Search results for "Afghanistan"

Trump 'wiped away' programs that may have stopped alleged DC shooter: expert

The alleged perpetrator of the recent shooting of two National Guard members in downtown Washington D.C. may have been kept out of American society if not for budget cuts by President Donald Trump's administration.

That's according to #AfghanEvac President Shawn VanDiver, who told MS NOW on Thursday that alleged shooter Rahmanullah Lakanwal – an Afghan national who came to the United States in September of 2021 — could have potentially been stopped before carrying out his act. He cited the 2024 arrest of 19 year-old Afghan national Abdullah Haji Zada, who was apprehended for plotting an Election Day mass shooting in Oklahoma City, as an example of how federal resources can work to prevent acts of terrorism before they happen.

"Nobody should ever have to endure this gun violence that's endemic in our American society. And look, the truth is that this man alone is responsible for his crime. His actions do not represent the Afghan community or Afghan wartime allies, or anybody who stood with us for 20 years," VanDiver said. "In fact, the FBI's own watchdog confirmed that the vetting systems worked under Kash Patel in in June of 2025. He said there were no systemic failures, so we don't necessarily know what failed yet. But we do know that there are law enforcement mechanisms in place to identify lone wolves, and that worked before the last election, when the man in Oklahoma City was identified and taken out."

"All sorts of people have tried to do these lone wolf attacks. President Trump, through DOGE, wiped away all of the mechanisms meant to protect our American society from that," he continued. "So I would encourage DHS, the FBI, law enforcement around this country to reallocate resources away from stunts at Home Depot and picking up grandmas at immigration court back to the places that keep our country safe."

VanDiver's organization, #AfghanEvac, works to resettle Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban — particularly those who helped the United States during its 20-year war in the Central Asian country. He pointed out that all people applying to move from Afghanistan to the U.S. have to be "thoroughly vetted," and reminded viewers that the Trump administration approved Lakanwal's asylum application earlier this year.

"This gentleman came through Operation Allies Welcome, went through the airport in Kabul, arrived as a parolee on temporary status. And he, for whatever reason, he got Chief of Mission approval, which means he went through vetting then," VanDiver said. "But then he also applied for and received asylum from the Trump administration, which means he was vetted then as well. The CIA, the intelligence community, the larger intelligence community, law enforcement all vetted this guy."

"So we're not certain that that has anything to do with it. What we think is that he was just a deranged man, and the entire Afghan community shouldn't suffer for that," he added. "But look, these folks are facing really hard times, right? They're hiding in Kabul. They're in hiding all all over Afghanistan, trying to come here because of the promises that our diplomats and service members made to them. And the Trump administration shut it all down on day one."

Watch the segment below:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

DC shooting suspect may have been blackmailed into carrying out attack: report

Alleged Washington D.C. shooter Rahmanullah Lakanwal may have been coerced into carrying out last week's attack on two members of the West Virginia National Guard, according to a new report.

The Daily Beast's "The Swamp" newsletter reported Tuesday that U.S. intelligence sources are investigating whether the Taliban may have blackmailed the 29 year-old Lakanwal into shooting 24 year-old Andrew Wolfe and 20 year-old Sarah Beckstrom. Wolfe remains in critical condition, while Beckstrom died from her injuries. Lakanwal was also shot during the ambush-style attack and remains hospitalized.

According to one unnamed intelligence source, Lakanwal may have felt pressured to drive across the country from his home in Bellingham, Washington to the nation's capital, if Taliban fighters gave him an ultimatum to either attack U.S. troops or have his family killed. The source noted that the threat may have been particularly effective given that Lakanwal helped the U.S. fight the Taliban during the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

"It is by no means our only line of inquiry," the Beast's source said. "People in this country have no idea about the level of stress these people are under. Most of them have families back home, and if the Taliban cannot get to them, they are making it very clear that they will go after their families."

In Afghanistan, Lakwanwal was a member of the Afghan Scorpion Forces, who worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a GPS tracking specialist. Lakanwal was on one of the very last flights to the U.S. out of Kabul along with more than 120,000 other Afghan refugees, who feared retribution from the Taliban if left to fend for themselves.

