ReportWire

Tag: President Trump

  • Trump Says National Guard Will Leave Portland, Chicago, LA – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, DC – President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he is withdrawing National Guard troops from Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles, marking a significant shift in a controversial domestic deployment that has drawn legal challenges and intense political debate.

    In a social media post on Truth Social, Trump said the Guard would be removed “for now” and suggested that federal forces could return “in a much different and stronger form” if crime rates rise again. He framed the deployments as having helped reduce crime in the three cities but said the timing was right to end the current missions.

    Trump initially deployed Guard units earlier this year as part of a broader push to address what his administration described as rising crime and unrest in Democratic-led cities. The National Guard was sent to Los Angeles in June and plans were made for deployments to Chicago and Portland under federal orders. However, nearly every deployment faced legal challenges.

    A Supreme Court ruling in December blocked the administration’s effort to send troops to the Chicago area, a rare rebuke of Trump’s authority to federalize Guard forces for domestic operations.

    Federal judges in Oregon permanently blocked the Guard’s deployment in Portland, concluding the administration lacked the legal basis to send troops there.

    California Guard units already in Los Angeles had been removed in mid-December following a court ruling, and control of the units has returned to state authorities after additional litigation.

    These legal challenges left many Guard members unable to operate on city streets or engage in enforcement roles. As litigation dragged on, defense officials began scaling back troop presence and sending units home.

    The announcement immediately drew sharp responses from political leaders.

    “Portland’s substantial reduction in crime and violence is credited entirely to the hard work of the Portland Police Bureau, Office of Violence Prevention, innovative public safety programs and community leaders across the city,” read a statement from Mayor Keith Wilson’s office. “We are not clear on the claims made in this social media post, as National Guard troops were garrisoned locally but never deployed in Portland.”

    “My office has not yet received official notification that the remaining federalized Oregon National Guard troops can return home,” said Governor Tina Kotek. “They were never lawfully deployed to Portland and there was no need for their presence. If President Trump has finally chosen to follow court orders and demobilize our troops, that’s a big win for Oregonians and for the rule of law.”

    Democratic mayors and governors in the affected cities have been very vocal critics of Mr. Trump’s deployments, arguing that the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement matters violated constitutional principles and amounted to federal overreach.

    Some state officials celebrated the return of Guard members, calling the deployments unnecessary and legally unfounded.

    Trump, for his part, reiterated his view that the Guard helped suppress crime and hinted that a future administration—or his own, possibly in a different form—might renew or expand the deployments if conditions warrant.

    With the Guard pulling out of Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, the immediate federal military footprint in those cities will recede. But the president’s comments suggest federal involvement could resume under different legal authorities or in response to rising crime or unrest, setting the stage for ongoing debate over the role of the military in domestic security.

    Officials in the Department of War and National Guard have not yet released detailed plans for the withdrawal or how units may be repositioned for future missions.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • With CIA strike, signs Trump is ‘shaping the battlespace’ in Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    The day after Christmas is typically quiet in the nation’s capital. But President Trump’s decision to acknowledge a covert U.S. strike on Venezuelan territory, in an interview with an obscure local news outlet on Friday, set off a scramble in a drowsy Washington that has become a hallmark of the president.

    Officials working on Latin America policy for the administration that had been closely tracking reports of refinery fires and other curious events throughout Venezuela couldn’t immediately figure out which target the president was talking about, three sources familiar with the matter told The Times.

    Trump would later detail that the strike targeted a “dock area where they load the boats up with drugs.” But initial confusion from within his own government signaled just how tight a circle within the West Wing is determining whether to climb the escalation ladder toward war with Caracas.

    Trump initially confirmed he had authorized CIA actions in Venezuela in an exchange with reporters on October. While the administration is obligated to report covert CIA operations to Congress, more robust congressional authorization is required for the use of military force.

    “I authorized for two reasons, really. No. 1, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America,” Trump said at the time. “And the other thing, the drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea.”

    The strike comes as Venezuelan authorities have increased the number of U.S. citizens detained in their custody, the New York Times first reported on Friday. Caracas had freed 17 Americans and permanent residents held in notorious Venezuelan prisons at the start of the Trump administration.

    Evan Ellis, who served in Trump’s first term planning State Department policy on Latin America, the Caribbean and international narcotics, said it was “unclear whether the initial plan was for this operation to be publicly announced in an interview by the president.” Venezuela’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro, “was certainly confused about it,” he said.

    “It would make sense for them to do something like that, rather then a military strike, especially right now when there’s a delicate line between military operations and other things,” Ellis added. “My sense is — to the extent the president has acknowledged it — that this was them carrying out their mission to shape the battlespace in support of broader national objectives.”

    But Trump has yet to articulate the full scope of those objectives, leaving observers to wonder whether regime change in Venezuela is his true, ultimate aim.

    Trump has repeatedly told the media that Maduro’s days in power are numbered. The administration refers to him and his regime as an illegitimate narco-state terrorizing American communities. On a bipartisan basis, going back to Trump’s first term and throughout the Biden administration, the United States has recognized a democratic opposition in Venezuela as its rightful government.

    But a military war on the drug trade would make little sense targeting Venezuela, where only a fraction of illicit narcotics smuggled into the United States originate. Trump has hinted in recent weeks at other motives driving his calculus.

    Over the last four months, the Trump administration slowly ramped up its pressure campaign on Maduro, first by targeting boats allegedly carrying narcotics and drug smugglers in international waters before announcing a blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers. Venezuela’s oil exports have consequently plummeted by half over the course of the last month.

    On Wednesday, the Treasury Department also issued sanctions against four companies that it said were either operating in Venezuela’s oil sector or as accompanying oil tankers.

    “Maduro’s regime increasingly depends on a shadow fleet of worldwide vessels to facilitate sanctionable activity, including sanctions evasion, and to generate revenue for its destabilizing operations,” the department said in a statement. “Today’s action further signals that those involved in the Venezuelan oil trade continue to face significant sanctions risks.”

    The Pentagon, meanwhile, has stationed nearly a quarter of the U.S. naval fleet in the Caribbean since the summer, in what Trump has referred to as a “massive armada” without precedent in the region.

    While Venezuela’s current oil output is modest, the nation sits on the world’s largest known oil reserves, offering significant potential access to any future strategic partners. China is currently the largest importer of Venezuelan oil, and at least one tanker subjected to the U.S. blockade has sought protection from Moscow, Maduro’s chief military ally.

    Addressing the blockade in an exchange with reporters, Trump said he had spoken with top U.S. oil executives about what the Venezuelan market would look like with Maduro no longer in power. And he suggested the U.S. government would keep whatever barrels are seized, hearkening back to Trump’s campaign, throughout the 2010s, for the United States to control the oil fields of Iraq as the spoils of its war there.

    We’re going to keep it,” Trump said last week, of the 1.9 million barrels of Venezuelan oil on the first tanker seized. “Maybe we’ll sell it. Maybe we’ll keep it. Maybe we’ll use it in the strategic reserves. We’re keeping it.”

