Trump raises eyebrows by sharing video claiming he's 'purposely CRASHING the market'



President Donald Trump raised eyebrows Friday by sharing a video on Truth Social that claims he purposefully crashed the stock market to "push cash into treasuries." Trump's timing was especially provocative because his rollout of tariffs the previous day resulted in a multi-trillion dollar market wipeout.

Trump shared a video by a supporter that was posted to X Thursday evening with the caption, "Trump is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers."

The video — which appropriates narration from a March 13 Instagram post by finance influencer Brian Decker — first appeared on a TikTok page that previously accused Hollywood elites of eating mermaids.

In an apparent validation of the video and Decker's core theory, senior Trump adviser Jason Miller noted, "Genius! You have to watch this video!"

In the video, a seemingly computer-generated voice states: "Trump is crashing the stock market by 20% this month, but he's doing it on purpose, and this is why Warren Buffet just said Trump is making the best economic moves he's seen in over 50 years."

There appears to be no evidence of Warren Buffett publicly making such an assertion in recent weeks.

'He's taking from the rich short-term and handing it to the middle class through lower prices.'

On the contrary, in a CBS News interview that aired nearly two weeks before the TikTok video was published, Buffett told talking head Norah O'Donnell, "Tariffs are actually — we've had a lot of experience with them — they’re an act of war, to some degree."

When asked whether tariffs might lead to higher inflation, Buffett said, "Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!"

According to the TikTok video, Trump intentionally crashed the stock market in order to "push cash into treasuries, which forces the [Federal Reserve] to slash interest rates in May, and those lower rates give the Fed the ability to refinance trillions of debt very inexpensively. It also weakens the dollar and drops mortgage rates."

The narrator notes further that Trump's tariffs amount to a "genius play," forcing "companies to build here to dodge them. It also forces farmers to sell more of their products here in the U.S. to bring grocery prices way down. We've already seen this with eggs."

The video shared by the Republican president concludes by asserting he is effectively engaged in a wealth redistribution scheme: "Now remember, 94% of all stocks are owned only by 8% of Americans so Trump, he's taking from the rich short-term and handing it to the middle class through lower prices."

Blaze News reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

'It's definitely not some sort of fringe conspiracy theory.'

There has been speculation in recent days and weeks that Trump has, as Decker hypothesized, been pushing for a crash or at the very least significant market chaos.

Charlie McElligott, a strategist at Nomura, told clients in early March that Trump and his administration needed an engineered recession to trigger a growth slowdown and disflation that would result in Fed rate cuts and a weaker dollar, reported MarketWatch.

"It's definitely not some sort of fringe conspiracy theory," Ben McMillan, CIO at IDX Advisors, told Business Insider earlier in the week. "I think it's a coin flip as to whether or not it's the intention, but there have been some data points that suggest it's a non-trivial possibility in my mind."

Among the "data points" McMillan reportedly had in mind was Trump's suggestion at Davos that he'll demand interest rates fall and the president's unconventional approaches to tackling the debt problem, such as gold card residency permits.

Trump just happened to state in a Truth Social post Friday morning, "This would be a PERFECT time for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to cut Interest Rates."

While Forbes took issue with various falsehoods in the TikTok video, it noted that "to that theory's credit," yields for U.S. Treasury notes collapsed this week — which will likely mean cheaper borrowing. However, Forbes noted that lower Treasury yields can alternatively be achieved without tanking the markets, namely "by restoring fixed income investors' confidence in the federal government’s fiscal health through more austere spending."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Attorneys Challenge Bank Of America’s Claims It Doesn’t Discriminate Against Conservatives

After President Trump publicly called out Bank of America’s CEO, the company strenuously denies it has ever refused service to Americans who disagree with Democrats.

Report: Your Bank Might Be Spying On You For The Feds

Americans should be deeply concerned that our government and financial institutions are not only spying on us but also potentially abusing their power to target Americans for their political views.

