ReportWire

Tag: president

  • House returns, set to end record-breaking government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Right now the process is underway to reach that final vote in the House to end this longest government shutdown ever. We also wanted to lay out how it’s currently set to work. Over the last 2 days, House lawmakers have been flying in from across the country as they’ve been on recess during the entire shutdown. Some potentially face shutdown-related flight delays, but they are on their way back to the Capitol. The House agenda today was very specific, swearing in *** new congresswoman from Arizona when the House resumed this. Afternoon then debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for around 5 p.m. Eastern today. If that passes, the House would debate again and is currently scheduled to hold *** final vote around 7 p.m. Eastern. That vote does not include healthcare subsidies, which started the whole shutdown in the first place. Of course we want to reopen the government. But that we need to decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis, and that begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight. It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along. Democrats are largely expected to vote no on this. Republicans who hold *** majority in the House can only afford to lose 2 votes in order to pass this bill. And if that happens, the bill then heads over to President Donald Trump for his signature before the very likely long process of getting the government back up and running again. Reporting on Capitol Hill, I’m Amy Lou.

    House returns, set to end record-breaking government shutdown

    House lawmakers reconvened in Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that would end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

    Updated: 2:05 PM PST Nov 12, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    House lawmakers raced back to Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that could end the 43-day government shutdown, making it the longest in U.S. history. Over the last two days, lawmakers have been flying in from across the country, some facing their own potential shutdown-related delays, to get to Wednesday’s expected final vote. The House’s agenda included swearing in a new congresswoman from Arizona, followed by debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for early evening. If that passes, the House debates again before holding a final vote on the bill, expected around 7 p.m. ET. The bill currently does not include Affordable Care Act subsidies, which started the shutdown in the first place.Democrats, who are largely expected to vote “no” on the bill, expressed disappointment.”Of course, we want to reopen the government, but we need to decisively address the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said. “That begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”House Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, were largely expected to pass the measure despite Democrats’ objections, but can only afford to lose two votes for the bill to pass. “We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said. “It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along.”If the bill clears the House, it will require President Donald Trump’s signature before beginning the likely lengthy process of getting the government back up and running again.However, full Republican support is not clear-cut ahead of the final vote. The bill includes a controversial provision that would ban most hemp products in the U.S. Supporters say it would close a dangerous loophole on unregulated products, but others argue it would destroy the hemp industry for many farmers. In the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for example, voted against the bill. Similar action in the House on Wednesday could hold up its passage.Watch the latest coverage on the government shutdown:

    House lawmakers raced back to Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that could end the 43-day government shutdown, making it the longest in U.S. history.

    Over the last two days, lawmakers have been flying in from across the country, some facing their own potential shutdown-related delays, to get to Wednesday’s expected final vote.

    The House’s agenda included swearing in a new congresswoman from Arizona, followed by debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for early evening. If that passes, the House debates again before holding a final vote on the bill, expected around 7 p.m. ET. The bill currently does not include Affordable Care Act subsidies, which started the shutdown in the first place.

    Democrats, who are largely expected to vote “no” on the bill, expressed disappointment.

    “Of course, we want to reopen the government, but we need to decisively address the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said. “That begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

    House Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, were largely expected to pass the measure despite Democrats’ objections, but can only afford to lose two votes for the bill to pass.

    “We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said. “It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along.”

    If the bill clears the House, it will require President Donald Trump’s signature before beginning the likely lengthy process of getting the government back up and running again.

    However, full Republican support is not clear-cut ahead of the final vote. The bill includes a controversial provision that would ban most hemp products in the U.S.

    Supporters say it would close a dangerous loophole on unregulated products, but others argue it would destroy the hemp industry for many farmers.

    In the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for example, voted against the bill. Similar action in the House on Wednesday could hold up its passage.

    Watch the latest coverage on the government shutdown:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What’s in the explosive Jeffrey Epstein emails accusing Trump? Here is what we know

    [ad_1]

    The Jeffrey Epstein case took a new twist Wednesday when House Democrats released emails the disgraced financier wrote that mention President Trump. A few hours later, Republicans then released a trove of 20,000 pages of documents.

    Epstein, who died in prison, was accused of orchestrating sex trafficking of young girls. President Trump, a longtime friend of Epstein’s, fell out with the convicted sex offender before he was elected to the nation’s highest office and has denied any involvement in wrongdoing.

    The emails

    • “Of course he knew about the girls,” Epstein said of Trump in an email to author and journalist Michael Wolff in early 2019, when Trump was nearing the end of his first term as president.
    • In another email dated Dec. 15, 2015, Wolff emailed Epstein ahead of a Republican presidential primary debate: “I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you — either on air or in scrum afterwards.” Epstein wrote back, “If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?”
    • In a third email, sent to British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell in 2011, Epstein wrote: “I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.” Maxwell responded: “I have been thinking about that…”

    Read the excerpts here:

    The reaction

    Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that Democrats had “selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.”

    “These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments,” she said in a statement, “and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again.”

    Democrats, however, say the emails break new ground.

    “The more Donald Trump tries to cover up the Epstein files, the more we uncover,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said in a statement as he released the documents. “These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President.”

    The background

    Despite many investigations, there have been no official findings linking Trump to Epstein’s crimes.

    Epstein, a wealthy financier with a deep bench of powerful friends, died in a New York City prison in August 2019 as he faced federal charges in a sprawling child sex-trafficking conspiracy.

    The charges followed reporting by the Miami Herald of a scandalous sweetheart deal brokered by federal prosecutors in Florida that had allowed Epstein to serve a months-long sentence, avoiding federal charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment.

    In July, the Wall Street Journal reported President Trump sent a raunchy 50th birthday letter to Epstein that included a sketch of a naked woman, her breasts and a squiggly “Donald” signature mimicking pubic hair. The president denied writing the letter.

    “These are not my words, not the way I talk,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “Also, I don’t draw pictures.”

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Trump ‘knew about the girls,’ Jeffrey Epstein claimed in emails as Democrats, GOP release trove of records

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump “spent hours at my house” and “knew about the girls,” Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier accused of orchestrating sex trafficking of young women and underage girls, wrote in private emails released Wednesday by House Democrats.

    The release of a small batch of Epstein’s communications sent shock waves through Washington, prompting a panicked defense of the president from White House aides who accused Democrats of colluding with the media to smear him. It also triggered Republican lawmakers to release an additional 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate, a move Democrats said was designed to distract from the implication of Trump.

    But several of the documents shared by the Republicans added fuel to the fire, highlighting Epstein’s interest in Trump in the years after Trump claimed their friendship had come to an end, and suggesting the convicted sex offender had information on the president he was keeping secret.

