Tag: donald trump

ICE Arrests Haitian Business Tycoon as Trump Targets Corrupt Politicians

The United States is intensifying its efforts to hold Haiti’s political and economic elite accountable, as both the Department of State and federal immigration authorities took major actions this week against high-profile Haitian figures.

On Monday, the State Department publicly designated Arnel Belizaire, a former member of Haiti’s Chamber of Deputies, and Antonio Cheramy, a former Haitian senator, for their involvement in significant corruption during their time in public office. 

According to U.S. officials, both men abused their positions by interfering with government processes, acts that destabilized Haiti’s institutions and undercut democratic governance. 

The designations render Belizaire, Cheramy, and their immediate family members generally ineligible to enter the United States.

“Corrupt and destructive acts by these officials had serious effects on U.S. national interests by further destabilizing Haiti’s institutions and processes,” the department stated. 

The designation further underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to holding accountable individuals who undermine stability in Haiti.

The following day, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the arrest of Dimitri Vorbe, one of Haiti’s wealthiest and most influential businessmen. 

Vorbe, who has long been a central figure in Haiti’s private energy sector, was taken into custody in Miami and is currently being held at the Krome North Service Processing Center. 

Federal records showed no formal charges against him as of Tuesday evening, and ICE officials declined to comment further.

Vorbe’s detention comes just two months after ICE arrested another Haitian business tycoon, Réginald Boulos, in Florida. 

U.S. authorities have accused Boulos of supporting violent gangs in Haiti that Washington has labeled terrorist organizations. 

Keep reading

Trump promises Arab, Muslim leaders he won’t let Israel annex the West Bank

President Donald Trump promised Arab and Muslim leaders during a meeting Tuesday that he would not allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to annex the West Bank, according to six people familiar with the discussion.

Two of those people said that Trump was firm on the topic and that the president promised that Israel would not be allowed to absorb the West Bank, which is governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas.

Another one of the people familiar with the talks noted that, despite Trump’s assurance, a ceasefire to end Israel’s nearly two-year war against Hamas was nowhere close to fruition. Two others familiar with the matter said Trump and his team presented a white paper outlining the administration’s plan to end the war, including the annexation promise and other details such as governance and postwar security.

Special envoy for peace missions Steve Witkoff provided some details on the proposal on Wednesday. “We presented what we call the Trump 21-point-plan for peace in the Mideast in Gaza,” he said at the Concordia summit in New York. “I think it addresses Israeli concerns and as well, the concerns of all the neighbors in the in the region.” Witkoff did not mention any comments about the West Bank.

Trump told reporters ahead of his sit-down with eight Arab and Muslim countries at the United Nations headquarters that it was his “most important” of the day, but he left without speaking to reporters and the participants have yet to issue any official readout about the substance of their conversation.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the meeting as “fruitful” Tuesday evening during an interview on Fox News Channel, but he did not elaborate. Erdogan and Trump are scheduled to meet again at the White House on Thursday.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Arab leaders have been frustrated by Trump’s opposition to the recognition of a Palestinian state and his continued support of Netanyahu’s assault on Hamas, which expanded beyond Gaza earlier this month when Israel tried to take out Hamas officials when they were in Qatar for peace talks. Going into Tuesday’s meeting, they aimed to impress on the U.S. president that any Israeli incursion into the West Bank would likely lead to the collapse of the Abraham Accords, two of the people familiar with the conversation said.

Keep reading

Trump administration eyes government stake as it renegotiates loan for lithium project: Official

The Trump administration is seeking a stake for the federal government as it renegotiates the terms of a loan for a major lithium project issued under the Biden administration, an official told The Hill on Wednesday.

The Trump administration is seeking an equity stake in the deal, the official said. They described the stake the government was seeking as very small and added that discussions on the specifics are ongoing. 

The Biden administration announced last year it would issue the $2.26 billion loan to support mineral processing at Thacker Pass, the site of a lithium mine that’s a joint venture between Lithium Americas and General Motors (GM).