Your property rights could disappear in the ‘tokenized’ economy



Since January, blockchain technology company Digital Asset has issued at least eight press releases detailing its progress toward completing the Canton Network, a blockchain ledger designed to house tokenized assets. To run its Canton Network pilot programs, Digital Asset partnered with the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation and Euroclear, two of the world’s most influential financial institutions.

These successful pilot programs indicate the imminent arrival of a global, dematerialized macroeconomic system, which could lead to the loss of remaining property rights over virtually all of our assets.

Are you ready to own nothing and be happy?

DTCC and Euroclear play critical roles in tokenization. DTCC serves as the clearing and settlement provider, standing “at the center of global trading activity” and processing trillions of dollars in securities transactions daily. Euroclear, meanwhile, is “the leading International Central Securities Depository (ICSD).” Together, these entities handle the majority of global securities transactions.

In the pilot program with DTCC, U.S. Treasuries were tokenized and used as collateral for margin calls. In the future, other tokenized assets could also serve as collateral for similar purposes and beyond.

Deloitte, which observed the Canton Network pilot programs, stated that tokenization aims to transform illiquid assets, create new assets usable like cash, open capital markets to more customers by making assets “cash-like,” and automate transactions. The Canton Network pilot programs demonstrated the feasibility of achieving all three objectives.

The organizations behind the Canton Network present it as a promising solution to address ownership and privacy concerns associated with other blockchain networks. While tokenization carries significant risks, it is not inherently problematic if properly designed and can even be beneficial.

However, the Canton Network’s processes for tokenization, custody, and control lack sufficient precision to guarantee that investors will retain their property rights. More concerning, Digital Asset states in a report that the Canton Network complies with Articles 8 and 12 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a comprehensive set of state laws governing commercial transactions in the United States.

In a paper I co-authored with Heartland Institute Research fellow Jack McPherrin, we discuss how the UCC has already undermined property rights to investment securities through the creation of a legal concept called a “security entitlement.” Revisions to Article 8 transformed individual securities investors from outright property owners into “entitlement holders,” allowing the world’s largest banks to seize what most consider personal property during insolvency scenarios.

As we emphasize in our paper, the proposed UCC Article 12 — along with amendments to Article 9 — threatens to extend this framework to all tokenized assets, further benefiting too-big-to-fail financial institutions at the expense of individual property rights.

In its report, Digital Asset asserts,

The creation of a digital twin of the UST fits neatly into [the Article 8] framework: the security interest in the underlying 'original' UST is perfected through Article 8 while the security interest in the controllable electronic record representing the UST is perfected by established control over the digital twin. However, the phrase 'digital twin' may end up creating confusion – market participants should consider simply explaining that these are securities entitlements represented by ledger entries on the blockchain.

In plain English, this means that tokenized assets will function in the exact same way as “security entitlements,” meaning that this technology will allow Digital Asset and its allies to legally own anything that is tokenized and housed on its blockchain.

As McPherrin and I explain, “UCC Article 8 defines individual securities investors as entitlement holders — with no property rights to the securities that investors think they own — the amendments to UCC Articles 9 and 12 would define individuals as purchasers of ‘interest,’ who are considered neither secured parties nor qualifying purchasers.”

We further clarify:

Under this new arrangement, ‘entitlement holders’ are treated as unsecured creditors rather than property owners. The ‘secured creditors’ are the too-big-to-fail financial institutions to which securities brokers have pledged investors’ assets as collateral for loans and derivatives. In other words, if a securities broker or the DTC/DTCC goes bankrupt, their creditors — primarily the world’s largest banks — have priority over the securities that investors believe they own.

As of October, 25 states and the District of Columbia have passed the 2022 amendments to the UCC that create Article 12 and update Article 9 for this centrally controlled, tokenized economy.

Why is this happening?

According to David Rogers Webb’s “The Great Taking,” the derivatives market needs more collateral to survive. Transforming currently illiquid assets into liquid forms of collateral solves this problem, while giving even greater control to the banks.