    By Wednesday afternoon, House Democrats — and a few Republicans — secured enough signatures for a petition that would force a chamber vote on the release of Justice Department files related to the Epstein investigation.

    The drama began Wednesday morning, when Democrats released three of Epstein’s old email exchanges.

    “Of course he knew about the girls,” Epstein said of Trump in an email to author and journalist Michael Wolff in early 2019, during Trump’s first term as president — one of three emails released by Democrats that Epstein sent to Wolff and to Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking after Epstein’s death.

    A few hours after Democrats released three emails referencing Trump — and urged the Department of Justice to release all Epstein documents to the public — Republicans on the House Oversight Committee suddenly dumped a massive trove of documents, portions of which are redacted.

    Those files suggest that even after Trump won the 2016 election — a time when Trump has said he was no longer friends with Epstein — Epstein was deeply interested in Trump’s affairs and possibly involved in some way.

    In May 2017, a New York Times reporter emailed criminal defense attorney Reid Weingarten, then a finalist for Trump’s outside counsel, seeking comment. Weingarten forwarded the email to Epstein less than an hour and a half later: “do you want it? Or Jared?” he asked. It is not clear who Weingarten was referring to, but Jared Kushner was the president’s son-in-law and senior advisor at the time.

    “Do I have the choice?” Epstein replied. “And if so, your view?”

    Multiple people wrote to Epstein apparently under the belief that he could pass information along to Trump or people in his orbit.

    In June 2017, someone whose name has been redacted sent Epstein an email with a link to a YouTube video. “How are u? Send this interview to Donald Trump pls,” the subject line read. “Its going to be everywhere.”

    “ok,” Epstein responded.

    The documents released by Republicans show Epstein cultivating cozy relationships with national figures across the political spectrum, often for the purpose of gathering information and exchanging political gossip and legal opinion on Trump. Among the figures he appears to exchange emails with are Larry H. Summers, former U.S. secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, and Steve Bannon, Trump’s former advisor.

    The documents released Wednesday are sure to revive questions about Epstein’s relationship with Trump and what the president knew about Epstein’s sexual misconduct with girls and young women.

    Trump has denied knowing anything about Epstein’s crimes, though in July he told reporters he fell out with Epstein over his recruitment of spa workers at Mar-a-Lago. No investigation has tied Trump to Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking of young women.

    “The more Donald Trump tries to cover up the Epstein files, the more we uncover,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said in a statement as he released the documents.

    “These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the president,” Garcia added.

    Even after the GOP shared thousands of Epstein documents, Trump dismissed the focus on the Epstein files as a Democratic attempt to divert attention from the party’s caving to Republicans on the government shutdown.

    “The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” Trump posted on TruthSocial. “Only a very bad, or stupid, Republican would fall into that trap… There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!”

    Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that Democrats had “selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.”

    “These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments,” she said in a statement, “and any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again.”

    It is not clear exactly when or how Trump and Epstein’s friendship came to an end.

    When prosecutors brought federal charges against Epstein in 2019, Trump downplayed their relationship and said he hadn’t spoken to Epstein for 15 years. “I had a falling out with him,” Trump told reporters the day after federal authorities took Epstein into custody. “I was not a fan.”

    In the emails released by Democrats, Epstein argued that Trump had more knowledge of Epstein’s affairs than he admitted.

    In the 2019 email to Wolff, which references a ‘victim’ whose name has been redacted, Epstein referred to Trump’s Florida Mar-a-Lago club: “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” he wrote. “Of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

    The White House, however, pushed back on the idea that Trump was implicated by that email to Wolff: “The ‘unnamed victim’ referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and ‘couldn’t have been friendlier’ to her in their limited interactions,” Leavitt said.

    “The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre,” Leavitt added.

    In another email dated Dec. 15, 2015, Wolff wrote to Epstein ahead of a Republican presidential primary debate: “I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you — either on air or in scrum afterwards.”

    Epstein wrote back: “If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?”

    In a memo released Wednesday, the White House targeted Wolff as a journalist whose record is “riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies.” It cited concerns over his credibility documented in mainstream media outlets, including The Times, the Washington Post and others.

    In a third email, sent to Maxwell in 2011, Epstein wrote: “I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned.”

    Maxwell responded: “I have been thinking about that … .”

    The documents released by the GOP indicate that Epstein seemed to have had a special interest in Trump, his political career and his legal troubles. Over the years, the president’s name appears again and again in Epstein’s emails as he and his friends exchange articles about Trump. Some of Epstein’s acquaintances sent him their emailed exchanges with reporters regarding Trump, and in others Epstein is discussing Trump directly with reporters.

    In a June 2018 email exchange with Bannon, at the time a Trump advisor, Bannon shared an article critical of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the president and his campaign’s ties to Russia, suggesting it was tainted from the start by political bias.

    “Big deal,” Bannon wrote.

    Epstein responded that there were “many open questions” and that it was his belief that “flippers will dictate” the course of the investigation — or that the course of the investigation would be decided by the ability of prosecutors to flip associates of Trump into informants.

    In another 2018 exchange, Epstein appeared to email back and forth with Kathy Ruemmler, attorney and former White House counsel under President Obama, on former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s cooperation with prosecutors.

    After Ruemmler sent Epstein a link to a New York Times story referencing Cohen pleading guilty to violating campaign finance laws to pay adult filmmaker Stormy Daniels, Epstein wrote, “you see, i know how dirty donald is. My guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. What it means to have your fixer flip.”

    Before the 2024 presidential election, Trump called for the release of more documents related to Epstein, but his administration appears to have backtracked on its promises to release documents.

    Garcia called on the Department of Justice on Wednesday to release all Epstein files to the public immediately. “The Oversight Committee will continue pushing for answers and will not stop until we get justice for the victims,” he said in a statement.

    By the afternoon, Adelita Grijalva, a Democratic congresswoman from Arizona who was sworn in to office earlier in the day, became the 218th House member to sign a petition that would force a vote on releasing files from the Epstein investigation. Her signature kicked off a countdown of seven legislative days for House Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a vote on the matter.

    As Democrats push the Justice Department to release the files, GOP leaders are pressuring some Republicans to remove their names from the petition. The White House confirmed that senior administration officials met with Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert on Wednesday about the issue.

    Epstein, 66, died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019, weeks after he was arrested and charged in federal court with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. A watchdog report released last year found that negligence, misconduct and other failures at the jail contributed to his death.

    More than a decade earlier, Epstein evaded federal criminal charges when he struck a plea deal in a Florida case related to accusations that he molested dozens of girls.

    As part of the agreement, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, including soliciting prostitution. He registered as a sex offender and served 13 months in jail but was allowed to leave six days a week to work at his office.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie, Michael Wilner, Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Opinion | When Irish Eyes Are Glaring

    [ad_1]

    Tensions with the U.S. will heighten under the new left-wing president.

