Author

admin

Browsing

As luxury companies navigate the choppy waters of a global economic slowdown, France’s Hermès has once again found stability in its most iconic creations—the Birkin and the Kelly handbags.

The company reported a 7% rise in sales for the first quarter of 2025, narrowly missing analysts’ expectations, yet confirming its status as one of the sector’s most resilient players.

While rivals wrestle with shrinking demand and pricing pressures, Hermès’ timeless strategy and unwavering appeal to ultra-wealthy clientele have helped it stay the course, even as uncertainty looms over tariffs and China’s property-linked slowdown.

Birkin and Kelly bags drive store traffic and cross-category sales

The Birkin bag—named after British actress Jane Birkin—and the Kelly—immortalized by Grace Kelly—have long been regarded as the crown jewels of the Hermès portfolio.

Their reputation as status symbols has only deepened in recent years, with collectors willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and wait months, or even years, to acquire them.

In a downturn, they do more than just sell well.

They function as anchor products, pulling customers into the store and encouraging purchases in other categories, including scarves, jewellery, and ready-to-wear.

Known in luxury circles as “pre-spend,” shoppers often build a purchasing history with the brand through smaller-ticket items, such as $270 silk ties or $40,000 bracelets, in hopes of eventually being offered a Birkin.

This strategy remains highly effective.

Even as demand in Mainland China showed signs of strain in the first quarter, Hermès posted growth across all regions, including the Americas, where low stock levels in early 2025 were offset by strong March sales.

Management noted that trends have remained positive through early April.

China’s slowdown and tariff threats fail to shake investor confidence

Hermès’ performance in China—a region facing ongoing consumer caution—was notably subdued.

Yet it stood out relative to competitors, many of whom have seen significant slowdowns across Asia.

In the US, where tariffs on European goods are set to increase by 10% beginning May 1 under the Trump administration, Hermès remains confident.

Management believes it can pass those costs on to American consumers—an assertion few other luxury houses can make with such confidence.

That confidence stems from the brand’s unparalleled pricing power.

In a note last week, Jefferies analysts reiterated that Hermès is well-positioned to outperform its peers, describing the company as a “safe haven” amid ongoing turbulence in the luxury sector.

The analysts maintained a “relative preference” for Hermès due to its elite customer base and consistent demand patterns.

Made to last: low production, high margins

A key element of Hermès’ resilience lies in its ultra-controlled production model.

The brand makes no more than 70,000 Birkin bags per year, each handcrafted by a single artisan over 18 to 24 hours.

Kelly bags take a similarly meticulous approach, often requiring 14 to 20 hours of work by a single leatherworker.

This artisanal method, combined with limited availability and no discounting—even during recessions—has helped Hermès maintain some of the highest margins in the luxury industry.

While rivals like Kering have occasionally relied on markdowns to clear stock, Hermès has never discounted its handbags, reinforcing their status as investment-grade fashion items.

The brand’s careful control over supply not only maintains exclusivity but also drives resale value.

Collectors treat the bags like fine art or rare watches, with many appreciating in value over time.

Even secondhand, a Birkin can command a premium of 30–50% over its original retail price, especially in hard-to-find colours or materials.

Wealthy clientele insulates brand from macro shocks

Unlike mass-luxury players, Hermès caters to the global elite.

According to Bain & Co., the top 2% of luxury buyers account for over 40% of sector spending, and Hermès is disproportionately exposed to this tier.

These consumers are relatively insulated from rising interest rates or cost-of-living concerns, meaning their discretionary spending patterns hold firmer when the economy turns sour.

That dynamic was evident in Hermès’ full-year 2024 results, which showed a 17% rise in sales at constant exchange rates—far outpacing the industry.

Even in the US, where demand softened after February due to tariff speculation, Hermès saw signs of recovery in March.

The quiet giant of luxury continues to outperform

While conglomerates such as LVMH pursue high-profile acquisitions and expand into new categories, Hermès remains focused on its narrow but highly profitable core.

It avoids celebrity marketing campaigns and seasonal fashion fads, instead relying on artisanship, scarcity, and heritage to attract customers.

This unwavering consistency has not gone unnoticed by investors.

Hermès now trades at nearly 45 times forward earnings—more than double the average for luxury peers—and recently surpassed a market capitalization of €220 billion, making it Europe’s second most valuable company after LVMH.

Though it may have missed the mark by a hair in Q1, Hermès remains the industry’s north star—luxury at its purest, and most enduring.

The post How Hermès stays resilient in economic uncertainty on the shoulders of its most coveted Birkin bags appeared first on Invezz

Antisemitism in Canada has exploded in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, reaching record numbers last year and becoming a central issue for the country’s Jewish community ahead of an April 28 federal election.