Once everything is tokenized, all assets will become collateral for the derivatives markets in which too-big-to-fail institutions are the secured creditors — and therefore the legal owners of all of our property.

It is no longer a matter of if all assets will be tokenized but when they will be tokenized. Are you ready to own nothing and be happy?

Markets surge to record highs, dollar jumps following Trump victory



President Donald Trump promised to usher in the "golden age of America" in his victory speech early Wednesday morning. At the open of trading hours later, the Dow gained over 1,320 points (in excess of 3%) while the S&P 500 index increased by 1.9% and the Nasdaq rose by 2.2%.

CNN indicated that this is the first time the Dow has jumped over 1,000 points in a single day since November 2022.

While some analysts suspect the decisiveness of the win may have put some investors at ease, others figure Trump's policy proposals — especially those pertaining to deregulation and taxes — have investors excited.

Michael Block, COO at AgentSmyth, told CNN, "There is this huge perception of [a] business friendly, tax-friendly regime coming into place, especially with them winning the Senate."

'Business animal spirits could be rekindled once again.'

Republicans have secured a majority in the U.S. Senate and are poised to keep the House.

"Assuming the House goes Republican, we expect that a Red Sweep outcome will play out in a similar fashion to the 2016 playbook but to a lesser degree given a more mature economic backdrop and higher equity valuations," Jeff Schulze at ClearBridge Investments told Bloomberg. "Business animal spirits could be rekindled once again from Trump's pro-business approach."

As it became clear Trump was going to win in a landslide, the price of Bitcoin rocketed from south of $70,000 to over $75,000 overnight, zigzagging around $74,400 Wednesday morning. This jump was energized by Trump's embrace of crypto on the campaign trail.

In July, Trump told crypto boosters at a Bitcoin conference in Tennessee that he would make the U.S. the "crypto capital of the planet."

Not only did the U.S. dollar rise against the euro, the peso, the Japanese yen, and the Chinese yuan in response to Trump's landslide win — the biggest rise since March 2020 — the New York Times indicated that yields on U.S. government bonds also climbed sharply. Treasury 10-year yields reportedly advanced 18 basis points to 4.45%.

While the American market was ostensibly made great again, European stocks took a tumble Wednesday afternoon. CNBC noted that the pan-European Stoxx 600 was down 0.68% by 4 p.m. London time.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wall Street Billionaires Are Starting to Bet On A Trump Win

'A reduction in the activist antitrust stance of the Biden-Harris administration will unleash productivity.'

Slaying the 'multiheaded beast' of woke business



American consumers have a message to any company that wants their business: Hold the politics.

Just ask conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck. What started with a single post on X taking Tennessee-based Tractor Supply to task for its DEI policies has morphed into a growing national movement, sparking public outcry and prompting policy change from John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniels, and Lowe's.

This enthusiasm harmonizes with a new study released by the nonprofit 1792 Exchange in conjunction with WestGroup Research and the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy.

The study finds that almost 80% of Americans feel that companies have gotten too political.

Affiliated with Troy University in Troy, Alabama, the Johnson Center seeks to oppose such ideological capture by training the next generation of business leaders in free-market principles.

Align recently spoke to Johnson Center executive director Allen Mendenhall about Starbuck's methods, the need to puncture the myth of corporate omnipotence, and why there's nothing "right-wing" about applying constitutional principles to company policy.

Prudent adaptation

ALIGN: Critics of Robby Starbuck claim he's motivated by a "right-wing agenda." But isn't he rather advocating for neutrality — a return to "business as usual"?

Allen Mendenhall: It strains credulity to label a faithful and thorough application of the 14th Amendment as a "right-wing" position. Yet this is precisely the narrative some progressive voices assign to corporations seeking to comply with the reasonable rulings in two landmark cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.

