Jump to content

Second presidency of Donald Trump

Edit links
From Wikiquote

The Second Presidency of Donald Trump began on his inauguration EST on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States, succeeding Joe Biden

See also:
2026 Iran war
Donald Trump on social media
Trumpism

Quotes

[edit]
California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. ~ Gavin Newsom
We need independent universities. We need an independent press. And, of course, we need independent courts. And Trump doesn't like independence because independent institutions can say no to him. And the more he can weaken the independence of those institutions, the more he can make his agenda the dominant agenda. And ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else. ~ Noah Feldman
It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. ~ Donald Trump
The administration is efficient and punctual, and its leader can do no wrong. The American republic is aiming for a head-on collision with democracy, and not incidentally is becoming an enigma, if not a laughingstock, to the rest of the free world. It has to stop. ~ Religion News Service
As United States President Donald Trump relentlessly threatens to annex Canada, reiterating the threat again this week in a speech to American military officials, some Canadians are worried that a U.S. invasion could one day become a reality. How would that scenario play out? Looking at the sheer size of the American military, many people might believe that Trump would enjoy an easy victory.
That analysis is wrong. ~ Aisha Ahmad

2025

[edit]

January 2025

[edit]
  • The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
    But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
    Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
  • It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
  • Without DEI, we are told, hiring and promotions will be merit-based. Make no mistake though, merit has traditionally been liberally peppered with cronyism and good-ol’-boy-ism. Now add to that fealty to the Trump Administration rather than the Constitution.
    The reality is that Fagan’s firing has nothing to do with bolstering national security. Just the opposite. It is part of a regressive social agenda to put women back in their place, misogyny being the glue that holds together the many racist, anti-immigration, LGBTQ+ and other hate groups that have been unleashed in America.
  • It is worth noting as well that it was President Donald Trump who signed the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Act in 2017, mandating the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) that recognizes the links between gender and security and therefore seeks to bolster women’s participation in security affairs. UNSCR 1325 is built upon four pillars: participation, prevention, protection, and relief and recovery efforts. WPS emphasizes the need for inclusive diversity (women having not just a seat, but a voice at decision-making tables) and consideration of how policies and programs affect men, women, boys and girls differently.
  • Her firing was an insult to Fagan’s career and legacy and will have significant negative national security implications.
    The Trump Administration has vowed to end “radical and wasteful” government DEI programs. “A woke military is a weak military” DEI critics like to say. Actually, however, a well-executed DEI program can address challenges being faced by the military. Those challenges are sometimes referred to as the “5 Rs”: recruitment, retention, readiness, resources and risk to force/risk to mission.
  • Firing Fagan was likely just the first salvo in ridding the Pentagon, and the government generally, of individuals who support diversity. What’s the next chapter? The path forward is no longer visible, just like the Coast Guard web page that used to feature Fagan’s photo and biography.
  • Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.
    This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts. Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.
    Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.
  • “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.
  • Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.
  • 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. Policy and Purpose. Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.
    Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.
    Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.
  • The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”
  • Sec. 3. Ending Reliance on Junk Science. (a) The blatant harm done to children by chemical and surgical mutilation cloaks itself in medical necessity, spurred by guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which lacks scientific integrity. In light of the scientific concerns with the WPATH guidance:
    (i) agencies shall rescind or amend all policies that rely on WPATH guidance, including WPATH’s “Standards of Care Version 8”; and
    (ii) within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall publish a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion.
    (b) The Secretary of HHS, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall use all available methods to increase the quality of data to guide practices for improving the health of minors with gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion, or who otherwise seek chemical or surgical mutilation.
  • Sec. 4. Defunding Chemical and Surgical Mutilation. The head of each executive department or agency (agency) that provides research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals, shall, consistent with applicable law and in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.
  • Sec. 6. TRICARE. The Department of Defense provides health insurance, through TRICARE, to nearly 2 million individuals under the age of 18. As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of Defense shall commence a rulemaking or sub-regulatory action to exclude chemical and surgical mutilation of children from TRICARE coverage and amend the TRICARE provider handbook to exclude chemical and surgical mutilation of children.
  • Imprinting anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies on our Nation’s children not only violates longstanding anti-discrimination civil rights law in many cases, but usurps basic parental authority. For example, steering students toward surgical and chemical mutilation without parental consent or involvement or allowing males access to private spaces designated for females may contravene Federal laws that protect parental rights, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), and sex-based equality and opportunity, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX). Similarly, demanding acquiescence to “White Privilege” or “unconscious bias,” actually promotes racial discrimination and undermines national unity.
  • Within 90 days of the date of this order, to advise the President in formulating future policy, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, containing recommendations and a plan for:
    (i) eliminating Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology
    (ii) protecting parental rights, pursuant to FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and the PPRA, 20 U.S.C. 1232h, with respect to any K-12 policies or conduct implicated by the purpose and policy of this order.
    (b) The Ending Indoctrination Strategy submitted under subsection (a) of this section shall contain a summary and analysis of the following:
    (i) All Federal funding sources and streams, including grants or contracts, that directly or indirectly support or subsidize the instruction, advancement, or promotion of gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology:
    (A) in K-12 curriculum, instruction, programs, or activities; or
    (B) in K-12 teacher education, certification, licensing, employment, or training;
    (ii) Each agency’s process to prevent or rescind Federal funds, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, from being used by an ESA, SEA, LEA, elementary school, or secondary school to directly or indirectly support or subsidize the instruction, advancement, or promotion of gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology in:
    (A) K-12 curriculum, instruction, programs, or activities; or
    (B) K-12 teacher certification, licensing, employment, or training;
    (iii) Each agency’s process to prevent or rescind Federal funds, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, from being used by an ESA, SEA, LEA, elementary school, or secondary school to directly or indirectly support or subsidize the social transition of a minor student, including through school staff or teachers or through deliberately concealing the minor’s social transition from the minor’s parents.
Inaugural Address (January 20th, 2025)
[edit]
  • From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. We will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will very simply put America first.
  • My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal and all of these many betrayals that have taken place and to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and, indeed, their freedom. From this moment on, America’s decline is over.
  • Just a few months ago, in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin’s bullet ripped through my ear. But I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to Make America Great Again.
  • Today, I will sign a series of historic executive orders. With these actions, we will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense. It’s all about common sense.
  • We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be. A peacemaker and a unifier.
  • I stand before you now as proof that you should never believe that something is impossible to do. In America, the impossible is what we do best.
  • We will stand bravely, we will live proudly, we will dream boldly, and nothing will stand in our way because we are Americans. The future is ours, and our golden age has just begun.

February 2025

[edit]
  • By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Policy and Purpose. In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports. This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.
    Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy. It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.
  • The Secretary of State, including through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ Sports Diplomacy Division and the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, shall:
    (i) rescind support for and participation in people-to-people sports exchanges or other sports programs within which the relevant female sports category is based on identity and not sex

April 2025

[edit]
  • Since Trump’s inauguration, something in the American psyche has ruptured. The comforting fictions we were raised on—the permanence of democracy, the inevitability of progress, the moral arc bending obediently toward justice—have begun to decay in the open air. And as the facade crumbles, many find themselves in the throes of a bitter realization: that democracy, like any living thing, must be tended, and we—distracted, sedated, entertained into stupor—have neglected the garden.
    But for some of us, this is not an awakening. It’s confirmation. The slow creep of authoritarian rot has long been visible to those unwilling to mistake noise for substance. We’ve seen it metastasize in school board meetings, in voter suppression bills dressed up as “security,” in pundits who speak in slogans and legislate in spite. This isn’t a glitch in the system—it is the system, finally baring its teeth.
    American fascism doesn’t arrive with marching boots and armbands. It comes wearing a flag pin and smiling through lies. It speaks the language of liberty while gutting its meaning, builds walls while preaching unity, demands law and order while desecrating both. Its genius lies in its banality—it doesn’t shock, it numbs. It doesn’t seize power all at once; it convinces you to hand it over piece by piece, until all that’s left is the echo of your own consent.
  • And yet, even now, something resists. The illusion is fracturing. The machine groans. Some of those once entranced by the spectacle are blinking their way back to awareness. The slogans ring hollow. The outrage feels manufactured. The enemy-of-the-week carousel begins to look more like a grift than a gospel.
    To those beginning to see it—whether with regret, disbelief, or shame—there is no need to grovel. There is no moral utility in self-flagellation. Simply step in. Join the ranks of those who refuse to be further weaponized against their own future. Redemption, in this case, is not spiritual—it’s civic.
    But understand this: the middle ground is gone. It’s not that nuance is dead; it’s that the stakes have outgrown equivocation. This is not about partisan preference. It is about whether the society we pass on values truth or convenience, solidarity or submission.
    Despair, seductive though it is, must be treated like any other form of propaganda: with suspicion. It flatters the ego while paralyzing the will. It tells you that caring is futile, that resistance is symbolic, that apathy is sophistication. But despair is not wisdom—it is surrender dressed in intellect’s clothing.
  • So yes—feel the rage. Let it bloom. But refine it. Make it do work. The answer to this moment is not retreat, and it is certainly not moderation disguised as maturity. The answer is engagement—real, sustained, imperfect engagement. The kind that builds something worth defending.
    Because no one is coming to save us. There is no parent, no party, no perfectly articulated policy that will reverse this decline on its own. There’s only us—flawed, fatigued, infuriated, but still tethered to a vision of something better. Still capable of defiance. Still able to remember who we are.
    And here is what must be remembered: this unraveling is not ordained. It is not gravity. It is not some immutable law of nature dragging us toward darkness. It is permissioned—enabled by what we tolerate, fueled by what we ignore, and shaped entirely by what we allow. History is not written in stone. It is etched moment by moment by human hands—hands that can just as easily build as they can destroy.
    We forget sometimes that there is no “they” without us. The enforcers of tyranny have neighbors. Families. Old friends. Someone taught them to ride a bike, to read, to pray. Someone loved them. And someone, still, might reach them.
  • This is how we change the course—not with brute force, but with brave conversation. Not by outgunning, but by outlasting. By planting the seeds of doubt where loyalty once lived. By offering an outstretched hand in place of a clenched fist. By refusing to see each other as lost causes.
    Violence is not the only language of resistance. Our refusal—clear, calm, unyielding, nonviolent —is itself a form of rebellion. Every time we persuade instead of punish, every time we refuse to dehumanize even those who’ve lost their way, we reclaim a piece of the world we want to live in.
    Because at the end of it all, we are bound to each other—whether we like it or not. There is no exit from the shared human condition. Someone always knows someone. Someone always has a choice. And sometimes, all it takes is one defector in the right place, one refusal at the right moment, one person willing to say “no”—and mean it—for the whole damn machine to grind to a halt.
    So remember: this isn’t hopeless, unless we make it so. This isn’t fate, unless we accept it as such. This is ours. This is still ours.
    And when they ask what we did while the fire was rising, we will say: we remembered our humanity.
    We remembered each other.
    And we stood—together.

