ReportWire

Tag: Trump

  • Commentary: Memo to Minneapolis from California: Please don’t take the bait

    [ad_1]

    Dear Minneapolis:

    We are sorry for what you are going through. We get it.

    One day you’re living in a vibrant, multicultural city that, yeah, has its problems but is also pretty great. The next day, the president is calling you terrorists and insurrectionists and threatening to turn the U.S. military on you and your kids.

    Been there.

    First off, thanks for standing up for Lady Liberty. The old gal had a rough year in 2025, and 2026 isn’t promising to be any better. She needs all the friends she can get, and the Twin Cities folks are true blue. And I’m not talking Democrat or Republican, because we’re past that.

    It’s come down to deciding what kind of American you are. The kind who believes in the Constitution, rule of law and due process, or the kind who believes in strongmen, rule of the rich and armed authorities who will disappear you if you make them mad, citizen or not.

    Minneapolitans have proven they’re on the righteous side of that divide.

    But here’s the thing — you’ve got to keep these protests peaceful. Being the entertainment capital of the world, we won’t deny that it’s riveting to watch video after video of ICE officers slipping on, well, ice like some klutzy Keystone Kops short. And the passion with which protesters are turning out, risking their own safety to protect strangers, is inspiring.

    But don’t take the bait. Don’t cross the line. Don’t use physical violence, whether it’s throwing a water bottle or something more. President Trump threatened on Thursday to invoke the Insurrection Act, just like he did in Los Angeles before sending in the National Guard using a lesser authority. Even that turned out to be legally problematic, but he did it anyway.

    “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche wrote on social media after Trump’s post. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey – I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

    Whatever means necessary.

    This administration is salivating to invoke martial law. They bring it up every chance they get. Although the Insurrection Act has been used before — by President George H.W. Bush in Los Angeles in 1992 after the Rodney King beating — this is different.

    Too many other guardrails of democracy have been demolished. Too much power has already been consolidated into the hands of one man.

    If it happens, if the military is turned against citizens, a boundary will be broken that can’t be easily restored. We will likely then have military in streets of multiple American cities ahead of the November elections, which can only make this fragile turn at the ballot box more precarious.

    Los Angeles in 2025 was the test case on how far Trump could go, and it seems it wasn’t far enough. Just like in Minneapolis, we had some folks who used violence — even though the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. Because Los Angeles is and has always been a city of activists — like Minneapolis — there were plenty of leaders willing and able to step forward and ensure that protesters policed themselves.

    The result of that restraint was that at the end of the day, not even the so-called “journalists” of the right-wing propaganda machine could come up with enough shock-and-awe videos to convince the rest of America that the place was out of control.

    Now the Trump machine is trying it with you, Minnesota. It’s not by chance that this trouble has landed on your doorstep. After the killing of George Floyd, Minneapolis showed it wasn’t afraid to show up for justice. No one ever doubted — Trump especially — that sending immigration full-force into your city would stir up trouble.

    Gov. Tim Walz said it himself on Thursday in his own social media post.

    “We can — we must — speak out loudly, urgently, but also peacefully. We cannot fan the flames of chaos. That’s what he wants,” he wrote.

    But also, please keep filming, please keep fighting. Thursday was also Martin Luther King Jr.’s actual birthday. In 1959, King made a little-known appearance on Minneapolis TV.

    “I’m of the opinion that it is possible for one to stand firmly and courageously against an evil system, and yet not use violence to stand up against it,” he said then.

    “It is possible to love the individual who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does.”

    Someone described Minneapolis the other day as having the inclusivity and quirkiness of San Francisco but with the attitude of the Bronx — a fearsome combination.

    Don’t let Trump exploit it.

    In solidarity,
    California

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Trump signs law to allow whole milk in school lunches

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Official White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

    President Donald Trump signed a law Wednesday that will restore whole milk in federally subsidized school lunches.

    The dairy staple — out of school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity — will soon return to school cafeterias under the law. 

    Trump said during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office that the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act will “ensure that millions of school-aged children have access to high-quality milk as we make America healthy again.” 

    Seated with a jug of milk on the Resolute Desk, Trump said the changes will also be “major victories for the American dairy farmers who we love and who voted for me in great numbers.” 

    White House ceremony

    Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins celebrated the legislation becoming law and said her department would post Wednesday the “new rulemaking that is necessary to get whole milk back into school lunches.” 

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also lauded Trump’s efforts and described the measure as a “long overdue correction of the school nutrition policy that puts children’s health first.” 

    Trump was also joined by Dr. Ben Carson, national advisor for nutrition, health, and housing at USDA, along with Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, GOP Sens. John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Roger Marshall of Kansas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and advocates who supported the bill.

    Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, also attended the ceremony. 

    The U.S. House passed the bill in December, following unanimous passage in the Senate in November. 

    Welch and Marshall, along with Pennsylvania Sens. Dave McCormick, a Republican, and John Fetterman, a Democrat, introduced the measure in the Senate. 

    Thompson and Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington state brought corresponding legislation in the House.

    What the new law does 

    Under the law, schools that are part of the USDA’s National School Lunch Program can offer “flavored and unflavored organic or nonorganic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose-free fluid milk.” 

    The program — which provides free or low-cost lunches in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions — saw nearly 29.4 million children participate on a typical day during the 2023-2024 school year, according to the Food Research & Action Center.

    The schools can also provide “nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet the nutritional standards established by” the Agriculture secretary.

    The law exempts milk fat from being considered saturated fat as it applies to schools’ “allowable average saturated fat content of a meal.” 

    Parents and guardians, as well as physicians, can also offer a written statement for their student to receive a nondairy milk substitute. 

    Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated the bill becoming law in a Wednesday statement.

    Dykes dubbed the law a “win for our children, parents, and school nutrition leaders, giving schools the flexibility to offer the flavored and unflavored milk options, across all healthy fat levels, that meet students’ needs and preferences.” 

    The signing marked the second major nutrition policy change this month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which encourages more full-fat dairy and protein.  

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Contact Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.


    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed


    It was out of school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity

    That’s down from a Mason-Dixon survey taken last March, when he was at 53%, and the lowest ranking taken by Mason-Dixon since July 2020

    Florida bill would require portraits of Washington and Lincoln in all K-5 classrooms and all other classrooms used for social studies



    [ad_2]

    Shauneen Miranda, Florida Phoenix
    Source link
  • No, USPS letter is not a sign of impending martial law

    [ad_1]

    After U.S. postal workers got a letter advising how to work during epidemics, hurricanes and civil unrest, social media posts spun the guidance into a conspiracy theory: Surely this was a sign of an approaching crisis or confirmation that President Donald Trump would impose martial law, they said.

    “So does the USPS postal service know something that we don’t?” asked one speaker in a TikTok.

    “Letter signals that an impending crisis of civil unrest or an epidemic could be imminent!” said an X post. “Government prepping while we’re in the dark?” 

    Some posts speculated that the USPS letter is a sign that President Donald Trump will impose martial law.

    The Jan. 5 memo from Deputy Postmaster General Doug Tulino is real. An American Postal Workers Union representative sent us a copy to confirm its authenticity. A U.S. Postal Service spokesperson said the letter was reissued; we found similar ones from 2020. 

    The letter says if essential workers aren’t exempted from local or state curfew orders or travel directives during emergencies, postal workers are governed by federal law and can continue to work during local or state curfew orders or travel directives. The letter instructs employees and contractors to carry an “essential service provider letter” explaining that they are exempt from restrictions that they can give to law enforcement should their activity come under question. 

    The Jan. 5 letter does not mention any specific crisis or current event and does not mention immigration enforcement, Trump or martial law, despite social media posts’ attempts to tie it to those topics.

    Many of the social media posts are dated after Jan. 7, when an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis. Protests against ICE intensified after the shooting.

    The speaker in a TikTok video speculated about whether the letter was related to ICE, asking, “Is the stage set? Is it a powder keg ready waiting to go?”

    The U.S. Postal Service website shows employees received similar letters in March, June, July and December of 2020 for the same purpose. Many states had travel or other restrictions because of the pandemic and some cities experienced civil unrest during protests after the murder of George Floyd, a Minneapolis man, by a police officer.

    Postal workers said in January social media post comments that they had also gotten such letters during hurricane season or snowstorms.

    Although Trump threatened Jan. 15 to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to Minneapolis protests, legal experts told PolitiFact in 2025 that invoking the Insurrection Act would not create what is commonly understood as martial law. 

    Trump has not said he will impose martial law, which typically means suspending civil law while the military takes control of civilian functions such as courts. The U.S. imposed martial law in Hawaii after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in certain parts of the country during the Civil War.

    We rate the claim that a postal service letter sent to employees is a sign that Trump will impose martial law False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Latest shooting is 17th time immigration officials have fired at civilians in Trump’s second term

    [ad_1]

    I urge anyone that is at the scene to leave immediately. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara urging protesters to go home Wednesday night amid clashes with law enforcement after *** federal officer shot *** man in the leg. The Department of Homeland Security said the subject, *** Venezuelan man who was in the country illegally, fled in his vehicle during *** targeted traffic stop, then crashed into *** parked car and fled on foot. When the officer caught up to him, he allegedly resisted arrest. DHS said two other individuals attacked the officer with *** snow shovel and *** broom handle. During the struggle, the federal agent discharged his weapon, striking one adult male. Tensions rose as protesters gathered at the scene, with *** crowd following agents through the neighborhood. Agents launched pepper balls and what sounded like flashbangs. Smoke hung in the air as officers deployed tear gas canisters, with *** member of the crowd apparently throwing one of the canisters back at agents while still demanding ICE leave the city. Officials, including the mayor, are asking the public to remain peaceful. We cannot counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos. For those that have peacefully protested, I applaud you. For those that are taking the bait, you are not helping. I’m Reed Binion reporting.