These decisions, which are far from partisan, determined that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, these rulings represent a recalibration of how constitutional principles are interpreted and applied within academic settings. When a corporation adjusts its practices in response to these decisions, it is not a political act but a prudent adaptation to evolving legal standards.

Similarly, Starbuck's position could be seen as advocating for a return to a more traditional corporate focus, emphasizing business fundamentals like customer satisfaction and shareholder value rather than pursuing a specific ideological agenda.

He is not seeking to eliminate existing legal protections but rather question the extent to which companies should actively engage in social causes beyond their primary business functions. That isn't "right-wing." If anything, Starbuck advocates for a more focused, less politicized approach to corporate governance and strategy.

ALIGN: What does it say about these policies that they can be so easily and quickly abandoned in the face of a little pressure? Has something changed to make this pressure more effective than it was before?

Allen Mendenhall: The boycott of Bud Light that followed its to decision to make Dylan Mulvaney a spokesperson was nothing short of a rupture in the ideological fabric. It exposed the truth that consumers possess powerful potential despite the fantasy of corporate omnipotence.

No matter how mighty the shareholders are or how aggressively marketers attempt to impose their controversial politics, this resistance was an important reminder: Consumers, when provoked, can reassert themselves and disrupt the narrative from within. No company wants to be the next Anheuser-Busch, the subject of social media mockery with plummeting sales.

Slaying the Hydra

ALIGN: The right often thinks of "wokeness" as a kind of centrally controlled monolith; in a recent article, you point out that it is more accurate to describe it as a "loose confederation." Why is this more dangerous — and why is it important that the right avoid a simplistic understanding of the forces pushing ESG on us?

Allen Mendenhall: The word I used in my original draft was "concatenation," but a great human, Mike Sabo, who edited the piece, judiciously removed it to improve readability. Yet it's the perfect word.

If ESG were Goliath, you could kill it with a slingshot and a stone. But it's plugged into networks of interlocking institutions across different countries. As I say in the piece, ESG is not a leviathan but rather a hydra — a multiheaded beast of disparate interests; a loose confederation of academic theorists, corporate opportunists, bankers, investors, lobbyists, non-governmental organizations, and misguided do-gooders all jockeying for position to appear as the most righteous.

ESG is dangerous partly because it involves a subtle form of control that shapes how institutions and individuals understand their societal roles and responsibilities. Its power does not derive from one centralized authority but from its capacity to spread and integrate itself into core institutions, government-driven investment vehicles, and the administrative state. But most people cannot even explain what it is.

ALIGN: Given that "wokeness" is a "hydra," is going after it company by company (as activists like Starbuck do) the most effective strategy? What other methods might we consider?

Allen Mendenhall: First, embrace truth and courage. I feared backlash when we launched our anti-woke business program for undergraduates at the Manuel H. Johnson Center. However, the nationwide support we received was overwhelming.

CEOs shared with me insights into the inner workings of ISS and Glass Lewis, while professors expressed interest in creating similar programs at their institutions.

Even when banking lobbyists threatened my job and career following my remarks at the Alabama statehouse, the support from across the country emboldened me. What initially felt like isolation soon became a realization that a powerful coalition stood with me.

This experience proved the necessity of boldness and honesty — qualities that anyone can embody, regardless of their position.

Facilitating meaningful change requires a comprehensive strategy on a larger scale that includes legal action, in-depth research, tactical boycotts, legislative efforts, and thorough education. It means exposing weak politicians beholden to the lobby core. We must also separate taxpayer funds from ESG-weighted portfolios.

We should think outside the box, exploring partnerships with peoples and communities worldwide who share more traditional values — perhaps even those we have historically not yet considered allies.

With declining birth rates and populations in Europe and countries more inclined toward leftist ideologies, we may see, over time, a natural decline of these potentially harmful ideas. This decline will result from the destructive nature of these ideologies and the dwindling number of their supporters.

Ultimately, strength in numbers, even among less influential groups, provides a foundation for effective resistance. This is a long-term vision that recognizes demographic changes and the evolution of ideologies over time.

