Tag: donald trump

Trump to reinterpret 1987 missile treaty to sell heavy attack drones abroad

U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to unilaterally reinterpret a 38-year-old arms control treaty to sell sophisticated “Reaper” style and other advanced military drones abroad, according to a U.S. official and four people familiar with the plan.

The new interpretation would unlock the sale of more than 100 MQ-9 drones to Saudi Arabia, which the kingdom requested in the spring of this year and could be part of a US$142 billion arms deal announced in May. U.S. allies in the Pacific and Europe have also expressed interest.

By designating drones as aircraft like the F-16 rather than missile systems, the United States will sidestep the 35-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) agreement it signed in 1987, propelling drone sales to countries like UAE and in Eastern European nations that have struggled to get their hands on America’s best unmanned aerial vehicles.

The new policy will allow General Atomics, Kratos, and Anduril, which manufacture large drones, to have their products treated as “Foreign Military Sales” by the State Department, allowing them to be easily sold internationally, according to a U.S. official speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

This effort is the first part of a planned “major” review of the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program, the official said.

A U.S. Department of State spokesperson declined to comment.

Under the current interpretation of the MTCR, the sale of many military drones is subject to a “strong presumption of denial” unless a compelling security reason is given and the buyer agrees to use the weapons in strict accordance with international law.

The MTCR was originally meant to curb the sale of long-range missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction. Though drones were invented many years later they were considered within the scope of the MTCR due to their ability to fly long distances and carry weapons.

U.S. drone manufacturers are facing stiff competition overseas, especially from Israeli, Chinese and Turkish rivals who often sell under lighter restrictions.

Keep reading

Trump and Biden Tried To Break Up Google. Now, They’ve Both Failed.

The federal government’s five-year-long antitrust case against Google has ended. Instead of forcing the tech giant to divest from Chrome, a federal judge on Tuesday opted “to allow market forces to do the work.”

The suit was first brought against Google in October 2020 by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department (DOJ) and 11 states, who complained that the company had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising markets in the United States. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—the same judge who issued Tuesday’s decision—ruled in favor of then-President Joseph Biden’s DOJ in August 2024.

In November 2024, the Justice Department proposed wide-reaching actions that the federal government said were necessary to address Google’s monopolization of the search market: divestiture from Chrome; conditional divestiture from Android; termination of its paid partnerships with Apple and Android; forced sharing of its search, user, and advertisement data with competitors; and prohibition on “query-based AI product” investments. In March, the Justice Department submitted its revised proposal, which largely maintained these remedies but eliminated the AI-investment prohibition.

On Tuesday, Mehta rejected the proposed Chrome divestiture, saying it “cannot reasonably be described as a remedy ‘tailored to fit the wrong'” and characterized the contingent Android divestiture as suffering “from similar legal infirmities.” Mehta declined to forbid Google from paying distributors like Apple for default placement of its search engine on its iPhones in light of the “GenAI products that pose a threat to the primacy of traditional internet.” Doing so would disadvantage “Google in this highly competitive space.”

Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, says that Mehta’s refusal to enjoin Google from making payments for search access is “entirely borne out of adherence to a consumer-welfare-focused antitrust and rejection of the ‘big is bad’ vision underlying the [Justice Department’s] proposed remedies.” Likewise, Mehta’s rejection of the choice screen remedy, which would’ve required users to choose their device’s default search engine on first use and again every year thereafter, “recognized that judicial micromanagement of product design would not be beneficial for innovation or consumer welfare in the long run,” says Manne.

Mehta did prohibit Google from maintaining exclusive distribution agreements that condition access to the “Play Store or any other Google application on the distribution, preloading, or placement of Google Search.” He also sided with the plaintiffs on some search-index data-sharing provisions but opted for a narrow definition of search index, which excludes user-side data and only includes information about websites. Qualified competitors will only receive a one-time snapshot of this search index data, not the ongoing, periodic disclosure proposed by plaintiffs.

Keep reading

The White House Says Trump’s Tariffs Have Raised $8 Trillion in Revenue. That’s Not Even Close.

The White House celebrated Labor Day by announcing that President Donald Trump’s “protectionist trade policies have helped drive more than $8 trillion in new U.S. investment.” The accompanying photo refers to “$8 trillion in tariff revenue.” There’s a difference between $8 trillion in U.S. investment and $8 trillion in tariff revenue, but Trump’s trade policies have achieved neither.

