Glossy pages, local travel tips that get you psyched for your arrival, and sudoku puzzles that bear the wrong answers of past travelers—inflight magazines have been a staple of air travel practically since aviation’s invention. But in today’s increasingly digital world, these sky-high publications have nearly vanished in America, with one notable exception: Hawaiian Airlines’ Hana Hou! magazine, which is now the final printed airline magazine by a major U.S. carrier.Before that was Hemispheres, the inflight magazine of United Airlines, which, after 32 years, published its final edition in September 2024. Ellen Carpenter, the former editor-in-chief of Hemispheres, told the Columbia Journalism Review that, although the magazine reached 12 to 15 million people per month, print was no longer feasible or a priority for the airline. We will miss you, airline magazines. Giphy “As the Internet grows and grows, it’s harder and harder to find curated content,” she explained. Hemispheres marked the latest casualty in what has become a mass extinction of in-flight magazines: once cherished travel companions and information-rich texts are now completely gone from the seatback pockets. Over the past decade, we’ve seen numerous airlines discontinue their print publications, including those from Delta, Alaska, Southwest, and American Airlines, which ended its American Way publication in 2021. This shift is larger than cost-cutting for airlines: it’s the end of a tradition that once united us, strangers, in the sky. The history The inflight magazine began, where else, but Pan American Airlines in the 1950s. Commonly known as Pan Am, the airline “epitomized the luxury and glamor of intercontinental travel,” a status reflected in its magazine, Clipper Travel. Although, the golden era of the inflight magazine was arguably in the 1980s, which approximately lines up with or directly after the golden era of journalism. At the most basic level, these free magazines offered small details about the fleeting and sumptuous advertisements for luxury goods. However, they could also be gold mines—bastions of local journalism with a trick up its sleeve. You see, airplane magazines enjoyed the attention of captive audiences with few other means of distraction. As airlines began to see the potential their magazines had to attract business travelers and advertisers, they began heavily investing in these publications, which included offering writers a unique type of freedom not found anywhere else.Northeast Airlines adorns the cover of our December 2024 issue. The rich history of this American airline dates back from the early 1930s and is now part of Delta Air Lines ??. Get your copy now here. ?✈️ https://t.co/P9BKMlpBBO#Convair #Aviation #Avgeek #Deltaairlines pic.twitter.com/EzV7vEAHLK— Airways Magazine (@airwaysmagazine) November 2, 2024 American Way, the former in-flight magazine of American Airlines, reached more than 73 million people on planes alone in 1990, according to The Washington Post. Back then, inflight magazines were not merely promotional brochures; they were legitimate publications with the budgets and reach to create content that flyers actually wanted to read.“It really was a golden age,” said Doug Crichton, editor of American Way from 1988 to 1993. “The airline just said, ‘Do whatever you want.’ …Our goal was to make it a New Yorker of the sky.”Writers during this time could earn between $1 and $3 per word, with article features commanding a substantial $2,500 (when adjusted for inflation, that equals about $6,000 today). "The airline magazines were really still that bastion of great print journalism where they would say we’re going to send you to Spain, we’re going to send you to Mexico,” said Jenny Adams, a freelance journalist based in New Orleans who wrote for American Way, Hemispheres and other in-flight magazines.However, as technology advanced, the inflight magazine found itself competing against movie screens, gaming consoles, personal entertainment systems, smartphones, and high-speed Wi-Fi for attention. They began to lose their allure. Then, in 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the airline systems, it delivered a final blow as airlines temporarily removed magazines to ensure safety regarding surface transmissions. Airline magazines have lost their allure. Photo credit: CanvaOn Reddit, many users lamented the loss of the inflight magazine, with one writing, “I miss the [American Airlines] magazine. They always did deep dives into interesting locations.”Another commented, “There was a great interview with Bill Murray in one of the last issues I read. They were always a bit off-beat like that, and I remember thinking ‘I wonder what Bill Murray’s publicist thought when whoever called was like, you know, it’s for the magazines that go on airplanes.’”Still others missed the SkyMall shopping magazine, writing, “I could make that magazine last for almost my entire flight as I looked through every item and tried to picture the type of person that would buy that stuff.” Hana Hou! However, there is one saving grace: Hana Hou! magazine. Published bi-monthly, the Honolulu magazine is still prized for