–Mr Bloomberg was probably in cahoots with others to get trillions from western taxpayers for ‘defence’ — it required a highly sophisticated multi-year, perhaps multi-decade, strategy
Reporting and opinion/fair comment by Mathew Carr (maybe slightly dramatized for theatrical and entertainment purposes)
June 26-July 2, 2025 — It was, Jan. 13, 2025, exactly a week before Donald Trump would become president.
Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire media tycoon to the rich, was beginning to worry.
He had supported Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election. Her rival Donald Trump won easily. Trump was about to become President.
Shiiiiit.
Bloomberg had also warned against RFK — Robert F Kennedy Jr — saying he was not appropriate for office….indeed “dangerous”.
RFK is now Trump’s health secretary.
Double shiiiit.
Mr Trump was saying he was going to get rid of deep state.
Triple shiiiiit.
Mr Bloomberg is a seasoned and influential global deep-state operator.
He pays little tax. Yet funnels 100s of millions or billions of US dollars per year to causes he deems important.
His decisions impact billions of people because he is one of the most influential protectors of the world’s current system of bad politics and deeply flawed capitalism…a complex of corrupt markets and extra-constitutional government behavior.
I worked for his news outfit for nearly 20 years, before he fired me for calling out his bad managers for incompetence and for his newsroom’s bullying culture. Many of my persecutors were promoted after firing me…temporarily, at least.
Very early this year, Mr Bloomberg would have been worried about his endorsement of Kamala Harris for US president and warnings against RFK.
He was probably thinking …what can I do to ingratiate myself to badass Trump, so that he does not attack me with presidential powers, after taking office.
Bloomberg, 83, has his increasingly wrinkled fingers in many pies.
His people had late last year attended the Baku climate talks (one job he has is as a UN climate envoy) in Azerbaijan, where emerging nations tried to get $1 trillion a year from wealthy countries for climate action — money they’ve been promising to give, and not delivering on, for decades. I was there at Baku’s sports stadium …too.
It was a near-complete failure. The conclusion at the Baku talks was to strive for $1.3 trillion a year or so (but — get this — by 2035!)
There is still no global carbon market to steer emissions down.
It’s unclear whether Bloomberg himself had much of a role in the COP29 failure … yet Brazil, hosting this year’s talks, got some money — plenty actually — from the US. I can’t shake the feeling it was hush money, in part.
The multi-billionaire’s precise role inside the UNFCCC secretariat/among diplomats isn’t made that public, usually.
With his chairman hat at the US Defense Innovation Board firmly placed on his head …Bloomberg probably thought — I know what I can do …I can help Mr Trump Make America Great Again (let’s face it — keep America great) by boosting America’s secretive military industrial complex.
So Bloomberg, who was meant to be saving the climate, instead did this (unedited) on his final day as Chairman of that defence Board:
Strategic Edge: A Blueprint for Breakthroughs in Defense Innovation
January 13, 2025
NEW YORK, NY — Today, Michael Bloomberg released Strategic Edge: A Blueprint for Breakthroughs in Defense Innovation, a privately commissioned report addressing the challenges facing America’s strategic defense posture. Chaired by General David Berger (USMC, Retired), the report offers a new avenue for restoring the nation’s military and industrial edge through innovation and strategic investments.
This blueprint provides actionable solutions to counter decades of erosion in America’s ability to deter adversaries. With contributions from leading defense experts and technologists, the report emphasizes the urgency of rebuilding the industrial base, leveraging non-traditional innovators, and unlocking private capital to accelerate the fielding of emerging technologies. It recommends the Department of Defense do this by divesting 15% of its budget from its current portfolio of aging, legacy systems, and investing it in a new, separate pipeline for critical technologies.
Key Highlights:
– Field Emerging and Critical Technologies by Creating an Alternative Pipeline: The U.S. must establish an alternative procurement pipeline to rapidly acquire and deploy critical technologies at scale, ensuring direct operational impact and strategic advantage for warfighters.
– Restore U.S. Manufacturing as a Global Powerhouse: The U.S. must invest in dual-use manufacturing technologies, leveraging advanced practices to enable scalable production of both commercial and military goods, ensuring adaptability and resilience during conflict.
– Attract, Train, and Retain Talent for Our Nation: The U.S. must cultivate a skilled, innovative workforce that thrives in both the public and private sectors, supported by a DoD culture that values expertise, adaptability, and national security impact.
– Shift DoD Resources to Innovative Programs and Unlock Private Capital: The DoD must redirect up to 15% of its budget from legacy systems to emerging technologies, reducing risks to attract private capital and accelerate innovation.