    Federal immigration officials have fired gunshots at people in at least 17 different incidents since President Donald Trump began his second term nearly a year ago. In the latest incident, a federal officer shot a man in the leg in Minneapolis on Jan. 14 after he was attacked with a snow shovel and broom handle, according to Homeland Security. Federal officers were conducting a traffic stop, DHS said, when the man crashed into a parked car and fled on foot. As the man and the officer were in a struggle on the ground, two people from a nearby apartment came out with the shovel and broom, according to DHS reports.The latest shooting comes a week after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good less than 10 miles away, sparking widespread protests and fear in the city.A Get the Facts Data Team analysis of data collected by The Trace has found that four people have been killed and at least eight have been injured in the 17 shooting incidents.The number of incidents is likely an undercount, according to The Trace, as not all shootings are publicly reported. Also, others have been killed during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown beyond those killed by guns.Most of the shooting incidents have been in the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis areas.PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    Federal immigration officials have fired gunshots at people in at least 17 different incidents since President Donald Trump began his second term nearly a year ago.

    In the latest incident, a federal officer shot a man in the leg in Minneapolis on Jan. 14 after he was attacked with a snow shovel and broom handle, according to Homeland Security.

    Federal officers were conducting a traffic stop, DHS said, when the man crashed into a parked car and fled on foot. As the man and the officer were in a struggle on the ground, two people from a nearby apartment came out with the shovel and broom, according to DHS reports.

    The latest shooting comes a week after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good less than 10 miles away, sparking widespread protests and fear in the city.

    A Get the Facts Data Team analysis of data collected by The Trace has found that four people have been killed and at least eight have been injured in the 17 shooting incidents.

    The number of incidents is likely an undercount, according to The Trace, as not all shootings are publicly reported. Also, others have been killed during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown beyond those killed by guns.

    Most of the shooting incidents have been in the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis areas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Column: Trump celebrates our nation’s founding while imitating tyrant King George III

    [ad_1]

    It’s a measure of President Trump’s lack of self-awareness — a superpower, really, for authoritarian demagogues like him who otherwise would shrink from their worst impulses — that he apparently doesn’t see the evident contradiction in his simultaneous support for protesters in Iran and damnation of those in his own country.

    For days, Trump has preened as the all-powerful protector of Iranian protesters against their nation’s repressive regime. (The supposedly “America First” president could strike their country at any moment, if he hasn’t already.) “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” he posted Tuesday. “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

    But what was on the way to Minneapolis, he’d posted just an hour earlier, was “RECKONING AND RETRIBUTION.” Its citizens — his citizens — were demonstrating in growing numbers against the paramilitary that Trump has created among Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, one of whom last week killed a woman there, Renee Nicole Good. Trump counterproductively increased the ICE deployment in the city, already more than triple the size of the Minneapolis police force.

    On Sunday night, Trump had justified Good’s slaying this way: “The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement.” This from the man who watched on TV for three hours on Jan. 6, 2021, as demonstrators at the U.S. Capitol disrespected law enforcement with chemical sprays, poles, planks, fists and bike racks. And he did nothing. Because they were pro-Trump protesters. Once back in office, he pardoned nearly 1,600 of them.

    On the fifth anniversary of that Trump-incited insurrection, last week, the White House website rewrote history to obscure what Americans saw in real time — a falsification that truly disrespected law enforcement. In Trump’s version, the heroic Capitol Police were the culprits for “aggressively” firing “tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protestors.” Funny, not funny: That actually describes what ICE agents have been doing, as photos and numerous Americansvideos on social media document, and not just in Minneapolis but in Chicago, Portland, Ore., Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans.

    The “No Kings” rallies last fall? Trump, ever the brander, led his sycophants choir in Congress in renaming those events as “Hate America rallies,” and the 7 million peaceful protesters nationwide who attended them as communists and Marxists.

    But here’s what makes the shameless contradictions in Trump’s stance on the right to protest even more nauseating in 2026: This is the year that the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the United States’ foundational act of anti-government protest.

    It’s Americans’ bad fortune that such a man as Trump, a wannabe king, is the presider in chief for the yearlong commemorations of the rebellion that ultimately threw off a real king who’d met protesters with force and retribution.