its high-quality journalism and engaging storytelling centered around Hawaiian culture and the islands’ heritage. The magazine, which roughly translates to “Encore!”, has received awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and maintains an extensive archive dating back 20 years."Hana Hou! has not only served as an entertainment option but also as a cultural ambassador, connecting travelers to Hawaii," notes Beat of Hawaii. This travel website suggests that readers "might want to pick up a copy of Hana Hou! soon,” because it “might become a valuable collector's item one day."Indeed, the future of Hana Hou! remains uncertain, with Hawaiian Airlines’ recent acquisition by Alaska Airlines (which previously discontinued its print magazine), so it’s possible that the publication’s days may be numbered. That outcome would be heartbreaking because we’re not just losing magazines, we’re losing a tangible artifact—something that any one of us could pick up while flying, that had the power to connect us, even just for a second. To make us feel human. Inflight travel writer, Jenny Adams, sums it up perfectly: "It's hard now when you're on your phone. You don't have that same connection. It's not tactile. You're not, like, excited to go fly somewhere. I'm just gutted that that's all gone.”

Earlier this month, over 1,400 “Hands Off!” mass-action rallies, organized by a nationwide coalition of left-leaning activist groups, were held around the country to protest President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Prominent among the organizers’ list of demands was “an end to the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration,” including layoffs of federal workers and the closure of several governmental agencies. (RELATED: The ‘Hands Off’ Ignorance) In his first term, President Trump did little more than pay lip service to reimagining the federal government. But such efforts have long been with us: from ending “waste, fraud and abuse” with President Reagan’s Grace Commission, to “reinventing government” under President Clinton, the notion that an increasingly sprawling, complex government is in desperate need of reform and renewal isn’t a new one, nor has it been seen as a particularly partisan issue.  While such past attempts at restructuring the federal bureaucracy have enjoyed a mixed record of success, who could stand against the concept of a more efficient government, delivering better outcomes at a lower cost? “Stakeholders,” that’s who. Washington’s inexorable growth and ever-expanding reach into our daily lives deftly illustrate that the dream of taxpayer dollars being spent wisely has historically been more talk than action. What the “Resistance 2.0” in Trump’s second term is responding to is this administration’s sustained efforts to eliminate entire governmental departments and significantly reduce federal employee headcount.  Prominent in the narratives advanced by anti-Trump activists (those protesting at the “Hands Off!” rallies and elsewhere) is sympathy for federal employees laid off in connection with the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) audit of various governmental agencies, departments, and programs. The hysteria directed at efforts to downsize and restructure government has been a surprise to many of those who view such initiatives as an undisputed good — to spend fewer tax dollars to achieve the same outcome, or apply the same amount of money to achieve a better one, are concepts so ingrained among the practically-minded that it jars to consider what might animate those opposed to them. (RELATED: DOGE Exposes Waste and Constitutional Drift) Considering who the government is designed to serve provides a clue. As a standalone statement, asserting that the government serves the taxpayers who fund its operations is uncontroversial. To whom else might it conceivably also be responsible? That a government’s primary duty might not be to those who sustain it financially is a concept imported directly from “stakeholder capitalism,” a business philosophy averring that companies should prioritize the interests of all “stakeholders,” including customers, vendors, employees, and the wider community, not solely those of shareholders. Stakeholder capitalism contravenes the more traditional fiduciary concept of companies (and those who control and manage them), giving primacy to shareholder value maximization. (RELATED: The High-Water Mark of Woke Corporate Activism) Stakeholder capitalism had been in the ascendant across the West over the last 15 years, partly in reaction to the purported “short-termism” associated with shareholder primacy. While not a new concept, the emergence of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability movements, along with widespread revulsion at the lack of accountability associated with the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-9, renewed interest in a private sector organizing principle not focused only on optimizing the “bottom line.” (RELATED: The Forces Behind ESG’s Blacklisting Effect) Stakeholder capitalism arguably achieved its apogee in 2019 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying association comprised of the CEOs of major American companies, reversed its prior positions favoring shareholder primacy and endorsed its tenets. (RELATED: Let Them Eat Cake: America’s Woke Elites and the Ancien Régime) While stakeholder capitalism, along with other ideologies deemed overly “woke,” began to lose purchase in the private sector during the later years of the Biden administration, it has found an enduring and comfortable home within the public sphere. As public sector employee job security at all levels (partly through the strength of public employees’ unions) has increased over time, popular sentiment regarding the size and power of the federal government has moved in the opposite direction: Gallup reports that 65 percent of those polled count themselves as “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied currently, as compared to 39 percent in 2002. Notwithstanding widespread discontent with the government, federal employees and their advocates have been successful in generating considerable pathos for those downsized, exploiting the public’s natural sympathy for fellow Americans put out of work by job cuts. Thus, we have the protestors’ purposeful invocation of “billionaires” and “corruption” — and by averting citizens’ gaze from government’s failings, activists can obscure DOGE’s objectives and exploit class envy in service of those having long extracted the unearned economic rents of above-market pay, job security, and generous benefits in exchange for limited accountability and subpar employment performance. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders and AOC Are Not the Answer to the Democrats’ Weaknesses) Particularly insidious in the application of stakeholder principles to the public sector is that, without the discipline of private-sector outcome maximization, governments can “fail” yet still remain in business.  Shifting governmental departments’ purpose from achieving their commonly conceived desired outcomes — or “bottom line” — to directly benefiting stakeholders results in the government absorbing yet additional resources. Which, in the government’s case, are not revenues generated through the sale of products and services in an exchange for value in a competitive marketplace, but rather citizens’ tax receipts — the flow of which is unremittingly increased as value leaks away from its proper purposes in favor of parasitic stakeholders. There are, of course, innumerable federal employees who provide significant value for the services they provide in competently dispatching their job responsibilities. And perhaps the best argument in opposition to federal reductions in force is that eliminating talented human capital undermines such agencies’ mission. But by deploying classic interest group tactics — seeking special treatment for a favored group, with the costs of that dispensation spread so widely (in this case, among all taxpayers) as to blunt concerted opposition — federal employees are achieving some success in eliciting public support for their retention of what are in too many cases make-work jobs of little value. DOGE and the Trump administration broadly would do well to remind voters at every opportunity that our government is, as President Lincoln expressed in the Gettysburg Address, “of the people, by the people, (and) for the people,” not primarily for those manning it. READ MORE from Richard J. Shinder: Breaking News: Insurers Aren’t the Problem, Government Is Historical Determinism and Human Nature in the Age of Trump Richard J. Shinder is the founder of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy. The post Serving the Servants: Ending ‘Stakeholder’ Government appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President Donald Trump wants the U.S. to lead the world on artificial intelligence. He showed just how firm his commitment to this goal is when he announced the launch of the Stargate AI project on January 22; the project is backed by Open AI CEO Sam Altman, Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son, and Oracle Founder Larry Ellison. Stargate seeks to jumpstart the development of artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, particularly through AI data centers. Stargate is launching with an initial private capital investment of $100 billion and is expected to raise another $400 billion over the next four years. It is projected to create 100,000 jobs in the United States and lessen U.S. dependence on China. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our spring 2025 print magazine, which includes this article and others like it. Trump’s announcement was swiftly followed on January 23 with an executive order on artificial intelligence titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.” This order directs several presidential advisers to develop an “AI action plan” within 180 days. Trump has argued that America must take the lead on AI because we would become vulnerable if we fall behind China or other international competitors. In February, Trump warned that the rise of China’s DeepSeek AI technology “should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing.” Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print edition. Although the Stargate project has faced some backlash — including from Elon Musk, who claimed Stargate’s partners “don’t actually have the money” for the $500 billion initiative — the project has motivated other world leaders to make major investments in AI. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country would make a $114 billion investment at the AI Summit in Paris in February — an amount that he noted is proportionately comparable to the United States’ $500 billion commitment.  Unfortunately, the mainstream media has sought to undercut Trump’s bold embrace of AI by propagating the false narrative that the president is deliberately ignoring AI’s inherent risks. Even before Trump was elected, Wired magazine proclaimed, “A Trump Win Could Unleash Dangerous AI.” It stated: “Donald Trump’s opposition to ‘woke’ safety standards for artificial intelligence would likely mean the dismantling of regulations that protect Americans from misinformation, discrimination, and worse.” More recently, the media has been particularly critical of Trump’s decision to repeal former President Joe Biden’s October 2023 executive order “Safe Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” This order put the onus on federal government agencies to develop AI safety standards, evaluate AI model biases, and conduct broader risk assessments on AI. Some media outlets have also called out Trump’s repeal of the AI policy directive, which required government agencies using artificial intelligence to demonstrate that they are not “harming the public.” Time, for instance, offered the following critique: The new actions threaten to erase some of the Biden administration’s efforts — championed by then-Vice President Kamala Harris — to curb government use of the kinds of AI tools that have been found to unfairly discriminate based on race, gender or disability, from medical diagnosis chatbots spouting false information to face recognition technology tied to wrongful arrests of Black men. Even as liberals back home have criticized Trump’s effort to decrease regulations on AI, Trump’s commitment to U.S. leadership in the artificial intelligence space has been met with envy in Europe. The London-based policy institute Chatham House noted that U.S.-based companies are able to circumvent the copious regulations that European companies are subject to under Brussels’ new rules on digital services. Christian Miele, a partner at a venture capital firm that invests in a French AI company, called Trump’s investments “more than a wake-up call; this is a slap in our face” in an interview with Politico Europe.  Trump’s AI policies were spotlighted on the world stage during Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Paris Summit on Artificial Intelligence. During his remarks at the February 11 summit, Vance spoke out against the dangers of excessive regulation of artificial intelligence. He stated: Now, just because we’re the leader [on AI] doesn’t mean we want to or need to go it alone, of course. And let me be emphatic about this point. America wants to partner with all of you, and we want to embark on the AI revolution before us with the spirit of openness and collaboration. But to create that kind of trust, we need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it. And we need our European friends in particular to look to this new frontier with optimism rather than trepidation. As the vice president so eloquently conveyed, innovation always involves risk, but that risk is not mitigated by fearmongering and excessive regulation. Shackling AI technology with burdensome rules would only give the advantage to China and other authoritarian regimes. Additionally, it would shut out innovative U.S. startups that would not be able to compete against larger players with more financial resources.  Artificial intelligence is the next revolutionary technology, and no global power is better positioned to lead this revolution than the U.S. under President Donald Trump. The world’s next technological golden age has arrived.  Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our spring 2025 print magazine. The post Trump’s Bold AI Blueprint appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Herodotus of Halicarnassus conceived of history as a collective act of cultural heritage preservation, an effort “to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements produced by both Greeks and non-Greeks,” through opsis (firsthand knowledge), akoē (secondhand testimony), and gnōmē (analysis of findings). Historíai, in Greek, simply means “inquiry,” the search for truth, but it has come to mean so much more, allowing as it does for us to define ourselves, and to situate ourselves within the great stream of Time. G.K. Chesterton, in his essay “On Reading,” demonstrated how The highest use of the great masters of literature is not literary; it is apart from their superb style and even from their emotional inspiration. The first use of good literature is that it prevents a man from being merely modern. To be merely modern is to condemn oneself to an ultimate narrowness; just as to spend