    “We’re keeping the ships, also,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Ukraine, US discuss peace proposals on Christmas Day amid Russian attacks

    [ad_1]

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with U.S. representatives on Christmas Day about ongoing peace proposals after Russia launched a deadly attack on Ukraine.Zelenskyy said in a video message that he had “a good conversation” with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, during which they drafted new ideas about how to bring about real peace.This comes after Russia fired more than 600 drones and three dozen missiles at Ukraine earlier this week, killing at least three people, including a 4-year-old child. The attack caused significant damage, collapsing homes and knocking out the power grid in 13 regions of Ukraine, leading to widespread outages in bitter cold temperatures.The strikes are “an extremely clear signal of Russian priorities,” Zelenskyy said. In Rome, Pope Leo XIV delivered his first Christmas message as pontiff, condemning the violence and praying for the fighting to end.”Let us pray in a particular way for the tormented people of Ukraine. May the clamor of weapons cease and may the parties involved with the support and commitment of the international community find the courage to engage in sincere, direct and respectful dialogue,” the pope said. Leaders in Ukraine will continue to speak with U.S. representatives Friday. Additionally, Zelenskyy said on social media that Ukraine agreed to a meeting with Trump in the near future.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with U.S. representatives on Christmas Day about ongoing peace proposals after Russia launched a deadly attack on Ukraine.

    Zelenskyy said in a video message that he had “a good conversation” with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, during which they drafted new ideas about how to bring about real peace.

    This comes after Russia fired more than 600 drones and three dozen missiles at Ukraine earlier this week, killing at least three people, including a 4-year-old child.

    The attack caused significant damage, collapsing homes and knocking out the power grid in 13 regions of Ukraine, leading to widespread outages in bitter cold temperatures.

    The strikes are “an extremely clear signal of Russian priorities,” Zelenskyy said.

    In Rome, Pope Leo XIV delivered his first Christmas message as pontiff, condemning the violence and praying for the fighting to end.

    “Let us pray in a particular way for the tormented people of Ukraine. May the clamor of weapons cease and may the parties involved with the support and commitment of the international community find the courage to engage in sincere, direct and respectful dialogue,” the pope said.

    Leaders in Ukraine will continue to speak with U.S. representatives Friday. Additionally, Zelenskyy said on social media that Ukraine agreed to a meeting with Trump in the near future.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeffrey Epstein’s Brother Claims He Was Murdered

    [ad_1]

    A tip Mark Epstein gave the FBI in 2023 that claimed his brother was killed in his cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center, and it was ‘authorized by Donald Trump’ was among the 11,000 new files released by the DOJ Tuesday

    As the Department of Justice continues to release files related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, questions about the 66-year-old’s 2019 death at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, the federal lockup where he was awaiting trial, continue to swirl.

    Among the revelations in the 11,000 files by the DOJ Tuesday, the largest since the government began to make documents about the sex trafficker’s life and death, was a tip given to the FBI by Mark Epstein in 2023, in which he insisted his brother was murdered, because he was about to “name names.” Mark Epstein said that what he believes to be his brother’s assassination was “authorized” by President Trump. The tip read: “Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in his jail cell. I have reason to believe he was killed because he was about to name names.”

    The President has repeatedly denied any connection to his former friend Epstein’s death. On Tuesday, DOJ officials posted a statement on social media saying: “Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

    Epstein was found hanging in his Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019, one month after he was arrested in New York on sex trafficking charges. The New York City medical examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging, but a Federal Bureau of Prisons investigation into his death – contained in Tuesday’s release – showed that the jail cell where he was found was not secured as a potential crime scene.

    Weeks before he was found dead, Epstein had tried to commit suicide, according to the new release. On July 23, 2019, Epstein was found “lying in the fetal position on the floor with a homemade fashioned noose around his neck,” according to an internal BOP report. “Inmate Epstein was breathing heavily, however appeared to be responsive. Inmate Epstein was directed by staff to stand and submit to restraints. Inmate Epstein would not stand on his own and would not comply with staff directives.” He was kept on suicide watch for a day, the report indicated.

    There was also evidence that Epstein had an Austrian passport in the name of an alias, and his photo was recovered in a safe after his arrest. The passport was issued for “Marius Robert Fortelni” but used Jeffrey Epstein’s photograph.

    Department of Justice officials released a new batch of Epstein documents on Tuesday that included this fake Austrian passport with Epstein’s photo and an alias
    Credit: Department of Justice

    The Austrian passport appeared to have been obtained in 1982 and lists “Fortelni” as a resident of Saudi Arabia with a birthdate in 1954, a year after Epstein’s date of birth. The passport stamps show travel to London, France, Spain and Saudi Arabia.

    [ad_2]

    Michele McPhee

    Source link

  • Commentary: She went to jail for Trump’s Big Lie. He’s trying to get her sprung

    [ad_1]

    Just in time for the holidays, President Trump has issued another of his dubious pardons. Or rather, make that a “pardon.”

    This one comes on behalf of a former Colorado elections official serving a nine-year sentence for election fraud.

    “Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure our elections were fair and honest,” Trump said in a typically gaseous, dissembling post on social media.

    “Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” the president went on. “Today I am granting Tina a full pardon for her attempts to expose voter fraud in the rigged 2020 Presidential Election.”

    Actually, Peters’ crime was conspiring to let an unauthorized person access voting equipment as part of a nutty scheme to “prove” the November 2020 balloting was bogus, then lying and covering up her illegal actions.

    And she’s not likely to leave jail anytime soon.

    That’s because Trump has precisely zero say over Peters’ fate, given the former Mesa County elections chief was convicted on state charges. The president’s pardon power — which Trump has twisted to a snapping point — extends only to federal cases. If we’re going to play make-believe, then perhaps Foo-Foo the Snoo can personally escort Peters from prison and crown her Queen of the Rockies.

    That’s not to suggest, however, that Trump’s empty gesture was harmless. (Apologies to Foo-Foo and Dr. Seuss.)

    Some extremists, ever ready to do Trump’s malevolent bidding, have taken up Peters’ cause, using the same belligerent language that foreshadowed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. In fact, threats have come from some of the very same thugs whom Trump pardoned in one of the first shameless acts of his presidency.

    “WE THE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO BREAK TINA PETERS OUT OF PRISON IN 45 DAYS,” Jake Lang, a rioter who was charged with attacking police with an aluminum baseball bat, said on social media. “If Tina M. Peters is not released from La Vista Prison in Colorado to Federal Authorities by January 31st, 2026; US MARSHALS & JANUARY 6ERS PATRIOTS WILL BE STORMING IN TO FREE TINA!!”’

    (Capitalization and random punctuation are apparently the way to show fervency as well as prove one’s MAGA bona fides.)

    Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys extremist group whom Trump also pardoned, shared a screenshot of the president’s social media post. “A battle,” Tarrio said, “is coming.”

    Trump’s pretend pardon is not the first intervention on Peters’ behalf.

    In March, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to free her from prison, saying there were “reasonable concerns” about the length of Peters’ sentence. The judge declined.

    In November, the administration wrote the Colorado Department of Corrections and asked that Peters be transferred to federal custody, which would presumably allow for her release. No go.