Common ground

ALIGN: The need to bring back American manufacturing has become something of a bipartisan issue. Is there an effective way for ESG opponents to appeal to potential allies "across the aisle" while avoiding irresolvable ideological arguments?

Allen Mendenhall: Setting aside the manufacturing issue, there is potential for the left and right to find common ground on ESG. Leftist groups frequently protest against companies like BlackRock, but they get little attention from the legacy media.

For my students on the left, I recommend reading a few books: "Woke Capitalism" by Carl Rhodes, "Our Lives in Their Portfolios" by Brett Christophers, and "The Problem of Twelve" by John Coates.

Though I may not always agree with these authors, we share a common understanding of the underlying issues. It is frustrating to see uninformed journalists criticize the anti-ESG movement from what they perceive to be a leftist standpoint, especially when they lack a full understanding of the topic and are being manipulated by those who do understand.

Some leftists are prepared to abandon the traditional focus on class and poverty in favor of embracing the riches, status, and influence that come with fully committing to environmentalism and identity politics.

ALIGN: To what extent do you see local business as a solution? Can rampant ESG be a spur to entrepreneurship?

Allen Mendenhall: I will withdraw my deposits from Truist and bank with a local community bank that does not promote ESG and values at odds with mine. I hesitate to encourage people to withdraw deposits from Big Banking en masse because a run on the banks wouldn't help anyone.

But I don't think local for the sake of localism is necessarily helpful from an economic standpoint. The entrepreneurship approach is far better, and I suspect we will see exciting changes across investment and financial services. We are already seeing them.

Pushing back

ALIGN: What can our subscribers do to fight ESG?

Allen Mendenhall: People of varying financial means must approach the fight against ESG in different ways. Those who are just getting by can focus on purchasing products only from companies that align with their values or are at least politically neutral.

However, those with more financial resources can have a more significant influence in the investment arena. We need more corporations acquiring substantial shares of publicly traded companies to have a stronger voice in decisions on shareholder proposals during proxy season.

While I am generally cautious about turning to politics for solutions, we have seen significant progress from state treasurers and legislators who are becoming aware of the implications of ESG. They are starting to push back by divesting from asset management firms that prioritize ESG and ensuring that public funds are not wasted on investments that favor ideological values over financial returns.

It seems counterintuitive that fund managers or their clients would favor underperforming ESG investments and business strategies over more profitable options. However, a recent survey by the Hoover Institution reveals that young investors — who are often less financially secure than their parents were at the same age — are willing to sacrifice 11% to 15% of their savings to support ESG-driven initiatives related to social causes or the environment.

It will be interesting to observe how these younger investors' priorities evolve, just as the counterculture youth of 1968 became, for the most part, the Reagan-voting yuppies of the 1980s.

In contrast, Baby Boomers prefer a more traditional investment strategy, expressing a reluctance to incur financial losses with their retirement savings.

If young investors are truly passionate about issues like net-zero emissions or gender diversity, why not invest directly in charities or philanthropic efforts dedicated to those causes? Alternatively, why not aim to maximize their investment returns to have more resources to support their preferred political and social agendas?

Truth Social Stock Skyrockets Following Trump Assassination Attempt

The company's stock has been criticized as a 'meme stock'

'McFlation' has spun out of control under Biden



The government uses the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index to measure inflation.

For instance, when President Joe Biden took office, the year-over-year inflation rate was roughly 1.4%. CNN indicated the Biden inflation rate reached a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022.

Last week, the Labor Department recently indicated that the CPI for all urban consumers "increased by 0.3 percent in April on a seasonally adjusted basis, after rising 0.4 percent in March[.] ... Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.4 percent before seasonal adjustment."

According to the BLS inflation calculator, prices generally increased by approximately 21.5% between December 2019 and March 2024, according to TheStreet.

Some consumers have apparently turned instead to fast-food prices to gauge just how much purchasing power they have lost in recent years.