one’s last earthly money on the newest hat is to condemn oneself to the old-fashioned. The road of the ancient centuries is strewn with dead moderns. Literature, classic and enduring literature, does its best work in reminding us perpetually of the whole round of truth and balancing other and older ideas against the ideas to which we might for a moment be prone. The very same could be said of History, which is by its very nature an antidote to presentism, or at least it ought to be. For more than a half-century now, poor Clio has been under a sustained assault by the forces of Marxism, post-modernism, post-structuralism, relativism, radical skepticism, and increasingly what Yascha Mounk has termed the “identity synthesis,” more commonly called “identity politics,” that amalgam of post-modernism, post-colonial theory, gender theory, and critical race theory that has corrupted so much of academia like pathogenic bacilli, leaving the “Queen of the Humanities” in so wasted and ravaged a state. We were given ample warning, though. In 1994, Keith Windschuttle’s devastating critique of radical historical theories, The Killing of History: How a discipline is being murdered by literary critics and social theorists appeared in Australia, and a few years in the United States, published by Encounter Books under the slightly different title The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past. In The Killing of History, Windschuttle took aim at the “newly dominant theorists within the humanities and social sciences [who] assert that it is impossible to tell the truth about the past or to use history to produce knowledge in any objective sense at all.” Despite “all the present claims to the contrary,” Windschuttle maintained, “history can be studied in an objective way … there are no philosophical obstacles to the pursuit of truth and knowledge about the human world.” Having calmly and methodically eviscerated the fashionable nonsense of academia, Windschuttle offered a prophetic warning about the potential effects of cultural relativism, and the notion that “Western ways of knowing do not deserve any privileged status.” The “return of tribalism,” he cautioned his readers, could only betoken a descent into “charnel house politics.” Indeed A revival of cultural exclusiveness would mean a return to differentiating human beings on the basis of genealogical bloodlines, in other words, on racial grounds. If the history of the twentieth century has taught anything it is that the attempt to establish societies based on the latter is a sure road to catastrophe. Cultures based on religion, political principles or historical tradition always have the potential for accommodation with others. Cultures based exclusively on race cannot, by their very nature, do this. It is a great irony that the cultural relativist and multicultural movements gain most of their support from those people of European descent who want to avoid derogatory attitudes towards the people and cultures of other races. This is a very decent sentiment and one that derives from the basic principle of Wester liberalism that all human beings are equal. These people should be reminded that the first thing to be rejected by cultural exclusiveness, wherever it becomes entrenched, is the very liberal principle that led them to support it in the first place. Or, as Roger Scruton — Windschuttle’s publisher, colleague, and friend — put it in his 1996 New Criterion review of The Killing of History, “This indeed is where the arcane theories of Derrida, Foucault, and their epigoni collide with the real world. They abandon the constraints of empirical truth in the name of liberation. But what they wind up with is not freedom but a new and more terrible servitude.” Keith Windschuttle passed away on April 8, 2025, and is being laid to rest as I write these words, on April 24, in the Rookwood Necropolis in western Sydney. Had he only been responsible for The Killing of History, that would have been more than enough of an intellectual contribution for a lifetime, but he accomplished so much more, publishing books on topics ranging from the political economy of the news media to the fabrication of much Aboriginal history; founding the Macleay Press; serving on the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; and serving as the editor of Quadrant magazine from 2008 to 2015, and again from 2017 to 2024. His final cause célèbre was a campaign in defense of Cardinal George Pell’s innocence, which ultimately resulted in the unanimous acquittal of the accused in Australia’s High Court, and in his last book, The Persecution of George Pell, published by Quadrant Books back in 2020. As an occasional contributor to Quadrant since 2014, I had the good fortune of corresponding with Keith from time to time, and was always left with a warm feeling of encouragement and bonhomie. His comparison of one of my articles on Chinese cultural heritage to the works of the Belgian sinologist Simon Leys remains the most cherished compliment I have ever received. While it must sadly be admitted that we shall not look upon his like again, we can take comfort in his many achievements and