reps. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) joining all the Democrats in voting "nay."

So, what changed? Based on reporting from various sources, it appears that there were three keys in getting a bunch of House GOP "nay" voters to "yea":

• A Little Political Theater: Yesterday morning, Johnson arranged for a (somewhat rare) joint press conference with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD). The Speaker observed that while the budget blueprint calls for House committees to look for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, and for Senate committees to look for just $4 billion in cuts, that he is definitely committed to the $1.5 trillion figure. Thune nodded his head vigorously, and said he too is committed to finding [mumble, mumble] in cuts.
  
  
• A Promise: Johnson also told his Republican colleagues in the House that if he does not deliver on his promises, then they should remove him as speaker. This certainly sounds impressive, though it's hard to know exactly what that means. What if he gets a $1.5-trillion-in-spending-cuts bill through the House, but the bill dies in the Senate? Has Johnson failed to deliver on his promise, in that case? Or what if a bill is ultimately passed that cuts, say, $800 billion in spending? Is that enough to say he delivered?
  
  
• Jesus: Late Wednesday night, the House Republican Conference held a members-only meeting that was so contentious that reporters outside the room could hear the shouting at times. Eventually, Johnson decided to bring the meeting to an end with a prayer. Everyone apparently bowed their heads and asked God to help them do the right thing for the country. Apparently, the right thing for the country was the same budget blueprint that's been on the agenda all week long. Perhaps God is lazy. Or busy trying to figure out how to tell Cleveland Browns fans that there are some things that even He can't pull off.

So, Congress now has the outline of a structure of a blueprint of a budget. The next part is actually figuring out the details, which is the hard part. The fact that the "Senate" cuts are virtually nil, while the "House" cuts are massive, speaks to the sizable differences between the two chambers. Because of Johnson's small margin of error, the Freedom Caucusers, who largely answer to far-right voters, have veto power in the House. On the other hand, Senate Republicans, perhaps excepting a few from very red states, can't afford to do anything TOO crazy.

To some extent, the same dynamic exists within the House. Yes, nearly the entire House Republican Conference voted for the budget blueprint yesterday, but a blueprint is not a budget. There are several dozen GOP members who face tough reelection battles next year, and who are really not going to want to take a hatchet to Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid. That is even more true if the economy goes into a downturn, which is more probable than not, given Donald Trump's on-again, off-again trade war. Remember, it only takes three Republican members to kill a bill, assuming the Democrats stay united. And three moderates can do it just as well as three Freedom Caucusers can.

The bottom line is that the Freedom Caucusers can have SOME cuts, but if they really believe they're going to get $1.5 trillion shaved from the federal budget, they've got another think coming. Someday soon, probably around the time the debt ceiling is about to be reached, we'll find out how hard the hardliners really are. We cannot help but observe that they talk a very big game when they are on eX-Twitter or Fox, but that they usually seem to back down. (Z)

SCOTUS: ICE Must "Facilitate" Return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The Supreme Court has finally laid down the law for the Trump administration, albeit in as flaccid a manner as one can possibly imagine. In yet another unsigned order, by a vote of "who knows?" to "who knows?", the Court decreed that while the White House does not have to adhere to the deadline imposed by Judge Paula Xinis (which was April 7, and so has already passed), it does have to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, and that it "should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."

This sure seems like the bare minimum SCOTUS could do, since even the administration admits that Garcia was deported to El Salvador by mistake, and that he's guilty of... nothing (other than having a Spanish last name, we suppose). And clearly, the Supremes (or, at least five of the Supremes) decided to give the White House plenty of room to save face, so that it could bring Garcia back on its own "reasonable" timeline.

Some outlets, including The Atlantic, which first reported the news, are presenting this as the litmus test of whether or not Donald Trump will actually abide by the orders of the Supreme Court. After all, while the justices did not lay out a specific timeline, they did demand an outcome. And if that outcome is not accomplished by, say, the end of the month, then it's pretty clear that the White House is being defiant.

For our part, however, we are skeptical. Garcia is one person, and the more attention his story gets, the worse it is for the White House because it makes the administration look arbitrary and incompetent. We very seriously doubt that, even if Trump is prepared to say "Roberts has his ruling, now let him enforce it!" that this will be the case where that happens. Surely he would keep his powder dry for something much bigger and more consequential, like impoundment of funds. (Z)

Elections News: Bennet Declares, Omar Mulled a Senate Run but Will Stay Put

It was rumored that Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was thinking that, instead of being a (somewhat neutered) medium-size fish in a very big pond, he might like to be a very big fish in a medium-size pond. Today, he will make it official, throwing his hat into the race to replace the term-limited Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO).