Last week, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, the main challenger to Prime Minister Mark Carney accused pro-Hamas protesters of staging ‘hate marches’ and vowing to deport antisemitic foreigners from Canada.

‘The rampaging chaos that we see in our streets, the targeting of synagogues and Jewish schools with hate, vandalism, violence, fire bombings … these things were unheard of 10 years ago,’ Poilievre said. 

He also had a warning for foreign agitators. ‘Anyone who is here on a visitor visa who carries out lawbreaking will be deported from this country,’ Poilievre said.

‘To Canada’s Jewish community,’ Poilievre added, ‘you are not alone, you have friends. Canadians stand with you. You have the right to wear your Star of David, your kippah, and have your mezuzah on your door. You should feel proud to be Jewish and should never have to hide your Jewishness in order to stay safe.’

On Friday, Poilievre shared on X the Montreal Jewish Community Council’s call for Jewish voters to endorse him. In the video, the group’s executive director, Rabbi Saul Emanuel, referencing Poilievre’s support for the community, stated, ‘We remember who stood with us when it mattered most, and now we can all make a difference.’

Emanuel noted that Jewish voters could play a decisive role in as many as 14 districts in Canada. ‘Our vote matters, our voice matters. That’s why I am proud to support Pierre Poilievre and I urge you to do the same,’ he said.

Carney has also used social media to condemn antisemitism. In a tweet wishing Jewish Canadians a happy Passover, he condemned the growing incidents, stating in part, ‘Together, we must confront and denounce the rising tide of antisemitism, and the threat it poses to Jewish life and safety in communities across Canada.’

Yet despite his strong words against antisemitism, Carney recently faced criticism following a campaign rally in Calgary, where someone yelled at the Liberal Party leader, ‘There’s a genocide happening in Palestine.’

‘I’m aware,’ Carney replied. ‘That’s why we have an arms embargo [on Israel].’

The next day, Carney, who in March replaced longtime Premier Justin Trudeau, claimed he had not heard the anti-Israel demonstrator correctly.

His backtracking did not stop Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from entering the fray. He posted on X that ‘Canada has always sided with civilization. So should Mr. Carney.

‘But instead of supporting Israel, a democracy that is fighting a just war with just means against the barbarians of Hamas, he attacks the one and only Jewish state,’ Netanyahu posted.

According to an annual audit released this month by B’nai Brith Canada, the total number of reported cases of Jew hatred in the country hit 6,219 in 2024, a 7.4% increase over 2023 and the highest number since the survey’s inception in 1982.

Antisemitic incidents in Canada have skyrocketed by 124.6% since 2022.

‘Over the last 18 months, a new baseline has been established for antisemitism in Canada, and it’s having a detrimental effect on the lives of Jewish people,’ Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada, told Fox News Digital. ‘We are seeing an increase in certain forms of antisemitism, specifically anti-Zionism.’

Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister and attorney general of Canada for the Liberal Party, told Fox News Digital ‘antisemitism has become mainstream, normalized and legitimized in the political, popular, academic, media, entertainment and sport cultures. All this happened in the absence of outrage,’ he said.

‘I hope that whichever party gets elected, we will see deliverables in combating specific hate crime, hate speech, harassment, assault, vandalism and all the things you find reported in the [B’nai Brith] annual report. From my experience, even those statistics are not telling the true story. They are underreported.’

‘The community of democracies must act because the security of our collective freedom is at stake,’ Cotler warned.

Israeli Ambassador to Canada Iddo Moed told Fox News Digital many local Jews ‘feel vulnerable, unsafe and unprotected by law enforcement bodies, governments and education systems that have stood by as antisemitism reached crisis levels.’ 

He noted that Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, is obligated to act when Jews in the Diaspora are in distress.

‘Equipping teachers with the resources to teach about antisemitism and the Holocaust is essential to ensure future generations understand the dangers of hatred and continue to embrace peace, tolerance and equality,’ he added.

The antisemitism survey highlighted numerous incidents, ranging from Quebec daily La Presse publishing a cartoon depicting Netanyahu as Nosferatu, a vampire associated with Jews in Nazi-era propaganda and a pro-Hamas protester at the University of Toronto shouting at a Jewish student that Hitler should have ‘murdered all of you.’

In May, an arsonist ignited a fire at the entrance to the Schara Tzedeck Synagogue in Vancouver as prayers concluded. The same month, shots were fired at the Bais Chaya Mushka girls’ school in Toronto, and the school has since been targeted twice more by gunfire. In August, a bomb threat affected Jewish institutions across the country. In December, a firebomb struck Congregation Beth Tikvah in Montreal, the second such attack since Oct. 7, 2023.