The Beast further reported that the Taliban has since formed a military unit dubbed "Yarmouk 60" whose mission is to track down and kill Afghans who helped the United States. The outlet's source said that one member of the "Afghan Triples" unit that was set and funded by the United Kingdom escaped to Germany and hoped his family would follow. However, Yarmouk 60 fighters ended up killing his wife, his father and four of his children.

Lakanwal has been charged on one count of murder, two counts of assault with the intent to kill and one count of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. ABC News reported that he was arraigned remotely from his hospital bed in Washington D.C.

Click here to read the Beast's full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'This is not America First': MAGA slams Trump for sending $45 million to Taliban

President Donald Trump's administration is being sharply criticized by conservatives in both government and media for reportedly sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban-controlled government in Afghanistan.

Newsweek reported Tuesday that, according to Amrullah Saleh, (who leads the anti-Taliban political party Afghanistan Green Trend) the Trump administration flew $45 million in cash to Afghanistan on Monday. Saleh's group alleged that the money was "flown in via a chartered flight by Moalem Airlines," which is based in Kyrgyzstan.

The post caught the attention of conservative commentator Ann Vandersteel, who said of the cash payment "this is not America First" but rather "America deceived." Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who is a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, responded to Vandersteel's post by adding that the massive cash shipments to the Taliban are happening "every week." He then called on the U.S. Senate to "pass my bill."

Burchett's legislation — the "No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act" — passed the House of Representatives in June, and would empower the U.S. State Department to identify and publish the names of every organization providing financial support to the Taliban-controlled government.

"The United States has sent over $5 billion in cash to Kabul. It is the duty of the State Department to ensure that any aid from the United States is kept out of the hands of terrorists in Afghanistan. The terrorists can hate us for free," Burchett stated after the bill was passed.

Burchett has been a vocal proponent of cutting off U.S. cash shipments to Afghanistan ever since U.S. troops withdrew from the war-torn country in 2021. The issue has also attracted interest from MAGA influencers in close proximity to Trump, like unofficial "loyalty enforcer" Laura Loomer.

"Why is the United States still funding the Taliban?" Loomer wrote on Tuesday. "What the hell do our reps do all day aside from ruin our country and the world?"

"Because we are crooked Laura," Burchett responded.

Click here to read Newsweek's full article.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

US Green Berets accuse Trump administration of 'reneging on promises made'

Members of the U.S. Green Berets Special Forces are pushing back against President Donald Trump's crackdown on Afghan immigrants after the recent shooting in Washington, D.C., with one chastising the move as "reneging on promises made" in a report from NBC News.

On Nov. 26, an Afghan national opened fire on National Guard members deployed to D.C. by Trump's order, killing one, Sarah Beckstrom, and critically injuring another, Andrew Wolfe. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was later found to have received CIA paramilitary training in Afghanistan and served in a CIA-backed militia. He first entered the U.S. after the withdrawal of military forces from his home country in 2021. Reports also indicate that he had been suffering from mental health issues in recent months and was struggling financially.

Despite the fact that the suspect's request for asylum was approved by under the Trump administration in 2025, the president has nonetheless responded to the shooting with a crackdown on Afghani immigrants in the U.S., pausing or outright halting asylum proceedings and visa processes.

In response, various Special Forces veterans who worked closely with Afghans during the U.S. militaries extended war in the country told NBC News that the president's new actions are "not fair" and said that many Afghan nationals they are in touch with are "terrified.

“It is definitely not fair to group all Afghans that helped us during our time in Afghanistan in that same basket as this individual,” Benn Hoffman, a Green Beret who served five deployments in Afghanistan, said.

“They’re fearful they’re going to be sent back to a country where we have had documented cases of our guys being killed in retribution attacks," Dave Elliott, another Green Beret and founder of the 1208 Foundation non-profit, said. "These guys didn’t want to leave Afghanistan. They left Afghanistan because the U.S. broke it and handed it back to the Taliban and they had no other choice.”

