The New Civil Rights Movement

'These guys seem very nervous': Officials blasted after lashing out at anti-Trump protests

Several senior members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet began the week Monday morning by denouncing the upcoming nationwide “No Kings” protests scheduled for Saturday. The demonstrations, first held in June to oppose authoritarianism and government corruption, drew millions of participants across the country and are expected to do so again.

As other Republicans last week, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy implied on Monday that congressional Democrats are waiting until after the protests to try to reopen the government. Democrats have put forth multiple pieces of legislation to end the shutdown but Republicans have blocked them.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who last week alleged the rallies are "hate America" protests, has stated repeatedly that he will not bring to the floor for a vote any bill from the Senate to end the shutdown that is not the continuing resolution the House passed weeks ago. Prior to the shutdown, President Trump told congressional Republicans to not negotiate with Democrats.

"The No Kings protests, Maria, really frustrating," Secretary Duffy told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.

"I mean, this is part of Antifa, paid protesters," he alleged.

President Donald Trump has attempted to designate "Antifa" as a domestic terrorist organization. Antifa is not an organized group.

"It begs the question, who's funding it, but, yeah, Democrats want to wait for a big rally of a No Kings protest, when the bottom line is, who's running the show in the Senate?" Duffy asked, attempting to pin the blame on Democrats.

"Chuck Schumer's not running the show," he said of the Democratic minority leader. "The No Kings protesters, or organizers, are running the show.

"Is AOC threatening a primary against Chuck Schumer. Is she running the show?" he said of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Duffy insisted, "You need a strong leader in the Senate to take control and make decisions, and Chuck Schumer's blowing in the breeze, he has no power, no authority, because he's given it up to his primary opponent, potentially an AOC, or to the No Kings protest organizers, and it's shameful."

Duffy was not alone.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also blasted Democrats over the No Kings protests.

"If in fact, they are waiting for this 'No Kings' protest, you know, No Kings means no paychecks. No paychecks, and no government," Bessent also told Bartiromo. "And, Maria, I think the dirty secret here for why this has dragged on for so long is the Democratic friends in the mainstream media have been downplaying the shutdown."

"This is getting serious," Bessent warned, "it's starting to affect the real economy. It is starting to affect people's lives."

Critics blasted the White House.

The Bulwark's founder and publisher, Sarah Longwell, observed: "These guys seem very nervous about the upcoming No Kings protest."

Media Matters senior fellow Matthew Gertz added, "The administration’s target isn’t 'antifa,' it is dissent."

"Nobody is paying us, Sean," wrote Fred Wellman, a pro-democracy podcaster, Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a candidate for the U.S. House from Missouri. "We are angry. Welcome to freedom of speech. You must have missed that part of the Constitution when you were partying on MTV."

Sean Duffy: "The No Kings protest, Maria, really frustrating. This is part of antifa, paid protesters. It begs the question who's funding it." pic.twitter.com/UJHsMKBzVM
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2025

From Your Site Articles

'Astounded and speechless': Diplomats bash Trump's 'stark raving mad' UN speech

Shortly after concluding his widely panned 57-minute speech to the United Nations, President Donald Trump declared it was "very well received," but members of the foreign diplomatic corps and others appeared to disagree.

Calling his address to the UN "meandering," The New York Times wrote: "Boasting about his record and assailing the U.N. as ineffective in a nearly hourlong address, he sought to portray himself as the only leader who could solve the world’s problems."

The headline at Axios tells the tale: "Trump's middle finger to the UN: 'Your countries are going to hell'."

"With a few exceptions, Trump garnered very little applause from the leaders and diplomats in the room," the news outlet reported.

Indeed, some diplomats reportedly were angered by the American President's remarks.

Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor reported: "A senior foreign diplomat posted at the UN texts me: 'This man is stark, raving mad. Do Americans not see how embarrassing this is?'"

Former U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica, Luis Moreno, responded, writing: "I speak to a lot of foreign diplomats, journalists, officials and just plain folks. They are simply astounded and speechless on how one man has turned us into a punchline. A very dangerous and reckless one. Americans need to wake up."

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and professor of political science Michael McFaul remarked: "Trumps UN speech will appeal to his MAGA base, but no one else. Missed opportunity."

U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, observed: "Trump just embarrassed our country in front of the entire world at the UN. We heard America in Retreat. For all our partners who still believe in the rule of law, freedom, human rights, and democracy, we need you to step up and lead. It will demand all our collective action."

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and Russia expert, added: "I would say that it's a dangerous thing to show the world that the American president is clearly suffering from some kind of disordered emotional issue, but by this point, there's not a country on the planet that didn't already know it."

From Your Site Articles

'Delusional': Trump mocked for nixing Dem talks over bizarre ‘transgender operations’ claim

President Donald Trump was to meet with Democratic Minority Leaders from the House and Senate ahead of the impending September 30 deadline to avert a federal government shutdown, but minutes before his speech to the United Nations he announced he was putting those talks on hold based on what he claimed are the Democrats' "unserious and ridiculous" demands.

Despite the Republicans having majority control over the House and Senate, Trump claimed Democrats "are threatening to shut down the Government of the United States."

In a lengthy and rambling social media post, he falsely alleged their demands for votes to keep the government open include: "over $1 Trillion Dollars in new spending to continue free healthcare for Illegal Aliens," "force Taxpayers to fund Transgender surgery for minors," "have dead people on the Medicaid roles," "allow Illegal Alien Criminals to steal Billions of Dollars in American Taxpayer Benefits," "try to force our Country to again open our Borders to Criminals and to the World," "allow men to play in women’s sports," and, "essentially create Transgender operations for everybody."

Trump also claimed Democrats are trying to eliminate the $50 Billion Dollar Rural and Vulnerable Hospital Fund, a concession Republicans agreed to when the ramifications of their $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare became public.

After repeating his claims and making multiple attacks on them left, Trump concluded, "I’ll be happy to meet with them if they agree to the Principles in this Letter. They must do their job! Otherwise, it will just be another long and brutal slog through their radicalized quicksand."

Democrats are attempting to negotiate with their congressional Republican colleagues and President Trump to re-add healthcare subsidies back into the federal government funding legislation that had been stripped out by the GOP.

Earlier this month, CNBC reported that the enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act's insurance premiums "are set to expire at the end of 2025 if Congress doesn’t intervene."

"The disappearance of these enhanced premium tax credits — a so-called 'subsidy cliff' — would cause average premiums to rise by about 75%, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group."

Critics blasted the President's remarks.

"This is delusional but you don’t have to read the whole thing," wrote U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT). "Boils down to: he’s shutting down the government because he thinks he’s a king."

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded to Trump's message, writing: "Trump Always Chickens Out. Donald Trump just cancelled a high stakes meeting in the Oval Office with myself and Leader Schumer. The extremists want to shut down the government because they are unwilling to address the Republican healthcare crisis that is devastating America."

From Your Site Articles

'Twice the size of a jar': Trump repeats bizarre claim during Cabinet meeting - Alternet.org ›

Rubio: Trump to berate 'feckless' UN for not allowing him to redevelop its headquarters

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, previewing President Donald Trump’s upcoming address to the United Nations on Tuesday, said the President’s remarks would be shaped by his lingering, long-standing resentment over the 80-year-old institution’s decision decades ago to reject him for the redevelopment of its Manhattan headquarters.

According to a 2017 CNN report, in 2001, Trump was "passed over for the job, which infuriated the billionaire developer, who’d by then made his name as New York’s most famous (and infamous) real estate magnate."

“Who is in charge at the United Nations?” Trump wrote in his book, "Think Like a Millionaire."

“Could they be as incompetent in world affairs as they are at simple numbers? Does anyone else find this situation as alarming as I do?” he asked.

Secretary Rubio on Tuesday told Fox News that President Trump "will point to his own history with the UN going back to his time here as a developer. Where he actually offered to fix the UN building, and instead, they chose to go in another direction, wasted a bunch of money, and really didn't achieve, on the building's perspective, what needed to happen."

"I think it's emblematic of how feckless the UN has become as an organization," Rubio said of the decades-old incident.

"It's just a place where once a year, a bunch of people meet and give speeches and write out a bunch of letters and statements, but not a lot of good, important action is happening," the secretary lamented. "So, again, the UN has a lot of potential, but it's not living up to it right now."

As he delivers his remarks, Trump may also remember his first address before the august body, in 2018 during his first term as president when the diplomats broke out in laughter over his self-congratulatory claim that his administration had "accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

CNN reported that Trump' remarks were met with "mocking laughter."

On Tuesday, Trump is expected to share his "vision for the world", according to CNN.

Marco Rubio previews Trump's speech to the UN: "You can anticipate that the president will point to his own history with the UN going back to his time as a developer. He actually offered to fix the UN building and instead they decided to go in a different direction, wasted a… pic.twitter.com/fbILn2ABcI
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 23, 2025

'Truly shocking': Security fears mount as Trump takes off with ‘Russian KGB spy’

President Donald Trump is facing criticism for his red-carpet welcome and public embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin on the Alaska tarmac at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson — an event featuring a B-2 stealth bomber and F-35s flyover — though many are more alarmed by what happened next.

The Russian President, a former top KGB foreign intelligence officer — a Soviet spy — was invited into The Beast, the heavily armored limousine that is the official state car of the President of the United States.

"After President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin stood for a brief photo opp, Trump appeared to ask Putin if he would like to ride with him," The Wall Street Journal reported. "Trump then gestured toward the presidential limousine, 'The Beast,' and both proceeded to get inside."

