Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Ukrainian national team goalie wished Ovechkin be maimed ahead of record

 

at 4/8/25 3:07pm

“I hope his legs will be torn off and he won’t succeed,” Eduard Zakharchenko told Ukrainian media last week The goaltender of the Ukrainian national hockey team, Eduard Zakharchenko, wished that Russian star Alexander Ovechkin would be maimed before he could break the National Hockey League’s all-time scoring record. The Washington Capitals forward tied the record last Saturday in a game against the Chicago Blackhawks before breaking it the next day while on the road against the New York Islanders. A day before the game against the Blackhawks, Zakharchenko spoke to the Ukrainian news outlet Sport24ua. When asked about Ovechkin’s performance, the goalie smiled and remarked that he hoped “his legs will be torn off and he won’t succeed.” Zakharchenko then stated that the Russian NHL star “does not deserve the admiration of the public” and pointed to the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev. He still admitted that he was following Ovechkin’s pursuit of the record, as are some other Ukrainian national team players. Read more Russian icon breaks all-time NHL record “In any case, it’s a world record. But I wouldn’t want [Ovechkin] to [succeed]. I’m completely satisfied with Gretzky,” he said. Ovechkin is a three-time world champion with the Russian national team and took home the 2018 Stanley Cup with the Washington Capitals, which he has spent his entire NHL career with. Gretzky, considered the greatest hockey player of all time, needed 1,487 games to tally 894 goals. Ovechkin was able to match him in his 1,486th game and to surpass him in the next one. Read more Putin hails Russian hockey star for breaking NHL record (VIDEO) After breaking the NHL record, Ovechkin thanked his teammates, coaches, and fans. “All of you fans, all the world, Russia… We did it boys, we did it!” the Russian NHL star said. Zakharchenko was born in the Russian city of Vladivostok before later moving to Ukraine with his family. He started his adult hockey career in Russia’s third league. In 2017, he was suspended from all competition by the International Ice Hockey Federation over allegations of match-fixing in a game Ukraine played against South Korea at the World Championship. Ukraine’s hockey federation banned him for life. He was later pardoned in Ukraine after his international ban expired and re-joined the country's national team in 2021.

[Link to media]

— Tariffs personally cost Trump $500m – Forbes

 

at 4/8/25 2:51pm

The US president’s wave of duties on imports has roiled stock markets US President Donald Trump’s net worth has fallen by half a billion dollars in less than a week after he implemented a sweeping wave of tariffs, according to estimates by Forbes. Last week, Trump announced a broad range of new tariffs on the imports from dozens of countries to the US, including a 34% levy on Chinese goods. Beijing has vowed to retaliate with a proportional 34% duty of its own, prompting Trump to escalate the blanket tariff on Chinese goods to a total of 104%. Fears about an escalating trade war have shaken global equity markets and wiped some $10 billion from stocks as of Monday, according to Bloomberg. The net value of Trump’s own assets fell from an estimated $4.7 billion to $4.2 billion in less than a week “as the value of his public stock and private holdings fall in tandem with the broader market,” Forbes wrote on Tuesday. The outlet offered a detailed evaluation based on the sum of Trump’s publicly traded stock and estimates of the worth of his privately held companies. Read more China vows to ‘fight till the end’ against Trump’s tariffs The Trump Media and Technology Group, the president’s most valuable asset, depreciated by 8%, wiping roughly $170 million from his stake in the company, Forbes said. His commercial and residential real estate holdings would have fallen by around $110-142 million, judging by the average fall in the stocks of other major real estate firms after the president’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcement, according to the outlet. Trump’s golf clubs likely lost some $70 million, due to the possibility of “belt tightening” among members, Forbes said. His hospitality assets could have also declined by some $65 million, while his smaller licensing-and-management business may have shed a further $15 million, it added. Forbes estimated that Trump could have lost tens of millions more on assets held in cryptocurrency. Read more Billionaires slam Trump tariffs The greatest threat facing the president’s private assets comes from the loss of investor confidence brought on by his tariff war, Forbes said. Despite the market downturn, Trump has defended the move, claiming that the tariffs are already bringing in billions to the US budget. Several prominent US investors have criticized the tariffs and warned of serious consequences for the US economy. The president’s advisor and government efficiency czar, Elon Musk, personally tried to convince Trump to reconsider the measures but did not succeed, according to the Washington Post.