June 2025

[edit]
  • Terry Gross: "Are you playing any official or unofficial role on Harvard's legal strategy or decision-making?"
    Noah Feldman: "No. The university follows a good policy of creating a wall between its lawyers who represent it and its law faculty who have lots of ideas about how it should be represented. So my primary role is as a constitutional scholar, analyzing the issues, writing about them, speaking about them. And that's the right job for me in this moment."
  • A year ago, Harvard's commencement, our graduation, was really, in a significant way, disrupted by students protesting, including some faculty protesting, marching out of the graduation, speakers denouncing the president and the corporation of Harvard, which is what we call our board of directors. This year, commencement was pretty much the polar opposite. There was literally a standing ovation for our president, Alan Garber, when all he had done was come up to the podium. And speaker after speaker hinted at the importance of supporting the university. So what's happened is that Donald Trump's assault on the university has led to a deep unification of the campus. And that's an important transformation from a year ago. I would say it's a fundamental transformation.
  • Terry Gross: "The attacks on Harvard started with the task force commissioned by Trump to address antisemitism on campus. And, you know, this has led to cancellation of billions of dollars in grants and contracts to Harvard. But didn't Harvard reach a settlement with Trump over antisemitism?"
    Noah Feldman: "No. Let me tell the story a little bit differently. I think, really, what we're facing now started with the testimony in Congress of Harvard's president and a couple of other university presidents in which they were pushed very hard on a series of hypothetical questions about how the campus manages free speech in the context of protests. That put a target on Harvard's back, and the Trump administration has been pushing very, very hard since they came into office to exploit the perception - in my view, the incorrect perception - that Harvard is some sort of hotbed of bias, antisemitism and Islamophobia in order to bring about a fundamental attack on higher education with the stated goal - this is their stated goal - of making the university align itself with the administration's beliefs and priorities, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
    What's more, Harvard hasn't reached any settlement of any kind with the Trump administration. There was a lawsuit brought by a small number of students alleging that Harvard had not sufficiently protected the environment against antisemitism. And that was settled by the university before the Trump administration even came into office."
  • Terry Gross: One of Trump's justifications for canceling government contracts is that he accused Harvard as being a breeding ground - I'm quoting here - "breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination." How do you interpret that?"
    Noah Feldman: "Well, first thing I would say is that it's wrong. You know, it's always hard to understand exactly what is meant when you're being maligned, but, you know, you know the feeling. You know the idea that even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked? Well, that's someone kicking us. One piece of relevant background here is that Harvard was one of the parties in the Supreme Court case - the SFFA case - in which the Supreme Court, for the first time in nearly 50 years, overturned the idea that racial diversity was a permissible rationale to use in college admissions. And the Trump administration, in all of its rhetoric, has been referring, subsequently, to the perfectly lawful use of diversity as it existed from 1978 and really before then, until just, you know, a year or so ago as, quote-unquote, "discrimination." I think that's the rhetorical move there.
    And Harvard is no more a breeding ground for that point of view than all of the other universities in the country, essentially all, which used exactly the same admissions procedures. It's just that it's easier for Trump to make headlines by attacking Harvard over that."
    Terry Gross: "That's probably part of the reason why many other universities are worried right now."
    Noah Feldman: "There are a lot of reasons for universities to be concerned. If Trump can go after the oldest university in the United States, one of the most significant in terms of its endowment and its academic legacy and its prestige, then he can really go after any similar university. And so all universities, I think, have very, very good reason to be concerned because going after a university is one of the things in the playbook of someone who's trying to erode democratic values and who wants to be at least dictatorial, if not a dictator.
    Universities are a place for the preservation of free expression, free ideas and free beliefs. They've always been that. And so in any country where someone is trying to break that norm of freedom, the universities are a very important target, and that's been true historically."
  • Terry Gross: "So what do you think Trump's attacks on Harvard are really about?"
    Noah Feldman: "Donald Trump usually has a kind of short-term self-interest objective and then a broader-term aggrandizement objective. In the short term, his self-interest is to make a headline, to make a populist headline that says, Donald Trump is going after those liberals at Harvard University, which might please some of his supporters and, probably more important to Donald Trump, is intended to shed fear or to cast fear on everyone in higher education and, more broadly, everyone who doesn't agree with his policies. You know, it's part of the idea that every day we should wake up and listen to the radio or look at the newspaper and discover that the Trump administration has gone after some opponent in some way that makes it really hard to stand up to Donald Trump. So I think that's the short-term objective.
    The longer-term objective, though, is part of Trump's overall assault on our democratic values and institutions. And you can see that the institutions that he likes to go after are places like universities, institutions like the press and the courts, which are institutions that are all devoted to independent judgment and independent thinking. We need independent universities. We need an independent press. And, of course, we need independent courts. And Trump doesn't like independence because independent institutions can say no to him. And the more he can weaken the independence of those institutions, the more he can make his agenda the dominant agenda. And ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else."
  • WASHINGTON − Progressive firebrand Sen. Bernie Sanders said he believes President Donald Trump is “moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism" after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to help quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. “This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law. My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,” Sanders, a Vermont independent, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
  • The protests come as the Trump administration has taken stronger actions to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. Demonstrators allege the administration's immigration enforcement has violated civil and human rights. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on June 7 that Trump signed a memo deploying the guardsmen “to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.” Both California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, however, have criticized the move, saying it would only escalate tensions in the area. “I would say that to a large degree, the future of this country rests with a small number of Republicans in the House and Senate who know better, who do know what the Constitution is about, and it’s high time they stood up for our Constitution and the rule of law,” Sanders said.
  • President Donald Trump’s deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration’s mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest.
    But Trump’s stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump’s deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. “It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,” said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston.
  • At issue is the president’s authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, “domestic violence” or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump’s first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected.
    But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the “danger of a rebellion” or to “execute” federal laws when “regular forces” are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a “rebellion,” but suggested it was moving in that direction.
    “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” the order said.
  • California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard’s purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops “are on high alert.”
    “The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,” said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. “Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.”
    Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters.
  • Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor’s objection. But it’s the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Arkansas’ governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. “Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,” said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. “But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. “Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. “I did call him the other night,” Trump said. “I said you’ve got to take care of this, otherwise I’m sending in the troops.”
    Newsom has railed against Trump’s unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump’s National Guard deployment an “alarming abuse of power.”
    “The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That’s not supposed to happen,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University’s Brennan Center. “It’s such a dangerous situation. It’s dangerous for liberty. It’s dangerous for democracy.”
  • A purported member of the U.S. Army openly joined the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas and has called on others in the military to "resist evil." Newsweek has contacted the Pentagon for comment via email.It comes as protests that erupted in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement raids that prompted President Donald Trump to mobilize National Guard troops and Marines have begun to spread to other cities nationwide, including Dallas, Chicago and New York. Many have been peaceful, but some have resulted in clashes with law enforcement as officers made arrests and used chemical irritants to disperse crowds. The Trump administration has said it would continue its program of raids and deportations despite the protests.
  • "We are not pawns for [President] Donald Trump," said the uniformed woman in an unverified video posted to social media by the leftist activist channel BreakThrough News. Newsweek could not independently verify the veracity of the video and has contacted BreakThrough News for clarification. The woman was not fully identified, but a patch that read "Colado" was on her chest where troops wear their last names. She said she had joined the protests after Trump deployed Marines to Los Angeles. "Why now? It's because the military was called upon against the protesters. We, in our oath to serve, we serve the people of the United States, the Constitution," she said. "These constitutional rights are being stripped and just denied. And the military will not be pawns to that." In the interview, the woman also called on "the conscience of military members who served previously and now."
    She said: "We have a conscience, a mind and we have a duty and moral obligation to say no and resist evil." Trump has activated more than 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines in Los Angeles over the objections of city and state leaders. However, the Marines have not yet been spotted in the city and the Guard troops have had limited engagement with protesters, according to The Associated Press.
  • There was black smoke in my rearview mirror on the drive back, and I thought, Well, that ain’t good. It wasn’t until I got home and turned on the local news that I found out it was Waymo driverless cars being burned. Five of them. When I turned on the national news after dark, that was pretty much all I saw: the black smoke and flaming carcasses of five empty cars owned by Google or something. Not the concerned citizens that showed up for their neighbors just to be greeted by flash grenades and rubber bullets. If you got all of your information from cable news, burning cars would be all you’d think happened.
    Donald Trump called in the Marines the next morning, and they drove in from Twentynine Palms. Right now the local news is doing a segment on Father’s Day gift ideas. The president thinks the situation is dangerous enough to require the military, but KTLA does not think it is important enough to preempt a piece on backgammon sets and coffee mugs repurposed from MLB game bats. They’re here now, I guess, 700 strong, and nobody seems to know what they’re going to do, or even where they’re going to stay or what they’re going to eat, because now we know that nobody budgeted for the lodging or meals of the 2,000 National Guard members who’ve been sent here, who woke up this morning on the cold stone floor of some federal building.
  • The ICE activity we are protesting is allegedly being directed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Miller called a meeting of ICE officials last month and directed them to “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens.” Not to target “the worst of the worst,” as the president had indicated. Not even to target criminals or gang members at all. But to roll up to a Home Depot where day laborers gather. To post up outside of a grammar school graduation in a neighborhood with a high percentage of undocumented residents. Just go and grab them and pull them away from their homes and their babies and their lives. Just lock them up. Now that’s what they’re doing. That’s what we’re protesting. And if it turns out their papers actually are in order, which it has more than a few times, then tough shit.
  • Los Angeles is crazy vast. Santa Monica High School is 12 miles from where I sit writing. If I left right now, I’d be there in an hour. But do you know what’s one half of one mile, one ten-minute walk away, from Santa Monica High School? The beach. A really nice, clean, and well-maintained beach, as a matter of fact. Miller could have been taking a surf lesson, eating some Dippin’ Dots, or watching a majestic sunset over the Pacific Ocean. Instead, he’s sneering to a crowd about his right as a white person to leave his mess behind for a brown person to clean up.
    This behavior is rancid. This rancid behavior is motivated by a rancid worldview that is the kind of rancid you really don’t grow out of. This is rancid, and now it’s backed up by the United States government, and now the United States government has lined the United States military up against its own citizens. These raids are the acting out of that entitled and bigoted and absolutely rancid worldview. That’s what we’re protesting. And on the whole we’re doing it more peacefully than most groups of people who take to the streets after their city’s team wins or loses the Stanley Cup.
    We do not need your help.
  • With President Donald Trump's deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles, Sen. Bernie Sanders took to the internet to offer his own thoughts. In a video posted to his X account, Sanders said the message he wishes to impart is not about the protests or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the California city but something that affects all Americans everywhere. "What's going on is all about Trump's never-ending desire for more and more power," Sanders said. The Vermont senator said that the 45th and 47th president is overriding the California governor's authority in order to consolidate more power with the U.S. military. Sanders also said that Trump is trying to wrest control from the judicial and legislative branch of government as well as stamp out universities' independence and private law offices. "Now is the time for us to come together and stand against authoritarianism and for democracy," Sanders said.
  • President Donald Trump on Thursday declared he doesn’t “feel like a king” after he was asked to address the protests planned across the country in the coming weekend to counter the expensive Washington, D.C., military parade scheduled for Saturday — his birthday and the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary. “I don’t feel like a king,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.” Trump cited the example of having to involve GOP leaders House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) before signing a resolution passed by Congress to block California’s ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars from 2035. “No, no. We’re not a king. We’re not a king at all,” Trump added.
  • The organizers of the “No Kings” protests said Saturday will mark “a nationwide day of defiance,” noting that they plan to deliver a strong message against authoritarianism. “We’re not gathering to feed his ego. We’re building a movement that leaves him behind. The flag doesn’t belong to President Trump. It belongs to us,” the event’s website states. “We’re showing up everywhere he isn’t — to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.” “No Kings” protests are scheduled in 50 states and 1,500 cities across the country, but not in Washington. Organizers said they will host a flagship march and rally in Philadelphia. The protests come as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has caused uproar in Los Angeles and other cities, where demonstrators came out to protest the raids carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In response, Trump authorized the deployment in California of the National Guard, against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) wishes, and also of the U.S. Marines — a move Newsom warned would pour fuel on the fire.
  • Trump’s Saturday parade, which is expected to feature armored vehicles, thousands of soldiers and military aircraft, is estimated to cost taxpayers about $45 million — a price tag Republicans have had a hard time defending. Earlier this week, Trump had a warning for demonstrators planning to take to the streets in Washington this weekend. “If there’s any protest that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force, by the way,” he said. “And for those people that want to protest, they’re gonna be met with very big force.”
  • A part of a US national suicide prevention hotline that caters for LGBTQ young people says it will soon close, after the Trump administration cut its funding. The administration has accused the service of "radical gender ideology". It says it will still fund the wider 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline - of which the LGBTQ youth option is one part - and that all callers will receive "compassion and help". The Trevor Project, an organisation that helped to run the LGBTQ option, said the decision would have a harmful impact on vulnerable young people. "Suicide prevention is about people, not politics," said Jaymes Black, the organisation's CEO. He said his service had been told to close within 30 days.
    "The administration's decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible," Mr Black added.
    The decision comes during international Pride Month, which celebrates LGBTQ culture and history.
  • The news also arrived ahead of a US Supreme Court decision on Tuesday that upheld the state of Tennessee's ban on transition-related healthcare for minors who identify as transgender. The general 988 Lifeline offers free mental health support via call, text, or chat. It is funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), a subsidiary of the US Health and Human Services Agency (HHS). Currently, LGBTQ young people can select option 3 from a call menu in order to connect with counsellors. After the changes, the remaining 988 Lifeline services would "focus on serving all help seekers", including those who previously chose to access LGBTQ youth services, SAMHSA said. But the hotline would "no longer silo LGB+ youth services", SAMHSA wrote in a statement, omitting the "T" and "Q" that refers to transgender and queer people in the LGBTQ acronym.
  • Officials at HHS proposed cutting the 988 Lifeline's LGBTQ youth services last week. In a statement to NBC News at the time, an HHS spokesperson described the option as a "chat service where children are encouraged to embrace radical gender ideology by 'counselors' without consent or knowledge of their parents". Legislation passed in 2020 by the US Congress required the 988 Lifeline to provide services and staff specifically for LGBTQ people as well as other at-risk groups like rural and Native Americans.
    The legislation noted that LGBTQ youth were "more than 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide than their peers, with 1 in 5 LGBTQ youth and more than 1 in 3 transgender youth reporting attempting suicide".
    The law received bipartisan support - including from Donald Trump, who was then serving his first presidential term, and signed the bill into law.
    According to the 988 Lifeline website, LGBTQ communities are "disproportionately at risk for suicide and other mental health struggles due to historic and ongoing structural violence."
    The Trevor Project began providing its services through the 988 Lifeline in 2022. In 2024, it served more than 231,000 crisis contacts, the organisation said in a statement. It says it will continue to provide its own independent services.
  • The decision to eliminate the 988 Lifeline's designated LGBTQ youth option comes amid Trump's push to curtail services, support, and access for transgender people across the federal government. He has pushed to end diversity, equity, and inclusion policies (DEI) within the federal government, arguing that such programmes are themselves discriminatory. The president has also ordered the removal of transgender servicemembers from the US military and issued an executive order that the US would only recognise two sexes – male and female. The US Department of State also announced it would no longer allow applicants to choose "X" as their gender on US passports. Instead, transgender individuals must choose "male" or "female" corresponding to their sex assigned at birth.
  • Last week, during a visit to the “South Loop” ICE facility (the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program office located at 2245 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago) we were denied the ability to perform congressional oversight – as is our duty as members of the United States House of Representatives. During the visit to this facility, the ICE officer who refused to identify himself called the Chicago Police Department to evict us for “trespassing.” We are writing today to express deep concern regarding the lack of oversight of these facilities and their operations, and to request immediate and full access to ICE facilities for the purpose of investigating this activity further. This specific facility has been the site of very disturbing incidents that have shaken our community. On June 4, 2025, ICE officials detained at least 10 individuals after they were texted to demand they show up for a routine appointment1. It is unclear exactly how many people were taken, where they were taken to, and if they were given access to counsel – all of which we were hoping to learn through performing our oversight duties. We were denied those answers. We are writing to you today to demand access to this facility.
    • Raja Krishnamoorthi, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 8th Congressional District & Jonathan Jackson, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 1st Congressional District, to Kristi Noem, 23 June 2025
  • Our request comes as the President has declared his intent to carry out the “single largest mass deportation program in history,” specifically naming the city of Chicago as a target, in addition to other Democratic-run cities. The President’s politically motivated actions are deeply troubling, particularly for communities like ours in Illinois that have already seen intensified enforcement activity in recent weeks. The administration must ensure that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, are treated with dignity and afforded due process – as that is the law. Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. The President has repeatedly targeted Chicago, and we are now witnessing the consequences unfold in disturbing ways.
    In Chicago, these facilities are the site of reports that allege rushed deportations, inadequate medical care, restricted legal access, and poor conditions. These are not isolated incidents—they point to broader systemic failures in enforcement and facility oversight.
    • Raja Krishnamoorthi, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 8th Congressional District & Jonathan Jackson, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 1st Congressional District, to Kristi Noem, 23 June 2025
  • Some of the individuals lured to ICE facilities in Chicago were reportedly detained for several days under inhumane conditions. One of those detained, Ms. Gladis Yolanda Chavez Pineda—a longtime Chicago resident and respected community leader—described a harrowing experience. Her husband stated in an interview, “She has not had access to a shower. She has not had access to feminine hygiene products. She has not been able to change her clothes...They have no information of what’s happening. They don’t even have a clock.” After being moved to a jail in Kentucky, Pineda reported that “People are sleeping on concrete floors. Last Sunday, one mattress was given to a group of 20 mothers to share. In one of the facilities, only one bathroom is given to 20 or more individuals, with no partitions and privacy.” These reports reflect systemic issues in ICE’s enforcement strategies and facility management, not just in Illinois but across the country.
    • Raja Krishnamoorthi, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 8th Congressional District & Jonathan Jackson, U.S. Representative for the Illinois 1st Congressional District, to Kristi Noem, 23 June 2025
  • The Pentagon has officially stripped the late gay civil rights leader Harvey Milk's name from a U.S. naval vessel, amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to erase what it describes as "woke" ideology from the public. The former USNS Harvey Milk is now called the USNS Oscar V. Peterson, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in a video posted online Friday. "We are taking the politics out of ship naming," Hegseth said. "We're not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration."
    The ship is part of the John Lewis-class oilers, named after the famed civil rights activist and longtime congressman.
    In 2016, then-Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said ships in this class would be named after leaders in civil rights activism. That included paying homage to Milk, who was a Navy veteran and became the first openly gay person to serve in California politics when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk was assassinated by a former board colleague in 1978, leaving behind a legacy of advocacy for gay rights. The ship's new namesake, Oscar V. Peterson, was a U.S. Navy chief petty officer who was killed in World War II and posthumously granted a Medal of Honor by Congress for bravery during the war.
  • Under Hegseth's guidance, the Navy is reviewing the names of several other ships named after women, Black and Hispanic people. Other Navy vessels under review include those named after Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Harriet Tubman, Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, Lucy Stone and Medgar Evers.

July 2025

[edit]
  • The Presidential Memorandum of January 12, 2017 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters)[1], is hereby revoked.
  • The refusal by the Trump administration to release the files and videos amassed during investigations into the activities of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, should put to rest the absurd idea, embraced by Trump supporters and gullible liberals, that Trump will dismantle the Deep State. Trump is part of, and has long been part of, the repugnant cabal of politicians – Democrat and Republican – billionaires and celebrities who look at us, and often underage girls and boys, as commodities to exploit for profit or pleasure.

August 2025

[edit]
  • Behold. The festering carcass of American rot shoved into an ill-fitting suit: the sleaze of a conman, the cowardice of a draft dodger, the gluttony of a parasite, the racism of a Klansman, the sexism of a back-alley creep, the ignorance of a bar-stool drunk, and the greed of a hedge-fund ghoul—all spray-painted orange and paraded like a prize hog at a county fair.
    Not a president. Not even a man. Just the diseased distillation of everything this country swears it isn’t but has always been—arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel.
    It is America’s shadow made flesh, a rotting pumpkin idol proving that when a nation kneels before money, power, and spite, it doesn’t just lose its soul—it shits out this bloated obscenity and calls it a leader.
  • I have the right to do anything I wanna do. I’m the President of the United States. If I think our country’s in danger — and it is in danger in these cities — I can do it, no problem going in and solving, you know, his difficulties. But it would be nice if they’d call in and say, “Would you do it?” And we do it in conjunction. Now, we work very well with the police because we naturally get along with the police. So, the police and us work really well together, whether the mayor is opposed or whether– I mean, you have a really rotten mayor there, too. He’s got a six percent approval rating in Chicago.
    And I see Black women wearing a red MAGA hat last night on television. “Please let the president come in. My son was attacked. My this–”. You have a force of Black women, Black Women. They’re like, “Only Trump.” They want Trump to come in.
  • Since returning to office in January 2025, President Donald Trump has taken numerous actions that have alarmed international human rights observers: deporting immigrants without due process, holding detainees in inhumane, overcrowded conditions, and deploying both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. In recent weeks, National Guard troops have deployed to Washington, ostensibly to move unhoused citizens off the streets and to fight crime. Now, with Trump announcing that he will send the National Guard from conservative states to other left-leaning cities like Chicago and New York, fears are rising of an uptick in political violence and human rights violations.
  • Even the troops themselves are questioning what they would do if asked to turn on their fellow Americans. According to new survey data from the Human Security Lab at UMass Amherst, which I direct, the vast majority of them recognize the duty to disobey an unlawful order and are able to imagine such scenarios. Whether they would actually disobey an order when push comes to shove, however, is a murkier question.
    U.S. troops today face an ethical conundrum: they are trained to obey their commander-in-chief, but their oath is to the U.S. Constitution. And when asked if he must "uphold the Constitution," Trump has replied, "I don't know." Moreover, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members have a duty to obey lawful orders, but under the U.S. Courts Martial Manual, they also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders-defined as those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, U.S. federal law, or international law like the Geneva Conventions. In these instances, following orders is not a defense: service members can be held individually liable for such crimes and prosecuted under the doctrine of individual responsibility.
  • Many of Trump's orders are already being questioned as unconstitutional, and numerous international bodies have indicated that many of his actions violate seven decades of established international human rights standards; some may constitute crimes against humanity. Even the deployment of active-duty troops itself risks violating the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. Thus, U.S. troops are in a bind-and it's already affecting troop morale. Some troops are actively calling for Congress to protect service members who refuse to follow unlawful orders.
  • How far is the military likely to go in resisting orders given by Trump? The answer depends a great deal on the individual service member and the context. Troops are taught to disobey orders to commit war crimes in the course of their duties, for example, but as legal historian Tom Dannenbaum points out, they have not typically had the right to question the terms of their deployments, even when those terms themselves-such as Russia's aggressive war against Ukraine-clearly violate international law. Thus, under existing customary law, it would be more likely for troops to conscientiously resist orders to commit atrocities than orders to deploy per se, even in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
    Second, troops are not required to disobey every questionable order, allowing a muddled grey area that makes it unreasonable to think there would be 100 percent compliance with this doctrine. In legal terms, according to military historian Mark Osiel, the barometer for "manifestly unlawful" orders is whether the order is "illegal on its face" -that is, whether an ordinary person would know that what they are doing is wrong. This is reflected in the procedural rules for court martial. But social scientists predict men and women in uniform vary in how they understand the threshold for "manifest unlawfulness" because they can easily talk themselves into excusing actions based on contextual factors.
  • In this context, it is notable that so many US troops are willing to state they would openly disobey orders such as detaining people inhumanely, starving civilians or shooting civilians. And research shows if even a minority is willing to stand up, it can matter. Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched conscientious disobedience during the Vietnam War and at the East German border during the Cold War: her work found that when some troops disobeyed, it was easier for others to follow suit.
    Opposition to following unlawful orders is prevalent among U.S. troops. The question is whether it will make a difference when it counts. Uniformed personnel understand the concept of an order that is manifestly unlawful, and their own responsibility to disobey such an order. This won't entirely prevent harm, as some of those soldiers may still buckle under the weight of military hierarchy in a high-stress situation. But the willingness of so many service members to recognize unlawful orders, and their duty to disobey, highlights the moral agency of individuals and the enduring power of international legal standards, even in difficult and unprecedented times.
  • The United States exists in a new-old universe. After nearly 250 years of democracy, it seems infected with totalitarianism, racial superiority, anti-communism and all the petrified theories advanced by another populist politician, Adolph Hitler. Donald Trump did say he would be a dictator on day one. History will be the judge, but things look rather bleak right now for the democracy side of the equation.
  • Take art and culture. During the 12 years of Hitler’s corruption of the concepts of law and order, he also attacked what we now call “creatives” and cultural institutions. The backlash against artistic Modernism had begun earlier in Germany’s Weimar era, but the Führer fully enforced his own ideas of what comprised art. He banned “degenerate art”: Bauhaus, Cubism, Dada, Expressionism, Fauvism, Impressionism and Surrealism. And the regime supported only official painters, sculptors, architects, writers and even actors.
    Things are trending in the same direction in the 21st-century United States. Trump, having gotten himself elected chair of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, has vowed to end “woke political programming” at Washington’s premier arts venue. As an example of what this means, the Kennedy Center hosted a screening this week of “The Revival Generation,” a documentary about a “nationwide campus revival movement” drawing Gen Z Americans. Billed as a “call to faith and a message of hope” that “(c)aptures a spiritual awakening among today’s youth,” the program included a one-hour worship service with “a local worship collective.”
  • Next Trump ordered a review of exhibits at the Smithsonian Museums that has sent curators scrambling to “fix” exhibits Mr. Trump finds too woke. The list of things needing repair at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of the American Latino focuses on mentions of race, slavery, immigration and sexuality. The artwork that offends the curator-in-chief is not Cubism or Dadaism or Impressionism. Unlike Hitler, Trump has not put Picasso, Duchamp and Monet on the banned lists. Rather, it is Rigoberto Gonzalez’s extraordinary “Refugees Crossing the Border Wall into South Texas.” The list goes on. Some of it is, well, edgy. But it is not of the order of “Immersion (Piss Christ),” Andres Serrano’s 1987 photograph of a crucifix submerged in a container of his own urine. Despite an outcry from politicians who tried to defund its sponsors, the piece won an award in a competition partly sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. Ronald Reagan was president then.
  • If only Trump would confine his new strictures to art and culture, his populism would be an affront only to the pursuit of beauty. But they cross several lines, assaulting truth as well. As several mainline faith leaders and the U.S. Catholic bishops have pointed out, the derisive oppression of poor immigrants by members of the current administration is sickening. That some administration officials continue to publicly espouse Christian ethics is mind-boggling. Government spokespeople bend the truth and present an alternate reality. Then, there are the humorless bureaucrats who can change numbers to suit the master’s will. The administration is efficient and punctual, and its leader can do no wrong. The American republic is aiming for a head-on collision with democracy, and not incidentally is becoming an enigma, if not a laughingstock, to the rest of the free world. It has to stop.
  • Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed Sunday that the Trump administration plans to expand Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in major cities, including Chicago. Asked about plans to expand ICE operations in Chicago specifically, Noem told CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” “We’ve already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago and throughout Illinois and other states, making sure that we’re upholding our laws, but we do intend to add more resources to those operations.” Asked about what an expansion of ICE operations would look like in Chicago and whether it would involve a mobilization of National Guard troops to assist with immigration raids and arrests, Noem demurred, saying, “That always is a prerogative of President [Donald] Trump and his decision. I won’t speak to the specifics of the operations that are planned in other cities.”
    Her remarks come one day after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order directing his city’s legal department to explore ways to counter a potential surge in federal law enforcement and National Guard troops to Illinois.
    During a press conference Saturday, Johnson warned that Chicago officials had “received credible reports that we have days, not weeks, before our cities see some type of militarized activity by the federal government.”
  • Earlier this month, the Trump administration directed federal law enforcement officers, including those employed by ICE, to assist police in Washington, D.C., with crime-fighting operations. That surge of resources included thousands of National Guard troops who were deployed to the nation’s capital with the stated goal of lowering crime rates. Following the movement of troops and law enforcement officers to Washington, Trump threatened to send federal officers and troops to other major American cities, including Baltimore. Later in the Sunday interview, Noem was asked whether Boston would be one of the cities where the federal government would surge immigration enforcement agents.
    “There’s a lot of cities that are dealing with crime and violence right now, and so we haven’t taken anything off the table,” she said, adding later: “I’d encourage every single big city — San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, whatever they are — if they want to help make their city safer, more prosperous, allow people the opportunity to walk in freedom like the people of Washington, D.C., are now ... they should call us.”
  • Other Democratic officials, including a group of over a dozen governors, have condemned plans to deploy troops to their states. In a statement last week, they said, “Whether it’s Illinois, Maryland and New York or another state tomorrow, the President’s threats and efforts to deploy a state’s National Guard without the request and consent of that state’s governor is an alarming abuse of power, ineffective, and undermines the mission of our service members.”
  • And in an interview that aired Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said, “We don’t want troops on the streets of American cities. That’s un-American. Frankly, the president of the United States ought to know better.”
    Pritzker also accused the Trump administration of targeting states run by Democrats rather than those run by Republicans, telling CBS, “Notice he never talks about where the most violent crime is occurring, which is in red states. ... Their violent crime rates are much worse in other places, and we’re very proud of the work that we’ve done.”
    Asked whether there are plans in place to deploy troops and federal law enforcement officials to states and cities run by Republicans, Noem said, “Absolutely.”
    “Every single city is evaluated for what we need to do there to make it safer. So we’ve got operations that, again, I won’t talk about details on, but we absolutely are not looking through the viewpoint at anything we’re doing with a political lens,” she added.
  • In their initial doubts, what some Guardsmen were really asking was existential: Are we becoming something different? After all, the National Guard appears to have a new kind of mission, one that began in Los Angeles when Trump federalized the Guard over immigration concerns; moved to D.C. under the auspices of addressing “rampant violence and disorder”; and, according to Trump, could soon expand to Chicago and Baltimore.
    This ambiguity not only invites confusion and raises fears of troops conducting more police-like functions, but it also thrusts the National Guard into the middle of political disputes. The more often it is deployed in politically divisive missions—instead of the more routine apolitical assignments to disaster zones—the more perilous the Guard’s standing becomes among the American public.
  • By the time we headed home, after several hours spent wandering the city’s various quadrants, it was clear that almost no one felt particularly good about the arrangement: not the National Guardsmen, many of whom clearly didn’t want to be there, leaving their families and jobs in order to spread mulch and pick up trash; and not the residents, many of whom were furious with the occupation of their city or, worse, terrified of what the military’s presence portended for them and their loved ones. Even those residents who welcomed the troops did so from a place of discontent, so fed up with crime and quality-of-life issues that they felt relieved that someone was finally doing something, anything to help.
  • According to research by the libertarian Cato Institute published earlier this month, one in five people arrested by ICE have been Latinos with no criminal past or removal orders against them from the government, which they called a "telltale sign of illegal profiling." Karkatsanis warns that through his latest order, Trump has created a "vigilante portal" where anyone can "sign up to be a Brownshirt to brutalize poor people, immigrants, people of color, and anyone else who might dare to, say, go to a protest." He says that it "should be a nonstop emergency news alert," but that "instead, mainstream news and Democrats are barely mentioning it."