    Trump is so eager to be the semiquincentennial’s impresario that he’s already had the U.S. Mint produce a $1 coin with his likeness for the occasion. As if Americans needed a reminder that to Trump it’s all about him.

    But he should take the time to actually read the document that this celebration commemorates. If he were self-aware, he’d see that he resembles the king the founders were opposing, and that his actions parallel those the founders cited as grounds for breaking away.

    Their list of indictments of King George III include: “The establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Think of Trump’s dispatch of federal agents and National Guard troops into blue states and cities, and his threats to send the military, over the objections of their governors and mayors, state legislators and members of Congress.

    Then there’s this passage: The king has “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people.” And this: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” More: He is “protecting them … from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”

    Protecting officers from the consequences of alleged murders? In an all but unprecedented break with usual protocols after a law enforcement action as controversial as Good’s killing, Trump’s administration refuses to cooperate with Minnesota local and state officials in simply investigating the ICE officer who shot Good three times, and is denying them access to evidence. Trump’s Justice Department — and he’s made it his Justice Department — has ruled out the usual civil rights probe. Instead, the administration continues to blame the victim, Good, and is investigating her and her partner in the hope of finding some ties to activist groups.

    Fortunately, there’s blowback, which truly does reflect the spirit of 1776.

    On Tuesday, at least six federal prosecutors resigned in protest and others in Minnesota and Washington reportedly are expediting plans to quit. Lawyers nationwide condemned White House henchman Stephen Miller for his false, provocative claims that ICE agents have immunity for their acts. Polls show that by wide margins Americans believe Good’s shooting was unjustified. Support for ICE continues to decline; pluralities of Americans now oppose it.

    But what has to worry Trump most of all: He’s lost Joe Rogan, uber-podcaster, especially to white males, and a past supporter. “You don’t want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching people up — many of which turn out to actually be U.S. citizens that just don’t have their papers on them,” Rogan said on air this week. “Are we really gonna be the Gestapo, ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”

    Yes, it is. But as a consequence, protests are sure to continue, and build. What better year for that to be so: it’s not only the semiquincentennial but a midterm election year. As Trump likes to tell those he’s targeted — in Venezuela, Greenland and Iran — they can come around the easy way, or the hard way. The American people are giving him the same choice. He keeps choosing the hard way.

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

    [ad_2]

    Jackie Calmes

    Source link

  • Contributor: A Senate war powers resolution on Venezuela actually could curb Trump

    [ad_1]

    President Trump seemed angry after the Senate voted last Thursday to pass a war powers resolution to the next stage, where lawmakers could approve the measure and seek to curb the president’s ability to wage war in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    Trump said that day that five Republican senators who supported bringing the measure to a vote — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Todd Young (Ind.) — “should never be elected to office again.”

    Why should he get so riled up about this, to the point where he could put his own party’s control of the Senate at risk in November? Even if this resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, he could veto it and ultimately be unrestrained. He did this in 2019, when a war powers resolution mandating that the U.S. military cease its participation in the war in Yemen was passed in both the Senate and the House. Many people think that such legislation therefore can’t make a difference.

    But the president’s ire is telling. These political moves on the Hill can get results even before the resolution has a final vote, or if it is vetoed by the president.

    The Trump administration made significant concessions before the 2019 resolution was approved by Congress, in an attempt to prevent it from passing. For instance, months before it was approved, the U.S. military stopped refueling Saudi warplanes in midair. These concessions de-escalated the war and saved tens of thousands of lives.

    A war powers resolution is an act of Congress that is based on a 1973 law of the same name. That law spells out and reinforces the power that our Constitution has allocated to Congress, to decide when the U.S. military can be involved in hostilities.

    The U.S. military raid in Caracas that seized Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is illegal according to international law, the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, as well as other treaties to which the United States is a signatory. According to our own Constitution, the government violates U.S. law when it violates treaties that our government has signed.

    None of that restrained the Trump administration, which has not demonstrated much respect for the rule of law. But the White House does care about the political power of Congress. If there is an expanded war in Venezuela or anywhere else that Trump has threatened to use the military, the fact that Congress took steps to oppose it will increase the political cost to the president.

    This is likely one of the main reasons that the Trump administration has at least promised to make concessions regarding military action in Latin America — and who knows, possibly he did make some compromises compared with what had been planned.

    On Nov. 5, the day before the Senate was to vote on a war powers resolution to halt and prevent hostilities within or against Venezuela by U.S. armed forces, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and White House counsel had a private briefing with senators.