[Link to media]

— Fyodor Lukyanov: The West no longer leads – here’s what happens now

 

at 4/8/25 2:35pm

Russia, China, and the US form a strategic triangle of power The United States still holds a commanding position in global affairs. Its influence – political, military, economic, and cultural – remains immense, the result of a historical head start built over decades. It would take a catastrophic event on the scale of the Soviet collapse to knock Washington out of the top tier of global power. That scenario seems unlikely. However, what is changing – gradually, but noticeably – is the way the US perceives its own role. American leaders have begun to publicly acknowledge the emergence of a multipolar world. Even figures like Senator Marco Rubio now speak of it openly. Washington still considers itself the most powerful player, but no longer the only one. The era of universal hegemony has given way to a new understanding: that power is now distributed, not monopolized. The term “multipolarity” entered the international lexicon in the mid-1990s, largely in response to Western triumphalism. After the Cold War, America and its allies promoted the idea that the liberal world order was the only viable system. Multipolarity, championed most vocally by Russia and China, emerged as a counterpoint – more slogan than strategy at the time, but an important statement of intent. In the 1990s, the political West was far ahead in nearly every domain: economic strength, military reach, ideological influence, cultural exports. The only area where it lagged was demographics. Western nations represented only a small portion of the global population, but their overwhelming advantages elsewhere rendered this imbalance seemingly irrelevant. That assumption has proven flawed. Today, we see that demography – long underestimated – is central to many of the challenges facing the developed world. Migration has become a defining issue. The mass movement of people from the Global South to the Global North is reshaping societies and economies. It creates internal tensions in host countries, triggering political crises, while also serving as a vital source of labor for aging, shrinking populations. Read more Trump’s tariff war breaks the rules – and dares the world to stop him This dual dynamic has geopolitical consequences. On one hand, migrant-sending countries gain unexpected leverage over more powerful states, even as they remain dependent on remittances and host-nation goodwill. On the other, restrictive policies by host nations can spark turmoil in migrants’ home countries – creating the risk of instability that rebounds back to the West. Migration is no longer a domestic or humanitarian issue alone; it is now a key element in the global balance of power. As the world transitions toward multipolarity, another important trend emerges: not all potential powers are eager to engage in global contests. The ongoing crises in Ukraine and Palestine have revealed the limited number of actors willing to take real geopolitical risks. Once again, it is the United States and Russia – superpowers of the 20th century – that are shaping outcomes in these key regions: Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Though their relative strength has shifted, what matters is not only capacity, but also the willingness to play the “big game” – to assume responsibility, to accept risk, and to act decisively. This is where the so-called Global South, including large powers like India, has hesitated. Many of these states prefer to observe, calculate, and engage selectively according to their own interests. Their demographic weight gives them long-term influence, but for now, they remain cautious players. Meanwhile, a new strategic triangle has taken form: Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Two of the three – Russia and the US – are deeply involved in shaping current global dynamics. The third, China, exerts enormous influence through its industrial and economic power, but still prefers to avoid direct political entanglements. Yet Beijing understands that it cannot remain entirely on the sidelines forever. Its role in shaping the future is too critical to ignore.  Read more Le Pen’s verdict exposes Western Europe’s dangerous trend In contrast, Western Europe finds itself in an increasingly awkward position. The European Union wants to participate in global decision-making, but it lacks the tools to do so. Its military capabilities are limited, its political unity is fragile, and even its economic edge is fading. As a result, the EU risks becoming an object rather than a subject of global transformation—a realization that contributes to its erratic and short-sighted foreign policy moves. The triangle of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing is not static. It will shift. India, due to its size and ambition, and Western Europe, due to its proximity to multiple crises, will remain important. Other regional players – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and US allies in East Asia – also have roles to play. But the core of today’s global configuration rests on three vertices, each with a unique approach to power. This is what multipolarity truly looks like in April 2025: not a neat balance of equals, but a dynamic, evolving structure shaped by ambition, restraint, legacy, and demographics. By the end of the year, the picture may already look different. This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and has been translated and edited by the RT team 