September 2025

[edit]
  • I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century, if we're lucky. We've got him now.
  • The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, explicitly states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." This amendment was adopted following Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four terms in office, establishing a formal limit on presidential tenure that had previously been only a tradition dating all the way back to America's first president, George Washington.
    In March, Trump told NBC News that "a lot of people would like me to do that," regarding a third term, adding, "There are methods which you could do it, as you know." He reiterated these sentiments in subsequent interviews, though he has also occasionally denied interest in pursuing such a path.
    Some Trump allies, like podcast host Steve Bannon, adviser during Trump's first term, have suggested unconventional workarounds. One theory involves Trump running as vice president on a ticket where the presidential nominee would then step aside after winning, allowing Trump to assume the presidency. Legal experts, however, broadly agree this would violate both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
  • Donald Trump was recently asked about negotiating with the Democrats to avoid a government shutdown. “Don’t even bother dealing with them,” the president said. “If you gave them every dream, they would not vote for it.” Well, I don’t know about Democrats, Mr. President, but as an Independent I am prepared to vote with you if you simply do what the American people want. At a time when 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck I don’t think it’s a “dream” to ask that you:
    Not slash Medicaid and throw 15 million people off their health insurance, resulting in over 50,000 deaths a year.
    Not raise health care premiums by 75%, on average, for over 20 million Americans due to cuts to the Affordable Care Act.
    Not, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, give the richest people in America a trillion dollars in tax breaks.
    Not cut nutrition programs for hungry kids.
    Not make it harder for young people to get a higher education.
    Mr. President, your party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. Do not shut down the government.
    If you come to an agreement on these issues, you’ve got my vote.
  • It was an extraordinary week. The slumbering giant of America is awakening. Americans forced Disney to put Jimmy Kimmel back on the air. Over 6 million people watched Kimmel’s Tuesday monologue assailing Trump’s attempt to censor him. Another 26 million watched it on social media, including YouTube. (Kimmel’s usual television audience is about 1.42 million.) Trump’s dictatorial narcissism revealed itself nearly as dramatically in the criminal indictment of former FBI director James Comey, coming immediately after Trump fired the U.S. attorney who refused to indict him.
    As did Trump’s demand that prosecutors go after philanthropist George Soros, Senator Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and other perceived enemies.
    As did Trump’s order yesterday, directing the “Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth” to use “full force, if necessary” to “protect War ravaged Portland” Oregon and any “ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” He is escalating his use of the U.S. military against Americans.
    There was also his bonkers speech to the United Nations telling delegates that their nations are “going to hell.” His attribution of autism to Tylenol, even though doctors say it is safe for pregnant women in moderation. His unilateral imposition of tariffs as high as 100 percent on imports of pharmaceuticals and kitchen cabinets.
    Friends, his neofascism and his dementia are both in plain sight.
  • His polls continue to drop. Voters are turning against him and his Republican party. On Tuesday, Democrat Adelita Grijalva won Arizona’s 7th Congressional District in a special election — leaving House Republicans with a majority of just five. Grijalva’s victory comes on the heels of another Democratic win: James Walkinshaw’s in Virginia. Two more special elections are coming, in Texas and Tennessee. Speaker Mike Johnson is struggling to hold House Republicans together, facing rebellion on issues such as the release of files relating to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
    Democrats are refusing to go along with Republicans to fund the government beyond Tuesday unless Republicans agree to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies — now set to expire at the end of the year and cause 24 million people to lose coverage or pay skyrocketing premiums.
  • Friends, I can’t tell you exactly when the tipping point will occur — when elected Republicans will rebel against him, or when his dementia becomes so apparent he’s forced to resign, or when so much of the nation rises up against his dictatorship that he’s impeached and convicted of high crimes — but we’re getting closer. As I said a few days ago, I’ve been in and around politics for 60 years and have developed a sixth sense about the slumbering giant of America. That giant is now stirring. He about to stand. He’s angry. Soon he will roar.
    Your activism is working. Be strong. Be safe. Hug your loved ones. We’ll get through this.
  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech to top generals was supposed to serve as a rallying cry for military exceptionalism — but it didn’t land that way with many of the people it was targeting. Numerous defense officials — who watched senior brass scramble to Washington and then sit through a partisan speech from President Donald Trump and a return to old-school military standards by Hegseth — were left wondering why the event had occurred at all. “More like a press conference than briefing the generals,” said one defense official, who, like others, was granted anonymity due to fears of retribution. “Could have been an email.”
  • Defense officials, in the Pentagon and at bases around the world, spent much of Tuesday trying to make sense of the last-minute gathering at the Quantico base in Virginia. Hegseth called out “fat generals,” and, separately, pushed fitness standards that could limit women in combat roles, while Trump offered his justification for sending the military into American cities. The 90-minute event — which featured military officials who swore an oath to the Constitution attending something more akin to a campaign rally — had the feeling of a Hollywood production. Trump even instructed officials to “just have a good time.”
    The meeting took place hours before a likely government shutdown, and struck some officials as a distraction that threatens to shift the military’s focus away from foreign threats toward an unprecedented domestic role. “Not quite a loyalty test, but … on the spectrum of loyalty to ideology,” said a second defense official. “Total waste of money.”
  • The Pentagon has insisted the U.S. military is retooling to prepare for a potential war with China. But sending American troops to patrol their own cities will “distract warfighters from actually training to fight and win” against Beijing, said a fourth defense official.
    Several Trump allies, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), said a face-to-face meeting like Hegseth’s helped reinforce the administration's visions. “There needs to be more warfighter training,” he said in an interview. “We don't do enough of it. We don't do enough flying training. I like this approach … I thought it was a strong speech.” Democrats, on the other hand, attacked the event as purely vanity-driven. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) called the resources used for the meeting “totally unjustified” and an exercise in chest thumping. “This comes at the expense of real national security,” she said in an interview. “But obviously they don’t give a rip.”
  • Lt. Col. Amy McGrath called out U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for trying to overshadow women’s contribution to the U.S. military in his effort to meet “the highest male standard’ among U.S. soldiers. “Each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat [Military Occupational Specialty], for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest male standard,” Hegseth told leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Quantico, Virginia on Tuesday. “Only because this job is life or death, standards must be met and not just met at every level. We should seek to exceed the standard to push the envelope to compete.”
  • “Hegseth still has a lot to learn, unfortunately,” said McGrath, speaking with the “Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.” “When I flew my combat missions, there was not a set male standard and a female standard for flying an aircraft onto the back of an aircraft carrier. You can either do it or you can't. Combat jobs have had one standard for a long time. And part of when we opened combat jobs to women, those of us that were in those jobs wanted one standard to be set. And it was — so I think it's kind of ridiculous.”
    “But, honestly, that, in comparison to the rest of what we heard in the last hour, is really minor,” McGrath added. “That speech was bonkers by the president, and everybody sitting in that room knows that we don't have a coherent foreign policy or defense policy. And that, I think, is a bigger issue indeed.”
  • McGrath was particularly wrathful at President Donald Trump suggesting the city of Chicago serve as a kind of “training ground” for urban warfare.
    “There was a lot of rambling. There was a ton of lies. There was a lot of politicization … and craziness that you heard from this speech, but the scariest part was when the president talked about using our cities as a training ground for the United States military,” said McGrath. “Now, the military has done training in cities before, but that's not what I think he's talking about here. He's talking about using the military in ways that we should not see in America. And I'm very worried about this.”
    “I think the whole part of bringing these generals and admirals back here was to discuss this type of thing, and it should it should scare us all,” McGrath said. “This is something that we just don't do in America. We have police to fight crime, and we should be putting money into those police forces, not sending American troops that are trained for war to American cities.”

