Tag: donald trump

Denmark’s Parliament Approves Legislation Authorizing US Military Bases on Danish Soil, as Trump Eyes Greenland Annexation

The Danish have caved and will allow US bases in their territory.

When US President Donald J. Trump expressed his desire to gain control of the island of Greenland, it took most by surprise, and generated a panic in the kingdom of Denmark.

While the former colony and present semi-autonomous territory has belonged to the Danish for centuries, the geopolitical situation may cause a historical shift.

Greenland is located between North America and Europe, making it vital for monitoring Russian military activities, particularly ballistic missile threats and naval movements through the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap.

The U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland for missile defense and space surveillance under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark.

It provides access to the Arctic Ocean and emerging shipping routes, made accessible by melting ice, with a vital role in tracking Russian and Chinese naval activities.

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” — Donald Trump, statement on Truth Social, December 2024.

Keep reading

Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Would Boost Subsidies for Rich Farmers

It should be clear by now that, despite the assurances from President Donald Trump and his allies in government, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month—not only won’t reduce the federal budget deficit but will in fact increase the nation’s debt load by $2.4 trillion over the next decade.

Given that Trump came into office promising to cut federal spending, it’s worth looking at how Trump’s bill does the opposite of what he and other Republicans say it does. And one of the more egregious things it does is boost corporate welfare for wealthy farmers.

“The government provides agricultural subsidies—monetary payments and other types of support—to farmers or agribusinesses,” says the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). “While some subsidies are given to promote specific farming practices, others focus on research and development, conservation practices, disaster aid, marketing, nutrition assistance, risk mitigation, and more.”

“In reality, this support is highly skewed toward the five major ‘program’ commodities of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental advocacy organization. “Despite the rhetoric of ‘preserving the family farm,’ the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations.”

The new bill will only make the problem worse: According to an analysis by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the bill “would increase agriculture-facing programs spending by $56.6 billion over the next decade,” of which “$52.3 billion is tied to enhancements in the farm safety net.”

That “farm safety net” comprises most agricultural subsidy spending in any given year. It includes price and revenue guarantees for certain crops, ensuring farmers earn a set minimum on staples like corn and soybeans, as well as crop insurance assistance, covering up to 60 percent of farmers’ insurance premiums in the event of price declines or poor harvests.

The programs are a bad deal for taxpayers—indeed, for anybody but the very wealthiest agribusinesses. “Just in the last 10 years, crop insurance agents and the 14 companies the USDA allows to sell and service crop insurance policies…received almost $33.3 billion from the federal Crop Insurance Program,” EWG Midwest director Anne Schechinger wrote in 2023. “In some years, up to one-third of crop insurance payments are made to companies and agents, not farmers.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Federal Budget Cuts Could Boost Marijuana Legalization Efforts As States Seek New Revenue, Congresswoman Says

A Democratic congresswoman says the Trump administration’s push to make states pay a larger share for public services such as food assistance and health care amid his efforts to cut federal spending might ultimately “push them in the direction of legalizing marijuana” so they can offset those costs with cannabis tax revenue.

In an interview on the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Voice of Cannabis podcast that was released on Thursday, Congressional Cannabis Caucus co-chair Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) commented on a wide range of marijuana policy issues—including bipartisan legalization legislation, stalled action on federal reform and the destigmatization of cannabis use in her state after enacting an adult-use marijuana market.

One of the “only good things that comes out of the policy of the White House is that they are pushing more things to the states to pay for—like [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)] and like Medicaid—and so states may be looking for additional sources of revenue,” Titus said. “That may push them in the direction of legalizing marijuana, to some extent, so they can get that tax revenue generated.”

Titus said the lawmakers who back reform were initially “optimistic” about the prospects of a federal policy change under President Donald Trump because of comments he made on the campaign trail in favor of rescheduling, industry banking access and a Florida adult-use legalization ballot initiative left the impression “he was going to be supportive.”

“Now we’ve seen that kind of stall, and we have this crazy secretary of [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] that I think is on drugs,” the congresswoman said, referencing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “I don’t know where he’s coming from, and so it’s hard to read what the administration is going to do and if they’re going to make it a priority and if they’re going to weigh in. So that’s another element of the politics that we have to keep in mind.”

Keep reading

US To Formalize Military Presence In Syria In Deal With AQ-Linked Govt

The US is working to formalize its military presence in Syria by signing a deal with the new al-Qaeda-linked government, according to a report from The New Arab.

The report was published Friday and said that a high-level US military delegation was expected to meet with Syrian officials in the coming days with the goal of shifting the US military presence from an illegal occupation to a formalized, legal partnership.

The report comes as the US has been drawing down its forces in northeastern Syria and handing over some bases to the Kurdish-led SDF. The US is expected to maintain only one base in Syria, the al-Tanf Garrison in the south, which is situated where the borders of Syria, Iraq, and Jordan converge.

From al-Tanf, the US helped its proxy militia, known as the Syrian Free Army (previously known as the Revolutionary Commando Army), join in on the offensive led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) that ousted former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024.

A formal deal on al-Tanf would signal that the US is planning a long-term or even potentially a permanent military presence in Syria. The Pentagon has said that it’s currently working to reduce its forces in Syria to fewer than 1,000 troops in the country. According to the latest reports, approximately 1,500 US troops are currently stationed in the country.

The US has embraced the new Syrian government that’s led by HTS despite the group still being listed by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization due to its al-Qaeda roots.

President Trump recently met with HTS’s leader and Syria’s de facto president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, and praised him as a “young, attractive guy” with a “very strong past.”

Sharaa got his start with al-Qaeda in Iraq, where he fought an insurgency against US troops before being imprisoned from 2006 to 2011. In 2012, he traveled to Syria and formed al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the country, the al-Nusra Front.

Keep reading

Newsom Lashes Out, Dares Trump To Arrest Him

California Governor Gavin Newsom erupted into a lengthy tirade and dared President Donald Trump and White House border czar Tom Homan to arrest him after rioting escalated in Los Angeles for the third straight day.

As rioters pelted large rocks at police officers from an overpass, constructed makeshift barricades and burned vehicles, Newsom continued to blame President Trump for the unrest. The president announced on Saturday that he would be deputizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in order to quell the unrest following Newsom’s inaction, a move the governor has decided.

“Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He’s exacerbated the conditions. He’s, you know, lit the proverbial match. He’s putting fuel on this fire ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard in an illegal act, in an amoral act, an unconstitutional act, and we’re going to test that theory with a lawsuit tomorrow,” the governor ranted.

Newsom then detailed his plans to sue the Trump Administration over the deputization of the National Guard tomorrow morning. “Well, under his executive order, and specifically notes and under what the DoD did is they had to coordinate with the governor of the state. They never coordinated with the governor of the state,” he said.

The governor then addressed White House border czar Tom Homan who, along with President Trump, stated that any state or local officials who attempt to impede federal immigration operations will face legal consequences.

“The fear, the horror, the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let’s just get it over with, tough guy. You know, I don’t give a damn,” Newsom continued to rant. “But I care about my community, I care about this community. The hell are they doing? These guys need to grow up, they need to stop.”

Keep reading

Trans military colonel issues defiant message after being booted from post as Trump ban takes effect

One of the military’s highest ranking transgender officials is speaking out after being placed on administrative leave as part of the Trump administration’s ban on trans troops.

Colonel Bree Fram, who came out as transgender in 2016 when the initial ban on trans troops was lifted, was an astronautical engineer in the US Space Force and was the Pentagon‘s division chief for requirements integration.

She posted to Instagram Friday saying ‘I have been officially placed on administrative leave, effective tomorrow, pending separation’ after the Supreme Court ruled the ban could go ahead. 

Fram – whose profile picture on the social media app is an LGBT rainbow version of the Space Force logo – defiantly spoke of sobbing as she pinned medals on three of ‘my folks’ in her last official act in service.  

‘The last salute broke my heart in two and the tears flowed freely even as I have so much to be thankful for and so many amazing memories.’

Fram detailed the day she came out in 2016, telling a story of how her teammates responded to the announcement by shaking her hand and, one by one, saying: ‘It’s an honor to serve with you.’ 

She also spoke about a similar experience last week, when she announced at a joint staff meeting that she was leaving and that she no longer met ‘the current standard for military excellence and readiness.’ 

‘A room full of senior leaders, admirals and generals, walked over to me and the scene from 2016 repeated. They offered those same words, now tinged with the sadness of past tense: ‘It’s been an honor to serve with you’,’ she said.

Keep reading

Trump administration to pull $4 billion from California high-speed rail funding

The U.S. Department of Transportation says it plans to revoke $4 billion in federal funding for California’s high-speed rail project, citing what it calls “no viable path forward.”

The announcement came Wednesday in a 310-page report that outlines concerns about the project’s ballooning costs and delays, claiming the California High-Speed Rail Authority does not have the capacity to deliver the early operating segment by 2033 as planned. The DOT gave California 37 days to respond and correct the issues before the funding termination becomes final.

Voters initially signed off on California’s ambitious plans for a bullet train in 2008, with promises to connect the greater Los Angeles area to the Bay Area by 2033. It was originally expected to cost $33 billion, but now, estimates range between $89 billion and $128 billion.

Construction began in the Central Valley in 2015 but has incrementally progressed.

“Fifteen years, $16 billion, not one high-speed rail track has been laid. the waste, the abuse and the mismanagement of this project has called for this investigation,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in an online video.

Transit policy experts acknowledge the project faces major financial hurdles. Sebastian Petty, a senior advisor at SPUR, said the project is struggling to deliver on promises made to voters, largely due to limited funding.

“It puts pressure on what are already fairly scarce state dollars for transportation. So if, California is going to continue to invest heavily in the high-speed rail system, it puts pressure on the availability of that funding for transit operations uses potentially for other transit capital projects in the Bay Area,” Petty said.

Supporters, including state lawmakers, argue the delays are frustrating – but cutting federal funding would worsen the situation. Gov. Gavin Newsom has previously vowed to fight back, insisting the project will move forward and federal dollars will be recovered.

Keep reading

Belated Republican Objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Glide Over Its Blatant Fiscal Irresponsibility

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved early in the morning on Thursday, May 22, lives up to its name in at least one respect: It is big, weighing in at 1,037 pages and nearly 200,000 words. Since the bill’s final text was not available until 10:40 p.m. on Wednesday, about eight hours before it passed by a single-vote margin shortly before 7 a.m. the next day, it would not be surprising if bleary-eyed legislators overlooked some of its nuances in their hurry to deliver the package that President Donald Trump demanded. As Reason‘s Liz Wolfe notes, at least two Republicans—Reps. Mike Flood (R–Neb.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.)—have publicly admitted as much, saying they missed objectionable parts of the bill when they voted for it.

If Flood and Greene had voted no, it would have been enough to change the outcome. Furthermore, it seems safe to assume that at least some of their colleagues had similar regrets but are too embarrassed to admit that they failed to exercise the minimum diligence that should be expected from members of Congress. But the complaints from Flood and Greene are notable for another reason: They have nothing to do with the bill’s blatant fiscal irresponsibility, the main flaw highlighted by critics such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), and Elon Musk, who on Tuesday condemned “this massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill” as “a disgusting abomination.”

That much was clear prior to the House vote. As Reason‘s Eric Boehm noted the day before Flood and Greene gave their crucial assent to the bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that it would add $2.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years—an estimate that the CBO upped to $2.4 trillion this week. Boehm added that “other assessments of the bill” by the Yale Budget Lab (originally published on May 16) and the Penn Wharton Budget Project (published three days later) estimated that it would add “more than $3 trillion” to the debt.

Those are low-ball estimates, based on the unrealistic assumption that Congress will allow Trump-favored tax cuts to lapse toward the end of that period. If “temporary provisions in the bill are made permanent,” Boehm reported, the Yale Budget Lab estimated that it would trigger $5 trillion in new borrowing.

The national debt currently exceeds $35 trillion, including about $29 trillion in debt held by the public, which is about the size of the entire U.S. economy. In January, the CBO projected that publicly held debt would hit 119 percent of GDP by 2035. Two months later, Trump promised to do something about that. “In the near future,” he told Congress, “I want to do what has not been done in 24 years—balance the federal budget. We’re gonna balance it.” But the glaring gap between that promise and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not faze Flood or Greene, whose concerns are much narrower.

Keep reading

Trump Federalizes California National Guard as Violent Leftist Mobs Lay Siege to ICE Agents — Bypassing Democrat Governor

After weeks of escalating leftist violence against federal immigration agents that culminated in over 1,000 rioters laying siege to federal buildings and assaulting ICE officers, President Trump took the extraordinary step of federalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops, marking the first time since 1965 that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent.

Using rarely invoked federal powers under 10 U.S.C. 12406, Trump bypassed the authority of California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom after violent mobs launched coordinated attacks on ICE agents and laid siege to federal buildings across the state.

The president’s directive cites a specific provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code that allows federal deployment of National Guard forces when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Trump’s order states that “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.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon was “mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY” and revealed that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, about 100 miles south of Los Angeles, were “on high alert” and could also be mobilized.

Trump’s directive specifically authorized Hegseth to “employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property,” indicating the administration is prepared to use whatever force necessary to restore federal authority.

The violent confrontations have spread beyond Los Angeles, with Minneapolis seeing protesters throw traffic cones and trash cans at federal law enforcement vehicles during an ICE operation at Las Cuatro Milpas restaurant.

The area, which was previously the site of violent riots following George Floyd’s death of a fentanyl overdose, again became a flashpoint as demonstrators physically obstructed federal vehicles and shouted at officers to “go home” and “quit their jobs.”

Minneapolis City Council Member Jason Chavez joined the violent protesters, declaring the federal operation “completely wrong” and criticizing local police for assisting ICE agents in their lawful duties.

Keep reading

Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences’ if he backs Democratic candidates

President Donald Trump is not backing off his battle with Elon Musk, saying Saturday that he has no desire to repair their relationship and warning that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face “serious consequences” if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections.

Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is over, Trump responded, “I would assume so, yeah.”

“I’m too busy doing other things,” Trump continued. “You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.”

The president also issued a warning amid chatter that Musk could back Democratic lawmakers and candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.

“If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that,” Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Musk’s businesses have many lucrative federal contracts.

The president’s latest comments suggest Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Musk’s businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Trump has already threatened to cut Musk’s contracts, calling it an easy way to save money.

The dramatic rupture between the president and the world’s richest man began this week with Musk’s public criticism of Trump’s “big beautiful bill” pending on Capitol Hill. Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a “disgusting abomination.”

Keep reading