    [ad_2]

    Robert C. O’Brien

    Source link

  • President Trump urges Republicans to reopen government as shutdown marks longest in US history

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.”It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.”Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing. The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.”The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.

    “It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.

    The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”

    The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.

    “Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.

    The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing.

    The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.

    Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”

    Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.

    See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Wednesday of President Trump’s claim that he has the power to set large tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Most of the justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress, not the president, had the power to impose taxes and tariffs. And they agreed Congress did not authorize tariffs in an emergency powers law adopted in 1977.

    It has “never before been used to justify tariffs, and no one had argued it before this case,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Trump’s top courtroom attorney. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that tariffs involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs, not taxes,” he said.

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

    Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

    Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he too was skeptical of the claim the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

    If so, could a future president acting on his own impose a 50% tax on cars because of climate change? he asked.

    Gorsuch said the court has recently blocked far-reaching presidential regulations by Democratic presidents that went beyond an old and vague law, and the same may be called for here.

    Otherwise, presidents may feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives,” he said.

    But Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

    Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

    She agreed the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

    The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

    Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

    But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

    Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

    While they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Trump once again nominates tech space traveler Jared Isaacman to serve as NASA administrator

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he has decided to nominate Jared Isaacman to serve as his NASA administrator, months after withdrawing the tech billionaire’s nomination because of concerns about his political leanings.Trump announced in late May that he had decided to withdraw Isaacman after a “thorough review” of his “prior associations.” Weeks after the withdrawal, Trump went further in expressing his concerns about Isaacman’s Republican credentials.At the time, Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman “was very good,” but had become “surprised to learn” that Isaacman was a “ blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.”Isaacman had the endorsement of Trump’s former DOGE adviser and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The president and Musk had a very public falling out earlier this year but are now on better terms.Last week, Trump told reporters he and Musk have spoken “on and off” since sitting together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral last month in Arizona and that their relationship is “good.”Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. And the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s decision to reverse course.“This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA,” Trump posted. “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been serving as interim NASA administrator. The president on Tuesday praised Duffy for doing an “incredible job.”Isaacman, CEO and founder of credit card-processing company Shift4, has been a close collaborator with Musk ever since buying his first chartered flight with SpaceX.He also bought a series of spaceflights from SpaceX and conducted the first private spacewalk. SpaceX has extensive contracts with NASA.The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved Isaacman’s nomination in late April and a vote by the full Senate had been expected when Trump announced he was yanking the nomination.In his own social media post Tuesday, Isaacman thanked Trump for the nomination and the “space-loving community.” He made no mention of the earlier turmoil.

    President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he has decided to nominate Jared Isaacman to serve as his NASA administrator, months after withdrawing the tech billionaire’s nomination because of concerns about his political leanings.

    Trump announced in late May that he had decided to withdraw Isaacman after a “thorough review” of his “prior associations.” Weeks after the withdrawal, Trump went further in expressing his concerns about Isaacman’s Republican credentials.

    At the time, Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman “was very good,” but had become “surprised to learn” that Isaacman was a “ blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.”

    Isaacman had the endorsement of Trump’s former DOGE adviser and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The president and Musk had a very public falling out earlier this year but are now on better terms.

    Last week, Trump told reporters he and Musk have spoken “on and off” since sitting together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral last month in Arizona and that their relationship is “good.”

    Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. And the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s decision to reverse course.

    “This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA,” Trump posted. “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”

    Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been serving as interim NASA administrator. The president on Tuesday praised Duffy for doing an “incredible job.”

    Isaacman, CEO and founder of credit card-processing company Shift4, has been a close collaborator with Musk ever since buying his first chartered flight with SpaceX.

    He also bought a series of spaceflights from SpaceX and conducted the first private spacewalk. SpaceX has extensive contracts with NASA.

    The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved Isaacman’s nomination in late April and a vote by the full Senate had been expected when Trump announced he was yanking the nomination.

    In his own social media post Tuesday, Isaacman thanked Trump for the nomination and the “space-loving community.” He made no mention of the earlier turmoil.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California officials push back on Trump claim that Prop. 50 vote is a ‘GIANT SCAM’

    [ad_1]

    As California voters went to the polls Tuesday to cast their ballot on a measure that could block President Trump’s national agenda, state officials ridiculed his unsubstantiated claims that voting in the largely Democratic state is “rigged.”

    “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened Tuesday across California.

    The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

    “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review,” the GOP president wrote. “STAY TUNED!”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

    His press office chimed in, too, calling Trump “a totally unserious person spreading false information in a desperate attempt to cope with his failures.”

    National tension is high as voters across California cast ballots on Proposition 50, a Democratic plan championed by Newsom to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 election to favor the Democratic Party. The measure is intended to offset GOP gerrymandering in red states after Trump pressed Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority.

    California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

    “The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

    Weber noted that more than 7 million Californians have already voted and encouraged those who had yet to cast ballots to go to the polls.

    “California voters will not be sidelined from exercising their constitutional right to vote and should not let anyone deter them from exercising that right,” Weber said.

    Of the 7 million Californians who have voted, more than 4.6 million have done so by mail, according to the secretary of state’s office. Los Angeles residents alone have cast more than 788,000 mail-in ballots.

    Trump has long criticized mail-in voting. As more Democrats opted to vote by mail in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the president repeatedly made unproven claims linking mail in voting with voter fraud. When Trump ultimately lost that election, he blamed expanded mail-in voting.

    Over the last month, the stakes in the California special election have ratcheted up as polls indicate Proposition 50 could pass. More than half of likely California voters said they planned to support the measure, which could allow Democrats to gain up to five House seats.

    Last month, the Justice Department appeared to single out California for particular national scrutiny: It announced it would send federal monitors to polling locations in counties in California as well as New Jersey, another traditionally Democratic state that is conducting nationally significant off-year elections.

    The monitors are set to go to five California counties: Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, Fresno and Orange.

    This story will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Opinion | Trump’s New World Order

    [ad_1]

    Walter Russell Mead is the Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal and the Alexander Hamilton Professor of Strategy and Statecraft with the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.

     

    He is also a member of Aspen Institute Italy and board member of Aspenia. Before joining Hudson, Mr. Mead was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy. He has authored numerous books, including the widely-recognized Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004). Mr. Mead’s most recent book is entitled The Arc of A Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.

    [ad_2]

    Walter Russell Mead

    Source link

  • What’s on the ballot in the first general election since Donald Trump became president

    [ad_1]

    One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday. Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdownThe results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries. More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot: In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night. As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president. The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani. California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control. Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule. Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority. Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded. If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027. Virginia attorney generalRepublican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.Texas-18 Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.State legislaturesControl of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.Ballot measuresMaine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.Mayors Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.

    One year after Donald Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday.