October 2025

[edit]
  • In an interview at Catholic University last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said what he’s clearly been thinking for the past 30 years: Supreme Court precedents don’t matter, and he’s making things up as he goes along to fulfill his own political agenda. He didn’t say it in that way, of course. People would have noticed that. Instead, he couched his self-serving philosophy in legal jargon that will fly under the radar of most people, including journalists. Here’s what he said: “At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis.… [I]t’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
    To translate: “Stare decisis” is a foundational legal principle in this country and all countries that follow a “common law” system. What it means, in simple terms, is that prior judicial rulings govern future judicial rulings. If a court rules, for instance, that “gay people have the same basic rights as everyone else in this country, including the right to marry other people,” then that ruling is supposed to govern all future cases concerning the rights of gay people.
    Thomas, apparently, doesn’t agree. Instead of respecting stare decisis and precedent, he is saying that older cases shouldn’t have the power to control newer ones. For Thomas, just because courts ruled that LGBTQ people should have rights in the past, including the right to marry, doesn’t mean he feels compelled to rule that they should keep them.
  • We’ve seen this in Thomas’s opinions in recent years. In 2022, he declared, in a separate but supporting opinion in the Dobbs case, that Roe v. Wade was not respectful of our legal traditions, but Loving v. Virginia is. Why? Well because Roe gave women rights, while Loving gave Thomas the right to marry his white wife, and if you have a better legal difference between those cases other than Thomas’s own personal preferences, I’d love to hear you explain it. Thomas has also decided (in this case, writing for the majority) that simple gun registration laws are not respectful of our traditions in this country, but he signed on to an opinion giving the president the powers of the very king we revolted against. You simply cannot chart a course through what passes for logic in Thomas’s head without understanding his preferred policy outcomes.
    If Thomas were the only justice who thought like this, it would be a containable problem. But the entire Republican cabal on the Supreme Court rules exactly in the way Thomas is talking about, with no respect for precedent or stare decisis. This coming term, the Republicans on the court are likely to overturn a voting rights precedent they set for themselves only a couple of years ago. The Republicans literally cannot be trusted to respect their own rulings.
  • The entire Trump administration has been a “mask off” moment for the Supreme Court’s conservatives. It turns out, they don’t actually care about precedent (no matter how many times they lied and claimed to care during their Senate confirmation hearings). They don’t actually care about the text. They don’t actually care about judicial restraint. They want the political outcomes they want and they have the votes to do it.
    Thomas’s speech is a declaration that there is no judicial precedent that is safe from the current Republicans on the court. Stare decisis will not stand in their way of getting what they want. You could read the entire speech as a shot across the bow of Obergefell v. Hodges, and it is, but it’s also a rare moment where Thomas told the truth about what he and his friends are actually doing. They do not care about traditions, norms, or the very foundation of judicial decision making in a common law system. They only care about winning.
  • That’s all going to be very bad for those of us who do not happen to be white cis-hetero men in the near term, but there is a silver lining. Thomas’s speech at Catholic University literally lays down the playbook for how to defeat him and all the evil and cruelty he has wrought during his time on the bench. According to Thomas, future Supreme Court justices do not have to wrestle with the precedents laid down by Thomas and his Roberts-court brethren. They do not have to distinguish future cases from the ones that are being decided today. They do not have to wait for Congress to pass new laws, or for the Constitution to be amended. They don’t have to stay on the train Clarence Thomas is driving.
    And I am here for that. By Thomas’s own admission, the power of the Roberts court dies the moment there are more liberals on the bench than Republicans. That could happen as soon as the next presidential election, if Democrats get their act together to take control of the Supreme Court. If stare decisis is dead, then it’s dead forever. What can’t happen is for future Democratic justices to try to resurrect it, to preserve the power of the people who killed it. Clarence Thomas will soon be the longest-serving justice in American history. It’s good to know that he thinks his opinions will not matter after he’s dead. On that, he and I agree.
  • Six months ago, I wrote a piece urging soldiers to leave the United States military. At the time, the possibility that the president might use the military as a tool to unjustly abuse US citizens was still somewhat theoretical. At the risk of being repetitive, events in the world make me feel compelled to write, once again: Leave the military now. The time when you can say that you did not understand what might happen is coming to an end.
    Yesterday, the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief gave speeches to all of our nation’s generals, who they had ordered to assemble in Washington. It is bad enough, I imagine, for all of these accomplished career officers to be subjected to the performative tirade of Pete Hegseth, a childish television host, installed as their superior, ranting about the need to be more macho, fairly dripping with overcompensation for his various inadequacies. Yet if Hegseth’s speech was unnecessary, bigoted, and cartoonish, the performance of the Commander in Chief was much more substantively dangerous.
  • First, because it must have been clear to all of those assembled generals that Donald Trump, who possesses complete and total control of the military and its awesome powers, is, at best, mentally unwell. His speech, characteristically, was an incoherent stream-of-consciousness rant consisting mostly of narcissism and fiction and personal grievances. The mind of the man who has the ability to tell all of these officers what to do is broken and impervious to facts and reason. This is the man who can tell you when and how and who to kill.
    “They’re brave in our inner cities, which we’re going to be talking about because it’s a big part of war now, it’s a big part of war,” Trump said, speaking about firemen. “But the firemen go up on ladders and you have people shooting at them while they’re up on ladders. I don’t even know if anybody heard that. And actually don’t talk about it much, but I think you have to. Our firemen are incredible. They’re up on one of these ladders that goes way up to the sky rescuing people, and you have animals shooting at them — shooting bullets at firemen that are way up in death territory.” This is your boss.
  • Worse, the president made his intentions for the military clear. “You know, the Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape. We have many cities in great shape too, by the way. I want you to know that. But it seems that the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats, what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” he said. “And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”
    “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military,” he said, repeating bizarre, made-up stories about Chicago, Portland, and Seattle as war zones.
  • I am not going to try to convince generals in the United States armed forces to embrace my own personal moral beliefs. Rather, I would urge them all to consider their own moral beliefs. Honor and courage are often touted as the highest military values. What do those values demand of these generals at this moment in history? To salute their deranged superiors, and then, in private, to mutter under their breath about how incompetent and awful those commanders are? Is it honorable for these hundreds of generals to go forward doing their very best to carry out the will of a president who vows openly to use the military to suppress his domestic political enemies, and who has in fact already done that in major cities? Is it courageous of these officer to—for the sake of their own careers—continue to robotically serve a man who is obviously making decisions based upon things that are not true, and who is obsessed with revenge above all, and who is quite straightforward about his intentions to use the military to forcefully oppress Americans? Is that what honor and courage demand of the highest ranking officers in our military? Nothing at all?
    It is common for people in the military to point out that they took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and to imply that their allegiance to that oath would prevent them from carrying out truly unjust orders. I can’t help but notice that the point at which this moral duty to stop obeying orders kicks in appears to recede forever into the future. We, the citizens, are assured that there exists some ill-defined moment at which the personal moral code of military soldiers and officers will kick in and stop an out-of-control Commander in Chief from using the military for purposes of tyranny.
    Well? The tyrant is here. Talk is cheap. This theoretical guardrail of our democracy would be much more comforting if it were ever possible to see it produce some tangible action.
  • It is not too late to change America’s future. We sit, right now, in a moment of possibility. The president has made his intention to use the military against American citizens abundantly clear, but the worst versions of this oppression are still to come. He has told us what is coming, but all of it has not happened yet. That means that there will never be a better moment for people of honor and courage to leave the military. There will never be a better moment for the generals to demonstrate that their moral values are not just empty words. There will never be a better time to actually weaken the power of an aspiring dictator by refusing to be a part of his army. There will never be a better chance to exempt yourself from the stain of participating in a great, historic injustice against America’s ideals. Everyone can see who is in charge. Everyone can see what the plan is. Nobody can say that they didn’t see what was coming. Nobody can say that they went into this blind. For the members of the military—and, above all, for the officers at its highest level—the time to be courageous, or not, has arrived.
    Like any large organization, the military is full of all types of people who got into it for all types of reasons. Despite my own objections to the things that politicians make the military do, I do believe that the military itself is full of people who sincerely value patriotism, sacrifice, and public service. And there can be no doubt that the military is full of people who have demonstrated great personal bravery, perseverance, and willingness to overcome daunting obstacles in order to do a job that they believe is honorable and necessary. In 2025, all of these admirable qualities demand a very particular action: to leave the military. Before you find yourself doing things that do not comport with the values that you hold. Before you find that you have become the bad guy. If you can run into a gunfight, you can find the bravery to quit. That’s what patriotism means today.
  • President Donald Trump has condemned the shutdown and laid the blame squarely at the feet of the “Radical Left Democrats”— in the meantime, he appears to be making the most of it. Trump teased on Truth Social that he would be meeting with Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought to – as he warned Democrats he would do – reevaluate the necessity of various government agencies. “I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump wrote.
    As a potential shutdown loomed, the administration cautioned Democrats that if they didn’t sign on to Republicans’ short stopgap funding bill and prevent a shutdown, more federal employees would lose their jobs. The OMB sent a letter to federal agencies last week directing them to take a critical look at where they might be able to shed more employees.
    “With respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out,” the letter reads. “Agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities (PPAs) that satisfy all three of the following conditions: (1) discretionary funding lapses on October 1, 2025; (2) another source of funding, such as H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21) is not currently available; and (3) the PPA is not consistent with the President’s priorities.”
  • The New York Times reported in August that the federal workforce may have about 300,000 less people by year’s end. Most of the terminations or resignations were reportedly prompted by the Department of Government Efficiency, which was created by an executive order at the start of Trump’s second term.
    It’s unclear which “Democrat Agencies” are on the chopping block Tuesday – and whether entire agencies will be eradicated or they’ll merely lose more employees. The administration has previously described the Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Labor Statistics as unreliable, “Democrat-controlled,” politically motivated and riddled with “longstanding failures,” to name a few.
  • The “Project 2025,” which Trump referenced in his social media post, is a strategy for the restructuring of the federal government, crafted by conservatives and published by the Heritage Foundation. The goals of the project, as summarized by the BBC, are to “restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.”
    Vought was a project co-author, and the president has framed the shutdown as an opportunity to further carry out this initiative.
    “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DJT," his post concluded.
  • As United States President Donald Trump relentlessly threatens to annex Canada, reiterating the threat again this week in a speech to American military officials, some Canadians are worried that a U.S. invasion could one day become a reality. How would that scenario play out? Looking at the sheer size of the American military, many people might believe that Trump would enjoy an easy victory.
    That analysis is wrong. If Trump ever decides to use military force to annex Canada, the result would not be determined by a conventional military confrontation between the Canadian and American armies. Rather, a military invasion of Canada would trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.
    But in this nightmare scenario, could Canadians successfully resist an American invasion? Absolutely. I know this because I have studied insurgencies around the world for more than two decades, and I have spent time with ordinary people who have fought against powerful invading armies.
  • Guerrillas use ambushes, raids and surprise attacks to slowly bleed an invading army, and local communities support these fighters by giving them safe havens and material support. These supporting citizens can also engage in forms of “everyday resistance,” using millions of passive-aggressive episodes of sabotage to frustrate and drain the enemy. Trump is delusional if he believes that 40 million Canadians will passively accept conquest without resistance. There is no political party or leader willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over “economic coercion,” and so if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade.
    That decision would set in motion an unstoppable cycle of violence. Even if we imagine a scenario in which the Canadian government unconditionally surrenders, a fight would ensue on the streets. A teenager might throw a rock at invading soldiers. That kid would get shot, and then there would be more rocks, and more gunfire. An insurgency would be inevitable.
  • This idea may shock Canadians today because they see themselves as friendly and affable people. However, Canada’s current self-image of “niceness” only exists because they’re at peace. War changes people very quickly, and Canadians are no more innately peaceful than any other human beings. When your child is dying in your arms, you become capable of violence. Once you lose what you love, resistance becomes as natural as breathing. Except for a few collaborators and kapos, my research suggests many Canadians would likely engage in various forms of everyday resistance against invading forces that could involve stealing, lying, cutting wires and diverting funds.
    Meanwhile, the insurgents would unleash physical devastation on American targets. Even if one per cent of all resisting Canadians engaged in armed insurrection, that would constitute a 400,000-person insurgency, nearly 10 times the size of the Taliban at the start of the Afghan war. If a fraction of that number engaged in violent attacks, it would set fire to the entire continent.
  • This scenario would guarantee the destruction of both Canada and the United States. No one in their right mind would choose this gruesome future over a peaceful and mutually beneficial alliance with a friendly neighbour. Nevertheless, if Trump is reckless enough to think the violent annexation of Canada is an achievable goal, then let it be known that all these horrifying outcomes were predictable well in advance, and that he was forewarned.
  • Several people recently asked me who I think is next after Comey and what will happen to him during his prosecution. I don’t know. But the fact that we even have to ask the question embodies just how fast American democracy is collapsing. Comey’s indictment — and likely conviction — will surely be followed by others. Many others. Trump will demand it, and many Americans will want it too.
    The Justice Department has already launched investigations against former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California and Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James. Other names that have been mentioned as potential targets include Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, who brought charges against Trump in a 2023 election interference case, and former FBI Director Christopher Wray. These names show that the unthinkable has become routine. Malignant normality is now the new normal.
  • Since Trump was first elected in 2016, America’s responsible political and media class have constructed a model of American politics and society that increasingly does not exist. The long-cherished ideals of institutions, American exceptionalism and the character of the American people have been thrown out the window. In many ways, those fantasies never matched reality in the first place — and now the gap is undeniable. For many, this truth is too frightening to face.
    As America’s democracy rapidly collapses, there are public voices in the news media and political class who are warning about the evils of a new Red Scare. In reality, what the Trump administration and its forces are unleashing will likely be much worse.
  • In an interview, Adam Hochschild, the prominent historian and award-winning author of books including “American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis,” was clear-eyed about what America is facing: “This is profoundly frightening because it’s right out of the playbook of the way democracies are converted to dictatorships.” He compared our present moment to what was happening a century ago in the aftermath of World War I and the Russian Revolution. The country, he said in an email interview, was “inflamed by military fervor…and then by paranoia,” which caused “severe damage to democracy.”
    “The government shut down some 75 newspapers and magazines, and imprisoned hundreds of people — most notably Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs — solely for things they wrote or said,” Hochschild said. “Donald Trump would greatly like to do the same, as his attacks on critical media and prosecutions of people like James Comey show. But he is going one step further than this country went during the madness of the Red Scare of 1917-1921 by trying to seize control of electoral machinery. That, to me, is the most frightening thing about an already dangerous presidency.”
    Commentators get hung up, he explained, on comparing Trump to Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who saw “subversives everywhere.” While noting similarities, Hochschild argued the better parallel is Democratic President Woodrow Wilson who, in his second term, “did all kinds of things Trump would like to do, such as throwing his critics in jail under the Espionage Act by the hundreds, and shutting down media that criticized him.”
    But that wasn’t all. Under the 28th president, the Justice Department created the American Protective League, which Hochschild described as “a national vigilante force [that] scoured cities for suspected draft-dodgers.”
    “We pay far too little attention to that ominous period of American life,” he said, “always preferring to look on the bright side rather than the dark side.”
  • Trumpism is the embodiment of Shakespeare’s observation that what’s past is prologue. It’s now our present and future. But this is not a call to despair, or to embrace the comfort of learned helplessness or to take poison of hopium. It is the opposite. Unearned hope leads to despair. The way forward is to first accept the dire reality and then to engage in peaceful collective action that seizes the moral high ground, and never surrenders or compromises.The Black Freedom Struggle and long civil rights movements offer one such example. To paraphrase Hemingway: “A man alone ain’t got no bloody damn chance.”
  • To capture a democratic nation, authoritarians must control three sources of power: the intelligence agencies, the justice system, and the military. President Donald Trump and his circle of would-be autocrats have made rapid progress toward seizing these institutions and detaching them from the Constitution and rule of law. The intelligence community has effectively been muzzled, and the nation’s top lawyers and cops are being purged and replaced with loyalist hacks.
    Only the military remains outside Trump’s grip. Despite the firing of several top officers—and Trump’s threat to fire more—the U.S. armed forces are still led by generals and admirals whose oath is to the Constitution, not the commander in chief. But for how long?
    Trump and his valet at the Defense Department, Secretary of Physical Training Pete Hegseth, are now making a dedicated run at turning the men and women of the armed forces into Trump’s personal and partisan army. In his first term, Trump regularly violated the sacred American tradition of the military’s political neutrality, but people around him—including retired and active-duty generals such as James Mattis, John Kelly, and Mark Milley—restrained some of his worst impulses. Now no one is left to stop him: The president learned from his first-term struggles and this time has surrounded himself with a Cabinet of sycophants and ideologues rather than advisers, especially those at the Pentagon. He has declared war on Chicago; called Portland, Oregon, a “war zone”; and referred to his political opponents as “the enemy from within.” Trump clearly wants to use military power to exert more control over the American people, and soon, top U.S.-military commanders may have to decide whether they will refuse such orders from the commander in chief. The greatest crisis of American civil-military relations in modern history is now under way.
  • I write these words with great trepidation. When I was a professor at the Naval War College, I gave lectures to American military officers about the sturdiness of civil-military relations in the United States, a remarkable historical achievement that has allowed the most powerful military in the world to serve democracy without being a threat to it. I so revered this system that I went to Moscow just before the fall of the U.S.S.R. and told an audience of Soviet military officers that they should look to the American military as a model for how to disentangle themselves from the Communist Party and Kremlin politics. I regularly reminded both my military students and civilian audiences that they had good reason to have faith in American institutions and the constitutional loyalty of U.S. civilian and military leaders.
    This new and dangerous moment has arrived for many reasons, including Trump’s antics in front of young soldiers and sailors, through which he has succeeded in pulling many of them into displays of partisan behavior that are both an insult to American civil-military traditions and a violation of military regulations. Senior military leaders should have stepped in to prevent Trump from turning addresses at Fort Bragg and Naval Station Norfolk into political rallies; the silence of the Army and Navy secretaries, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some top generals and admirals is appalling. To their credit, those same officers listened impassively as Trump and Hegseth subjected them to political rants during a meeting at Quantico last week. But young enlisted people and their immediate superiors take their cues from the top, and one day of decorum from the high command cannot reverse Trump’s influence on the rank and file.
  • Trump’s rhetoric in his speeches to the military has been awful—he has ridiculed former commanders in chief, castigated sitting elected officials, and told the members of America’s armed forces that other Americans are their enemies. But his actions are worse. In deploying troops to American cities, he has set up a confrontation in which military commanders may soon have to choose between obeying the president and obeying the law. “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Judge Karin Immergut—a conservative Trump appointee—wrote last week when she blocked Trump’s attempt to send troops to Portland. The White House aide Stephen Miller likely foreshadowed Trump’s next moves, including possibly ignoring such rulings, when he lashed out at Immergut’s decision. Miller, a man who hates being called a fascist, made the fascistic accusation that a “large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country” is being “shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general.”
  • Trump, of course, doesn’t care all that much about Venezuelan speedboats or costumed pranksters in Portland. He cares about power, which is why he is determined to flex military muscle on the streets of American cities. As opposition grows and his popularity falls, Trump may be tempted to issue orders to the military that will be aimed at suppressing dissent, or disrupting elections, or detaining political figures; he has already floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, which could enable such actions. He may even become desperate enough to launch a foreign war—as he seems to be trying to do right now with Venezuela. If more of these orders come, how should the leaders of America’s armed forces respond?
  • Congress, so far, has been useless in restraining Trump: The Democrats are too timid, and the Republicans are too compromised. Only by standing together can the senior military officials warn Trump away from leading America into a full-blown civil-military confrontation.
    Military officers are human beings, not Vulcans or robots. Even the most virtuous young officer may tremble at the idea of refusing a direct order—especially one from the president of the United States. Others may be tempted to abandon their oath, either by ideology or a misplaced sense of obedience, and they should recall Hyten’s warning from 2017: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.” Most American military personnel, however, need no reminder of their constitutional duty. But they do need some reassurance that they have support from their chain of command to resist illegal orders. And the rest of us, whether we’re elected officials or ordinary citizens, should do everything we can to let our fellow Americans in uniform know that if they risk their careers and even their freedom to protect the Constitution, we will stand with them.
  • A governmentwide reduction in force during the federal shutdown will touch an already lean U.S. Department of Education, the Trump administration said Friday, with the department’s office of elementary and secondary education potentially facing some of the most significant cuts. An Education Department spokesperson Friday confirmed the agency will be subject to the RIF but did not immediately answer how many positions would be part of the downsizing and in which department divisions. A spokesperson from the Office of Management and Budget—whose director, Russell Vought, announced the layoffs in a Friday post on X—called the government-wide reduction “substantial.”
    The Education Department’s office of communication and outreach will see cuts to its state and local engagement team under the layoff, according to the union that represents department staff. Meanwhile, the office of elementary and secondary education, which oversees key programs such as Title I and enforcement of the Every Student Succeeds Act, will see cuts to all of its teams, the union said.
    Others could still be affected, the union, a chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said.
    “Once again, the Trump administration is acting as though they have impunity to cut staff from an already lean, efficient agency,” union president Rachel Gittleman said in a prepared statement. “Dismantling the government through mass firings, especially at the ED, is not the solution to our problems as a country.”
    The layoffs were announced on the 10th day of the federal government shutdown, during which the Education Department had already furloughed roughly 87% of its staff after congressional lawmakers couldn’t come to an agreement to extend funding beyond the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
  • A furlough is different from a layoff in that it’s temporary. Generally, federal employees have to be given 60 days’ notice before a layoff can take effect. The cuts will slash an Education Department that has grown substantially leaner since the start of the second Trump administration. The agency has shed nearly half its staff since the winter. Its footprint shrank from more than 4,000 staff to about 2,400 after the department announced layoffs in March.
    The earlier layoffs touched just about every office within the department—though they cut more deeply in some places than others, such as the office for civil rights, which lost just under half its 562 positions and seven of its 12 regional offices. The office of elementary and secondary education, which employed 282 staff members in 2023, lost at least 49 positions in the March cuts.
    (Meanwhile, the office’s new leader, Kirsten Baesler, was just confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday but can’t be sworn in until the shutdown ends.)
  • The earlier layoffs are being challenged in court by states and education leaders who say the department can’t carry out its congressionally mandated functions with fewer staff. Court orders delayed the layoffs, but higher courts have since allowed them to take effect.
    The Education Department is among at least nine federal agencies subject to the shutdown RIF, according to Politico. The American Federation of Government Employees sued OMB last month for telling agencies to prepare RIF plans ahead of the shutdown. Normally, agencies prepare only to furlough staff during a shutdown and bring them back when the government reopens.
    “It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has used the government shutdown as an excuse to illegally fire thousands of workers who provide critical services to communities across the country,” the union’s president, Everett Kelley, said in a prepared statement on Friday. “It’s time for Congress to do their jobs and negotiate an end to this shutdown immediately.”
  • Trump created his MAGA coalition based on fear of “the other,” which has historically been a potent political move (think Richard Nixon’s perfection of the Southern strategy and Ronald Reagan’s aggressive race-baiting with his fictional Chicago welfare queen, among many other dog whistles).
    After America elected and then re-elected Barack Obama, not only a Black man but a constitutional scholar and an intellectual, to the presidency, the Republicans in Congress completely lost their minds and pledged to make him fail as president. They began to do all they could to shut down government and to excoriate Democrats, using the list of pejorative terms former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cribbed from conservative shock-jock Rush Limbaugh. The hard turn in Congress away from collegiality and compromise had begun.
  • We could argue the many, many inhumane points of Trumpist decrees if we were actually interested in discussing policy or, say, the mainline Christianity I once knew as a Presbyterian. But the Republican Party stopped working on policy — and started perverting Christianity — many election cycles back. Why? Largely because the GOP ran out of ideas that would fly with the American public (“Trickle-down” economics? C’mon, man!), and was assiduously courting the evangelical and Catholic religious right as a voting bloc. Meanwhile, “welcome-the-stranger” and “eye-of-the-needle” messages of Jesus had become entirely inconvenient for elite Republicans. With Trump, the Southern strategy morphed into something quite like a “Bring back the Jim Crow laws that inspired the Nazis” strategy.
    To divert attention from their desire to give further assistance to the wealthy and corporations through tax breaks, they focused their energies on “othering” different groups: People of color, immigrants, Democrats, women and LGBTQ folks.
    Of course, if you are part of the MAGA cult of personality, you don’t want to hear any of this. But we — progressives, liberals, Democrats, moderate Republicans (those horrible “RINOs”), people of faith and of no faith — are, frankly (to use a word Republicans love to utilize), the reasonable ones. There’s no question about it. To mimic Trump, everybody knows it. You do, too.
  • Government works pretty well all over the world, so long as well-meaning people with strong, relevant experience are put in leadership positions. Look at this deplorable Trump “administration,” filled to the brim with suck-ups, grifters, unhinged ideologues and conspiracy-theory kooks — each one, including the one playacting at the Resolute desk, astonishingly unqualified. The word for that kind of group being in charge is kakistocracy, which is an unhappy-sounding term that describes a devastatingly unhappy situation: government by the worst people. It sounds like something you might utter right before vomiting.
    A white supremacist theocracy, installing this Trumpian reign of the corrupt, mean-spirited, and woefully incompetent? We are just as disappointed and angry as you are about predatory capitalism, which leaves many Americans homeless and many more without access to health care. And we are just as angry about the failures of our democracy, which, as Robert Reich recently pointed out, are almost entirely due to lobbying money in politics. Much of our political class takes legal bribes and serves the interests of those with the most money.
  • But we aren’t living in the wrong country. Our America is multicultural and all of us benefit, socially and economically — yes, even you — from that fact. Our America supports freedom of religious belief, including the freedom to hold none at all, because we do not have a national religion. Our America strives to make it easier for all citizens to exercise their right to vote. Our America believes in facts and the process of scientific discovery. Our America does not whitewash its history but learns from it.
    Our America recoils from people who push their religious beliefs on others, or who denigrate women and other citizens who happen to be unlike them. Our America welcomes the strangers who come to this country with a desire to better their lives through hard work and community service. Our America supports public education and wants to make it stronger, not undermine it. Our America believes that a country should be judged by how it treats its least fortunate citizens. Our America is not ruled by a petty, vindictive despot wannabe with an outrageous history of criminal and socially abhorrent behavior who imagines he is king.
    No, despite what the astonishingly corrupt, would-be Roman emperor occupying the White House tells you, we are not the enemy: we are Americans. We have tried to be true to the best, most idealistic of American values. In the meantime — and these truly are mean times, both in material and spiritual terms — we will serve the public good by standing up for the Constitution, the rule of law and the nonpartisan civil service, and we will argue for our own ideas on how we might make a better union.

November 2025

[edit]
  • The only hope to save ourselves from Trump’s authoritarianism is mass movements. We must build alternative centers of power — including political parties, media, labor unions and universities — to give a voice and agency to those who have been disempowered by our two ruling parties, especially the working class and working poor. We must carry out strikes to cripple and thwart the abuses carried out by the emerging police state. We must champion a radical socialism, which includes slashing the $1 trillion spent on the war industry and ending our suicidal addiction to fossil fuels, and lift up the lives of Americans cast aside in the wreckage of industrialization, declining wages, a decaying infrastructure and crippling austerity programs.
  • El Presidente Trump is cast in the mold of all tinpot Latin American despots who terrorize their populations, surround themselves with sycophants, goons and crooks, and enrich themselves — Trump and his family have amassed more than $1.8 billion in cash and gifts from leveraging the presidency — while erecting tawdry monuments to themselves.

