ReportWire

Tag: President Trump

  • Justice Department drafting a list of ‘domestic terrorists’

    Justice Department leadership has directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” by the start of next year, and to establish a “cash reward system” that incentivizes individuals to report on their fellow Americans, according to a memo reviewed by The Times.

    Law enforcement agencies are directed in the memo, dated Dec. 4, to identify “domestic terrorists” who use violence, or the threat of violence, to advance political and social agendas, including “adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity.”

    Although the memo does not mention protests against President Trump’s immigration crackdown directly, it says that problematic “political and social agendas” could include “opposition to law and immigration enforcement, extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders.”

    The memo, sent by Atty, Gen. Pam Bondi to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, follows on a presidential memorandum signed by Trump in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure, that gave civil rights groups pause over the potential targeting of political activists, donors and nonprofits opposed to the president.

    The memo also outlines what it says are causes of domestic terrorist activity, including “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”

    “Federal law enforcement will prioritize this threat. Where federal crime is encountered, federal agents will act,” the memo states.

    Some national security experts said the memo represents a dramatic operational shift, by directing federal prosecutors and agents to approach domestic terrorism in a way that is “ideologically one-sided.” At worst, critics said, the memo provides legal justification for criminalizing free speech.

    “I think this causes a chilling impact, because it definitely seems to be directing enforcement toward particular points of view,” Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general for national security, said in an interview.

    The memo, for example, primarily focuses on antifa-aligned extremism, but omits other trends that in recent years have been identified as rising domestic threats, such as violent white supremacy. Since Trump resumed office, the FBI has cut its office designated to focus on domestic extremism, withdrawing resources from investigations into white supremacists and right-wing antigovernment groups.

    The memo’s push to collect intelligence on antifa through internal lists and public tip lines also raised questions over the scope of the investigative mission, and how wide a net investigators might cast.

    “Whether you’re going to a protest, whether you’re considering a piece of legislation, whether you’re considering undertaking a particular business activity, the ambiguity will affect your risk profile,” Thomas Brzozowski, a former counsel for domestic terrorism at the Justice Department, said in an interview.

    “It is the unknown that people will fear,” he added.

    Protesters in 1980s style aerobic outfits work out during a demonstration dubbed “Sweatin’ Out the Fascists” on Sunday in Portland, Ore.

    (Natalie Behring / Getty Images)

    Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have expressed alarm over the new policy, which could be used by the Justice Department to target civil society groups and Democratic individuals and entities with burdensome investigations.

    But the White House argues that Democratic appointees under the Biden administration targeted conservative extremists in similar ways.

    Members of Trump’s team have embraced political retribution as a policy course. Ed Martin, the president’s pardon attorney, has openly advocated for Justice Department investigations that would burden who Trump perceives as his enemies, alongside leniency for his friends and allies.

    “No MAGA left behind,” Martin wrote on social media in May.

    Law enforcement agencies are directed in the memo to “zealously” investigate those involved in what it calls potential domestic terrorist actions, including “doxing” law enforcement. Authorities are also directed to “map the full network of culpable actors” potentially tied to crime.

    Domestic terrorism is not an official designation in U.S. law. But the directive cites over two dozen existing laws that could substantiate charges against domestic extremists and their supporters, such as conspiracy to injure an officer, seditious conspiracy and mail and wire fraud.

    Only in a footnote of the memo does the Justice Department acknowledge that the U.S. government cannot “investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment.”

    “No investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the footnote says.

    Some tension could arise when citizens report what they believe to be suspected domestic terrorism to the FBI.

    The memo directs the FBI online tip line to allow “witnesses and citizen journalists” to report videos, recordings and photos of what they believe to be suspected acts of domestic violence, and establish a “cash reward system” for information that leads to an arrest.

    “People will inform because they want to get paid,” Brzozowski said. He added that some information could end up being unreliable and likely be related to other Americans exercising their constitutional rights.

    State and local law enforcement agencies that adhere to the Justice Department directive will be prioritized for federal grant funding.

    A man dressed as a bee holds an American flag at a No Kings protest.

    A man dressed as a bee participates in the No Kings Day of Peaceful Action in downtown Los Angeles on Oct. 18.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    One of the directives in the memo would require the FBI to disseminate an “intelligence bulletin on Antifa and Antifa-aligned anarchist violent extremist groups” early next year.

    “The bulletin should describe the relevant organizations structures, funding sources, and tactics so that law enforcement partners can effectively investigate and policy makers can effectively understand the nature and gravity of the threat posed by these extremist groups,” the memo states.

    The mission will cross several agencies, with the FBI working alongside joint terrorism task forces nationwide, as well as the Counterterrorism Division and the National Threat Operations Center, among others, to provide updates to Justice Department leadership every 30 days.

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • US could demand five-year social media history from tourists before allowing entry

    Tourists from Europe and other regions could be asked to provide a five-year social media history before given entry to the United States, according to a new proposal from the US Customs and Border Protection service (CBP). The new rule would affect visitors from countries who normally enjoy relatively easy entry to the US via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

    The new proposal cites an executive order issued by President Trump from January titled “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” In his first year in office, Trump has been hyper-focused on strengthening US borders and reducing what he calls illegal immigration.

    The US state department will conduct “online presence” reviews for applicants and their dependents and require privacy settings on social media profiles to be made “public.” Applicants must list all the social media handles they’ve used over the last five years and if any information is omitted, it could lead to the denial of current and future visas. The CBP didn’t say what information they were looking for or what could be disqualifying.

    On top of the social media information, CBP may require applicant’s telephone numbers and email addresses used over the last five and 10 years respectively, along with information about family members.

    The new conditions are liable to increase ESTA wait times and drastically boost the cost of enforcing it. The CPB’s document suggests that an additional 5,598,115 man-hours would be required per year, or around 3,000 full-time jobs plus all the costs that entails. Right now, the ESTA application costs $40, allows people to visit the US for 90 days at a time and is valid for a two-year period.

    The mandatory social media reporting and other requirements could discourage travelers. Some Australian tourists who were coming to the US for the upcoming World Cup have now said that they’ve abandoned those plans, according to The Guardian, with one person calling the new rules “horrifying.”

    However, when asked if the proposal could lead to a tourism decline in the US, Trump said he wasn’t concerned. “No. We’re doing so well,” he told a reporter. “We want to make sure we’re not letting the wrong people come enter our country.”

    The CPB emphasized that the new conditions were only a proposal for now. “Nothing has changed on this front for those coming to the United States [currently],” a spokesperson told the BBC. “This is not a final rule, it is simply the first step in starting a discussion to have new policy options to keep the American people safe.”

    If implemented, the rule would affect people from 40 countries, including the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan. The largest number of tourists to the US come from Canada and Mexico, accounting for nearly half of the total — however, visitors with passports from those two countries don’t require a visa or ESTA approval. Travel to the US was down three percent this year compared to 2024 as of August 2025, according to the National Travel and Tourism Office.