    Video above: House Speaker Mike Johnson talks about potential impact of Tuesday’s elections on the government shutdown

    The results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor, and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries.

    More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot:

    In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.

    In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.

    Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night.

    As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president.

    The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

    Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.

    The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary, Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani.

    California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control.

    Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule.

    Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority.

    Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded.

    If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027.

    Virginia attorney general

    Republican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.

    Texas-18

    Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

    State legislatures

    Control of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.

    Ballot measures

    Maine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.

    Mayors

    Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obama offers support to Mamdani: report

    [ad_1]

    Former President Barack Obama told Zohran Mamdani that he was invested in the New York mayoral candidate’s success during a phone call Saturday, according to a report from The New York Times.

    Obama called Mamdani and they spoke for about 30 minutes, two people who were either on the call or were briefed about it told the outlet.

    Mamdani is leading in the polls over his rivals, former New York governor and independent candidate Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

    During the call, Obama praised Mamdani’s campaign and offered to be a “sounding board” for the Democratic candidate. The pair also discussed Mamdani’s affordability agenda as well as hiring a new administration, according to the report.

    Newsweek has reached out to Mamdani’s press team and the Obama Foundation on behalf of the former president for comment via email on Saturday. 

    This is a breaking news story. Updates to come.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Trump reveals renovated Lincoln Bedroom bathroom as his White House remodel continues

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he has renovated the Lincoln Bedroom bathroom, sharing before and after images on social media as he continues to put his touch on the White House.“I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an Art Deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble. This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!”In the video player above: See before and after images posted to social media by President TrumpThe president posted about the renovations aboard Air Force One en route to Florida, where he will spend the weekend. The post comes as the government remains shut down, and the Trump administration says it will not tap into emergency funds to fund SNAP food assistance benefits through the month of November.Shortly after, Trump posted more images of the bathroom, showing gold detailing on the faucet and shower handle, as well as other fixtures. A plush white robe with the presidential seal also hangs on a golden hook.The president discussed the changes he was making to the bathroom earlier this month during a dinner at the White House, saying in part that the old style of the bathroom “was not exactly Abe Lincoln.”“We have little things like at the Lincoln Bedroom. The bathroom was done by the Truman family and you know, long time ago. And it’s done in a green tile, and it’s done in a style that was not exactly Abe Lincoln,” the president said.“It’s actually Art Deco. And Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and Civil Wars…But what does do is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built a bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time because the Lincoln bedroom is, uh, so incredible, for those of you that have seen it,” he added.Trump on Friday also gave a status update on a separate construction project he’s overseeing at the Kennedy Center, which he said he “just inspected.”“The exterior columns, which were in serious danger of corrosion if something weren’t done, are completed, and look magnificent in White Enamel — Like a different place! Marble is being done, stages are being renovated, new seats, new chairs, and new fabrics will soon be installed, and magnificent high-end carpeting throughout the building. It is happening faster than anticipated, one of my trademarks,” Trump said.“We are bringing this building back to life. It was dead as a doornail, but it will soon be beautiful again!” he added.The moves are part of Trump’s effort to put his stamp on the White House – which has seen a slew of changes since he took office – and the greater DC area.So far, the renovations include paving over the grass in the historic Rose Garden, demolishing the East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and adorning the Oval Office with gold.Trump often says the White House needed a new ballroom to host world leaders, to avoid situations where they are outside and a temporary tent has to be used when it rains. And he frequently remarked that the Rose Garden paving was necessary because women in high heels would sink into the grass during events. It now has a touch of Mar-a-Lago with the same white and yellow umbrellas at tables on the patio.His redecoration of the Oval Office to his liking, as presidents do when they take office, has tripled the number of paintings on the walls with gold just about everywhere. Trump also installed portraits of every president framed in gold on the West Colonnade – except for former President Joe Biden, who is instead represented by his autopen signature – and large floor-to-ceiling mirrors, which the press can see when they are escorted into the Oval Office.In addition to those changes, Trump plans to build a new arch monument in DC in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary.As he pushes forward with his plans to leave his mark on the White House and the nation’s capital, Trump this week fired the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. The independent federal agency is charged with advising the president, Congress, and the city of Washington, DC, on “matters of design and aesthetics.” The president has also installed allies on the National Capital Planning Commission, which will be tasked with approving plans for the new ballroom on White House grounds.

    President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he has renovated the Lincoln Bedroom bathroom, sharing before and after images on social media as he continues to put his touch on the White House.

    “I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House. It was renovated in the 1940s in an Art Deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble. This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!”

    In the video player above: See before and after images posted to social media by President Trump

    The president posted about the renovations aboard Air Force One en route to Florida, where he will spend the weekend. The post comes as the government remains shut down, and the Trump administration says it will not tap into emergency funds to fund SNAP food assistance benefits through the month of November.

    Shortly after, Trump posted more images of the bathroom, showing gold detailing on the faucet and shower handle, as well as other fixtures. A plush white robe with the presidential seal also hangs on a golden hook.

    The president discussed the changes he was making to the bathroom earlier this month during a dinner at the White House, saying in part that the old style of the bathroom “was not exactly Abe Lincoln.”

    “We have little things like at the Lincoln Bedroom. The bathroom was done by the Truman family and you know, long time ago. And it’s done in a green tile, and it’s done in a style that was not exactly Abe Lincoln,” the president said.

    “It’s actually Art Deco. And Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and Civil Wars…But what does do is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built a bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time because the Lincoln bedroom is, uh, so incredible, for those of you that have seen it,” he added.

    Trump on Friday also gave a status update on a separate construction project he’s overseeing at the Kennedy Center, which he said he “just inspected.”

    “The exterior columns, which were in serious danger of corrosion if something weren’t done, are completed, and look magnificent in White Enamel — Like a different place! Marble is being done, stages are being renovated, new seats, new chairs, and new fabrics will soon be installed, and magnificent high-end carpeting throughout the building. It is happening faster than anticipated, one of my trademarks,” Trump said.

    “We are bringing this building back to life. It was dead as a doornail, but it will soon be beautiful again!” he added.

    The moves are part of Trump’s effort to put his stamp on the White House – which has seen a slew of changes since he took office – and the greater DC area.

    So far, the renovations include paving over the grass in the historic Rose Garden, demolishing the East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and adorning the Oval Office with gold.

    Trump often says the White House needed a new ballroom to host world leaders, to avoid situations where they are outside and a temporary tent has to be used when it rains. And he frequently remarked that the Rose Garden paving was necessary because women in high heels would sink into the grass during events. It now has a touch of Mar-a-Lago with the same white and yellow umbrellas at tables on the patio.