[Link to media]

— The entire world will tremble: What happens if the US attacks Iran

 

at 4/8/25 11:29am

Washington might prefer limited military action, but Israel is likely to pull out all the stops – and the effects will reverberate globally Conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran is escalating rapidly. According to Israeli sources cited by the Daily Mail, the US and Israel may launch strikes against Iran in the coming weeks. The potential decision for military action is linked to growing concerns about Tehran’s nuclear program and its increasing regional activity. Tensions in the Middle East have intensified significantly following a statement by US President Donald Trump at the end of March,  threatening Iran with an unprecedented military strike and stricter sanctions, if Tehran refuses to enter negotiations on a new nuclear deal. According to Axios, Trump sent a letter to the Iranian leadership, giving them a two-month deadline  – until the end of May – to begin negotiations. The letter was reportedly firm in tone, and Trump made it clear that the consequences of refusal would be devastating. Israel views the current political situation – with Trump back in office – as a “perfect window of opportunity” to pressure Iran. According to Israeli officials, such a moment may not come again. They also point to the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program, which, in their view, is nearing a critical stage that is raising alarm within the international community. In addition, Israel accuses Iran of being involved in the October 7, 2023, attack that triggered a new wave of conflict with the Hamas movement. Israeli sources claim that, in recent months, the Israel Defence Forces already carried out several strikes on Iranian targets and groups linked to Iran in Yemen and Syria – as part of preparations for a possible large-scale confrontation. Tehran’s response came swiftly. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the country would deliver a “crushing response” to any provocations or aggression from the US or Israel. He also placed the Iranian armed forces on high alert. According to Reuters, Iran warned neighboring countries  –  Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Türkiye, and Bahrain  –  that any support for a potential US attack, including the use of airspace or territory, would be regarded as a hostile act with serious consequences. Amid the growing crisis, Iran expressed its willingness to engage in indirect talks with the US through intermediaries, particularly Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the country is ready to discuss its nuclear program and sanctions under conditions of mutual trust but ruled out returning to the terms of the previous agreement, stating that Iran has “significantly advanced” its nuclear capabilities. According to him, Tehran will act based on principles of protecting national sovereignty. Read more Iran puts army on high alert – Reuters Despite Khamenei’s rejection of direct dialogue with Washington, Iranian President Mahmoud Pezeshkian has shown interest in negotiations, emphasizing the need for “equal dialogue” without threats or coercion. However, under Iran’s political hierarchy, it is Khamenei who holds the ultimate authority, and his stance remains decisive. In this complex and explosive environment, the international community is also paying close attention to Russia, which, according to Bloomberg, has expressed its willingness to act as a mediator in the dialogue between the US and Iran. According to the publication, in February, Donald Trump discussed the possibility of Russian mediation with President Vladimir Putin, to which Moscow responded positively. Russia has traditionally played an important diplomatic role in Middle Eastern affairs and maintains stable relations with both Tehran and Washington. In this context, Moscow's involvement could play a stabilizing role and create an opening for negotiations. While the implementation of such an initiative may require additional time and favorable conditions – such as de-escalation of US-Russia tensions and progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine – the very fact of Moscow’s interest in de-escalation and a diplomatic solution is already a positive sign. Against the backdrop of a rapidly escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran, the world is watching developments with bated breath, trying to understand whether the current standoff will become a prelude to a full-scale war or remain confined to limited military actions and diplomatic pressure. Signals coming from the US, Israel, and Iran indicate that the situation is teetering on the edge, and any misstep could trigger a large-scale regional conflict with consequences reaching far beyond the Middle East, potentially affecting the entire global security architecture. For the Trump administration, it is critically important to secure concessions from Iran that would allow for a new nuclear deal – one significantly tougher than the agreement reached under President Barack Obama. While Democratic administrations primarily focused on limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions and partially reintegrating Tehran into the international community, Trump and his circle are pursuing a far more radical agenda. Their strategy goes well beyond the technical limits of nuclear activity. The goal of the Republican administration is to systematically and permanently weaken Iran as a regional power, dismantle its geopolitical influence, and neutralize the entire network of alliances that Tehran has built over