    Earlier this month, apparently looking to up the pressure, the Justice Department announced an investigation of the state’s prison system. (Perhaps Peters was denied the special “magnetic mattress” she requested at her sentencing, to help deal with sleep issues.)

    Like any child, when Trump doesn’t get his way he calls people names. On Monday, he set his sights on Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis — “a weak and pathetic man” — for refusing to spring Peters from state prison.

    “The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado,” Trump said, “and he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.”

    The only true part of that statement is that Colorado does, in fact, exist.

    While Trump portrays Peters as a martyr, she is nothing of the sort.

    As Polis noted in response to Trump’s “pardon,” she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by a jury of her peers — a jury, it should be noted, that was drawn from the citizenry of Mesa County. The place is no liberal playpen. Voters in the rugged enclave on Colorado’s Western Slope backed Trump all three times he ran for president, by margins approaching 2-to-1.

    If Peters’ sentence seems harsh — which it does — hear what the judge had to say.

    Peters was motivated not by principle or a search for the truth but rather, he suggested, vanity and personal aggrandizement. She betrayed the public trust and eroded faith in an honestly run election to ingratiate herself with Trump and others grifting off his Big Lie.

    “You are as privileged as they come and you used that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame,” Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters in a lacerating lecture. “You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

    Peters remains unrepentant.

    In petitioning Trump for a pardon, her attorney submitted nine pages of cockamamie claims, asserting that Peters was the victim of a conspiracy involving, among others, voting-machine vendors, Colorado’s secretary of state and the Venezuelan government.

    To her credit, Peters has rejected calls for violence to set her free.

    “Tina categorically DENOUNCES and REJECTS any statements or OPERATIONS, public or private, involving a ‘prison break’ or use of force against La Vista or any other CDOC facility in any way,” a post on social media stated, again with the random capitalization.

    Perhaps the parole board will take note of those sentiments when the 70-year-old Peters becomes eligible for conditional release in January 2029, a date that just happens to coincide with the end of Trump’s term.

    Which seems fitting.

    Keep Peters locked up until then, serving as an example and deterrent to others who might consider emulating her by vandalizing the truth and attacking our democracy.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Lawmakers weigh impeachment articles for Bondi over Epstein file omissions

    [ad_1]

    Lawmakers unhappy with Justice Department decisions to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein threatened Saturday to launch impeachment proceedings against those responsible, including Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general.

    Democrats and Republicans alike criticized the omissions, while Democrats also accused the Justice Department of intentionally scrubbing the release of at least one image of President Trump, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggesting it could portend “one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

    Trump administration officials have said the release fully complied with the law, and that its redactions were crafted only to protect victims of Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender accused of abusing hundreds of women and girls before his death in 2019.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), an author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of the investigative trove, blasted Bondi in a social media video, accusing her of denying the existence of many of the records for months, only to push out “an incomplete release with too many redactions” in response to — and in violation of — the new law.

    Khanna said he and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), were “exploring all options” for responding and forcing more disclosures, including by pursuing “the impeachment of people at Justice,” asking courts to hold officials blocking the release in contempt, and “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice.”

    “We will work with the survivors to demand the full release of these files,” Khanna said.

    He later added in a CNN interview that he and Massie were drafting articles of impeachment against Bondi, though they had not decided whether to bring them forward.

    Massie, in his own social media post, said Khanna was correct in rejecting the Friday release as insufficient, saying that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”

    The lawmakers’ view that the Justice Department’s document dump failed to comply with the law echoed similar complaints across the political spectrum Saturday, as the full scope of redactions and other withholdings came into focus.

    The frustration had already sharply escalated late Friday, after Fox News Digital reported that the names and identifiers of not just victims but of “politically exposed individuals and government officials” had been redacted from the records — which would violate the law, and which Justice Department officials denied.

    Among the critics was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who cited the Fox reporting in an exasperated post late Friday to X.

    “The whole point was NOT to protect the ‘politically exposed individuals and government officials.’ That’s exactly what MAGA has always wanted, that’s what drain the swamp actually means. It means expose them all, the rich powerful elites who are corrupt and commit crimes, NOT redact their names and protect them,” Greene wrote.

    Senior Justice Department officials later called in to Fox News to dispute the report. But the removal of a file published in the Friday evening release, capturing a desk in Epstein’s home with a drawer filled of photos of Trump, reinforced bipartisan concerns that references to the president had been illegally withheld.

    In a release of documents from the Epstein family estate by the House Oversight Committee this fall, Trump’s name was featured over 1,000 times — more than any other public figure.

    “If they’re taking this down, just imagine how much more they’re trying to hide,” Schumer wrote on X. “This could be one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

    Several victims also said the release was insufficient. “It’s really kind of another slap in the face,” Alicia Arden, who went to the police to report that Epstein had abused her in 1997, told CNN. “I wanted all the files to come out, like they said that they were going to.”

    Trump, who signed the act into law after having worked to block it from getting a vote, was conspicuously quiet on the matter. In a long speech in North Carolina on Friday night, he did not mention it.

    However, White House officials and Justice Department leaders rejected the notion that the release was incomplete or out of compliance with the law, or that the names of politicians had been redacted.

    “The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”

    Other Republicans defended the administration. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the administration “is delivering unprecedented transparency in the Epstein case and will continue releasing documents.”

    Epstein died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He’d been convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what many condemned as a sweetheart plea deal for a well-connected and rich defendant.

    Epstein’s acts of abuse have attracted massive attention, including among many within Trump’s political base, in part because of unanswered questions surrounding which of his many powerful friends may have also been implicated in crimes against children. Some of those questions have swirled around Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had what the president has described as a falling out.

    Evidence has emerged in recent months that suggests Trump may have had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during their friendship.

    Epstein wrote in a 2019 email, released by the House Oversight Committee, that Trump “knew about the girls.” In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to help him sexually abuse girls, Epstein wrote that “the dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.”

    Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

    The records released Friday contained few if any major new revelations, but did include a complaint against Epstein filed with the FBI back in 1996 — which the FBI did little with, substantiating long-standing fears among Epstein’s victims that his crimes could have been stopped years earlier.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the president’s most consistent critics, wrote on X that Bondi should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain under oath the extensive redactions and omissions, which he called a “willful violation of the law.”

    “The Trump Justice Department has had months to keep their promise to release all of the Epstein Files,” Schiff wrote. “Epstein’s survivors and the American people need answers now.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • In his national address, President Trump claimed he’s bringing prices down. Here’s what the data shows.

    [ad_1]

    After nearly two months without new consumer price data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest report Thursday, providing a glimpse at energy costs, food prices and other everyday expenses.

    According to the consumer price index, inflation slowed in November, with prices rising 0.2% over the 0.3% observed in September. (BLS could not collect October data because of the government shutdown.)

    Still, inflation remains stubbornly high. Compared with a year ago, consumer costs are up about 2.7%.

    Thursday’s report came just a day after President Donald Trump delivered a prime-time address from the White House in which he largely discussed affordability concerns, from housing costs to grocery prices, saying the U.S. is “poised for an economic boom.”

    “The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before. I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast.”

    In truth, of the 11 everyday costs tracked month to month by the consumer price index, only five have decreased since January.