    His redecoration of the Oval Office to his liking, as presidents do when they take office, has tripled the number of paintings on the walls with gold just about everywhere. Trump also installed portraits of every president framed in gold on the West Colonnade – except for former President Joe Biden, who is instead represented by his autopen signature – and large floor-to-ceiling mirrors, which the press can see when they are escorted into the Oval Office.

    In addition to those changes, Trump plans to build a new arch monument in DC in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary.

    As he pushes forward with his plans to leave his mark on the White House and the nation’s capital, Trump this week fired the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. The independent federal agency is charged with advising the president, Congress, and the city of Washington, DC, on “matters of design and aesthetics.” The president has also installed allies on the National Capital Planning Commission, which will be tasked with approving plans for the new ballroom on White House grounds.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Trump pressures the world into burning more oil and gas

    [ad_1]

    The world was on the brink of a climate milestone: adopting a global carbon tax for the shipping industry. Countries had spent years crafting the plan, hoping to throttle planet-warming pollution from cargo vessels. They had every reason to think the measure would pass when the International Maritime Organization met in mid-October.

    Enter Donald Trump. After returning to the White House for a second term, the president and his top officials undertook a monthslong campaign to defeat the initiative. The U.S. threatened tariffs, levies and visa restrictions to get its way. A battery of American diplomats and Cabinet secretaries met with various nations to twist arms, according to a senior U.S. State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Nations were also warned of other potential consequences if they backed the tax on shipping emissions, including imposing sanctions on individuals and blocking ships from U.S. ports.

    Under that Trump-led pressure — or intimidation, as some describe it — some countries started to waver. Ultimately, a bloc including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Iran voted to adjourn the meeting for a year, killing any chance of the charge being adopted anytime soon.

    The U.S. “bullied otherwise supportive or neutral countries into turning against” the net-zero plan for shipping, says Faïg Abbasov, a director at the European advocacy group Transport & Environment. With its intense lobbying at the International Maritime Organization, the Trump administration was “waging war against multilateralism, UN diplomacy and climate diplomacy.”

    At first glance, it might look like the U.S. has exited the climate fight. The president is once again pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement, and he may not send an official U.S. delegation to next month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil. But don’t be confused: America is still in the arena; it’s just fighting for the other side.

    Since his return to Washington, Trump has used trade talks, tariff threats and verbal dressing-downs to encourage countries to jettison their renewable energy commitments (and buy more U.S. oil and liquefied natural gas in the process). Just 10 months into his second term, the campaign is showing surprising success as key figures and countries increasingly buckle under the determined pressure.

    Trump was elected to implement a “common sense energy agenda,” says White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers. He “will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”

    Oil and gas supporters champion the president’s ambition. They say he’s helped reset the global conversation around climate change and given a welcome political opening to banks, corporations and other governments that wanted to back away from some sustainability targets in the face of growing electricity demand. “President Trump is sort of providing the banks, the European Union and others cover for tempering their climate ambitions,” says Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group. “He gives these countries the ability to say, ‘Hey, I’m just trying to go along with the United States here. That’s why I’m buying all this LNG.’”

    But in the eyes of environmental advocates and leaders who depend on multilateralism as a means for global climate action, Trump is unfairly asserting his will on a world that’s running out of time to rein in emissions and avert the worst consequences of global warming. “They’re clearly casting a much wider net to the climate destruction than they did the first time,” says Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They have more people engaged in it, and they obviously had more time to plan for it.”

    The strong-arming is happening on multiple fronts. Among the biggest is trade, where Trump has already compelled Japan, South Korea and the EU to pledge to spend on American energy and energy infrastructure. Japan, for instance, agreed to invest $550 billion on U.S. projects, and talks are underway to steer some of that funding to a $44 billion Alaska gas pipeline and export site. South Korea has pledged roughly $100 billion in U.S. energy purchases.

    The EU, meanwhile, has vowed to spend some $750 billion buying American energy, including LNG, to secure lower tariffs on its exports to the U.S. Analysts have questioned whether those sales will fully materialize, since they’d require Europe to more than triple its annual energy imports from the U.S. But the public commitment by itself was a stunning move for a bloc that’s led the world in pushing policies to combat climate change — including by setting binding targets for slashing planet-warming pollution, establishing a “green deal” plan to shed fossil fuels and slapping a tariff on carbon-intensive imports.

    Trump administration officials have seized on the U.S.-EU trade deal to urge other changes. For instance, Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pressuring the bloc to relax curbs on the methane footprint of imported gas. The EU is already easing corporate sustainability requirements so fewer companies are compelled to limit their environmental harms, a retrenchment that came after pressure from Germany and other European stakeholders as well as the White House.

    Meanwhile the administration has been goading the International Energy Agency to shuffle its leadership and urged the agency to reinstate forecasts that show a rosier outlook for fossil fuel demand. It has pressed multilateral development banks to prioritize fossil fuels over climate adaptation and clean energy projects when their financing of those green initiatives has become critical given widespread foreign aid cuts.

    And Trump himself has berated countries that aren’t falling in line. In a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he chided nations for setting policies around what he called the “hoax” and “con job” of climate change, warning that they can’t be “great again” without “traditional energy sources.” He’s also told UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reject wind turbines and embrace the North Sea’s oil riches.

    It’s a marked acceleration from term-one Trump. During his first four years in the White House, Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda amounted to rally cries of “drill, baby, drill” and slow steps to encourage more domestic oil and gas production. This time around, the president’s approach has global reach — and far fewer limits. And when it comes to international agreements relating to energy and climate, “the U.S. has an interest in divide and rule, and thus breaking the potential for cooperation,” says Abby Innes, an associate professor in political economy at the London School of Economics.

    Whether or not U.S. officials attend COP30 in November, the U.S. president’s influence will loom large. “Countries like Saudi Arabia feel emboldened by Trump to promote fossil fuels,” says Linda Kalcher, founder of the Strategic Perspectives think tank and a veteran of the annual UN climate summits. One European diplomat said the main goal now at COP30 is just to avoid being bullied.

    To be sure, other countries haven’t followed the U.S. exodus from the Paris Agreement, and the deployment of clean energy is still soaring globally. Even tax incentive phaseouts and project cancellations in the U.S. are only slowing, not stopping, the country’s adoption of wind and solar power. And while multinational companies may be dialing down their green rhetoric, analysts say many are still quietly cleaning up their supply chains and operations to keep selling in California, Europe and other places demanding more sustainability.

    And in a perverse twist for a U.S. president who’s decried the world’s reliance on China, other nations are increasingly linking arms with Beijing as they bid for zero-emission energy tech. “When it comes to dealing with China, whether it’s countries or companies, politicians and executives tell me: ‘Better the devil that you know,’” says Ioannis Ioannou, an associate professor at the London Business School whose research focuses on sustainability and corporate social responsibility. “It offers more stability than the Trump administration.”