The Journal noted that "Russian media reported Putin’s own presidential car was waiting nearby, suggesting the impromptu private car ride wasn’t part of the plan."

As Trump and Putin rode off, alone, with no administration officials, no translators, and only Secret Service agents, critics and experts were aghast over the brewing national security and counterintelligence crisis.

Calling it an "appalling...White House decision to invite Putin into the beast," Ian Mellul, a former Biden White House Director of Presidential Production, wrote: "Giving Putin a 1-1 in the beast, off the record. No interpreters. No transcript. No witnesses. The beast will have to be swept for bugs and other devices after the summit ends by USSS [U.S. Secret Service]."

Sophia A. Nelson, an award-winning author and journalist, remarked: "Trump just allowed A known Russian KGB spy to get into his car—the Beast. Correction: our car. Smdh."

"As if this image wasn’t sickening enough," remarked John Ridge, who writes about national security, foreign policy, and the Ukraine war, pointing to Putin grinning in the back seat of The Beast, "now we are going to need to replace the Beast and tear out most of 11 ABN DIV HQ to decontaminate them of listening devices and other sensors. This is a genuine counterintelligence nightmare."

One MSNBC commentator called it "extraordinary" that anyone would be invited into the President's car.

MSNBC: ‘It is extraordinary that any president or prime minister gets into Trump's car. This is very rare for any allied leader, let alone a former KGB leader’
Did Putin bug 'The Beast'? pic.twitter.com/zOYssqJI5I
— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) August 15, 2025

Other events on the tarmac were disturbing to some experts, including the image of U.S. Armed Forces on their knees preparing the red carpet for Putin. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, weighed in:

Truly shocking. https://t.co/vWe8wviHlN
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 15, 2025

"Clapping for the war criminal," wrote independent journalist Terry Moran. "What a disgrace to our country’s ideals."

Clapping for the war criminal. What a disgrace to our country’s ideals.
Trump always shows his true colors around Putin. And he always sells out America and our allies.
I remember when Republican presidents—Ike, Reagan, Bush—always stood up to tyrants. This is pathetic. pic.twitter.com/BOb5uC77jX
— Terry Moran 🇺🇸 (@TerryMoran) August 15, 2025

Former Tea Party Republican congressman turned podcaster and Democrat Joe Walsh wrote: "Disgusting. Despicable. Traitorous. He’s clapping for and smiling at a war criminal, a thuggish dictator who invaded a sovereign nation and killed & destroyed the lives of millions. Disgusting. Despicable. Traitorous."

Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton told CNN, "These are very sensitive stealth aircraft. Everybody on the Russian party is a suspected spy. This whole base is now is now available to them, at least to some extent. I don't think it should have been held on the base."

Watch the videos above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

'Absolute cringe': Trump admin mocked after attacking CNN report— by confirming it

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is under fire after posting a hostile and defensive social media statement late Wednesday afternoon, lashing out at damning CNN reporting that exposed FEMA’s delayed response to the deadly Texas floods. Intended as a rebuttal, the DHS post instead confirmed several of CNN’s alarming findings. At least 120 people are confirmed dead, and over 160 remain missing.

Central to FEMA’s late response: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has instituted a new rule that contracts and grants over $100,000 require her personal signature. Under Noem, DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) as of last month was $1 billion over budget, leading some, including members of Congress, to question the legality of her actions.

CNN reported that “even as Texas rescue crews raced to save lives, FEMA officials realized they needed Noem’s approval before sending [in] additional assets. Noem didn’t authorize FEMA’s deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams until Monday, more than 72 hours after the flooding began, multiple sources told CNN.”

Sending in critical search and rescue teams days after the flooding began was not the only damaging finding.

CNN also reported that “the additional red tape required at FEMA added another hurdle to getting critical federal resources deployed when hours counted,” noting that “Texas did request aerial imagery from FEMA to aid search and rescue operations, a source told CNN, but that was delayed as it awaited Noem’s approval for the necessary contract.”

Also, “FEMA staff have also been answering phones at a disaster call center, where, according to one agency official, callers have faced longer wait times as the agency awaited Noem’s approval for a contract to bring in additional support staff.”

In its social media statement (below), DHS posted the CNN headline and wrote: “This is a FAKE NEWS LIE from CNN.” The headline read: “FEMA’s response to Texas flood slowed by Noem’s cost controls.”

“This reporting is an unapparelled display of activist journalism and distracts from the robust, coordinated federal response led by Secretary Noem that has saved over 900+ lives,” the DHS statement reads.

“President Trump approved a Major Disaster Declaration, hours after Governor Greg Abbott’s request. By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers, providing support and shelter for hundreds of people.”

The flooding started Friday. Tuesday is four days later.

CNN also reported facts that DHS’s statement called “fake news,” but then confirmed in its own statement.

“By Monday night, only 86 FEMA staffers had been deployed, according to internal FEMA data seen by CNN — a fraction of the typical response for a disaster of this scale,” the news network reported. “By Tuesday night, the federal response expanded to 311 staffers deployed, the data showed.”

DHS wrote: “By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers, providing support and shelter for hundreds of people.”

CNN also reported: “Multiple FEMA officials told CNN that they were taken aback by the agency’s relatively limited response in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.”

Noem’s “office has delegated little authority to acting FEMA Administrator David Richardson, who, as of Wednesday morning, has yet to visit Texas since the flooding began, multiple FEMA officials told CNN.”

A DHS spokesperson in a statement to CNN and other news outlets wrote: “DHS and its components have taken an all-hands-on-desk approach to respond to recovery efforts in Kerrville.”

Critics pushed back against DHS’s statement, at times mocking the department’s remarks.

CNN’s Aaron Blake, whose byline is not on the report, on social media wrote: “This statement doesn’t actually dispute the reporting. In fact, it says, ‘By Tuesday, FEMA had deployed 311 staffers …’ Tuesday is, quite notably, after the 72-hour window.”

“Again,” offered Jason Kinney, a public affairs consultant and political communications expert, “this is what happens when your Administration lives in an alternative reality where improv lying is standard operating procedure. No one believes you, even when it’s really important stuff.”

“NONE of this below responds to the problems & delays CNN reported in its detailed, sourced article,” wrote Robert Elisberg, a political commentator. “CNN did not say FEMA did nothing. But that they didn’t do some important things they usually do. DHS has long lost credibility, & sadly their note below doesn’t improve on that.”

Mediaite reported: “DHS’s over‑the‑top rebuttal underscores the power of CNN’s reporting. The statement reinforces — not refutes — the 72‑hour timeline. That leaves us with a rhetorical shell game: furious denials wrapped in the very narrative they aim to quash.”

Former Bloomberg Opinion economics writer Noah Smith wrote of the DHS post: “This is just absolute cringe.”

Read the DHS post below or at this link.

This is a FAKE NEWS LIE from CNN. This reporting is an unapparelled display of activist journalism and distracts from the robust, coordinated federal response led by Secretary Noem that has saved over 900+ lives. While these “journalists” slept comfortably in D.C., Secretary Noem… pic.twitter.com/S4zIZwp8T2
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) July 9, 2025

From Your Site Articles

Ted Cruz blasted for defending Trump and dodging questions on flood warning system failures

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is under fire for remarks he made in the wake of deadly Texas flooding that has killed over 80 people, claiming that now is not the time to politicize—or even examine—the tragedy, while also defending President Donald Trump.

Some are asking if the Trump administration's staffing cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and specifically, the National Weather Service (NWS), which provides local weather forecasts and warnings across the country, were to blame for a possibly stunted response to the flash flooding on the Guadalupe River.

"State and local officials are calling out federal forecasters amid deadly flooding in the Texas Hill Country over the extended Fourth of July weekend," Texas NBC affiliate KXAN reported on Friday. "The criticism comes, as funding cuts and staff shortages plague the National Weather Service and other emergency management agencies nationwide."

On Monday at Public Notice, Noah Berlatsky wrote: "Retired federal scientists warned that the cuts could hamstring forecasts and make extreme weather events less predictable and more dangerous."

"The New York Times reported that 'crucial positions at the local offices of the National Weather Service were unfilled as severe rainfall inundated parts of Central Texas … prompting some experts to question whether staffing shortages made it harder for the forecasting agency to coordinate with local emergency managers as floodwaters rose," Berlatsky added. "Did Trump’s cuts cause excess deaths in Texas? It will probably be some time before we have a definitive answer to that question, if we ever do at all."

Meanwhile, Senator Cruz on Monday told reporters (video below), "I think any time you're dealing with major rivers, there's a risk of flooding, and there's always been a risk of flooding, particularly on the Guadalupe River."

"One of the things that's predictable is that you see some people engaging in, I think partisan games, and trying to blame their political opponents for a natural disaster. And you see that with a hurricane, with a tornado, with a wildfire, with this flooding, where people immediately say, "Well, the hurricane is Donald Trump's fault."

Cruz also insisted that there's an "ordering of things," and that not until after the search and rescue and not until after rebuilding can there be a "retrospective" to determine what could have been done differently.

Critics blasted Cruz, with one noting that he "was asked a non-partisan question about a safety/warning system. His response was to be defensive and political in defending Trump."

Others noted that Americans aren't blaming the President for natural disasters, but for what some see as a hampered response given the drastic cuts made to the National Weather Service.

"No one is saying Trump caused the storm, Ted," wrote "On Democracy" podcaster Fred Wellman. "We are asking if more could have been done to warn people? They were literally relying on a system of upstream camps calling one’s further down. It’s 2025. They should have had sirens, cell coverage improvements, and more. The county posted the warning on Facebook. Your job is to ask those questions not gaslight."