the past two decades. A central focus of this strategy is countering the so-called “Shiite Crescent”  –  a network of political, military, and ideological ties encompassing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (primarily through Hezbollah), and Yemen (via the Houthis). For both the US and Israel, this crescent represents a significant threat, as it strengthens Iran’s position in the Middle East and extends its sphere of influence right up to Israel’s borders and near vital American interests in the Persian Gulf region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays a key role in implementing this anti-Iranian strategy. His long-term goal is not only to shield Israel from a potential nuclear threat but to achieve the strategic defeat of Iran as a hostile state. Netanyahu has always maintained a hardline, uncompromising stance toward Tehran, viewing it as an existential threat to Israel. He does not conceal his interest in Israel’s direct involvement in an operation aimed at neutralizing that threat. Moreover, his views strongly resonate within the American Republican establishment, and it is precisely this alignment that today significantly shapes US foreign policy toward Iran. Read more Iran ‘ready for any war’ – senior commander It is no coincidence that in many statements by US officials, the emphasis is not so much on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as it is on the “total elimination of the threat” posed by Iran. In this context, the nuclear program becomes only one component of a much broader geopolitical game. For Donald Trump, it is crucial to demonstrate determination and strength – both in foreign policy and to his domestic audience – especially in the run-up to another election cycle. Successfully pressuring Iran and concluding a “new, better deal” could become a major political triumph for him, especially when contrasted with the Democratic approach, which he has frequently criticized as weak and naive. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that Iran is approaching negotiations from a very different position than it did in 2015. According to intelligence estimates, the country’s nuclear program has already advanced much further than before, and the political leadership – chiefly Khamenei – has openly stated that a return to the previous terms is impossible. At the same time, Tehran has expressed readiness for indirect dialogue, showing a degree of flexibility, but only if it is not perceived as a capitulation. The current tensions in the Middle East are unfolding against the backdrop of a profoundly transformed geopolitical reality, in which the projection of power has become the primary tool of diplomacy. Washington, under the leadership of Donald Trump, seeks to convince Tehran that refusing negotiations will lead to serious consequences – ranging from intensified economic pressure to limited military action. The entire US strategy today is built around the concept of coercive diplomacy: creating conditions in which Iran is compelled to return to the negotiating table – but this time under terms more favorable to the US. This approach is not new, but in its current form, it has become far more aggressive and risky. A scenario involving precision strikes on Iranian infrastructure – especially sites linked to the nuclear program or to Iranian allies’ military bases in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Yemen – seems highly likely. Such interventions could be presented as “limited” or “preventive,” aimed at avoiding escalation, but in practice, they could lead to unpredictable consequences. Nevertheless, a full-scale war between the US and Iran appears unlikely at this stage. The cost of such a conflict – military, political, and economic – is simply too high. Washington understands that an open war with Iran would inevitably draw in regional players, destabilize the global energy market, and trigger a chain reaction of conflicts across the Middle East. Yet there is a critical variable in this equation – Israel. Unlike the US, Israel does not see a conflict with Iran as a risk, but rather as a historic opportunity. After the tragic events of October 7, 2023, when a large-scale war with Hamas broke out, Israel entered a state of heightened military readiness, simultaneously strengthening internal mobilization and political resolve. In this new reality, Tehran has become firmly established in the mindset of the Israeli establishment as the primary source of threat, and the idea of delivering a decisive blow to Iran is no longer seen as a last resort – it has become part of strategic thinking. The Israeli leadership may attempt to take advantage of the current international climate – when US attention is focused on China and the war in Ukraine – as a convenient moment to eliminate the Iranian threat. The possibility that Israel might itself initiate a serious escalation – through strikes on Iranian territory, cyberattacks, or provoking retaliatory actions via proxy forces – remains very real. Such actions would aim to draw the US into a more active role, including potential military involvement, under the pretext of defending an ally. Read more War with Iran ‘almost inevitable’ – France Such a scenario is far from unrealistic. The US could be drawn into a large-scale war not by its own strategic choice, but due to alliance commitments and political pressure. History offers numerous examples where the actions of one ally triggered the involvement of a larger power in a conflict that was never part of its original priorities. At the same time, the region has entered a phase of profound