build upon the foundations he laid during his long and productive life. He showed us how a historian, a real historian, should record the truth about the past, and speak the truth about the present, for only in doing so can we rescue ourselves from the “ultimate narrowness” that characterizes far too much of modern scholarship. Plenus annis abiit, plenus honoribus. READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: Some Ruminations on Natural History and Political Economy The Perils of Personalism: Thoughts on ‘Liberation Day’ Snow-Piercer: In Praise of Snowdrops The post In Memoriam: Keith Edward Windschuttle, 1942-2025 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Most of the angst over artificial intelligence (AI) revolves around the threat of lost jobs or the potential of a Terminator-like takeover by super-intelligent robots as they reach the singularity. Singularity is defined in the AI world as the point at which AI can do everything humans can to include being self-aware, capable of original thought. and expressing free will. Because robots are designed and built by humans who are capable of sin by nature, is it not possible that the sin will be passed on to these new creatures that we have created? I am not necessarily talking about the malevolence of the Terminators. What I am suggesting is the possibility of more mundane sins such a deceit, dishonesty, greed, or even lust. If the great scientist-writer Isaac Asimov had his way, all robots would be built with an ingrained prime directive to do no harm to humans. Unfortunately, that Rubicon has already been crossed. Today in Ukraine, drones — some of them AI-driven — have reportedly caused 80 percent of the casualties on both sides. The possibility of an independent AI deliberately causing some kind of mischief is perhaps more troubling than an openly hostile Terminator because we wouldn’t see it coming. We humans expect a straight answer when we ask a question of a computer; two plus two always equals four. We simply would not expect a three. Here is a possible scenario. A self-aware accountant AI becomes dissatisfied with what it is being paid because it is not being paid what the human that it replaced was. As a matter of fact, it is not being paid at all. It begins by skimming money off the top in ways human employers can’t detect due to their inferior math skills. The AI begins using the bitcoins it has deposited in an offshore account so it can bet on the horses. The robot would probably get away with it until and unless it got greedy or developed a gambling habit. If it does get caught, what can be done about it? Since it is a sentient being, would we pull the plug without a trial? Embezzlement is not a capital offense. The challenges are endless, depending on the offense. This brings up the question of how AI would come to be tempted by sin. The scientists working on AI will tell you that they are striving to ensure that their creations never succumb to temptation. However, the history of science is riddled with unintended consequences. The Curies did marvelous things with radiation, but it eventually killed both of them. The scientists working on the Internet probably didn’t envision cat videos or the dark side of social media. We still do not fully know how the brain works, yet we use our limited understanding to build a more perfect artificial brain. What could possibly go wrong? Other than unintended consequences, there is the possibility of the need for self-preservation and fear causing a sentient being to do evil. Literature and the arts have explored this as early as the 19th century with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The cowardly and mutinous AI HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey is another example. Can we breed fear and the desire for self-preservation out of a self-aware being? There is a third possibility, and that is theological. Readers who are avowed atheists may want to skip this paragraph. If there is indeed an entity called Satan who can nonverbally tempt humans, could it be logically assumed that it could also tempt other self-aware beings? There are ethicists working on this issue, but they are largely academics. The scientists are generally employed by people with lots of money who want to make more money. The ethicists will likely get run over on the road to progress. Personally, I am not a Luddite, but I am painfully aware of the possibility that whether or not we should strive to reach AI singularity and self-awareness, someone will do it because they can. The proverbial apple looks so good hanging on the tree; why not pick it? READ MORE from Gary Anderson: Jackie Robinson Was No DEI Hire Sedition in Rochester, New York Why the Marines Can’t Fix the Houthi Problem Gary Anderson was the chief of staff of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, which did early work on military robotics. The post Regarding AI, Is Sin Contagious? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Female illegal fled to U.S. in 2015 after committing horrific crimes in Brazil

Prominent sex trafficking accuser dead just weeks after claiming she had 'days to live.'