"OK," wrote actress Morgan Fairchild, "but was it ever communicated to you that it was a priority to have [a] warning system? Especially since the area is called Flood Alley…"

"Ted Cruz slams people for 'engaging in partisan games' just minutes after he praised Donald Trump as in essence the greatest president and said Trump made it clear he would be there for Texas," observed SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah.

Watch the videos below or at this link.

Q: Was it ever communicated to you that it was a priority to have a warning system, so people have a chance to escape something like this?
TED CRUZ: Any time you're dealing with major rivers, there's a risk of flooding ... you see people engaging in partisan games ... people… pic.twitter.com/bVEBEXBLnd
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2025

Ted Cruz: "Something went wrong ... we're got to have a better system of warning to get kids out of harm's way." pic.twitter.com/Ap3mc1pv1A
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2025

From Your Site Articles

'Truly pathetic': Trump official slammed for call to punish private citizen’s free speech

In what some critics describe as an example of “cancel culture,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—a high profile official in the Trump administration—is calling for an apology or the firing of a private citizen: Larry Summers, a Democrat who, coincidentally, once held Bessent’s current position and later served as president of Harvard University.

In remarks he made over the weekend, Summers likened the horrific Texas flooding fatalities—now over 80, with dozens reportedly still missing and more rain expected—to what experts say will be the result of President Donald Trump's so-called "One Big, Beautiful Bill," the GOP budget projected to lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually.

"A Yale and University of Pennsylvania study estimated that restricting Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage, the repeal of nursing home staffing regulations, and other adjustments in the bill could result in 51,000 preventable deaths each year across the country, making it a top 10 cause of death in the U.S.," The Daily Beast reported over the weekend.

Actually citing lower death projections, Summers on Sunday told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos (video below) that the GOP budget bill, signed into law in an Independence Day ceremony complete with fighter jets and B-2 bombers soaring overhead, "is the biggest cut in the American safety net in history."

He cited "estimates that it will kill, over 10 years, 100,000 people."

"That is 2,000 days of death like we've seen in Texas this weekend. In my 70 years, I’ve never been as embarrassed for my country on July 4th," Summers lamented.

He went on to call it "a shameful act by our Congress and by our president that is going to set our country back."

Secretary Bessent, reportedly under consideration to replace Jerome Powell as Trump calls for the Federal Reserve Chairman's exit, lashed out.

Calling Summers' appearance on ABC News' "This Week," a "shockingly callous interview," that portrayed "a lack of humanity and judgment," Bessent charged, "Using the horrifying situation in Texas for cheap political gain is unfathomable."

He offered no insight into what political advantage Summers hoped to gain, but alleged that Summers had "turned a human tragedy into a political cudgel," characterized his remarks as "feckless and deeply offensive," and demanded "a public apology for his toxic language."

At no point did Secretary Bessent dispute the numbers Summers cited.

But he did demand an apology, and absent that, said his remarks should be "grounds for dismissal."

"I hope the nonprofit and for-profit institutions with which he is affiliated will join me in this call. If he is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the cruelty of his remarks, they should consider Harvard's example and make his unacceptable rhetoric grounds for dismissal," the Treasury Secretary wrote.

Critics blasted Bessent.

"'Shockingly callous' isn't pointing out the reality that Medicaid cuts will kill tens of thousands. Shockingly callous is cutting Medicaid without knowing this, or worse, cutting it despite knowing this," wrote Professor of Economics and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Justin Wolfers. "Notice something else: Not once does Bessent refute the numbers that Summers offers. He just finds the language offensive. Some may find the reality more offensive."

"Thank goodness we've gotten rid of cancel cult...," Wolfers also snarked. "oh, wait, the secretary of the treasury is pressuring a private university to strip a professor of tenure because he highlighted numbers in a way the regime never refuted, but found offensive."

"It's truly pathetic that a Treasury Sec is using a public account to launch ad hominem attacks on a former Treasury Sec," wrote Neera Tanden, former Biden Director of the Domestic Policy Council. "Clearly Bessent can't counter @LHSummers facts. Clearly the WH is so worried BBB is a political disaster they forced their toady Treasury Sec to attack."

"This is none of your business, Scott," charged writer and historian Joshua Decter. "Stop trying to interfere and meddle with independent academic institutions. These are neo-Stalinist or neo-Maoist tactics. This is not what should happen in America."

"Calling for a private citizen to be punished for disagreeing with the Administration from his official government account is classic authoritarianism," observed Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, a 22-year combat veteran who is now the host of the podcast “On Democracy.”

Civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler charged: "Secretary: You ALL WERE WARNED. You were warned repeatedly about the deaths you were going to cause. You own them."

Watch Summers' remarks in the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

'It's Trump who blinked': Former treasury secretary rips president over China negotiations ›

Related Articles Around the Web

'Doesn’t even know who he’s talking to': Newsom scorches Trump over military deployment

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom chastised President Donald Trump for claiming he recently spoke with him to discuss his decision to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles, in addition to the 4,000 National Guard troops he is sending. A portion of L.A. has been besieged by anti-deportation protests.

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office when the last time was that he spoke to the Governor, Trump paused before replying, "A day ago, called him up to tell him, got to do a better job."

"He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death," Trump alleged (video below). There do not appear to have been any deaths due to the Los Angeles protests.

"If we didn't send out the National Guard, and last time we gave him a little additional help, you would have Los Angeles would be burning right now. Los Angeles would be not a lot different than what you saw, take place in California, and Los Angeles, just a little while ago."

But the California Democrat disputed Trump's claim.

"There was no call. Not even a voicemail," he wrote on social media.

"Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to," said Newsom, leveling charges that appeared to reinforce claims—primarily from the left—that President Trump’s mental competence is in question.

Newsom did speak with Trump, he said over the weekend, but the two did not discuss the National Guard.

"Newsom said he and Trump spoke late on Friday night—about 1.30 a.m. Saturday in D.C.—but Trump never brought up the National Guard," The Daily Beast reported on Monday.

“We talked for almost 20 minutes and he barely, this issue never came up,” Newsom said on MSNBC. “I tried to talk about L.A., he wanted to talk about all these other issues. We had a very decent conversation.”

But "Newsom slammed Donald Trump as a 'stone-cold liar' in an MSNBC interview on Sunday, insisting the president’s angry public posturing doesn’t match the tone he struck during a Friday phone call."

Others also weighed in.

"This is concerning. Who did Trump think he was speaking to?" asked The Lincoln Project.

"Two very different stories here," observed NBC News Senior National Political Reporter Natasha Korecki.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reporter: When is last time you spoke with Governor Newsom?
President Trump: A day ago. Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he's doing a bad job. Causing a lot of death and potential death pic.twitter.com/BXa7PUUZCk
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2025

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Effort to frighten people': Experts warn Noem push a 'prelude' to invoking Insurrection Act

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reportedly requested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth grant law enforcement powers—including the authority to detain and arrest—to the thousands of military troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles to suppress anti-deportation protests. Such powers are typically barred under federal law, and experts warn the move marks another step toward the administration invoking the Insurrection Act.

In a memo, Secretary Noem alleged protestors included "invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens,” as the San Francisco Chronicle first reported.

"The military is generally barred under federal laws from taking part in domestic law enforcement. Noem’s request may be a step toward the administration sidestepping those laws by invoking the Insurrection Act, two legal experts said in interviews," the Chronicle added.

Syracuse University Professor of Law Emeritus William Banks told the Chronicle that Noem's move is "a grave escalation" that "may presage the invocation of the Insurrection Act.” Professor Banks is an internationally recognized scholar on constitutional law, national security and counterterrorism law, as well as emergency powers and government surveillance and privacy, according to his biography.

Secretary Noem also requested “drone surveillance support” and weapons and logistics assistance. President Donald Trump has ordered 700 U.S. Marines and federalized up to 4,000 National Guard troops to go to Los Angeles to help tamp down the protests.

The Associated Press on Monday suggested the protest area itself was small: “Protests over the president’s immigration crackdown spared much of Los Angeles from violence. Weekend clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places.”

Other experts weighed in as well.

Vermont Law and Graduate School professor emeritus Stephen Dycus, an expert in national security law and the Insurrection Act, told the Chronicle that "this could be viewed as a preparation for invoking the Insurrection Act, or it could be viewed as part of a larger effort to frighten people who otherwise would exercise their first amendment guarantee of free speech and protest.”

California Democratic state Senator Tom Umberg, a retired Army colonel and JAG officer, "said he found the letter’s requests alarming."

“It looks like a preparation for a military assault,” Umberg said. “This looks like a subterfuge to create some sort of rationale for some sort of invocation of the Insurrection Act.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration expert and senior fellow at the American Immigration Council explained that the "reason that there is civil unrest in multiple cities throughout the country is because the Trump administration ordered ICE to engage in near-indiscriminate arrests, rounding up otherwise law-abiding people with no criminal records."

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor for the Atlantic, wrote, "this is a prelude to invoking the insurrection act and declaring martial law."

From Your Site Articles

'A warning sign': Trump under fire for new violent slogan as he sends Marines to LA

President Donald Trump has unveiled a new slogan amid the ongoing protests in Los Angeles, warning critics of his deportation policies, “If you spit, we will hit”—a statement critics say could incite violence. As tensions rise, Trump is escalating the federal response, expanding the National Guard presence and now ordering U.S. Marines into the city.

Although Trump has not cited any specific incidents of protesters spitting, critics warn his rhetoric risks escalating tensions and could invite increased use of force by law enforcement and U.S. military personnel—who were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom.

In a Monday afternoon Truth Social post, Trump wrote:

“'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it’s just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!"