December 2025

[edit]
The Environmental Protection Agency has removed any mention of fossil fuels — the main driver of global warming — from its popular online page explaining the causes of climate change. Now it only mentions natural phenomena, even though scientists calculate that nearly all of the warming is due to human activity.
Sometime in the past few days or weeks, EPA altered some but not all of its climate change webpages, de-emphasizing and even deleting references to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which scientists say is the overwhelming cause of climate change. ~ Seth Borenstein
Trump administration health officials announced Thursday that the federal government will block transgender care to children by targeting hospitals and doctors that provide it. New proposed rules would prohibit hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid if they provide care such as puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender minors, and would prevent federal coverage of such treatments. ~ Jamie Gumbrecht & Sarah Owermohle
  • The Environmental Protection Agency has removed any mention of fossil fuels — the main driver of global warming — from its popular online page explaining the causes of climate change. Now it only mentions natural phenomena, even though scientists calculate that nearly all of the warming is due to human activity.
    Sometime in the past few days or weeks, EPA altered some but not all of its climate change webpages, de-emphasizing and even deleting references to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which scientists say is the overwhelming cause of climate change. The website's causes of climate page mentions changes in Earth’s orbit, solar activity, Earth's reflectivity, volcanoes and natural carbon dioxide changes, but not the burning of fossil fuels. Seven scientists and three former EPA officials tell The Associated Press that this is misleading and harmful.
  • Trump administration health officials announced Thursday that the federal government will block transgender care to children by targeting hospitals and doctors that provide it. New proposed rules would prohibit hospitals from participating in Medicare and Medicaid if they provide care such as puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender minors, and would prevent federal coverage of such treatments.
    “These procedures fail to meet professionally recognized standards of care,” US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said, calling many types of transgender care “malpractice.” “Medical professionals or entities providing sex-rejecting procedures to children are out of compliance with these standards of health care.”
    Medical groups denounced the announcements, saying they intrude on physician-patient relationships and jeopardize care for everyone.
    “Allowing the government to determine which patient groups deserve care sets a dangerous precedent, and children and families will bear the consequences,” said Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  • “Patients, their families, and their physicians – not politicians or government officials – should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth.”
    It’s the latest in a string of actions by President Donald Trump’s administration that target transgender people, including eliminating mention of trans people on federal websites, halting data collection on health issues, removing trans people from the military and suing states that allow trans athletes to play on high school sports teams.
    Also Thursdsay, US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said the agency is sending warning letters to 12 makers and sellers of breast binders who marketed or sold the devices for treatment of gender dysphoria in children. National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya also said the research agency will end support for research into gender transition, saying, “it was junk science to begin with.”
  • HHS leaders on Thursday cited their own review of evidence and reports from other countries, many of which have faced sharp criticism for drawing sweeping conclusions with little or poor evidence.
    Health officials said they expect to emphasize psychosocial assessment and support for transgender youth, including “compassionate, developmentally appropriate counseling.” But they acknowledged that there are a limited number of mental health care providers available.
    Gender identity care, which is sometimes called gender-affirming care, is a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one a clinician assigned them at birth, based mostly on anatomic characteristics – to the gender by which they identify. It can include mental health care or age-appropriate medical care such as hormone treatments, puberty blockers, gynecologic and urologic care and reproductive treatments.
    Major mainstream medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – have supported such care and agree that it’s the gold standard of clinically appropriate care that can provide lifesaving treatment for children and adults. Professional medical organizations do not recommend surgery for children as a part of care, and research shows that it’s rare among transgender or gender-diverse teens.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday that it will challenge the administration’s rules in court. “These gratuitous proposals are cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families,” Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, said in a statement. Kennedy said Thursday that the administration is confident it’s approach will pass court challenges. “If people sue us, they’re welcome to,” he said.
    The HHS announcement came just after the House passed a bill that could imprison health care providers for providing trans care for minors. The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, could imprison doctors who provide care such as surgeries or puberty blockers for up to 10 years. It’s unclear whether the GOP-led Senate will take up the measure, though it is unlikely it would get enough Democratic support to pass out of that chamber.
  • Merry Christmas to all, including the Radical Left Scum that is doing everything possible to destroy our Country, but are failing badly. We no longer have Open Borders, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for Everyone, or Weak Law Enforcement. What we do have is a Record Stock Market and 401K’s, Lowest Crime numbers in decades, No Inflation, and yesterday, a 4.3 GDP, two points better than expected. Tariffs have given us Trillions of Dollars in Growth and Prosperity, and the strongest National Security we have ever had. We are respected again, perhaps like never before. God Bless America!!! President DJT
    • Donald Trump in dual posts on Twitter and Truth Social on 25 December 2025[2]
  • The Trump administration has given us precious little to be thankful for this year. As 2025 draws to a close, history will remember it as a year scarred by the chaos of a White House that seemed intent on breaking the back of our democracy once and for all. It’s a psychologically exhausting time for the millions already coping with a sagging job market and rising consumer prices.
    A year-in-review posted by Mediaite lists dozens upon dozens of Trump’s scandals, crises and abuses while still failing to capture the full scope of incompetence and malice that defines this administration. Millions from all walks of life spent the year grappling with political earthquakes brought on by a nonfunctional and increasingly irrelevant Congress, a Supreme Court complicit in Trump’s radicalization of ICE, and a historic, tariff-driven wave of small business bankruptcies. As Mediaite discovered in its own attempt to catalogue the damage, the aftershocks are simply too numerous to count.
    On the eve of America’s 250th birthday, what should be a celebration of enduring freedom feels in many ways like a looming funeral. 2025 saw the shredding of America’s social fabric to the point that Democrats and Republicans now seem to inhabit two mutually exclusive realities. ‘One nation under God’ has quickly become many nations under grievance.
  • A Pew Research Center survey published this month shows just how far things have fallen in the opening decades of the 21st century. Back in 2001, 54 percent of Americans reported trusting the federal government, a slight increase from the 47 percent who felt that way in the 1980s. Now, public trust in government is scraping historic lows across every metric: As of 2025, only 17 percent of Americans believe that what their government is telling them is true.
    That doubt goes far beyond just factually impaired politicians like Trump, too. As PBS News reported in October, fewer and fewer people trust government inflation numbers or jobs reports — thanks in large part to Trump’s constant demands that labor and economic statistics serve his political interests instead of reflecting objective reality. Public officials who were unwilling to fudge their numbers in order to make Trump look good quickly found themselves out of their jobs, as ousted Bureau of Labor statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer discovered in August.
    Pew data from September reveals that the collapse of public trust in institutions is widespread. Most Americans now believe the Supreme Court has become too powerful and too unaccountable. Public approval of the nation’s highest court has fallen by nearly 25 percent since 2020, with a majority now viewing the court’s justices unfavorably.
  • Americans’ record level of distrust isn’t confined to the government. A Gallup poll found that trust in the media hit a new low of 28 percent in the back half of the year, with more than one-third of respondents saying they didn’t trust the news “at all.” Voting-age Americans now get their news from a larger number of sources than ever, from social media outlets like TikTok and X to YouTube influencers and, occasionally, even legacy news outlets like the New York Times. Yet poll after poll suggests they are unlikely to trust any news except that which confirms their pre-existing political beliefs, which makes compromise — and even reasoned political discussion — all but impossible.
    Most Americans don’t even trust their own neighbors or family members anymore. Nearly half of Americans now think members of the opposing political party are “evil.” Political polarization has increased so dramatically that both sides now routinely label their opponents as threats to democracy itself. Things have grown so tense that one in five American households report experiencing family estrangement due to political disagreements. Our families are quite literally collapsing from the weight of our all-consuming political and social hatreds.
  • If it feels like things are falling apart in America, it’s because they are. Our institutions, our media, even our families are falling victim to the toxicity of a culture in which politics now consumes every aspect of our lives and finds itself amplified by a president who wields divisiveness like an artist uses a paintbrush.
    That will only get worse as our nation careens into what is certain to be a brutal 2026 midterm election campaign. America may still be here, but we mark its 250th birthday anything but united.
  • President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he’s withdrawing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland but left the door open to sending federal forces “in a much different and stronger form.” His announcement comes after the US Supreme Court last week rejected his request to allow him to deploy the guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents as part of the administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown.
    “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, arguing that those cities would be “gone if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in.” He suggested the possibility of future deployments, writing, “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time!”
  • In blocking the guard deployment to Chicago, the Supreme Court suggested that a president’s power to federalize the guard — which federal law allows when he can no longer execute the laws of the United States with “regular forces” — would not apply to protecting agents enforcing immigration laws.
    While the ruling was a blow to his administration’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, it appeared likely Trump could still invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy regular forces to Chicago and other cities. Invoking the 19th century law — a controversial move that Trump and his aides repeatedly teased during the 2024 campaign and early in the second term — would give him broad authority to evade restrictions on using the military domestically.
    A separate National Guard deployment that Trump authorized in New Orleans began Tuesday as part of a heavy security presence for New Year’s celebrations a year after an attack on revelers on Bourbon Street killed 14 people. And Trump gave no indication he is pulling back from using the National Guard in Washington, DC, where it is operating under a different federal law that was not at issue before the Supreme Court.
  • Trump’s withdrawal announcement was welcomed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, who said in a statement the administration was using the guard as “political pawns” and blasted Trump as “a President desperate to be a king.”
    “While our rule of law remains under threat, our democratic institutions are holding,” Bonta wrote. “My office is not backing down — and we’re ready for whatever fights lie ahead.”
  • A federal judge had previously ordered the return of control of the California National Guard to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, but that ruling had been paused while the administration appealed. The Trump administration said in court papers on Tuesday that it was no longer requesting a pause on that portion of the order. On Wednesday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court order and directed the Trump administration to return control of the troops to Newsom.
    “About time @realDonaldTrump admitted defeat,” Newsom said in a post on X. “We’ve said it from day one: the federal takeover of California’s National Guard is illegal.”
    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, echoed similar sentiments in response to Trump’s announcement.
    “He lost in court when Illinois stood up against his attempt to militarize American cities with the National Guard,” Pritzker said on social media. “Now Trump is forced to stand down.”

2026

[edit]