transformation. The events of October 2023 marked a watershed moment, signaling the end of illusions about stability based on a fragile balance of power. The role of informal alliances is growing, the influence of non-state actors is expanding, and the security architecture in the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean is undergoing significant change. In such an environment, any large-scale shifts – whether political, economic, or military – are inevitably accompanied by conflict. It is in this context that the current tensions acquire a particularly dangerous dimension: this is not merely a struggle over the terms of a new agreement or control over a specific region – it is a battle over the future order of the Middle East. A particularly significant factor in this emerging geopolitical configuration is the strategic partnership between Iran and China. In recent years, this alliance has grown substantially, becoming a key component of a new multipolar global architecture. Iran is not only one of China’s closest partners in the Middle East but also a critical link in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Additionally, Iran is a vital participant in the International North-South Transport Corridor, which connects Asia with Europe and is actively supported by Russia. This corridor serves as an alternative to traditional Western-controlled trade routes and is designed to strengthen Eurasian cooperation based on mutual benefit and independence from Western institutions. A military operation against Iran would automatically deal a blow to Chinese interests. This includes energy contracts, logistics chains, access to natural resources, and strategic infrastructure. Iran is one of the largest oil suppliers to China, and any military intervention would jeopardize not only current supplies but also long-term investments. However, Beijing has anticipated such a scenario and, in recent years, has actively diversified its presence in the region. By deepening relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and even Israel, China seeks to avoid overreliance on Tehran in its Middle East policy. This allows Beijing to maintain regional influence even in the face of serious disruptions, minimizing the risks associated with potentially losing Iran as a partner. On a deeper level, there is a growing impression that the US and Israel are pursuing a long-term strategy aimed at transforming the entire Greater Middle East. This strategy appears to be centered on the weakening, fragmentation, or even disintegration of traditionally strong regional powers – such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Türkiye, and potentially even Saudi Arabia. The main tool for this transformation is not direct military occupation, as seen during the “War on Terror” era, but rather the activation and intensification of old and new fault lines – ethnic, sectarian, tribal, and socio-economic. The fueling of these internal conflicts leads to the gradual collapse of centralized states and their replacement with smaller, weaker entities dependent on external military, economic, and political support. Such fragmented, “mosaic” regional structure are easier to control, allow for more direct access to natural resources, and limit the emergence of new, independent centers of power. Read more Tariq Ali: Donald Trump’s war threats against Iran is really about targeting China However, the implementation of such a strategy carries significant risks – above all, for global stability. The Persian Gulf and the surrounding countries remain the heart of the world’s energy infrastructure. Approximately half of all global oil and gas exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any escalation in this region – let alone a full-scale war – has the potential to disrupt these vital energy flows. In the event of armed conflict with Iran, the likelihood of a blockade of the Strait becomes extremely high, especially if Tehran sees it as its only effective leverage over international community. In such a scenario, oil prices could skyrocket to $120 – 130 per barrel or higher, triggering a global recession, surging inflation, widespread logistical disruptions, and growing social instability in energy-importing nations. The mounting threat of an energy crisis and global recession could, in turn, accelerate the shift toward a new model of the world order. A conflict with Iran – despite being regional in scope – could serve as a catalyst for global transformation. It may hasten the decline of American unipolarity, strengthen Eurasian integration, and stimulate the development of alternative financial and economic systems that are independent of the US dollar and Western institutions. There is already growing interest in regional currencies, barter-based trade mechanisms, and infrastructure investments that bypass the West. The influence of organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is expanding, while the US gradually loses its monopoly on shaping the rules of the global system. Thus, a conflict with Iran – one that now seems increasingly likely – is not just another episode of regional tension. It is potentially a pivotal moment that could define the trajectory of global development for decades to come. Its consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East, affecting Europe’s economy, Asia’s energy security, and political stability across the developing world. What is at stake is far greater than the outcome of a single conflict: it is the future of the international system itself – its principles, centers of power, and frameworks for global interaction.