    They assured lawmakers that they were not going to have a land war or airstrikes in Venezuela. According to news reports, the White House counsel stated that they did not have a legal justification for such a war. It is clear that blocking the resolution was very important to these top officials. The day after that meeting, the war powers resolution was blocked by two votes. Two Republicans had joined the Democrats and independents in support of the resolution: Murkowski and Paul. That added up to 49 votes — not quite the needed majority.

    But on Thursday, there were three additional Republicans who voted for the new resolution, so it will proceed to a final vote.

    The war powers resolution is not just a political fight, but a matter of life and death. The blockade involved in the seizure of oil tankers is, according to experts, an unlawful use of military force. This means that the blockade would be included as a participation in hostilities that would require authorization from Congress.

    Since 2015, the United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions that destroyed Venezuela’s economy. From 2012 to 2020, Venezuela suffered the worst peacetime depression in world history. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP, or income, fell by 74%. Think of the economic destruction of the U.S. Great Depression, multiplied by three times. Most of this was the result of the sanctions.

    This unprecedented devastation is generally attributed to Maduro in public discussion. But U.S. sanctions deliberately cut Venezuela off from international finance, as well as blocking most of its oil sales, which accounted for more than 90% of foreign exchange (mostly dollar) earnings. This devastated the economy.

    In the first year of Trump sanctions from 2017-18, Venezuela’s deaths increased by tens of thousands of people, at a time when oil prices were increasing. Sanctions were expanded even more the following year. About a quarter of the population, more than 7 million people, emigrated after 2015 — 750,000 of them to the United States.

    We know that the deadly impact of sanctions that target the civilian population is real. Research published in July by the Lancet Global Health, by my colleagues Francisco Rodriguez, Silvio Rendon and myself, estimated the global death toll from unilateral economic sanctions, as these are, at 564,000 per year over the past decade. This is comparable to the worldwide deaths from armed conflict. A majority of the victims over the 1970-2021 period were children.

    The Trump administration has, in the last few days, been moving in the direction of lifting some sanctions to allow for oil exports, according to the president’s stated plan to “run Venezuela.” This is ironic because Venezuela has for many years wanted more investment and trade, including in oil, with the United States, and it was U.S. sanctions that prohibited it.

    Such lifting of sanctions would be a big step forward, in terms of saving lives of people who are deprived of food, medicine and other necessities in Venezuela, as a result of these sanctions and the economic destruction that they cause.

    But to create the stability that Venezuela needs to recover, we will have to take the military and economic violence out of this campaign. There are members of Congress moving toward that goal, and they need all the help that they can get, before it’s too late.

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

    [ad_2]

    Mark Weisbrot

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s economic speech in Detroit

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump traveled to Michigan on Jan. 13 to address the Detroit Economic Club.

    Earlier in the day, the federal government announced that inflation — a major preoccupation for voters, and one of Trump’s key 2024 campaign issues — held steady at a 2.7% year-over-year rate. That’s slightly lower than the 2.9% in December 2024, the last full month under President Joe Biden, or the 3% in January 2025, a month shared by both presidents.

    But consumer sentiment has fallen on Trump’s watch, showing people feel increasingly negative about their economic position. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment index has fallen from 71.7 in January 2025 to 51 in November 2025. That’s just slightly above its lowest level ever, in June 2022, when year-over-year inflation peaked at about 9%.

    The nation is still adding jobs, but at a slower pace than usual. Counting December’s preliminary numbers, the economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, the lowest annual figure since 2003, not counting recession years.

    Trump’s long-running confrontation with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reached a new high, as Powell announced Jan. 11 that he was under Justice Department criminal investigation related to testimony about a Federal Reserve building renovation. Trump has been saying for the past year that he wants to see Powell gone because he has not lowered interest rates enough.

    This morning, before leaving Washington, D.C., for Michigan, Trump told reporters, “Well, he’s billions of dollars over budget. So, he either is incompetent, or he is crooked. I don’t know what he is, but he certainly doesn’t do a very good job.”

    Read PolitiFact’s fact-checks of his statements below.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Claims He and Microsoft Have a Solution for AI-Related Utility Price Spikes

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump did what he does on Monday evening and posted to his social media app, this time about how Microsoft isn’t going to cause our bills to spike by creating massive amounts of new energy demand with its AI projects.

