Tag: donald trump

Operation “Let’s Grab The Oil”

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

Keep reading

Trump to NATO nations: ‘STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA’

President Donald Trump urged all NATO countries to stop buying oil from Russia, believing it would help end the war in Ukraine.

On Saturday, the president posted an excerpt from a letter he had sent to all NATO nations on X.

“I am ready to do major sanctions on Russia when all NATO nations have agreed, and started, to so the same thing, and when all NATO nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA,” Trump wrote, adding that, “the purchase of Russian oil, by some (countries), has been shocking!”

NATO is comprised of 32 member countries. Of these, Turkey is the third largest buyer of Russian oil, behind China and India, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). The country spent $62.1 billion on Russian oil from January 2023 to July 2025.

Hungary and Slovakia are also Russian oil customers, according to the same study.

According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, France, Belgium and Spain accounted for approximately 85% of all Russian liquid natural gas imports in 2024.

Trump believes that buying fossil fuels from Russia “greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power over Russia.”

The president put the ball in NATO’s court, adding that he is “ready to ‘go’” when they are.

“I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR,” Trump stated.

China is the largest buyer of Russian fossil fuels, having spent $158.7 billion on oil from January 2023 to July 2025, according to CREA.

Keep reading

Trump Deploys National Guard to Memphis, U.S. Military Lawyer Weighs in on Legality

President Trump announced he will deploy the National Guard to Memphis, calling the city “deeply troubled.” Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, a Democrat, urged the administration not to send troops and said he may pursue legal action. “We will do everything in our power to prevent this incursion into Tennessee and to protect the rights, safety, and dignity of every resident,” Harris declared.

Crime has been rampant in U.S. cities, especially under Democrat leadership in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago, Boston, and New York. Officials in these cities have been accused of manipulating statistics to suggest crime is at historic lows, downgrading offenses, releasing illegal immigrants without bail, and only counting convictions, even though many offenders never returned for trial.

Harris has made similar claims, insisting crime in Memphis is at a multiyear low, though the city remains among the most dangerous in the country. Across large and mid-sized cities, crime is rising, yet Democrat leaders refuse to address it. In response, Trump has deployed the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, federalized the police in Washington D.C., and pledged to act in other cities.

John Deaton, a U.S. Marine veteran, trial attorney, and author, explained in an interview with The Gateway Pundit the legality of such actions. “In D.C., where President Trump authorized the National Guard, it’s been federalized. Federal law governs D.C., and the commander in chief has that authority pretty much carte blanche for 30 days. After that, Congress must authorize it, unless the president declares an emergency.”

Outside Washington, the rules are different. Deaton noted that when Trump sent Marines to California, they had a limited mission: protecting federal officers, ICE agents, and federal property. “That was completely appropriate because there was a threat,” he said.

He also pointed to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits active-duty troops from day-to-day law enforcement. Soldiers cannot arrest suspects, investigate crimes, or act as police officers. Their role is confined to crowd control and guarding facilities and personnel.

“There are exceptions,” Deaton added. “If there is an invasion of a certain type, President Trump, for example, cited MS-13 flooding into certain cities, that constitutes an invasion, and he can use those mechanisms.”

President Trump has declared emergencies and deployed military forces at the U.S. southern border and in several cities, including Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and Memphis.

Keep reading

Trump Backs Off Promise To Sanction Russia, Issues Ultimatum To NATO

President Trump’s prior two week deadline where he vowed to make a big decision on Russia has come and gone. He’s now backing off the prior threat to impose heightened sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions which would seek to punish its trading partners, particularly China and India.

There’s been no peace agreement, and the latest out of both Russian and Ukrainian leaders suggests negotiations are effectively dead at this point, as Moscow forces keep advancing in the east village by village. There’s been little to no momentum from the Alaska summit with Putin.

On Saturday Trump made clear in a long Truth Social post that he’s backing off pulling the trigger on new sanctions, and listed things NATO members would have to do for it to happen. He set some new standards which are very unlikely to met by all NATO countries – or rather a significant ultimatum. 

All NATO countries must stop buying oil from Russia and in parallel agree to sweeping tariffs on China, Trump explained Saturday, throwing down the gauntlet. 

“I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA,” Trump wrote Social Saturday morning.

He described his words as a letter to America’s allies and to the world: “As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking,” he continued.

“China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip,” Trump’s ‘letter’ continues. He then made his position clear that tariffs on China would “be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR.”

China and India are of course at this moment the two biggest importers of Russian oil, in that order, but what’s less well known is that NATO member Turkey is the third largest. Ironically, Turkey maintains the second largest military in NATO, next to the United States.