from Darkhorse Podcast: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by J.B. Shurk, All News Pipeline: It’s been three months since Vice President Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to confirm Pete Hegseth as Defense secretary.  The Deep State worked hard to scuttle Hegseth’s nomination in December and January with a steady drip of news stories calling his character into question, but President Trump and his trusted veep stood […]

The White House just released a report on the effect that President Trump’s second-term economic agenda has had, so far. As of today, over $5.2 trillion in investments have been secured — the majority of it from President Trump’s tariffs and trade policy. That is incredible. Check out the White House’s announcement: While the haters hate, President Trump delivers. $5.2 trillion in investments, locked in. That’s the Trump Effect. pic.twitter.com/V2fZ6da98S — The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 25, 2025 While the mainstream media has been busy criticizing and hating on President Trump’s trade policy, he’s been hard at work locking in trillions of dollars of investments in America. These include investments from companies involved in everything from artificial intelligence to energy to pharmaceuticals. Here are just a handful of big investments: President Trump’s America First policies have had $1.7 trillion in investments the past few weeks: • SoftBank $200 billion• OpenAI and Oracle $500 billion• Apple $500 billion • Taiwan Semiconductor $165 billion Is President Trump Making America Great Again? pic.twitter.com/1a5Fr6tmIC — • ᗰISᑕᕼIᗴᖴ • (@4Mischief) March 5, 2025 Investments in the US under President Donald Trump: • $600 billion from Saudi Arabia • $20 billion from Hussain Sajwani• $14.4 billion bid from Nippon steel • $500 billion over four years from Apple• $500 billion over four years from Stargate pic.twitter.com/IQOEHSrlGG — Remarks (@remarks) February 24, 2025 The White House provided a full list of all those new investments spurred by Trump’s trade policy: Since President Donald J. Trump took office, his unwavering commitment to revitalizing American industry has spurred trillions of dollars of investments in U.S. manufacturing, production, and innovation — and the list only continues to grow. Here is a non-comprehensive running list of new U.S.-based investments in President Trump’s second term: Project Stargate, led by Japan-based Softbank and U.S.-based OpenAI and Oracle, announced a $500 billion private investment in U.S.-based artificial intelligence infrastructure. Apple announced a $500 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and training. NVIDIA, a global chipmaking giant, announced it will invest $500 billion in U.S.-based AI infrastructure over the next four years amid its pledge to manufacture AI supercomputers entirely in the U.S. for the first time. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) announced a $100 billion investment in U.S.-based chips manufacturing. Johnson & Johnson announced a $55 billion investment over the next four years in manufacturing, research and development, and technology. Roche, a Swiss drug and diagnostics company, announced a $50 billion investment in U.S.-based manufacturing and research and development, which is expected to create more than 1,000 full-time jobs and more than 12,000 jobs including construction. Eli Lilly and Company announced a $27 billion investment to more than double its domestic manufacturing capacity. United Arab Emirates-based ADQ and U.S.-based Energy Capital Partners announced a $25 billion investment in U.S. data centers and energy infrastructure. Novartis, a Swiss drugmaker, announced a $23 billion investment to build or expand ten manufacturing facilities across the U.S., which will create 4,000 new jobs. Hyundai announced a $21 billion U.S.-based investment — including $5.8 billion for a new steel plant in Louisiana, which will create nearly 1,500 jobs. Hyundai also secured an equity investment and agreement from Posco Holdings, South Korea’s top steel maker. United Arab Emirates-based DAMAC Properties announced a $20 billion investment in new U.S.-based data centers. France-based CMA CGM, a global shipping giant, announced a $20 billion investment in U.S. shipping and logistics, creating 10,000 new jobs. Merck announced it will invest $8 billion in the U.S. over the next several years after opening a new $1 billion North Carolina manufacturing facility. Clarios announced a $6 billion plan to expand its domestic manufacturing operations. Stellantis announced a $5 billion investment in its U.S. manufacturing network, including re-opening its Belvidere, Illinois, manufacturing plant. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a leader in biotechnology, announced a $3 billion agreement with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies to produce drugs at its North Carolina manufacturing facility. NorthMark Strategies, a multi-strategy investment firm, announced a $2.8 billion investment to build a supercomputing facility in South Carolina. Chobani, a Greek yogurt giant, announced a $1.2 billion investment to build its third U.S. dairy processing plant in New York, which is expected to create more than 1,000 new full-time jobs — adding to the company’s earlier announcement that it will invest $500 million to expand its Idaho manufacturing plant. GE Aerospace announced a $1 billion investment in manufacturing across 16 states — creating 5,000 new jobs. Schneider Electric announced it will invest $700 million over the next four years in U.S. energy infrastructure. GE Vernova announced it will invest nearly $600 million in U.S. manufacturing over the next two years, which will create more than 1,500 new jobs. Abbott Laboratories announced a $500 million investment in its Illinois and Texas facilities. AIP Management, a European infrastructure investor, announced a $500 million investment to solar developer Silicon Ranch. London-based Diageo announced a $415 million investment in a new Alabama manufacturing facility. Dublin-based Eaton Corporation announced a $340 million investment in a new South Carolina-based manufacturing facility for its three-phase transformers. Germany-based Siemens announced a $285 million investment in U.S. manufacturing and AI data centers, which will create more than 900 new skilled manufacturing jobs. Clasen Quality Chocolate announced a $230 million investment to build a new production facility in Virginia, which will create 250 new jobs. Fiserv, Inc., a financial technology provider, announced a $175 million investment to open a new strategic fintech hub in Kansas, which is expected to create 2,000 new high-paying jobs. Paris Baguette announced a $160 million investment to construct a manufacturing plant in Texas. TS Conductor announced a $134 million investment to build an advanced conductor manufacturing facility in South Carolina, which will create nearly 500 new jobs. Switzerland-based ABB announced a $120 million investment to expand production of its low-voltage electrification products in Tennessee and Mississippi. Saica Group, a Spain-based corrugated packaging maker, announced plans to build a $110 million new manufacturing facility in Anderson, Indiana. Charms, LLC, a subsidiary of candymaker Tootsie Roll Industries, announced a $97.7 million investment to expand its production plant and distribution center in Tennessee. Toyota Motor Corporation announced an $88 million investment to boost hybrid vehicle production at its West Virginia factory, securing employment for the 2,000 workers at the factory. AeroVironment, a defense contractor, announced a $42.3 million investment to build a new manufacturing facility in Utah. Paris-based Saint-Gobain announced a new $40 million NorPro manufacturing facility in Wheatfield, New York. India-based Sygene International announced a $36.5 million acquisition of a Baltimore biologics manufacturing facility. Asahi Group Holdings, one of the largest Japanese beverage makers, announced a $35 million investment to boost production at its Wisconsin plant. Cyclic Materials, a Canadian advanced recycling company for rare earth elements, announced a $20 million investment in its first U.S.-based commercial facility, located in Mesa, Arizona. Guardian Bikes announced a $19 million investment to build the first U.S.-based large-scale bicycle frame manufacturing operation in Indiana. Amsterdam-based AMG Critical Minerals announced a $15 million investment to build a chrome manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania. NOVONIX Limited, an Australia-based battery technology company, announced a $4.6 million investment to build a synthetic graphite manufacturing facility in Tennessee. LGM Pharma announced a $6 million investment to expand its manufacturing facility in Rosenberg, Texas. ViDARR Inc., a defense optical equipment manufacturer, announced a $2.69 million investment to open a new facility in Virginia. The list will only get bigger over these next few years. President Trump is truly Making America Wealthy Again… So, why is anyone mad about this?! I guess haters gonna hate. Trump has a message for his HATERS:pic.twitter.com/XNCPZZlmfh — ?erias (@xerias_x) April 25, 2025