    First of all, the president claims to “never want Americans to pay higher Electricity bills because of Data Centers,” which is a nice thought, although someone should tell him it looks like the thing he dreads has already happened. At any rate, what he’s teasing with Microsoft is, he claims, the first of multiple energy-related projects with big tech companies. To that end, he writes:

    “First up is Microsoft, who my team has been working with, and which will make major changes beginning this week to ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’ for their POWER consumption, in the form of paying higher Utility bills. We are the ‘HOTTEST’ Country in the World, and Number One in AI. Data Centers are key to that boom, and keeping Americans FREE and SECURE but, the big Technology Companies who build them must ‘pay their own way.’ Thank you, and congratulations to Microsoft. More to come soon! President DJT”

    As Gizmodo wrote last summer, electricity demand from the massive data centers that are being used to train and run AI models has driven the average American’s power bill up, and the amount varies from place to place. On average, consumer energy bills had gone up about 6.5% in a year when that story emerged over the summer, but in, for instance, Maine, they had spiked by an astonishing 36.3%, and that’s reportedly due to the “AI tax.” Meanwhile, utility companies like Pacific Gas & Electric have reported record profits in recent years. Funny how that works.
     
    It’s truly anyone’s guess how Trump and Microsoft are going to fix this issue. Trump is making overtures toward ostensible economic populism lately—seemingly in the form of deals he can tout for a short-term win, like when he got Novo Nordisk to lower the price of Ozempic. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee followed that mysterious deal up with a letter to Novo Nordisk asking about what might have been included in the still-secret terms of that agreement—including some unsettling ambiguity about the future prices of other drugs. But who wants to hear about the puny Democrats’ dumb letter when President Deals successfully slashed the price of what he has nicknamed “the fat drug”?

    But keeping energy bills down is tricky for Microsoft to do since, unlike Novo Nordisk, Microsoft doesn’t actually set the price Trump is trying to keep down. One thing Trump could have demanded of Microsoft, then, is that Microsoft simply subsidize everyone’s energy bills. That would do the trick, but last I checked Microsoft wasn’t a charity.

    It was reported six days ago, however, that Microsoft is already working with the Midcontinent Independent System on a project aimed at modernizing the power grid with Microsoft’s technology. Reuters writes that Microsoft’s tech will help with “predicting and responding to weather-related power grid disruptions, transmission line planning, and accelerating certain operations.” 

    This doesn’t sound like a slam dunk for bringing down energy costs dramatically, but it’s easy to imagine broader grid modernization at least dispersing the price spikes more evenly, or even helping to integrate unused renewable energy and ease the famous bottlenecks cause by the outdated energy grid. But is this, or something like it, what Trump is referring to? For his own sake I hope not, because it sounds like the type of confusing and convoluted plan more typically associated with flailing Democrats, not with Mr. Cheap Ozempic.

    Gizmodo reached out to Microsoft and the White House for further details about this plan. We will update if we hear back. 

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • St. Kitts and Nevis agrees to take U.S. migrants, but says no Haitians allowed

    [ad_1]

    Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis Terrance Drew poses for a portrait on the sideline of the United Nations General Assembly at Scandinavia House in New York City on September 25, 2025. US President Donald Trump may dismiss climate change as a "con job" -- but for the leader of the twin island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, its toll is unmistakable: land swallowed, homes battered, and livelihoods threatened. Prime Minister Terrance Drew, responding to Trump's blistering attack on the science of planet-warming fossil fuels at the United Nations, said: "Everyone has the opportunity to express themselves." But for his 45,000 countrymen and women, "it is not a matter of any discussion, it is a reality we are living," Drew told AFP on the sidelines of the world's body's high-level week in New York. (Photo by Issam AHMED / AFP) (Photo by ISSAM AHMED/AFP via Getty Images)

    Terrance Drew, prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis

    AFP via Getty Images

    Two more Caribbean countries have entered into agreements with the Trump administration to accept asylum seekers deported from the United States, with one leader explicitly saying Haitians are not welcome.

    St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew said that his government has agreed to accept a very small number of third-country nationals from the U.S. as long as they are citizens of the 15-member Caribbean Community known as CARICOM, and are not sexual predators, have no violent backgrounds and are not Haitians

    “This does not involve anybody outside of CARICOM,” Drew said at a news conference late last week. “This is in keeping with our character. And I will further say that because of security matters, it does not include Haiti at this time.” He reiterated Haiti’s exclusion at three separate points during the briefing.

    The exclusion of Haitian nationals marks the first public acknowledgment by a CARICOM member state that it has placed explicit limits on accepting nationals from Haiti, which is a member of the bloc of mostly former British colonies, in their negotiations with Washington. Though Caribbean governments are known for their exclusions of Haitians and even rejections once they arrive on their shores, what makes the latest development surprising is that Drew is currently the chairman of the regional bloc.

    On Monday, seemingly addressing the firestorm over the agreement with the U.S. and Haiti’s exclusion, he said “in approaching diplomacy, one has to evaluate very carefully what are the risks and benefits.

    “My first objective always, is to protect St. Kitts and Nevis, and our people” he added. “Any decision that is made is made with that in mind.”