January 2026

[edit]
In a move that stunned the world, the United States bombed Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro amid condemnation and plaudits. The legality of the strikes, which killed more than 100 people, has been heavily questioned by the United Nations and legal experts. ~ Julio Blanca
Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.
Sure, technically it belongs to Denmark. But aside from the dozens of Danish soldiers who died alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, what have the Danes really done for us lately? ~ Duffel Blog
This is not more complicated than the fact that Trump wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong. The US military is not a toy. ~ Ruben Gallego
The alarm was warranted. Everyone on the scene had witnessed the crossing of a crucial line in Donald Trump’s mass-deportation project: ICE had just killed an American citizen on American soil.
The administration has since declared that the agent “is protected by absolute immunity,” whatever that means, a signal of unconditional support for an agency bloated with thousands of new, heavily armed, and minimally trained recruits, deployed around the country to help achieve Trump’s goal of deporting 1 million immigrants a year. Events such as Good’s death set the stage for yet more lethal confrontations, which the administration can be trusted to defend with the same specious pretext. What is now overt, in a way that it hadn’t been Wednesday morning, is that these agents are at war with the public, and have been for some time. ~ Elizabeth Bruenig
Protesters in Minneapolis have since flooded the streets in the thousands, and ICE agents have responded by apprehending some, shoving others to the ground, and spraying chemical irritants in their faces. These incidents have ignited mass demonstrations nationwide, in which protesters have wailed “Shame” and “Murder,” banged drums, screeched from metal whistles, and hoisted signs declaring what is no longer deniable: ICE kills. ~ Elizabeth Bruenig
  • In a move that stunned the world, the United States bombed Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro amid condemnation and plaudits.
    In a news conference on Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, US President Donald Trump praised the operation to seize Maduro as one of the “most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history”. It was the riskiest and most high-profile military operation sanctioned by Washington since the US Navy’s SEAL team killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a safe house in Pakistan’s Abbottabad in 2011.
    News of the 63-year-old Maduro being abducted took over the global news cycle. After months of escalation and threats over Maduro’s alleged involvement in shipping drugs to the US, the Trump administration had increased pressure on Caracas with a military buildup in the Caribbean and a series of deadly missile attacks on alleged drug-running boats. The legality of the strikes, which killed more than 100 people, has been heavily questioned by the United Nations and legal experts. The US had also offered a $50m reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.
    But while the military was conducting operations in the Caribbean, US intelligence had been gathering information about Maduro. Meanwhile, special forces were covertly rehearsing a plan to forcibly remove him from power.
  • During his news conference on Saturday, Trump announced that the US would “run” Venezuela until a new leader was chosen. “We’re going to make sure that country is run properly. We’re not doing this in vain,” he said. “This is a very dangerous attack. This is an attack that could have gone very, very badly.” The president did not rule out deploying US troops in the country and said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to”. Trump also, somewhat surprisingly, ruled out working with opposition figure and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who had dedicated her prize, which he wanted to win himself, to the US president. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” he said.
    The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to serve as acting president following the US’s abduction of Maduro. The court ruled that Rodriguez would assume “the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defence of the Nation”. The court also said it would work to “determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic”.
    Trump had said earlier on Saturday that the US would not occupy Venezuela, provided Rodriguez “does what we want”.
  • Donald Trump has again proposed annexing Greenland, after Denmark's leader urged him to "stop the threats" over the island. Speaking to reporters, the US president said "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security". Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of the semi-autonomous Danish territory becoming an annexed part of the US, citing its strategic location for defence purposes and mineral wealth. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen responded by saying "that's enough now" and described the notion of US control over the island as a "fantasy". He said: "No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law."
    Earlier, Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had said "the US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom". Frederiksen added that Denmark "and thus Greenland" was a Nato member and covered by the alliance's security guarantee, and said a defence agreement granting the US access to the island was already in place.
  • We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time. The United States … we are in charge because we have the United States military stationed outside the country. We set the terms and conditions. We have a complete embargo on all of their oil and their ability to do commerce.
  • The Danish prime minister released her statement after Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides, Stephen Miller - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag alongside the word "SOON".
    The Danish ambassador to the US responded to the post by Miller - a right-wing podcaster and former aide to Trump during his first term - with a "friendly reminder" that the two countries were allies and saying Denmark expected respect for its territorial integrity.
    The back and forth over the future Greenland comes in the wake of a major military operation against Venezuela on Saturday, seizing its president Nicolás Maduro and his wife and removing them to New York. Trump later said the US would "run" Venezuela and US oil companies would "start making money for the country".
    The situation has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland, a vast island in the Arctic - something the US president has previously refused to rule out. Trump has claimed that making it part of the United States would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors.
  • The Trump administration's recent move to appoint a special envoy to Greenland prompted anger in Denmark. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
    In comments to the BBC, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said that only Denmark and Greenland could decide the territory's fate. "Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark must decide the future of Greenland, and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark," he said.
    Separately, a representative for the European Union has rejected a claim by Trump that the EU "needs" the US to control the territory. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One at the weekend that "the EU needs us to have [Greenland] and they know that." European Commission chief spokesperson Paula Pinho told the BBC that it was "certainly not" the EU's position, adding that she was unaware of any discussions with the US about the issue.
  • Norwegian leaders are making it clear that they continue to strongly support their Danish counterparts’ efforts to defend the Kingdom of Denmark, which has sovereignty over Denmark, Greenland and the Færoe Islands. US Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, they say, would not only be another US violation of the Rule of Law but also a violation of the NATO pact.
  • “My starting point is that it won’t happen,” Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told newspaper Aftenposten after Trump claimed once again that “we need Greenland.” Trump’s latest remarks to reporters came just after he’d ordered a military intervention in Venezuela that Norway called a violation of the Rule of Law. Trump’s remarks also prompted Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to quickly respond that the “USA has no right to annex one of the three countries in our kingdom.” That further prompted Norway’s own prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, to confirm his support for Frederiksen on national radio Monday morning.
    “We have to speak out about how Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and its (future) is up to the Danes and the Greenlanders,” Støre said on state broadcaster NRK’s popular morning talkshow Politisk kvarter. The program had invited both Støre and the head of the opposition in the Norwegian Parliament, Sylvi Listhaug of the right-wing Progress Party, to a New Year’s debate that took a new turn after Trump’s remarks during the night before.
    Listhaug and Støre are usually at odds on most issues, but in this case, she firmly supported both Støre and Denmark. Listhaug called Trump’s grab for Greenland “completely unacceptable” and stressed that “international rules” must apply.
  • The Danes can point to their own right to Greenland through their national sovereignty laws, and that the population of Greenland is nearly twice what Miller claimed: 57,000. Military experts and researchers in Denmark also deny Trump’s claim that Chinese and Russian ships are lurking all around Greenland, calling it an attempt to legitimize his takeover attempt. The Danish Parliament’s foreign affairs committee was calling in members for a crisis meeting Tuesday night.
  • Head Start early childhood programs are fighting back against the Trump administration in a lawsuit after being told words like “Black,” “disability,” “female,” “minority,” “trauma,” “tribal,” and “women" must be removed from funding applications — or be denied, NPR reports. The list, submitted Dec. 5, includes 200 words, including “accessible" and "belong" in a lawsuit from programs in states including Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, and Illinois, all against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The group argues that the Trump administration’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ban in federal programs conflicts with Head Start’s statutory mandate, which includes providing “linguistically and culturally appropriate” services, in addition to early intervention services for disabled children.
    The list revelation came after the executive director of a Wisconsin-based Head Start program submitted a Sept. 30, 2025, application for funding and was rejected after 50 years. Two months later, the director, Mary Roe, said she received two emails from HHS instructing her to “please remove the following words from your application" — a total of 19 words, including "racism,” “race,” and “racial” were listed.
    Her application was returned, but shortly after, Roe received another email from her appointed HHS program specialist saying, “I wanted to follow up with you concerning your application." "I sent it back asking for the removal of particular words, and I wanted to provide you with the complete list of words to make sure they are not in your applications," the specialist explained.
  • Roe labels the issue an “impossible situation” since the federal Head Start Act contains many of the words that programs are now being forced to avoid. One of Head Start’s longstanding responsibilities is “to create inclusive and accessible classrooms for children with disabilities,” but now HHS is pushing against the words “disability,” “disabilities,” and “inclusion” in funding applications.
    With the list now out in the public, Head Start centers could be forced to eliminate the definition of DEI, which the former lead of the Office of Child Care, Ruth Friedman, calls fear. "Grantees are sort of self-selecting out of those activities beforehand because of fear and direction they're getting from the Office of Head Start that they can't do these important research-based activities anymore that are important for children's learning and that are actually required by law," Friedman, who served under former President Joe Biden, said, according to Associated Press.
    The move is another attack on DEI handed down by President Donald Trump who signed a January 2025 executive order labeling “illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws" but "also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.” Since then, the domino effect targeted college campuses, retail, nonprofits, grants, and more.
  • This is not more complicated than the fact that Trump wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong. The US military is not a toy.
  • Arctic security remains a key priority for Europe and it is critical for international and transatlantic security. NATO has made clear that the Arctic region is a priority and European Allies are stepping up. We and many other Allies have increased our presence, activities and investments, to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries. The Kingdom of Denmark – including Greenland – is part of NATO. Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them.
    The United States is an essential partner in this endeavour, as a NATO ally and through the defence agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States of 1951. Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.
    • Join statement issued by President Macron of France, Chancellor Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland, Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain, Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark on Greenland, "Joint Statement on Greenland", 6 January 2026
  • Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Monday said that a US takeover of Greenland would mean the end of the NATO military alliance. On Tuesday, Frederiksen released a joint statement with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK reiterating that European allies were stepping up "to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries." It comes after US President Donald Trump renewed his calls for the large Arctic island, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, to come under Washington's control. Frederiksen said that "everything would stop" when it comes to cooperation with Washington in the event of a US attack on another NATO member. "If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop — that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security," Frederiksen said.
    Meanwhile, Greenland's prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, called for the territory to restore "good cooperation" with the United States and urged Greenlanders not to "panic." "The situation is not such that the United States can conquer Greenland. That is not the case. Therefore, we must not panic. We must restore the good cooperation we once had," Nielsen said while speaking in Greenland's capital, Nuuk. In a social media post on Monday, he called for Trump to give up "fantasies" of annexing Greenland. "That's enough now. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation." "We are open to dialogue," he said. "But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law."
  • In a joint statement with Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed support for Denmark and Greenland. "Arctic security remains a key priority for Europe and it is critical for international and transatlantic security," the joint statement read. "We and many other Allies have increased our presence, activities and investments, to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries," it added. The seven leaders stressed that Washington "is an essential partner in this endeavour."
  • On Sunday, Trump reiterated his view that Greenland should come under the control of the United States a day after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was captured in a US incursion and taken to New York to stand trial. "We need Greenland," Trump told journalists on Sunday, stressing that this was necessary for Washington's "national security" and claiming that the island was surrounded "by Chinese and Russian ships." Trump has in the past offered to buy the territory, while not ruling out the use of military force to take it over.
    Greenland has large quantities of oil, critical minerals and other resources. The territory could also gain economic importance in coming decades as new Arctic shipping routes open due to the melting of polar ice. Greenland already hosts a US military base, and Copenhagen has expressed willingness to allow for the deployment of additional US troops. On Monday, top Trump adviser Stephen Miller described Greenland as "a colony of Denmark," adding "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
  • Six European allies have rallied to support Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark said in a joint statement. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of NATO.
  • The Trump administration's recent move to appoint a special envoy to Greenland prompted anger in Denmark. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
    Morgan Angaju, 27, an Inuit living in Ilulissat in the west of the country, told BBC Newsbeat it had been "terrifying to listen to the leader of the free world laughing at Denmark and Greenland and just talking about us like we're something to claim". "We are already claimed by the Greenlandic people. Kalaallit Nunaat means the land of the Greenlandic people," Morgan said. He added he was worried about what happens next - wondering whether Greenland's prime minister may suffer the same fate as Maduro - or even about the US "invading our country".
  • The Trump administration will withdraw from dozens of international organizations, including the U.N.'s population agency and the U.N. treaty that establishes international climate negotiations, as the U.S. further retreats from global cooperation. President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order suspending U.S. support for 66 organizations, agencies, and commissions, following his administration’s review of participation in and funding for all international organizations, including those affiliated with the United Nations, according to a White House release.
    Many of the targets are U.N.-related agencies, commissions and advisory panels that focus on climate, labor, migration and other issues the Trump administration has categorized as catering to diversity and “woke” initiatives. Other non-U.N. organizations on the list include the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and the Global Counterterrorism Forum.
    “The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
    Trump's decision to withdraw from organizations that foster cooperation among nations to address global challenges comes as his administration has launched military efforts or issued threats that have rattled allies and adversaries alike, including capturing autocratic Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and indicating an intention to take over Greenland.
  • The administration previously suspended support for agencies like the World Health Organization, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees known as UNRWA, the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO. It has taken a larger, à la carte approach to paying dues to the world body, picking which operations and agencies it believes align with Trump’s agenda and those that no longer serve U.S. interests.
    “I think what we’re seeing is the crystallization of the U.S. approach to multilateralism, which is ‘my way or the highway,’” said Daniel Forti, head of U.N. affairs at the International Crisis Group. “It's a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.”
    It has marked a major shift from how previous administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have dealt with the U.N., and it has forced the world body, already undergoing its own internal reckoning, to respond with a series of staffing and program cuts. Many independent nongovernmental agencies — some that work with the United Nations — have cited many project closures because of the U.S. administration’s decision last year to slash foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.
    Despite the massive shift, Trump administration officials say they see the potential of the U.N. and want to instead focus taxpayer money on expanding American influence in many of the standard-setting U.N. initiatives where there is competition with China, like the International Telecommunications Union, the International Maritime Organization and the International Labor Organization.
  • The withdrawal from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, is the latest effort by Trump and his allies to distance the U.S. from international organizations focused on climate and addressing climate change. UNFCCC, the 1992 agreement between 198 countries to financially support climate change activities in developing countries, is the underlying treaty for the landmark Paris climate agreement. Trump — who calls climate change a hoax — withdrew from that agreement soon after reclaiming the White House.
    Gina McCarthy, former White House National Climate Adviser, said being the only country in the world not part of the treaty is “shortsighted, embarrassing, and a foolish decision.” “This Administration is forfeiting our country’s ability to influence trillions of dollars in investments, policies, and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country,” McCarthy, who co-chairs America Is All In, a coalition of climate-concerned U.S. states and cities, said in a statement.
    Mainstream scientists say climate change is behind increasing instances of deadly and costly extreme weather, including flooding, droughts, wildfires, intense rainfall events and dangerous heat.
  • The U.S. withdrawal could hinder global efforts to curb greenhouse gases because it “gives other nations the excuse to delay their own actions and commitments,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions. It will also be difficult to achieve meaningful progress on climate change without cooperation from the U.S., one of the world’s largest emitters and economies, experts said.
    The U.N. Population Fund, the agency providing sexual and reproductive health worldwide, has long been a lightning rod for Republican opposition, and Trump cut funding for it during his first term. He and other GOP officials have accused the agency of participating in “coercive abortion practices” in countries like China. When President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he restored funding for the agency. A State Department review conducted the following year found no evidence to support GOP claims.
    Other organizations and agencies that the U.S. will quit include the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.
  • The Trump administration is denying state and local officials any access to the investigation into the shooting, offering little hope for a non-partisan probe into what happened. “They don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation,” Noem said Thursday. She then railed against Minneapolis and Minnesota officials for not doing enough to assist ICE. Her remarks came after Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Superintendent Drew Evans released a statement saying the U.S. attorney’s office has barred it from participating in the federal investigation.
    “Without complete access to the evidence, witnesses and information collected, we cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands,” Evans wrote. “As a result, the BCA has reluctantly withdrawn from the investigation.” It’s impossible for Minnesota to do its own investigation without the federal government’s cooperation, the state’s Department of Public Safety commissioner Bob Jacobson explained Thursday.
    “They do have all the evidence in the original investigative notes and reports. We have none of that. They have shared none of that with us,” he said. “We would welcome the opportunity to jump back in to ... find the answers that the public deserves. Without any of that information, without any of that assistance from the FBI or the federal government, we would be at a loss to be able to initiate and conduct a thorough investigation.” Noem said Thursday she’s already confident the investigation will clear the ICE agent of any wrongdoing.
    “We have expected all the policies and procedures of review will be exactly that he acted appropriately to protect his life and the life of his colleagues,” she said Thursday when asked to share more information about him.
    Following Noem’s remarks, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) said getting a fair outcome from an investigation into the shooting “feels very, very difficult” now. “I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment, from the President to the Vice President to Kristi Noem, have stood and told you things that are verifiably false, verifiably inaccurate,” a despondent Walz said at a press conference. “They have determined the character of a 37-year-old mom that they didn’t even know.”
  • The Trump administration announced it is suspending $129m in federal benefit payments to Minnesota amid allegations of widespread fraud in the state. The secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Brooke Rollins, shared a letter on Friday on social media that was addressed to Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, and the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, notifying them of the administration’s decision and citing investigations into alleged fraud conducted by local non-profits and businesses. “Despite a staggering, wide-reaching fraud scandal, your administrations refuse to provide basic information or take common sense measures to stop fraud. The Trump administration refuses to allow such fraud to continue,” Rollins wrote.
    Rollins asked Walz and Frey to provide the USDA with justification for all federal spending from 20 January 2025 to the present within 30 days. She is also requiring that all federal payments to the state moving forward require the same justification. “We’re communicating with state partners to understand the impacts of such a blanket cut to funding meant for residents most in need,” Brian Feintech, a spokesperson for the city of Minneapolis, said in a written statement in response to Rollins’s letter.
    “What’s abundantly clear is that Minneapolis is the latest target of the Trump administration – willing to harm Americans in service to its perceived political gain.”
    Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, publicly responded to Rollins’s post, writing on X: “I will not allow you to take from Minnesotans in need. I’ll see you in court.”
  • The USDA’s announcement coincides with a federal ruling that the Trump administration cannot block federal money for childcare subsidies and other programs aimed at supporting low-income families with children from reaching five Democratic-led states, including Minnesota. The Trump administration has targeted Minnesota over the past year over allegations of fraud, specifically going after the state’s Somali population. Federal prosecutors estimate as much as $9bn has been stolen across schemes allegedly linked to the state’s Somali population. Trump ended legal protections for Somali immigrants in the state in November 2025, claiming that “Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from.”
    Shortly thereafter, Trump went off on both Somalis and Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota congressional representative who is from Somalia and is a US citizen, in a xenophobic rant during a cabinet meeting. “They contribute nothing. I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you,” the president said. He called Omar “garbage” and said “we’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country”.
  • A month later, in December 2025, the FBI announced that it was deploying additional investigative and personnel resources to “dismantle large-scale fraud schemes exploiting federal programs” in the state, according to its director, Kash Patel. Patel said the agency had already dismantled a $250m fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during the Covid pandemic in a case that led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions.
    Last week, Walz announced that he would not run for a third term as Minnesota’s governor, as his handling of the fraud has fallen under intense scrutiny from Trump and Republicans. In his announcement, Walz acknowledged that the president and his political allies have taken advantage of the crisis to sow further division in the state.
    “I won’t mince words here,” Walz said. “Donald Trump and his allies – in Washington, in St Paul and online – want to make our state a colder, meaner place.”
  • Civil liberties and migrant-rights groups called for nationwide rallies on Saturday to protest the fatal shooting of an activist in Minnesota by a U.S. immigration agent, as state authorities opened their own investigation of the killing. Protest organizers said more than 1,000 weekend events were planned across the country demanding an end to large-scale deployments of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ordered by President Donald Trump, mostly to cities led by Democratic politicians.
    Minneapolis became a major flashpoint of the Republican president's militarized deportation roundups on Wednesday, when an ICE officer shot and killed a 37-year-old mother of three, Renee Good, behind the wheel of her car on a residential street. The violence came soon after some 2,000 federal officers were dispatched to Minneapolis in what ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, called the "largest DHS operation ever." Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, condemned the deployment as a "reckless" example of "governance by reality TV."
  • On Friday night, throngs of demonstrators staged a "noise protest" outside a Minneapolis hotel believed to be lodging a visiting contingent of ICE agents. Video posted by activists on social media showed protesters, some wearing brightly colored inflatable costumes, creating a din by beating on drums, banging pots and pans, yelling through bullhorns and blowing on brass instruments and whistles. Others directed high-power flashlight beams at the hotel's windows. The crowd thinned after yellow-vested state police in riot gear marched into the area and declared an unlawful assembly, CNN reported.
    Police were responding to "information that demonstrators were no longer peaceful and reports of damage to property," the Minnesota Department of Public Safety said on X. "Dispersal orders were given prior to arrests." At the time she was killed, Good was participating in one of numerous "neighborhood patrols" that track, monitor and record ICE activities, according to family and local activists.
    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other Trump administration officials said Good was "impeding" and "stalking" ICE agents all day, and that the officer opened fire in self-defense when she tried to ram her car into him in an "act of domestic terrorism."
  • Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, pointed to bystander video he said directly contradicted the federal government's "garbage narrative." Civil liberties advocates said the video showed federal agents lacked any justification for using deadly force.
    Amid the sharply differing accounts of the shooting, Minnesota and Hennepin County law enforcement authorities said on Friday they were opening their own criminal inquiry of the incident separate from a federal investigation led by the FBI. Some Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, asserted state prosecutors lack jurisdiction to charge a federal officer with a crime, though legal experts say federal immunity in such cases is not automatic.
    The crisis atmosphere led Walz - a prominent Trump antagonist who branded Trump and his Republican allies as "weird" during his own run for vice president last year - to put the state's National Guard on alert.
    Federal-state tensions escalated further on Thursday when a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Portland, Oregon, shot and wounded a man and woman in their car after an attempted vehicle stop. As in the Minneapolis incident, DHS said the driver had tried to "weaponize" his vehicle and run over agents. DHS on Friday identified the wounded driver and passenger as suspected gang associates from Venezuela who were in the U.S. illegally. The agency said the woman had been involved in a prior shootout in Portland but provided no evidence of its allegations against the pair.
  • Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, echoing Frey, said he could not be sure the government's account was grounded in fact without an independent investigation. The deployment of agents to Minneapolis follows Trump's recent denunciations of Walz and his state's large population of Somali immigrants over allegations of fraud dating back to 2020 by some nonprofit groups administering childcare and other social-service programs. Good was shot dead just a few blocks from where George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer crushing his neck into the pavement with his knee during a videotaped arrest in May 2020. Floyd's death sparked months of nationwide racial-justice protests during Trump's first term in office.
    Bystander video of the Minneapolis incident showed masked officers approaching Good's Honda SUV while it was stopped at a perpendicular angle to the street, partially blocking traffic. One agent is seen ordering her out of the car and grabbing onto the driver-side front door handle as the car pulls forward and steers away from the officers, one of whom jumps back and fires three shots into the front of the vehicle as it rolls past.
  • Video filmed by the officer who opened fire, identified through official comment and public records as Jonathan Ross, shows Good appearing calm. She is heard telling him, "That's fine, dude, I'm not mad at you" - moments before he opens fire as she drives forward into the street, steering the car away from him. Noem has said he was treated at a local hospital for unspecified injuries and released. The car's front bumper appears in the bystander video to pass Ross before he shot at Good. It is unclear from any of the footage whether the vehicle made contact with him. In any case, Ross is shown remaining on his feet and can be seen walking after the incident, contradicting Trump's assertion on social media that the woman "ran over the ICE officer."
    The two DHS-related shootings this week have drawn thousands of protesters to the streets of Minneapolis, Portland and other U.S. cities, with many more demonstrations under the banner "ICE Out For Good" planned for Saturday and Sunday.
    The rallies were being organized by a coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, MoveOn Civic Action, Voto Latino, and Indivisible, some of which were at the forefront of "No Kings" protests against Trump last year.
  • On an unseasonably warm Wednesday in Minneapolis, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot a woman in the face. The many eyes of our everyday panopticon recorded the event from multiple angles. Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mom of three, had stopped her maroon SUV on a snowy street crawling with ICE officials. According to eyewitness reports, multiple men in masks shouted conflicting orders at her: At least one apparently demanded that she exit her vehicle and tried to open her door; another told her to drive away. Good seems to have moved slowly as she tried to maneuver around the agents surrounding her car. After appearing to first wave for someone to move, she reversed slightly and turned away from the agents to continue down the street. An ICE agent who appears to have been knocked back by her front bumper responded by shooting into her vehicle, and shot again as the SUV, suddenly without a conscious driver, [careened] into a parked car ahead.
    Chaos erupted. A man announcing himself as a physician ran toward the scene to attempt to render first aid, but an ICE agent commanded him to step back. When emergency medical workers finally arrived on foot 15 minutes later, they clumsily pulled Good’s body from the driver’s seat, leaving behind a blood-soaked airbag. Onlookers immediately rose up in anger and outrage, screaming at the agents and shouting profanities. One man howled “Murderer! Murderer!” over and over again. Good’s partner, who was near the SUV, can be heard saying through sobs that Good was her wife, that their 6-year-old was at school, and that they were new in town, didn’t know anybody, had no one to call for help.
    The alarm was warranted. Everyone on the scene had witnessed the crossing of a crucial line in Donald Trump’s mass-deportation project: ICE had just killed an American citizen on American soil.
    The administration has since declared that the agent “is protected by absolute immunity,” whatever that means, a signal of unconditional support for an agency bloated with thousands of new, heavily armed, and minimally trained recruits, deployed around the country to help achieve Trump’s goal of deporting 1 million immigrants a year. Events such as Good’s death set the stage for yet more lethal confrontations, which the administration can be trusted to defend with the same specious pretext. What is now overt, in a way that it hadn’t been Wednesday morning, is that these agents are at war with the public, and have been for some time.
  • Good’s killing was the culmination of months of roiling tensions between the Department of Homeland Security and the communities it routinely invades to round up people for summary deportation. Having more than doubled ICE’s workforce in a matter of months, DHS has been fretting theatrically about how these agents are risking “their lives to remove the worst of the worst.” In retrospect, those concerns now seem like threats—a preemptive excuse for maximum violence.
    The Trump administration instantly characterized Good’s killing as a matter of self-defense on the part of the ICE agent, whom The Minnesota Star Tribune has identified as Jonathan Ross, a 10-year agency veteran and member of its Special Response Team. Faced with footage of the incident Wednesday night, Trump offered the MAGA gloss on what took place: “She ran him over.” In fact, videos show that Ross remained upright.
    In a press conference, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Good had been killed because she had been “stalking and impeding” ICE agents all day, and that she had tried to “weaponize her vehicle” in an act of “domestic terrorism.” By Thursday, when White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt presented the administration’s official line, the story had grown more baroque. Leavitt maintained that Good was part of a “larger, sinister, left-wing movement that has spread across our country, where our brave men and women of federal law enforcement are under organized attack.” Thus Ross, as a target of a dangerous conspiracy, had merely been operating in self-defense.
  • In the administration’s closest brush with acknowledging wrongdoing, J. D. Vance mentioned to reporters Thursday that Ross had been involved in an incident with a vehicle several months ago, during which he was dragged for 100 yards and subsequently required numerous stitches: “So you think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile?” These remarks could reasonably be taken to imply that Ross’s decision to shoot Good was an emotional overreaction based on past trauma, but then Vance pivoted: Ross “deserves a debt of gratitude.” In other words, even if Ross did act in error, Good’s death still bears the administration’s stamp of approval.
  • Protesters in Minneapolis have since flooded the streets in the thousands, and ICE agents have responded by apprehending some, shoving others to the ground, and spraying chemical irritants in their faces. These incidents have ignited mass demonstrations nationwide, in which protesters have wailed “Shame” and “Murder,” banged drums, screeched from metal whistles, and hoisted signs declaring what is no longer deniable: ICE kills.
    'It therefore felt grimly inevitable when the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement Thursday night confirming that Border Patrol officers shot at two people in a targeted traffic stop in Portland, Oregon. “When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants,” the post on X read, “the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents.” There is nothing to stop the echoes of this rationale, and we should expect to hear it again and again. There may come a time when the administration dispenses with offering an explanation at all.
  • President Donald Trump continued his threats towards Greenland on Friday, as he insisted that if the United States did not act Russia or China could occupy it in the future. Trump said that if he is unable to make a deal to acquire the territory “the easy way,” then he will have to “do it the hard way.” “We are going to do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Greenland’s party leaders, including the opposition, issued a joint statement saying: “We do not want to be Americans, we do not want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders. The future of Greenland must be decided by the Greenlandic people.”
    The US president and his White House officials have been discussing a range of options on how to bring Greenland under US control amid renewed interest in the strategically significant Danish-controlled territory, and has not ruling out a military intervention. The governments of Greenland and Denmark continue to publicly and privately insist it is not for sale. It remains unclear how other NATO members would respond if the US decided to take Greenland by force. European leaders have warned that such a move would have serious consequences for the military alliance. In a joint statement the leaders of France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Poland and Spain said Greenland belongs to its own people.
  • “I would like to make a deal the easy way but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way. And by the way, I’m a fan of Denmark too. I have to tell you, they have been very nice to me. I’m a big fan,” Trump said. He claimed that the move was necessary to prevent Russia or China from taking Greenland at some point in the future. Asked about a recent report that the US was weighing making payments to Greenlanders to convince them to join the US, Trump said, “I’m not talking about money for Greenland yet.”
    Many Greenlanders have already rejected the idea of accepting money to become part of the US. “No thank you. It’s absolutely certain that we don’t want that,” one resident of the capital city of Nuuk, Simon Kjeldskov, told Reuters. Another resident, Juno Michaelsen, said: “Any number in the world and we will say no. It belongs to us and only us.”
    The top Washington-based diplomats for Greenland and Denmark met with White House officials on Thursday. Denmark’s Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen and Greenland’s head of representation to the US Jacob Isbosethsen met with Trump advisers, diplomats familiar with the matter told CNN. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen alongside four other party leaders once again rejected Trump’s calls to acquire the semi-autonomous territory in a statement release Friday night and seen by Reuters. The leaders said a planned meeting of Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, to discuss its response to the Trump administration’s threats would be brought forward. The date of the meeting has not yet been determined. Greenland’s parliament last met in November and had been scheduled to meet again on February 3.
  • Several thousand protesters gathered at a park coated with fresh snow on Minneapolis’s south side Saturday afternoon, near where Renée Good lived and was fatally shot. “Say her name: Renée Good!” they chanted, along with “We will not put up with ICE!” There were mothers with children and babies in carriers, families and seniors holding homemade signs that read “ICE murdered Renée Good,” and “Indict agent Jonathan Ross,” the man identified through court records as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who killed Good. Protesters turned out in cities across the country, including Boston, New York City, Austin and Philadelphia, many organized by progressive group Indivisible and titled “ICE Out For Good.”
    In Minneapolis, the demonstrations in recent days “have remained peaceful until last night,” Police Chief Brian O’Hara said during a news conference Saturday. O’Hara said one Friday night protest outside a hotel believed to be housing ICE agents grew tense when some individuals caused property damage and, over the course of the night, threw ice, snow and rocks at officers.
    Police arrested 29 people and at least one officer sustained injuries after being hit by a chunk of ice, O’Hara said. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey urged demonstrators to remain peaceful and to not “take the bait” into violent escalation. “We are meeting a whole lot of despair with a lot of hope,” Frey said Saturday. “We are doing right. We are being strategic. And yes, for those that aren’t being strategic... there are consequences.”
  • The state has also been grappling with how to respond after the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said the FBI was revoking its access to the case file, scene evidence and witness interviews in Good’s shooting. Trump administration officials have called the incident a federal matter, but state prosecutors say it falls in their jurisdiction and announced Friday they will conduct their own review of the shooting in an effort to gather evidence the FBI won’t share with them. Video of the hotly contested shooting has gradually emerged, including cellphone footage recorded by the ICE officer as he fatally shot Good.
    The 47-second recording shows for the first time that Renée Good spoke to Ross before he shot her, and reveals that, a split second before the gunfire, Good’s wife urged her to drive away from the scene. It does not show whether Good’s SUV came into contact with Ross, as the administration contends. Vice President JD Vance said Friday that the video exonerated Ross. “The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense,” Vance wrote on X.
    Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said Friday that it’s too early for anyone to reach a conclusion about the shooting “in good faith” because there’s too much evidence still to be evaluated. How the investigation plays out was on protesters’ minds Saturday. “War is being waged on our community. I’m here because sometimes it feels like there’s not a lot you can do,” said Nora Sonneborn, 28, who lives nearby, works in administration and held a hand-painted sign that said, “Melt the ICE.” She called the FBI’s move to exclude state authorities from the shooting investigation “ridiculous.” “A crime was committed in our home and we have every right to investigate,” she said.
  • Saturday morning, about five miles from the protests, there was a brief standoff between U.S. lawmakers and armed federal officers outside a Minneapolis-area federal building. In social media posts and media interviews afterward, three Democratic congresswomen from Minnesota said they had sought to oversee the conditions at a regional ICE field office, but were allowed in only briefly before officials ordered them to leave.