Afghans who aided U.S. forces during the war have been singled out for retribution by the Taliban, since the group took control of the Afghanistan government in 2021. Because of this, many American servicemembers have advocated for these allies to receive aid from the U.S. and asylum, to make sure they escape potential persecution.

Green Beret Thomas Kasza warned that turning our backs on Afghan allies now could also imperil future Special Forces operations overseas.

“Green Berets are built to operate with and through a host-nation partner,” Kasza explained. “If the future partner of a Special Forces detachment sees America so willing to renege on promises made, how likely is it that they will be willing to put their lives on the line to aid in advancing the interest of another nation that will readily ignore their sacrifice?”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Trump blasted for calling female reporter a 'stupid person' over question about DC shooter

During a Thursday night press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate, President Donald Trump erupted at a female reporter who asked him about the vetting process for the alleged perpetrator of this week's fatal shooting in Washington D.C.

Trump announced Thursday that 20 year-old West Virginia National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom succumbed to her injuries after being shot in downtown Washington D.C. on Wednesday afternoon. Beckstrom and 24 year-old Andrew Wolfe were attacked outside of the Farragut West Metro station just blocks away from the White House. Wolfe is still in critical condition.

Police arrested 29 year-old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who allegedly fired multiple rounds from a handgun at Beckstrom and Wolfe in an ambush-style attack. Lakanwal was also shot, and is being treated for his injuries at a local hospital. Trump blamed former President Joe Biden's immigration and refugee policies for the attack, as Lakanwal came to the U.S. from Afghanistan in 2021. However, Lakanwal was granted asylum by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) earlier this year.

CBS reporter Nancy Cordes reminded Trump that Lakanwal "worked very closely with the CIA in Afghanistan for years" and that the vetting process came up "clean." Trump responded that Lakanwal "went cuckoo" and that "there was no vetting."

"Actually, your [Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General] just reported this year that there was thorough vetting by DHS and the FBI of these Afghans who were brought into the U.S., so why do you blame the Biden administration?" Cordes asked, before Trump cut her off.

"Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person?" Trump said. "Because they came in on a plane, along with thousands of other people who shouldn't be here, and you're just asking questions because you're a stupid person."

The president's remarks were met with outrage and ridicule on social media. Author Nick Pettigrew observed: "Trump verbally abusing a woman for doing her job, while her colleagues stand and watch it happen without doing anything. Again."

"In less than 2 weeks, Trump has called one female reporter 'piggy,' another female reporter 'ugly' and a third female reporter 'stupid,'" former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob wrote on Bluesky. "All decent Americans are disgusted by this."

New York Sun columnist Karen Schwartz sarcastically quipped that Trump was "cool calm and collected," while Kean University adjunct professor Michael E. Carter mocked "The solemn dignity of our commander-in-chief."

"It's easy to be numb because it's par for the course nowadays, but repeatedly calling a reporter who asks a reasonable question 'stupid' is conduct unbecoming for a small-town mayor, let alone the President of the United States," wrote American University assistant professor David Ryan Miller. "The press exists to play a watchdog role, not be a supplicant."

Watch the exchange below:


“You’re a stupid person” — Trump lashes out at a reporter who presses him on the fact that the suspected DC shooter was actually thoroughly vetted before he was let in the US from Afghanistan

[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) Nov 27, 2025 at 7:24 PM
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Internet erupts after learning alleged shooter 'granted asylum this year' by Trump admin

29 year-old Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal was arrested Wednesday and accused of shooting two National Guardsmen in downtown Washington D.C., who both are currently hospitalized in critical condition. The alleged gunman's motive has not yet been revealed, but President Donald Trump insinuated in a video address posted to Truth Social that the shooting could be attributed to former President Joe Biden's immigration and refugee policy.

"The suspect in custody is a foreigner who entered out country from Afghanistan — a hellhole on earth. He was flown in by the Biden administration in September 2021," Trump said. "... His status was extended under legislation signed by President Biden ... This attack underscores the single greatest national security threat facing our nation."