FinanceBuzz has made historical price comparisons easier, contrasting fast-food menu prices in 2014 and prices in 2024 on the basis of pricing data sourced from ItsYummi.com, FastFoodMenuPrices.com, and MenuWithPrice.com, cross-referenced with restaurants' official websites.

The breakdown claimed that the price of:

  • the McChicken increased by 199% over the 10-year stretch, from $1.00 in 2014 to $2.99 in 2014;
  • the McDouble increased by 168%, from $1.19 to $3.19;
  • medium fries by 138%, from $1.59 to $3.79;
  • the Quarter Pounder with Cheese Meal by $122%, from $5.39 to $11.99;
  • the Oreo McFlurry by 88%, from $2.39 to $4.49;
  • the 10 Piece McNugget Happy Meal by 83%, from $5.99 to $10.99;
  • the 4 Piece McNugget Happy Meal by 67%, from $2.99 to $4.99;
  • the Big Mac by 50%, from $3.99 to $5.99; and
  • the price of a medium drink increased by 25%, from $1.29 to $1.61.

McDonald's — which has reportedly contested the figures, saying "pricing is set by individual franchisees and varies by restaurant" — is not the only restaurant suffering what some are calling "McFlation."

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen's menu items have, on average, allegedly jumped by 86% in price since 2014. Taco Bell has reportedly seen an 81% average increase. Dining out at Chipotle Mexican Grill now, 10 years later, apparently costs 75% more.

It appears some of the more dramatic price increases have taken place over the past four years.

TheStreet indicated that the price of medium French fries at McDonald's increased by 134.1%, from $1.79 to $4.19 since 2019; the price of the McChicken increased by 201.6%, from $1.29 to $3.89; the price of the Big Mac increased by 87.7%, from $3.99 to $7.49; and price of the cheeseburger increased by 215%, from $1 to $3.15.

McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski told analysts in February, "I think what you’re going to see as you head into 2024 is probably more attention to what I would describe as affordability," reported Fortune.

'Eating at home has become more affordable.'

At the time, customers were prickled by the cost of Big Mac meals, which were going for around $18, as well as the absence of any single $1 item on McDonald's so-called Dollar Menu.

"Eating at home has become more affordable," added Kempczinski.

Shubhranshu Singh, associate professor of marketing at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, told FinanceBuzz, "A number of factors have contributed to the rising costs of fast food. First, food prices are outpacing inflation. Wage rate is also rising faster than inflation. In other words, the cost of preparing and serving fast food is rising faster than the inflation rate."

Singh suggested further that "due to increasing pressure to spend less, some consumers have also downgraded from full-service restaurants to fast-food restaurants, thus increasing the overall demand for fast food."

'The war in Ukraine and other factors contributed to higher food costs.'

"Because of the increasing need to take multiple jobs and less time to prepare or enjoy food, consumers' preferences for fast food have become stickier; that is, they are willing to accept higher prices," continued Singh. "To make matters worse for fast-food restaurants, consumers are tipping less at low- and no-service restaurants. Fast-food restaurants are responding by raising prices."

Michael Bognanno, professor of economics at Temple University, told FinanceBuzz that extra to post-pandemic competition for low-wage workers, which drove up wages — costs in many cases passed onto customers — "the war in Ukraine and other factors contributed to higher food costs. Energy prices, notably for the cost of electricity, rose more than 10% in 2022 and are still increasing at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation."

Prices are also being driven up further by minimum wage hikes in states such as California, where every fast-food restaurant has to pay its employees a minimum wage of $20 per hour — except for the chain run by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's billionaire buddy.

Less than a month into the new wage hike, Kalinowski Equity Research indicated prices at some restaurants had jumped up by as much as 8%, reported KNBC-TV.

The California Restaurant Association said, "Since it took effect, job losses, reduced working hours, restaurant closures, and higher prices for California's inflation-weary consumers have been ongoing."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!