As the report warns, the U.S. faces an unprecedented challenge in adapting its defense systems to modern threats. Without immediate action, there is a tangible risk of losing the next major conflict.
‘We can’t afford to wait’ [for warmongering, but we can afford to wait for climate action, apparently — CarrZee opinion]
Bloomberg: “We’re at a critical turning point that has been building for decades and we must quickly change how things work at the Department of Defense,” said Michael R. Bloomberg. “We can’t afford to wait to take urgent action, and we can’t be afraid to upset the apple cart. Without taking the kinds of steps outlined in this report, the U.S. faces grave risks to our security, our freedoms, and our position in the world.”
General David Berger added, “Our adversaries are outpacing us in speed, scale, and capability. This report is a call to action for a whole-of-nation effort to reverse this trajectory and ensure America’s strategic superiority.”
The report also includes legislative recommendations aimed at enabling decisive changes in defense innovation policy. These proposals focus on creating alternative funding pipelines, addressing supply chain vulnerabilities, and fostering public-private partnerships to mobilize resources efficiently.
The release of Strategic Edge aligns with broader efforts to modernize the Department of Defense and foster collaboration with allies and private industry. It signals a pivotal moment for stakeholders across government, industry, and academia to come together and secure the future of national defense.
Additional insights and a complete copy of the report are available here. For more information about the report, please contact Beth Kroman at bkroman@bloomberg.net.
(full report below, for convenience)
I’m pretty sure that Mr Bloomberg would argue he’s perfectly capable, despite his age, of saving the climate and it was fine for him to previously be enhancing security and preventing wars in his defense-innovation role.
The only trouble is, he has proven quite bad at both.
Here is the situation with the climate:
US fossil fuel has had an absolute bonanza under Mr Bloomberg’s “climate leadership”….while climate justice is escaping most poor countries, as they roast
Wars are now so confronting I definitely don’t need to put a picture of a dead baby here — killed by US-financed innovative military equipment:
Of course, Mr Bloomberg has long pushed for strong gun control in the US.
That hasn’t happened.
What has happened is the normalization of violence and fear …especially that perpetrated by the US and Israel…(And Russia and US-funded Ukraine, etc.)
Fearing Mr Trump (perhaps), Mr Bloomberg decided to clearly set out the problem, earlier this year — the money from US taxpayers for war was running out. We need to find some other victims.
See this, in Bloomberg’s report:
‘Increases in (US) defence spending are highly unlikely’
This strategy evidently DID excite Mr Trump, who has embraced warmongering in the first several months of office, even though he won the role by promising peace.
That’s including the shock and awe mark II deployed against Iran earlier this week.
So Mr Bloomberg (not just Trump) has had a very clever win this week, indeed.
He managed to get $2.6 trillion a year for the military industrial complex, about double that vaguely promised for climate and justice just a few short months ago at the UN level.
Now, given my history with Mike’s news outfit, you might rightly ask if I’m reading too much into the circumstances.
Am I overplaying the importance of the words in an obscure govt report?
Yet there is further evidence of the context into which Bloomberg was publishing his report.
Affinity Partners, Trump nephew Jared Kushner’s private equity firm (husband of Ivanka Trump), has made investments that indirectly connect to military-related activities, primarily through its stake in the Israeli company Shlomo Group. Here are the details based on available information, ChatGPT:
• Investment in Shlomo Group (2023): Affinity Partners invested $110 million to acquire a 15% stake in the auto and credit operations of the Shlomo Group, an Israeli car-leasing and financing company, with the deal reported in 2023.
The Shlomo Group’s parent company, Shmeltzer Holdings, is a part-owner of Israel Shipyards, which builds vessels for the Israeli Navy, including ships used in military operations, some armed with U.S.-made weapons. Posts on X also claim that Shlomo Group has donated vehicles and military equipment to Israeli military units, such as the Shaldag and Maglan units, during the Gaza conflict. These posts suggest that the investment, while focused on automotive and credit operations, indirectly ties Affinity to a company with military involvement through its parent’s shipbuilding activities.
Investment in Phoenix Holdings: Affinity Partners is also a shareholder in Phoenix Holdings, an Israeli insurance company. Posts on X allege that Phoenix Holdings owns 15% of Camp Ariel Sharon, a training base for Israeli forces, and is part of Israel’s “Adopt a Soldier” program. Additionally, Phoenix is noted as a major shareholder in Elbit Systems, a leading Israeli defense contractor that manufactures drones and other military equipment. The exact date of Affinity’s investment in Phoenix Holdings is not specified in the sources, but it is part of their broader investment strategy reported in 2023–2024.