    Dlouhy and Rathi write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s Jack Wittels and John Ainger contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Akshat Rathi

    Source link

  • Kai Trump, president’s granddaughter, will play in LPGA Tour’s Annika event next month

    [ad_1]

    Kai Trump, President Trump’s eldest granddaughter, a high school senior and University of Miami commit, has secured a sponsor invitation to play in an LPGA Tour event Nov. 13-16.

    The 18-year-old will compete in the Annika at Pelican Golf Club in Belleair, Fla. She currently attends the Benjamin School in Palm Beach and is ranked No. 461 on the American Junior Golf Assn. rankings. She also competes on the Srixon Medalist Tour on the South Florida PGA. Her top finish was a tie for third in July.

    “My dream has been to compete with the best in the world on the LPGA Tour,” Trump said in a statement. “This event will be an incredible experience. I look forward to meeting and competing against so many of my heroes and mentors in golf as I make my LPGA Tour debut.”

    Sponsor invitations have long been used to attract attention to a tournament through a golfer who is from a well-known family or, in recent years, has a strong social media presence. Kai Trump qualifies on both counts.

    She is the oldest daughter of Donald Trump Jr. and his ex-wife, Vanessa, and has nearly 8 million followers combined on Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube and X. In addition to posting her own exploits on and off the course, she creates videos playing golf with her grandpa and chronicled their visit to the Ryder Cup.

    She also recently launched her own sports apparel and lifestyle brand, KT.

    “Kai’s broad following and reach are helping introduce golf to new audiences, especially among younger fans,” said Ricki Lasky, LPGA chief tour business and operations officer, in a statement.

    The oldest of the president’s 11 grandchildren, Kai became known nationally when she made a speech in support of her grandfather’s campaign at the 2024 Republican National Convention. Her parents divorced in 2018, and her mother has been dating Tiger Woods for about a year.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Henson

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris Hints at New Presidential Run – LAmag

    [ad_1]

    ‘I am not done,’ the former Vice President, who lives in Brentwood, said in a new interview

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris told the BBC in a new interview that politics are “in my bones” and did not rule out another run to move from Brentwood to the White House.

    “I am not done,” she told the BBC. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service, and it’s in my bones.”

    In her first UK interview, Harris said she would “possibly” be president one day and was confident there would be a woman in the White House in the future, making her strongest hint to date that she is eyeing another run against President Trump in 2028. Harris dismissed polls that put her as an outsider to become the Democrats’ pick for the next election after Trump trounced her last year, saying: “If I listened to polls I would have not run for my first office, or my second office — and I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here.”

    Harris, however, emphasized that she has not made a final decision yet about a new run to become commander in chief, but insisted she is not out of politics. She did have harsh words for American billionaires, business leaders, and universities, who she said have bowed to Trump’s authoritarianism.

    “There are many, that have capitulated since day one, who are bending the knee at the foot of a tyrant, I believe for many reasons, including they want to be next to power, because they want to perhaps have a merger approved or avoid an investigation,” she told the BBC.

    [ad_2]

    Michele McPhee

    Source link

  • ‘Make or break moment’: Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump using troops in U.S. cities

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

    A decision could come at any time.

    And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

    Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

    The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

    Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

    That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

    Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

    Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

    When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

    Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

    That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

    “Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

    “On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

    “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

    Conservatives cite civil rights examples

    Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

    “Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

    He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

    The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

    Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

    While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

    Lower courts have blocked deployments

    Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

    Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

    In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

    But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

    A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

    But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

    “The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

    Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

    “There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

    U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

    (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

    “On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

    He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

    “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

    He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Unions opposing Trump agenda pouring money into Proposition 50 campaign

    [ad_1]

    With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

    Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

    Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

    Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

    Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
    “There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

    “There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

    High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

    The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

    The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

    “Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

    Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

    On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

    Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

    The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

    In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

    Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

    “This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

    Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

    “These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

    Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

    With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

    Money from California unions pours in

    Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

    The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

    On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

    “Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

    Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

    An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

    The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

    CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

    Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

    Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

    CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

    “It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

    “The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

    Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

    “The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

    Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

    Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

    “Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

    Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Column: Trump is in his Louis XIV era, and it’s not a good look

    [ad_1]

    To say that President Trump is unfazed by Saturday’s nationwide “No Kings” rally, which vies for bragging rights as perhaps the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, is the sort of understatement too typical when describing his monarchical outrages.

    Leave aside Trump’s grotesque mockery of the protests — his post that night of an AI-generated video depicting himself as a becrowned pilot in a fighter jet, dropping poop bombs on citizens protesting peacefully below. Consider instead two other post-rally actions: On Sunday and Wednesday, “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth announced first that on Trump’s orders the military had struck a seventh boat off Venezuela and then an eighth vessel in the Pacific, bringing the number of people killed over two months to 34. The administration has provided no evidence to Congress or the American public for Trump’s claims that the unidentified dead were “narco-terrorists,” nor any credible legal rationale for the strikes. Then, on Monday, Trump began demolishing the White House’s East Wing to create the gilded ballroom of his dreams, which, at 90,000 square feet, would be nearly twice the size of the White House residence itself.

    As sickening as the sight was — heavy equipment ripping away at the historic property as high-powered hoses doused the dusty debris — Trump’s $250-million vanity project is small stuff compared to a policy of killing noncombatant civilian citizens of nations with which we are not at war (Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador). Yet together the actions reflect the spectrum of consequences of Trump’s utter sense of impunity as president, from the relatively symbolic to the murderous.

    “In America the law is king,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1776. Not in Trump’s America.

    Among the commentariat, the president’s desecration of the East Wing is getting at least as much criticism as his extralegal killings at sea. Many critics see in the bulldozing of the People’s House a metaphor for Trump’s destructive governance generally — his other teardowns of federal agencies, life-saving foreign aid, healthcare benefits and more. The metaphor is indeed apt.

    But what’s more striking is the sheer sense of impunity that Trump telegraphs, constantly, with the “je suis l’état” flare of a Louis XIV — complete (soon) with Trump’s Versailles. (Separately, Trump’s mimicry of French emperors now includes plans for a sort of Arc de Triomphe near Arlington Cemetery. A reporter asked who it would be for. “Me,” Trump said. Arc de Trump.)

    No law, domestic or international, constrains him, as far as the convicted felon is concerned. Neither does Congress, where Republicans bend the knee. Nor the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 right-wing majority, including three justices Trump chose in his first term.

    The court’s ruling last year in Trump vs. United States gives Trump virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, but U.S. servicemembers don’t have that protection when it comes to the deadly Caribbean Sea attacks or any other orders from the commander in chief that might one day be judged to have been illegal.