The President tested out a version of the phrase on Sunday (video below).

Trump told reporters, "we're gonna be watching it very closely. And when they spit at people—you know, they spit, that's their new thing—they spit and worse. You know what they throw at 'em, right? And when that happens, I have a little statement, and they say, 'they spit, we hit.'"

"And I told them, nobody's gonna spit on our police officers. Nobody's gonna spit on our military, which they do as a common thing. They get up to 'em this far away, and then they start spitting in their face. That happens, they get hit very hard."

On Monday afternoon, Trump also ordered 500-700 Marines to the city, in addition to the 1,000 National Guard troops previously dispatched.

Fox News Chief National Security Correspondent Jenifer Griffin added, "Use of Force rules are unclear but the Marines will not be in a law enforcement role. Not clear the rules for response if someone throws bottles or rocks at them."

Critics blasted the President.

"Cruelty isn’t a policy, it’s a warning sign," wrote investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze on Sunday, in response to Trump's remarks. "'They spit, we hit' isn’t leadership, it’s incitement. Brutality, dehumanization, and escalation are the ethos of authoritarian regimes. This is far from law and order. It’s about power through fear. And we must resist this evil."

"Be very clear," warned Lincoln Project co-founder Jennifer Horn. "The intentions of the President of the United States would be served by real violence erupting in the streets of LA. That's why he uses language like 'insurrection' and phrases like 'if they spit, we hit.' He's just looking for an excuse."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump: When they spit at people— they spit, that’s their new thing—when that happens, I have a little statement: they spit, we hit.., if that happens, they get hit very hard pic.twitter.com/gYpwNz3F9O
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 8, 2025

From Your Site Articles

'He is creating a mob': Trump claim he saved LA from 'bad people' met with criticism

President Donald Trump’s nearly-unprecedented deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles—deemed unconstitutional by California’s governor—has further inflamed tensions, critics and state officials say, as masked ICE agents detained individuals, many of whom have committed no crime beyond being undocumented.

But now, the Commander-in-Chief is claiming that protestors would have "completely obliterated" Los Angeles, a city of nearly 4 million people, and 18.5 million in the Greater Los Angeles area, had he not deployed the National Guard.

"We made a great decision in sending the National Guard to deal with the violent, instigated riots in California," Trump claimed Monday afternoon. "If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated. The very incompetent 'Governor,' Gavin Newscum, and 'Mayor,' Karen Bass, should be saying, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, YOU ARE SO WONDERFUL. WE WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT YOU, SIR.' Instead, they choose to lie to the People of California and America by saying that we weren’t needed, and that these are 'peaceful protests.' Just one look at the pictures and videos of the Violence and Destruction tells you all you have to know. We will always do what is needed to keep our Citizens SAFE, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment of the National Guard, calling it “an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,” the Associated Press reported.

But the AP suggested the protest area was small: "Protests over the president’s immigration crackdown spared much of Los Angeles from violence. Weekend clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places."

Earlier in the day, Trump called the protestors "professional agitators," "insurrectionists," and "bad people who "should be in jail.”

The last time a U.S. president deployed the National Guard without a governor's permission was in 1965, to "protect a civil rights march in Alabama," the AP also reported, citing the Brennan Center for Justice.

Trump reportedly "invoked his Title 10 authority to federalize and deploy 2,000 National Guard in California and did not invoke the Insurrection Act," according to CBS News' Ed O'Keefe.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, a professor of law, responded: "If accurate, this is almost certainly a conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, including the National Guard if they are federalized."

On Sunday, Trump told reporters "we're going to have troops everywhere." Asked what the "bar" is on determining when the military should be deployed to a U.S. city, and if he would use legal authority, Trump declared, "The bar is what I think it is."

National security and civil liberties journalist Marcy Wheeler remarked in response, "he is creating the mob."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump: Well, we're going to have troops everywhere.
Reporter: What’s the bar for sending in the Marines
Trump: The bar is what I think it is. pic.twitter.com/XUBX9hEZJU
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 8, 2025

From Your Site Articles

Tom Cotton gives up the game, saying he hopes LA protests fuel support for 'Big Beautiful Bill' - Alternet.org ›

Busted: Republicans quietly slip 'religious freedom' clause into funding bill

House Republicans have inserted anti-LGBTQ language into a $66 billion must-pass funding bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, effectively granting civil immunity under federal law to individuals and organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples—by citing a religious or moral belief that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. It also bans the federal government from taking a range of actions against those who hold and act on anti-same-sex marriage beliefs.

Section 544 bans the use of federal funds to take any "discriminatory action" against someone who cites their "sincerely held religious belief" or "moral conviction" that marriage is only "a union of one man and one woman."

A portion of the provision exactly matches language U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) urged the House Appropriations Committee to include in 2023 legislation. Rep. Roy cited praise from anti-LGBTQ hate group leader Tony Perkins and other anti-LGBTQ activists in his press release urging inclusion of the amendment in a 2023 bill. It is not known who drafted or approved the current 2025 provision.

Journalist Jamie Dupree, who writes Regular Order at Substack, first reported on the provision in the DHS funding bill.

The language could prohibit the government from withholding federal funds from a federally-funded religious school that fired a teacher who supports same-sex marriage. It could block the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of organizations that promote the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman. It could ban the federal government from taking action against a hospital that receives federal funds if it refused certain services in some cases.

While the language is not found in The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, some of the core principles in Section 544 echo its recommendations.

Project 2025 calls on the federal government to "Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family," and "Provide robust protections for religious employers," while it denounces "the bullying LGBTQ+ agenda."

'They’re scared’: JD Vance mocked for late night loyalty pledge after Trump-Musk meltdown

On a day dominated by an all-out clash between the billionaire President and the world’s richest federal contractor—marked by personal insults, threats of contract cancellations, and even a call for impeachment—Vice President JD Vance was conspicuously absent. Until the very end.

Musk answered "Yes" when a right-wing influencer wrote, "Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him."

Trump threatened he would cancel the federal government's billions of dollars in contracts with the man who spent much of the year literally by his side, Elon Musk:

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts."

Musk charged that Trump was in the Epstein files:

"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"

Trump alleged that "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!"

And so it went.

The Vice President was all but silent throughout.

Until 10:28 PM, when—as the battle had wound down and something of a “truce” was in the works, reportedly after an Oval Office meeting—Vance finally broke his silence.

"President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him."

Political observers blasted and mocked the Vice President.

"Nothing says courage like tweeting support for your boss at 10pm after watching him get his a-- handed to him by a weirdo billionaire all day," wrote Democratic strategist and former Harris advisor Mike Nellis.

"Ooh, I can just feel the power of love here. It’s just overwhelming," snarked attorney George Conway.

"You know the s--- is hitting the fan when a Vice President has to send out something like this. It’s like we are watching an episode of Veep, just not as funny," said Washburn University School of Law Professor Joe Mastrosimone.

"LOL," mocked conservative Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch. "Congrats to the team for coming up with this. Technically true if you define 'the movement that he leads' as the coterie of sycophants and cultists who trust Trump to be Trump. Otherwise this is a---covering gibberish."

But expert Latino GOP political consultant Mike Madrid had a different take on the Vance statement: "They’re scared," he wrote.

Image via Reuters

From Your Site Articles

Trump admin spending millions to investigate if DEI is to blame for plane crashes

In late January, just hours after the deadliest U.S. aviation disaster in more than 20 years—and as families and the nation were still grieving—President Donald Trump, without evidence, blamed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for the crash that killed 67 people near Washington’s Reagan National Airport.

"Trump blamed former President Joe Biden’s administration for encouraging the Federal Aviation Administration to recruit workers 'who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative,'" the Associated Press reported. "He added that the program allowed for the hiring of people with hearing and vision issues as well as paralysis, epilepsy and 'dwarfism.'"

The President provided no proof that unqualified air traffic controllers were to blame, or even that any air traffic controllers who were not qualified had been hired, although "he acknowledged that there was as yet no indication that air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport made any mistakes."

On the first day of his second term in office, Trump signed numerous executive orders, some focused on DEI, including one titled, "Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing."

Now, the Trump administration's Department of Transportation, under Secretary Sean Duffy, is spending over $2 million to investigate whether DEI causes plane crashes.

The Atlantic's Isaac Stanley-Becker reports he has "obtained the 'scope of work' document" for the multi-million dollar investigation. That document "is marked 'privileged' and 'confidential' and has not been previously reported. It shows how the president’s musings—his accusations, he said at the time, were based on 'very strong opinions and ideas'—translate into taxpayer-funded government action."

It appears that Trump's baseless allegations likely will be determined to be just that.

"Contrary to what Trump may hope," Stanley-Becker reveals, "it’s not expected to find that programs aimed at ensuring representation for women and people of color are responsible for this year’s string of aviation disasters, including the January crash at Reagan airport, which killed 67 people and prompted Trump’s tirade against DEI."

"That determination, several air-traffic controllers told me, hardly required a multimillion-dollar probe."

Image via Reuters

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Watch carefully': Marjorie Taylor Greene doubles down in new 'warning' to lawmakers

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is doubling down after admitting she didn’t fully read the House GOP’s sweeping budget bill—despite now emphatically opposing its AI provisions. The outspoken Georgia Republican faced widespread ridicule Tuesday, as House Democrats blasted her for ignoring their earlier warnings about controversial measures in the legislation strongly backed by President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson.

"Here's a lesson for us all," Greene declared in a speech on the House floor Wednesday. "No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch carefully the bills that we pass."

Greene expressed strong disapproval over the provisions in the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill" that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for ten years, claiming such a regulation would "destroy federalism."