    Here’s a closer look at the president’s claims and how prices are changing, or not, during his second term in office.

    To see the average U.S. price of a specific good, click on the drop-down arrow below and select the item you wish to view.

    Eggs

    In the wake of all-time highs set earlier this year, egg prices have collapsed in recent months.

    That downward trend continued in November, with the price dropping a whopping 63 cents from September and settling at $2.86 per dozen. It’s the first time since June 2024 that the average nationwide price for a dozen large Grade A eggs registered below the $3 mark.

    This steep drop-off in prices is a result of a declining number of bird flu cases in commercial and backyard flocks. In the first two months of 2025, tens of millions of birds were affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza across 39 states, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. With entire flocks culled to prevent the spread of the virus, the egg supply was strained, leading to shortages in stores and record costs for consumers.

    Following another spike in cases in the early fall, the number of new infections appears to be subsiding again, with less than 2 million U.S. birds affected in the past two months. More notably, zero outbreaks among egg-laying chickens have been reported in November and December.

    Consequently, costs are “falling rapidly” as highlighted by Trump in his prime-time address earlier this week.

    “The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly. And it’s not done yet, but boy are we making progress. Nobody can believe what’s going on.”

    While egg prices have dropped considerably from March’s record high of $6.23 per dozen, the difference of roughly $3.37 from March to November represents a 54% decrease — not the 82% cited by the president.

    In a statement given to the Tribune, a White House official clarified that he was referring to wholesale costs, not retail prices.

    Milk

    The cost of milk also saw a measurable decrease from the previous month, falling 13 cents.

    A gallon of fresh, fortified whole milk is now priced at $4.00 — that’s 2.5% less than it was in December 2024, before Trump took office.

    Bread

    The average price of white bread fell in November to $1.79 per pound, marking a three-year low for the pantry staple. Time for bread pudding, anyone?

    Bananas

    The cost of bananas fell slightly from September’s all-time highs, dropping just a fraction of a cent to $0.66 per pound in November.

    Recent price inflation is likely a byproduct of the president’s trade war, with tariffs imposed on the country’s top banana suppliers like Guatemala, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras and Mexico — all of which are currently subject to an import tax of at least 10%.

    But in mid-November, Trump took action to combat rising grocery costs, announcing that some agricultural products would be exempt from tariffs due to “current domestic demand for certain products” and “current domestic capacity to produce certain products.”

    Both fresh and dried bananas were among the listed exemptions, indicating that lower prices may be around the corner.

    Oranges

    No data on orange prices was available for November.

    However, in September, the cost of navel oranges was listed at $1.80 per pound, less than a cent shy of record highs and nearly 18% more than they were at the start of the Trump administration.

    Drastically low domestic orange production combined with steep tariffs on foreign growers have been helping to push costs skyward. But, as with bananas, oranges are now exempt from most reciprocal tariffs.

    Tomatoes

    As of November, the cost of field-grown tomatoes was $1.83 per pound. That price is 8 cents lower than the previous month of data and down roughly 12% since Trump took power.

    The change is somewhat abnormal given the growing season, as prices typically rise in the fall and peak in the early winter months, and could be attributable to the Trump administration’s recent course reversal on many of its tomato tariffs.

    Chicken

    The cost of fresh, whole chicken fell for a fourth consecutive month, to $2.04 per pound — its lowest price in a year.

    Rising feed costs and the effects of bird flu on the poultry supply chain have driven persistently higher prices, but with the number of cases dropping again, we could see lower prices in the new year.

    Still, the average cost is only about 2 cents less than it was when President Joe Biden left the White House.

    Ground beef

    Ground beef is getting more expensive.

    After shoppers saw some relief in September from climbing costs, the price of ground beef jumped another 18 cents.

    Rising costs can be attributed to a confluence of factors. The U.S. cattle inventory is the lowest it’s been in almost 75 years, and severe drought in parts of the country has further reduced the feed supply, per the USDA. Additionally, steep tariff rates on top beef importers also played a part in higher prices stateside, but as of Nov. 13 high-quality cuts, processed beef and live cattle are exempt from most countries’ levies.

    Still, since the change of administrations, ground beef costs have ballooned by 18% — translating to $1 per pound price increases at the grocery store.

    As of November, a pound of 100% ground beef chuck would set you back about $6.50.

    Electricity

    Electric costs have also been steadily rising.

    At approximately 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, the current price of electricity is a fraction of a cent off August’s high. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average American household uses 899 kWh every four weeks, translating to a monthly bill of about $170.

    Thankfully, the White House appears to be working to mitigate mounting costs. In his presidential address, Trump claimed that within the next 12 months his administration will have opened 1,600 new electrical generating plants.

    “Prices on electricity and everything else will fall dramatically,” Trump said.

    For many Americans, relief is needed. Since last December, the average price of electricity per kilowatt-hour has increased more than 7%.

    Gasoline

    Declining gas prices were another highlight of Trump’s Wednesday night remarks.

    The cost of gasoline has tumbled from the record-setting prices Americans saw three summers ago under Biden, and just last month, the price at the pump dropped more than 10 cents per gallon.

    “On day one I declared a national energy emergency,” Trump said. “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon in much of the country. In some states, it by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.”

    According to the latest CPI data, the average nationwide cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is $3.23. And though prices are noticeably lower than they were two to three years ago, that average remains higher than it was just a year ago and up nearly 3% during the Trump presidency.

    Prices in Chicago, meanwhile, are about the same month-over-month, costing an average of $3.29 per gallon, according to EIA data.

    Natural gas

    Bucking its previous downward trend, piped utility gas, or natural gas, is another expense that’s climbing. The nationwide cost jumped 3 cents in November, landing at $1.64 per therm.

    On average, Americans are paying close to 8% more to heat their homes, ovens and stovetops than when Biden left office. Year-over-year, that gap is even more drastic: a roughly 10% change or difference of 15 cents per therm.

    [ad_2]

    Claire Malon

    Source link

  • US military launches strikes in Syria targeting Islamic State fighters after American troop deaths