However, CNN law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller said Wednesday that new information about Lakanwal suggests that the Trump administration may be more to blame for Lakanwal's residency than Biden. He pointed out that the alleged shooter may have had his visa sponsored by U.S. military personnel as part of programs in place meant to help Afghanis fleeing the Taliban who helped the United States.

"He applies for asylum in December of 2024," Miller said. "Now, he goes through another vetting process involving that, and he's approved for asylum in April of this year, under the Trump administration."

The new revelations sparked outrage on social media. Writer Wajahat Ali tweeted: "Why did Trump invite a man who shot the National Guard?"

"Am I doing this right, MAGA? I am, right? I'm following your logic," he wrote. "So, yeah, Donald Trump should be blamed entirely."

"The [alleged] shooter was granted asylum this year," observed Colorado State University political science professor Maria Isabel Puerta Riera.

"WHY DID THE FBI LEAVE THIS OUT OF THEIR BRIEFING?" New York Times bestselling author Don Winslow wrote on X. "WHY DIDN'T KASH PATEL MENTION ANY OF THIS?"

Researcher Arif Ammar noted that there are still "many questions" on the nature of the Wednesday shooting including the "motive of the assailant," "who sponsored his evacuation from Afghanistan" and any "possible adverse affiliation of the suspect."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'Be quiet': Ex-CIA official warns Trump is 'undermining' foreign policy with 'overt action'

The Trump administration’s moves to push for a regime change in Venezuela have been far from discreet, and one former CIA official warns that this approach and the overall operation are liable to blow up in the president's face.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump and his administration have pushed heavily for a regime change in Venezuela, pressuring President Nicolás Maduro to resign from office. This push has involved a heavy increase in military and defense posturing, including the authorization of covert operations in the South American nation, the buildup of aircraft carriers off of its northern shore and the prospect of ground deployments in the near future.

Speaking with CNN on Monday afternoon, Kevin Carroll, a former CIA case officer and official with the Department of Homeland Security, said that the administration should “be quiet” with its handling of the Venezuela and warned that any sort of military operation in the country could go poorly in a number of ways.

“The very first thing the administration should do is be quiet in public,” Carroll said. “You know, they've been discussing covert action, it’s more like overt action at this point."

"I think they shouldn't undermine whoever comes next there [after Maduro] by making them look like an American puppet by so publicly discussing the CIA’s involvement," Carroll added.

Carroll also warned that despite the history of successful U.S.-backed regime changes, there’s no guarantee that things won’t go sideways in Venezuela and noted such a move could have negative reverberations.

“The U.S. has demonstrated repeatedly that we're capable of forcing regime change from the air, as in Libya in 2011 or in Afghanistan in 2001, with air power and just some special operations forces," Carroll said. "But that doesn't mean that you can control what happens next. We obviously weren't able to get a government to our liking in power in [Libya], and it took a massive investment of U.S. forces to try, ultimately unsuccessfully, to keep a government that we favored in power in [Afghanistan]. So I think the reverberations could be could be really poor."

“You could have some sort of civil war situation develop with competing factions and within Venezuela. Another thing is that for historical reasons, Latin Americans are sensitive about gunboat diplomacy and so forth by the United States. And so going down there and so obviously forcing regime change is going to raise the hackles of nationalists throughout Latin America.”

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

DC shooting suspect possibly 'radicalized' online despite thorough CIA 'vetting': expert

On Wednesday afternoon, November 26, the shocking news broke that two National Guard members in Washington, DC had been shot near the White House.

The suspect in the case is Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who, according to the Wall Street Journal, "worked with CIA-backed military units during the U.S. war in Afghanistan." And the National Guard members, who survived but were in critical condition, have been identified as 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe and 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom.

During a Thanksgiving Day appearance on MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), former FBI counterterrorism expert Rob D'Amico offered analysis of the investigation —emphasizing that the Afghan suspect might have been "radicalized" online despite a thorough and comprehensive vetting.