"With this warning, I urge all of my colleagues that when the House gets to vote on the one big, beautiful bill again after it leaves the Senate, that we make sure we protect a federalism and at the same time urge our colleagues in the Senate to pull this clause out of the one big, beautiful bill."

In a TV spot on Wednesday, Greene also told NewsNation that she is being "very transparent and honest" about not reading that provision.

Some of Greene's Democratic colleagues continued to chastise her for discovering the importance of reading bills in full.

U.S. Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) wrote up this scenario mocking Greene:

"Surgeon: 'In hindsight, I should have washed my hands' Pilot: 'In hindsight, I shouldn’t have put tape over all the dials' Olympian: 'In hindsight, the pre-race martinis were a bad idea.'"

Other critics blasted her as well.

"Did she not read the briefing docs; Or did her LD [legislative director] not provide any?" asked The Lincoln Project's communications director Gregory Minchak. "So it's either she runs a terrible office or she's a terrible member. Either way she's telling on herself."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Greene: Here's a lesson for us all, no matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch carefully the bills that we pass pic.twitter.com/uUoPmXRtIE
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 4, 2025

From Your Site Articles

'Food fight': Legal expert says Trump's anger defies the Constitution

President Donald Trump is facing sharp criticism over his sweeping, multi-front attack on the U.S. Court of International Trade, an influential conservative legal activist who shaped his first-term judicial picks, and the Federalist Society — with one prominent law professor calling it a clash between “MAGA men” and conservatives.

"MAGA men and conservatives aren't the same. The food fight on the right is now in the open," wrote Professor Richard Painter, the former Bush 43 chief White House ethics lawyer who is now a political independent.

President Trump had attacked the three-judge panel on the International Trade Court, which blocked almost all of his "Liberation Day" tariffs, declaring that presidents cannot arbitrarily declare emergencies. That ruling, currently on hold, was decided by judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself.

"Where do these initial three Judges come from?" Trump asked. "How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?"

"I was new to Washington," he continued in his rant, posted Thursday evening, "and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions."

Professor Painter observed that if President Trump "is angry that he can't impose tariffs (i.e. taxes) without consent of the legislature, instead of blaming Leonard Leo, he should blame the drafters of the Constitution (1789), or for that matter the drafters of Magna Carta (1215), which says essentially the same thing."

Painter also explained that this "dispute is over whether a 'conservative' judge should allow the President to impose tariffs, a form of taxation, without consent from Congress. Conservatives, and others who understand the Constitution, know that to impose taxes the President needs consent from Congress."

From Your Site Articles

'Frustration' as conflict erupts between Trump's 'MAGA loyalists' and legal activists - Alternet.org ›

'We are all going to die': GOP senator shrugs off possible deaths from Medicaid cuts

Constituents at U.S. Senator Joni Ernst's town hall on Friday morning yelled that Americans will die if President Donald Trump's bill—which cuts $800 billion from Medicaid and SNAP and will force anther $500 billion in cuts to Medicaid—becomes law.

"People will die," an audience member yelled.

"People are not—" Ernst responded, before declaring, "Well, we all are going to die."

As the audience shouted down her response, Ernst did not retract but rather, replied: "For heaven's sakes, folks."

Ernst had just chastised her constituents, saying, "illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits."

Clip's of her remarks flew across social media.

Critics blasted Senator Ernst's remarks.

"GOP 2026 slogan just dropped," mocked Justin Kanew, political activist and founder of the progressive media outlet The Tennessee Holler.

"This is a moment that will play over and over again through the next 17 months," remarked Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee communications director Maeve Coyle.

"Compelling midterm message!" snarked a Democratic National Committee Senior Advisor, Tim Hogan.

"This is the Republican health care agenda: indifference to the lives of working families," wrote Protect Our Care, a healthcare advocacy nonprofit organization.

The liberal super PAC American Bridge was among those who posted a clip of Senator Ernst's comments.

Watch the video below or at this link:

"Well, we all are going to die"#IASen Joni Ernst shocks her own constituents, dismissing concerns that supporting deep cuts to Medicaid and other services will cause people to die if they can't get the care they need. pic.twitter.com/VqzY3Z1zYf
— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) May 30, 2025

'Flat-out nonsense': Karoline Leavitt's tariff statement brutally mocked

A defiant statement read aloud by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is drawing mockery for its apparent lack of basic constitutional understanding as she lashed out against a unanimous court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as illegal.

Despite the U.S. Constitution specifically granting Congress purview over tariffs and trade, Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that the "courts should have no role here."

Leavitt also decried what she called the "troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges, inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process," while claiming that "America cannot function if President Trump or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive, diplomatic, or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges" who are "threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."

She also insisted that "for the sake of our Constitution and our country" the U.S. Supreme Court must step in.

The Press Secretary also claimed that President Donald Trump's "rationale was legally sound," while the court engaged in "judicial overreach."

"Using his full proper legal authority, President Trump imposed universal tariffs and reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day to address the extraordinary threats to our national security and economy posed by large and persistent annual U.S. Goods trade deficits," she said—a claim with which the court disagreed.

Critics blasted Leavitt's remarks.

"This is flat-out nonsense," wrote The Atlantic's James Surowiecki, who previously wrote The Financial Page for The New Yorker. "No one is stopping Trump from engaging in trade negotiations. What he's been stopped from doing is imposing tariffs that he has no legal or constitutional authority to impose. Stopping illegal and unconstitutional action is precisely the courts' role."

"If Trump imposed a national sales tax by presidential fiat, the courts would of course be required to step in to stop him," continued Surowiecki, who is also the author of "The Wisdom of Crowds."

"The same is true of him imposing a 10% universal tariff on every country in the world, along with arbitrary tariffs on top of that," he wrote.

"Leavitt says the US trade deficit is an 'extraordinary' problem, then in the next breath says we've run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975 - meaning it's not, in fact, extraordinary," he added.

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick appeared to take aim at Leavitt's grasp of the U.S. Constitution.

"The courts should have no role in interpreting a law? Really?" he asked. "I don't know what country Leavitt thinks she lives in, but it's not this one."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Image via Reuters

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

WATCH: White House calls reports that Amazon might display tariff ... ›

'Everyone is afraid to tell him': Trump brutally mocked following 'meltdown' with reporter

President Donald Trump's tariff policy has been highly criticized, especially for his seemingly arbitrary, up and down, in-effect and paused actions, which have led the stock markets to rise and fall—providing little stability or reassurance to manufacturers and investors alike.

"Traders are loading up and dumping stocks based on Trump’s erratic approach to announcing tariffs and then retreating on them," The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

McGill University Associate Professor Robert Rutledge, an astrophysicist, on Tuesday posted a screenshot from a New York Times article titled, "Stocks Rally on the 'TACO Trade'," which explained the phenomenon.

During Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony of Trump's interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., former Fox host Jeanine Pirro, a reporter confronted the president with remarks from analysts who have dubbed his tactics "TACO," or, "Trump Always Chickens Out."

"Mr. President," a reporter said (video below), "Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the 'Taco Trade.' They're saying Trump always chickens out on your tariff threats, and that's why markets are higher this week. What's your response to that?"

After some back-and-forth, the President admitted, "I've never heard that," before growing defensive.

"You mean because I reduced China from 145%, that I set down to 100% and then down to another number, and I said, 'You have to open up your whole country.' And because, I gave the European Union a 50% tax tariff, and they called up, and they said, 'Please, let's meet right now. Please, let's meet right now.'"

Trump claimed that "after I did what I did, they said, 'We'll meet anytime you want.'" And we have an end date of July 9th. You call that chickening out?"

He then lashed out at his predecessor, President Joe Biden, for not imposing high tariffs.

"Because we have $14 trillion now invested, committed to investing, when Biden didn't have practically anything, Trump claimed, although there are few actual, finalized agreements.

"Biden, this country was dying," Trump continued. "You know, we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. I went to Saudi Arabia. The king told me. He said, 'You got the hottest—We have the hottest country in the world right now.'"

"Six months ago, this country was stone cold dead," Trump alleged. "We had a dead country."

"We had a country people didn't think it was gonna survive, and you ask a nasty question like that?" he said, attacking the reporter. "It's called 'negotiation.' You set a number. And if you go down, you know set a number at

After explaining his China policy, he again attacked, telling the reporter, "don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question."

"For me, that's the nastiest question."

Economist Justin Wolfers on Tuesday explained some of the ramifications of "TACO."

"Those truck drivers ... won't have goods to truck across the country, they also won't be stopping a gas stations to buy a sandwich. And then the sandwich demand falls off and on and on it goes. But I think it's actually the effects are far deeper than that," Wolfers explained.

"There's an asset here that really matters called 'American credibility.' There was a time when the President opened his mouth when you had to pay attention, because you thought it meant something, that it was a shift in policy that other countries could rely on and respond to. That's no longer the case."

After specifically mentioning TACO, Wolfers continued with more examples. He noted, for example, "there's a factory that could be built, except that one of the most important imports we get from the European Union is precision machinery. And that either just went up 50% or went up 10%, but no one can be sure."

Critics blasted the President for his Oval Office remarks.

Democratic strategist Keith Edwards mocked Trump, saying that he "just learned Wall Street is calling his tariffs 'TACO trade' ('Trump Always Chickens Out') — and you have to watch his meltdown."

The political action committee Really American called it "an insane moment," noting that Trump had "a complete meltdown."

"What’s hilarious about this whole thing is there has to be people in the admin who know about this stuff and everyone is afraid to tell him bad news," noted Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko. " So we get to see him lose his s--- for the first time live on tv."

