Tag: donald trump

U.S. Military Veterans Appeal Directly to Trump to Help Uncover the MMTLP Financial Scandal

After Years of Regulatory Stonewalling, Veterans Are Taking Their Fight Straight to Their Commander in Chief

American military veterans caught in the unresolved MMTLP financial debacle are taking their fight directly to President Donald Trump.

MMTLP (Meta Materials Class A Preferred Stock) is a controversial security that was abruptly frozen by FINRA in December 2022, leaving thousands of retail investors unable to trade or exit their positions.

After more than three years of unanswered questions, regulatory roadblocks, and congressional inaction, affected veterans say they have exhausted the normal chain of command.

Now they are going to the top.

The President of the United States.

For these veterans, this is no longer simply a story about a stock ticker.

It is about trust.

It is about accountability.

And it is about whether the federal agencies responsible for protecting American investors are willing to show the public what really happened.

VETERANS FOLLOWED THE CHAIN OF COMMAND

Military veterans understand the chain of command.

When something goes wrong, you document it.

You report it.

You move it up the chain.

That is exactly what veterans inside the MMTLP community say they have done.

They contacted state securities regulators, Attorneys General, Congress and the SEC, and filed Freedom of Information Act requests. They asked for investigations, meetings and the records.

And after more than three years, they still do not believe they have received a full accounting of what happened.

The consequences have been real.

Veteran advocates say members of the broader MMTLP community have lost homes, retirement savings and marriages. They also report suicides among affected investors.

For veterans watching their fellow service members suffer, enough is enough.

Keep reading

US Looks To Revive ‘Prize Courts’ For Iranian Oil Seizures

The US government is exploring an unusual legal route for dealing with Iranian oil and ships captured as part of its blockade: bringing back a wartime maritime system that has barely been used for generations, according to Bloomberg.

The Justice Department, working with the Pentagon, is preparing to use prize law, which historically allowed courts to decide whether vessels and cargo captured during armed conflict could legally become property of the United States. The mechanism was once commonplace in naval warfare but largely disappeared from American practice after the 19th century and has been dormant since World War II.

The appeal for the administration is largely practical. At present, the government generally relies on civil forfeiture to take ownership of vessels accused of sanctions violations or other offenses. Those cases can become complicated and slow, particularly when shipping companies, creditors, terrorism victims or other parties assert competing rights to the ship or its cargo. A prize proceeding could potentially narrow those disputes and allow captured oil to be sold more quickly, with the proceeds going to the US Treasury.

Bloomberg writes that Houston is being considered as a central venue for these cases. The Southern District of Texas has jurisdiction over a major port and sits alongside the country’s largest concentration of petrochemical infrastructure, giving it the capacity to receive and store substantial quantities of crude. US Attorney Aaron Reitz, whose office is working with DOJ officials in Washington, said the department is “now reviving” prize courts, describing the concept as an “ancient body of maritime law.”

The effort comes as Washington looks for additional ways to put economic pressure on Iran. US forces have already intercepted Iranian-owned or Iran-linked vessels since the blockade was imposed in April. Using prize law could turn those captures into a more direct financial tool: ships and oil deemed lawful prizes could be liquidated, potentially generating revenue while depriving Iran of valuable exports.

Supporters also see a strategic purpose beyond the money. Reviving the system would reinforce the message that the US considers the blockade a serious wartime measure rather than simply another sanctions regime. It could also make it more difficult for neutral commercial vessels to continue transporting goods that Washington believes support Iran.

But there is considerable uncertainty over how a centuries-old framework would operate under modern international law. “This really is a historical area of law that is not tested in modern times,” maritime attorney Allison Luzwick said. Courts could be asked to determine whether the current conflict provides sufficient legal grounds for invoking prize authority at all, particularly given questions surrounding congressional authorization for the hostilities.

Keep reading

The Bunker State: The Government Will Survive, but Will the Constitution?

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.“—Theodore Roosevelt

What began publicly as Donald Trump’s lavish, taxpayer-funded vision of a gilded White House ballroom is now being justified by the administration—in and out of court—as a matter of national security.

To President Trump, it seems, a ballroom by any other name is a bunker.

And what a bunker it is.

Court documents indicate the massive subterranean military complex being constructed five stories beneath the White House grounds will include bomb shelters, a hospital, “top secret military structures and equipment, military-grade venting, a single integrated air conditioning and heating system, sniper nests and a drone port on top.”

Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, has explicitly invoked “continuity-of-government interests“ in defending the ballroom/bunker project, arguing that the reinforced underground military installation is necessary to ensure uninterrupted presidential command during an attack or global crisis.

The White House, however, already has a bunker built for precisely this purpose.

According to former officials, a nuclear-hardened facility buried more than 60 feet underground was secretly completed during the Obama administration. It can reportedly shelter dozens of officials for weeks and provide the president and senior officials with a secure command center during an extreme national-security crisis.

Which raises an obvious question: if the White House already has a nuclear-hardened Continuity of Government bunker, why does it need another one?

What threat justifies a new five-story military complex beneath the People’s House—one large enough to include bomb shelters, a hospital, military infrastructure, sniper positions and drone facilities? And if this is really about national security, why has so much of the project been wrapped around a ballroom that the administration initially presented as something quite different?

It is telling that they are building it at breakneck speed.

Keep reading

The Economy Is Stagnating

The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge rose again in July, with the headline Personal Consumption Expenditures index increasing 0.2% for the month and 3.7% from a year earlier. Economists expected the annual rate to decline to 3.6%, yet it remained unchanged from June, while core PCE excluding food and energy increased 0.2% monthly and 3.3% annually. The political class has spent years promising that inflation was retreating, but prices are still rising at nearly twice the Federal Reserve’s official target after households already endured the largest cumulative increase in the cost of living in decades.

This is what they refuse to explain when they celebrate a lower inflation rate. A decline in the RATE of inflation does NOT mean prices declined, for it merely means the government believes they are increasing at a slower pace. The rent, insurance premium, electric bill, grocery receipt, property tax, and cost of borrowing do not return to where they stood before the inflationary wave began, and wages must rise faster than this accumulated increase simply to restore purchasing power that has already been destroyed.

The core figure is equally deceptive because removing food and energy excludes two of the expenses people cannot avoid. Economists defend this practice by claiming those categories are volatile, but that volatility does not make the expense imaginary. Energy flows into transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, utilities, packaging, and practically everything that must be produced or delivered, while food is not some discretionary luxury that families can postpone until the next Federal Reserve meeting.

The problem is now spreading well beyond one monthly inflation report. The economy expanded at an annualized rate of only 1.5% during the second quarter, employers eliminated 23,000 jobs in July, and May and June payrolls were revised downward by a combined 103,000. Inflation remains at 3.7% while employment has been stagnating for months, which is the precise environment the Keynesian playbook cannot resolve because raising rates attacks economic activity while doing nothing to repair the geopolitical, fiscal, regulatory, and supply-side pressures driving prices.

The Federal Reserve is now trapped by government. Washington continues to borrow and spend regardless of the business cycle, forcing the Treasury to compete for capital while interest payments consume an expanding share of federal revenue. The central bank can raise short-term rates, but it cannot produce oil, lower insurance costs, reverse taxation, rebuild supply chains, end wars, or restore confidence among businesses that no longer know what their expenses will be six months from now.

This is not a new inflation cycle appearing in July, just as the weak employment report did not suddenly mark the beginning of labor deterioration. Both figures confirm a trend that has been in motion beneath the government’s revised statistics for some time. The private economy is losing momentum while the cost of government, debt, energy, insurance, and basic necessities continues to rise, and calling this a “soft landing” will not change the fact that Americans are being forced to pay more merely to stand still.

Keep reading

US Threatens the UK: Increase Defense Spending, or Lose Support for Sovereignty Over the Falkland Islands

European territories in the Western Hemisphere are not safe anymore.

Today, The Telegraph has issued a bombshell report (picked up by several other outlets by now) that reveals that the US is threatening to oppose Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands unless Andy Burnham increases the UK defense spending.

The proposal is reportedly among measures being prepared at the Pentagon to force NATO nations to fulfill their 5 percent of the GDP defense spending pledge.

The Telegraph reported:

“A senior US official told The Telegraph that Britain was likely to receive ‘special attention’ in Washington’s review of its allies’ commitment to Nato, which will examine whether member nations have credible paths toward the target.

Officials in Washington believe that while Britain has the potential to be a leading defense partner, the defense investment plan, announced by Sir Keir Starmer in June, was not enough of a ‘step in the right direction’.

Keep reading

Trump Stuns By Outright Dismissing Notion Putin Preparing To Attack A NATO State

President Trump has added fuel to the fire of controversy and speculation over the question of why CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a surprise and highly rare trip to Moscow on Tuesday.