I’m not claiming Mr Bloomberg took Trump family interests into account when he decided to try to make American military great again (MAMGA) yet it is definitely POSSIBLE given that Bloomberg headed the most sophisticated news and data company on earth. I simply don’t know.
Yet given all that has followed on from January 2025, it is probably clear that the warmongering has helped the finances of all things Israel military. Drones especially.
Certainly Bloomberg’s report made clear that the US needs to catch up on drones.
Perhaps Bloomberg sought to enrich Trump’s family, perhaps he didn’t. Yet the impact of his report is that America now in June 2025 has a lot more countries to sell military equipment to.
Even musicians around the world are now funding war (not that they knew it).
Yes It’s June 26, 2025 and Mr Bloomberg is back in Trump’s good books (little doubt —he’s certainly not behind bars) and … the so-called “forever emerging countries” are back in the box into which they were consigned decades ago….in fear and awe of America’s projected power and violence —definitely too scared to hold the USA to account for stealing their rightful carbon budgets.
The deep state is secretive and not accountable….that is why it has been allowed to erode UN human rights the past 80 years.
No one is enforcing the UN human rights charter even though multiple leaders have told us it was crucial. Billionaires float above the rules and it is not a secret why the UN is so weak.
As I write this, the Bonn climate talks in Germany — destroyed and in tatters not for the first time by NATO — are little doubt ending without a major breakthrough …a waste of taxpayer money, perhaps?
My main point here, though, is not that I truly know Mr Bloomberg’s motivations and thinking. I don’t. He won’t speak to me after I stood up for myself and called out the untruths his barristers at Matrix Chambers and minions deployed in London central employment tribunals (it’s my opinion that this is a fact…I’ve got the documents to show it, too. Yet no one even cares if billionaires behave badly …it seems)
Now, I’m just “following the money”, as Bloomberg’s editors taught me 25 years ago.
Others are making similar allegations, giving me the courage to write this story.
I’m not saying I have all the answers. I’m writing this so governments, regulators, other journalists are inspired to investigate why our lovely world has collapsed so quickly into violent fuckery. And nature destruction.
Given the sheer levels of this fake leadership ….I AM sure about is one thing.
It’s not right that a conflicted person such as Mr Bloomberg is the best guy on earth to help oversee UN climate action.
Failed presidential candidate
We simply can’t tell if failed presidential candidate Mike is REALLY favoring climate action.
Or does he want more fossil fuel-related fees from bank traders and fossil-fuel companies at Bloomberg LP …. or is he still after extra military industrial complex money to extend American empire …or additional cash for his direct-client bankers, so they can charge too-high fees while paying themselves extraordinarily well while invoking “too big to fail” rules…or does he want another transfer of shit-tons of money to media companies and US tech middlemen via a new, even better, fake pandemic?
Who knows who and what he’s really working for?
It’s certainly not the 99.9% of the world’s people, right? Not if you follow the money. At least not yet.
Even if Mr Bloomberg contends he did nothing wrong under the current failing system (and I know that’s not true), billionaires need to be regulated in favor of the people.
(I reached out in two ways to Mr Bloomberg before publication requesting his comments for this story. I will put any comments here. See also the related probable cover up of clean tech, below …and my attempt to get commentary from the UNFCCC.
More to come, added Kushner context, commentary and tweets.)
NOTES
Earlier
— June 25, 2025 — NATO nations agreed June 25 to spend 5% of GDP on security and defence by 2035, after a sophisticated strategy that included propaganda, war-like theatrics, threats, actual killing, swearing and demonisation. Some countries don’t even spend 2% right now.
NATO nations had a GDP of about $52 trillion last year, so that’s $2.6 trillion a year….though it won’t happen really quickly.
Meanwhile, nations are promising $1.3 trillion for climate a year by 2035, according to climate talks last November.
I’m not ruling out that some of that NATO money will head toward climate action, and indeed let’s hope that governments decide that climate spending is the best form of defence spending.
Today’s NATO money was flagged in a report in January, where the US defence department lamented China’s control of military supply chains and those in other industries.
(Remember, it was America’s deliberate decision in the 1980s to “outsource” manufacturing to China and other nations, so beware of false narratives. The US is not the victim, it’s in charge.)
This below shows how global industrial manufacturing is changing, a point being made by the US to convince western nations of the need to recover ground lost in industrial production by ramping up military spending:
China’s share to jump to 45% of overall global industrial production in 2030 from 6% in 2000. US share to fall to 11% from 25% in the same time frame.
Drones are tomorrow’s weapon of choice — they will replace to some extent the nuclear deterrent — and China’s dominating that market.
