Tag: donald trump

Trump Drafting Executive Order On Election Integrity After Alleging Ballot Fraud In California

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said an executive order is being drafted to strengthen U.S. elections and curb mail-in ballot fraud, after President Donald Trump alleged that California’s mail voting system “is rigged” and parts of it are under “legal and criminal review.”

“The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our elections in this country and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we’ve seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system,” Leavitt told reporters during a Nov. 4 briefing. “It’s absolutely true that … there is fraud in California’s elections. It’s just a fact.”

Leavitt’s comments followed a Truth Social post by Trump earlier in the day, in which he renewed his criticism of mail-in voting and suggested criminal investigations were underway.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote.

“All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.”

When asked what evidence the White House had to support those claims and which authorities were conducting the purported reviews, Leavitt said she would provide evidence of fraud to reporters after the briefing, alleging that “fraudulent ballots are being mailed in the names of other people, in the names of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be voting in American elections.”

The White House has not disclosed details of the upcoming executive order. The president has repeatedly promised sweeping changes to election procedures, including a nationwide ban on universal mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.

Keep reading

Trump’s embrace of former Al Qaeda leader at White House is the height of hypocrisy

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector, said in an interview Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s decision to meet with Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former commander of Al Qaeda offshoot Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and once had a $10-million U.S. bounty on his head, is the height of hypocrisy and not even smart politics because he is not a viable leader.

Ritter was asked by Judge Andrew Napolitano if he ever thought he’d see the day that Al-Sharaa, an Islamist whose nom de guerre was Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, would be welcomed in the White House.

Ritter said, “Some lines can’t be crossed.”

“You can’t have had thousands of Americans sacrifice their lives — tens of thousands of Americans sacrifice their bodies and their minds” to pursue terrorists after 9/11, only for Trump to call al-Sharaa a “tough guy” in a tough neighborhood and let bygones be bygones.

Keep reading

With Venezuela, Trump poised to make mistake of epic proportions

After another week of extra-judicial strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, the U.S. is now reportedly preparing to hit military targets in Venezuela.

International condemnation of the strikes has been widespread. For example, Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Europe, accused the U.S. of ignoring international and maritime law in an interview on Thursday.

But the neoconservative lobby inside the Trump administration is unmoved.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the lead proponent of regime change in Venezuela, has pushed for these actions — allegedly as part of an effort to get tough on drug cartels, framing the Latin American nation through a “narco-terrorism” lens.

Washington’s “narco-terrorism” frame has pedigree; the DOJ indicted Maduro on narco-terrorism charges in 2020, but today’s drug threat picture looks different from that narrative.

Strategically, the label misaligns ends and means: it invites military solutions to problems that the DEA and Coast Guard still characterize primarily as law-enforcement interdiction.

It also simplifies a complex geopolitical picture, all the while increasing the risk of entangling the U.S. in an open-ended conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

The DEA’s 2024–2025 threat assessments identify fentanyl as the top U.S. drug danger, synthesized mainly in Mexico with precursors from China. Meanwhile, UNODC data show record coca cultivation and cocaine output centered in Colombia, with Venezuela functioning primarily as a transit route.

Yet, Washington’s “counternarcotics” rhetoric has already translated into military escalation, and with it come significant diplomatic, economic, and political risks.

Escalation might threaten U.S. energy interests, particularly Chevron’s limited license to import Venezuelan crude, a lifeline for U.S. Gulf Coast refineries that remain reliant on the country’s uniquely heavy oil.

Escalation could also bolster Maduro rather than undermine him. For a leader whose “anti-imperialist rhetoric” enhances domestic legitimacy, U.S. aggression is politically beneficial.

Caracas has already surged troops and naval deployments along key coastal routes and encouraged auxiliary mobilization, explicitly linking the moves to U.S. buildups in the Caribbean.

Keep reading

World War Gorka

News comes this weekend that the ‘Department of War’ now has Nigeria in its crosshairs. Taking to Truth Social on Saturday, Trump let loose on the Nigerian government, warning that,

…If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities, I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians.”

In this administration some Christians are more cherished than others; Trump and Co. have shown zero sympathy for the scores of Palestinian Christians murdered by the IDF and Benjamin Netanyahu, a frequent and honored guest at the White House and on Capitol Hill. That aside, the planned Nigeria operation is clearly the product of the capacious imagination of Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s chief counter-terrorism adviser.

Who is this Gorka?

Before coming to the White House he was a radio host (“America First with Sebastian Gorka”) and a pitchman for Relief Factor, a dietary supplement. America First? An odd name for a program hosted by someone with British, Hungarian and American citizenship – and with probable ties to foreign intelligence. Those ties cost him a job during Trump’s first term. After his ignominious exit from the White House in 2017, Gorka spent the Biden interregnum glued to Trump’s side, appearing alongside a gaggle of future Trump II officials during Trump’s trial in New York.