The second claim is easier to refute. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) calculates the gross tariff and excise tax revenue generated from January 1 to August 28 to be $158.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department’s Daily Treasury Statements. The customs and excise taxes collected from January 20, when Trump took office, to August 28 amount to about $156 billion.

According to the Treasury Department’s own data, the president’s policies have clearly not raised anywhere near $8 trillion; they’ve raised 2 percent of this figure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tariffs Trump has implemented since January will generate an estimated $3.3 trillion over 10 years—significantly less than the $8 trillion that the White House is claiming the tariffs have already raised.

Gross tariff revenue isn’t even the most relevant statistic; net tariff revenue is. The BPC explains that the latter “removes ‘certain other excise tax revenue’ and accounts for refunds of tariffs,” i.e., the tariff revenue that stays in federal coffers. Although net tariff revenue is not available in the Daily Treasury Statements, the BPC was able to determine that net tariff revenue was $135.7 billion from January through July 31 using the Treasury’s Monthly Treasury Statements, which account for tariff refunds. Net tariff revenue as a percentage of total imports jumped from about 2.4 percent in March to 5.73 percent in April, reflecting the impact of Liberation Day’s “reciprocal tariffs,” and climbed to 10.31 percent in June.

Still, the net tariff revenue of $135.7 billion amounts to 1.7 percent of the White House’s claimed $8 trillion in tariff revenue. (That’s neglecting the fact that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that “$1 of excise tax revenue will lead to a $0.25 decline in income and payroll tax revenue,” according to the BPC.)

The first claim is more slippery; it’s unclear what the White House means by saying Trump’s policies “helped drive” investment. One interpretation is that it is crediting Trump’s reciprocal tariffs and hostile negotiations for producing more foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. than would have otherwise existed. Even assuming that all FDI since January is the direct result of Trump’s protectionist policies, it is completely inconceivable that $8 trillion has been raised as a result.

Keep reading

Trump Ready To Place More US Troops In Poland Amid Russia Threat

  • Trump told President Karol Nawrocki the U.S. is prepared to expand its 8,000-strong military presence in Poland.
  • The meeting underscores Warsaw’s push for stronger U.S. security guarantees amid Russia’s war on Ukraine.
  • Nawrocki, a conservative close to Trump’s movement, won the election narrowly on a “Poland first” platform while pledging support for Ukraine but opposing NATO membership.

US President Donald Trump told his Polish counterpart the United States was ready to increase its military presence in the Central European nation, one of the countries on NATO’s so-called “eastern flank” warily watching Russia’s actions.

Trump welcomed conservative President Karol Nawrocki to Washington in an event highlighted by a flyover of US F-16 fighter jets honoring a Polish military pilot who had died last month in a crash.

Asked if he planned to keep US forces deployed to Poland, Trump replied in the affirmative.

“We’ll put more there if they want,” he added, while citing the United States’ “tremendous relationship” with Poland, one of the more important military and political allies of Ukraine during its war with Russia.

“We never even thought in terms of removing soldiers from Poland.”

“We’re with Poland all the way, and we’ll help Poland protect itself,” Trump added.

Warsaw has long sought an increased US military presence in Poland. The United States has based troops in Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and other European nations since the end of World War II, initially to serve as a deterrence to Soviet aggression on the Continent.

The first permanently stationed US troops arrived in Poland in March 2023. There are an estimated 8,000 US troops now garrisoned in Poland, some on a rotational basis.

Nawrocki added that it is “the first time in history” that Poland has been happy to host foreign troops.

Nawrocki, a vocal admirer of the US leader, said after the talks with Trump that the two presidents had discussed bolstering troop levels, adding that Trump had strongly guaranteed Poland’s security.

“The success of his [Nawrocki’s] special relationship with the MAGA movement and with President Trump would be if the United States increased its presence in Poland,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told reporters a day earlier — a reference to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

Keep reading

Was Trump’s Venezuelan boat attack a ‘war crime’? Experts say extrajudicial killings violate international law

In a video posted to Donald Trump’s Truth Social account, crosshairs hover above a black-and-white image of a speedboat cutting through water. Seconds later, the boat explodes into a ball of flames.

The president said defense officials had carried out a strike against 11 “terrorists” from the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, Tuesday morning as part of the administration’s escalating war against drug cartels.

Legal experts and former national security officials have disputed the president’s legal authority to launch extrajudicial killings against suspected drug traffickers, raising consequential questions on both the administration’s growing conflict with Venezuela, and the president’s anti-immigration agenda.