Watch the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

'Those are your direct quotes': Dem senator calls out Trump official — to his face

The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Marty Makary, came under strong criticism for his inconsistent remarks before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee after the accuracy of his claims related to terminated scientists and others was called into question by U.S. Senator John Ossoff (D-GA).

"You were asked on April 17th whether any of the personnel reductions had included personnel responsible for food safety or infant formula safety," Senator Ossoff told Commissioner Makary. "You said, quote, 'There were no cuts to scientists or reviewers or inspectors—absolutely none'. You were asked on April 23rd on CNN, and said, quote, 'Again, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors'."

"But then just two days later, an HHS spokesperson confirmed that in fact, scientists had been fired, and that you were scrambling to rehire them," Ossoff continued. "Did you, in fact, say on April 23d, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors? Just before we get into the details, is that an accurate quote?"

"No scientific reviewer was cut as part of the reduction in force," replied Commissioner Makary.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors. Didn't you say that?" Ossoff pressed.

"My understanding," Makary replied, "was that there were no cuts to the scientific staff, but specifically the scientific reviewers is what I was referring to."

"But you said there were," Ossoff responded.

A similar back and forth continued for several minutes, then, Senator Ossoff asked, "Had, in fact, scientists who study outbreaks of food related illnesses and the safety of infant formula been fired?"

"The reason it's not accurate, Senator, is that people were not fired, they were scheduled for the reduction in force, and when that was before I got there. When I got there, we did an assessment, and so some of those individuals out of the 19,000 were restored," Makary replied.

"Have all scientists responsible for food safety and infant formula safety, been rehired or reinstated?" Ossoff asked.

"Look, we have not reduced in force the scientific review staff. I know where you're going with this," Makary replied.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists, and then the HHS spokesperson said, actually, there were cuts to scientists, and now we're trying to rehire them. I mean, so it gives the impression you're not sure about the personnel actions ongoing in your own agency," said Ossoff.

After more back-and-forth, Ossoff wrapped it up: "You were very specific. You said there were no cuts to scientists. And then five days later, there were no cuts to scientists. Those are your direct quotes. There were no cuts to scientists, but there were cuts to scientists."

Again, more back-and-forth and then Makary appeared to grow frustrated.

"I mean, this is the problem in government. Somebody has a fancy sounding name like, 'Infant Formula Safety,' and no one can ever touch them, even if they're not doing their job."

During his testimony, Dr. Makary also declared to another Senator, "By the way, America doesn't want COVID boosters."

And a third chastised him, saying: "You're prepared for a question that I didn't ask ... I'm asking you what are you doing about bird flu! Just answer that. Please. Don't give me a runaround about other stuff."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Blatant violation': Outrage over Pentagon prayer that suggests Trump was anointed by God

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, an Evangelical Christian whose religious tattoos drew scrutiny during his confirmation hearings, led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon auditorium during official working hours on Wednesday. The event featured Secretary Hegseth's personal pastor from Tennessee, Brooks Potteiger, and included remarks describing President Donald Trump as “sovereignly appointed," according to The New York Times.

"This morning at 9:00 AM the Office of the Secretary of Defense sent out what appears to be a building wide email to the entire Pentagon inviting everyone to a 'Christian prayer service and worship' in the Pentagon auditorium," wrote Fred Wellman, who writes "On Democracy" at Substack. Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a political consultant. "Not the chapel. The auditorium."

"This is a clear and direct violation by a Cabinet member of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is a direct violation of military norms, traditions, and regulations by the senior official of the entire military," Wellman alleged.

"The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary," the Times added, "but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it."

Politico Pentagon and national security reporter Paul McLeary noted that there was even an official government email address on the invitation, "to RSVP to this 30 minute event in the middle of a workday."

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and expert on national security, added: "The RSVP is a nice touch, so that they know who's on board."

He also weighed in more broadly:

"Not sure of the constitutionality here - not a lawyer! - but years ago, one of the War Colleges used to do this with 'voluntary' Bible study opportunities that had the same kind of roster-taking, and that went away pronto after complaints and an investigation," Nichols wrote.

Last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation published a report stating that Pastor Potteiger is "known for promoting Christian nationalist views," and claimed that Wednesday's event "is expected to be a monthly prayer gathering. According to Potteiger, the event will include Christian preaching, proselytizing and the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer — all within one of the most powerful institutions of the U.S. government."

“This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and its proscription of religion in government,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “Assuming the pastor’s boast is true, these prayer meetings would not only exclude and marginalize the significant number of nonreligious and non-Christian service members, they will send the impermissible message that Christianity is the Pentagon’s preferred faith.”

"Turning the Pentagon into a church service during duty hours isn’t just inappropriate — it’s unconstitutional," FFRF also said. "We’ve sent a letter demanding an end to this blatant breach of the First Amendment."

In January, before he was confirmed, The Guardian reported that in "a series of newly unearthed podcasts, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, appears to endorse the theocratic and authoritarian doctrine of 'sphere sovereignty', a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR) and espoused by churches aligned with far-right Idaho pastor Douglas Wilson."

Others are also blasting the decision to hold a Christian prayer service inside the Pentagon.

"Hegseth continues to propagate christian white nationalism, while undermining the separation of church and state and the norms of civil-military relations," wrote retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former Director of European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council, whose whistleblower efforts led to the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

"This is what Christian nationalism looks like: the government using its power to push religion from the top down, said Max Flugrath, Communications Director for Fair Fight Action.

In February, author Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister with a Ph.D. in political communication, posted a video from a Pentagon town hall where Secretary Hegseth began his remarks by declaring, “All glory to God.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

'Victory': Mike Johnson celebrates 'bonanza for billionaires'

Speaker Mike Johnson is declaring “victory” after House Republicans pushed President Donald Trump’s massive tax cuts bill through committee in a late Sunday night vote, in what one Democrat called a “bonanza for billionaires.” The bill, 1116 pages as of Wednesday, guts Medicaid, stripping health care from millions. It plows through a wishlist of hard-core GOP priorities, including opening up public lands to aggressive logging, drilling, and mining. It increases border funding, shuts down the U.S. Department of Education, and forces Congress to re-vote on major federal legislation every five years.

Four House Republican hardliners agreed to not block what President Trump is calling his “big, beautiful bill,” allowing it to pass the Budget Committee after GOP leadership agreed to “speed up” the cuts to Medicaid, according to Bloomberg News.

“Representative Chip Roy of Texas, one of the four hardliners, said party leaders agreed to move up Medicaid work requirements expected to kick millions of beneficiaries off the health coverage program and more quickly phase out clean energy tax breaks,” Bloomberg reported. “But Roy still expressed dissatisfaction, saying the measure ‘does not yet meet the moment.’ Roy and the House Freedom Caucus said in posts on X they are hoping to win additional cuts before the bill comes up for a vote on the House floor.”

Speaker Johnson late Sunday night told reporters (video below) that Republicans are going to “protect Medicaid”—by enacting stronger work requirements that are expected to kick more than eight million Americans (some say more than ten million) off the health care program.

CNBC reported on Wednesday that “9.7 million to 14.4 million people would be at risk for losing Medicaid coverage in 2034 if they are unable to show they meet the work requirements, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.”

Saying he would “count … as a big win tonight” the passage of the bill, Johnson noted that “what our party stands for” is “to cut spending.”

“So this this will be a victory out of the committee tonight. Everybody will will make a vote that allows it to proceed, and that was my big request tonight,” Johnson said, telling reporters that “it’s the desire of every Republican, always has been to make work requirements real, and actionable as soon as possible.”

“The government is too large, it does too many things, and it does very little well,” Johnson claimed.

CNN’s Haley Talbot reported that Speaker Johnson said that the bill will hit the Rules Committee “Tuesday or Wednesday, and that Johnson hopes they can hold the floor vote by Thursday, “then recess.”

The Hill called Sunday’s vote an “unusual late-night vote,” but Democrats offered more descriptive language.

“This bill that is being rammed through the Budget Committee in the dead of night on a weekend is a betrayal to the American people. It is just another bonanza for Billionaires. Don’t they have enough yet?” asked U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH).

“They are voting to reduce food to the hungry, by cutting back $300 Billion in SNAP funding for those struggling just to get by. Our nation is the richest nation on Earth. Surely we can and must do better than this cruel, damaging and harmful legislation,” Congresswoman Kaptur added. “When a handful of top billionaires in our nation hold half the wealth of our nation, that is too much to too few. The Billionaire class owns as much as the 160 million American and families in the bottom half of our population in the middle-class and working-class.”

“As the late President John F. Kennedy said,” she concluded, “‘if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Speaker Johnson says the bill will hit rules Cmte Tuesday or Wednesday
Johnson hopes they can hold the floor vote by THURSDAY
then recess pic.twitter.com/6PXHiAAxBI
— haley talbot (@haleytalbotcnn) May 19, 2025

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Wild negative coattails for Trump' as Omaha's first Black mayor ousts three-term Republican

Voters in Omaha, Nebraska just elected their first Black mayor, Democrat John Ewing Jr., in a historic shift, ousting a three-term Republican who has held that office since 2013. Some political observers say it's the shape of things to come, as President Donald Trump's favorability continues to drop and prices continue to rise, with more instability — economic and political — expected ahead.

Ewing, a former deputy police chief, beat Jean Stothert, who tried to embrace the MAGA agenda without fully embracing President Trump.

"Omaha’s Republican mayor Jean Stothert was a 12-year incumbent, once seen as untouchable," observed Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott. "Then she endorsed Trump, ran on anti-trans bathroom bans — and lost decisively. A clear rejection of MAGA at the ballot box."