The chart immediately above shows that China’s making most drone tech, no matter where the tech originates from.
Here’s the full report
So this report demonstrates a clear plan by the US to find money around the world to finance a re-industrialisation of its defence sector.
See this bit. It could hardly be clearer:
So this is 80+ years in the making.
Not only this month’s US-Iran warmongering, but Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine I contend are deliberately stoked to create fear and soften up taxpayers.
I do agree governments need sophisticated tech to protect people against the risks of AI — with narratives around that technology also designed to instill fear in people, the past five years…I contend.
I asked the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat Wednesday whether it was worried some clean technology was being covered up in the name of defence and security …technology that might be better put to use to cut emissions and help people adapt to a hotter, naturally more dangerous world (eg storms, droughts).
——
Dear UNFCCC press folks,
Over the past few years, I’ve repeatedly asked the UNFCCC secretariat what it is doing to require the 200 nations or so to disclose more about clean technology that may be covered up (countries sometimes cite security reasons).
Has the UNFCCC requested nations “come clean” on this potentially climate-saving tech, or not?
Can you please answer yes or no?
If not why not?
If you have asked, what was the response?
There are continued credible whistleblowers on this eg:
The UNFCCC secretariat could, for instance, try to get nations to fill out a form requiring some disclosure of available technology that might be covered up right now.
This would give parties more confidence in the climate negotiation process….and in carbon markets more generally (because who wants to pay a lot for carbon credits if there is secret tech available that would make those credits much less valuable?)
You could ask Mike Bloomberg, China for starters … see this https://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/strategic-edge-a-blueprint-for-breakthroughs-in-defense-innovation/
eg drones are key
see attachements
Have you asked Mr Bloomberg, China …or not? Yes or no?
I plan to publish near the end of the day, today, Wednesday. [in fact I held off publishing until Thursday…yet did not get a response]
Sincerely,–
Mathew Carr
I will let you know if the UNFCCC responds.
Previously
Opinion by Mathew Carr
June 24-25, 2025 — The six ways taxpayers pay for warmongering
One–higher oil prices, more money for President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel mates.
Two–higher inflation, oil impacts everything. Natural gas prices are linked to oil so that pushes electricity higher.
Three–fear of war — we all pay because of the heightened anxiety, especially the children; to his credit, Mr Trump criticised both Israel and Iran for breaching the ceasefire; “they’ve been fighting so long, they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.” …but even this… is ….Trump blaming other people as he enriches his mates.
Four–higher government costs for war — the taxpayers pay for the weapons, then to replenish weapons at even higher prices … and for all the politicians flying about burning more fossil fuels, flailing their arms while they stay in expensive hotels, at the expense of taxpayers (peacetalks are expensive).
Five–delayed climate action, as politicians are distracted by violence and fear.
Six–higher temperatures, more storms, flooding, droughts…sky-high food prices.
Trump’s hedge-fund and banking mates make money on each market move — up or down — because of spreads, fees…and a lack of a tax on financial transactions.
This list first appeared here:
See this TikTok on Associated Press (CIA) for further context
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdUKcgjt/
NATO meets today. Wednesday. (Correct)
Final word: Spending on climate protection is the best form of defence spending.
NOTE
Trump’s militarism while pretending to want peace…he says “peace through strength” …but what he means is “peace through violence” (mafia-like racketeering).
MODERNIZING DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS AND SPURRING INNOVATION IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE
April 9, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. As Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that the United States military possesses the most lethal warfighting capabilities in the world. America’s defense industrial base is central to this effort. Similarly, the defense acquisition workforce is a national strategic asset that will be decisive in any conflict, where the factory floor can be just as significant as the battlefield.
Unfortunately, after years of misplaced priorities and poor management, our defense acquisition system does not provide the speed and flexibility our Armed Forces need to have decisive advantages in the future. In order to strengthen our military edge, America must deliver state‐of‐the‐art capabilities at speed and scale through a comprehensive overhaul of this system.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States Government to accelerate defense procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base to restore peace through strength. To achieve this, the United States will rapidly reform our antiquated defense acquisition processes with an emphasis on speed, flexibility, and execution. We will also modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce, as well as incentivize and reward risk-taking and innovation from these personnel.
Sec. 3. Acquisition Process Reform. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President a plan to reform the Department of Defense’s acquisition processes that, to the maximum extent possible, incorporates the following:
(a) Utilization of existing authorities to expedite acquisitions throughout the Department of Defense, including a first preference for commercial solutions and a general preference for Other Transactions Authority, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptative Acquisition Framework. Starting upon issuance of this order, and during the formation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense shall prioritize use of these authorities in all pending Department of Defense contracting actions and require their application, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, for all Department of Defense contracting actions pursued while the plan directed by this section is under consideration.