Keep reading

Venezuela says US intercepted and boarded a tuna vessel in hostile manner

The Venezuelan government announced on Sept 13 that a US destroyer intercepted, boarded and occupied a Venezuelan tuna fishing vessel for eight hours in the waters of the South American country’s special economic zone on Sept 12.

In a statement read by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, the government said tuna vessel Carmen Rosawas boarded in an illegal and hostile manner, and that it was crewed by nine “humble” fishermen and was “harmless”.

Tensions have been mounting between Washington and Caracas. On Sept 2, a US military strike in the Caribbean 

killed 11 people and sank a boat from Venezuela that US President Donald Trump’s administration claimed was transporting illegal narcotics.

The Trump administration has provided scant information about the attack on Sept 2, despite demands from US Congress members for the government to justify its actions. The Venezuelan government has said that 

none of those killed belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, as the US has alleged.

US officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the alleged incident on Sept 12.

The Venezuelan government identified the US vessel as the USS Jason Dunham, “equipped with powerful cruise missiles and manned by highly specialised marines”.

It demanded that the US immediately cease targeting vessels, which it said puts “the security and peace of the Caribbean at risk”. 

Keep reading

Sweeping Trump crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical ads is first in nearly 3 decades

In a landmark move, the Trump administration has launched a sweeping crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical advertisements, the first major enforcement effort since direct-to-consumer drug ads were legalized in 1997. 

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary recently spoke with Full Measure about the unprecedented effort, stating that the agency is sending “thousands” of enforcement letters targeting deceptive promotions across TV, social media, and online platforms. 

The U.S. is one of only two countries allowing such ads (the other is New Zealand). Makary says the commercials often downplay serious risks, present false information, or mislead viewers by showcasing happy, dancing patients. He says FDA enforcement has been notoriously lax for decades, with FDA violation letters to drug companies dropping from 130 annually in the late 1990s to zero in 2024. 

The new plan targets not just TV but also social media influencers and online pharmacies. 

A key focus is closing the “adequate provision loophole,” which allowed vaccine ads to skip disclosing any risks at all by listing them elsewhere, like on websites. 

Makary argues this violates regulations against misleading impressions, and the FDA is moving to eliminate it.

No comparable crackdowns on misleading drug ads have ever been launched. Many observers say that’s in part due to the pharmaceutical industry’s influence with members of Congress who get big money from drug companies. They also blame inaction on the media that benefits from all the money drug ads bring in and make them more likely to defend the industry and downplay or censor prescription drug risks and concerns.

Keep reading

“Looking Into Soros. Looks Like RICO”: Trump Puts Crosshairs On Radical Leftist NGOs

After President Trump told Fox & Friends hosts that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is “in custody,” he went on to comment about radical leftist organizations, stating, “We are going to look into Soros. It looks like a RICO case.”

Recall that on Wednesday night, just hours after Kirk’s assassination, President Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office, calling it a “dark moment for America.” He vowed to crack down on radical left movements across the country that have fueled chaos and even death this year.

Then on Thursday night, Texan News reporter Cameron Abrams wrote on X that Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and two dozen others in Congress called for a select committee on “the money, influence, and power behind the radical left’s assault on America and the rule of law.”

“Enough is enough. We must follow the money to identify the perpetrators of the coordinated anti-American assaults being carried out against us and take all steps under the law necessary to stop them,” the lawmakers stated. 

Keep reading

The Standard for ‘Vicious’ Speech Trump Laid Out After Kirk’s Murder Would Implicate Trump Himself

In a video released on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump said “radical left” rhetoric “is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today,” including this week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah, and “it must stop right now.” Trump vowed that “my administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump also expressed devotion to “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died,” including “free speech.” Yet that value seems inconsistent with Trump’s claim that hateful rhetoric “directly” causes violence and his promise to “find” anyone who “contribute[s]” to that problem, apparently including “radical left” people who make inflammatory statements about their political opponents. As Trump put it on Fox News this morning, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”

The solution that Trump is contemplating seems to go beyond urging self-restraint. The Trump administration is developing a “comprehensive plan on violence in America,” including “ways that you can address” what “can only be called hate groups,” which “may breed this kind of behavior,” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on Thursday. “It will not be easy. There’s layer upon layer upon layer, and some of this hate-filled rhetoric is multigenerational, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Like Trump, Wiles noted “the importance of free speech.” But it is impossible to reconcile that principle with any government plan that entails targeting “hate groups” because they are “vicious” and “horrible” or because they engage in “hate-filled rhetoric.”

What sort of rhetoric does Trump have in mind? “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” he said in the video. “Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible for years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.”