It is at least possible it will be a barnburner of a Democratic primary. Colorado AG Phil Weiser is already in and, while he had the race all to himself, he managed to bank almost $2 million in donations. Obviously, he has already won statewide (in fact, he's done it twice). That said, Bennet has won three times statewide, is much better known and, according to those who follow Colorado politics, is more popular. There's been no polling of the race with Bennet as a candidate, but there WAS a poll with four other potential candidates, including Weiser. In that poll, Weiser came in fourth out of four, with just 8% of respondents backing him. The leader in that poll was Rep. Joe Neguse with 20% support; one has to imagine that if a representative can more than double Weiser's support that a senator will certainly be able to do it.

Colorado has not set the date for its 2026 primaries yet, but once the Democratic primary is over, the odds are pretty good that the election is over. First, while the Centennial State was once purple, it's got two Democratic senators, every statewide officeholder is a Democrat, the last three governors were Democrats, and the state has gone Democratic in presidential elections for 20 straight years. So, it's a blue state now. Meanwhile, consistent with the Democrats' general dominance these days, the Republican bench in Colorado is thin. It is true that four of eight members of the Colorado U.S. House delegation are Republicans, but three of those individuals are in their first terms in Congress, and the fourth is Lauren Boebert. That leaves the GOP field with a bunch of unknowns—a couple of state legislators, a small-town sheriff and a businessman, so far.

Meanwhile, in another state that used to be purple but is now pretty blue, Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) has taken a pass on next year's U.S. Senate race, and instead will run for reelection to her seat in the U.S. House. This is not surprising. Omar is a pretty poor match for Minnesota as a whole (too lefty), while she's an excellent match for her district. House members do not often give up very safe seats for very longshot Senate runs. We would not be surprised if the DNC and/or the DSCC also leaned on her a bit. It's not fair, but if Omar was to win the nomination, the Republicans would make her into the face of the Democratic Party in 2026. And that would not likely work out well for the blue team.

This means that the only Democrat-Farmer-Laborers officially in the race to succeed the retiring Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN) are Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and former state Senate Minority Leader Melisa López Franzen. If anyone else is going to get in, the likeliest possibilities are Reps. Betty McCollum or Angie Craig, or state House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman. As the GOP bench is about as thin in Minnesota as it is in Colorado, the only Republicans to declare are former Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze and former NBA player Royce White. That's a Schwarze and a Black guy, neither of whom have served in political office at any level. So, you have to like the DFLers' chances, regardless of which candidate survives that primary. (Z)

Hands Off, Part IV: Red States

We had a general report on Hands Off, and then reader reports focused on swing states and small towns. Today, we wanted to highlight some of the reports we got from red states:

S.M. in Oak Ridge, TN, writes: I joined a group of friends in Knoxville for the Hands Off march. It is difficult to say how many people attended, because we were sent out in small groups to street corners and medians all over downtown. Estimates vary between 2,000-4,000 people—in very red East Tennessee! My group was located in the median of a street with several lanes of stop-and-go traffic. We were extremely encouraged by the drivers' responses! Hundreds of people honked, gave us thumbs up, or yelled in support. One person who kept count said that about one in three cars which drove by us responded positively! On the flip side, we only saw about five drivers who reacted negatively! I can't emphasize enough how amazing this is in East Tennessee—the reddest of the red!

---

E.C. in Miami, FL, writes: Grabbing some shade at the Miami protest. We estimated about 2,000 people.

---

P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, writes: About 2,000 protesters attended the Hands Off rally in Boca Raton, 2% of the Florida beachside community's population of 100,000. Unlike the Seinfeld stereotype of Morty and Helen's Del Boca Vista, the real residents of Boca Raton are not all retirees living in over-55 condos. They are actually a mix of blue- and white-collar workers, retirees, and students at the city's three colleges, Florida Atlantic University, Lynn University, and Palm Beach College. Four Fortune 500 companies have their headquarters in Boca's bustling downtown of office buildings and trendy bars. In the last election, Donald Trump received 56% of the vote, almost exactly the same as in Florida overall.

My wife and I are retired college professors and have lived here for 25 years. Most of our friends and neighbors are middle-aged, middle-income, middle-class swing voters. The majority are independents who lean slightly to the right of center, though some are Democrats and a few are ruby-red Republicans. The majority, even the Democrats, support Trump on the border. Ditto on extending the 2017 tax cuts and exempting Social Security. They agree with him on biological males in women's sports, though most couldn't care less about persons with penises peeing in women's bathrooms. But every one of them is livid about the losses in their IRAs and 401(k)s caused by Trump's tariffs. Once again, as in the last election, it's the economy, stupid.

