Stellantis is on the hunt for a new CEO — and whoever it is better be a miracle-maker.

I’ve talked about the company’s recent woes before. Stellantis has reported a steep 70% decline in net profit, falling from 18.6 billion euros ($19.5 billion) in 2023 to 5.5 billion euros ($5.77 billion) in 2024.

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the ‘Cuda name for performance versions.

On top of that, the company is in the midst of a leadership transition following the sudden departure of CEO Carlos Tavares late last year. Until a successor is named — expected in the first half of 2025 — Chairman John Elkann is overseeing operations alongside an interim executive committee.

Big enough to fail

The future seemed a lot brighter back in 2021, when Stellantis was formed from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA. Now the world’s fourth-largest automaker, the company was ready to throw its weight around.

But with size came lack of focus. Stellantis’ broad brand mix — which includes names like Jeep, Peugeot, DS, Lancia, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo — has proven difficult to manage efficiently.

Investing big in EVs hasn’t helped, either.

Nonetheless, Stellantis is confident the right CEO will be able to turn things around. Whoever it is will have to make some tough decisions when it comes to some heritage brands. It’s doubtful all will make it through.

A better Barracuda?

On the other hand, we could see some iconic names coming back. A smaller, twin-turbocharged, all-wheel-drive V8 coupe Barracuda, anyone?

It could happen if rumors are true that performance guru Tim Kuniskis will return to the company. There are a lot worse strategies than putting Kuniskis behind the wheel of the Stellantis portfolio of brands.

Cooking with gas

Imagine the new Barracuda as a Challenger replacement, while using the ‘Cuda name for performance versions, as the company has in the past, all with a V8 version that is smaller, lighter, and more sophisticated than its predecessors.

They’ll sell like hotcakes.

The syrup and whipped cream on top will be if the U.S. Federal EV mandate truly goes away. When that happens, automotive stocks for companies making gasoline cars will see a dramatic revaluation.

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

​Stellantis, Peugot, Culture, Auto industry, Barracuda, Ev mandate, Align cars 

In 2010, Muammar Gaddafi made a dire prediction about Europe’s future. While negotiating a deal with Italy to prevent African migrants from using Libya as a gateway to Europe, he warned: “Tomorrow, Europe might no longer be European … as there are millions who want to come in. … We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

A year later, Gaddafi was dead. His removal during an Arab Spring uprising created a power vacuum in Libya, allowing nearly a million migrants from Africa and the Middle East to cross the country unchecked into Europe — just as he had foreseen. Years later, the Migration Policy Institute described Libya’s continued instability, stating: “Post-Gaddafi, the trade and extortion of human beings became a central source of income for communities in Libya, often to the migrants’ detriment.”

No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

At the peak of the migration surge into Europe in 2015, Libya became a primary transit point, with nearly 200,000 migrants per year making the journey. Smugglers charged between $5,000 and $6,000 per person to cross the Mediterranean on unsafe dinghies. Many landed first on the Italian island of Lampedusa before continuing to welfare-rich destinations like Germany and Sweden.

That same year, a separate wave — the “European migrant crisis” — unfolded, likely influenced by Libya’s collapse. This migration, largely over land, passed through the Middle East, Turkey, and Greece before reaching Germany, where then-Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the influx.

The 15th anniversary of Gaddafi’s warning is also a reminder of NATO’s direct role in his downfall. The U.S.-led alliance, facing unprecedented criticism from the current White House, orchestrated the dictator’s removal in 2011. The Arab Spring provided a pretext to eliminate a longtime regional obstacle, setting the stage for the chaos that followed.

Libya remains far from recovery and needless to say has not transitioned into a Western-style democracy. Instead, it resembles a slightly less chaotic version of Iraq, marked by deep tribal and factional divisions. However, a 2017 agreement between Italy and the Libyan coast guard has significantly reduced migrant crossings from Libya to Europe. Meanwhile, rising foreign-led terrorism and organized crime in Germany and Sweden have bolstered the appeal of right-wing populist movements.

NATO’s removal of Gaddafi, once hailed as a “model intervention” by Foreign Affairs, exposed the fundamental flaw of nation-building — failing to account for the vacuum left behind (or, really, just the folly of nation-building itself).

More than a decade later, Libya, like Iraq and Syria, remains fractured not just along political lines but also by tribal and ethnic divisions. Under Gaddafi, Libya had been both a destination and transit hub for migrants, particularly black Africans seeking work in the oil industry. After his fall, many became victims of racial violence and even enslavement by local militias and Islamist groups.

Barack Obama later admitted that failing to plan for Libya’s post-Gaddafi future was his “worst mistake” as president. Reflecting on the crisis, he noted that any stable government must first control its own borders. Given the source, the irony is unmistakable. But the point remains: No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

​Libya, Muammar gaddafi, Migrant crisis, Europe, Nato, Barack obama, Nation building, Germany, Angela merkel, Opinion & analysis 

The Trump administration appears to be gearing up for a showdown with the federal court system after yet another judge has thrown her hat in the ring to oppose changes long-awaited by the American people.

“We had a rainbow jihad judge appointed by Barack Obama think that she has the power to determine who can and cannot serve in the armed forces,” Steve Deace of the “Steve Deace Show” comments, noting that of all the federal court injunctions that have been issued so far in the 21st century, “about 70% of them have been issued by 92% Democrat-appointed justices and specifically against President Trump.”

“That is a judicial coup,” he continues. “On the right, we have had one major victory ever, in modern times, against judicial tyranny. And it happened right here in the state of Iowa.”

“What we saw in Iowa is a court thought that it had the power to be its own unelected perpetual constitutional convention, like frankly we have allowed the courts to be for decades. But here’s the thing: We’re kind of in an era right now where we’re kind of waking up to the fact we’ve allowed too much madness to go on, and so now is the time to do something about it,” he adds.

Deace doesn’t believe this is a question of authority rather than legal theory.

“Who’s really in charge of the United States of America? And it’s not even which branch vis-à-vis the other. It’s really whether we the people are. Do we exist for the government, do we exist for the system, or does the government and the system exist for us?” Deace asks.

“That’s really the heart of the argument,” he continues. “We fought a revolutionary war over a lack of agency and representation, as Englishmen were now essentially evicted from their own citizenship. And you’re claiming that the system they set up after the fact was with the intent of just replacing it with the exact same thing?”

“And so your argument,” he adds, “the heart of your argument, is that they did all of that, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors just to then reinstall the exact same system, just with an American accent?”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Upload, Sharing, Free, Camera phone, Video phone, Video, Youtube.com, Steve deace show, Steve deace, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, The trump administration, The federal court system, Barack obama, Anti trump judges, President donald trump, Donald trump, Donald trump executive order 

Arizona State University was among a lengthy list of institutions under federal investigation this week for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a provision designed to prevent discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. This should be noncontroversial. Yet, universities across the country are engaging in systemic discrimination disguised as social justice under the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Universities justify racial discrimination by applying the Marxist dialectic of “oppressor versus oppressed,” now repackaged in academic jargon as “privileged versus marginalized.” They argue that so-called marginalized groups require extra resources to address past injustices, assigning “oppressor” status based on skin color, sex, and religion.

University administrators who implemented these discriminatory DEI programs should issue a public apology — for starters.

At ASU, for example, DEI employee training explicitly labels “whiteness” and “heteronormativity” as inherent oppressor categories. The training presents as fact — not as one perspective among many — that America has always been a white supremacist nation. Faculty are expected to accept this assertion without question.

I am currently suing ASU to stop this required DEI training. Instead of acknowledging its discriminatory nature, the university defends it in court.

ASU’s inclusive charter has been weaponized into a Marxist dialectic that teaches students to hate the United States and Christianity. The school explains its practices by referring to its charter, which emphasizes “inclusion.” Obviously, a taxpayer-funded university should be inclusive. In practice, however, ASU’s definition of inclusion means privileging some groups — the so-called marginalized — over others — the so-called oppressors.

And how do they determine who belongs to which category? Skin color, sex, and religion.

This is not education; it is indoctrination. Yet, professors often claim, “You cannot discriminate against white people because they are the oppressors.” At one event I attended, a speaker stated it was time to “take white men down a notch.” These people are entrusted with teaching your children — on your dime.

Discrimination in DEI

The Title VI investigation at ASU and 39 other universities targets the Ph.D. Project, a program that provides networking and career opportunities for doctoral students but excludes participants based on race. This is blatant racial discrimination. The program defends its practices using the same Marxist logic — arguing that historic injustices justify present-day racial “preferences.”

ASU reinforced this reasoning in 2023 when it hosted Ibram X. Kendi for the A. Wade Smith and Elsie Moore Memorial Lecture on Race Relations. Kendi’s stance, repeated many times over, is clear: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”

That argument fails both legally and morally. In contrast, President Donald Trump’s Department of Education made its position explicit: “The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination.”

For decades, universities positioned themselves as defenders of civil rights. Now, they are being exposed for violating those very principles. The irony would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive.

From racism to anti-Semitism

ASU isn’t just under investigation for racial discrimination — it is also one of 60 universities under federal scrutiny for anti-Semitism. This is particularly rich coming from the same academics who spent the last decade yelling that “Trump is Hitler.” And yet, the Department of Education now says:

The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better.

Professors support Hamas, leave their Jewish students open to harassment, and yet take to social media to denounce Elon Musk as a Nazi. They need to look in the mirror. Maybe the Department of Education will help them do so.

University administrators who imposed these discriminatory DEI programs should start by issuing a public apology — not just to Jewish students but to all who have suffered under their race-based policies, as well as to the taxpayers who fund them.

If they refuse, it reveals one simple truth: They have not changed their beliefs. More likely, they will resort to bureaucratic rebranding, repackaging the same DEI policies under a new name while continuing business as usual.

A path forward

The only way to break this cycle is to dismantle the oppressor/oppressed dialectic in all its forms. The Marxist framework behind DEI must be exposed for what it is — a pseudoscientific ideology that justifies discrimination under the guise of justice. It aligns with those who oppose the United States. Parents, students, and faculty must demand transparency and reject participation in discriminatory programs.

Federal investigations are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough. Universities like ASU must face accountability — not just legally but intellectually. Public universities should be required to disclose what professors teach in their classrooms. Taxpayer-funded faculty must be held responsible for their actions like any other government employee.

The woke university system has long relied on an illusion of moral authority, but that illusion is crumbling. Under its leadership, the worst forms of discrimination have flourished, and those who cry loudest about justice have been the worst offenders. The question is: Will we seize this moment to force real change, or will we allow these institutions to rebrand and continue their deception under a new name?

​Arizona state university, Diversity equity inclusion, Federal investigation, Department of education, Anti-discrimination, Anti-semitism, Donald trump, Ibram x. kendi, Lawsuit, Title vi, Civil rights act, Fraud, Oppressor, Oppressed, Marxism, Opinion & analysis 

It’s easy to mock Europe for relying on the United States for its defense, but we face the same predicament: outsourcing critical components of our military arsenal overseas — and often not to friendly allies. Trump’s tariffs could help bring them back home.

Tariffs are not merely a way to repatriate and rebuild America’s industrial strength; they are also a tool to rebuild America’s military self-sufficiency. A harrowing amount of our critical military components aren’t produced domestically, making the United States dangerously reliant on foreign countries, including adversaries like China. It’s almost comical how some war hawks would go to war with the Chinese to defend Taiwan, while we still rely on them for the material that fuels our war machine.

Let’s bring home America’s military supply chain and let’s use tariffs to help get it done.

“Principled free traders” argue that “tariffs are a tax on consumers,” favoring offshore manufacturing because it lowers consumer costs. But the cracks in their “free trade” argument become evident as American taxpayers foot a higher bill from their hawkish policies than from Trump’s tariffs.

Here are some other “taxes on consumers.”

Defense spending

Every cent that goes toward America’s national defense is part of the taxpayer’s burden. The U.S. annual defense budget is about $850 billion, which costs each U.S. resident about $2,500 — although this number is, in practice, much higher, given that not all residents pay taxes. Eliminating defense spending would provide consumers with a huge tax break.