D'Amico told MS NOW host Laura Barrón-López that the suspect might have "come over here" and "gotten radicalized" by ISIS (Islamic State, Iraq and Syria) — and may have had "some mental health issues."

D'Amico argued, "They're going to have to pull that apart. And it's really going to come from his communications that they're going to look (at), his friends, and who he hung out with."

When Barrón-López noted that D'Amico "personally fingerprinted thousands of Afghans…. for vetting" and asked him to discuss "the process," he responded, "In the beginning, when we were fingerprinting them back in 2003…. we would fingerprint them, we would take them, we'd keep them locally."

The former FBI counterterrorism expert continued, "We'd bring them back after our deployments, and we put them in. (I) actually worked on a program called the Quick Capture Platform. When we started fingerprinting them, it went up through the satellites, and we get a response in two minutes if that person had been fingerprinted before…. They would leave a thumbprint on a piece of tape, and when we'd fingerprint them, they'd come up — and we would know who they were. But those databases did finally start coming back real time. So we have those fingerprints. But again, if he was in the CIA's system, he was thoroughly vetted through fingerprints, through all these other means."

D'Amico noted that the suspect might have been "a plant" who was sophisticated enough to get through the CIA's comprehensive "vetting" system — or perhaps was a "trusted member" who "somehow got radicalized while he was here for four years or so."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'Really dangerous stuff': Trump's new 'disturbing' surge shattered by expert

When I heard the news about two National Guard troops who were shot in Washington over the Thanksgiving holiday, the first person I thought of was Radley Balko. He’s the author of The Rise of the Warrior Cop and publisher of The Watch, a newsletter. If anyone knows about the complex intersection of criminal justice and civil liberties, it’s him.

I wanted to ask what he thought. See the interview below.

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, had deployed a number of his state’s guardsmen to Washington as part of the president’s scheme to send military forces to US cities. Donald Trump has suggested that local police departments are failing to fight crime.

But it was Washington police that not only caught the shooter. They shot him. And now, in the wake of that crime, DC police are escorting Guard troops for their own protection. (Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said the guardsmen were targeted. One of them is dead, the other remains gravely injured. Meanwhile, the shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is hospitalized. He was charged with murder last week.)

So the gambit was never about crime-fighting, Radley told me. It was about an administration putting on a show of force. “That's really what we've seen in DC. Guard troops have been patrolling in low-crime, tourist areas, not in parts of the city with higher crime rates.”

But it would be a mistake to see this effort as part of a larger, decades’ long pattern of militarizing American police departments, Radley said.

The old debate was underscored by a shared understanding, he said – that democracies don’t use the military for law enforcement. “What's happening now in some ways supersedes that debate. Trump wants to use the military itself for domestic policing. He's obliterating that shared understanding that this isn't something free societies do.”

The president has always wanted a paramilitary that’s loyal to him. In many ways, he now has one, not in the state National Guard but in ICE and Border Patrol. They are acting as if answerable only to him.

Therefore, accountability is going to be hard to come by, Radley said.

State and local authorities that have tried have faced daunting odds.

Even so, Radley said, “I think local prosecutors should try anyway.”

“The administration is encouraging a culture of aggression, lawlessness and racism,” Radley told me. “It's really dangerous stuff. So accountability has to come at the state and local level. Even if it's ultimately futile, I think it sends an important message that they don't get to just rampage through these cities with impunity.”

Washington cops are now patrolling alongside National guardsmen in Washington. Weren't the cops doing such a poor job that the National Guard had to get involved to fight crime? What is going on?

DC’s crime rate has always been higher than that of other cities its size. There are lots of possible explanations for that. But when Trump deployed the National Guard, crime was going down in the city, after a surge during the pandemic (a surge that hit most of the rest of the country, too). Moreover, Guard troops aren't cops. They aren't trained to conduct policing patrols, respond to emergencies or threats, or to solve crimes. There's really no reason to deploy the National Guard other than as a show of force. And that's really what we've seen in DC. Guard troops have been patrolling in low-crime, tourist areas, not in parts of the city with higher crime rates.

The two victims were targeted, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said. The shooter’s motive is still unclear. What's your best guess?

From what I've read, he was part of an elite, CIA-trained unit in Afghanistan who undertook extremely dangerous missions to aid the US war effort [the “war on terror”]. And also from what I've read, other members of that unit have felt abandoned by the US government — as have other Afghans who assisted US troops during the war.

It looks like the Democrats are not arguing over crime rates and whether the president is justified in ordering troops to DC and other cities. They seemed to be focused on blaming Donald Trump for the attack. Are they right? The news today, about the shooter being CIA-trained, suggests there's more to blame the president for.

I won't claim to be a political operative. So while I don't know what would be most persuasive to the public, in terms of fostering public understanding, I think it's important to point out all of these things.

The crime rate is down in every city to which Trump has tried to send the National Guard to "fight crime." But also, he has zero authority to send the National Guard to fight crime. The National Guard isn't trained to fight crime. And Trump has offered different justifications for sending the National Guard depending on whether his audience is the federal courts, Fox News, the press, or someone else.

(In addition to "fighting crime," he has claimed it's necessary to send in the military and National Guard to carry out deportations, to put down protests, and because protests have inhibited the ability of federal law enforcement to carry out mass deportations.)

It's all been rooted in shameless lies and distortions of reality.

The truth is that Trump has always

  • wanted a paramilitary force answerable only to him, and which he could deploy anywhere in the country for any reason
  • expressed his admiration for strongmen and dictators who had such a force and used it to suppress dissent and put down their enemies, and
  • he neither understands nor cares much for the norms and laws that restrict a president's ability to deploy the military domestically.

The government has militarized civil society for many years now, especially since 9/11. Police departments, as you have written, are more or less small armies. Is a president sending troops to cities the end point of that process or more of the same with no end in sight?

It's really a new, disturbing, and in some ways ambiguous escalation.

The discussion about police militarization has always been grounded in a shared understanding that using the military for domestic law enforcement is a dangerous idea that free societies avoid. It isn't what soldiers are trained to do. And democracies that go down that road tend to not remain democracies for long.

The debate had been about whether the police were becoming too influenced by the military -- whether the use of military weapons, uniforms, gear, and lingo was fostering in police an aggressive "us versus them" mindset that's inappropriate for domestic policing.

What's happening now in some ways supersedes that debate. Trump wants to use the military itself for domestic policing. He's obliterating that shared understanding that this isn't something free societies do.

Yet in some ways, police in the US have become more "militarized" (for lack of a better term) than the military. I've often had police officials who agree with me on these issues tell me that officers who are ex-military tend to have a positive influence on other cops, because the military instills more discipline and accountability than modern police agencies do. We're seeing this play out right now.

The way ICE and Border Patrol have behaved in Chicago, LA, Charlotte and other cities is as aggressive, confrontational, and ugly as it gets.

It's actually hard to imagine the National Guard doing worse. It is made up of part-time citizens who tend to live in the communities where they're deployed (though Trump is changing that, too). They aren't immersed in toxic police culture. We saw this on display during Trump's first term, after the violent clearing of Lafayette Park in DC. It was the National Guard troops and commanders who came forward to dispute the White House narrative about what happened.

That said, I do think what Trump wants to do with the military is dangerous. And as we've seen in other areas, if he encounters National Guard commanders and troops who aren't as aggressive and loyal as he wants, he'll remove them and replace them with people who are.

The president already has a paramilitary in ICE and Border Patrol. Democratic leaders like Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have ramped up their rhetoric. Are we seeing the makings of conflict, perhaps armed conflict, between state authorities and ICE and Border Patrol? Or is there a plan to keep a paper trail on ICE agents for future investigation by state prosecutors? What are you seeing?

It will be very difficult to prosecute ICE or Border Patrol officers in state courts. On the few occasions state prosecutors have tried, the DOJ has just had the case removed to federal court, then dropped the charges (this has been true in administrations from both parties). I think there's a real worry that submitting federal agents to local authority will diminish federal policing powers.

That said, I think local prosecutors should try anyway. Currently there's no accountability for these officers. They can't really be sued. Trump's DOJ won't prosecute them in federal court. And he's likely to pardon them from any prosecution in a future administration.

Meanwhile, the administration is encouraging a culture of aggression, lawlessness and racism. It's really dangerous stuff. So accountability has to come at the state and local level. Even if it's ultimately futile, I think it sends an important message that they don't get to just rampage through these cities with impunity.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

'There is no bottom': Trump mocked for claiming ballroom necessary for 'national security'

President Donald Trump's administration is now responding to a lawsuit seeking to halt construction of his proposed new White House ballroom.

The Associated Press (AP) reported Monday that Trump is now justifying the construction of his $300 million ballroom – which would replace the demolished East Wing of the White House — by claiming it's necessary for "national security" purposes. U.S. Secret Service officials told the judge assigned to a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States that construction on the site where the East Wing used to stand had to continue to meet unspecified "safety and security requirements."

The administration's claim of needing the ballroom for "national security" purposes was roundly mocked on social media. Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), who sits on the House Foreign Relations Committee, asserted on her official X account that Trump's ballroom was "not a national security priority."

"His vanity project is only a distraction from resolving global crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Afghanistan, and the list goes on," Johnson wrote.

Former Democratic campaign worker Gerald M. LeRoy also piled on, observing that the news of the day was "so insane that I do appreciate the humor of a breaking news headline essentially being 'Trump opposes someone opposing him.'"

"There is no bottom to the mendacity of these scoundrels," Chicago-based writer Lynn Becker posted.

Florida-based attorney Steve Kerins responded to the news by also pointing to Trump's recent executive order classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).

"National security ballroom. Fentanyl WMDs. We're really on a roll of authoritarian consolidation today," Kerins wrote.

Vox.com senior writer Elias Isquith took a different direction, sarcastically wondering if Trump was the "physical embodiment of a larger metaphysical force" that was "designed to ruthlessly exploit the most obvious flaws in our constitution & our society & thus force us to address glaring defects."

Click here to read the AP's full report.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Lawmaker floats 'perjury charges' against Trump DHS head during live hearing

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) hammered Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on who approved the asylum of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who shot and killed a National Guard soldier in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 26, 2025.

Lakanwal, a CIA-backed fighter in Afghanistan, entered the United States in 2021 and applied for asylum. He was approved in April 2025 under President Donald Trump's administration, CNN reported.

Thompson repeatedly probed who approved the application. Noem tried to find a way to blame former President Joe Biden's administration. She claimed that the vetting for Lakanwal happened due to the "Biden administration's vetting."

Thompson wasn't having it.

"Who, who approved the asylum?" Thompson said as Noem tried to speak over him.

"The application on the asylum was thoroughly filled out by information that was gathered by the Biden administration," Noem repeated.

"So, the Biden administration approved the asylum?" Thompson asked again. Noem filibustered over him, again stating the application was "put into place under the rules established by the Biden administration."

"Reclaiming my time. I don't want to charge — file perjury charges against you, but I'm of the opinion that the Trump administration, DHS, your DHS, approved the asylum application," said Thompson.

Noem claimed that the application "moved forward under all of the information and vetting processes that were put in place under the Biden administration." Meaning, the application was filed under Biden. Noem refused to acknowledge the application's approval.

"Reclaiming my time again," Thompson said as Noem refused to admit Trump administration culpability. "It's obvious you're not going to answer my question."

"Mr. Kent you want to take a shot at it?" He asked the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent.

Kent also repeated that Lakanwal was vetted under Biden, and because he was tagged as a soldier, he was allowed into the U.S.

However, it was the Trump administration that ultimately approved the application. They have since changed the way they do vetting. The most recent update will require enhanced vetting for H-1B and dependent H-4 visa applicants as of Dec. 15, 2025.

Thompson also pressed DHS officials on the claim that antifa is a terrorist organization. He asked how many people they've identified or where they were that they consider terrorists. None of the officials answered.

From Your Site Articles
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.