    Steve Dent

    Source link

  • Rep. Swalwell’s suit alleges abuse of power, adds to scrutiny of Trump official’s mortgage probes

    In a fiery rebuttal to allegations he’d criminally misrepresented facts in his mortgage documents, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte on Tuesday — accusing him of criminally misusing government databases to baselessly target President Trump’s political opponents.

    “Pulte has abused his position by scouring databases at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — two government-sponsored enterprises — for the private mortgage records of several prominent Democrats,” attorneys for Swalwell wrote in a federal lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C. “He then used those records to concoct fanciful allegations of mortgage fraud, which he referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.”

    They said Pulte launched his attack on Swalwell at a particularly inopportune time, just as Swalwell was launching his campaign for California governor.

    Pulte’s attack, Swalwell’s attorneys wrote, “was not only a gross mischaracterization of reality” but “a gross abuse of power that violated the law,” infringing on Swalwell’s free speech rights to criticize the president without fear of reprisal, and violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which they said bars federal officials from “leveraging their access to citizens’ private information as a tool for harming their political opponents.”

    Pulte, the FHFA and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

    Pulte has previously defended his work probing mortgage documents of prominent Democrats, saying no one is above the law. His referrals have exclusively targeted Democrats, despite reporting on Republicans taking similar actions on their mortgages.

    Swalwell’s lawsuit is the latest counterpunch to Pulte’s campaign, and part of mounting scrutiny over its unprecedented nature and unorthodox methods — not just from targets of his probes but from other investigators, too, according to one witness.

    In addition to Swalwell, Pulte has referred mortgage fraud allegations to the Justice Department against Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who have all denied wrongdoing and suggested the allegations amount to little more than political retribution.

    James was criminally charged by an inexperienced, loyalist federal prosecutor specially appointed by Trump in Virginia, though a judge has since thrown out that case on the grounds that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed. The judge also threw out a case against former FBI Director James Comey, another Trump opponent.

    Cook’s attorneys slammed Pulte in a letter to the Justice Department, writing that his “decision to use the FHFA to selectively — and publicly — investigate and target the President’s designated political enemies gives rise to the unmistakable impression that he has been improperly coordinating with the White House to manufacture flimsy predicates to launch these probes.”

    Schiff also has lambasted Trump and Pulte for their targeting of him and other Democrats, and cheered the tossing of the cases against James and Comey, calling it “a triumph of the rule of law.”

    In recent days, federal prosecutors in Maryland — where Schiff’s case is being investigated — have also started asking questions about the actions of Pulte and other Trump officials, according to Christine Bish, a Sacramento-area real estate agent and Republican congressional candidate who was summoned to Maryland to answer questions in the matter last week.

    Pulte has alleged that Schiff broke the law by claiming primary residence for mortgages in both Maryland and California. Schiff has said he never broke any law and was always forthcoming with his mortgage lenders.

    Bish has been investigating Schiff’s mortgage records since 2020, and had repeatedly submitted documents about Schiff to the federal government — first to the Office of Congressional Ethics, then earlier this year to an FHFA tip line and to the FBI, she told The Times.

    When Trump subsequently posted one of Schiff’s mortgage documents to his Truth Social platform, Bish said she believed it was one she had submitted to the FHFA and FBI, because it was highlighted exactly as she had highlighted it. Then, she saw she had missed a call from Pulte, and was later asked by Pulte’s staff to email Pulte “the full file” she had worked up on Schiff.

    “They wanted to make sure that I had sent the whole file,” Bish said.

    Bish said she was subsequently interviewed via Google Meet on Oct. 22 by someone from the FHFA inspector general’s office and an FBI agent. She then got a subpoena in the mail that she interpreted as requiring her to be in Maryland last week. There, she was interviewed again, for about an hour, by the same official from the inspector general’s office and another FBI agent, she said — and was surprised their questions seemed more focused on her communications with people in the federal government than on Schiff.

    “They wanted to know if I had been talking to anybody else,” she said. “You know, what did I communicate? Who did I communicate with?”

    Schiff’s office declined to comment. However, Schiff’s attorney has previously told Justice Department officials that there was “ample basis” for them to launch an investigation into Pulte and his campaign targeting Trump’s opponents, calling it a “highly irregular” and “sordid” effort.

    The acting FHFA inspector general at the time Bish was first contacted, Joe Allen, has since been fired, which has also raised questions.

    On Nov. 19, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) — the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — wrote a letter to Pulte denouncing his probes as politically motivated, questioning Allen’s dismissal and demanding documentation from Pulte, including any communications he has had with the White House.

    Swalwell’s attorneys wrote in Tuesday’s lawsuit that he never claimed primary residence in both California and Washington, D.C., as alleged, and had not broken any laws.

    They accused Pulte of orchestrating a coordinated effort to spread the allegations against Swalwell via a vast network of conservative influencers, which they said had “harmed [Swalwell’s] reputation at a critical juncture in his career: the very moment when he had planned to announce his campaign for Governor of California.”

    They said the “widespread publication of information about the home where his wife and young children reside” had also “exposed him to heightened security risks and caused him significant anguish and distress.”

    Swalwell said in a statement that Pulte has “combed through private records of political opponents” to “silence them,” which shouldn’t be allowed.

    “There’s a reason the First Amendment — the freedom of speech — comes before all others,” he said.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Judge Dismisses Election Interference Case Against Trump – KXL

    ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has dismissed the Georgia election interference case against President Donald Trump and some others after the prosecutor who took over the case said he would not pursue the charges. The move on Wednesday ends the last effort to punish the president in the courts for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

    Pete Skandalakis, the prosecutor who took over the case earlier this month, made the announcement in a court filing. He replaced Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was removed due to a conflict of interest.

    Legal action against Trump was unlikely to proceed while he is president.

    However, 14 other defendants still faced charges.

    More about:

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • FBI investigates video urging US troops to defy illegal orders

    A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway. The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.” The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president. The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway.

    The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.

    All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.

    In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.”

    The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”

    Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president.

    The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Is the U.S. invading Venezuela? Or trying to make a deal?

    On the face of it, the United States appears closer than ever to mounting a military campaign to remove President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

    President Trump says he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside the Caribbean nation, and has massed troops, fighter jets and warships just off its coastline.

    U.S. service members in the region have been barred from taking Thanksgiving leave. Airlines have canceled flights to Venezuela after the Federal Aviation Administration warned of a “potentially hazardous situation” there. And on Monday the White House officially designated Maduro as a member of an international terrorist group.

    In Caracas, the nation’s capital, there is a palpable sense of anxiety, especially as each new bellicose pronouncement emerges from Washington.

    “People are very tense,” said Rosa María López, 47, a podiatrist and mother of two. “Although no one says anything because they are afraid.”

    Traffic is sparse at the Simon Bolivar Maiquetia International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on Sunday after several international airlines canceled flights following a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration about a hazardous situation in Venezuelan airspace.