If he has any talent at all (itself a debatable proposition) it is for ass-kissing. Here he is on Facebook in late September posting about Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s eulogy for Charlie Kirk:

I was born a Catholic and have walked this Earth for 54 years. Before dedicating a quarter of a century to Counterterrorism, my first degree was in Philosophy and Theology.

But I will say for the record, I have never seen a human being encapsulate in 90 seconds the meaning of Jesus Christ like Acting National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Thank you Sir.

No. Thank you, Sebastian.

Gorka is not merely a fool. He is a religious fanatic (there being significant overlap between the two categories).

Keep reading

Report: Trump Weighs Options for Launching a War With Venezuela

The Trump administration has developed a series of options for launching attacks on Venezuela, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, as the US continues its military buildup in the region.

The report said that one option would involve bombing Venezuelan military facilities with the goal of collapsing military support for Maduro in hopes that it would get the Venezuelan leader to flee. But critics of the approach argue that it would likely have the opposite effect, rallying the military around its embattled leader.

The second option would be to send special operations forces, such as Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force, into Venezuela to kill or capture Maduro. Such an operation would put the US troops involved in the attack at serious risk since Maduro has the support of his military and a civilian militia that the Venezuelan government says has millions of members.

The third option would involve sending a much larger force into Venezuela to capture airfields and some of Venezuela’s infrastructure and oil fields. The Washington Examiner has reported that US military planners believe the forces in the region are now sufficient to seize and hold key strategic facilities such as ports and airfields on Venezuelan territory.

The Times report said that President Trump is reluctant to back an operation that would put US troops at risk or come with the chance of failure, and for that reason, other plans are being developed that would involve naval drones and long-range weapons. A decision isn’t expected until the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford, which just left the Mediterranean, arrives near Venezuela.

If Trump orders an attack on Venezuela, it would almost certainly lead to a full-blown war or a quick decapitation of the government, which would likely plunge the country into chaos. The Times report cited Trump aides who said far more planning has gone into striking at the Maduro government than on what it would take to govern Venezuela should the operation succeed.

Trump aides said that the president has expressed reservations about attacking Venezuela and that he’s asking what the US could get out of it, with a focus on Venezuela’s vast oil resources. The push to launch a war in Venezuela is being led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security advisor, and Stephen Miller, the president’s chief domestic policy advisor.

Keep reading

Trump’s Tariff Power Grab

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the landmark case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which will determine whether President Trump can use an emergency declaration to unilaterally impose tariffs on foreign goods that Americans buy, as he did earlier this year.

Although the Constitution is pretty clear that only Congress has the power to tax, the Trump administration cited a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the suite of tariffs it rolled out on April 2—what Trump called “Liberation Day.”

According to the president and his lawyers, the fact that the country has a trade deficit—that American consumers spend more on goods and services from foreign producers than American businesses make from sales to foreign consumers—is a national emergency.

Trump considered attending the hearing himself over the weekend. He eventually decided against it, but stressed to his followers on Truth Social that he views this case as “one of the most important in the history of the country.”

The president clearly wants his allies on the Supreme Court to understand that he would take a ruling against him very personally. And, based on their previous rulings, the Court’s Trump-friendly majority probably wants to again give a green light to Trump’s expansion of executive authority.

But that could prove difficult. To strike down several of Biden’s more blatant power grabs, this Court relied on the so-called “major questions doctrine,” which requires Congress to use plain and direct language to authorize sweeping economic actions by the executive branch. All that the 1977 law Trump is using to justify his tariffs authorizes him to impose are “regulations” on imports.

It would be transparently hypocritical for these justices to agree that “tariffs,” “taxes,” or “duties” can be implied by the word “regulations” when they just refused to grant that level of leniency to the previous administration.

Which isn’t to say it won’t happen. The idea that the Supreme Court, and the entire federal judiciary, are independent, non-political entities driven solely by a commitment to the letter of the law is, after all, a myth.

But it’s still a difficult position for Trump’s allies on the Court. And further, it’s more evidence that Trump has abandoned his promise to rein in the power of the federal bureaucracy.

As Ryan McMaken pointed out back in April, Trump claiming unilateral control over the power to levy taxes is not at all unprecedented. That’s the direction the federal government has been moving for well over a century, as more and more of Congress’s core powers get transferred to the White House and the executive agencies making up the administrative state.

Further, the executive branch using “emergencies” it declares to justify its own power grabs has been one of the primary ways the executive state has grown in general.

In recent years, crises like the 9/11 attacks, the collapse of the housing bubble, and the covid pandemic have been used to give the permanent federal bureaucracy significantly more control over our lives.

But there have been some bright spots on this front. One of them was the Supreme Court’s embrace of the major questions doctrine, which restricted the administrative state’s ability to interpret vague language in legislation in whichever way granted itself the most power. On top of that, last year, the Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine.

Keep reading

US Drafts UN Resolution to End Sanctions on Syrian Leader

The United States has put forth a draft resolution within the U.N. Security Council meant to end sanctions on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, leader of the Islamist militant and political group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

The proposal comes ahead of al-Sharaa’s anticipated meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, set for next Monday.

The Security Council has regularly approved travel exemptions for al-Sharaa this year, meaning the White House meeting does not hinge on the outcome of the U.S. proposal.

The draft resolution, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, also advocates for the repeal of sanctions against Syria’s Interior Minister Anas Khattab.

The U.N. sanctions include a travel ban, asset freeze, and arms embargo.

It is unclear when a vote on the draft could be held. At least nine of the 15 council constituents need to vote in favor of the proposal for it to be enacted. However, Russia, China, the United States, France, and the UK each hold a veto.

Keep reading

Trump To Democrats: SNAP Returns Only After Gov’t Reopens; USDA Warns Grocers On Illegal Food Stamp Discounts

The Trump administration said Monday it plans to partially fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) after judges ruled in November that contingency funds must be used to pay for the benefits.

One major issue with SNAP has been the widespread fraud that erupted under the Biden-Harris regime. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins revealed Sunday that the USDA has purged 700,000 fraudulent recipients so far this year.

On Tuesday morning, President Trump wrote on X that SNAP benefits “increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly “handed” to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!” 

Trump made it clear to radical leftist lawmakers that keeping the government closed – now on its 35th day, a record – by refusing to vote on a clean resolution would mean the SNAP program would only resume once the government reopens.

“It will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” the president emphasized. 

Benny Johnson told Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty several days ago that the Trump administration should force everyone who wants to get back onto SNAP to “reapply with American citizenship.” 

Keep reading

The Administration Just Admitted War Powers Don’t Cover Trump’s Caribbean Murder Spree

“A top Justice Department lawyer,” the Washington Post reports, “has told lawmakers that the Trump administration can continue its lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America — and is not bound by a decades-old law requiring Congress to give approval for ongoing hostilities.”

That law is the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of commencing military hostilities, and to cease those operations within 60 days unless Congress authorizes their continuation.

The first admitted US military strike on a boat in the Caribbean occurred on September 4; under the War Powers Resolution those strikes (which have killed dozens) would necessarily end on November 4 unless Congress says “sure, keep on going.”

But it’s more complicated than that, and not just because White House Office of Legal Counsel chief T. Elliot Gaiser claims the War Powers Resolution only applies when US troops are “in harm’s way,” and that the drone strikes  in question pose no such danger.

The big issue with the War Powers Resolution is that it’s unconstitutional. Not for the reason most administrations claim — that it limits an imagined presidential power to wage war at will and on whim — but in the other direction.

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to Congress. Not after the president has done whatever he wants for 60 days, but from the very beginning. Aside from immediate defense against direct attack, a president waging war prior to or outside of a congressional declaration is an impeachable “high crime.”

Some argue that the passage of time and advancement of technology imply a necessary expansion of presidential war powers: He must be able to act in the moment and not wait around on a dawdling Congress. It’s actually the other way around.

In 1941, it took 29 hours and 30 minutes from the first explosions at Pearl Harbor for Congress to declare war on Japan. That was before members of Congress could hop on planes to return to Washington — or, for that matter, boot up their laptops for Zoom meetings.

Since Congress has used remote and proxy technology before (during COVID), the infrastructure is already there for Congress to act quickly if its members believe a war is called for. Absent something on the level of a nuclear holocaust, the president could receive full war authority within single-digit hours.

But let’s take Gaiser at his word for a moment: If the drone strike campaign in the Caribbean isn’t war, what is it?

Keep reading

White House to Launch Website Exposing Criminal Illegal Aliens Who Have Received Medicaid

The White House will launch a website on Monday night exposing criminal illegal aliens, including murderers, rapists, and burglars, who have received taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits, Breitbart News has learned.

The website features mugshots and photos of dozens of illegal aliens convicted of brutal crimes, undercutting Democrat claims that illegal aliens have not received healthcare benefits.

The top of the page chronicles the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on illegal aliens convicted of crimes who have received Medicaid benefits, as well as Democrats’ efforts to restore Medicaid benefits to illegal aliens and noncitizens:

The Trump administration has intensified enforcement against criminal illegal aliens receiving taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits, arresting hundreds of unauthorized individuals since taking office, including those with serious criminal records who exploited taxpayer-funded Medicaid illegally or through loopholes. This crackdown, driven by executive orders prioritizing public safety and fiscal responsibility, has led to the swift deportation of many individuals convicted of heinous acts, ensuring that previous resources meant for American citizens are no longer diverted to subsidize violent criminals.

Compounding the crisis, Democrats have refused to pass a clean budget bill to end the shutdown unless Republicans concede to their demands for $1.5 trillion in new spending, including restorations to Medicaid expansions that would effectively extend coverage to over 1 million illegal aliens, funneling an additional $200 billion to such programs over the next decade at the expense of U.S. families.

At least five of the two dozen individuals listed on a glimpse of the page reviewed by Breitbart News were arrested for either murder or manslaughter.

Keep reading