    Videos posted by journalists on the scene showed Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison standing outside the facility’s gate as a line of federal agents dressed in tactical gear and camouflage initially barred them from entering. A female voice could be heard saying, “I’m a sitting member of the United States Congress,” and asking, “Have you contacted your supervisor?”
    “It is deeply disturbing to think what ICE is hiding when they are actively denying members from conducting their oversight authority,” Omar said in a statement Saturday. “When people disappear in the darkness, American democracy dies.”
    Last month, a federal judge temporarily blocked new Trump administration policies restricting members of Congress from making unannounced oversight visits to ICE facilities funded via congressional appropriations bills. In a statement Saturday afternoon, however, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the ruling did not apply because the court exempted ICE operations funded by last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. She said that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem issued fresh orders Jan. 8 reiterating that congressmembers must give seven days’ notice before visiting ICE detention facilities. “Because they were out of compliance with this mandate, Representative Omar and her colleagues were denied entry to the facility,” McLaughlin said.
  • Roberta Sloan, 66, a retired nurse who drove from Rochester, Minnesota, to join the protest in the park on Minneapolis’s south side, said she was frustrated that Omar’s effort to enter the ICE facility was challenged, but glad the congresswomen tried. “They have every right to be there to see these detention places and how people are being treated,” she said. Sloan was also pleased with how Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis’s mayor have spoken out against the ICE operation and shooting. “They are standing up for what Minnesota stands for,” she said, and that’s why she felt compelled to protest: “To stand up for those who don’t have a voice.”
    Standing on a nearby snow covered sidewalk, amid a shoulder-to-shoulder crowd, health care worker Peter Prou, 33, of St. Paul, said he was outraged by the shooting and came to fight for justice. “They’re taking away all our rights and freedoms. They know it’s murder and they’re trying to cover it up,” he said of ICE, but added, “There’s strength in numbers. There’s more of us than them.”
  • Our country hasn’t been perfect, but it has been self-correcting. It took time for us to acknowledge the unalienable rights of all races and sexes. We have stumbled, fought each other, and sometimes misused our military muscle. But, when we resorted to violence, it was usually to defend liberty at home and abroad. Now, we have stumbled again, installing leaders who don’t believe in the founding idea. Freedom threatens them, so they rule by fear. So far, neither our institutions nor our people have mobilized to correct this mistake. President Trump and his people are so emboldened that they don’t even bother to hide their ill intentions. They know that if they commit crimes on his behalf, he will pardon them.
  • Trump attacks freedom of the press. Over the last year, his administration took more than $1 billion away from public broadcasting; launched investigations into NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS; and forced media organizations to pay $32 million to settle his lawsuits against them. He has taken 76 federal actions to restrict, punish and revoke journalists’ credentials. But Trump’s biggest use of federal force to intimidate and terrorize civil society is his deployment of immigration agents and military troops in U.S. cities run by Democrats. Federal agencies have deported more than 605,000 people over the last year. Trump promised to focus on immigrants convicted of crimes, but his agents have arrested productive and longstanding American residents. As of Nov. 30, nearly 74 percent of the detainees had no criminal convictions. During 2025, 32 people, including children, died while in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many have been “disappeared” to other countries, some to prisons, and denied their constitutional rights to due process. During 2025, the administration stripped legal status from 1.6 million immigrants. Nearly 2 million immigrants “self-deported.”
  • Last week, Americans watched on television as an armed immigration officer shot and killed a frightened mother of three, an American citizen, in Minneapolis. Without the benefit of an investigation, Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other federal officials quickly went public to describe the woman as a rioter and “terrorist” who “weaponized her vehicle” against the officer, forcing him to defend himself.
    The American people have also watched the U.S. military kill foreign nationals by simply blowing up 35 boats in the Caribbean, killing at least 115 passengers. The Trump administration claimed the boats were smuggling drugs into America but provided no evidence.
    Then came the invasion of Venezuela to arrest its leader and bring him to the U.S. for trial. Trump openly admits he wants to seize the country’s oil reserves, the largest (and some of the dirtiest) in the world. In the style of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, he wants to turn America’s oil billionaires into oligarchs. Time will tell how the entrenched interests in Venezuela react, and whether the invasion escalates into America’s latest oil war.
  • The big, macho men from ICE who are storming around American cities like Visigoths are a bunch of cowards.
    They arm themselves as if they are battling ISIS terrorists in Iraq while the only threat they face is common American citizens with whistles and protest signs. They break into private homes without warrants, they gas school kids, they tackle women on the street, they smash into the cars of American citizens. And one of them summarily executed a mother of three children because -- well, because he could.
    They think they are tough, but they are punks hiding behind masks. They are poorly-trained thugs dressed up like real soldiers who think they are living out a video game where they get points for assaulting anyone who gets in their way. They are the farthest thing from the real cops who police communities with restraint, discipline and a knowledge of the law.These mercenaries do not serve the country, they serve a regime that excuses their unjustified violence and lies about their lawless actions. President Donald Trump falsely alleges that Renee Good, the mother of three gunned down in Minneapolis by an ICE agent, was a “professional agitator” who showed “disrespect” for law enforcement. His toady press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who will say any despicable thing to please her boss, accused Good of being “a lunatic.” The Homeland Security boss, Kristi Noem, branded Good a “domestic terrorist.”
    There is zero evidence of any of the Trump administration’s slander. Renee Good was, indeed, out on the street to monitor the actions of ICE, but, as anyone can see in the video taken seconds before she was murdered, she was smiling at the ICE agents and telling them she was not mad at them. Good was, in fact, doing what she had been ordered to do, moving her vehicle out of the way.
    Trump and his team are even bigger cowards than the cosplay cops they have sent to terrorize immigrants and punish Democratic cities. It takes leaders with maturity and guts to admit fault and accept accountability. The cruel clowns in the White House will never be brave enough to do that.
  • Lawmakers from both parties and houses of Congress have agreed to provide about $653 million to fund Voice of America’s parent agency, rejecting President Donald Trump’s demand to defund the international broadcaster and shut it down. A bipartisan spending bill released Sunday would allocate $643 million for broadcasting from the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA, plus nearly $10 million for capital improvements. That figure is down from the $867 million appropriated for the agency each of the past two years, but it’s more than four times the $153 million Trump requested that Congress provide to “support the orderly shutdown of USAGM operations.” The outlay is included in a broader bipartisan spending deal negotiated by House and Senate appropriators. The package still requires House and Senate approval before heading to Trump’s desk.
    “We understand the realities of the appropriations process, but I am disappointed that Congress is proposing half a billion dollars more in funding than we requested,” Kari Lake, the deputy CEO installed by Trump to shut down the agency, wrote in a statement Monday. “While reductions from prior years are a step in the right direction, USAGM can still advance President Trump’s message and share America’s story globally without wasting so much taxpayer money.”
  • The bipartisan commitment to funding USAGM reflects continued congressional support for America’s role in promoting the free flow of news and information abroad, a long-standing foundation of its soft power around the world. Congress’s funding proposal comes after a dire year for USAGM. Trump signed an executive order in March calling for the dismantlement of the government agency, which oversees Voice of America and funds nonprofit groups including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. To carry out the order, Lake placed more than 1,300 Voice of America staffers on paid administrative leave — many of whom are still not working — and halted broadcasting operations the same month. It was the first time VOA went dark since it was first set up in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda. In response, VOA’s director, Michael Abramowitz, and a separate group of USAGM staffers sued the Trump administration, arguing that its actions were illegal.
    Lake, a former Arizona television anchor who lost high-profile races for governor and U.S. Senate in recent years, has defended the cuts and called for the agency’s eventual elimination. She told Congress in a June hearing that USAGM was “incompetent, corrupt, biased, and a threat to America’s national security and standing in the world.” She has also said USAGM is “not salvageable.”
    The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
  • The new bill allocates $199.5 million of the total appropriation to VOA and $138 million for USAGM’s operations. Additionally, nonprofit grantees will also be funded through this bill to the tune of $112.5 million for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, $69 million for Middle East Broadcasting Networks, $53.5 million for Radio Free Asia and $40.5 million for the Open Technology Fund. The Trump administration pushed to defund the nonprofit media outlets, but Lamberth has largely restored their funding in court after they all sued. Radio Free Asia previously said it was pausing operations but in recent months has resumed some publishing activities. “With new funding, if enacted, RFA anticipates ramping up additional news operations that have been paused in the Asia-Pacific region,” RFA spokesman Rohit Mahajan said in a statement. Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the top Democrat on the state and foreign operations subcommittee, applauded the bipartisan negotiation that led to the bill but expressed worry that it still represented a cut to government broadcasters. “While the bill ensures continued funding for our international broadcasting grantees,” he wrote in a statement, “it forces cuts at a time when they are trying to provide critical services in Ukraine, the Middle East, and across the Indo-Pacific.”
    Schatz and his House counterpart, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Florida), previously criticized the Trump administration’s “illegal gutting” of the agency. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida), the Senate and House appropriations subcommittee chairs, did not respond to requests for comment.
  • The U.S. experienced negative net migration in 2025 for the first time in at least half a century as a result of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, according to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution. Although the administration has undertaken aggressive removal efforts, the negative number is mostly due to a significant drop in entries into the U.S., the report said. "We estimate net flows of -295,000 to -10,000 for the year," the Brookings study stated. "Though a high degree of policy uncertainty remains, continued negative net migration for 2026 is also likely." The report attributed the shift to combination of the large drop in entries and an increase in enforcement activity leading to removals and voluntary departures. The Trump administration's suspension of many humanitarian programs -- including most refugee programs with the exception of those involving white South Africans -- and a decline in temporary visas also contributed to the negative net migration, the report said.
    The report's authors estimate there were between 310,000 and 315,000 removals in 2025, a figure lower than what the administration has claimed. Department of Homeland Security officials claim that, so far, more than 600,000 people have been removed during the crackdown. "At 310,000 to 315,000, the 2025 removals are not much higher than the 2024 removals of around 285,000," the report states.
  • Unlike in 2024, most removals in 2025 were initiated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection from the country's interior, the report said, as opposed to being initiated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- despite the actions of some ICE officers dominating many news headlines. A spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CPB and ICE, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News. The report's authors also predicted removals will increase in 2026 with funding from President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the report said will "likely allow for increased infrastructure and staffing to achieve a higher level of enforcement."
    According to the report, authorities also predict the net migration loss will see certain sectors of the economy experience "unexpectedly weak economic activity," specifically businesses that serve affected immigrant populations. "The slowdown implies weaker employment, GDP, and consumer spending growth," the report states, adding that consumer spending is expected to fall by between $60 billion and $110 billion over 2025 and 2026.
  • Several faculty groups have denounced the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain information about Jewish professors, staff and students at the University of Pennsylvania – including personal emails, phone numbers and home addresses – as government abuse with “ominous historical overtones”.
    The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is demanding the university turn over names and personal information about Jewish members of the Penn community as part of the administration’s stated goal to combat antisemitism on campuses. But some Jewish faculty and staff have condemned the government’s demand as “a visceral threat to the safety of those who would find themselves identified because compiling and turning over to the government ‘lists of Jews’ conjures a terrifying history”, according to a press release put out by the groups’ lawyers.
    The EEOC sued Penn in November over the university’s refusal to fully comply with its demands. On Tuesday, the American Association of University Professors’ national and Penn chapters, the university’s Jewish Law Students Association and its Association of Senior and Emeritus Faculty, and the American Academy of Jewish Research filed a motion in federal court to intervene in the case.
    “These requests would require Penn to create and turn over a centralized registry of Jewish students, faculty, and staff – a profoundly invasive and dangerous demand that intrudes deeply into the freedoms of association, religion, speech, and privacy enshrined in the First Amendment,” the groups argued. “We are entering territory that should shock every single one of us,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund on a press call. The fund is representing the faculty groups along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin and Schiller. “That kind of information – however purportedly benign the excuses given for it – can be put to the most dangerous misuse. This is an abuse of government power that drags us back to some of the darkest chapters in our history.”
    The EEOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
  • The University of Pennsylvania was among dozens of US universities to come under federal investigation over alleged antisemitism in the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza. In response, the university established a taskforce to study antisemitism, implemented a series of measures and shared hundreds of pages of documents to comply with government demands.
    But the university refused to comply with the EEOC’s July subpoena for personal information of Jewish faculty, students and staff, or those affiliated with Jewish organizations who had not given their consent, as well as the names of individuals who had participated in confidential listening sessions or received a survey by the university’s antisemitism taskforce. A university spokesperson said in November that “violating their privacy and trust is antithetical to ensuring Penn’s Jewish community feels protected and safe”. Instead, the university offered to inform all its employees of the EEOC investigation, inviting those interested to contact the agency directly.
    But that was not enough for the commission, which brought the university to court to seek to enforce the subpoena.
    “The EEOC remains steadfast in its commitment to combatting workplace antisemitism and seeks to identify employees who may have experienced antisemitic harassment. Unfortunately, the employer continues to refuse to identify members of its workforce who may have been subjected to this unlawful conduct,” the EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas, said in a statement at the time. “An employer’s obstruction of efforts to identify witnesses and victims undermines the EEOC’s ability to investigate harassment.”
  • The EEOC request prompted widespread alarm and condemnation among Jewish faculty, and earned rebukes from the university’s Hillel and other Jewish groups. Steven Weitzman, a professor with Penn’s religious studies department who also served on the university’s antisemitism taskforce, said that the mere request for such lists “instills a sense of vulnerability among Jews” and that the government cannot guarantee that the information it collects won’t fall “into the wrong hands or have unintended consequences”. “Part of what sets off alarm bells for people like me is a history of people using Jewish lists against Jews,” he said . “The Nazi campaign against Jews depended on institutions like universities handing over information about their Jewish members to the authorities.” “As Jewish study scholars, we know well the dangers of collecting such information,” said Beth Wenger, who teaches Jewish history at Penn. It’s not the first time the EEOC’s efforts to fight antisemitism have caused alarm among Jewish faculty. Last spring, the commission texted the personal phones of employees of Barnard College, the women’s school affiliated with Columbia University, linking to a survey that asked respondents whether they identified as Jewish or Israeli.
  • The Trump administration still hasn't released all of the Epstein files as required by law, and is instead exploring more kinetic ways to distract public attention from this uncomfortable fact, sources confirmed today. “And we all know the best way to divert attention from domestic problems is to bomb people with funny-sounding names overseas,” said a senior White House official. “So we’ve put together a target list of countries with weak militaries, weird names — or both — that we can hit with our few remaining Tomahawks to make sure the Big Man’s name doesn’t pop up in compromising positions in the Epstein documents.”
    Duffel Blog obtained the target list for Operation PEDO PALADIN, a contingency plan officials say has been sitting in a desk drawer labeled ‘Break Glass If Accountability Appears.’ According to sources, the president doesn’t particularly care which country gets hit first, largely because he can’t find any of them on a map anyway.
  • Sure, technically it belongs to Denmark. But aside from the dozens of Danish soldiers who died alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, what have the Danes really done for us lately?
    Stephen Miller (from that special category of American military-age males who nevertheless somehow Perpetually Evaded the GWOT, or PEG), Marco Rubio (PEG), Don Jr. (PEG), and Eric Trump (also PEG) all agree Greenland is critical to U.S. national security, and if you have to die for it, that’s a sacrifice they are fully prepared to let you make. Be advised: Greenland, as part of Denmark, has access to the most formidable fixed and scatterable obstacles known to humankind — which, according to a redacted memo from Epstein to Trump, also double as excellent field-expedient butt plugs.
  • Experts sounded a dire alarm after the Trump administration pulled the plug on nearly $2 billion in substance abuse and mental health funding, leaving thousands of providers scrambling and patients in a lurch. Up to 2,800 grantees through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration received termination letters immediately — wiping out about 26% of the agency's entire budget with zero warning, The Guardian reported Wednesday. “It feels like Armageddon for everyone who’s on the frontlines of the addiction and mental health space,” Ryan Hampton, founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy organization for people in and seeking recovery, told the outlet. “The scope of care that’s disrupted by these grants is catastrophic. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will die.”
  • Providers awoke to devastation that they'd be forced to conduct staff layoffs, program shutdowns, and that services would be halted immediately. The cuts axe overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, school mental health support, and help for pregnant women struggling with substance abuse. “Overnight, our entire backbone and infrastructure of addiction and mental health in this country flipped up on its head,” Hampton said. “These grants are lifesaving tools that honestly are a good reason why we have started to see a reversal in trends of drug overdoses in this country.” The move comes as overdose deaths finally dropped 27% in 2024 after two decades of climbing rates. "All of us are in a state of complete and utter shock that the administration would take such a reckless action," Hampton said. Legal challenges loom, but Hampton warned the damage is happening now. "People will die. People will die."
  • The Environmental Protection Agency is taking a major step toward changing its math to favor polluters over people: It’s going to stop tallying up the dollar value of lives saved and hospital visits avoided by air pollution regulations. Instead, the agency will consider the effects of regulations without attaching a price tag to human life. In particular, the EPA is changing how it conducts the cost-benefit analysis of regulations for two major pollutants, fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns — usually referred to as PM2.5 — and ozone. The change was buried in a document published this month analyzing the economic impacts of final pollution regulations for power plants, arguing that the way the EPA historically calculated the economic benefits of regulations had too much uncertainty and gave people “a false sense of precision.” So to fix this, the EPA will stop tabulating the benefits altogether “until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to properly monetize those impacts.” The news was first reported by the New York Times. On X, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin pushed back on the reporting, calling it “another dishonest, fake news claim” and that the agency is still considering lives saved when setting pollution limits.
  • I spoke with several experts, including former EPA officials, and in fact, the change could lead to worsening air quality and harm public health. The EPA exists to regulate pollution that harms people, and when it comes to things like ozone and tiny particles, there is robust evidence of the damage they can do, contributing to heart attacks and asthma attacks. Measured over populations, air pollution takes years off of people’s lives. Every year in the United States alone, air pollution pushes 135,000 people into early graves. “There is a lot of science that shows very clearly that being exposed to increasing levels of PM2.5 has significant health impacts,” said Janet McCabe, who served as the EPA’s deputy administrator under President Joe Biden.
  • Anytime the EPA wants to issue a new regulation — say, revising how much mercury a power plant is allowed to emit — it looks at both the costs and the benefits before finalizing the rule. The EPA adds up how much companies would likely have to spend on things like installing upgraded scrubbers in smokestacks. Then the agency estimates the economic benefit of imposing the regulation, such as more days with cleaner air or fewer workers calling out sick. The biggest benefits usually come from improving health through things like avoiding hospital visits and reducing early deaths. There is some fuzziness in the numbers on both sides of the ledger though. If a bunch of companies turn to a handful of suppliers for pollution control equipment, that could drive up compliance costs. And how exactly do you price a hypothetical emergency room trip that didn’t happen? “In my experience at EPA, there’s never a perfect estimate of costs or benefits,” McCabe said. Yet even with imperfect calculations, regulators could get a decent sense of whether the juice was worth the squeeze when it comes to a new pollution standard, and the public would get a window into how the decision was made.
    Under the Biden administration, the EPA found that enforcing the more stringent PM2.5 regulations it issued in 2024 would add up to $46 billion in health benefits by 2032, vastly more than the cost of complying with the rule. The EPA now effectively wants to put receipts from the benefits side of the ledger through the shredder.
  • This change in math is part of a broader pattern at the EPA — and across the federal government — of just measuring and counting fewer things under the second Trump Administration. The EPA has already closed its Office of Research and Development, which was meant to provide the scientific basis for environmental regulations, like tracking the effects of toxic chemicals on the human body. With less data on science and economics, agencies like the EPA have less accountability for their actions as they face more pressure from the White House to cut regulations and craft policies benefiting politically favored industries. It also sets the stage for taking the teeth out of other regulations, like the Clean Air Act. The EPA has already dismantled its legal foundation for addressing climate change.
    Joseph Goffman, who served as assistant administrator of the EPA’s air and radiation office under Biden, said this change in how the EPA calculates health benefits is part of a broader campaign against air pollution regulations. “It really illustrates what the ulterior motive is and that is to mute or mask the true impact of [particulate matter] exposure and the huge benefits that flow from reducing it,” Goffman said. “Suddenly deciding that you can’t ascribe a dollar value to reducing PM really is convenient to the point of being instrumental to Zeldin’s efforts to weaken PM standards.”
    If the EPA never comes up with a new way to monetize the health benefits of regulations, it’s likely that improvements in air quality will stall, and air pollution could get worse. “One would anticipate that we could see PM 2.5 levels rising across the country,” Hasenkopf said.
  • Jacqueline Smith, the outlet's ombudsman, said Stars and Stripes reports on matters important to service members and their families — not just weapons systems or war strategy — and she's detected nothing “woke” about its reporting. “I think it's very important that Stars and Stripes maintains its editorial independence, which is the basis of its credibility,” Smith said. A longtime newspaper editor in Connecticut, Smith's role was created by Congress three decades ago and she reports to the House Armed Services Committee. It's the latest move by the Trump administration to impose restrictions on journalists. Most reporters from legacy news outlets have left the Pentagon rather than to agree to new rules imposed by Hegseth that they feel would give him too much control over what they report and write. The New York Times has sued to overturn the regulations.
  • Trump has also sought to shut down government-funded outlets like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that report independent news about the world in countries overseas. Also this week, the administration raided the home of a Washington Post journalist as part of an investigation into a contractor accused of stealing government secrets, a move many journalists interpreted as a form of intimidation. The Post reported that applicants to Stars and Stripes were being asked how they would advance Trump's executive orders and policy priorities in the role. They were asked to identify one or two orders or initiatives that were significant to them. That raised questions about whether it was appropriate for a journalist to be given what is, in effect, a loyalty test. Smith said it was the government's Office of Personnel Management — not the newspaper — that was responsible for the question on job applications and said it was consistent with what was being asked of applicants for other government jobs. But she said it was not something that should be asked of journalists. “The loyalty is to the truth, not the administration,” she said.
  • Traditional conservatives are as anti-fascist as any liberal. Their political vision is derived by libertarian thinkers of past centuries, such as John Locke and Edmund Burke. Their modern philosophy was articulated by erudite commentators like William F. Buckley and George Will. Their political heroes are men like Ronald Reagan and John McCain. Today on the right, there are plenty of folks who call themselves conservatives -- they are all over social media, they fill every time slot of Fox News and they dominate the Republican Party. Yet, these claimants to a long tradition that favors limited government, the rule of law and the advancement of liberty are unquestioning supporters of a president whose actions are those of a lawless, aspiring dictator.
    These people who claim to be conservatives, yet enthusiastically cheer for a man who violates the core tenets of traditional conservatism every day, should stop pretending they are something they are not and simply accept the better description of what they have become. It is a word that starts with F.
  • A 15-strong French military contingent has arrived in the Greenland capital Nuuk, officials say, as several European states send soldiers there as part of a so-called reconnaissance mission. The deployment, which will also include personnel from Germany, Sweden, Norway and the UK, comes as US President Donald Trump continues to press his claim to the Arctic island, which is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark. The deployment of European NATO allies of Denmark to Nuuk was unprecedented, said French special envoy Olivier Poivre d'Arvor, who saw it as sending a strong political signal. "This is a first exercise... we'll show the US that NATO is present."
    Trump has doubled down on his bid to bring Greenland under US control, telling reporters in the Oval Office "we need Greenland for national security". Although he has not ruled out the use of force, he said late on Wednesday that he thought something could be worked out with Denmark.
    "The problem is there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there's everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela."
  • Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Poland was not planning to join the European military deployment to Greenland, but warned that any US military intervention there "would be a political disaster". "A conflict or attempted annexation of the territory of a NATO member by another Nato member would be the end of the world as we know it - and which for many years guaranteed our security," he told a press conference. Russia's embassy in Belgium meanwhile expressed "serious concern" at what was unfolding in the Arctic, accusing NATO of building up a military presence there "under the false pretext of a growing threat from Moscow and Beijing". However, the European NATO deployment consists of only a few dozen personnel as part of Danish-led joint exercises called Operation Arctic Endurance. While heavy in symbolism, it was not immediately clear how long they would stay.
    Germany was sending an A400M transport plane to Nuuk on Thursday with a contingent of 13 soldiers, although officials said they would stay in Greenland only until Saturday. Danish defence officials said they had decided with the government of Greenland that there would be an increased military presence around Greenland in the coming period to bolster Nato's "footprint in the Arctic for the benefit of both European and transatlantic security".
  • The US already has a military base in Greenland, currently staffed by up to 150 people, and has the option of bringing in far greater numbers under existing agreements with Copenhagen. But the Danish-led initiative is seen as signalling to the Trump administration that its European allies also have a stake in security in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Sweden's prime minister said Swedish army officers had been sent to Nuuk on Wednesday. Two Norwegians and one British military officer were also being sent. Downing Street said the UK shared President Trump's concern about "the security of the High North", and said the deployment involved "stepping up with stronger exercising, to deter the Russian aggression and the Chinese activity." Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Thursday that defence and protection of Greenland was a common concern for the entire NATO alliance.
  • Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the intention was to have a military presence "in rotation", with the aim of having a more permanent military presence on the island with foreign allies taking part in exercise and training activities. Copenhagen has disputed Trump's justification for wanting to control Greenland. Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said on Wednesday there was no "instant threat" from China or Russia that Denmark and Greenland could not accommodate, although he shared American security concerns to some extent. A Democratic-led US delegation is due to visit Denmark on Friday for talks with Danish MPs. Rasmussen spoke alongside Greenland's foreign minister after talks with US Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The Danish diplomat said the talks were "frank but constructive". He described a "fundamental disagreement" between the two sides and later criticised Trump's bid to buy Greenland.
    "The president's ambition is on the table," the Danish diplomat told Fox News. "Of course we have our red lines. This is 2026, you trade with people but you don't trade people." Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said this week that the territory was in the midst of a geopolitical crisis, and that if his people were asked to make a choice they would choose Denmark over the US. "Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States," he stressed.
  • Trump and his minions are energetically closing the last exit built into the system that prevents absolute dictatorship. They intend to orchestrate the sham elections familiar in all dictatorships, or abolish them. They are not joking. This will be the death blow to the American experiment. There will be no going back. We will become a police state. Our freedoms, already under heavy assault, will be extinguished. At that point, only mass mobilizations and strikes will thwart the solidification of the dictatorship. And such actions, as we see in Minneapolis, will be greeted with lethal state repression.
  • Thousands took to the streets in subzero temperatures Friday afternoon to protest the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Demonstrators wore snowboots and ski goggles, passed around handwarmers and carried signs taped to hockey sticks. Protesters’s eyelashes and beards froze while they chanted “ICE out” and “Minnesota nice, but F— ICE” during a two-hour march through downtown Minneapolis. The march was part of a day of events that encouraged Minnesotans to boycott school, work and shopping in protest of the surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Twin Cities. ICE agents have been deployed en masse in Minnesota, in what the Department of Homeland Security has described as the largest operation in its history. The enforcement efforts followed a welfare-fraud scandal that put the state’s Somali community into the national spotlight.
  • Vice President JD Vance visited Minneapolis on Thursday to urge local officials in the left-leaning city to cooperate with federal authorities to quell what he called “chaos.” The administration has blamed state and local officials for some of the tension. White House officials have denigrated the state’s existing policies and laws that limit cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, including refusing to house ICE detainees in local jails in many situations.
    During demonstrations in Minneapolis on Friday, roughly 100 clergy members were arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Mostly Christian clergy and faith leaders rallied at the airport, where they claimed planes were flying detained migrants out of the state as part of ICE’s “Operation Metro Surge,” according to Justin Lind-Ayres, a Lutheran pastor in Minneapolis. The MSP Airport Police Department confirmed officers made arrests, but didn’t immediately confirm how many. Protesters at the airport, some wearing clerical stoles draped over their shoulders, knelt while singing hymns and reciting the Lord’s Prayer in frigid conditions that dipped to a low of minus-20 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday, before being handcuffed and led away, video showed.
  • Protesters at the downtown march said the huge crowds in harsh weather showed Minnesotans are serious about their wishes for the current ICE operation, and the use of force tactics the officers are employing, to end. “We’re not afraid of ICE, we’re not going to back down. We’re strong, we’re here for our neighbors, we’re here for our community,” said Brianna Verbout, 26, a Minneapolis resident. “Imagine how many people would be out here if it wasn’t negative 20.” “Who cares if you’re cold? We’re used to being cold,” Cindy Boggs, a retired church worker who has lived in Minnesota for the past 50 years, said. “We just gotta stand up and keep with it. I can’t take the cruelty that’s happening to people.”
    Homeland Security has defended its tactics and maintained it needs to detain immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Mass immigration enforcement was a key promise of President Trump’s campaign coming into his second term, and officials have expanded the role of agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection into the interior to assist with it.
  • The free world exhaled on Wednesday when President Trump retreated from his administration’s threat to invade Greenland. That relief, however, masks the damage that Mr. Trump has done to America this week. Mr. Trump’s apologists once dismissed his bullying of Greenland as an attempt at humor. Instead, it has been something far darker. His immoral threats against a loyal NATO ally have escalated a crisis in U.S.-European relations, weakened one of history’s most successful alliances and hurt American interests in tangible ways.
  • In the second Trump administration, immigration policy is made with big round numbers. There’s a formula: First the White House sets an ambitious goal—1 million deportations a year, 3,000 immigration arrests a day. Then it presses the federal workforce to meet the target. Last year, Trump officials pledged to double staffing at ICE by adding 10,000 new deportation officers by January 2026. Stephen Miller treated the recruitment drive as a priority on par with the deportation push, demanding daily updates on the pace of hiring. Immigration and Customs Enforcement held job expos in multiple cities and dangled $50,000 bonuses, student-loan forgiveness, and other perks before potential recruits.
    Just after New Year’s Day, the Department of Homeland Security declared victory, celebrating an ICE hiring spree that “shattered expectations” and achieved a “120% Manpower Increase.” DHS said it received more than 220,000 applications (many candidates applied for three or four different jobs) and signed up 12,000 new officers, agents, and legal staff in about four months. No federal law-enforcement agency has ever expanded this fast.
  • ICE veterans I’ve spoken with have concerns about the qualifications and aptitude of their new colleagues, especially those with little or no previous law-enforcement experience. Some academy classes have had dropout rates near 50 percent because so many failed the physical-fitness requirements. The Trump administration slashed the length of the training course from about five months to 47 days last summer—because Trump is the 47th president, three officials told me at the time—then cut it further. Now it’s 42 days.
  • The administration also wants more ICE officers on the streets. Trump officials have brought in Border Patrol agents to act as reinforcements in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and now Minneapolis. Trump’s rolling campaign has generally targeted one location at a time, but the new hiring surge will give the administration enough personnel to target multiple cities at once. Trump officials say they are filling the jobs by hiring experienced law-enforcement officers from other federal agencies or state and local police departments. Many of the new hires are anxious about their career prospects at ICE once the burst of onetime funding runs out, officials at ICE and DHS told me, especially if Democrats take control of Congress.
    One ICE official I spoke with told me that some of the new hires, especially rehired retirees, are having second thoughts. Hundreds of the returning officers have been ordered to Minnesota, two officials said, where the administration is conducting the largest-ever DHS crackdown. Some officers have been so cold and miserable that they’ve already quit, and ICE officials have held calls to figure out how to deal with the sudden resignations.
    Returning officers who have come back from retirement are finding themselves in unfamiliar roles. They spent much of their careers trying to conduct low-key “targeted enforcement” operations in which they planned arrests in advance and sought to take suspects into custody in the safest and least dramatic way possible. Now they’re out in the streets wearing masks, with protesters yelling at them and video cameras rolling. ICE has changed, and the job isn’t the same.
  • Most of the federal government could shut down at the end of the week. But that likely wouldn’t halt aggressive ICE and border patrol operations in Minneapolis and other parts of the country. Democrats are up in arms after Border Patrol agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis over the weekend. That came after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good, another Minneapolis resident and citizen, in her car earlier this month.
    Under enormous pressure from the base, Senate Democrats have vowed to block a sweeping government funding bill unless significant restrictions are imposed on the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operations.
    With Republicans plowing ahead with a vote on the House-passed $1.2 trillion funding package later this week, a partial shutdown beginning Saturday now seems increasingly likely. Money is set to run out for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, and many other critical agencies late Friday night.
  • Yet, even if Democrats shut down the government, ICE operations aren't likely to be hindered in any meaningful way. Under DHS's shutdown plan, a GOP leadership source said, ICE employees would be considered "excepted" workers and would be required to continue showing up to work, though they, like other workers, would not get paid. On top of that, even in a shutdown, ICE would continue to have ample funding since the agency received $75 billion of additional money for detention and enforcement from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill" last year, the GOP source noted.
  • If the government funding lapses at the end of the week, it would mark the second federal shutdown in four months during Trump's second term in office. Senate Democrats blocked a funding bill last fall, demanding that the GOP include an extension to expiring Obamacare tax credits. That shut the government down for 43 days — the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Eight Democrats ultimately caved, voting with Republicans to reopen the government without a deal on the health care subsidies. Polling showed Republicans shouldering more blame for the shutdown than Democrats.
  • Nearly a year ago, the Education Department sent universities and K-12 school districts scrambling with a sweeping but vague directive. The “Dear Colleague” letter said schools may be in violation of federal law if they consider race in virtually any way — hiring, discipline policy, scholarships and programming. After a lawsuit and a defeat in court, however, the Trump administration says it is dropping the matter entirely. That means an August federal court order blocking the “Dear Colleague” letter will stand. The Trump administration had also demanded that schools certify that they are in compliance with the letter, and that demand is now dead, too.
    Still, it is unclear how significant the impact will be. The Trump administration, which made sweeping changes to education over its first year, can still work to impose its view of the law on schools through enforcement actions and other pressure. For instance, in July, the Justice Department published a memo that included many of the same ideas that were in the Education Department’s letter. Further, many schools have already changed their diversity, equity and inclusion policies, wary of running afoul of the administration’s anti-DEI stance.
  • Many schools may continue to comply with the anti-DEI directive in an effort to stave off attention from the administration, said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “One of the things we have seen is how reluctant institutional leaders are to get crosswise with the federal government, whether or not it’s clearly aligned with the law,” he said.
    Either way, Hess said he was pleased that the February letter is no longer in force. That’s because he does not think those types of guidance documents should be used to make policy — something that both Democratic and Republican administrations have done in the past. “Dear Colleague letters have become a blunt instrument to move thousands of postsecondary institutions or 10,000-plus school districts in one direction or another, and I don’t think that’s an appropriate use of them,” he said. “I don’t think that’s good for anybody.”

