New York State Senate Session – 03/20/2025

A massive sell-off in U.S. bonds led a CNN analyst to sound the alarm about a rare "red flag" as financial markets reel.

The country saw a significant sell-off in U.S. bonds this week, driven by concerns over President Donald Trump's tariff policies and broader economic uncertainty. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note surged to as high as 4.53%, marking its highest point since February and a dramatic increase from Monday’s low of 3.87%. This reflects a sharp decline in bond prices, as yields and prices move inversely.

Allison Morrow, a senior writer for CNN Business, told anchor Jake Tapper on Friday afternoon that tens of trillions of dollars come into the U.S. from all over the globe.

ALSO READ: Violent J6er who broke into Capitol announces run for Congress in East Texas

"That asset, that bond, is considered to be one of the safest places any investor can put their money because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government," she told viewers. "Ultimately a U.S. bond, a treasury, is a safe haven."

This, she said, is "important" to what happened this week.

"Normally in times of economic turmoil, we would see stocks sell off and investors go to bonds. That didn't happen. We saw investors selling stocks and bonds. And that is really a red flag because it's only happened a handful of times in history and its a signal that investors can't really see which way the economy is going. And they're putting their pencils down and saying, 'We're sitting this one out.'"

The economy is in a "precarious position," now, Morrow said.

The 10-year treasury yield is the benchmark for car loans, mortgages, and credit cards. When bonds are sold off, yield goes up.

"And that's exactly what we saw this week," she said.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Former NAACP director Cornell William Brooks laid into President Donald Trump's move to freeze billions in federal funding from Harvard University, after the prestigious institution rejected his demands to crack down on the political ideology of its faculty and student body — a similar ultimatum Trump used against Columbia University that that school ultimately complied with.

"We have a wonderful Constitution that contains a First Amendment, which this government, this administration is violating," Brooks told CNN's John Berman. "This is to say, the government does not get to dictate political ideology. It does not get to determine whether faculty or staff or too liberal to conservative to this, to that. The First Amendment has a little something to say about that."

But there's another federal law standing in the way, he continued.

"Title XI is that law which says you can't use government funds to discriminate. This is a law that was brought into being as a consequence of the blood sacrifice of civil rights workers and African Americans, and this administration has taken that law, turned it upside down, and used it to try to micromanage Harvard and essentially make it a satellite campus of the now-defunct Trump University. This is outrageous."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

"But even if you buy your arguments, and even if you admit that the administration is trying to micromanage Harvard University, it is their money," said Berman. "How much will the absence of that money impact Harvard?"

"Well, first of all, let's — John, I want to be very clear about this," said Brooks. "It's not their money. It's the money of the American taxpayer ... and Harvard uses taxpayer money to do research on Alzheimer's, to do research on all manner of illnesses, to advance human knowledge, to send teachers into communities to teach. The point being here is the government, as in the Trump administration, doesn't get to use taxpayer dollars to violate the First Amendment."

"When you read the president of Harvard's letter ... it makes it very clear," he added. "Harvard is not refusing to comply with the government demands, simply out of a matter of personal prerogative, institutional prerogative. It is not doing so because the demands themselves are unlawful. They're unconstitutional. This is not the way government is supposed to behave. And if this were done to any major corporation, everyone would understand. You don't really get to micromanage business. I was a lawyer in the United States Justice Department. I served as president and CEO of the NAACP. I've overseen federal investigations with serious settlements and demand letters. This is not that. This is — this is literally political ransom."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com