    The operation’s commander, Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, reportedly expressed concerns about the strikes within the administration. Last week he announced his retirement after less than a year as head of the U.S. Southern Command. It could be a coincidence. But I’m hardly alone in counting Holsey as the latest casualty in Trump and Hegseth’s purge of perceived nonloyalists at the Pentagon.

    “When the president decides someone has to die, the military becomes his personal hit squad,” military analyst and former Republican Tom Nichols said Monday on MSNBC. Just like with kings and other autocrats: Off with their heads.

    Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a rare maverick Republican, noted on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that in years past, the Coast Guard would board foreign boats suspected of ferrying drugs and, if contraband were found, take it and suspected traffickers into custody, often gleaning information about higher-ups to make a real dent in the drug trade. But, Paul added, about one in four boats typically had no drugs. No matter nowadays — everyone’s a target for deadly force. “So,” Paul said, “all of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.” (Paul was the only Republican senator not invited to lunch with Trump on Monday in the paved-over Rose Garden.)

    On Monday, Ecuador said no evidence connects a citizen who survived a recent U.S. strike to any crime. Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the United States of murdering a fisherman in a September strike, provoking Trump to call Petro a “drug leader” and unilaterally yank U.S. foreign aid. A Venezuelan told the Washington Post that the 11 people killed in the first known U.S. strike were fishermen; national security officials told Congress the individuals were headed back to shore when hit. Meanwhile, the three countries and U.S. news reports contradict Trump’s claims that he’s destroying and seizing fentanyl — a drug that typically comes from Mexico and then is smuggled by land, usually by U.S. citizens.

    Again, no matter to America’s king, who said last week that he’s eyeing land incursions in Venezuela now “because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” Trump’s courtiers say he doesn’t need Congress’ authorization for any use of force. The Constitution suggests otherwise.

    Alas, neither it nor the law limits Trump’s White House makeover. He doesn’t have to submit to Congress because he’s tapping rich individuals and corporations for the cost. Past presidents, mindful that the house is a public treasure, not their palace, voluntarily sought input from various federal and nonprofit groups. After reports about the demolition, which put the lie to Trump’s promise in July that the ballroom “won’t interfere with the current building,” the American Institute of Architects urged its members to ask Congress to “investigate destruction of the White House.”

    Disparate as they are, Trump’s ballroom project and his Caribbean killings were joined last week. At a White House dinner for ballroom donors, Trump joked about the sea strikes: “Nobody wants to go fishing anymore.” The pay-to-play titans laughed. Shame on them.

    Trump acts with impunity because he can; he’s a lame duck. But other Republicans must face the voters. Keep the “No Kings” protests coming — right through the elections this November and next.

    Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
    Threads: @jkcalmes
    X: @jackiekcalmes

    [ad_2]

    Jackie Calmes

    Source link

  • No, Donald Trump isn’t the first US president to solve a war

    [ad_1]

    During a White House visit from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump expanded on his oft-repeated boast about ending multiple wars and made an even bolder assertion: that no president had solved even one war before him.

    Trump said Oct. 17 that people tell him, “‘Sir, if you solve one more, you’re going to be known as a peacekeeper.’ So to the best of my knowledge, we’ve never had a president that solved one war, not one war. (George W.) Bush started a war (in Iraq). A lot of them start wars, but they don’t solve the wars. They don’t settle them, and especially when they’re not, when they have nothing to do with us.”

    Trump is ignoring at least two instances of presidents personally overseeing negotiations that ended other countries’ wars, plus several others in which presidents’ designated diplomats successfully reached peace agreements following negotiations.

    “Like a lot of Trump’s statements, it massively exaggerates what he’s done, while ignoring any history of what other presidents have done,” said David Silbey, a Cornell University military historian. 

    For our analysis, we did not count wars that the United States participated in militarily and won, such as World War II. Trump said he was focusing on wars that “have nothing to do with us,” and none of the eight wars he claims to have ended have primarily involved the U.S. as a combatant.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told PolitiFact that Trump’s “direct involvement in major conflicts, leveraging tools from America’s military might to our superior consumer market, has brought peace to decades-long wars around the world in a fashion unlike any of his predecessors.”

    Wars settled by U.S. presidents

    In this 1904 file photo, Theodore Roosevelt campaigns for the presidency in 1904. Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating peace in the 1904-5 war between Russia and Japan. (AP)

    Japan became the first modern Asian power to defeat a European power in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 and 1905. President Theodore Roosevelt helped mediate a settlement at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 1905. Roosevelt was awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the war.

    President Jimmy Carter, center, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat before signing a peace treaty at the White House on March 26, 1979. (AP)

    By the time President Jimmy Carter brought Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the White House to sign the Camp David Accords on Sept. 17, 1978, Israel and Egypt had been at war for three decades, alternating between periods of hot and cold war. The agreement was the fruit of negotiations conducted at the presidential retreat, Camp David. Sadat and Begin won the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize.

    Wars settled by U.S. diplomats on a president’s watch

    Secretary of State Warren Christopher, center, is flanked by Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, left, and Croatian President Franjo Tudjman as they sign an accord Nov. 10, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio. (AP)

    The Bosnian War

    On Nov. 21, 1995, the presidents of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia reached an agreement for peace in Dayton, Ohio, ending the Bosnian War, which began in 1992. The primary U.S. officials involved in the negotiations over the Dayton Accords were veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of State Warren Christopher, along with leaders from Europe and Russia. The U.S. president at the time was Bill Clinton.

    Former President Bill Clinton and, from left, former Sen. George Mitchell, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern on the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, April 17, 2023. (AP)

    Northern Ireland’s ‘Troubles’

    The sectarian violence between Protestants and Catholics — known as “the Troubles” — in the United Kingdom-administered Northern Ireland persisted for roughly three decades before the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, also known as the Belfast Agreement. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, spearheaded it, and it followed shuttle diplomacy — when an intermediary carries out a negotiation by traveling back and forth between the disputing parties — between Washington and Belfast. Clinton was also the president at the time.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell is among the witnesses of the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement in  Nairobi’s Nyayo Stadium on Jan. 9, 2005. (AP)

    Civil war in Sudan

    Fighting between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, based in southern Sudan, ended in 2005 with the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement, thanks to negotiations overseen by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. George W. Bush was president at the time of the 2005 agreement. In 2011, a referendum led to the creation of a new country, South Sudan. 

    What has Trump previously said about settling multiple wars?

    Trump has often repeated the exaggerated claim that he’s ended six, seven or eight wars. 

    Trump had a hand in ceasefires that recently eased conflicts between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. But these were mostly incremental accords without a strong likelihood of long-term peace. Some leaders also dispute the extent of Trump’s role. 

    The U.S. was involved in a temporary peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, but violence in the region has continued, with hundreds of civilians killed since the deal’s June signing. After Trump helped broker a deal between Cambodia and Thailand, the countries accused each other of ceasefire violations.