“There is zero evidence of self-defense here. Looks like a massacre of civilians at sea,” according to Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at research and advocacy group, Washington Office on Latin America. “Even if they had drugs aboard, that’s not a capital offense.”

Lethal force against civilians in international waters “is a war crime if not in self-defense,” according to Isacson. “‘Not yielding to pursuers’ or ‘suspected of carrying drugs’ doesn’t carry a death sentence.”

Keep reading

The Feds Defend Their Tortures Again

While the public’s attention this summer has been drawn to masked ICE agents arresting folks without warrants, presidentially imposed sales taxes on goods emanating from foreign countries that have been invalidated by three federal courts, and the fruitless Kabuki dance between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, the federal government continues its slow assault on the Constitution at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In April, the feds suffered a major setback when a military judge ruled that evidence obtained under and as a result of torture is inadmissible at the trial of Ammar al-Baluchi, who is one of the five remaining defendants accused in the attacks of 9/11. Al-Baluchi is the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the attacks. So-called because Osama bin Laden was the person designated by the feds as the mastermind until they murdered him and his family – without any 9/11-related charges having been filed against him – in his home in Pakistan.

Mohammed and al-Baluchi were to have been tried together, along with their three alleged accomplices when the feds decided that the torture of Mohammed was too egregious for them to defend in a public courtroom.

So, the prosecutors then initiated plea negotiations with Mohammed’s defense lawyers, which resulted in a plea agreement that was accepted by the court, the defense, the prosecutors and their bosses in the Department of Defense. Then the Secretary of Defense at the time, Lloyd Austin, overruled the general in charge of the prosecutions and directed the prosecutors who had initiated, drafted and publicly accepted the plea agreement to ask the court to nullify it.

Following standard rules of criminal procedure, the court declined to nullify the Mohammed plea agreement since, by the time Sec. Austin objected to it, it had become a binding contract. An appeals court disagreed, and the Mohammed case is now back in the military trial court without a trial date.

There is no trial date because there is no trial judge assigned to the case. The trial judge who accepted Mohammed’s guilty plea has since retired, and no judge has been assigned; nor are any judges volunteering for the case. The case docket consists of 40,000+ pages of documents for a judge to read prior to trial.

Whoever the judge is will be the fourth on the case. The prosecution team has changed as many times as well.

Why is this happening? Largely because military justice is to justice as military music is to music – slow, heavy, ponderous, unending and repetitive. Had President George W. Bush not created, and his successors not accepted, the crafting of a Devil’s Island 90 miles from Florida and instead permitted the Department of Justice and civilian federal judges to handle these cases, they would have been resolved 20 years ago.

But Bush believed that at Gitmo his torturers could do as they wished. He argued that because Gitmo is in Cuba, the Constitution didn’t apply, federal laws couldn’t be enforced and those meddlesome federal judges couldn’t interfere.

Keep reading

Hegseth Doesn’t Rule Out Regime Change in Venezuela, Suggests More US Strikes on Boats Are Coming

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday didn’t rule out the possibility of the US military pursuing regime change in Venezuela and suggested more US strikes on boats in the region were coming.

Hegseth made the comments in an interview on Fox News on Wednesday morning, the day after the US bombed a boat in the Southern Caribbean that it claimed without evidence was carrying drugs, marking the first US kinetic military action in the name of combating drug trafficking, though the real purpose of the attack may be part of a new push to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We have assets in the air, assets in the water, assets on ships because this is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop … with just this strike,” Hegseth said. “Anyone else trafficking in those waters who we know is a designated narco-terrorist will face the same fate.”

When asked if the goal was regime change in Venezuela, Hegseth said that was a “presidential decision” and added that “we’re prepared with every asset that the American military has.”

Brandan P. Buck, a historian and Foreign Policy Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, told Antiwar.com that it was unlikely the Trump administration would have much success trying to combat drug trafficking with military strikes.

“The US military’s strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat is a significant escalation in the long and failed war on drugs. It is unclear if the administration’s goal of deterring drug trafficking through lethal force will be achieved, but such a strike is unlikely to succeed in this way,” Buck said. “As long as the United States remains a multi-billion-dollar drug market, criminal organizations will continue to take risks for massive profits. One strike on one drug-running boat is unlikely to change that calculus.”

Buck also noted that it was unclear what the administration’s real goal is. “The strike also raises alarming questions about its true near- and long-term objectives. It is plausible that the Trump Administration is using the strike as a trial balloon for expanded military action against cartels throughout the region, or against the Maduro regime in Venezuela,” he said.

“Either would present troubling questions about executive authority to authorize military action in a post-Global War on Terror world and significantly raise the likelihood of plunging the US into another prolonged war,” Buck added.

The US has claimed that Maduro is the leader of the Cartel of the Suns, a term used to describe a network of Venezuelan government and military officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking, but it does not actually exist as an organization. Despite the lack of a structured organization, the US recently labeled the Cartel of the Suns as a terrorist group and increased the bounty on Maduro’s head to $50 million over claims of “narco-terrorism.” Maduro and other Latin American leaders have strongly denied the US claims.

Keep reading

Trump Again Suggests He Could Back European Troops in Ukraine With Air Power as Part of a Security Guarantee

President Trump suggested in an interview with the Daily Caller published on Tuesday that he would be willing to back a European troop deployment in Ukraine as part of a security guarantee for a potential future peace deal, an arrangement Russia has made clear it would never accept.

Trump was asked if he was considering using US troops for security guarantees, and he said “no,” but made clear he was open to the idea of using US air power, something he has previously suggested.

When asked if he would use US planes for the security guarantees, Trump said, “Maybe we’ll do something. Look, I’d like to see something get solved. They’re not our soldiers, but there are, five to 7,000, mostly young people, being killed every single week. If I could stop that and have a plane flying around the air every once in a while, it’s going to be mostly the Europeans, but we, we’d help them. They, you know, they sort of need it, and we’d help them if we could get something done.”

The insistence from European officials on sending troops to Ukraine could be what ends up sinking the peace process. Russia has said that it must be involved in talks on security guarantees for Ukraine, but European leaders continue to discuss the idea with Ukrainian officials without Russian involvement.

Trump was asked how his support for the potential security guarantees squares with an “America First” foreign policy and pointed to the fact that NATO countries are now purchasing US weapons for Ukraine, although a recent deal that will arm Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles will be partially funded by US military aid.

“Look, we were spending hundreds of billions of dollars in that war. Now we sell equipment to NATO. I got them to go from two to five. Nobody thought that was, and pay. We sell equipment to NATO. We don’t sell it to Ukraine. We sell it to NATO. They pay for the equipment. We’re not spending any money on the war,” Trump said.

Keep reading

Trump gives green light for $2m ICE deal with notorious Israeli spyware company

The Trump administration appears to have unfrozen a stalled $2 million Biden-era contract with Paragon Solutions (US) Inc., a spyware company founded in Israel whose products have been accused of facilitating the surveillance of journalists and activists.

On Saturday, a public procurement database showed that a stop work order on the September 2024 deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had been lifted, technology journalist Jack Poulson reported on his All-Source Intelligence Substack.

The deal does not specify what ICE will be getting as part of the deal, beyond describing an agreement for a “fully configured proprietary solution including license, hardware, warranty, maintenance, and training.”

An individual who answered a phone number listed for Paragon on the contract declined to comment.

Keep reading

Trump’s DOJ Seeks Access to Voting Equipment Used by Missouri Clerks Following 2020 Election

Two Missouri clerks reported they were contacted by the Trump Department of Justice recently. The DOJ is seeking access to election machines used by the clerks in the 2020 election.

The two county clerks were contacted in recent weeks by Andrew McCoy “Mac” Warner, a Trump DOJ official.

According to far left Missouri reporter Jason Hancock at NPR the two clerks were identified as Jasper County Clerk Charlie Davis and McDonald County Clerk Jessica Cole.

Jasper County is a rural southwestern county in Missouri on the border with Kansas. It’s largest city is Joplin, Missouri. And the county seat is in Carthage, Missouri. This is a VERY red area in the Show Me state that went for Trump in 2020 72% to 26% to Joe Biden.

McDonald County is located in the southwest corner of southern Missouri. The county seat of this rural county is Pineville. McDonald County voted for President Trump 82.3 percent to 15.9 percent for Joe Biden.

President Trump won the former bellwether state by 15.4 percentage points in 2020 – it was too big to steal.

The Trump DOJ reportedly wants access to the voting machines in these two counties to physically inspect and possibly take into custody.

Charlie Davis told Jason Hancock that he was also contacted by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft about the machines.

Davis said he replaced the machines after the 2020 election.

Keep reading