    Drew has acknowledged that Caribbean countries are agreeing to accept their own nationals. This raises questions about the scope and substance of the island-nation’s third-party arrangement, which the United States has been aggressively pursuing across the region to expand destinations for asylum seekers and refugees kicked out of the U.S. who cannot return to their countries of origin.

    Third-party agreements

    So far, six CARICOM countries — Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia — have announced that they have entered into an arrangement with Washington to accept migrants.

    On Sunday, St Lucia’s recently re-elected prime minister, Philip J. Pierre, confirmed that his government had signed “a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding” with the U.S. to potentially accept certain “third country nationals” deported by the Trump Administration.

    “We believe that stability is best secured through dialogue, diplomacy and respect for established international norms,” Pierre said during a national address announcing the decision. “We’ll continue to work with our regional partners to safeguard the Caribbean as a zone of peace. St. Lucia’s foreign policy remains rooted in diplomacy, cooperation and mutually beneficial shared interests.”

    St. Lucia, Antigua, Dominica and St. Kitts, in addition to being in the eastern Caribbean, all have Citizenship by Investment programs, which allow foreigners to acquire citizenship with investments ranging from $100,000 to $250,000. The program has come under fire from the Trump administration, which has used its concerns over a lack of vetting and transparency as leverage with Caribbean governments.

    In December, both Antigua and Dominica were added to a list of countries under a partial U.S. travel ban after Trump issued an executive order, citing their CBI programs.

    All the Caribbean countries have negotiated their own conditions for accepting refugees deported from the U.S. who cannot return to their countries of origin., but only Antigua has publicly detailed the parameters governing its agreement with the U.S.

    According to a letter Antigua’s government wrote to senior State Department official Michael Kozak, the Caribbean country says it will only consider taking in designated refugees under U.S. law or registered asylum seekers with pending, non-frivolous applications recognized by U.S. authorities who have no criminal convictions other than immigration-status offenses; have no pending criminal charges; are not subject to sex-offender registration; are not on terrorism, organized-crime, or sanctions lists; and are not otherwise excludable on security grounds. Individuals also must possess a certified skill or professional license recognized by the relevant regulatory authorities of Antigua and Barbuda; and have at least basic working proficiency in English.

    There is no mention of nationality in the lette. Status will be granted for no more than 24 months unless mutual consent is given for an extension. “If the transferee and immediate family have not achieved self-sufficiency by the end of twenty-four months, Antigua and Barbuda may request their return. The United States shall accept such return and arrange transport within thirty days, securing all travel documents and covering all costs,” the letter said.

    Questions about Haiti’s place

    Other countries have yet to provide details of their agreement. But so far, only St. Kitts and Nevis, a country with a population of about 46,000 people, has publicly confirmed the exclusion of Haitians, reviving longstanding questions about Haiti’s place within CARICOM.

    Neither Haiti’s foreign minister nor the prime minister’s office responded to Miami Herald requests for comment. The decision has prompted debate online over what critics describe as moral contradictions in a region that often positions itself as Haiti’s advocate — the bloc is currently leading discussions about the country’s political transition after Feb. 7 — while excluding the French-speaking country from the practical implementation of regional policies. CARICOM’s Single Market and Economy, which allows for the free movement of goods and services, excludes Haiti, while member states continue to deny Haitian nationals visa-free travel to their countries.

    Peterson Benjamin Noel, a former Haitian ambassador to CARICOM, said many member states, including St. Kitts and Nevis, remain reluctant to accept Haitian nationals, viewing them as a form of “silent invasion.” That apprehension, he said, is particularly evident in The Bahamas, the CARICOM country with the largest population of people of Haitian descent, which has declined to join the Single Market and Economy largely because of concerns over the free movement of people.

    As a result, Noel said, Haiti is often treated less as an equal partner in regional integration than as a vehicle through which CARICOM can project influence internationally.

    “Haiti’s integration is framed more as a symbolic or strategic necessity than as a genuinely inclusive process,” he said.

    He added that there exists “an implicit and often unspoken regional consensus regarding Haiti—one that shapes policy positions while remaining largely absent from formal discourse.”

    Jacqueline Charles

    Miami Herald

    Jacqueline Charles has reported on Haiti and the English-speaking Caribbean for the Miami Herald for over a decade. A Pulitzer Prize finalist for her coverage of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, she was awarded a 2018 Maria Moors Cabot Prize — the most prestigious award for coverage of the Americas.

    [ad_2]

    Jacqueline Charles

    Source link

  • Has ICE agent training been reduced to 47 days?

    [ad_1]

    The fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jan. 7 brought more scrutiny on Trump-era training requirements. 

    On CNN’s “State of the Union” Jan. 11, U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told anchor Jake Tapper the Trump administration had shortened ICE agents’ training time while scaling up its hiring. 