Thereafter, Israeli President Isaac Herzog called on the Canadian government to take action to ‘stamp out’ antisemitism. 

‘The world must wake up. Words are not enough. Synagogues burned. Jews attacked. Never again is now,’ he said, employing the adage stressing a commitment to preventing another Holocaust.

Anthony Housefather is the MP in the House of Commons for Mount Royal, an area with a large Jewish population held by the Liberals since 1940 being viewed as a bellwether for where the community stands.

‘The alarming numbers [of antisemitic incidents] make it clear as to why every level of government in the country needs to work together to implement all the recommendations set out in the justice committee report of last December and the commitments made at the national summit on antisemitism in March,’ Housefather told Fox News Digital.

Trudeau, who was widely panned for failing to adequately address the groundswell of antisemitism, had announced the summit within hours of Herzog’s condemnation.

Neil Oberman, the Conservative Party candidate running against Housefather, told Fox News Digital that in Mount Royal ‘personal safety and security have become serious issues.

‘It’s a stark reminder of the urgent need for a federal government consisting of adults implementing actions instead of putting together summits and position papers and blaming everybody else to combat hate and protect vulnerable communities,’ Oberman said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The S&P 500 index has declined significantly over the past few months, forming a death cross pattern for the first time since 2022. It ended the week at $5,282, down by 14.2% from its highest level this year. 

The S&P 500 index will be in focus next week as investors watch any new developments on trade. Also, it will react to the upcoming corporate earnings, which will provide more information about how companies did ahead of Trump’s tariffs.

Tesla (TSLA)

Tesla’s stock price has crashed in the past few months. After peaking at $488 in January, the stock has declined by 50% to its current price of $240. It has shed billions of dollars in value in this period.

Analysts expect that Tesla will publish weak financial results on Tuesday as its deliveries in Europe and China tumbled. The average estimate is that Tesla’s revenues will be $21.54 billion, a 1.12% increase from the same period last year. 

For the year, analysts expect that Tesla’s revenues will be $106.9 billion, a 9.45% annual increase, its slowest rate in years. 

Alphabet (GOOG)

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has also pulled back in the past few months. It has dropped from a high of $208 in January to $153. 

The stock has dropped in line with the performance of other Magnificent 7 companies. As I wrote recently, there are concerns that its business is being disrupted by AI bots like Grok and Claude.

Analysts still expect that its business continued doing well in the first quarter as its revenues rose by 10.7% to $89.18 billion. Its annual revenue forecast is $387 billion, which wlll then jump to $429 billion in 2026. The average Google stock forecast by analysts is $201, higher than the current $153. 

IBM (IBM)

IBM is another S&P 500 stock to watch next week as it publishes its numbers on Wednesday. These numbers will come as its stock remains 10.50% below its highest point this year.

IBM’s business has slowed as competition from other top companies in the tech industry, like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft has intensified. Also, IBM may lose some contracts with the US government, as Accenture and other consulting firms have done. A key bright spot for the company is that its artificial intelligence is growing modestly.

Analysts anticipate that IBM’s revenues will be $14.39 billion, a 0.39% decline from the same period last year. Its earnings per share will be $1.43, a drop from the $1.68 a year earlier. IBM has done better than expected in the past few quarters.

Boeing (BA)

Boeing stock price has crashed by about 40% from its highest level in 2023 as it moved from one crisis to another. It made headlines this year when Beijing instructed its companies to halt new orders and deliveries.

Therefore, Boeing’s earnings, which will come out on Thursday, will provide more information about its business. They will also provide more hints about how Trump’s tariffs will hit its business, and how its turnaround efforts are going on.

Other top S&P 500 stocks to watch

There are other top S&P 500 index companies to watch next week. For example, Intel will publish its financial results on Thursday, providing more information about its business as concerns remain. 

The other top companies to watch will be popular names like Philip Morris International, Thermo Fisher, Texas Instruments, NextEra Energy, Chipotle, PepsiCo, Verizon, and Lockheed Martin.

The post S&P 500 index stocks to watch: Google, Tesla, IBM, Intel, AT&T, Boeing, Chipotle appeared first on Invezz

The S&P 500 index has declined significantly over the past few months, forming a death cross pattern for the first time since 2022. It ended the week at $5,282, down by 14.2% from its highest level this year. 

The S&P 500 index will be in focus next week as investors watch any new developments on trade. Also, it will react to the upcoming corporate earnings, which will provide more information about how companies did ahead of Trump’s tariffs.

Tesla (TSLA)

Tesla’s stock price has crashed in the past few months. After peaking at $488 in January, the stock has declined by 50% to its current price of $240. It has shed billions of dollars in value in this period.