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration launched military strikes Friday in Syria to “eliminate” Islamic State group fighters and weapons sites in retaliation for an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter almost a week ago. A U.S. official described it as “a large-scale” strike that hit 70 targets in areas across central Syria that had IS infrastructure and weapons. Another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations, said more strikes should be expected.“This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance. The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media.The new military operation in Syria comes even as the Trump administration has said it’s looking to focus closer to home in the Western Hemisphere, building up an armada in the Caribbean Sea as it targets alleged drug-smuggling boats and vowing to keep seizing sanctioned oil tankers as part of a pressure campaign on Venezuela’s leader. The U.S. has shifted significant resources away from the Middle East to further those goals: Its most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in South American waters last month from the Mediterranean Sea.Video below: Trump commented on the strikes during a speech Friday nightTrump vowed retaliationPresident Donald Trump pledged “very serious retaliation” after the shooting in the Syrian desert, for which he blamed IS. Those killed were among hundreds of U.S. troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the militant group.Trump in a social media post said the strikes were targeting IS “strongholds.” He reiterated his backing for Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who Trump said was “fully in support” of the U.S. effort.Trump also offered an all-caps threat, warning IS against attacking American personnel again.“All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned — YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.,” the president added.The attack was conducted using F-15 Eagle jets, A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft and AH-64 Apache helicopters, the U.S. officials said. F-16 fighter jets from Jordan and HIMARS rocket artillery also were used, one official added.U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region, said in a social media post that American jets, helicopters and artillery employed more than 100 precision munitions on Syrian targets.How Syria has respondedThe attack was a major test for the warming ties between the United States and Syria since the ouster of autocratic leader Bashar Assad a year ago. Trump has stressed that Syria was fighting alongside U.S. troops and said al-Sharaa was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack,” which came as the U.S. military is expanding its cooperation with Syrian security forces.Syria’s foreign ministry in a statement on X following the launch of U.S. strikes said that last week’s attack “underscores the urgent necessity of strengthening international cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms” and that Syria is committed “to fighting ISIS and ensuring that it has no safe havens on Syrian territory and will continue to intensify military operations against it wherever it poses a threat.”Syrian state television reported that the U.S. strikes hit targets in rural areas of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces and in the Jabal al-Amour area near the historic city of Palmyra. It said they targeted “weapons storage sites and headquarters used by ISIS as launching points for its operations in the region.”IS has not said it carried out the attack on the U.S. service members, but the group has claimed responsibility for two attacks on Syrian security forces since, one of which killed four Syrian soldiers in Idlib province. The group in its statements described al-Sharaa’s government and army as “apostates.” While al-Sharaa once led a group affiliated with al-Qaida, he has had a long-running enmity with IS.The Americans who were killedTrump this week met privately with the families of the slain Americans at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before he joined top military officials and other dignitaries on the tarmac for the dignified transfer, a solemn and largely silent ritual honoring U.S. service members killed in action.The guardsmen killed in Syria last Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown. Ayad Mansoor Sakat, of Macomb, Michigan, a U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, also was killed.The shooting near Palmyra also wounded three other U.S. troops as well as members of Syria’s security forces, and the gunman was killed. The assailant had joined Syria’s internal security forces as a base security guard two months ago and recently was reassigned because of suspicions that he might be affiliated with IS, Interior Ministry spokesperson Nour al-Din al-Baba has said.The man stormed a meeting between U.S. and Syrian security officials who were having lunch together and opened fire after clashing with Syrian guards.___Associated Press writer Abby Sewell in Beirut, Lebanon, contributed.

    The Trump administration launched military strikes Friday in Syria to “eliminate” Islamic State group fighters and weapons sites in retaliation for an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter almost a week ago.

    A U.S. official described it as “a large-scale” strike that hit 70 targets in areas across central Syria that had IS infrastructure and weapons. Another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations, said more strikes should be expected.

    “This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance. The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media.

    The new military operation in Syria comes even as the Trump administration has said it’s looking to focus closer to home in the Western Hemisphere, building up an armada in the Caribbean Sea as it targets alleged drug-smuggling boats and vowing to keep seizing sanctioned oil tankers as part of a pressure campaign on Venezuela’s leader. The U.S. has shifted significant resources away from the Middle East to further those goals: Its most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in South American waters last month from the Mediterranean Sea.

    Video below: Trump commented on the strikes during a speech Friday night

    Trump vowed retaliation

    President Donald Trump pledged “very serious retaliation” after the shooting in the Syrian desert, for which he blamed IS. Those killed were among hundreds of U.S. troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the militant group.

    Trump in a social media post said the strikes were targeting IS “strongholds.” He reiterated his backing for Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who Trump said was “fully in support” of the U.S. effort.

    Trump also offered an all-caps threat, warning IS against attacking American personnel again.

    “All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned — YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.,” the president added.

    The attack was conducted using F-15 Eagle jets, A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft and AH-64 Apache helicopters, the U.S. officials said. F-16 fighter jets from Jordan and HIMARS rocket artillery also were used, one official added.

    U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region, said in a social media post that American jets, helicopters and artillery employed more than 100 precision munitions on Syrian targets.

    How Syria has responded

    The attack was a major test for the warming ties between the United States and Syria since the ouster of autocratic leader Bashar Assad a year ago. Trump has stressed that Syria was fighting alongside U.S. troops and said al-Sharaa was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack,” which came as the U.S. military is expanding its cooperation with Syrian security forces.

    Syria’s foreign ministry in a statement on X following the launch of U.S. strikes said that last week’s attack “underscores the urgent necessity of strengthening international cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms” and that Syria is committed “to fighting ISIS and ensuring that it has no safe havens on Syrian territory and will continue to intensify military operations against it wherever it poses a threat.”

    Syrian state television reported that the U.S. strikes hit targets in rural areas of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces and in the Jabal al-Amour area near the historic city of Palmyra. It said they targeted “weapons storage sites and headquarters used by ISIS as launching points for its operations in the region.”

    IS has not said it carried out the attack on the U.S. service members, but the group has claimed responsibility for two attacks on Syrian security forces since, one of which killed four Syrian soldiers in Idlib province. The group in its statements described al-Sharaa’s government and army as “apostates.” While al-Sharaa once led a group affiliated with al-Qaida, he has had a long-running enmity with IS.

    The Americans who were killed

    Trump this week met privately with the families of the slain Americans at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before he joined top military officials and other dignitaries on the tarmac for the dignified transfer, a solemn and largely silent ritual honoring U.S. service members killed in action.

    The guardsmen killed in Syria last Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown. Ayad Mansoor Sakat, of Macomb, Michigan, a U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, also was killed.

    The shooting near Palmyra also wounded three other U.S. troops as well as members of Syria’s security forces, and the gunman was killed. The assailant had joined Syria’s internal security forces as a base security guard two months ago and recently was reassigned because of suspicions that he might be affiliated with IS, Interior Ministry spokesperson Nour al-Din al-Baba has said.

    The man stormed a meeting between U.S. and Syrian security officials who were having lunch together and opened fire after clashing with Syrian guards.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Abby Sewell in Beirut, Lebanon, contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Betrayed’: Investors grapple with Trump commuting sentence of man who defrauded them

    [ad_1]

    Jeffrey Rosenberg is still trying to understand why President Trump would free the man who defrauded him out of a quarter of a million dollars.

    Rosenberg, a retired wholesale produce distributor living in Nevada, has supported Trump since he entered politics, but the president’s decision in November to commute the sentence of former private equity executive David Gentile has left him angry and confused.

    “I just feel I’ve been betrayed,” Rosenberg, 68, said. “I don’t know why he would do this, unless there was some sort of gain somewhere, or some favor being called in. I am very disappointed. I kind of put him above this kind of thing.”

    Trump’s decision to release Gentile from prison less than two weeks into his seven-year sentence has drawn scrutiny from securities attorneys and a U.S. senator — all of whom say the White House’s explanation for the act of clemency is not adding up. It’s also drawn the ire of his victims.

    “I think it is disgusting,” said CarolAnn Tutera, 70, who invested more than $400,000 with Gentile’s company, GPB Capital. Gentile, she added, “basically pulled a Bernie Madoff and swindled people out of their money, and then he gets to go home to his wife and kids.”