Media accounts which seek to explain the nature of his meeting with top Kremlin intelligence officials, while apparently being snubbed by Putin in terms of a direct interaction, have shifted in days since the visit. The early ‘consensus’ was that he delivered a stern warning for Russia not to attack any NATO state. But President Trump has poured cold water on this explanation, appearing to dismiss it outright in his latest comments. 

“I’ve had good talks with him. He’s not going to be attacking a NATO territory,” Trump said of Putin on Thursday while talking to reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump didn’t answer specifically when pressed on if the president directed Ratcliffe to deliver a warning to Putin to not attack NATO. “I don’t want to comment on that but they’re not going to attack,” Trump said.

While many times over the course of the Ukraine war, European heads of state have claimed that Russia is expansionist and seeks to attack countries in Europe beyond Ukraine, this has not ever been a public allegation of Trump, who has tended to downplay it as a possibility. 

Trump did deny the reports centered on Ratcliffe in an interview with Axios Thursday, saying “Ratcliffe sees his Russian counterpart once every six months or once every year. They have a very good relationship. There was no message and there was nothing unusual.”

And when asked over whether he’s concerned that Putin might attack NATO or deeper inside Europe, Trump replied, “I am not concerned … at all. There is no problem.” According to more:

The president called Ratcliffe’s trip “standard business” and expressed puzzlement over the media accounts of it.

But the reality is that no CIA director has made such a trip in well over four years. The prior time was November 2021, when then-CIA Director William Burns traveled to Moscow to meet with senior Russian officials and issued a stark warning against invading Ukraine.

It was also highly unexpected in terms of timing, given the stalemated nature of the Ukraine conflict, and the fact that zero peace negotiations are happening. There has not even so much as been any efforts at achieving a short-term ceasefire, akin to last year’s Christmas truce.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Hands Bill Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Syndicate $600 Million

The U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last month revealed they “will immediately release all $600 million in Congressionally appropriated funds” for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Bill Gates’ international vaccine syndicate, according to a State Department press release.

In June 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had withdrawn American funding from Gavi, citing child deaths linked to the vaccines the organization dispenses worldwide.

But one year later, Secretary of ​State Marco Rubio promised that the United States would “re-engage” with Gavi, citing a purported Ebola outbreak as justification.

The new State Department press release emphasizes President Donald Trump gave the directive himself.

Per the release:

“Last year, President Trump directed Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to engage directly with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi), and secure meaningful reforms before the United States would consider future support. Those discussions resulted in significant commitments that strengthen vaccine safety, improve public health, and better align Gavi’s work with the principles of Gold Standard Science and transparency. Based on those commitments, the United States will immediately release all $600 million in Congressionally appropriated funds to Gavi for both FY25 and FY26.”

The agreement included “reducing reliance on mercury-containing vaccines, where suitable alternatives are available.”

The release didn’t specify which alternatives would be used nor cite any relevant safety studies.

But it did confirm vaccine manufacturers would benefit:

“Achieving these transitions will require manufacturers to expand production capacity, countries to adopt newer vaccine formulations, and Gavi’s governing Board to complete the necessary approvals. The United States recognizes these implementation challenges but welcomes Gavi’s commitment to work toward these goals through transparent governance and responsible stewardship.”

The Trump admin ultimately wants to “resume its place on the Gavi Board”:

“In addition, given the sizeable contribution the United States is making to improve access to vaccines, the United States expects to resume its place on the Gavi Board. In this role, the United States will continue to hold Gavi accountable for measurable progress toward these commitments. It will evaluate any future U.S. support based on demonstrated performance, accountability, and implementation of these reforms.”

Keep reading

Trump Strikes “Biggest Oil Deal In History”: US To Take Majority Stake In Over 65BN Barrels Of Venezuela Reserves

President Trump has made it official with a late in the day Friday Truth Social Post, announcing a deal has been struck with Venezuela for a US majority stake in more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves, after six months of administration scrambling to control the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

On Truth Social he called it the biggest oil deal in world history which comes “at no cost to” U.S. taxpayers and which more than doubles the US oil reserve.

“This Transaction will greatly strengthen the already growing relationship between Venezuela and the United States,” Trump wrote in the post. Also…

Trump said the Venezuela deal should bring down prices at the pump. The average price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. reached around $4.09 on Friday, a 27% increase year over year, according to AAA.

Over a dozen productive oil fields are said be central to deal, following US officials having long hyped Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” and what it can do to bolster American energy independence and security. Of course, instead of ‘talks’ or ‘negotiations’… in reality this is more simply about demands be dictated to the ‘new’ post-Maduro US client state in South America.

Focus on the Strait of Hormuz is shifting to South America late in the week as the Trump administration moves to secure new long-term crude supplies in Venezuela. The U.S. is nearing an agreement that could place 17 Venezuelan oil fields under 100-year leases operated by U.S. oil companies.

According to Bloomberg, sources told the outlet that Caracas has discussed a possible exit from OPEC with U.S. officials. The sources said no final decision has been made, but the discussions come as the U.S. negotiates 100-year leases on several Venezuelan oil fields that require billions of dollars in investment.

Such an exit from OPEC would be symbolic, given that the South American country was one of the organization’s five founding members in 1960 and played a key role in establishing the expanded OPEC+ alliance with Russia in 2016.

More recently, the United Arab Emirates became another producer to announce its departure from OPEC. Venezuela is only considering withdrawal, while Iraq has expressed frustration but has yet to announce a formal exit.

A Venezuelan exit would not result in an immediate surge in crude production because of years of underinvestment, which is why the U.S. is seeking to take a large stake in the nation’s oil fields.

Venezuela currently produces about 1.16 million barrels per day, according to a Bloomberg survey, and is not subject to an active OPEC quota.

For President Trump, a U.S.-Venezuela energy alliance could prove very valuable by weakening OPEC, increasing non-Middle Eastern crude supplies, pressuring oil prices and locking down a massive reserve base in America’s backyard.

Trump Close To ‘Massive’ Deal For Seizing Stake In Venezuela’s Vast Oil Fields

Amid ongoing global oil supply disruptions due to the Iran war and Hormuz Strait crisis, and also as Ukraine’s war on Russian oil refineries and export terminals heats up, the Trump administration has been scrambling to tap new reliable and long-term energy sources.

Now, nearly eight months since the US miliary raid on Caracas which removed from power and captured socialist President Nicolás Maduro, and the Trump administration is said to be on the brink of a massive deal to gain ownership stake in the countries vast oil resources.

Axios is newly reporting Thursday of ‘negotiations’ (sure) in the works: “The historic deal would more than double U.S. oil reserves by drawing from a country that has the world’s largest proven reserves.”

Keep reading

Not just a stunt: Head of U.S. Geological Survey confirms ‘Lake America’ designation

While some Trump detractors have scoffed at his signing an executive order Thursday to change the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America, the president post on Truth Social verification from the U.S. Geological Survey that the change has been made official.

As WND reported, Trump Wednesday posted a video declaring his intent to change the name of the lake, which straddles the U.S.-Canadian border, saying, “All it takes is a good pen and some intelligence.”

Then on Thursday Trump welcomed reporters into the Oval Office to sign the executive order.

Many commentators and activist routinely excoriate Trump when he seemingly unilaterally changes designations on the map, but now the man in charge of the official federal government records on geographic designations is confirming the change, in a memo to his boss, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Keep reading

Trump Has Made Up to $15M in Oil and Gas Stock Rise Spurred in Part by Iran War

President Donald Trump’s deeply unpopular war on Iran has helped inject millions of dollars into his personal wealth while saddling everyday Americans with a $72 billion bill, a new report reveals.

Amid the war, oil and gas companies’ stocks have skyrocketed in value as companies report staggering earnings; ExxonMobil recently reported its profits doubling year-over-year, while Chevron’s net income has increased nearly 400 percent as a result of the disruptions to the global oil market. In all, oil and gas companies reported $125 billion in profits in the first half of 2026, with a corresponding jump in stock value across the fossil fuel industry.

As a result of that rise, Trump may have profited as much as $15.5 million, and netted at least $4.6 million, from his oil and gas holdings this year, Democrats on Congress’s Joint Economic Committee (JEC) found in a report this week. In all, his oil and gas holdings went from a maximum value of $45.5 million to as much as $61 million.

The analysis was based on stocks that Trump held at the end of 2025, including Exxon, Chevron, and seven other oil and gas companies. His profits may be even higher than the report suggests, as Trump bought additional oil and gas stocks in the first three months of 2026 worth up to $3.6 million. These were bought in a period when the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s oil profits and launched a war on Iran that has sent oil prices sky-high.

Meanwhile, the rise in energy prices has cost Americans an additional $71.5 billion in gas prices at the pump, the Democrats found, or an average of over $600 a household. That’s before taking into account the hike in prices for things like groceries and other associated costs like increased mortgage rates caused by the war.

Keep reading