The official said federal interest in a stake comes amid talks over the loan repayment schedule. They framed the discussion as part of an effort to secure a win for taxpayers.

Reuters, which first reported such discussions, reported Tuesday that the administration was seeking a 10 percent stake in Lithium Americas. 

Lithium Americas spokesperson Tim Crowley said, “We’re still discussing all those details and don’t have anything to disclose — yet.”

Lithium Americas also issued a press release Wednesday that said, “The Company is in discussions” with the Department of Energy (DOE) and GM that includes “requests from the DOE for potential further conditions.”

GM spokesperson Liz Winter declined to comment.

The move would not be the first time the Trump administration has sought government control in a company. The military previously took a stake in miner MP Materials.

Meanwhile, the administration has also previously announced a deal to take a 10 percent stake in chipmaker Intel.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Tees Up Potential Takedown Of Progressives’ ‘Independent Agencies’ Theory

he U.S. Supreme Court is signaling that it may be finally ready to put the kibosh on longstanding precedent used by left-wing progressives to cripple America’s separation of powers.

On Monday, the high court granted a request from the Trump administration to temporarily pause a lower court injunction by a Biden-appointed district judge. That edict attempted to block President Trump from firing Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

What was particularly notable about the Supreme Court’s order is the revelation that the justices will be considering the merits of the case, with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for December. The high court specifically instructed both parties to file briefs addressing two key questions: 1) “Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether [Humphrey’s Executor v. United States] … should be overruled,” and 2) “Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.”

While likely not as well-known as other past SCOTUS decisions, Humphrey’s Executor has had major negative implications for America’s separation of powers and the ability of presidents to fully exercise their Article II authority.

The case first came to fruition in the early 1930s after Republican President Herbert Hoover appointed William Humphrey to serve as a member of the FTC for a full seven-year term. Upon taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, sought Humphrey’s resignation due to the fact that the latter was a conservative.

When Humphrey declined to do so, Roosevelt fired him. According to Oyez, the FTC Act, which was passed by Congress, “only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’”

While Humphrey passed away shortly after his firing, his executor filed suit to challenge Humphrey’s dismissal and recover his salary. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, which aimed to address the question of whether provisions of the FTC Act unconstitutionally encroached upon the president’s Article II powers.

In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Roosevelt, arguing that Humphrey’s termination lacked justification and that the FTC Act was constitutional. As summarized by Oyez, the high court “reasoned that the Constitution had never given ‘illimitable power of removal’ to the president,” and established the precedent that so-called “independent agencies” like the FTC were different than other federal departments because Congress created them “to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions.”

As The Heritage Foundation’s Hans van Spakovsky recently observed, the decision “was pure poppycock” given that “the FTC, with its authority to promulgate regulations that have the authority of law and its power to pursue individuals it believes have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, is engaging in the very essence of an executive function.” Furthermore, “[i]t is the president,” he added, “who is designated in Section 3 of Article II with the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”

Keep reading

Politicians Go Out of Their Way To Make Political Tensions Worse

At the Arizona memorial service for Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated two weeks ago, President Donald Trump acknowledged Kirk’s character, saying, “he did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them.” And then he added, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents. And I don’t want the best for them.”

It was an honest moment if an awkward comment to make at a memorial service for a man murdered (to all appearances) by a political opponent. Like too much of the political class across the ideological spectrum, Trump is prone to despising those he disagrees with. It raises questions about why people should ever submit to the governance of those who hate them—and whether politicians realize that they’re a big part of what brought us to this unfortunate moment.

“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” Trump had told the nation on the day of Kirk’s assassination at a kinder and, perhaps, more self-aware moment. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.”

In truth, that day Trump also put the blame for Kirk’s murder on “the radical left” and promised to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” hinting at something nastier than a criminal investigation. But for a moment, the president seemed to recognize that hating political opponents and wishing them ill might have unhappy consequences. For a moment.

Keep reading

New war power bill gives Trump sweeping authority to attack dozens of nations: Report

Legislation has been drafted that would give US President Donald Trump unchecked power to wage war against drug cartels as well as any nation he says has harbored or aided them, the New York Times (NYT) reported on 23 September, citing people familiar with the matter.

If passed, the legislation would allow the US president to deem as “terrorists” any groups that have trafficked in drugs or financed drug-related enterprises. The president would then have the authorization to use military force against such groups and any governments allegedly harboring them.

The US military carried out attacks this month on three boats that Trump claims were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea. The strikes killed 17 people and were widely criticized as illegal. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called the strikes “unlawful extrajudicial killings.”

NYT notes that the draft legislation appears to be modeled on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress granted former US president George W. Bush to launch the so-called “War on Terror” after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

While theoretically passed to allow the US to target Al-Qaeda and its hosts in Afghanistan, the broad nature of the AUMF allowed the Bush, Obama, and first Trump administrations to invade Iraq and to target Islamic militant groups in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen many times over a period stretching decades.

Neither the AUMF nor the new draft legislation being considered names a specific enemy. The president is therefore empowered to attack any group, anywhere, in an open-ended war.

NYT stated that this raises the question of whether Congress was giving Trump the “authority to wage a regime change war in Venezuela.”

In addition to striking the three boats, Trump has ordered additional US warplanes and naval ships to the Caribbean, while also accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading a drug cartel.

In July, Trump signed a still-secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels, NYT added.

The Institute for Responsible Statecraft stated that the legislation could be used to justify US military intervention in at least 60 countries.

In comments given to NYT, Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith called the draft legislation “insanely broad,” essentially “an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations, and persons that the president could deem within its scope.”

Keep reading

Antifa’s Allies Under Legal Threat: Trump Designation Makes Supporting Antifa a Crime

Antifa is a loose network of militant activists rather than a single, centralized organization. The name comes from “anti-fascist,” but its adherents often appear to define fascism as anything they oppose. Many are anarchists, standing against all forms of government, while also claiming to oppose white supremacy, nationalism, authoritarianism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and capitalism.

They frequently use images of World War II U.S. soldiers to suggest they are carrying on that legacy, implying that Americans who don’t support their cause are betraying the memory of American heroes. Yet there is no fascist party in America today. Fascist candidates last appeared on ballots in the 1930s, and there are no major political figures or movements advocating for a totalitarian state or the abolition of democratic institutions. There does not even appear to be evidence of small fringe groups openly calling themselves fascist.

In practice, what Antifa targets are conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and law enforcement, with particular focus on federal immigration enforcement. Documented evidence shows Antifa groups consistently disrupting Republican events, harassing conservative activists, opposing Christian organizations, and attacking police and federal agents—not fascist organizations. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused AOC of supporting Antifa, she pointed specifically to their opposition to ICE and their disruptive actions at Republican gatherings.

The “anti-fascist” label functions as political branding, giving Antifa the appearance of heroic resistance while masking the fact that their true targets are mainstream American political opponents. This mislabeling makes their actions appear more legitimate than if they were accurately described as opposition to Republicans, Christians, and conservatives.

Antifa generally operates in small, local groups across the U.S. and a handful of other countries, with no central leadership. Some, like Rose City Antifa in Portland, are more visible, while others remain underground. Their activities range from researching and exposing far-right individuals to doxxing and pressuring employers to fire them. Some members justify physical confrontation, including “punching Nazis.” They are also known for wearing all-black clothing and masks during protests, where they intimidate conservatives and Christians, damage property, disrupt traffic, block public access, and confront law enforcement. These clashes have sometimes turned deadly, as in a 2020 Portland case where an Antifa-aligned individual was linked to a fatal shooting.

Keep reading

Trump gives NATO the green light to shoot down Russian jets in sinister warning to Putin

Donald Trump insisted that NATO nations should feel emboldened to shoot down Russian planes if they enter their countries’ airspace.

It comes after Russian drones crossed into Polish airspace this week amid the ongoing war with Ukraine.

Speaking alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at United Nations headquarters on Tuesday, Trump suggested that the U.S. might back-up North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries forced to take action if Russia provokes them. 

‘Do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?’ a reporter asked Trump.

‘Yes I do,’ he replied.

Another reporter asked Trump if the U.S. would ‘backup’ or ‘help out’ NATO allies who did shoot down Russian planes. 

Trump said it ‘depends on the circumstance, but we’re very strong towards NATO.’

World leaders are gathered in New York City this week for the United Nations General Assembly. Trump delivered remarks to the entire body on Tuesday morning and is engaging in bilateral and multilateral meetings through the afternoon – including with Zelensky. 

Trump has grown frustrated with the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine and appears to be losing patience with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s apparent unwillingness to reach a deal.

At his meeting with Zelensky on Tuesday, Trump urged NATO allies to strike Russian aircraft flying over their countries’ borders.

There have been three major instances this month where Russian craft entered the airspace of countries that were not Ukraine.

On September 19, three Russian MiG-31 jets entered Estonian airspace for 12 minutes over the Gulf of Finland. NATO intercepted but did not engage with the aircraft.

Keep reading

Trump Just Gave Green Light for World War III

President Donald Trump is a great disappointment. He has just given the GREEN LIGHT for World War III. This is the end of Western Civilization as we have known it. I have screamed as loud as I can, but those in Washington want to make sure Trump only listens to the NEOCONS who are out to destroy Russia, and they will find that China will NEVER allow Russia to fall because, and they told Kallas to her face, they know they will be next.

Trump has actually completely reversed his position. I was told last week that he was saying that we will probably have World War III over Ukraine. Trump is no longer telling this Merchant of Death, Zelensky, that Ukraine must give territory to end its war against Russia. The Russian population of Ukraine is irrelevant. Uktaonians have engaged historically in ethnic cleansing. They have no human rights. This is just about territory. Trump is now embracing NATO, saying in a social media post that he considers Ukraine to be “in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”

Ukraine should have been broken up like the rest of the Balkans along ethnic lines. This is a war the NEOCONS have wanted for decades. This is NOT about pushing Russia out of Ukraine; this is a war to completely obliterate Russia, seize its assets, and divide it up among the European powers.

Keep reading

Mysterious new statue of Epstein and Trump holding hands appears in DC

A massive statue depicting Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein holding hands has appeared on the National Mall as the months-long Epstein Files saga continues to haunt the administration.

The 12-foot statue — a combination of foam, resin, wood and wire — shows Trump and Epstein standing on pedestals, holding hands and smiling at one another as they appear about to frolic through the park toward the Washington Monument in Washington, DC.

Below the statue, there are three plaques, two of which contain excerpts from the bawdy birthday letter Trump allegedly wrote Epstein for his 50th birthday.

A copy of the letter, featuring a hand-drawn figure of a naked woman along with the president’s reported signature, was made public this month by the House Oversight Committee. Trump has denied any involvement with the letter, even suing the Wall Street Journal, which first published a report about it for $10 billion, claiming that “no authentic letter or drawing exists.”

The statue appeared early Tuesday morning in honor of Friendship Month. It will remain there until Saturday, a spokesperson for The Secret Handshake, an anonymous group of fewer than five individuals who put up the statue, told The Independent. The statue is about “celebrating the friendship of these real men.”

A White House spokesperson denounced the National Mall’s new addition, telling The Independent in a statement: “Liberals are free to waste their money however they see fit – but it’s not news that Epstein knew Donald Trump, because Donald Trump kicked Epstein out of his club for being a creep. Democrats, the media, and the organization that’s wasting their money on this statue knew about Epstein and his victims for years and did nothing to help them while President Trump was calling for transparency, and is now delivering on it with thousands of pages of documents.”

Keep reading