Good People, Trump did not even have to travel to any country or attend any fundraising event or IMF conference, but in less than a week, he has raised $1.1 TRILLION for America. The AI Stargate project propelled by Japan’s Softbank brought in $500 billion, and now Saudi Arabia’s crown prince ups the game with $600 billion: “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s announcement of a $600 billion investment in the United States over the next four years has sparked renewed debate about the country’s economic trajectory.”

My People, nations rise when they have credible leaders that markets will respect and believe on their competence. You do not even need a slide or presentation to the investors, but YOU the leader is the slide which investors will study, and commit capital. Our illusion is that we can “package” our leaders and sell them to global investors. That has not worked!

Africa: you need to make your elections free, fair and credible so that men and women who are outside the game now can join to deliver your promises. When that happens, a new future will emerge. The path to economic ascension goes through elections because when they’re credible, some of the poor players will fade at the polls.

That said, the US is likely going to suck in all the  juices in global capital, and I am truly worried how Africa will perform in the next four years. This is very scary now, and it poses grave economic dangers in Africa. The African Union must quickly call an emergency meeting because there is a high likelihood that many projects will be abandoned in Africa on Trump’s America First and the fact that investors will gravitate where the action is.

Trump is a credible businessman to raise funds. That does not mean he is a credible member of your church choir. You need to look at things on domains. Between 2015 and 2019, Dangote raised more money than the Nigerian government. If you have made him a president, he would bring tons of money for Nigeria because he speaks the language of capital and is credible before investors. There is no need to mix emotions: Trump knows what investors want (returns) and he is credible before them

Saudi Crown Prince Announces Plan for $600bn Investment in U.S., Spurs Speculation on U.S. Economic Climate

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s announcement of a $600 billion investment in the United States over the next four years has sparked renewed debate about the country’s economic trajectory.

Mohammed bin Salman revealed the ambitious proposal during a phone conversation with President Donald Trump, highlighting the kingdom’s intention to capitalize on what he described as “unprecedented economic prosperity” anticipated under Trump’s leadership.

However, the timing of this announcement, coming alongside the unveiling of Trump’s $500 billion Stargate initiative to bolster artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, has led to speculation about deeper motivations. Analysts and critics believe that this proposal reflects pent-up demand from international investors who have been hesitant to engage with the U.S. economy in recent years, attributing this hesitance to the impact of progressive or Leftist policies during the Biden administration.

Trump’s Stargate initiative—a partnership involving OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank—aims to establish Texas as a global hub for AI development, cementing U.S. leadership in emerging technologies. The project’s massive $500 billion investment underscores the scale of ambition, with a focus on infrastructure that will drive advanced AI applications.

Saudi Arabia’s investment pledge dovetails with this push, with some observers suggesting that it could be a strategic move to align with the U.S.’s renewed emphasis on technological and economic competitiveness.

However, the overlap in timing has also fueled speculation that investors like Saudi Arabia had been wary of committing large-scale investments under the policies of the Biden administration, which they argue prioritized regulation, higher corporate taxes, and environmental mandates over economic growth.

Critics of progressive economic policies point to what they describe as a stifling environment for business and investment under the Biden administration. They argue that increased regulation, higher taxes, and a focus on climate change initiatives at the expense of traditional economic drivers have created uncertainty for investors.

The $600 billion Saudi pledge, combined with Trump’s Stargate initiative, is seen by some as a reaction to these policies, with proponents of Trump’s approach claiming that his deregulation-focused and business-friendly governance offers a more stable and lucrative environment for foreign investors.

Saudi Arabia’s investment pledge also aligns with its Vision 2030 initiative, which seeks to diversify the kingdom’s economy away from oil dependency and focus on innovation and technology. This alignment with U.S. priorities in AI infrastructure suggests a mutual interest in forging stronger economic ties.

Trump’s Economic Legacy and Renewed Saudi Ties

The investment proposal also underscores Trump’s longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia, cultivated during his presidency. In 2017, Trump’s first official visit abroad was to Riyadh, where he secured a $450 billion trade agreement, which included substantial arms sales. Trump has frequently cited this deal as a testament to his ability to negotiate significant foreign investments.