If “free traders” are consistent in their argument, shouldn’t they advocate eliminating defense spending? Though extreme, this example demonstrates the inconsistency in the “no taxes without qualification” argument against tariffs.

If tariffs are a tax on consumers, they are a tax that also supports our national defense and self-reliance. Opposing tariffs necessary for America to have the industrial self-sufficiency to source our war machine domestically is akin to opposing a permanent standing army.

Funding foreign wars

Every cent spent sending munitions to Ukraine is a tax on U.S. consumers. Ask the typical American whether he’d rather see more of his money go toward rebuilding American manufacturing via tariffs or have it go to the Ukrainian war effort that is killing off a generation of men. The typical American would prefer the former, yet we engage in the latter.

Deficit spending

Consumers pay for the massive federal budget deficit through inflation — a cruel and direct tax on consumers. Whether it be foreign aid, domestic waste, or any other gratuitous government project, every penny of deficit spending is a tax paid for consumers in the form of inflation. Most Americans would likely prefer tariffs that produce American manufacturing jobs over wasteful, ideologically charged deficit spending, such as funding transgender operas in Colombia.

Foreign sanctions

Sanctions that block a country from exporting to the U.S. serve the same purpose as high tariffs. Ironically, free traders don’t get worked up over sanctions like they do with tariffs. Current sanctions imposed on Russia are technically a “tax on consumers,” driving up prices on goods that Russia would otherwise export.

If China is just as much — if not more — of a threat to U.S. national security as Russia, why aren’t “free traders” in favor of blocking Chinese exports in the same manner?

A recent report on military spending revealed that the Army and Navy are reducing their reliance on China for critical technology. At the same time, the Air Force has increased its use of Chinese suppliers.

While the Army and Navy’s efforts to distance themselves from China are a positive step, any reliance on a foreign adversary for critical military infrastructure poses a serious risk. The U.S. must prioritize returning military supply chains to American soil to ensure national security and self-sufficiency.

Even the most passionate “free traders” will sometimes acknowledge that some products critical to national defense should be manufactured stateside. But rather than giving so-called “experts” and “technocrats” the power to determine which components of the military-industrial supply chain are “most essential,” we shouldn’t leave any part of our national security apparatus on foreign soil — and certainly not that of foreign adversaries like China.

Vice President JD Vance understands the issue, recently posting on X that “the bitter irony of America’s present predicament is that the very people who cheer for permanent arms shipments to Ukraine also supported the de-industrialization of America. The very things you want us to send are things we don’t make enough of.”

The vice president is correct. Let’s bring home America’s military supply chain, and let’s use tariffs to help get it done.

​China, Tariffs, National defense, Army, Navy, Air force, Pentagon, Manufacturing, Donald trump, National debt, Taxes, Spending, Opinion & analysis 

“If we can’t see the good in each other, we’ve already lost,” says Sam Wilson in the penultimate scene of “Captain America: Brave New World.”

This lukewarm call to unity might well be Marvel talking to its disappointed fans. The studio remains in a precarious position, at its lowest point critically and commercially since “Iron Man” officially launched the Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2008, revitalizing the brand with an unbroken, interconnected string of blockbusters that dominated the box office through 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame.”

One watches ‘Captain America: Brave New World’ with the suspicion that it started out as something much darker — and more compelling.

That film was the triumphant culmination of the MCU’s first three “phases.” Since then, the transition into what Marvel has dubbed phases four and five has been rocky.

Majors setback

Critics and audiences have found the overarching story unfocused and directionless. These tendencies were exacerbated when the studio fired actor Jonathan Majors, whose character Kang was meant to play a crucial role in the new saga, in the wake of domestic abuse allegations.

On top of all this, 2023’s “The Marvels” gave the studio its first genuine bomb.

Marvel may have hoped that “Captain America: Brave New World” would recapture some of that old MCU magic. But while the $342 million it has earned since its Valentine’s Day release hardly makes it a flop, that tally is a far cry from the $357 million “Avengers: Endgame” grossed in its first three days.