Such rhetoric is indeed “hateful” and “despicable,” but it is also constitutionally protected. It is hard to imagine how the government, consistent with the First Amendment, could try to suppress the speech that Wiles says “may breed” political violence.

This is not to say there is no connection between the sort of demonization that Trump describes and appalling crimes such as Kirk’s murder. Spencer Cox, Utah’s Republican governor, says Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man police have identified as Kirk’s killer, inscribed his rifle cartridges with messages such as “Hey fascists! Catch!” But while demonization may be a necessary condition for such violence, it is obviously not sufficient. If it were, we would see a lot more political murders.

First Amendment law recognizes that distinction between words and actions. Hyperbolic analogies like the ones that Trump cited clearly fall into the former category. And under the test established by the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, even advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect. Comparing your political opponents to Nazis, however “hateful” and “despicable” that may be, plainly does not meet that test.

Trump himself has relied on the Brandenburg test in arguing that he should not be held civilly liable for his role in provoking the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. He insisted that he did not intend to cause a riot, noting that he never explicitly advocated anything more extreme than peaceful protest. Yet his pre-riot speech, which was full of invective against the “radical-left Democrats” who supposedly had rigged an election and dark warnings about what would happen if an alleged usurper were allowed to take office, easily meets the standard that Trump applies when he says anti-conservative rhetoric is “directly responsible” for “terrorism.”

So does the demonizing rhetoric that Trump routinely deploys against people who irk him. As he tells it, his political opponents are not merely wrong. They are “sick, sinister, and evil people” who are “trying to destroy our country” because they “hate our country.” They are “communists,” “Marxists,” “fascists,” “radical left lunatics,” “sick people,” and “vermin.” They are “the enemy from within.”

Keep reading

Trump FDA to Present Data Linking COVID Jabs to Child Deaths at Upcoming CDC Meeting

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will present data linking COVID-19 vaccines to the deaths of dozens of children.

According to several media reports, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet Thursday and Friday to review and recommend several vaccines, including this fall’s updated Covid shots.

The FDA is basing its claim on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a public database run jointly by the FDA and CDC.

The reports come after FDA Commissioner Marty Makary told CNN last week that the agency is investigating reports of healthy children dying after receiving Covid vaccines.

“We’ve been looking into the VAERS database of self-reports that there have been children that have died from the Covid vaccine,” Makary said.

“We’re going to release a report in the coming few weeks and we’re going to let people know. We’re doing an intense investigation.”

Keep reading

The Roots Of Trump’s Continued Wars On Terror Trace Back To 9/11

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an “invasion” at the border.

Unfortunately, more than two decades of widely-accepted, bipartisan laws and norms first laid the groundwork for this to occur.

After 9/11, the Bush administration created the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, and Congress expanded the pre-existing Foreign Terrorist Organization list. These lists allow the executive branch, at its sole discretion, to add and remove individuals and groups to standing lists of “terrorists,” a term that is defined broadly.

The Trump administration has exercised this authority to formally designate transnational cartels as “terrorists” due in part to their role in the flow of people and drugs across the southern border into the United States. They have leveraged this designation to justify a range of actions, including deploying troops to Los Angeles and deporting immigrants to a brutal Salvadorean prison without due process.

Another post-9/11 legal invention that paved the way to what the Trump administration is doing today was the USA PATRIOT Act’s updates to immigration law that allowed deportation of not just those involved in actual violent acts of terrorism, but also those loosely associated with designated “terrorist groups,” even if those associations were peaceful and law-abiding or involuntary and a result of duress. People who have previously been excluded from the United States by these provisions include Iraqi interpreters for U.S. troops, victims of forced labor by violent armed groups in El Salvador, and even Nelson Mandela. These provisions mean that not just alleged members of cartels, but also cartel victims could be denied entry into the United States or deported if already here.

These same post-9/11 immigration law amendments also allow for revoking or denying immigration benefits to foreign nationals who “endorse or espouse” “terrorist activity,” defined broadly. The Trump administration has already revoked the visas of several immigrant students and scholars solely for their nonviolent activities criticizing the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza, as part of what they call a “zero-tolerance” policy for terrorism. The administration has primarily leaned on an older and more obscure provision of immigration law to carry out these attacks on immigrants’ free speech rights. But if current efforts are blocked by courts, or they wish to go further, post-9/11 immigration law may give them the tools to justify doing so.

The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal “war on terror” in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an “imminent threat” and resulting “self-defense” powers.

Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague “national interest.” We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an “immediate threat to the United States,” that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was “in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”

Commentators are entirely correct to denounce these assertions of legal authority. But policymakers have spent more than two decades accepting a war paradigm against whomever presidents determine to be “terrorist,” making it politically and legally all the more difficult to push back against what the Trump administration is doing now.

Keep reading