Analysts expect that Tesla will publish weak financial results on Tuesday as its deliveries in Europe and China tumbled. The average estimate is that Tesla’s revenues will be $21.54 billion, a 1.12% increase from the same period last year. 

For the year, analysts expect that Tesla’s revenues will be $106.9 billion, a 9.45% annual increase, its slowest rate in years. 

Alphabet (GOOG)

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has also pulled back in the past few months. It has dropped from a high of $208 in January to $153. 

The stock has dropped in line with the performance of other Magnificent 7 companies. As I wrote recently, there are concerns that its business is being disrupted by AI bots like Grok and Claude.

Analysts still expect that its business continued doing well in the first quarter as its revenues rose by 10.7% to $89.18 billion. Its annual revenue forecast is $387 billion, which wlll then jump to $429 billion in 2026. The average Google stock forecast by analysts is $201, higher than the current $153. 

IBM (IBM)

IBM is another S&P 500 stock to watch next week as it publishes its numbers on Wednesday. These numbers will come as its stock remains 10.50% below its highest point this year.

IBM’s business has slowed as competition from other top companies in the tech industry, like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft has intensified. Also, IBM may lose some contracts with the US government, as Accenture and other consulting firms have done. A key bright spot for the company is that its artificial intelligence is growing modestly.

Analysts anticipate that IBM’s revenues will be $14.39 billion, a 0.39% decline from the same period last year. Its earnings per share will be $1.43, a drop from the $1.68 a year earlier. IBM has done better than expected in the past few quarters.

Boeing (BA)

Boeing stock price has crashed by about 40% from its highest level in 2023 as it moved from one crisis to another. It made headlines this year when Beijing instructed its companies to halt new orders and deliveries.

Therefore, Boeing’s earnings, which will come out on Thursday, will provide more information about its business. They will also provide more hints about how Trump’s tariffs will hit its business, and how its turnaround efforts are going on.

Other top S&P 500 stocks to watch

There are other top S&P 500 index companies to watch next week. For example, Intel will publish its financial results on Thursday, providing more information about its business as concerns remain. 

The other top companies to watch will be popular names like Philip Morris International, Thermo Fisher, Texas Instruments, NextEra Energy, Chipotle, PepsiCo, Verizon, and Lockheed Martin.

The post S&P 500 index stocks to watch: Google, Tesla, IBM, Intel, AT&T, Boeing, Chipotle appeared first on Invezz

Despite a big hit to AI stocks in recent months, artificial intelligence remains at the front and centre of all financial debates this year.

Earlier this month, Meta Platforms announced plans to spend $1 billion to set up a new data centre in Wisconsin, indicating the company expects continued demand for AI.

Such a narrative makes not only the AI stocks attractive to own on the pullback but also a bunch of artificial intelligence-focused meme coins. These include the up-and-coming and PepeX.

The demand PepeX has attracted during its own presale suggests that it may prove to be a better investment than even the more established names like Dogecoin in 2025.

PepeX is yet to see explosive growth

Meme coins are known for explosive growth in the initial stages. However, not all manage to sustain the momentum over a longer period.

So, the best time to invest in a meme coin in the early stages. Once a meme coin has already had its moment in the sun, investing in it tends to become that much riskier.

That’s what makes PepeX a lot more attractive to own at the time of writing than Dogecoin. The former is in its very early stages, while the latter has already had its initial phase of explosive growth.

Therefore, the probability of securing 100x gains with PepeX in 2025 is much higher than with Dogecoin.

AI narrative to attract investors to PepeX

Another reason to prefer PepeX over Dogecoin is the fact that PepeX is an AI-enabled meme coin.

PepeX taps on artificial intelligence to makes launching and marketing new memes that much easier. The AI narrative will likely attract more investors to PepeX over time than Dogecoin that lacks the AI angle.

Plus, according to Statista, the artificial intelligence market is expected to grow at a compound annualised rate of more than 27% through the end of this decade.

That’s an exciting growth rate that investors gain exposure to with an investment with PepeX instead of Dogecoin.

PepeX has better tokenomics than Dogecoin

Dogecoin’s supply model is infinite, meaning there’s no cap on the number of coins that can be created. This raises concerns about inflation over time, which can dilute the value of individual tokens.

PepeX, on the other hand, has a well-thought-out tokenomics model that balances supply and demand. It incorporates mechanisms like token burns and rewards for long-term holders, ensuring a more sustainable growth trajectory.

If you’re interested in learning more about PepeX and how to build an early position in it, click here to visit its website now.

The post PepeX vs Dogecoin: Why PepeX is a better investment in 2025 appeared first on Invezz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khamenei feared American military action at the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS