Tag: donald trump

Senate passes ‘meaningless’ Iran resolution as Trump closes in on lasting peace deal

The Senate has approved a House-passed resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from hostilities in Iran as the White House works to negotiate a lasting settlement with Tehran.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 50 to 48 to approve the resolution, which cleared the House in a 215-208 vote a day prior. The measure directs Washington to remove U.S. armed forces from the country unless Congress authorizes further military action, as under the 1973 War Powers Act.

Since the resolution is a “concurrent resolution” it does not pass through the president’s desk for approval and carries disputed legal force. It does not have the force of law, however, despite the approval from both chambers.

The Act states that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief must alert Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities. Once the notification is submitted, a 60-day period begins, during which the president must terminate the use of force.

Members of the Trump administration, however, clarified that the operation against Iran was already considered terminated as of the ceasefire agreement established by President Trump on April 7th.

Four Republicans voted for the measure: Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

The same four GOP senators voted last week in an effort to discharge a similar resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but it failed to advance due to attendance issues from Democrat members.

Notably, two GOP senators missed the vote: Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Both senators had previously voted multiple times against Iran powers resolutions.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted “no” on Tuesday after alleging that he was open to hearing arguments from both sides of the debate. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat member to join the majority of Republicans in voting against the measure.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Kicks Off American Nuclear Renaissance With $17.5 Billion Loan Program For Reactor Projects

With hyperscalers set to spend roughly $800 billion on data-center capex this year alone, alongside reshoring and broader grid electrification, baseload power demand is poised to surge.

We have made the case that intermittent solar and wind are no match for the scale and reliability requirements of the modern economy, and that nuclear power is emerging as the clean, always-on power source needed to power the AI era.

The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday morning that the Trump administration plans to supercharge the deployment of nuclear power with a $17.5 billion low-interest loan program to help utilities finance orders for Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000 reactors.

The Energy Department, under Secretary Chris Wright, plans to make five loans available for two-reactor projects, with the goal of expediting equipment orders and cutting up to three years from construction timelines.

More from the report:

Seven utilities have already signed formal letters of intent for the five available project loans, according to the Energy Department, which didn’t name the utilities.

Wright said the plan to accelerate the deployment timeline of ten reactors will “unleash the next American nuclear renaissance.”

Those reactors “will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump’s bold and ambitious energy addition agenda,” Wright said.

The AP1000 reactors, which produce about 1,100 megawatts of power, are slated to come online in 2035 and will generate enough electricity to power a midsize city or a large data center.

Keep reading

REPORT: Trump Admin Threatens to Withhold DHS Grant Funding to States Opposing Election Integrity Measures

The White House is reportedly threatening to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with proposed election and vote-counting rules.

The new rules that the Trump Administration seeks to implement nationwide include manual audits of election systems, requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voters, and phasing out voting systems that don’t use hand-marked paper ballots, CNN reports, citing unnamed sources and internal documents.

Per CNN:

Under new rules governing several homeland security grant programs, states must take a number of steps, including phasing out certain electronic voting systems and moving to hand-marked paper ballots. They must also run their voter rolls through a controversial Department of Homeland Security citizenship verification database.

If not, states would lose out on some funding from DHS. These grants, expected to total more than $1 billion in the current fiscal year, are one of Washington’s main vehicles for helping state and local governments prevent terrorism, protect infrastructure and prepare for major disasters.

For years, the DHS grants, which states apply for, have required that at least 3% of the funds be spent broadly on election security. But the new guidelines, which CNN obtained and are expected to go out to states later this month, impose a set of mandatory reforms and steep penalties for noncompliance. States that refuse would lose 20% of the grant money — potentially millions of dollars in security funds.

“No changes to grant requirements or funding distributions are official until they are formally announced and published through proper, authorized agency channels,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the administration considers election security to be a core national security priority.

“Any recipient of federal funding should expect accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent,” the spokesperson said.

In March 2025, Trump signed the “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” executive order, which directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to require proof of citizenship and voter ID on its national mail voter registration form.

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “review each State’s publicly available voter registration list and available records concerning voter list maintenance activities.”

Further, DHS and the EAC were directed to “review and report on the security of all electronic systems used in the voter registration and voting process,” and “assess the security of all such systems to the extent they are connected to, or integrated into, the Internet and report on the risk of such systems being compromised through malicious software and unauthorized intrusions into the system.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Attempt To End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty

Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend.

President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in violation of the US Constitution’s requirement that only Congress can declare war. There must be a reckoning for our elected leaders who violate their oath of office, the Constitution, and simple common sense.

However, what is more telling is the reaction when President Trump finally took the correct move and attempted to end the war. The neocons who had hailed him as a great leader – Levin, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. – suddenly turned against him when he turned against further escalation of the war.

Even Trump’s top funder, Miriam Adelson, attacked Trump in her newspaper Israel Hayom. “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.

Not much gratitude from the Israel-first crowd, even if the war was started to benefit Israel.

And more telling even than this was the reaction of the “opposition” party in Congress, the Democrats. They attacked him harder for ending – or at least pausing – the war more than for starting the war in the first place! Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the MOU a “capitulation.” Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) called the MOU an “embarrassing document.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar falsely claimed that President Trump was paying Iran $300 billion to re-open Hormuz.

This is more evidence – as if any is needed – that our foreign policy is run by the “uniparty.” When it comes to wars, there is no Republican Party nor is there a Democratic Party. There is only the “yes!” party.

Congress remains silent in the run-up to war. Congress remains silent when the President launches a war. Congress even remains silent when the war begins going badly. It is only on those rare occasions that a president takes steps to correct his mistake that Congress finds its voice.

Yes, there is plenty to criticize. After weekend talks, the US side, led by Vice President JD Vance, is celebrating as a “breakthrough” that the Strait of Hormuz is open again and that Iran has reportedly agreed to the return of UN inspectors. But the Strait was open before this war and UN inspectors were in Iran before President Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA “Iran Deal” in his first term.

The only difference now is that we burned through likely several hundred billion dollars, we lost dozens of aircraft and other military equipment, and we likely lost more service members than the Pentagon is admitting.

Keep reading

Gaza’s “Board of Peace” holds zero dollars despite billions pledged

In a stark revelation that underscores the paralysis of international reconstruction efforts, the World Bank-administered fund established for President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza officially contains zero dollars. This finding comes despite approximately $17 billion in pledges from various nations, raising serious questions about the viability of the administration’s signature post-conflict initiative.

The board, personally chaired by Trump, was conceived to oversee the rebuilding of the devastated Palestinian enclave, but it remains a financial shell, stalled by legal uncertainty and disputes over transparency.

The empty vault: Where did the pledges go?

The core issue is a fundamental disconnect between promises and disbursement. A senior congressional aide confirmed that none of the pledged money has reached the Board of Peace. The Department of State has indicated there is no intention to route those funds through the board’s official channels. Instead of using the transparent, World Bank-administered account, the board has reportedly directed some donations into a private account at JPMorgan Chase.

This arrangement bypasses independent oversight and standard aid protocols, leaving donors and the public with limited visibility into how any funds are spent.

A king’s court or a UN-like agency?

The board’s unconventional structure has also drawn sharp criticism. Unlike traditional multilateral bodies, the Board of Peace is personally led by Trump, who retains final authority indefinitely. The charter requires countries to pay a one-billion-dollar fee for a permanent seat, a price tag that has deterred major European allies. Sen. Brian Schatz highlighted the tension between the State Department’s portrayal of the board as a standard UN-like agency and Trump’s characterization of it as a “king’s court.” Key powers like France and Britain have refused to pay the entry fee, leaving the board’s membership thin and its financial base weak.

No contracts, no construction: A stalled operation

The board has awarded no contracts for actual reconstruction projects, as it is not yet operating inside Gaza. The primary obstacle is Hamas’ refusal to disarm. Trump has linked all reconstruction aid to full demilitarization, creating a classic deadlock: the board cannot operate in Gaza without security, but security cannot be achieved without reconstruction funding. The Palestinian technocratic committee, formed to assume governance, remains unable to execute any work due to a total lack of funding. Even modest sums from Morocco and the UAE have been used primarily for staff salaries, not infrastructure.

Keep reading

Democratic Party’s Corollary to the Donroe Doctrine

Donald Trump’s second term has precipitated a tsunami of criticism from Democrats over his foreign policy. Yet when it comes to Washington’s efforts to dominate Latin America and the Caribbean, the substantive dispute – if there is any substance remaining, once stripped of partisan bickering – is less about ends than means.

Beneath the rhetoric of inter-party conflict lies a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of promoting US hemispheric hegemony and crushing governments that resist it – with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua at the forefront. While Democrats frequently portray Trump as reckless, they generally accept the underlying premises of economic coercion, political intervention, and regime-change pressure. Their objections mainly focus on the execution of policy rather than its legitimacy.

The central role of sanctions in projecting imperial coercive power

Under Democratic administrations, the US forged and institutionalized what may be its most effective instrument of hegemony. Coercive economic measures, commonly called “sanctions,” were first deployed by Franklin D. Roosevelt against Mexico in the 1930s. They were used by Dwight D. Eisenhower to pressure Guatemala in 1954 and then – most drastically – against Cuba by both Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1960. Today, one-third of the world’s nations are under US sanctions.

Sanctions – a form of collective punishment – are held by legal experts to be contrary to international law. Paradoxically, not only does Washington disregard international law in imposing sanctions, but the US then behaves as if they are applying the law when, for example, they pirate a ship delivering humanitarian supplies to a sanctioned country.

Use of sanctions has accelerated because successive administrations have seen their unique advantages. Compared with “forever wars,” they are more easily justified to US voters as cost-free and as not imperiling US lives. If sanctions are the precursor to military intervention – as in Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and, of course, Venezuela in 2026 – the interventions have usually been limited, with few US casualties.

Yet sanctions are very potent: between 2010 and 2021, they caused around 560,000 deaths globally each year – more than five times the number of people killed annually in direct armed combat.

While sanctions are made more palatable by being described as “targeted” at governments or individuals seen as undesirable by Washington, in practice the “targeting” is deliberately far wider. Sanctions do most damage to the poorest sectors of societies – the sectors most likely to support progressive governments. The barely veiled message is that only by withdrawing this support will such communities be able to prosper and avoid the threat of even greater US intervention.

The frequent description of sanctions as “targeted” carries another implication – that they are intended to have a precise and conclusive effect. However, while sanctions cause severe economic damage, there is little evidence that they achieve intended regime change. Even so, sanctions on countries which refuse to change are maintained and – very frequently – intensified. Democrats are as guilty of this folly as Republicans.

Indeed, US sanctions have imperial utility through their “demonstration effect”: attempting to cripple progressive alternatives to the neoliberal world order. Recently subjected to draconian sanctions, Cuban President Díaz-Canel proclaimed: “Cuba is not a failed state; Cuba is a besieged state.” Still, infant mortality in Cuba is lower than among African Americans.

Keep reading

FBI reveals details in new affidavit about alleged terror plot to attack UFC 250 event

he FBI released an affidavit Tuesday regarding a foiled alleged terror plot on Sunday’s Ultimate Fighting Championship 250 event at the White House, which perpetrators were allegedly planning to attack with explosive-laden drones and snipers.

At least five people have been arrested, and agents are working to identify as many as 18 others who appear to be involved in the planning on encrypted chats communicating with the alleged plotters, officials said.

The affidavit identified three of the five apprehended suspects, including 19-year-old Tycen Proper, who was arrested in Ohio and charged with attempted murder and several firearms violations after he allegedly admitted to helping plan the attack.

FBI task force officer Christopher Betts said in the court document that Proper’s mother reported her son’s unusual behavior to police in Ohio last week, highlighting his recent purchases of firearms and conversations with random people online.

Proper also allegedly made “concerning statements,” including “making sympathetic comments about Adolf Hitler and posting anti-Semitic comments on Facebook,” according to NBC News.

The suspect allegedly told investigators that his group was supposed to stage a protest on the north side of the White House, and while he was not planning to shoot anyone, people in his group were allegedly intent on violence. 

“While the demonstration was taking place, the group would fly small, unmanned aircraft (i.e. drones) laden with unspecified explosive devices which would detonate over the north side of the UFC arena,” the affidavit said. “When the unmanned aircraft detonated, the intent was to force the crowd attending the UFC event and high-value targets (HVTs) to evacuate to the south.”

Proper also claimed that the reason behind the planned attack was to allegedly jump-start a revolution because “members of the group believed that the United States needed to be torn down so that it could be rebuilt.”

Another suspect was arrested in Missouri and identified as 32-year-old Daniel Eskridge, who was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, in connection with a plan to attack the event.

Eskridge allegedly told members of the group in messages that he was preparing a “safe house” in Missouri and was building a “bunker” under the floorboards of his shed. He intended to attack members of Congress and the power grid.

“The messages included maps with pins to locate positions of attack, as well as planned routes of escape following the execution of the group’s plan,” the affidavit said. “Once the details were settled among other members of the group, Eskridge stated, ‘I’m liking it, now if we can keep it all coordinated it should work.’”

A third man was identified as Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, who was also arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States.

Alvarez allegedly posted detailed location and logistical information related to the plan, including locations in the area for drone launch points and sniper positions.

Officials seized weapons and ammo from each of the suspects’ homes, along with tactical vests and a multi-cam gun belt with a medical kit from Eskridge’s home.

Keep reading

Trump says oil reserves would run out in 4 weeks without Iran deal, risking ‘bedlam’

President Trump said Wednesday that oil reserves could have run out in four weeks if the Strait of Hormuz were not opened.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said in France while at the Group of Seven summit, discussing the recent memorandum of understanding with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It’s not entirely clear whether Trump was referring to U.S. or global oil inventories. The White House declined to elaborate, referring The Hill back to Trump’s original remarks.

In recent weeks, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization of oil consuming countries, has warned of declining oil reserves.

IEA head Fatih Birol said last month that oil reserve releases were helping to keep up the market supply, but he warned the reserves “are not endless.”

He indicated at the time that because of the war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, only a few weeks of commercial inventories were remaining. 

The IEA also warned in May that oil demand would exceed supply this year.

At the start of the war, both the U.S. and other IEA countries announced they would release oil from their strategic reserves, putting 400 million additional barrels onto the market.

As part of the announcement, the Trump administration said it would release 172 million barrels from its strategic reserve. The releases were set to occur over a 120-day period.

At the time, the U.S. strategic reserve comprised about 415 million barrels of oil, meaning the release of an additional 172 million would eventually bring the reserve down to about 243 million unless barrels were added or subtracted for other reasons.

Keep reading

Handwritten Epstein Notes Found, Confirm He Wanted to Hurt Trump as Badly as Possible, Wasn’t Friend at All

This isn’t the kind of news liberals generally see fit to print.

The New York Times Magazine this week published a mammoth look at the last days of life for sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, apparently aimed at establishing firmly whether the official finding that Epstein committed suicide actually holds water

On that front, the effort is a failure, but the notoriously liberal publication did manage to cement one fact — and it’s not the kind of fact its liberal readership craves when it comes to President Donald Trump.

Since Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, political opponents who spent four years forgetting that Epstein ever existed have suddenly morphed into Torquemada-level fanatics about the affairs of the late, unlamented Epstein.

As usual for the left, the goal has nothing to do with the truth — Epstein’s associates were overwhelmingly leftish (even if you leave Bill Clinton out of it), and his political contributions all leaned decidedly in the Democratic direction.

The aim of the left instead is to try to link Epstein and his evil to Trump in any way imaginable — to make it appear the two men were friends and that Trump is somehow tainted with Epstein’s crimes. But the magazine report does exactly the opposite.

In fact, Trump’s name comes up only five times in the report’s nearly 150 paragraphs, twice as a means of establishing another person’s identity (former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, former Trump Attorney General Robert Barr), and three times in phrases that make it clear Epstein was anything but a friend of the man who’s now in the Oval Office.

In one paragraph describing the methodology behind the mammoth report, the article stated:

“We obtained about a dozen pages of other notes handwritten by Epstein in jail that were also previously unseen — including some in which he tried and failed to come up with significant information he might have on Donald Trump to offer to prosecutors,” the report stated. (Emphasis added.)

Keep reading

‘Slash the Pentagon Act’ Would Cap Trump’s Military Budget To Fund Healthcare, Education, and More

Democratic US Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts took aim Monday at President Donald Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran and request for a record $1.5 trillion in total military-related spending authorization by introducing legislation that would cap the Pentagon budget at half that amount.

Markey introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act at a Capitol Hill press conference that took place “as Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas, while Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran.”

“Instead of funding Medicaid and education or investing in veterans’ care, Republicans want to pad the pockets of gold-plated defense contractors with billions more dollars for weapons and wars we do not need,” Markey said at the press conference.

“Just before SpaceX’s IPO made Elon Musk a trillionaire, Trump gave SpaceX billions in contracts for his expensive and ineffective ‘Golden Dome’ system,” Markey continued. “Coincidence? No, corruption.”

“It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending,” the senator added. “We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now – not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”

Markey’s bill comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year’s enacted level.

The Trump administration’s broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs.

Keep reading