    Gentile and his business partner, Jeffry Schneider, were convicted of securities and wire fraud in August 2024 for carrying out what federal prosecutors described as a $1.6-billion Ponzi scheme to defraud more than 10,000 investors. After an eight-week trial, it took a jury five hours to return a guilty verdict.

    More than 1,000 people attested to their losses after investing with GPB, according to federal prosecutors who described the victims as “hardworking, everyday people.”

    When Gentile and Schneider were sentenced in May, Joseph Nocella Jr., the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York, and Christopher Raia, a senior official in the Justice Department, called their punishment “well deserved” and a warning to would-be fraudsters.

    “May today’s sentencing deter anyone who seeks to greedily profit off their clients through deceitful practices,” Raia said in a statement.

    Then, on Nov. 26 — just 12 days after Gentile reported to prison — Trump commuted his sentence with “no further fines, restitution, probation, or other conditions,” according to a grant of clemency signed by Trump. Under those terms, Gentile may not have to pay $15 million that federal prosecutors are seeking in forfeiture.

    Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters this month that prosecutors had failed to tie “supposedly fraudulent” representations to Gentile and that his conviction was a “weaponization of justice” led by the Biden administration — even though the sentences and convictions were lauded by Trump’s own appointees.

    The White House declined to say who advised Trump in the decision or whether Trump was considering granting clemency to Schneider, Gentile’s co-defendant. Attorneys for Gentile and Schneider did not respond to a request seeking comment.

    Adam Gana, a securities attorney whose firm has represented more than 250 GPB investors, called the White House’s explanation “a word salad of nonsense,” and questioned why Trump granted Gentile a commutation, which lessens a sentence, rather than a pardon, which forgives the offense itself.

    “If the government wasn’t able to prove their case, why not pardon David Gentile? And why is his partner still in prison?” Gana said. “It’s left us with more questions than answers.”

    ‘It hurts a lot’

    To Rosenberg, Tutera and two other investors interviewed by The Times, the president’s decision stripped away any sense of closure they felt after Gentile and Schneider were convicted.

    Rosenberg has tried not to dwell on the $250,000 he lost in 2016, after a broker “painted a beautiful picture” of steady returns and long-term profits. The investments were supposed to generate income for him during retirement.

    “A quarter of a million dollars, it hurts a lot,” Rosenberg said. “It changed a lot of things I do. Little trips that I wanted to take with my grandkids — well, they’re not quite as nice as they were planned on being.”

    Jeffrey Rosenberg, a longtime Trump supporter, said he felt “betrayed” after the president granted clemency to convicted fraudster David Gentile.

    (Scott Sady / For The Times)

    Tutera, who runs a hormone replacement therapy office in Arizona, invested more than $400,000 with GPB at the recommendation of a financial advisor. She hoped the returns would help support her retirement after her husband had died.

    “I was on grief brain at the time and just feel I was taken advantage of and really sold a bill of goods,” said Tutera, 70. Now, she says: “I have to keep working to make up for what I was owed.” She has been able to recover only about $40,000.

    Tutera said her sister, Julie Ullman, and their 97-year-old mother also fell victim to the scheme. Their mother lost more than $100,000 and now finds herself spending down savings she had planned to leave to her children and not trusting people, she said.

    “That’s really sad,” Tutera said. “People, unfortunately, have turned into thieves, liars and cheaters, and I don’t know what’s happened to the world, but we’ve lost our way to be kind.”

    Ullman, 58, who manages a medical practice in Arizona, said the financial loss was life-changing.

    “I’m going to have to work longer than I thought I would because that was my retirement fund,” Ullman said.

    Mei, a 71-year-old licensed acupuncturist who asked to not use her full name out of embarrassment, said a broker introduced her to the GPB investment funds at a lunch meeting targeting divorced women. She eventually invested $500,000 and lost all of it. It was only through lawsuits that she was able to recover roughly $214,000 of her money, she said.

    Mei had planned to retire in New York to be close to her children. But the loss of income has forced her to live in China, where the cost of living is much lower, six months out of the year, she said.

    Mei fears Trump’s decision to commute Gentile’s sentence will allow these schemes to continue.

    “Donald Trump is promoting more white-collar financial criminals, for sure,” Mei said. “How unfair.”

    Bob Van De Veire, a securities attorney who has represented more than 100 GPB investors, said he has mostly handled negligence cases against the brokers who touted GPB investments.

    “Based on all the red flags that were present, they should have never sold these investments at all,” Van De Veire said.

    Gana, the securities attorney, added that he will continue to fight for victims in civil court, noting the clemency only addressed the criminal conviction.

    The commutation caught the eye of Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who sent a letter to the White House last week asking several questions: Why, for example, did Gentile receive clemency while Schneider did not? And what were the trial errors cited as a reason for the commutation? He said victims deserve answers.

    “They will not forget that when they needed their government to stand with them against the man who stole their futures, their President chose to stand with the criminal instead,” Gallego wrote.

    Rosenberg, the retiree from Nevada, said he still supports the president but can’t help but think Trump’s decision makes him “look like another of the swamp” that Trump says he wants to drain.

    “I think Trump does a lot of good things,” he said, “but this is a bad one.”

    Still, Rosenberg is hopeful Trump may do right by the victims — even if it’s just by admitting he made a mistake.

    “I would like to think that he was fed some bad information somewhere along the way,” he said. “If that is the case … at least come forward and say, ‘I regret it.’ ”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • President Trump announces ‘warrior dividend’ bonus checks for US troops

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said in a White House speech Wednesday night that he was sending a $1,776 bonus check to U.S. troops for Christmas, indicating that tariffs were funding the payments as he tried to reassure a worried public about the health of the economy.Trump said 1.45 million military service members would get the “warrior dividend before Christmas.“The checks are already on the way,” he added.He seemed to imply that the checks were being funded from tariff revenues.“We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along,” Trump said, referring to the GOP’s major tax cuts legislation it passed earlier this year. “Nobody deserves it more than our military, and I say congratulations.”This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

    President Donald Trump said in a White House speech Wednesday night that he was sending a $1,776 bonus check to U.S. troops for Christmas, indicating that tariffs were funding the payments as he tried to reassure a worried public about the health of the economy.

    Trump said 1.45 million military service members would get the “warrior dividend before Christmas.

    “The checks are already on the way,” he added.

    He seemed to imply that the checks were being funded from tariff revenues.

    “We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along,” Trump said, referring to the GOP’s major tax cuts legislation it passed earlier this year. “Nobody deserves it more than our military, and I say congratulations.”

    This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House defends Chief of Staff Susie Wiles after tell-all

    [ad_1]

    President Trump’s chief of staff is defending herself after granting an extraordinarily candid series of interviews with Vanity Fair in which she offers stinging judgments of the president and blunt assessments about his administration’s shortcomings.

    The profile of Susie Wiles, Trump’s reserved, influential top aide since he resumed office, caused a scandal in Washington and prompted a crisis response from the White House that involved nearly every single figure in Trump’s orbit issuing a public defense.

    In 11 interviews conducted over lunches and meetings in the West Wing, Wiles described early failures and drug use by billionaire Elon Musk during his time in government and mistakes by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in her public handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Wiles also acknowledged that Trump had launched a retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies.

    “I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” Wiles told Chris Whipple, the Vanity Fair writer who has written extensively on past chiefs of staff, “but when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”

    Wiles also cited missteps in the administration’s immigration crackdown, contradicted a claim Trump makes about financier and convicted sex offender Epstein and former President Clinton and described Vice President JD Vance as a “conspiracy theorist.”

    Within hours of the Vanity Fair tell-all’s publication Tuesday, Wiles and key members of Trump’s inner circle mounted a robust defense of her tenure, calling the story a “hit piece” that left out exculpatory context.

    “The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history,” Wiles said in a post on X, her first in more than a year. “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story.”

    The profile was reported with the knowledge and participation of other senior staff, and illustrated with a photograph of Wiles and some of Trump’s closest aides, including Vance, Bondi and advisor Stephen Miller.

    The profile revealed much about a chief of staff who has kept a discreet profile in the West Wing, continuing her management philosophy carried through the 2024 election when she served as Trump’s last campaign manager: She let Trump be Trump. “Sir, remember that I am the chief of staff, not the chief of you,” she recalled telling the president.

    Trump has publicly emphasized how much he values Wiles as a trusted aide. He did so at a rally last week where he referred to her as “Susie Trump.” In an interview with Whipple, she talked about having difficult conversations with Trump on a daily basis, but that she picks her battles.

    “So no, I’m not an enabler. I’m also not a bitch. I try to be thoughtful about what I even engage in,” Wiles said. “I guess time will tell whether I’ve been effective.”

    Despite her passive style, Wiles shared concern over Trump’s initial approach to tariff policy, calling the levies “more painful than I had expected.” She had urged him, unsuccessfully, to get his retribution campaign out of the way within his first 90 days in office, in order to enable the administration to move on to more important matters. And she had opposed Trump’s blanket pardon of Jan. 6 defendants, including those convicted of violent crimes.

    Wiles also acknowledged the administration needs to “look harder at our process for deportation,” adding that in at least one instance mistakes were made when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested and deported two mothers and their American children to Honduras. One of the children was being treated for Stage 4 cancer.

    “I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did,” she said.

    In foreign policy, Wiles defended the administration’s attack on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and said the president “wants to keep on blowing up boats up until [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro cries uncle,” suggesting the goal is to seek a change of governments.

    As Trump has talked about potential land strikes in Venezuela, Wiles acknowledged that such a move would require congressional authorization.

    “If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then [we’d need] Congress,” she said.

    In one exchange with Whipple, she characterized Trump, who abstains from liquor, as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” explaining that “high-functioning alcoholics, or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink.”

    He “operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,” she said.

    But Trump, in an interview with the New York Post, defended Wiles and her comments, saying that he would indeed be an alcoholic if he drank alcohol.

    “She’s done a fantastic job,” Trump said. “I think from what I hear, the facts were wrong, and it was a very misguided interviewer — purposely misguided.”

    Wiles also blamed the persistence of the Epstein saga on members of Trump’s Cabinet, noting that the president’s chosen FBI director, Kash Patel, had advocated for the release of all Justice Department files related to the investigation for many years. Despite Trump’s claims that Clinton visited Epstein’s private island, Wiles acknowledged, Trump is “wrong about that.”

    Wiles added that Bondi had “completely whiffed” on how she handled the Epstein files, an issue that has created a rift within MAGA.

    “First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk,” Wiles said.

    Wiles added that she has read the investigative files about Epstein and acknowledged that Trump is mentioned in them, but said “he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

    Vance, who she said had been a “conspiracy theorist for a decade,” said he had joked with Wiles about conspiracies in private before offering her praise.

    “I’ve never seen Susie Wiles say something to the president and then go and counteract him or subvert his will behind the scenes. And that’s what you want in a staffer,” Vance told reporters. “I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States and that makes her the best White House chief of staff that the president could ask for.”

    Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Wiles described to Whipple as a “right-wing absolute zealot,” said in a social media post that she is an “exceptional chief of staff.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the “entire administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

    Wiles told Vanity Fair that she would be happy to stay in the role for as long as the president wanted her to stay, noting that she has time to devote to the job, being divorced and with her kids out of the house.

    Trump had a troubled relationship with his chiefs of staff in his first term, cycling through four in four years. His longest-serving chief of staff, former Gen. John F. Kelly, served a year and a half.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • National Guard troops under Trump’s command leave L.A before court’s deadline

    [ad_1]

    Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

    Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

    About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

    “There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

    Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

    The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

    The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

    “For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

    The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

    That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

    But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

    In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

    “Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

    That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

    In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

    Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

    When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

    “There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

    For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

    Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Poll: Trump’s MAGA base is still behind him — but cracks are showing ahead of 2026

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains steadily underwater among adults as he nears the end of his first year back in the White House, and he has lost some ground among his “Make America Great Again” base, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll powered by SurveyMonkey.

    Trump’s approval has inched down in 2025 amid concern about the economy, while Americans remain worried about inflation and costs after Trump’s campaign promises to ease those anxieties. Respondents’ concerns were apparent in everyday spending decisions like grocery shopping, holiday spending and more, the poll shows.

    Other high-profile Trump decisions, including his handling of the controversy over the so-called Jeffrey Epstein files, have scored negatively with Americans. Trump initially opposed a congressional move to force the release of the files before relenting to pressure from both parties last month.

    Overall, the poll underlines how the intense support that Trump rode to a second presidential term has weakened — and how the intensity of the opposition to him has grown.

    American adults largely disapprove of Trump’s job performance, with his approval rating at 42% and disapproval at 58% in the new poll. That’s a slight approval rating drop of 3 points (from 45%) over the course of four polls since April, the first time the survey was conducted. The new poll surveyed 20,252 adults, including people registered to vote and not registered to vote, online from Nov. 20 to Dec. 8, with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.

    But underneath this modest decrease in approval are more subtle shifts in the intensity of feelings about the president — both positive and negative.

    The share of people who strongly approve of Trump (21%) has dropped over the course of the year (26% in April). Slightly more people now say they strongly disapprove of Trump (44%) compared to April (42%).

    MAGA not as ‘strong’ for Trump

    Two groups show the largest drop in strong support for the president since April: those who identify as Republican, and, in particular, those who identify with Trump’s MAGA movement.

    Among the Republicans who consider themselves more supporters of the Republican Party than the MAGA movement, the share of those who “strongly approve” of Trump now stands at 35%, compared to 38% in April.

    Trump’s strong approval is higher among those who consider themselves MAGA Republicans: 70%. But that represents a drop of 8 points (from 78%) since April.

    And while 7 in 10 MAGA supporters still say they “strongly approve” of the president’s job performance, fewer Republicans report being part of the MAGA movement compared to earlier this year.

    In April, a majority of Republicans reported identifying with the MAGA movement. In this survey, Republicans are evenly split on whether they identify more as “traditional” Republicans or as MAGA movement members.

    Although small, these shifts are notable because Trump has enjoyed tremendous sway over his party in no small part because of his ability to command a core base of support. But in recent months, fractures have emerged.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a stalwart of Trump’s MAGA movement, broke publicly with the president and his administration over a number of issues, including what the Georgia Republican saw as a misplaced focus on foreign affairs over domestic policy. Greene has said she identifies now as “America First,” rather than MAGA, and is resigning from Congress early next year.

    Meanwhile, elections in November saw Democrats dominate on a message of affordability, underscoring the challenges Republicans may face going into next year’s midterm elections, as allies of the president urge him to do more to speak to economic concerns.

    Concerns about the economy and finances

    The economy remains the most important issue to Americans right now, and persistent inflation remains a sore spot, even among the president’s supporters, according to the survey.

    Those who identify as Republican, including MAGA Republicans, are shifting perspectives slightly when it comes to the economy.

    Compared to the last NBC News Decision Desk poll, in August, both groups were a few percentage points more likely to say their personal finances are worse today compared to one year ago. Those groups were also 6 points more likely to say the country is on the wrong track.

    Overall, 64% of Americans overall think the country is on the wrong track, up from 60% in the beginning of the year.

    That finding holds across most groups, but the groups shifting their views in a negative direction may also be among the most consequential in next year’s midterm elections: people who voted for Trump in 2024, people with a high school education or less, people who are 65 and over (especially older women), and Black and Hispanic Americans.

    Different economic priorities by income

    While the majority of Americans express concerns about the overall state of the economy, the top and bottom of the income distribution are not experiencing the same levels of worry — or showing their worry in the same way.

    Overall, 41% said that their personal financial situation is about the same as it was a year ago. Another 35% said it’s worse today and 24% said it’s better.

    However, 45% of those making less than $50,000 said their finances are worse today, compared to only a quarter of those who make over $100,000.

    Similarly, while 31% of the highest earners reported being in a better financial position than a year ago, only 16% of the lowest earners said they’re better off today.

    Americans with incomes under $50,000 cited the cost of housing and food as the biggest economic problems facing them and their families. The cost of health insurance and planning for retirement, meanwhile, were the biggest economic problems picked by those making over $100,000.

    As a result of recent economic conditions, a majority of Americans reported needing to change what groceries they buy in order to stay within their budget, and a majority also said they had personally cut back spending on extras and entertainment to afford necessities.

    Those with incomes under $50,000 were more likely — by double digits — to say they’ve cut back on groceries, extras and entertainment, and even holiday spending, compared to those with incomes over $100,000.

    And while 69% of higher earners said they are personally affected by what happens in the stock market, 58% of lower earners said the stock market doesn’t affect them much or at all.

    Over half of all Americans (53%) said they trust the Democratic Party over the Republican Party (47%) when it comes to handling the rising price of everyday things. The majority opinion on that question is consistent across traditionally Democratic groups whose turnout will be critical to the party’s prospects in the 2026 elections: African Americans (77%), women (61%), Latinos (60%), young people (59%) and independents (55%).

    The NBC News Decision Desk Poll powered by SurveyMonkey surveyed 20,252 adults online from Nov. 20 to Dec. 8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Powerful men in politics and media shown in new Epstein estate images

    [ad_1]

    House Democrats on Friday released 19 photographs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private email server showing a collection of powerful men in politics, media and Hollywood in the convicted sex offender’s orbit.

    The photographs — which were released without information on the timing, location or context of the events portrayed — do not reveal any wrongdoing or show sexual acts but offer more detail about Epstein’s well-known associations with prominent men.

    The 19 images selected and released by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are a small slice of more than 95,000 photographs the committee received on Thursday from Epstein’s private estate, Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat in the committee, told reporters on Friday.

    Garcia, of Long Beach, added that the release of the images is an exercise in transparency, and said it serves as an example of why Democrats want to keep the pressure on the Trump administration to release its Epstein files ahead of a Dec. 19 deadline mandated by a law passed by Congress in November.

    “I think people should be able to make judgments on their own as to what they see in these photos,” Garcia said. “For us this is about transparency.”

    Most of the images Democrats released on Friday further illustrate Epstein’s already well-known relationships with prominent men, many of whom have over the years faced questions about their ties to Epstein, who died by suicide in federal prison in 2019.

    Some of the photos show Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump advisor, meeting with Epstein at an office; tech billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates standing by what appears to be Epstein’s private jet; former President Clinton with Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell; Epstein with filmmaker Woody Allen on a movie set; and, before he became president, Donald Trump with six unidentified women.

    Other images show stand-alone images of sex toys and, in what appears to be an attempt at racy humor, a bowl filled with what a sign identifies as the “Trump condom” — condom packages emblazoned with a caricature of Trump and the words “I’M HUUUGE!”

    An image released by a House committee shows former president Bill Clinton, center, with Jeffrey Epstein, right, and Ghislaine Maxwell, second from right.

    (House Oversight Committee )

    Trump has denied any involvement or knowledge of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations, but thousands of emails released last month have suggested the president may have known more about Epstein’s abuse than he had acknowledged.

    Epstein was a convicted sex offender who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. His longtime associate, Maxwell, is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in a sex-trafficking scheme to groom and sexually abuse underage girls with Epstein.

    The 95,000 photographs released this week were turned over to the House committee in response to a set of subpoenas issued for records related to Epstein’s estate.

    Garcia said Democrats on the panel are reviewing the full set of photos and will continue to release them to the public in the days and weeks ahead.

    “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Garcia said. “We will not rest until the American people get the truth. The Department of Justice must release all of the files, NOW.”

    One of the images released by a House committee shows Stephen K. Bannon with Jeffrey Epstein in an office.

    One of the images released by a House committee shows Stephen K. Bannon, left, with Jeffrey Epstein.

    (House Oversight Committee )

    Trump had tried to thwart the release of what have become commonly known as the “Epstein files” for several months but reversed course in November under growing pressure from his party.

    The president then signed legislation that requires the Department of Justice to release its investigative files related to Epstein by Dec. 19. But his past resistance has led to skepticism among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill who question whether the Justice Department may try to conceal information.

    “The real test will be, will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said in November. .

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told reporters on Friday that if the Justice Department does not release its files by Dec. 19 it would be considered a crime.

    “This is a new law with criminal implications if they don’t follow it,” Massie said.

    Massie said he was “encouraged” by the Justice Department’s requests to unseal court records tied to the grand jury investigations into Epstein and Maxwell. Two judges granted the requests this week.

    The Kentucky Republican said the Justice Department is required to release more than just the grand jury investigations, but also files that were not released to a grand jury.

    “The FBI and DOJ probably have evidence that they chose not to take to the grand jury, because the evidence they are in possession of would implicate other people, not just Epstein or Maxwell,” Massie said. “What we want to see are the facts and evidence that the FBI and DOJ have never given to the grand jury.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Justice Department drafting a list of ‘domestic terrorists’

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Dent

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Judge Dismisses Election Interference Case Against Trump – KXL

    [ad_1]

    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:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • FBI investigates video urging US troops to defy illegal orders

    [ad_1]

    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:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum, Patrick J. McDonnell, Mery Mogollón

    Source link