[Link to media]

— US could seize illegal migrants’ property – Reuters

 

at 4/8/25 10:56am

The action will reportedly be taken against those who defy deportation orders and fail to pay fines The US government is considering confiscating the property of illegal migrants who fail to pay fines for overstaying their deportation orders, Reuters has reported, citing documents it reviewed. US President Donald Trump has launched a crackdown on illegal immigration since taking office in January. The Department of Homeland Security announced last week that migrants who stay in the country after receiving a final order of removal will be issued a penalty of $998 per day. If they do not pay, their property could be seized, Reuters wrote on Tuesday. The agency also cited an unnamed senior official as saying the government plans to apply the penalties retroactively for up to five years, potentially leading to fines of more than $1 million. There are no federal laws prohibiting undocumented immigrants from purchasing property in the US. They can buy homes or cars using cash, and financing options exist. Some states, however, such as Texas and Florida, require proof of legal presence for vehicle registration or obtaining a driver’s license. Read more White House mocks deported migrants (VIDEO) According to emails reviewed by Reuters, the White House has urged US Customs and Border Protection to handle penalties, property seizures, and the sale of assets of migrants who don’t pay. The plan targets the roughly 1.4 million people who have been ordered to leave the country by an immigration judge, the agency noted. The fines are based on a 1996 law that was enforced for the first time during Trump’s first term in office in 2018. Reuters cited court records as showing that at least four migrants were issued fines of around $60,000 at the time. Former President Joe Biden stopped issuing the fines and revoked the policies when he took office in 2021. READ MORE: US introduces new Green Card restrictions During his election campaign last year, Trump criticized Biden for his approach to foreigners residing unlawfully in the country, blaming this for the escalation of migration at the US-Mexico border. Since taking office, Trump has expanded expedited removal, denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, and increased border enforcement hiring through a series of executive orders. He has also declared a national emergency, allowing the deployment of the armed forces to secure the border.

[Link to media]

— US could pull 10,000 troops out of Eastern Europe – NBC

 

at 4/8/25 7:31am

The downsizing could reportedly affect half of the forces deployed by ex-President Joe Biden after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict The US is considering withdrawing up to 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe, NBC News reported on Tuesday, citing sources. The move could come as US President Donald Trump is engaged in talks with Russia to reach a settlement in the Ukraine conflict and seeks to focus more on China. The units in question are among the 20,000 personnel deployed to the continent by the administration of former US President Joe Biden in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, six unnamed US and European officials familiar with the matter told the network. The sources noted that while the exact figure is still under discussion, the proposal could affect US troops stationed in Romania and Poland – two NATO members close to the Russian border. According to NBC, European officials expressed concern that a potential drawdown could stoke fears within NATO that the US is abandoning the bloc in the face of the perceived Russian threat. Read more Pentagon names biggest threat in ‘secret memo’ – WaPo Former US Defense Department senior official Seth Jones said the move would weaken the US military posture and increase Moscow’s “willingness to meddle in various ways across the spectrum in Europe.” As of early 2025, there were nearly 84,000 US troops stationed in Europe, with the bulk concentrated in Germany and Poland, with more modest forces deployed in Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania, according to the US European Command. The report comes as the Trump administration continues to push European NATO members to take more responsibility for their own defense, including by increasing defense spending while focusing on China containment. Meanwhile, the US is engaged in talks with Russia to reach a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict and restore bilateral relations, which sank to an all-time low during the Biden administration. Moscow has repeatedly expressed strong concern about NATO expansion and the bloc’s military activities on its borders. Russia has welcomed what it called a willingness by Washington to explore the “root causes” of the Ukraine conflict – including Kiev’s desire to join NATO, which has long been a red line for Moscow.

[Link to media]

As of 4/8/25 4:01pm. Last new 4/8/25 4:01pm.