(b) A detailed process review of each functional support role within the acquisition workforce to eliminate unnecessary tasks, reduce duplicative approvals, and centralize decision-making. These reviews should also include evaluations of program managers, contracting officers, engineering authorities, financial managers, cost estimators, and logisticians.
(c) A detailed process by which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Service Acquisition Executives, and Component Acquisition Executives can effectively manage risk for all acquisition programs through a formal steering board known as a Configuration Steering Board.
Sec. 4. Internal Regulations Review. The Secretary of Defense shall oversee the review of and, as appropriate, propose revisions to relevant Department of Defense instructions, implementation guides, manuals, and regulations relating to acquisition to:
(a) Eliminate or revise any unnecessary supplemental regulations or any other internal guidance, such as relevant parts of the Financial Management Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
(b) Promote expedited and streamlined acquisitions. Where new supplemental regulations or internal guidance is proposed, the Secretary of Defense shall apply the ten-for-one rule as described in Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).
Sec. 5. Acquisition Workforce Reform. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall develop and submit to the President a plan for consideration to reform, right-size, and train the acquisition workforce that includes the following components:
(a) The restructuring of performance evaluation metrics for acquisition workforce members to include the ability to demonstrate and apply a first consideration of commercial solutions, adaptive acquisition pathways through the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, and iterative requirements based on the perspective of the end user.
(b) An analysis of acquisition workforce staff levels required to develop, deliver, and sustain warfighting capabilities.
(c) The establishment of field training teams by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, led by senior acquisition executives or managers with expertise in innovative acquisition authorities and commercial solutions, and modeled after field training teams authorized by section 832 of Public Law 118-159 (10 U.S.C. 1749). These teams should provide hands-on guidance, deliver templates and case studies of successful approaches for implementing innovative acquisition authorities, and should assist integrated functional program teams in completing acquisition and sustainment tasks.
(d) The development and implementation of policies, procedures, and tools to incentivize acquisition officials to, in good faith, utilize innovative acquisition authorities and take measured and calculated risks.
Sec. 6. Major Defense Acquisition Program Review. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and Component Acquisition Executives, shall complete a comprehensive review of all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs), as defined in section 4201 of title 10, United States Code, to determine if any such programs are inconsistent with the policy objectives set forth in section 2 of this order. As part of the review of all MDAPs:
(i) any program more than 15 percent behind schedule based on the current Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), 15 percent over cost based on the current APB, unable to meet any key performance parameters, or unaligned with the Secretary of Defense’s mission priorities, will be considered for potential cancellation. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the potential cancellation list to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for future budget determinations.
(ii) the Secretary of Defense shall provide a listing of all MDAPs contracts, along with performance against original and approved Government cost estimates to the Director of OMB for review within 90 days from the date of this order.
(b) Following this comprehensive review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the Director of OMB with a plan for reviewing all remaining major systems, as defined in section 3041 of title 10, United States Code, that are not MDAPs.
Sec. 7. Requirements. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System within 180 days of the date of this order, with the goal of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.
Sec. 8. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term “Adaptive Acquisition Framework” means the series of acquisition pathways that enable the workforce to deliver “effective, suitable, survivable, sustainable, and affordable solutions to the end user in a timely manner,” as stated in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02.
(b) The term “Acquisition Program Baseline” means the formally established cost, schedule, and performance baselines of a program, as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
(c) The term “commercial solutions” means any of the methods for procurement of a commercial product or service described in part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, subpart 212.2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, or subpart 212.70 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; or other industry solutions funded by private investment that meet military needs.
(d) The term “Configuration Steering Board” means an annual review of potential requirements changes, critical intelligence parameter changes, and any significant technical configuration changes as described in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.85.
(e) The term “innovative acquisition authorities” means Other Transactions Authority, commercial solutions, application of Rapid Capabilities Office policies, or any other authorities or pathways to promote streamlined acquisitions under the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.
(f) The term “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System” means the formally established Department of Defense process used to identify, assess, and prioritize joint military capability requirements across the Department of Defense.
(g) The term “Other Transactions Authority” means the ability of the United States Government to enter into contracts other than standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.
(h) The term “Rapid Capabilities Office” means the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, Naval Air Warfare Rapid Capabilities Office, Department of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, or Space Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 9, 2025.
[…] How Mike Bloomberg funneled trillions of future climate money to his much-loved military-industrial … […]