    (Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

    Trump has been presented with a set of military options by the Pentagon, a source familiar with the matter told The Times, and is said to be weighing his options. Still, his plans for Venezuela remain opaque.

    Trump, even while warning of a possible military action, has also continually floated the possibility of negotiations, saying he “probably would talk” to Maduro at some point.

    “I don’t rule out anything,” Trump said last week.

    Now people in both the U.S. and Venezuela are wondering: is the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean the prelude to an invasion, or a bluff intended to pressure Maduro to make a deal?

    There are members of the White House — especially Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who are desperate to unseat Maduro, a leftist autocrat whom the U.S. does not recognize as Venezuela’s legitimately elected president.

    But other members of Trump’s team seem more intent on securing access to Venezuela’s oil riches, and keeping them from China and Russia, than pushing for regime change. Parties of that camp might be willing to accept a deal with Venezuela that does not call for Maduro’s exit and a plan for a democratic transition.

    Months of U.S. saber-rattling without any direct military action against the Maduro government may be weakening the Americans’ negotiating position, said Geoff Ramsey, a Venezuela expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research group. “There is a psychological component to this operation, and it’s starting to lose its credibility,” he said. “I do fear that the regime thinks that it has weathered the worst of U.S. pressure.”

    Maduro, for his part, insists he is open to dialogue. “Whoever in the U.S. wants to talk with Venezuela can do so,” he said this week. “We cannot allow the bombing and massacre of a Christian people — the people of Venezuela.”

    Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro speaks at the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas.

    Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, speaking Friday at the presidential palace in Caracas, has insisted he is open to dialogue with the United States.

    (Cristian Hernandez / Associated Press)

    For years, he has refused efforts to force him from office, even in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions, domestic protests against his rule and various offensives during the first Trump administration that Caracas deemed as coup attempts. Experts say there is no evidence that Trump’s buildup of troops — or his attacks on alleged drug traffickers off of Venezuela’s coast — has weakened Maduro’s support amid the military or other hard-core backers.

    Venezuela, meanwhile, has sought to use the prospect of a U.S. invasion to bolster support at home.

    On Monday, top officials here took aim at the State Department’s designation of an alleged Venezuelan drug cartel as a foreign terrorist group. Rubio claims the Cartel de los Soles is “headed by Nicolás Maduro and other high-ranking individuals of the illegitimate Maduro regime who have corrupted Venezuela’s military, intelligence, legislature and judiciary.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth praised the declaration for introducing “a whole bunch of new options” to fight what he described as “narco-terrorists” and “illegitimate regimes.”

    The Venezuelan government says the Cartel de los Soles does not exist. Foreign Minister Yván Gil described Monday’s designation as a “ridiculous fabrication.” The U.S., he said, is using a “vile lie to justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela under the classic U.S. format of regime change.”

    The truth is somewhere in the middle.

    The Cartel de los Soles, experts say, is less a traditional cartel — with a centralized command structure directing various cells — than a shorthand term used in the media and elsewhere to describe a loose group of corrupt Venezuelan military officials implicated in the drug trade.

    The name, Cartel of the Suns, derives from the sun insignia found on the uniforms of Venezuelan soldiers, much like stars on U.S. military uniforms. It has been around since the early 1990s, when Venezuela was an important trans-shipment point for Colombian cocaine bound for the U.S. market. Today, only a small portion of cocaine trafficked to the U.S. moves through Venezuela.

    Venezuelan journalist Ronna Rísquez Sánchez said it is unclear whether Maduro actually directs illicit activities conducted by his military or simply allows it to transpire among his government. Either way, she said, it is “happening under his nose.”

    But she did not rule out that seizing on Maduro’s possible links to drug trafficking might be a convenient “pretext” for U.S. political machinations.

    For the people of Venezuela, recent weeks have seen a heightened sense of uncertainty and anguish as people ponder ever-conflicting reports about a possible U.S. strike.

    More than a decade of political, social and economic upheaval has left people exhausted and numbed, often unable to believe anything they hear about the future of Maduro’s government. There is a widespread sense of resignation and a feeling that things can only get worse.

    “Every week we hear they are going to get rid of Maduro, but he’s still here,” said Inés Rojas, 25, a street vendor in Caracas. “We all want a change, but a change that improves things, not makes them worse. We young people don’t have a future. The doors of immigration are closed, we are locked in here, not knowing what is going to happen.”

    Mostly, people seem to want an end to the overwhelming feeling of not knowing what comes next.

    “I pray every day that this uncertainty ends,” said Cristina López Castillo, 37, an unemployed office worker who favors Maduro’s removal from office. “We don’t have a future — or a present. We live every day wondering what will happen tomorrow. I have more fear of hunger than of Trump.”

    Still, Maduro retains many backers — and not only among the military and political elite who have seen their loyalty rewarded with additional wealth. Many people remain thankful for the social welfare legacy of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and are wary of U.S. motivations in Venezuela.

    “We Venezuelans do not want to be anyone’s colony, nor do we want anyone to drop bombs on us to get rid of a president,” said José Gregorio Martínez Pina, 45, a construction worker in the capital.

    “Is Maduro a narco? I haven’t seen any proof,” he said. “And if they have it, they should present it, instead of having a country living under terror for weeks.”

    Times staff writers Linthicum and McDonnell reported in Mexico City. Mogollón, a special correspondent, reported in Caracas. Michael Wilner in the Times’ Washington bureau also contributed reporting.

    Kate Linthicum, Patrick J. McDonnell, Mery Mogollón

    Source link

  • President Trump’s Ukraine peace plan faces criticism from senators

    President Trump initially said he was giving Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelinsky until Thursday to accept the peace plan, but yesterday President Trump told reporters this is not his final offer. The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it. The plan gives in to many Russian demands, including that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelinsky has rejected on multiple occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory to Russia. Over the weekend, senators on both sides of the aisle said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told them the Peace plan President Trump pushing Kiev to accept is actually *** wish list of the Russians and not the actual proposal offering Washington’s positions. Now Rubio denied this and claims that the plan was authored by the US with input from Ukraine and Russia. Zalinsky said on Friday the pressure on Ukraine is at its most intense, adding he will work quickly and calmly with the US and its partners to end the war at the White House. I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    President Trump’s Ukraine peace plan faces criticism from senators

    President Donald Trump’s proposal to end the Ukraine-Russia war is under scrutiny from senators, including Republicans, who argue it favors Russia and leaves Ukraine vulnerable.

    Updated: 5:55 AM PST Nov 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump’s plan to end the nearly four-year Ukraine-Russia war is drawing criticism from senators, including some Republicans, who say it strongly favors Russian President Vladimir Putin and puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position. This comes as top U.S., European, and Ukrainian officials meet Sunday in Switzerland to discuss President Trump’s plan to end the war.”It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.”We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.Trump initially said he was giving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept the peace proposal, but later said it was not his final offer.”The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it ended,” Trump said.The plan reportedly accommodates many Russian demands, including concessions that Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected, such as ceding large areas of territory to Russia. Over the weekend, senators from both parties said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who informed them that the peace plan Trump is urging Kyiv to accept is actually a “wish list” of the Russians and not the actual proposal reflecting Washington’s positions. Rubio denied this, claiming that the plan was authored by the U.S. with input from Ukraine and Russia. Zelenskyy said Sunday that “a positive result is needed for all of us” and that he will continue to work with American and European partners to end the war. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    President Donald Trump’s plan to end the nearly four-year Ukraine-Russia war is drawing criticism from senators, including some Republicans, who say it strongly favors Russian President Vladimir Putin and puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position.

    This comes as top U.S., European, and Ukrainian officials meet Sunday in Switzerland to discuss President Trump’s plan to end the war.

    “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.

    “We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

    Trump initially said he was giving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept the peace proposal, but later said it was not his final offer.

    “The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended one way or the other. We have to get it ended,” Trump said.

    The plan reportedly accommodates many Russian demands, including concessions that Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected, such as ceding large areas of territory to Russia.

    Over the weekend, senators from both parties said they spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who informed them that the peace plan Trump is urging Kyiv to accept is actually a “wish list” of the Russians and not the actual proposal reflecting Washington’s positions. Rubio denied this, claiming that the plan was authored by the U.S. with input from Ukraine and Russia.

    Zelenskyy said Sunday that “a positive result is needed for all of us” and that he will continue to work with American and European partners to end the war.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Trump calls Democrats ‘traitors’ for urging military to ‘refuse illegal orders’

    President Trump on Thursday said he believed Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged active service members to “refuse illegal orders” amounted to seditious behavior, which he said should be punishable by death.

    “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump said in a social media post.

    Trump went on to amplify more than a dozen social media posts from other people, who in reaction to Trump’s post called for the Democrats to be arrested, charged and in one instance hanged. Trump then continued: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

    The president’s remarks were in reaction to a joint video released by six Democrat lawmakers in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

    The Democratic lawmakers who released the video — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Alyssa Slotkin, Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow — served in the military or as intelligence officers.

    They did not specify which orders they were referring to. But they said the Trump administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professional against American citizens” and that threats to the Constitution were coming “from right here at home.”

    The video, which was posted on Tuesday, quickly drew criticism from Republicans, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who characterized it as “Stage 4 [Trump Derangement Syndrome].” But Trump, who first reacted to the video on Thursday, saw the video as more than partisan speech.

    “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump said in another post.

    When asked Thursday if the president wanted to execute members of Congress, as suggested in one of his social media posts, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “no.”

    But, Leavitt said, the president does want to see them be “held accountable.”

    “That is a very, very dangerous message and it is perhaps punishable by law,” Leavitt said. “I’ll leave that to the Department of justice and the Department of War to decide.”

    What the law says

    Under a federal law known as “seditious conspiracy,” it is a crime for two or more individuals to “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States” or to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.

    A seditious conspiracy charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

    Federal courts and legal scholars have long emphasized that seditious conspiracy charges apply only to coordinated efforts to use force against the government, rather than political dissent.

    The last time federal prosecutors pursued seditious conspiracy charges was in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

    Among the convicted individuals was former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, whose 22-year sentence was the stiffest of any of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump pardoned him earlier this year.

    Hours after the president’s posts, the six Democratic lawmakers issued a joint statement, calling on Americans to “unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”

    “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said in a statement posted to X. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

    Democratic leaders in Washington and across the country denounced Trump’s post.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement with other Democratic leaders that Trump’s comments were “disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress.” They added that they had been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the Democrat lawmakers and their families.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the posts by saying Trump “is sick in the head” for calling for the death of Democratic lawmakers.

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Trump administration releases SNAP benefits amid new work requirements

    The Trump administration has released all withheld funds for November SNAP benefits to states for distribution, while new work requirements are set to change the program for many of its 42 million participants.SNAP participants should receive their December benefits according to their normal schedule, but now, there’s an extra step beneficiaries need to take to receive this assistance. President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” expanded requirements for many SNAP recipients to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours a month. The law also expands the age limit of people who need to meet these requirements from 54 to 64. People who do not meet these rules can be exempt for up to 3 months during a 3-year period. The new requirements took effect when the law was signed in July and were suspended for November amid the government shutdown, meaning December will be the first time many face enforcement of the new standards. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the new requirements are expected to reduce the average monthly number of SNAP recipients by about 2.4 million people over the next 10 years.”I think we’re looking forward to USDA to having a broad-based discussion to ensure that every dollar that we spend here goes to someone who legally qualifies for the program and is actually in need,” said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden.Under federal law, most households must report their income and basic information every four to six months and be fully recertified for SNAP at least every year. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins suggested SNAP recipients should be required to reapply, though it is unclear whether she is proposing adding an additional step to what’s already in place.Rollins said the Agriculture Department asked states to send in SNAP data. She says they received information from 29 states and found that 186,000 deceased men, women and children were receiving a check for SNAP benefits. Rollins noted 120 Americans have been arrested for SNAP fraud and added half a million people were receiving benefits twice. The secretary says structural changes to SNAP will be announced after Thanksgiving. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    The Trump administration has released all withheld funds for November SNAP benefits to states for distribution, while new work requirements are set to change the program for many of its 42 million participants.

    SNAP participants should receive their December benefits according to their normal schedule, but now, there’s an extra step beneficiaries need to take to receive this assistance.

    President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” expanded requirements for many SNAP recipients to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours a month. The law also expands the age limit of people who need to meet these requirements from 54 to 64.

    People who do not meet these rules can be exempt for up to 3 months during a 3-year period. The new requirements took effect when the law was signed in July and were suspended for November amid the government shutdown, meaning December will be the first time many face enforcement of the new standards.

    The Congressional Budget Office reports that the new requirements are expected to reduce the average monthly number of SNAP recipients by about 2.4 million people over the next 10 years.

    “I think we’re looking forward to USDA to having a broad-based discussion to ensure that every dollar that we spend here goes to someone who legally qualifies for the program and is actually in need,” said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden.

    Under federal law, most households must report their income and basic information every four to six months and be fully recertified for SNAP at least every year.

    Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins suggested SNAP recipients should be required to reapply, though it is unclear whether she is proposing adding an additional step to what’s already in place.

    Rollins said the Agriculture Department asked states to send in SNAP data. She says they received information from 29 states and found that 186,000 deceased men, women and children were receiving a check for SNAP benefits. Rollins noted 120 Americans have been arrested for SNAP fraud and added half a million people were receiving benefits twice.

    The secretary says structural changes to SNAP will be announced after Thanksgiving.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Commentary: Trump and Saudi crown prince bond over their contempt — and fear — of a free press

    In October of 2018, U.S.-based journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Istanbul, Turkey. The CIA concluded that the assassination was carried out by Saudi operatives, on order of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The prince denied the accusations, although other U.S. intelligence agencies later made the same formal assessment.

    Tuesday, President Trump showered the Saudi leader with praise during his first invitation to the White House since the killing. “We’ve been really good friends for a long period of time,” said Trump. “We’ve always been on the same side of every issue.”

    Clearly. Their shared disdain — and fear — of a free press was evident, from downplaying the killing of Khashoggi to snapping at ABC News reporter Mary Bruce when she asked about his murder.

    “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that,” Trump said, then he proceeded to debase a journalist who wasn’t there to report on the event because he’d been silenced, forever. Referring to Khashoggi, he said, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

    Mohammed bin Salman, left, and Jamal Khashoggi.

    (Associated Press / Tribune News Service)

    Fender-benders happen. Spilled milk happens. But the orchestrated assassination of a journalist by a regime that he covers is not one of those “things” that just happen. It’s an orchestrated hit meant to silence critics, control the narrative and bury whatever corruption, human rights abuses or malfeasance that a healthy free press is meant to expose.

    Bruce did what a competent reporter is supposed to do. She deviated from Tuesday’s up-with-Saudi-Arabia! agenda to ask the hard questions of powerful men not used to being questioned about anything, let alone murder. The meeting was meant to highlight the oil-rich country’s investment in the U.S. economy, and at Trump’s prompting, Prince Mohammed said those investments could total $1 trillion.

    Prince Mohammed addressed the death of Khashoggi by saying his country hopes to do better in the future, whatever that means. “It’s painful and it’s a huge mistake, and we are doing our best that this doesn’t happen again.”

    And just in case the two men hadn’t made clear how little they cared about the slain journalist, and how much they disdain the news media, Trump drove those points home when he referred to Bruce’s query as “a horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question.” He suggesting that ABC should lose its broadcasting license.

    Trump confirmed Tuesday that he intends to sell “top of the line” F-35 stealth fighter jets to Riyadh. It’s worth noting that the team of 15 Saudi agents allegedly involved in Khashoggi’s murder flew to Istanbul on government aircraft. The reporter was lured to the Saudi embassy to pick up documents that were needed for his planned marriage to a Turkish woman.

    The prince knew nothing about it, said Trump on Tuesday, despite the findings of a 2021 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that cited “the direct involvement of a key adviser and members of Mohammad bin Salman’s protective detail.” It concluded that it was “highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.”

    To no one’s surprise, the Saudi government had tried to dodge the issue before claiming Khashoggi had been killed by rogue officials, insisting that the slaying and dismemberment was not premeditated. They offered no explanation of how a bonesaw just happened to be available inside the embassy.

    President Trump shakes hands with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in 2018.

    President Trump shakes hands with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in 2018.

    (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

    Five men were sentenced to death, but one of Khashoggi’s sons later announced that the family had forgiven the killers, which, in accordance with Islamic law, spared them from execution.

    The president’s castigation of ABC’s Bruce was the second time in a week that he has ripped into a female journalist when she asked a “tough” question (i.e. anything Newsmax won’t ask). Trump was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One last Friday when Bloomberg News’ Catherine Lucey asked him follow-up question about the Epstein files. The president replied, “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”

    Trump’s contempt for the press was clear, but so was something else he shares with the crown prince, Hungary’s Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin: The president doesn’t just hate the press. He fears it.

    Lorraine Ali

    Source link

  • President Trump Signs Epstein Files Bill – KXL

    WASHINGTON, DC (AP) – President Donald Trump signed a bill Wednesday to compel the Justice Department to make public its case files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a potentially far-reaching development in a years-long push by survivors of Epstein’s abuse for a public reckoning.

    The president’s signing sets a 30-day countdown for the Justice Department to produce what’s commonly known as the Epstein files. Those include everything the Justice Department has collected over multiple federal investigations into Epstein, as well as his longtime confidante and girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for luring teenage girls for the disgraced financier. Those records total around 100,000 pages, according to a federal judge who has reviewed the case.

    It will also compel the Justice Department to produce all its internal communications on Epstein and his associates and his 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell as he awaited charges for sexually abusing and trafficking dozens of teenage girls.

    The legislation, however, exempts some parts of the case files. The bill’s authors made sure to include that the Justice Department could withhold personally identifiable information of victims, child sexual abuse materials and information deemed by the administration to be classified for national defense or foreign policy.

    More about:

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Trump Sues California Over New Masking Law for Federal Agents

    The lawsuit argues that the new measure is unconstitutional and puts agents in danger.

    The Trump administration filed a lawsuit on Monday against Governor Gavin Newsom over a law he signed in September banning federal agents from wearing masks. Seemingly in response to the president’s immigration crackdown this year.

    The lawsuit claims the mask ban and companion measure requiring agents to wear identification are unconstitutional. Specifically, the states do not have the power to regulate federal agencies. With a policy that they claim puts federal agents in danger.

    “The laws threaten the safety of federal officers who have faced an unprecedent wave of harassment, doxxing, and even violence” – statement by the US Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs.

    The lawsuit says federal law enforcement agencies will not comply with the pair of state laws going into effect Jan. 1, and asks the court to strike them down.

    “California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

    Many argue that the ban on masking measures is constitutional, as there are other state laws that federal agents are required to follow. For example, they have to follow speed limits, which are regulated by local law enforcement.

    Several states have considered a ban on masking by immigration agents, but California was the first to pass one into law. This comes as a response to the sharp increase in ICE presence and raids in many areas.

    “If the Trump administration cared half as much about public safety as it does about pardoning cop-beaters, violating people’s rights, and detaining U.S. citizens and their kids, our communities would be much safer,” Izzy Gardon, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, said in a statement.

    Tara Nguyen

    Source link

  • Trump Picked an Interesting Day to Dismantle the Department of Education

    The U.S. Department of Education will start to be dismantled on Tuesday, with some parts of the agency moving to offices in the Department of Labor and elsewhere, according to the Washington Post. It’s a wildly unlawful move, since a president can’t unilaterally decide to destroy an agency created by Congress. But President Donald Trump chose a pretty convenient day to do it.

    The Washington Post reports that it’s still unclear what offices from the DoE may be salvaged, but it could include the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Indian Education program.

    Social media accounts for the Department of Education and the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, shared a video with the caption “The clock is ticking…” The video features clips of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush talking about how they wanted to abolish the agency. 

    Just because previous presidents wanted to abolish the agency doesn’t mean that Trump is allowed to do it without approval from Congress. The fact that other presidents were unable to do it should give some hint at how far outside the law Trump is operating.

    Why is Trump making his move on the Department of Education today? As it happens, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Tuesday on releasing the so-called Epstein Files—the documents held by the U.S. Department of Justice about the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019. Trump has fought tooth and nail to keep the files from being released—perhaps because he was a close friend of Epstein—though he changed his tune Sunday after it became clear the House vote is likely to pass.

    “As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, rambling on further.

    It’s not true that Trump said the files should be released on Friday while he was on Air Force One. In fact, when Trump was asked about the files by a Bloomberg reporter, he snapped back, “Quiet! Quiet, Piggy.”

    Trump also said on Air Force One that Democrats are the ones who should be investigated. The president had previously tweeted that he ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into connections between Epstein and Bill Clinton, along with other Democrats.

    The White House reportedly believes they’ve found a workaround when it comes to the illegal move to dismantle the Department of Education. Federal law requires all of these programs to be housed at the Department of Education. But the Washington Post reports they’re going to try making other government agencies run the Education Department programs “under a contract with the Education Department.”

    Nobody knows if this is going to be allowed to stand, but USAID was similarly dismantled in late January and early February, just after Trump started his second term. Dozens of lawsuits were filed, but the judicial system is clearly not equipped to handle a president who breaks things and just deals with the fallout, as the New York Times recently noted. President Trump’s decision to destroy the East Wing of the White House in a surprise move is a perfect example of that.

    The House is currently discussing the vote over the Epstein files, but even if they vote to release the files, it still needs to be taken up by the Senate. After that, it also needs to be signed by the president. And even after that, there’s a question of what Trump will actually allow to be released. Again, the president doesn’t see himself as bound by the law. Congress can pass all the laws it wants to compel the release, but that doesn’t mean it’ll necessarily happen.

    It seems like a given that dismantling the Department of Education will attract plenty of lawsuits. Whether those lawsuits actually accomplish anything is another question. Experts have pointed out that even if courts found the dismantling of USAID to be unlawful and ordered it reconstituted, it’s not something you could necessarily accomplish. Most people who worked at USAID have looked for new jobs and moved on with their lives.

    It’s a lot easier to destroy something than it is to build it back up. And that’s not just true of USAID, the Department of Education, and the East Wing. It’s true of everything being dismantled in the U.S. right now. And if you zoom out to the broadest historical view possible, it will likely take generations to rebuild the things being broken right now.

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • House set to vote to release Epstein files following months of pressure

    The House is poised to vote overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand the Justice Department release all documents tied to its investigation of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    President Trump, who initially worked to thwart the vote before reversing course on Sunday night, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. For that to happen, the bill will also need to pass the Senate, which could consider the measure as soon as Tuesday night.

    Republicans for months pushed back on the release of the Epstein files, joining Trump in claiming the Epstein issue was being brought up by Democrats as a way to distract from Republicans’ legislative successes.

    But that all seismically shifted Sunday when Trump had a drastic reversal and urged Republicans to vote to release the documents, saying there was “nothing to hide.”

    “It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    The reversal came days after 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate were released by lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee. The files referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

    In private emails, Epstein wrote that Trump had “spent hours” at his house and “knew about the girls,” a revelation that reignited the push in Congress for further disclosures.

    Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing in the Epstein saga despite opposing the release of files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker. He died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019.

    Many members of Trump’s MAGA base have demanded the files be released, convinced they contain revelations about powerful people involved in Epstein’s abuse of what is believed to be more than 200 women and girls. Tension among his base spiked when Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in July that an “Epstein client list” did not exist, after saying in February that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. She later said she was referring to the Epstein files more generally.

    Trump’s call to release the files now highlights how he is trying to prevent an embarrassing defeat as a growing number of Republicans in the House have joined Democrats to vote for the legislation in recent days.

    The Epstein files have been a hugely divisive congressional fight in recent months, with Democrats pushing the release, but Republican congressional leaders largely refusing to take the votes. The issue even led to a rift within the MAGA movement, and Trump to cut ties with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who had long been an ardent support of the president.

    “Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said at a news conference Tuesday in reference to the resistance to release the files.

    Democrats have accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of delaying the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, because she promised to cast the final vote needed to move a so-called discharge petition, which would force a vote on the floor. Johnson has denied those claims.

    If the House and Senate do vote to release the files, all eyes will turn to the Department of Justice, and what exactly it will choose to publicly release.

    “The fight, the real fight, will happen after that,” Greene said. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files? Or will it all remain tied up in an investigation?”

    Several Epstein survivors joined lawmakers at the news conference to talk about how important the vote was for them.

    Haley Robson, one of the survivors, questioned Trump’s resistance to the vote even now as he supports it.

    “While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

    If signed into law by Trump, the bill would prohibit the attorney general, Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

    In the spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and ordered it to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

    Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said the Trump administration will be forced to release the files with an act of Congress.

    “They will be breaking the law if they do not release these files,” he said.

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • After Gen Z march in Mexico, government and critics spar as Trump cites ‘big problems’ south of border

    A weekend protest march convened to highlight the concerns of Mexico’s Generation Z has instead dramatized deep political divisions extending well beyond the needs of young Mexicans.

    The mostly peaceful demonstration in downtown Mexico City on Saturday culminated in several hours of clashes when small groups of protesters battled with phalanxes of riot police deployed to protect the National Palace in Mexico City’s central square, or zócalo.

    In the aftermath of the protests, Mexico’s leftist President Claudia Sheinbaum accused right-wing opponents of hijacking the demonstration to provoke unrest and smear her government.

    “A march that was supposedly called against violence utilized violence,” Sheinbaum told reporters Monday.

    But opposition leaders and other critics said the march reflected deep concern about alleged cartel infiltration in the government and charged that police brutalized young protesters.

    Among those who noticed the chaotic scenes from Mexico was President Trump, who, in Oval Office comments to the press on Monday, again raised the provocative specter of U.S. strikes on cartel targets in Mexico. The country is a major production site for fentanyl, amphetamines and other synthetic drugs bound for the U.S. market, and a transport corridor for South American cocaine.

    “I looked at Mexico City over the weekend. There’s some big problems there,” Trump said. “Let me just put it this way: I am not happy with Mexico.”

    Asked if he would contemplate U.S. attacks on cartel targets in Mexico, Trump responded: “Would I launch strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? It’s OK with me. Whatever we have to do to stop drugs.”

    Trump has charged that Mexico is “run by the cartels,” though he has praised Sheinbaum as a “very brave woman.”

    Sheinbaum has denied that cartels control Mexico. She has maintained a cooperative attitude with Trump on two contentious binational issues — drug trafficking and tariffs — but has said Mexico would not yield its sovereignty and agree to U.S. strikes.

    Saturday’s march — one of many similar protests across Mexico on that day — was originally called in support of Generation Z, after related demonstrations in Nepal and Morocco. Young people worldwide have decried a lack of economic and educational opportunities.

    But the rally in Mexico City became mostly a march against what many participants labeled the leftist “narco-government” of Sheinbaum and her ruling Morena party

    Many protesters hoisted banners declaring: “I am Carlos Manzo,” after the mayor of the western city of Uruapan, who was assassinated this monthin a shooting that authorities have blamed on organized crime.

    Manzo had accused Sheinbaum’s government of coddling criminals. Supporters of his so-called “White Hat” movement — after the popular mayor’s signature sombrero — took to the streets of Uruapan and other cities in Michoacán state this month by the tens of thousands to demand a crackdown on organized crime. Backers of the growing movement were also major participants in Saturday’s march in Mexico City.

    In the aftermath of the march, Sheinbaum’s opponents accused her government of repressing dissent.

    “They brutalized young people who only want a better Mexico,” Alejandro Moreno, president of the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, charged on X. “They beat them because they are scared. They know that the power of an organized people is stronger than a cowardly narco-regime.”

    Mexican authorities denied allegations of brutality and said that at least 60 police officers were injured.

    A small minority of protesters, many wearing ski masks, tossed stones, bottles, fireworks and other improvised weapons at police. Police used both physical force and volleys of tear gas to push them back. Each side blamed the other for igniting the melees.

    “They wanted to generate this idea: ‘Chaos in Mexico!’ “ charged Sheinbaum, noting how the images of the clashes received widespread domestic and international attention in the press and social media.

    The president called for an investigation of the violence, which, she said, was funded by her opponents. She vowed that authorities would also investigate any allegations of police brutality. The great majority of protesters, she said, were nonviolent.

    Authorities said 17,000 marchers took place in Saturday’s demonstration. The opposition said the number was much higher.

    Opponents of Sheinbaum’s government have vowed additional protests. But many experts doubt that a deeply fractured opposition could do much to loosen Morena’s stranglehold on power.

    Sheinbaum’s predecessor and mentor, ex-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, faced much larger street demonstrations during his time in office, along with allegations of ties of drug traffickers. But neither seemed to dent his widespread popularity.

    Polls have shown Sheinbaum, who just completed the first year of a six-year term, with 70%-plus approval ratings. Her Morena party, with strong backing from poor and working-class Mexicans who have benefited from minimum-wage increases and social welfare programs, retains firm control of congress, the courts and most statehouses across Mexico.

    Security remains the major concern of most Mexicans, polls show, even as the president has touted decreases in homicides and other violent crimes. Sheinbaum has launched a crackdown on organized crime that has seen thousands of suspects arrested — including dozens expelled to face justice in U.S. courts.

    Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in Mexico City contributed to this report.

    Patrick J. McDonnell, Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

    The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

    Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

    Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

    Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

    Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

    Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

    And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

    To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

    Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

    That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

    Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

    Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

    And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

    As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

    Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

    They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

    There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

    But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

    Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

    But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

    Barabak: It shouldn’t.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

    But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

    There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

    But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

    Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

    Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

    But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

    It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

    The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

    Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

    Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

    I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

    Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

    I’d wager more than a penny on that.

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump administration push to fine UCLA $1.2 billion for alleged antisemitism

    A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from imposing a $1.2-billion fine on UCLA along with stipulations for deep campus changes in exchange for being eligible for federal grants.

    The decision is a major win for universities that have struggled to resist President Trump’s attempt to discipline “very bad” universities that he claims have mistreated Jewish students, forcing them to pay exorbitant fines and agree to adhere to conservative standards.

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California, rendered moot — for now — nearly every aspect of a more than 7,000-word settlement offer the federal government sent to the University of California in August after suspending $584 million in medical, science and energy research grants to the Los Angeles campus.

    The government said it froze the funds after finding UCLA broke the law by using race as a factor in admissions, recognizing transgender people’s gender identities, and not taking antisemitism complaints seriously during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 — claims that UC has denied.

    The settlement proposal outlined extensive changes to push UCLA — and by extension all of UC — ideologically rightward by calling for an end to diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on foreign student enrollment, a declaration that transgender people do not exist, an end to gender-affirming healthcare for minors, the imposition of free speech limits and more.

    “The administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities,” Lin wrote in her opinion. “Agency officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.”

    “It is undisputed,” Lin added, “that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California.”

    Universities including Columbia, Brown and Cornell agreed to pay the government hundreds of millions to atone for alleged violations similar to the ones facing UCLA. The University of Pennsylvania and University of Virginia also reached agreements with the Trump administration that were focused, respectively, on ending recognition of transgender people and halting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Friday’s decision, for the time being, spares the UC system from proceeding with negotiations that it reluctantly entered with the federal government to avoid further grant cuts and restrictions across the system, which receives $17.5 billion in federal funding each year. UC President James B. Milliken has said that the $1.2-billion fine would “completely devastate” UC and that the system, under fire from the Trump administration, faces “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history.”

    This is not the first time a judge rebuked the Trump administration for its higher education campaign. Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in September ordered the government to reverse billions in cuts to Harvard. But that case did not wade directly into settlement negotiations.

    Those talks with UC have proceeded slowly. In a court hearing last week, a Department of Justice lawyer said “there’s no evidence that any type of deal with the United States is going to be happening in the immediate future.” The lawyer argued that the settlement offer was only an idea that had not received UC approval.

    Because of that, he said, a lawsuit was inappropriate. Lin disagreed.

    “Plaintiffs’ harm is already very real. With every day that passes, UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratcheting up defendants’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And numerous UC faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the UC system.”

    The case was brought by more a dozen faculty and staff unions and associations from across UC’s 10 campuses, who said the federal government was violating their 1st Amendment rights and constitutional right to due process. UC, which has avoided directly challenging the government in court, was not party to the suit.

    “This is not only a historic lawsuit — brought by every labor union and faculty union in the UC — but also an incredible win,” said Veena Dubal, a UC Irvine law professor and general counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the American Assn. of University Professors, which has members across UC campuses.

    Dubal called the decision “a turning point in the fight to save free speech and research in the finest public school system in the world.”

    Asked about Friday’s outcome, a spokesperson said UC “remains focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness. UC remains committed to protecting the mission, governance, and academic freedom of the university.”

    Zoé Hamstead, chair of external relations and legal affairs for the Council of UC Faculty Assns., said she was “thrilled that the court has affirmed our First Amendment rights.”

    The organization is an umbrella group of faculty associations across UC campuses that sued.

    Hamstead, an associate professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley, said she was “deeply proud to be part of a coalition that represents the teachers, researchers, and workers of the University of California who are challenging rising authoritarianism in federal court.”

    Anna Markowitz, an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies and president of the Los Angeles campus faculty association, said her chapter was “extremely pleased with this decision, which will put a pause on the current federal overreach at UC.”

    “UCLA faculty are honored to stand with this coalition, which continues to show that when faced with an administration targeting the very heart of higher education, fighting back is the only option,” Markowitz said.

    Lin’s injunction is not the final say on the case, which will proceed through the legal process as she determines whether a permanent injunction is warranted. The government also could appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it has done for other cases, including one filed by UC researchers that restored funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation among other agencies.

    An appeals court hearing in that case was held Friday; a decision is pending.

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Bondi Responds To Trump’s Epstein Post – KXL

    WASHINGTON, DC – It appears U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is taking up President Trump’s request to investigate ties between Jeffrey Epstein, Democrats, and other prominent figures.

    Earlier today, Trump posted he’s asking the Justice Department to investigate ties between Epstein and Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, J.P. Morgan and others. The request came just after it was revealed by Democrats that Trump’s name appears in emails connected to the current Epstein probe.  Those emails emails from Epstein to his associate Ghislaine Maxwell as well as a journalist reportedly reference Trump, claiming in one that he “knew about the girls.” Friday, Bondi posted a response to Trump in which she thanked the President and goes on to name a prosecutor who will “take the lead.”

    The House of Representatives is set to vote on the release of the full Epstein files in the coming days. House Speaker Mike Johnson is required to put the bill on the floor after a discharge petition related to the matter reached the 218 signatures needed. This follows the release of

    More about:

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Trickle of revelations fuels scandal over Trump’s ties to Epstein

    A slow drip of revelations detailing President Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein that have burdened the White House all year has turned into a deluge after House lawmakers released reams of documents that imply the president may have intimate knowledge of his friend’s criminal activity.

    The scope of Epstein’s interest in Trump became clear Thursday as media organizations combed through more than 20,000 documents from the convicted sex offender’s estate released by the House Oversight Committee, prompting a bipartisan majority in the House — including up to half of Republican lawmakers — to pledge support for a measure to compel the Justice Department to release all files related to its investigation of Epstein.

    In one email discovered Thursday, sent by Epstein to himself months before he died by suicide in federal custody, he wrote: “Trump knew.” The White House has denied that Trump knew about or was involved in Epstein’s years-long operation that abused over 200 women and girls.

    The scandal comes at a precarious political moment for Trump, who faces a 36% approval rating, according to the latest Associated Press-NORC survey, and whose grip on the Republican Party and MAGA movement has begun to slip as his final term in office begins winding down leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

    Attempts by the Trump administration to quash the scandal have failed to shake interest in the case from the public across the political spectrum.

    The records paint the most expansive picture yet of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the subject of unending fascination and conspiracy theories online, as well as growing bipartisan interest in Congress.

    In several emails, Epstein, a disgraced financier who maintained a close friendship with Trump until a falling-out in the mid-2000s, said that the latter “knew about the girls” involved in his operation and that Trump “spent hours” with one in private. Epstein also alleged that he could “take him down” with damaging information.

    In several exchanges, Epstein portrayed himself as someone who knew Trump well. Emails show how he tracked Trump’s business practices and the evolution of the president’s political endeavors.

    Other communications show Epstein closely monitoring Trump’s movements at the beginning of his first term in office, at one point attempting to communicate with the Russian government to share his “insight” into Trump’s proclivities and thinking.

    White House officials attempted to thwart the effort to release the files Wednesday, holding a tense meeting with a GOP congresswoman in the White House Situation Room, a move the administration said demonstrated its willingness “to sit down with members of Congress to address their concerns.”

    But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York accused the White House and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of “running a pedophile protection program” for trying to block efforts to release the Epstein files.

    The legislative effort in the House does not guarantee a vote in the Senate, much less bipartisan approval of the measure there. And the president — who has for months condemned his supporters for their repeated calls for transparency in the case — would almost certainly veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.

    Epstein died in a federal prison in Manhattan awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking in 2019. His death was ruled a suicide by the New York City medical examiner and the Justice Department’s inspector general.

    As reporters sift through the documents in the coming days, Trump’s relationship with Epstein is likely to remain in the spotlight.

    In one email Epstein sent to himself shortly before his imprisonment and death, he wrote that Trump knew of the financier’s sexual activity during a period where he was accused of wrongdoing.

    “Trump knew of it,” he wrote, “and came to my house many times during that period.”

    “He never got a massage,” Epstein added. Epstein paid for “massages” from girls that often led to sexual activity.

    Trump has blamed Democrats for the issue bubbling up again.

    “Democrats are using the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax to try and deflect from their massive failures, in particular, their most recent one — THE SHUTDOWN!” the president wrote Wednesday in a social media post, hours after the records were made public.

    Trump made a public appearance later that day to sign legislation ending the government shutdown but declined to answer as reporters shouted questions about Epstein after the event.

    Trump comes up in several emails

    The newly released correspondence gives a rare look at how Epstein, in his own words, related to Trump in ways that were not previously known. In some cases, Epstein’s correspondence suggests the president knew more about Epstein’s criminal conduct than Trump has let on.

    In the months leading up to Epstein’s arrest on sex trafficking charges, he mentioned Trump in a few emails that imply the latter knew about the financier’s victims.

    In January 2019, Epstein wrote to author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls,” as he discussed his membership at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s South Florida private club and resort.

    Trump has said that he ended his relationship with Epstein because he had “hired away” one of his female employees at Mar-a-Lago. The White House has also said Trump banned Epstein from his club because he was “being a creep.”

    “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” Epstein wrote in the email to Wolff.

    One of the employees was Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s survivors who died by suicide this year. Giuffre said in a civil case deposition that she never witnessed Trump sexually abuse minors in Epstein’s home.

    Republicans in the House Oversight Committee identified Giuffre as one of the victims whose names are redacted in an April 2011 email.

    In that email, Epstein wrote to Ghislaine Maxwell, a former associate who was later sentenced for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors, that Trump was “the dog that hasn’t barked.”

    “[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,” Epstein wrote. “He has never once been mentioned.”

    “I have been thinking about that…,” Maxwell replied.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that the emails “prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

    News over the summer that Trump had penned a lewd birthday card to Epstein, drawing the silhouette of a naked woman with a note reading, “may every day be another wonderful secret,” had sparked panic in the West Wing that the files could have prolific mentions of Trump.

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Last Penny Ever Pressed in Philadelphia as U.S. Ends 1-Cent Coin

    U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach pressed the last two pennies today, marking the end of the coin’s run

    After centuries of production, the U.S. Mint has decided that producing pennies no longer makes cents. The last penny was pressed today, Nov. 12, by U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia.

    The coin has been deemed too expensive after over 230 years in the making, according to the Trump administration.

    “For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents,” President Donald Trump wrote in a post. “This is so wasteful! I have instructed my Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to stop producing new pennies.”

    Halting penny production will save taxpayers $56 million annually, as it takes almost four cents to produce one cent.

    “God bless America, and we’re going to save the taxpayers $56 million,” Beach said, as he pressed the last coin.

    While there will no longer be anymore pennies being created, billions are still in circulation and may be used in purchases, Beach said.

    “We’re saying goodbye to the penny today, but let me just be crystal clear, like I said, it’s still legal tender,” Beach said. “So you can still use it at your stores and retail outlets.”

    The final two pennies pressed today will be put up for auction, according to Associated Press News.

    Cristal Soto

    Source link