As expected, protest signs and speeches at the Hands Off rally leaned heavily to the left, covering subjects near and dear to progressives, such as firings of Federal workers, deportations, bullying of law firms and universities, trans rights, DEI, and the like. But there was far less attention to what should have been the elephant in the room, the tariffs. It was almost as if Kamala Harris' defeat had nothing to do with the price of eggs. To me, the rally looked and sounded more like preaching to the choir, while its organizers failed to take advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them by Trump's blunder on tariffs. The votes of moderate independents are there for the asking if the Democrats would only stop scaring them with lefty cultural issues and start talking to them about their pocketbooks and the damage done to them by Trump. Is Bernie still the only one who gets it?

---

K.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: Hands Off in Columbus:

---

E.S. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: My husband and I joined over 2,000 protesters in downtown Cincinnati, despite significant rain all morning. It was invigorating, and as one of the speakers said, this is just the beginning of our action.

I want to note something about these protests that the same speaker pointed out, and others have as well—the significant lack of non-white participants. At first this disappointed me, because I hoped for solidarity with the most vulnerable among us, but I am also sobered by the reality: They wisely stayed home to protect themselves. And truthfully, this is our problem to solve, our mess to clean up. I can think of no better use for my white privilege than to stand between this insane Trump regime and their innocent victims. So it was a good day.

---

H.S. in Columbia, SC, writes: At the State House in Columbia:

---

P.C. in Austin, Texas, writes: Hands Off protest/rally in Austin:

---

F.S. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: Deep red Idaho had protests in many of our little cities. I heard Idaho Falls (pop. 68,000) turned out maybe 2,000 protesters, Pocatello (pop. 58,000) had an estimated 1,000, and little mountain ski town Driggs (pop. about 2,000) had about 150 people on Main Street. You wrote, in your first item about Hands Off: "after months of not doing anything..." Here in Idaho Falls, there have been protests every week, sometimes multiple protests in a week, for all the various reasons people hate Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their useless representatives. So local people here were trying, and I'm sure the same elsewhere. Previous protests had been attended sporadically, but this one was big by our standards, and seems to have been organized well. I'm wondering who the Hands Off organizers are.

Thanks to everyone who has written in! We'll have one more entry next week. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Port on the Salton Sea

Pretty much every week, we get an e-mail or two from readers who pooh-pooh the headline theme as unserious, annoying, a waste of time, etc. And we get hundreds of e-mails from readers endeavoring to decipher the theme. We also get e-mails from folks who note that they don't always send us a message, but they still try to solve the puzzle. The message indicated here, by the data, seems clear.

On occasion, we choose a theme that readers particularly appreciate. So it was this week, as a great many respondents (multiple hundreds) expressed their appreciation for our (backdoor) tribute to someone who clearly had a great many fans. Here, courtesy of reader W.M. in Livonia, MI, is the solution:

This week's theme is all Val Kilmer movies, may he rest in peace:

• The Trade War: Trump's Tariff Plan Is Top Secret!
• Whiskeyleaks: IG Turns up the Heat on Hegseth
• Another Look, Part I: The Doors Look to Be Opening for the Democrats
• Another Look, Part II: Booker Is a Real Genius
• Election News: Spanberger, Adams Know How the Game Is Played
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: A Tombstone for Nobody
• This Week in Schadenfreude: A Look at the Super Week Elon Musk Just Had
• This Week in Freudenfreude: The Saint Goes Marching In

Kilmer also starred in The Salton Sea, from the headline for this item.

Here are the first 50 readers to crack the code:

M.B. in Albany, NY G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN K.F. in Berea, KY M.J. in Oakdale, MN D.L. in Uslar, Germany C.J.R. in Boston, MA D.E. in High Springs, FL G.K. in Hillsborough, NJ M.Z. in Sharon, MA R.C. in Eagleville, PA B.H. in Southborough, MA N.H. in London, England, UK R.M. in Concord, NH J.G. in Truro, England, UK G.W. in Avon, CT A.S. in Fairfax, VA J.N. in Zionsville, IN J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL B.B. in Bedford, MA J.D. in Charlotte, NC E.P. in Plainville, CT W.M. in Livonia T.K. in Kirkwood, MO M.K. in Long Branch, NJ G.M. in Gaithersburg, MD

M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.R. in Harrogate, England, UK N.S. in Fayetteville, NY A.J. in Silver Spring, MD K.R. in Austin, TX R.D. in Cheshire, CT R.H.O. in Portland, ME P.S. in Atlanta, GA W.L. in Springfield, MO M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.D. in Highland Park, IL D.K. in Bethesda, MD J.R. in Harrogate, England, UK L.W. in Nashville, TN S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ J.D. in Greensboro, NC D.L. in Plumas County, CA B.B. in Avon, CT J.U. in Chicago, IL K.H. in Golden, CO A.A. in Branchport, NY D.C. in Jacksonville, FL S.L. in St. Louis, MO M.W. in Northbrook, IL

The 50th correct response was received at 5:52 a.m. PT on Friday. And incidentally, the two hints we gave, namely "We ♥ Toxic Waste" and "We're your huckleberry" are references, respectively, to a t-shirt that Kilmer wore in Real Genius and to Kilmer/Doc Holliday's catchphrase in Tombstone.