Moreover, audience response has been tepid, earning it a negative 48% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Mainstream critics hate it, finding it to be a hobbled mess destroyed in reshoots and delays, and negative word of mouth has contributed to one of the largest multi-week dropoffs in Marvel’s box office history.

New-job jitters

Of course, “Brave New World” is only nominally a Captain America movie. Gone is Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as the original Cap, having retired at the end of “Endgame” and handed his shield to his partner Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), formerly known as Falcon.

This succession was given perfunctory treatment in Disney+’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” As a black man, Wilson is conflicted about representing a patriotism that once excluded him and rejects the title. In doing so, he unwittingly cedes it to a jingoistic soldier named John Walker.

It is only after a post-national terrorist group emerges as a major threat to the world that Wilson finally accepts his new role, donning the red, white, and blue uniform and ending the series with a now-infamous lecture on the need to “do better” toward refugees and the oppressed.

“Brave New World” picks up shortly after these events, with Wilson having settled comfortably into the role of Captain America.

When his close friend Isaiah Bradley — a black super soldier from the Korean War imprisoned by the federal government and experimented upon — is wrongly arrested for an attempted presidential assassination, Wilson realizes that newly elected President Thaddeus Ross (Harrison Ford, taking over for the late William Hurt) is being targeted by forces within the federal government trying to expose a dark secret.

Deep-state danger

The Captain America franchise has always treated the U.S. government with suspicion — it’s an institution susceptible to Nazi infiltration and prone to turning on American citizens. The fact that the insane general from “The Incredible Hulk” could become president on a unity and peace platform just maximizes the irony of the dark realities of the country — and that’s before Wilson starts discovering hidden CIA black sites on American soil.

In the face of this threat from within, Wilson’s ambivalence about being a black Captain America lingers; at the same time, he feels inadequate to live up to the legacy of his superpowered predecessor. That issue is largely resolved by Wilson’s new Wakandan battle suit, while his ambivalence mostly comes out in dialogue.

Seeing red

The film’s most curious creative decision is to give Ross a redemption story. Despite his background attempting to hunt down the Hulk, killing civilians in the process, and committing numerous other crimes and abuses, Ross ends up the film’s most developed and sympathetic character. This is thanks especially to Ford’s nuanced portrayal, which lets us see the similarities between Ross and Wilson, both of whom struggle to live up to what’s expected of them.

Ross slowly reveals the man beneath the cynical, power-seeking military man we know from previous films. This Ross wants to be president because he wants to prove to his daughter that he has changed.

This adds depth to the much-publicized Red Hulk scenes. In this climactic battle, we see Ross’ secrets and anxieties slowly bubble up from within him and threaten to destroy more than his legacy.

The film’s dramatic core hangs on the question of whether Ross’ character change is sincere or not, weighing the fate of numerous characters against his willingness to tell the truth at the cost of his legacy.

And given that he’s the stand-in for American political and military power, it’s clear that “Captain America: Brave New World” is asking this of the country he represents at large. Is America willing to speak the truth of its sins, or is it willing to let innocent black men take the fall for the sake of a greater legacy?

Missed opportunity

This is certainly more subtle than the heavy-handed anti-Trump (an outnumbered black man up against an orange — okay, red — president) commentary than many feared. Regardless, one watches “Captain America: Brave New World” with the suspicion that it started out as something much darker — and more compelling.

Years of rewrites and reshoots imposed on director Julius Onah (“The Cloverfield Paradox”) have sanded off the edges of the movie in awkward ways, with whole character arcs discarded and major scenes reshot on green screens.

“Brave New World” was originally called “Captain America: New World Order,” a title that seems to promise a more direct confrontation with the secretive, hidden elements of the government behind our elected officials — the so-called “deep state.”

What the new version gains in highbrow cred — it’s both a reference to Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel of the same name and the line from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” that inspired its title — it loses in directness.

The resulting movie , neither politically relevant nor entertaining, strands our new Captain America in no man’s land.

​Tyler hummel, Movies, Reviews, Captain america: brave new world, Mcu, Marvel, Culture, Review