    A long-running standoff between Egypt and Ethiopia over an Ethiopian dam on the Nile River remains unresolved. In the case of Kosovo and Serbia, there is little evidence a potential war was brewing.

    Most recently, Trump has made notable progress by securing an agreement to end the Israel-Hamas war. The agreement involves multiple stages, so it will take time to see if peace holds.

    For weeks, Trump has cited his diplomatic activity as being worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. 

    “Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements,” Trump said during a Sept. 23 speech at the United Nations.

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado with the prize Oct. 10 for her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela.”

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “We’ve never had a president that solved one war, not one war.”

    At least two U.S. presidents — Roosevelt and Carter — personally conducted negotiations that led to peace agreements, both of which resulted in Nobel Prizes for some of the participants.

    Several other presidents saw peace agreements hammered out on their watch by officials they appointed.

    We rate the statement Pants on Fire! 

    Staff Writer Samantha Putterman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump keeps name-checking the Insurrection Act. It could give him extraordinary powers

    [ad_1]

    There are few laws President Trump name-checks more frequently than the Insurrection Act.

    A 200-year-old constellation of statutes, the act grants emergency powers to thrust active-duty soldiers into civilian police duty, something otherwise barred by federal law.

    Trump and his team have threatened to invoke it almost daily for weeks — most recently on Monday, after a reporter pressed the president about his escalating efforts to dispatch federalized troops to Democrat-led cities.

    “Insurrection Act — yeah, I mean, I could do that,” Trump said. “Many presidents have.”

    Roughly a third of U.S. presidents have called on the statutes at some point — but history also shows the law has been used only in moments of extraordinary crisis and political upheaval.

    The Insurrection Act was Abraham Lincoln’s sword against secessionists and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s shield around the Little Rock Nine, the young Black students who were the first to desegregate schools in Arkansas.

    Ulysses S. Grant invoked it more than half a dozen times to thwart statehouse coups, stem race massacres and smother the Ku Klux Klan in its South Carolina cradle.

    But it has just as often been wielded to crush labor strikes and strangle protest movements. The last time it was invoked, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in elementary school and most U.S. soldiers had not yet been born.

    Now, many fear Trump could call on the law to quell opposition to his agenda.

    “The Democrats were fools not to amend the Insurrection Act in 2021,” said Kevin Carroll, former senior counsel in the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s first term. “It gives the president almost untrammeled power.”

    It also precludes most judicial review.

    “It can’t even be challenged,” Trump boasted Monday. “I don’t have to go there yet, because I’m winning on appeal.”

    If that winning streak cools, as legal experts say it soon could, some fear the Insurrection Act would be the administration’s next move.

    “The Insurrection Act is very broadly worded, but there is a history of even the executive branch interpreting it narrowly,” said John C. Dehn, an associate professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

    The president first floated using the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020. But members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move, as they did efforts to use the National Guard for immigration enforcement and the military to patrol the border.

    “They have this real fixation on using the military domestically,” Carroll said. “It’s sinister.”

    In his second term, Trump has instead relied on an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to surge federalized soldiers into blue cities, claiming it confers many of the same powers as the Insurrection Act.

    Federal judges disagreed. Challenges to deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago have since clogged the appellate courts, with three West Coast cases before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one pending in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Illinois.

    The result is a growing knot of litigation that experts say will fall to the Supreme Court to unwind.

    As of Wednesday, troops in Oregon and Illinois are activated but can’t be deployed. The Oregon case is further complicated by precedent from California, where federalized soldiers have patrolled the streets since June with the 9th Circuit’s blessing. That ruling is set to be reheard by the circuit on Oct. 22 and could be reversed.

    Meanwhile, what California soldiers are legally allowed to do while they’re federalized is also under review, meaning even if Trump retains the authority to call up troops, he might not be able to use them.

    Scholars are split over how the Supreme Court might rule on any of those issues.

    “At this point, no court … has expressed any sympathy to these arguments, because they’re so weak,” said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor at Yale Law School.

    Koh listed the high court’s most conservative members, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as unlikely to push back against the president’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act, but said even some of Trump’s appointees — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — might be skeptical, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

    “I don’t think Thomas and Alito are going to stand up to Trump, but I’m not sure that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts can read this statute to give him [those] powers.”

    The Insurrection Act sidesteps those fights almost entirely.

    It “would change not only the legal state of play, but fundamentally change the facts we have on the ground, because what the military would be authorized to do would be so much broader,” said Christopher Mirasola, an assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

    Congress created the Insurrection Act as a fail-safe in response to armed mobs attacking their neighbors and organized militias seeking to overthrow elected officials. But experts caution that the military is not trained to keep law and order, and that the country has a strong tradition against domestic deployments dating to the Revolutionary War.

    “The uniformed military leadership in general does not like getting involved in the domestic law enforcement issue at all,” Carroll said. “The only similarities between police and military is that they have uniforms and guns.”

    Today, the commander in chief can invoke the law in response to a call for help from state leaders, as George H.W. Bush did to quell the 1992 Rodney King uprising in L.A.

    The statute can also be used to make an end-run around elected officials who refuse to enforce the law, or mobs who make it impossible — something Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Jr. did in defense of school integration.

    Still, modern presidents have generally shied from using the Insurrection Act even in circumstances with strong legal justification. George W. Bush weighed invoking the law after Hurricane Katrina created chaos in New Orleans but ultimately declined over fears it would intensify the already bitter power struggle between the state and federal government.

    “There are any number of Justice Department internal opinions where attorneys general like Robert Kennedy or Nicholas Katzenbach said, ‘We cannot invoke the Insurrection Act because the courts are open,’” Koh said.

    Despite its extraordinary power, Koh and other experts said the law has guardrails that may make it more difficult for the president to invoke it in the face of naked bicyclists or protesters in inflatable frog suits, whom federal forces have faced down recently in Portland.

    “There are still statutory requirements that have to be met,” said Dehn, the Loyola professor. “The problem the Trump administration would have in invoking [the law] is that very practically, they are able to arrest people who break the law and prosecute people who break the law.”

    That may be why Trump and his administration have yet to invoke the act.

    “It reminds me of the run-up to Jan. 6,” Carroll said. “It’s a similar feeling that people have, a sense that an illegal or immoral and unwise order is about to be given.”

    He and others say an invocation of the Insurrection Act would shift widespread concern about military policing of American streets into existential territory.

    “If there’s a bad faith invocation of the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to go beat up anti-ICE protesters, there should be a general strike in the United States,” Carroll said. “It’s a real break-the-glass moment.”

    At that point, the best defense may come from the military.

    “If a really unwise and immoral order comes out … 17-year generals need to say no,” Carroll said. “They have to have the guts to put their stars on the table.”

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link