This week's theme appears in every headline, and relies on one word in each case. It's in the Trivial Pursuit category "Fine Dining" (which appeared in the Food and Drink edition, released in 1993). As to a hint, we would note that anyone who has a lot of experience with bungholes will have a big advantage.

Send your guesses to comments@electoral-vote.com, with subject "April 11 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Tesla Waves the White Flag?

Lots and lots of people are trying to unload their Teslas right now. There are two fundamental dynamics in play. The first, of course, is that Elon Musk has made the brand toxic to many people, and in many places. The second is that what was once cutting-edge tech is now long-in-the-tooth tech, and in cars that, even at the height of their popularity, were rather well known for manufacturing defects.

Particularly hard-hit is the Cybertruck. When that model was first announced, Tesla claimed there were over a million pre-orders. Maybe that was true, and maybe it wasn't, but the fact is that they've only delivered 46,000 of them so far. They've also got 2,400 more ($200 million in inventory) ready to go, but can't find many takers. The Cybertruck already looked like fascism in vehicular form, even before Musk took his far-right turn. It's also got a particular reputation, even among Tesla products, for mechanical issues. Oh, and also a reputation for being unsafe.

This week, the Cybertruck lost a very big customer. That customer is... Tesla itself, which announced that it would no longer buy used Cybertrucks or accept used Cybertrucks in trade for new Cybertrucks. The problem with used Cybertrucks is that... Tesla just can't sell them. They have further advised that if someone thinks their Cybertruck is no good, that person should file a lemon law suit. If they can convince a judge, they can get their money back.

Naturally, if a company that has lots with "TESLA" on the marquee, and that attracts customers interested in buying a Tesla, cannot sell Cybertrucks, then it does not give much hope to anyone else who might try to sell a Cybertruck. And so, the cost of used Cybertrucks has dropped 55% in the last year, 13% in the last 3 months, and 6% in the last month. Will Tesla be around in 5 years? Perhaps. Will the Cybertruck? Hard to see how. And it couldn't happen to a nicer CEO. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Green Energy Is the Future

Unless they pull off a heckuva pivot, Tesla may not be the future anymore. However, green energy and other eco-friendly technologies certainly are. We had an item earlier this week about how coal, the dominant fuel of the 19th century is dying, despite Donald Trump's claims to the contrary. Now, how about the other side of the equation?

Back in the early 1940s, 40% of the world's electricity was provided by non-polluting sources. The vast, vast majority of that clean power was in the form of hydroelectric energy, which was fairly widespread, even then. It also helped that global demand for energy back then was much lower, 1/50th of what it is today. But then World War II happened, which in turn led to a petroleum boom, and it wasn't long before non-polluting energy dropped well below 10% of the global total.

Each year, the think tank Ember Energy does a survey of global power usage; their report for 2025 was released this week. And their main finding is that, for the first time in 85 years, the world is back above 40% when it comes to non-polluting electricity sources. Further, the trendlines suggest that the number will reach 50% within the next decade, despite increased demand from AI and other computer-intensive operations.

Hydroelectric power remains king among clean power sources, just as it has been for over a century. However, that is only because a century's time allowed for a LOT of hydroelectric capacity to be constructed. There isn't a whole lot of new hydroelectric being built right now, since most of the obvious opportunities have already been exploited. What's really driving the dramatic increase in clean electricity is wind power and, even more substantively, solar power. In fact, the amount of solar capacity in the world has doubled in just the last 3 years.

Ember's managing director is an engineer named Phil MacDonald. And while he's undoubtedly paid to be a wild-eyed optimist, he is very pleased by what he's seeing worldwide. In the new report, he declares:

The world is watching how technologies like AI and EVs will drive electricity demand. It's clear that booming solar and wind are comfortably set to deliver, and those expecting fossil fuel generation to keep rising will be disappointed. Cleantech, not fossil fuels, is now the driving force of economic development. The era of fossil growth is coming to an end, even in a world of fast-rising demand.

If he is right—and the data is on his side—that is bad news for Big Oil, but great news for the planet.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger