Tag: donald trump

‘We are the free world now’ — Europe declares war on free speech in the US

“We are the free world now.” Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.

In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”

Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Service Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.

Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”

“We are Europeans,” he declared. “We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.

Keep reading

Trump Claims Israel Is Complying With Gaza Deal ‘100%’ Despite Constant IDF Ceasefire Violations

During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Florida on Monday, President Trump claimed Israel was holding up its end of the Gaza ceasefire deal “100%” despite constant IDF attacks on Palestinians in the Strip and other Israeli violations.

Since the deal went into effect on October 10, the Israeli military has killed at least 414 Palestinians in Gaza, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. The IDF has continued demolitions and has expanded the so-called “yellow line,” the vague boundary that separates the IDF-occupied side of Gaza and the Hamas-controlled side. Israel has also maintained restrictions on aid and shelter materials entering Gaza.

When asked by a reporter at Mar-a-Lago if he was concerned that Israel wasn’t moving quickly enough into “phase two” of the plan, Trump said he was “not concerned about anything Israel is doing” and that Israel has “lived up to the plan 100%.”

Trump also appeared to issue an ultimatum to Hamas during the press conference, saying that if the group doesn’t disarm within a certain amount of time, there will be “hell to pay” and that it will be “horrible for them.”

The president said that Hamas has already agreed to disarm, but the group has been consistent in its position that it won’t give up its weapons unless a Palestinian state is established, or if progress is made in that direction. Trump’s 20-point peace plan said that Gaza would be “demilitarized,” but Hamas only agreed to use the plan as a basis for negotiations.

So far, the only deal Israel and Hamas have signed outlined a ceasefire and the exchange of Israeli captives and Palestinians held in Israeli jails. “Our people are defending themselves and will not give up their weapons as long as the occupation remains,” the new spokesman for Hamas’s armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, said on Monday.

Trump also claimed during the press conference that the US and Israel are helping the “people of Gaza” even though both countries are not allowing reconstruction to take place, as civilians are living in flimsy tents and the rubble of bombed-out buildings amid harsh winter storms. In recent weeks, at least 20 people in Gaza have died due to the weather.

Keep reading

All child care payments to Minnesota are FROZEN amid daycare ‘fraud’ scandal as Tim Walz is targeted in huge crackdown

The federal government has ceased all child care payments to Minnesota amid the Democratic state’s ongoing daycare fraud scandal. 

Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Jim O’Neill announced on Thursday that funding has been frozen and demanded that Governor Tim Walz audit the centers allegedly involved. 

‘We have turned off the money spigot and we are finding the fraud,’ O’Neill declared in his statement. 

The move from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the division of the HHS that handles child care, comes after independent journalist Nick Shirley shared footage of an apparently empty Minnesota daycare.

The facility has reportedly received millions in taxpayer funds, leading Shirley to claim that Minnesota has allowed for the ‘largest fraud in US history’ to go unchecked.

‘You have probably read the serious allegations that the state of Minnesota has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to fraudulent daycares across Minnesota over the past decade,’ O’Neill wrote. 

O’Neill said he has activated the ‘spend defend system for all ACF payments,’ meaning that all payments going forward across the country will require proof and reasoning before the money is allocated. 

He added that he and ACF Assistant Secretary Alex Adams have identified the people involved in the scheme that Shirley allegedly unveiled. 

Keep reading

Judge Blocks White House’s Attempt To Defund Consumer Watchdog Agency

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot lapse its funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a watchdog that has long drawn the ire of congressional Republicans.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote that the CFPB should continue to receive its funding from the Federal Reserve despite the central bank operating at a loss. The Trump administration has argued that the CFPB should be dissolved because how it gets its funds is invalid.

The CFPB has largely been inoperable since President Donald Trump was sworn into office nearly a year ago. Its employees are mostly forbidden from doing any work, and most of the bureau’s operations this year have been to unwind the work it did under President Joe Biden and even under Trump’s first term.

The head of the White House’s budget office, Russell Vought, is currently the acting head of the CFPB. The White House earlier this year issued a “reduction in force” for the CFPB, which would have furloughed or laid off much of the bureau.

In November, the Trump administration’s attorneys said in a court filing that a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo had concluded there were no legally available funds at the Federal Reserve for the CFPB to request.

The memo, which was issued by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, stated that “if the Federal Reserve has no profits, it cannot transfer money to the CFPB.”

“Because the only lawful source of funding from the Federal Reserve has dried up,” the memo added, “the proper method for obtaining additional funds is to request them from Congress pursuant to the Appropriations Clause, not to draw funds from the Federal Reserve without a congressional appropriation.”

The White House has also said that the CFPB cannot lawfully draw funds to fund its operations from the Fed if the Fed does not have “combined earnings” to allocate to the bureau. Without additional funds, the CFPB is expected to deplete its operating funds completely in January.

But in her order, Jackson wrote that the government “manufactured” arguments to allow for a lapse in funding for the CFPB.

Keep reading

Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?

During a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump said that he will allow Israel to attack Iran once again to strike its ballistic missiles.

But what exactly does that mean? Will the U.S. be involved in the actual strikes? Will it “limit” its involvement to shooting down Iran’s retaliatory missiles?

If the former, Trump is not just “allowing” Israel to strike; the U.S. will actually be at war with Iran. This would be a betrayal of his promise to his base to keep America out of wars (he has, of course, violated that already).

Moreover, unlike the nuclear program, which incorporates a small number of known facilities, the missile program is spread throughout the country in a large number of hidden facilities, many of them probably unknown to the U.S./Israel.

Thus, Trump will likely not be able to frame this as mere “military action” rather than war. Nor will he likely be able to negotiate with Tehran a limited Iranian response since the missiles are Iran’s last line of defense — the last leg of its deterrence.

Tehran has gone to great lengths to avoid a military confrontation with Washington, but just because it has shown restraint in the past does not mean that it can afford to do so in this scenario. Indeed, given that Iran will be totally exposed without its missiles, it will likely reckon that it has no choice but to strike directly at U.S. targets.

Even if Trump opts to “only” support Israel defensively in yet another Israeli choice of war — which is the position Biden took — it nevertheless incentivizes Israel to restart war, as the U.S. is lessening the cost for Israel to do so.

The cost to the United States is great even in this scenario. Washington depleted 25% of its THAAD interceptors in the course of 12 days this past summer — for Israel’s war of choice, in a region four American Presidents have declared no longer is vital to U.S. national security.

As I wrote last week, every time Trump caves to Netanyahu and agrees to another war, it only prompts Israel to come back to Trump after a few months with another war plan for Americans to give their blood and tax dollars to.

This will go on endlessly until Trump decides to end it.

Keep reading

‘Policies are totally unclear’: Judge berates Trump admin over its sharing of Medicaid data with ICE, but allows certain information to be given

The Trump administration may soon share certain Medicaid information about suspected undocumented immigrants with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal judge ruled.

In a 7-page order issued on Monday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found that sharing “citizenship and immigration status, address, phone number, date of birth, and Medicaid ID” is “clearly authorized by law” and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sufficiently explained to the court why they made the “abrupt departure from their past policies of not sharing or using Medicaid data for immigration enforcement purposes.”

The agency had reasoned that President Donald Trump issued multiple executive orders demanding that agencies, among other things, carry out immigration laws and “secure our borders.”

Chhabria’s opinion is a victory for the administration to that end. Beginning on Jan. 6, DHS and HHS may share the data with ICE about suspected undocumented immigrants who receive public health insurance, opening up another avenue for immigration law enforcement officers to track down those they believe are here illegally. However, what data they can give is limited.

Chhabria, a Barack Obama appointee, was responding to a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of his state and 21 others, which sought to stop the sharing of additional information, which Chhabria granted.

Bonta and the other states filed a lawsuit on July 1, targeting HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) handing over of “a trove of individuals’ protected health data” to other federal agencies, including DHS, “without their consent.” Chhabria proceeded to bar the administration from sharing Medicaid data “obtained from the plaintiff states for immigration enforcement purpose” while the case played out and the agencies explained their actions.

The judge determined the Trump administration may not share information beyond “basic biographical, location, and contact” because the federal government’s “new policies are totally unclear about what that information would be, why it would be needed for immigration enforcement purposes, and what the risks of sharing it with DHS would be.”

Such reasoning would rule out the government acting “arbitrarily” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, the statute governing federal agencies’ behavior. And so while Chhabria opined in the recent order that DHS and HHS adequately explained their actions, allowing for the sharing of certain data, he also found that significant questions remain.

Keep reading

US Reaches 30th Strike In Boat Bombing Campaign Ahead Of New Year

As the world gets ready to usher in a new year, the US military campaign against Venezuela has reached another grim milestone. American forces carried out their latest airstrike on a vessel accused of drug trafficking in Latin American waters on Monday.

The operation announced by US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) represents the 30th strike since the campaign began on September 2

The official US announcement indicated the boat was struck in the eastern Pacific Ocean – so the ‘other side’ opposite the Caribbean, which is certainly not the first in this area.

Officials claimed the strike resulted in the deaths of two individuals labeled as “narco-terrorists” – which has been used of the Trump administration to defend lethal actions at sea carried out without judicial proceedings, or so much as a warning.

Analysts have tallied that the number people killed by US military actions at sea connected to the Venezuela campaign has risen to 107 with this latest strike.

Meanwhile the NY Times has begun documenting the “Grim Evidence of Trump’s Airstrikes” which has “Washed Ashore a Colombian Peninsula”:

A thunderous boom rang out through the windless late-afternoon air. Seconds later, smoke began rising out of the sea as if the horizon were on fire.

Watching from the shore on Nov. 6, Erika Palacio Fernández whipped out her phone, she said, unwittingly recording the only verified and independent video known to date of the aftermath of an airstrike in the Trump administration’s campaign against what it calls “narco-terrorists.”

Two days later, on that same shore, a scorched 30-foot-long boat itself would wash up. Then, two mangled bodies. Then charred jerrycans, life jackets and dozens of packets that were observed by The New York Times and were similar to others that have been found after anti-narcotics operations in the region. Most packets were empty, though traces of a substance that looked and smelled like marijuana were found in the lining of a few.

A $30 million Reaper drone launched from a $1 billion navy frigate… all to take out a little wooden boat lined with marijuana packets?

Keep reading

Here Are 5 Wars Trump Started or Expanded in 2025

President Donald Trump came into office presenting himself as a peace president. “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into,” he said in his inaugural address.

By those standards, his presidency has been a failure. Trump launched nearly as many airstrikes in five months as former President Joe Biden did in his entire term, according to Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, a nonprofit that monitors wars around the world. And those airstrikes have hit places where the U.S. military was not fighting during Biden’s term, from the Caribbean to Iran.

Of course, Biden himself was guilty of the same sort of double-talk. He bragged that “the United States is not at war anywhere in the world” less than an hour after U.S. Central Command announced a new air raid on Yemen. Like death and taxes, it seems a certainty of life that American presidents will talk peace while continuing—and expanding—war.

Here are four countries where Trump has done that:

Venezuela

On the campaign trail, Trump signalled that he wanted a full-on war against drug cartels in Latin America. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller originally wanted to target Mexican cartels, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio steered Trump toward a regime change campaign in Venezuela, arguing that the Venezuelan government was itself a drug smuggling gang.

The campaign began by bombing alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least 104 people have been killed in these attacks so far. In one instance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the military to bomb survivors clinging to a shipwrecked boat. The White House reportedly hoped that the military buildup and show of force would convince Venezuelan ruler Nicolas Maduro to “cry uncle,” in the words of White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles.

Meanwhile, Trump and Miller’s stated goals have shifted from a war on drugs to a naked resource grab. They both demanded that Venezuela compensate the U.S. for nationalizing oil businesses several decades ago as Trump declared a “TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE” of oil tankers from the country. The U.S. military has seized at least two oil tankers leaving Venezuela, and Maduro has ordered his navy to escort oil shipments.

The American people are not enthusiastic about this military campaign. Recent polling shows that 53 percent of Americans oppose the boat attacks and 63 percent oppose attacking Venezuelan soil. But the Trump administration is eager to show that it can do things without permission from Congress or the public, and the Caribbean is apparently full of easy targets.

Yemen

In Yemen, Trump turned a frozen conflict back into a hot war. The Houthi movement in Sanaa, one of the two rival Yemeni governments, had been harassing international shipping in the Red Sea as a tactic to pressure Israel to pull out of Gaza. After Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza in January 2025, the Houthis stopped their attacks.

Without warning, Trump attacked Yemen in March 2025. He presented this as a prelude to attacking Iran, declaring that any “shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN.” Then, after two months of inconclusive bombing and the loss of two American fighter jets, Trump ended the campaign.

It was in the Yemen war that former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz accidentally added a journalist to a group chat for planning air raids. (In the process, Hegseth revealed that the military deliberately killed one or more civilian bystanders.)

Only a few months before relaunching this war, Trump had criticized the logic behind it. “It’s crazy. You can solve problems over the telephone. Instead, they start dropping bombs. I see, recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen,” then-candidate Trump said in May 2024. “You don’t have to do that. You can talk in such a way where they respect you and they listen to you.”

Iran

The Islamic Republic is the Middle Eastern grand prize for neoconservatives, who have been pushing for a regime change war there since the early 2000s. Trump edged toward that outcome in his first term, with military buildups, an economic embargo, and the assassination of an Iranian general. Every time, he stopped just short of an attack on Iranian soil.

That changed in his second term. Publicly, Trump was negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Those talks were actually a U.S.-Israeli ruse to prepare for war, PBS and The Washington Post reported last week. Israel attacked without warning on June 13, 2025, killing Iranian commanders and disabling Iranian air defenses.

After 12 days of back-and-forth air raids between Iran and Israel, the U.S. launched a stealth bomber raid on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, then declared victory. Although Trump didn’t go as far as some neoconservatives wanted, experience suggests that if you give war hawks an inch, they’ll take a mile. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to the White House on December 29 to make the case for another attack on Iran.

Keep reading

Did US Land Strikes On Venezuela Begin Last Week & No One Knew It?

President Trump on Friday in a radio interview disclosed something which missed the attention of the US and global media. He let slip that a large land site had been knocked out by a strike from US forces in the Caribbean – however without specifying which country was hit (whether Venezuela or perhaps Colombia).

Trump may have actually assumed the attack which he disclosed publicly for the first time was already being reported on, but it had not. He was being interviewed by John Catsimatidis, the Republican billionaire who owns the WABC radio station in New York on his The Cats & Cosby Show, and the two were talking about the Venezuela campaign. 

The United States had knocked out “a big facility” last week, Trump described somewhat vaguely, in apparent reference to a drug facility on the Latin American coast. 

“They have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from,” Trump said, though he did not explicitly identify the exact location or even country attacked. “Two nights ago we knocked that out.”

According to the full remarks in context, the president said:

“But every time I knock out a boat, we save 25,000 American lives. It’s very simple. And what’s happening is they’re having a hard time employment-wise, they can’t get anybody.

And we just talked out, I don’t know if you read or you saw, they [Venezuela] have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard. But drugs are down over 97 percent. Can you believe it?”

Some unnamed American officials suggested to the New York Times that the Commander-in-Chief was referring to a drug facility in Venezuela: 

Trump did not name the location of the facility, though American officials told the New York Times that the president was referring to a drug facility in Venezuela that was eliminated. The president’s comment is the only report of such an attack. No other Latin American government, including Venezuela, has disclosed a strike of this sort.

But information or confirmation other than that disclosure remains a mystery, as neither the CIA nor Pentagon have commented, as the NY Times notes:

If Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the United States had struck a site in the region proves accurate, it would be the first known attack on land since he began his military campaign against Venezuela. U.S. officials declined to specify anything about the site the president said was hit, where it was located, how the attack was carried out or what role the facility played in drug trafficking. There has been no public report of an attack from the Venezuelan government or any other authorities in the region.

Keep reading

Zelensky Wants 50-Year(!) Security Guarantee From Trump

There were no substantial breakthroughs in the latest Trump-Zelensky talks on Ukraine peace at Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday, and fresh reporting on Monday reveals why.

A major point of disagreement remains security guarantees. Ukraine has been pushing maximalist demands for something akin to NATO Article 5 protections. It would be like getting all the benefits of being in NATO but without being a formal member of the Western military alliance.

The Ukrainian side has revealed that President Trump had offered security guarantees for 15 years following a peaceful settlement, but Zelensky considered this much too short to protect from future potential Russian aggression.

But in classic Zelensky fashion, he wants way more than this. Also, maximalist demands are something that European leaders have backed him on all along – and they may have even put him up to. According to The Wall Street Journal:

Kyiv had asked for security guarantees to last up to 50 years after the end of the conflict during weekend discussions. In the documents currently being discussed, the U.S. offered a 15-year guarantee with the possibility of extension, Zelensky said in audio messages to journalists on Monday.

That’s half a century! Would Congress and the American public sign off on this? Congressional hawks like Lindsey Graham surely would, but others might not want to be hitched to the Ukraine wagon for yet decades more to come.

Keep reading