February 2026

[edit]
  • US President Donald Trump has urged Republicans to "nationalise" elections and repeated his false claims of 2020 election fraud in a new podcast interview.
    American elections are primarily run by state law, and voting has long been administered by local officials across the country.
    The Republicans should say: "We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places". The Republicans ought to nationalise the voting.
  • Once again, America is going to war for Israel. Once again, many will die for the Zionist state, including American service members. Once again, we will stumble blindly into a military fiasco. Once again, we will do the bidding of a foreign power whose interests are not our interests, but whose lobbyists have bought up our political class, including Donald Trump. Once again, we will violate the U.N. charter by attacking a country that does not pose an imminent threat.
State of the Union address
[edit]
  • Today our border is secure, our spirit is restored, inflation is plummeting, incomes are rising fast, the roaring economy is roaring like never before, our enemies are scared, our military and police are stacked, and America is respected again, perhaps like never before....
    I say tonight, members of Congress, the state of our Union is strong. Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it.
  • Tonight I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens. Not illegal aliens.
    Isn’t that a shame? You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up. You should be ashamed of yourself.
  • They don’t want identification for the greatest privilege of them all: voting in America. Both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly agree on the policy that we just enunciated. And Congress should unite and enact this commonsense, country-saving legislation right now. And it should be before anything else happens. And the reason they don’t wanna do it, why would anybody not want voter ID? One reason! Because they wanna cheat. There’s only one reason.
    They wanna cheat. They have cheated. And their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat. And we’re gonna stop it. We have to stop it.
  • Mrs. Zarutska, tonight I promise you we will ensure justice for your magnificent daughter Iryna.
    How do you not stand? How do you not stand?
    • To members of Congress who did not stand up

March 2026

[edit]

See also

[edit]
[edit]
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Commons
Commons
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=3905428"