Calling it "a fresh test of voter attitudes in a politically competitive slice of the country," The Washington Post described Stothert as "a formidable opponent," whom "Democrats sought to tie...to President Donald Trump’s unpopular agenda — another warning sign for Republicans in a critical battleground area."

The New York Times, describing Omaha as "a politically divided city that has outsize importance in presidential elections," reported that "the race provided an opportunity for strategists from both parties to gauge voters’ moods — even if much of the campaign focused on municipal nuts-and-bolts issues like street paving, crime and a planned streetcar."

"Another example of a red to blue flip," U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said. "Voters are angry at Republicans who are enabling the harmful policies of Trump."

Kamala Harris won Omaha's single electoral vote by about five points. Ewing, with results not yet official, appears to be winning by about ten points.

"Democrats just beat the longest-serving incumbent mayor in the country in Omaha, Nebraska, where I grew up," declared Democratic strategist Mike Nellis, a former Harris advisor. "Jean Stothert was considered unbeatable, and they did it. That’s how much of a drag Trump is right now."

"Wild negative coattails for Trump," Nellis noted, and called it "a political shockwave," where "Republicans are panicking."

Watch Ewing's victory speech below or at this link.

'Embarrassed Emoji': Trump torched for calling major drop in port traffic 'good'

President Donald Trump is facing backlash after claiming that a sharp decline in port traffic—and a significant drop in goods entering the U.S.—is actually a positive development. When warned that the slowdown could cost truckers and dock workers their paychecks or even their jobs, Trump praised the downturn, arguing it means the country isn’t “losing money.”

"That means we lose less money, you know?" President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "When I see that, that means we lose less money. Look, China was making over a trillion, $1.1 trillion, in my opinion. You know, different numbers from $500 billion to a trillion or a trillion, I think it was 1.1 trillion. And frankly, if we didn't do business, we would have been better off."

"Okay, you understand that?" Trump continued. "So when you say it's slowed down, that's a good thing, not a bad thing."

The President's remarks were quickly criticized.

U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) commented, "It’s not a good thing. Dock workers & truck drivers don’t think it’s a good thing. Businesses don’t think it’s a good thing."

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) wrote, "I represent the second largest container port in the U.S, I promise you it’s a bad thing."

CNN's Kaitlan Collins quoted Trump's "good thing, not a bad thing" comment, then posted video of Seattle's port commissioner saying, "We currently do not have any container ships at port right now.”

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, who spent 14 years at top financial services companies before starting her journalism career, wrote that she had just sent the President's comments "to every wall st source I have that supported our President."

"Every response I got was some sort of embarrassed emoji."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump on port traffic: When you are saying it slowed down, that's a good thing, not a bad thing pic.twitter.com/MXjo8l9159
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 8, 2025

From Your Site Articles

Trump hampers China talks with a single word

President Donald Trump had for weeks been claiming that his administration was in talks with China over his tariff war, while also claiming that President Xi Jinping had called him — a claim China disputed. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later admitted that the administration had not been talking to China, but talks are now planned for this weekend in Switzerland.

“China, we have not engaged in negotiations with as of yet,” the Treasury Secretary said on Tuesday, The New York Times reported.

Trump imposed a massive 145% tariff on Chinese imports, a source of contention among the Chinese and many Americans.

On Tuesday, Bessent was asked on Fox News if it was "likely" that he would be able to go back to Trump and say, "to show good faith, we could drop this down in the interim to 50%?"

And while he said, "I'm not gonna give away our strategy," Bessent also said, "look, everything's on the table. It's up to the president at the end of the day."

Ahead of the talks with China, President Trump Wednesday afternoon was asked by reporters if he would consider lowering the high tariff "to get China to the negotiating table?"

"No," was the president's one-word response.

"Trump has defended the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports, claiming China 'deserves it' and would likely absorb the costs," Yahoo Finance reported Wednesday. "But those comments contrast with efforts inside the administration to consider phased tariff reductions and revive trade talks."

Watch the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

'Pushed up to the edge of the cliff': Republican plans would impact millions of Americans

The nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its report on five separate Republican proposed policies to slash federal spending on Medicaid, a program that currently serves about one in five Americans. The report finds that under the GOP proposals, millions of Americans would be kicked off and have no medical coverage.

The CBO report shows that 2.3 million and nearly nine million Americans would be kicked off Medicaid, based on the proposed Republican cuts to the critical safety net program. Those cuts would lead to no insurance for about half of the Americans removed from the program. The proposals would reduce the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, but those savings are expected to be used to pay for the Trump administration's tax cuts, which are largely expected to benefit wealthy Americans the most.

The President has called that legislation his “big, beautiful bill,” but the Congressional Black Caucus calls the proposals "the largest Medicaid cut in history."

As far back as a decade ago, President Donald Trump vowed, “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”

In March of this year, a White House "fact check" insisted, "The Trump Administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again)."

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, finds that: "No matter how these tax cuts are financed, the result will hurt most working families, especially low-income households. The most damaging way to finance TCJA [Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] extensions would be with spending cuts for programs like SNAP or Medicaid."

It's unclear if the House would vote to enact one, several, or perhaps all of the proposals, although Politico reports House Speaker Mike Johnson has said a proposal that would kick 5.5 million off Medicaid is off the table.

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been tasked with reducing the deficit by $880 billion, and Republican leaders are eyeing changes to Medicaid to achieve a large portion of that total amount," Politico adds. "Republicans are coalescing around work requirements for beneficiaries, more frequent eligibility checks in the program and cracking down on coverage for noncitizens. But as they look for more significant savings, divisions have only grown, with hardliners pushing for even steeper cuts and moderates increasingly wary."

But about six in ten non-senior (19-64 year-old) Medicaid enrollees are already working. Of the 40 percent who are not, barriers include being in school, being a family caregiver, illness or disability, or being unable to find work, according to KFF.

Two top Democrats requested the CBO report: U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey.

“Republicans continue to use smoke and mirrors to try to trick Americans into thinking they aren’t going to hurt anybody when they proceed with this reckless plan, but fighting reality is an uphill battle,” Senator Wyden said in a statement. “The bottom line is that the Republican bill is going to cut health care for kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities and working families, and Democrats are going to fight to stop it.”

One Republican who has been outspoken about limiting cuts to Medicaid to $500 billion, U.S. Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, says he is open to increasing work requirements and stepping up eligibility checks—which are administrative costs—but blasted his colleagues who want to pass a bill with massive proposed reductions of up to nearly $900 billion, along with the way they are attempting to do it.

“Here’s the tactic they’ve been using: ‘Don’t worry about the Senate. They’ll fix it.’ And now we’re getting ready to take our third vote on this,” Bacon said, according to The Wall Street Journal. “We feel like we’re being pushed up to the edge of the cliff here.”

See an announcement by U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), below or at this link.

There it is: as Democrats have warned, new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that each GOP proposal to cut Medicaid will lead to millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage. pic.twitter.com/0DETEQ8J9U
— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) May 7, 2025

Image via Shutterstock

From Your Site Articles

Trump shopping for used 'opulent' jet to replace Air Force One during aviation crisis

When President Donald Trump travels to the Middle East next week, he hopes to finalize a deal for Qatar to purchase 100 Boeing widebody jets—and for the U.S. to buy a used luxury jetliner, described as one of the most lavish in the world, previously owned by that nation's former prime minister, to replace an aging presidential Air Force One.

President Trump has said little about the mounting aviation crisis America is facing. As NCRM reported on Tuesday, the Trump administration has seen nearly double the number of aviation-related deaths in the U.S. during the first 105 days of his administration, compared to the same time period during President Joe Biden's first year in office.

There is an immediate crisis as well: a "communications breakdown last week that resulted in air traffic controllers losing radar and radio contact with the pilots of planes they were guiding into Newark Liberty International Airport," which "has happened at least two other times since August, a current veteran controller told NBC News," the network reported. "And at least eight or nine times in recent months, controllers lost radio contact with pilots flying into one of the nation's busiest airports, said the Newark airspace controller who asked not to be identified."

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are looking to use "their aviation and defense industries to turn commercial deals into political capital," in negotiations that could be worth nearly $3 trillion, according to Bloomberg News.

"For the Middle East governments, the commitments are a tool to show their allegiance to the White House and curry favor with Trump. For his part, the US president wants to burnish his credentials as a consummate dealmaker, while allaying concerns about the robustness of global alliances after Trump’s drastic tariff announcements last month spooked international governments and investors."

Bloomberg also reports that an Air Force One "upgrade may figure into the proceedings in Doha. A private Boeing 747 jumbo that Trump toured in February, originally owned by a former Qatari prime minister, has emerged as an interim solution to the new Air Force One presidential planes whose nose-to-tail makeover by Boeing is years behind schedule."

It is unclear if the jets that carry the President of the United States are unsafe, or merely old and in need of an upgrade, or where President Trump is getting the funds to purchase and upgrade the Qatari jet, which once reportedly listed for $400 million. Also unclear is whether there would be any national security issues.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a Florida-based defense contractor has been named "to ready an interim presidential plane by year’s end, said people with knowledge of the situation."

The Daily Mail posted photos of the proposed Air Force One replacement, noting that the Qatari-owned luxury jet boasts "leather furniture along with glimmering floors and ceilings," which match "perfectly with Trump's famously opulent taste in décor."

"The conference room has gorgeous tan and cream chairs with deep cushions that are adjustable with the push of a button. The corridors of the plane are lined with reflective, gold-colored walls that are reminiscent of Trump’s design choices at his own properties such as Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan," and more recently, the Oval Office as well.