In a recent call, Trump suggested he would consider making Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination once again if the kingdom commits to purchasing $500 billion worth of American products. The president emphasized the importance of trade reciprocity, saying, “I did it with Saudi Arabia last time because they agreed to buy $450 billion worth of our product. I said I’ll do it, but you have to buy American products, and they agreed to do that.”

Saudi Arabia’s previous investments in Trump’s post-presidency ventures, including a $2 billion commitment to Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, further highlight the deep economic ties between the two parties.

The Crown Prince reportedly praised Trump’s vision, expressing confidence in the U.S.’s potential to lead the next wave of global economic growth. However, he stopped short of specifying how the $600 billion would be funded or allocated, leaving questions about the proposal’s viability.

The interplay between U.S. domestic policy and international investment is believed to have been responsible for some economic setbacks in the US, discouraging foreign capital inflows. For example, several prominent industry voices have cited the Inflation Reduction Act and aggressive climate policies as disincentives for investment in traditional industries. Meanwhile, supporters of these policies argue that they are necessary to transition to a more sustainable economy.

A Turning Point for U.S. Economic Strategy?

The convergence of the Stargate project and Saudi Arabia’s investment proposal may represent more than just a financial boon. Analysts believe it could mark a shift in the narrative around the U.S. economy, particularly if the perception that Leftist policies have deterred investment gains traction.

The challenge, however, lies in execution. Experts note that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia must navigate geopolitical hurdles to ensure that these ambitious projects deliver tangible benefits.

Good People, special love to JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs for standing firm on why they would continue their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives against the avalanche of softies who are reversing course on something which makes society better: “The heads of both JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs reaffirmed their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, joining Apple and Costco among the companies resisting the push to roll back DEI programs. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon argued that diversity policies have been good for the bank’s bottom line, in contrast to recent DEI retreats by companies like Meta and Walmart.”

It is naive to think that a non-optimal system does not need a fudge factor to attain a better equilibrium. The anti-DEI crusaders love their legacy admissions which enable kids of rich parents to attend colleges, because their parents donated monies to universities, but hate it when poor kids need a little consideration to move to the next steps. So, diversity works if it is paid via donations as unqualified rich kids get admissions, but it is “woke” if we need to reserve 2% to enable those who are eternally excluded to have a future.

As a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins, as part of my National Science Foundation PhD Merit fellowship, I volunteered to teach mathematics and physics in many high schools in Maryland State. During that program I learnt one thing: where you are born in America can determine many things about your future. Yes, the local schools are largely funded by local real estate tax, and poor areas have bad schools, while rich areas have resources and typically have better schools.  Yes, when you have mansions, they make more money from real estate taxes to fund their schools where areas with small people’s homes see their schools collapsing.

As I moved from one district to another, I correlated the readiness of students, on average, with the wealth of where they live. Simply, statistically, a kid in a poor area has tons of odds to overcome poverty through education because the school will fail him or her.  

I get you – they should remain school dropouts because their local schools have failed them. But someone can say, in the 100% total, can we pick the most promising despite all odds, just in the way legacy admissions offer access to rich kids, diversifying schools to have the children of billionaires? You cannot support diversity via donation but hate diversity in DEI for the excluded.

But when it comes to GS and JPMC, this is not about competence as everyone is qualified. What is happening here is ACCESS. You can graduate top of your class, but you have no one that can give you access. But if there is a policy to reserve 2% for people like you, through that, you could be discovered. I write this because we make investments in Tekedia Capital: you can have the USD dollars, but you may not be in the loop of the startup pipelines. 

Imagine if fund managers decide to say: it is 100%, but 2% will be allocated to people who traditionally do not have access to these deals. Those people will pay REAL dollars. But today, that is not the case. Sure, people will complain: why must you allow that guy to be part of a deal when his US dollars has been touched by a DEI hand?

GS and JPMC, I salute. Do not give up, stand up for the excluded until the world becomes more equal. 

EI is built on merit; it is giving access to qualified but excluded people. On SpaceX and GS, think deeper, the guy who keeps money manages the world. America can function without SpaceX, but I am not sure we will be here without banks for a week. GS and JPMC are apostles of merit and their numbers show that and that is the point the CEOs are making. If you believe in facts, and understand financial statements, DEI is working for them, and they are not lying! Why abolish what has made them great?