On board is a "conference room with deep cushioned chairs that are adjustable with the push of a button," and a "glimmering corridor inside the plane that jives with Trump's famous love for anything and everything gold."

From Your Site Articles

'Backward, bigoted and bad': Supreme Court slammed over Trump’s trans troop ban ruling

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, ignoring the actions of three lower courts, granted the Trump administration's motion to allow it to proceed with the Commander-in-Chief's decision to ban and purge all service members from the U.S. Armed Forces who are transgender.

The nation's highest court, with dissents from the three liberal justices, ruled that President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth may begin to discharge transgender individuals regardless of performance, while cases work their way through the courts. Two federal district courts had ruled that a ban, in whole or part, on service members simply because they are transgender likely violates their 14th Amendment rights.

The two district courts placed injunctions on the Trump administration's plan to ban transgender individuals, and an appeals court upheld one of those injunctions.

"Lower courts had blocked the policy, saying it was not supported by evidence and violated equal protection principles," The New York Times reported. Tuesday's ruling "will remain in place while challenges to the ban move forward."

But the court made clear, in what effectively was an unsigned 6-3 ruling, that the Trump administration, at least temporarily, may begin the discharge process.

The New York Times in February reported that the Pentagon believes the number of transgender service members is far lower than previously estimated, about 4200 in total. Previous estimates had come in at about 15,000.

The Trump administration has argued that transgender troops are disruptive to unit cohesion and lethality, and President Trump "has characterized the cost of providing care as 'tremendous.'” The actual cost, however, is around $9000 per trans service member, and totaled around $52 million over the past ten years.

The administration also "asserted that being transgender 'conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle.'"

Critics are blasting the Supreme Court, with several stating the trans military ban will make America less safe.

"Banning transgender people who want to serve our country from joining the military isn't just cruel—it's stupid," declared U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). "Shame on Trump. And shame on SCOTUS for letting such a hateful policy take effect."

"It's discrimination," wrote MSNBC legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks.

"Backward, bigoted and bad for our national security," wrote veteran and veterans' activist Paul Rieckhoff, president of Righteous Media. "Trump’s radical and destructive culture war on our military continues. And is unsurprisingly supported by this Supreme Court. Trump’s trans purge will remove valuable servicemembers, disrupt units and make America less safe."

"Absolutely shameful," declared U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel, and Iraq War combat veteran. "Trump's trans military service ban hurts our military readiness, makes our military's recruitment challenges even worse and disrespects Americans who are brave enough to serve in uniform. This will make our military less lethal and Americans less safe."

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "I'm so sorry for all the decorated members of the military who are going to be kicked out and treated like garbage by this administration just because of their gender identity. We're losing talented, dedicated soldiers and staff because of this."

"Thousands of openly-trans members of the military were just given a huge middle finger by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, who are allowing a cruel and unnecessary ban to go into effect, despite the overwhelming evidence that the ban itself is ridiculous," wrote author Charlotte Clymer, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign.

"Less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, showing remarkable honor & bravery," observed DePaul University Associate Professor of Political Science. "Less than 1% of those are openly trans, & show the same honor & even more bravery. Open discrimination by the president & the Supreme Court must be called out. Shameful."

From Your Site Articles

'Barely literate': Education secretary's 'deranged' letter gets major red ink corrections

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is facing criticism for a hyper-partisan letter she sent to Harvard University, riddled with grammatical errors and dubious claims.

In the 979-word statement, the Trump administration—through Secretary McMahon—condemned Harvard's admissions policies, staffing decisions, and institutional leadership, and informed the nation’s oldest university, a 388-year-old private Ivy League institution, that it will not receive new federal research grants.

"Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these 'students' come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE?" Secretary McMahon asked in the opening paragraph of her three-page letter.

"Harvard University has made a mockery of this country's higher education system. It has invited foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of America, to its campus," McMahon claimed.

"This year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing 'remedial math' program for undergraduates," the Education Secretary declared. "Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this 'acclaimed university'? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected?"

The Harvard Crimson last September reported that "the Covid-19 pandemic led to gaps in students’ math skills and learning abilities, prompting the need for a new introductory course."

"Much of Harvard's hateful discrimination was revealed, last year," McMahon charged, "by the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, and her Committee. As if it were trying to embarrass itself even further, Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country's history, to supposedly teach 'leadership' at their School of Public Health. This is like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to future captains of the sea."

McMahon also took issue with "strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative," being elected to lead the Harvard Corporation. She described the former Obama Cabinet secretary as "catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way."

The Education Secretary also blasted Harvard for allegedly failing "to abide by the United States Supreme Court's ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing [sic]," and for allegedly continuing "to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans."

McMahon also demanded Harvard's "cooperation with Law Enforcement, and reporting compliance with the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Agencies."

She ended the angry missive in a very Trumpian fashion: "Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Critics blasted McMahon.

"Did you use A1 to write this," asked investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger, mocking the Education Secretary's embarrassing remarks confusing artificial intelligence (AI) with the popular steak sauce (A1).

"Whoever wrote this is barely literate," declared The Independent's White House correspondent Andrew Feinberg.

"Did a high school kid write this?" asked veterans' activist and podcaster Fred Wellman. "You’re the Secretary of 'Education' and this is a chaotic mess of bad grammar and illiterate rambling. You poked the bear and you’re too stupid to even know it."

Maya Sen, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, wrote:

"Informing a private entity it will no longer be eligible for government contracts in part because a Democrat sits on its board."

She added, "what’s terrible is that the administration had many natural allies in academia - professors who wanted more diversity in thought, fewer regulations governing research funding, higher & consistent academic standards, and better protections of academic speech," and noted: "But not like this!"

"It may be wise for a private institution to have wide ideological diversity in its membership and leadership," She also noted. "But the government may not mandate it, nor make it a requirement for applying for unrelated funding."

Journalist John Harwood wrote simply, "this letter is deranged."

In addition to criticism of the content, some offered red-inked corrections that appear to be major:

See the social media posts above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Pro-Putin' billionaire eyed as Trump's next National Security Advisor: reports

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly suggested Len Blavatnik is a “Russian oligarch.” He is not a Russian citizen. We apologize for the error.

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering naming billionaire real estate mogul Steve Witkoff—his de facto envoy to Moscow—as the next National Security Advisor. Witkoff, who has no diplomatic or national security experience, has come under fire for his apparent closeness to Vladimir Putin. Among the concerns are that Witkoff has repeatedly been meeting the Russian leader alone, without any senior U.S. officials or policy experts present, to allegedly discuss ending Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine.

Thursday afternoon President Trump named Secretary of State Marco Rubio as interim National Security Advisor, and announced that Mike Waltz, now his former NSA, will be his nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, according to ABC News.

Regardless of President Trump’s intentions for Witkoff, serious concerns continue to swirl around him.

Anders Åslund, an economist and former Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, has described Witkoff as "pro-Putin." The former head of the UK's MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has described Witkoff's comments as "pro-Putin," according to Sky News.

"Steve Witkoff, Trump's Special Envoy, has a serious and unreported conflict of interest in Russia-Ukraine negotiations: his relationship with Ukraine-sanctioned businessman Len Blavatnik," reported The Counteroffensive's Tim Mak, a former NPR investigative reporter.

Witkoff's "fortune is largely made up of the Witkoff Group, the New York-based real estate developer he founded in 1997," Forbes reported in November. "He also owns homes in Manhattan, the Hamptons and south Florida, where he’s developing projects including the Dutchman’s Pipe Golf Club, a Jack Nicklaus-designed course with a luxury hotel, in partnership with Soviet-born billionaire Len Blavatnik's Access Industries."

Critics have been blasting Witkoff for meeting alone with President Putin — even his translator is reportedly provided by the Kremlin.

The New York Post calls the solo act "a break with longstanding diplomatic procedure," and notes that "Russian media have picked up on a pattern of Witkoff parroting Putin, with state television announcers recently commenting that the American easily accepts Moscow’s narratives — even when Russians don’t."

Witkoff's actions are so upsetting to national security experts that one, Republican former U.S. Congressman Adam Kinzinger, last week called Witkoff's decision to meet with Putin without any other U.S. representation, "pure, unadulterated, evil."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lamented, “I believe Mr. Witkoff has adopted the strategy of the Russian side.”

“Consciously or not, he is spreading Russian narratives. Either way, it does not help,” Zelenskyy warned.

The Post also reports that Witkoff has been labeled a "bumbling f------ idiot," by a former official in Trump's first administration.

The Financial Times last week reported that Ukraine has “long suspected Witkoff of pro-Russian sympathies.”

Last week, Fox News’ Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin blasted the Trump administration:

“Where are the subject matter experts with Witkoff? Putin, the KGB officer, is laughing,” Griffin noted. “Meanwhile the instability at the Pentagon is not helping project strength during these delicate negotiations. There is still no confirmed NSA [National Security Agency] (Cyber Command) director after Defense Secretary Hegseth fired Gen Hauck and his deputy for no reason, not even a nominee yet for the person overseeing the crown jewel of US intelligence and SIGINT, which might come into handy when you are negotiating with Putin and Xi.”

Among those reporting Witkoff is being considered for the vital role as National Security Adviser are Mark Halpern, Politico's Jake Traylor, and CNN's Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak.

Politico adds that in addition to Witkoff, other possible candidates to replace Mike Waltz include "Trump’s top policy chief Stephen Miller, NSC senior director for counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka and Trump’s special envoy for special missions Richard Grenell."

Image via Reuters

From Your Site Articles