    “Remember we’re beefing up ICE 10,000 more agents,” Warner said. “They are not getting the traditional five months training. Literally, Jake, the training for the ICE agents now is 47 days. Why 47 days? Because Donald Trump is the 47th president.”

    He also used this figure Jan. 8 when talking to a liberal commentator and Jan. 12 on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

    Other lawmakers, social media posts and journalists repeated the same line in the days after ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good. 

    The Trump administration has confirmed to multiple news organizations it shortened the duration of immigration agent training, while taking issue with some outlets’ framing and declining to answer follow-up questions. Neither ICE nor DHS responded to PolitiFact’s queries. We were unable to confirm whether the number of training days is connected to Trump’s status as the 47th president.

    Ross had been a deportation officer with the agency since 2015, The Associated Press reported, so he was subject to earlier, longer training standards. 

    Warner, who did not respond to PolitiFact, said on CNN that the investigation into Good’s killing needed to be completed before people reached conclusions.  

    When Tapper pointed out to Warner that the ICE agent who shot Good “had at least 10 years experience,” Warner said, “So be it, and again that’s why there ought to be an investigation.” 

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement trainees practice shooting a handgun at the indoor firing range at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Brunswick, Ga. on Aug. 21, 2025. (AP)

    Trump’s ICE shortened training, but reports vary on how much

    The training talking point stems from The Atlantic August story “Fast Times at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” Reporter Nick Miroff wrote that training for new deportation officers had been reduced from about five months to 47 days, citing three unnamed officials. 

    “Administration officials have cut that time roughly in half, partly by eliminating Spanish-language courses,” the report said. “Academy training was shortened to 47 days, three officials told me, the number picked because Trump is the 47th president. DHS officials said the training will run six days a week for eight weeks.” 

    A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that The Atlantic’s reporting was “false,” because training is eight weeks. The Examiner story, however, cited ICE acting director Todd Lyons as confirming an eight-week training schedule of six work days per week. That amounts to 48 training days.

    The frequently asked questions page on ICE’s career website reflects the outdated training schedule, saying new deportation officers will complete almost five months of training — five weeks of language and 16 weeks of law enforcement.

    The AP in August reported the agency “cut Spanish-language requirements to reduce training by five weeks,” citing Caleb Vitello, who runs ICE training. Vitello told AP the Spanish-language training that was cut would be supplemented with translation technology services.

    News organizations and administration officials have reported training times shorter than 48 days in recent months:

    • An unnamed DHS official told NBC News in October that ICE had originally shortened its training from 13 to eight weeks before shortening it again to six weeks.

    • Government Executive, a news outlet that covers federal agencies, reported Jan. 5 that DHS has shortened ICE agent training from six months “to around six weeks.” 

    DHS has not offered clarity about new officer training since the Minneapolis shooting. A senior DHS official told People magazine Jan. 8, “Training to become an Enforcement and Removal Operations officer is 8 weeks long,” and declined to specify the number of days. 

    “The official did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for clarification, since eight weeks matches the timeframe that The Atlantic previously reported,” it reported

    Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement speaks to the press on the agility course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Brunswick, Ga. on Aug. 21, 2025. (AP)

    ICE officer who shot Good had 10 years experience, additional training 

    Having worked for ICE for a decade, Ross would have followed the previous 16-week training schedule and five-week language program. 

    Ross also received specialized training after being selected for ICE’s special response team, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told AP. 

    Before becoming an ICE agent, Ross served in the Indiana National Guard and was deployed to Iraq and also worked as a Border Patrol field intelligence officer.

    Our ruling

    Warner said immigration agents “are not getting the traditional five months training. … The training for the ICE agents now is 47 days.”

    News outlets and Homeland Security officials reported cuts to the length of ICE training during Trump’s second term, reducing it from about five months to six days a week for eight weeks. That’s 48 days of training over a 56-day period. (What it has to do with Trump’s status as 47th president is outside of the scope of this fact-check.) Ross, the ICE officer who shot and killed Good, had been with the department for about 10 years.

    Two news organizations have since reported that the duration of training was further reduced to about six weeks; spokespersons from DHS and ICE did not respond to our requests for confirmation.

    In the big picture, ICE officers’ training time has been significantly shortened to a period at or near what Warner cites. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.

    RELATED: Experts question Kristi Noem calling Renee Good a ‘domestic terrorist.’ Here’s what it means 

    RELATED: Viral AI images spur false claims about ICE agent in fatal Minneapolis shooting

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump announces potential meeting with Iran amid ongoing protests

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced over the weekend that Iranian leaders have reached out to negotiate as protests challenging Iran’s theocracy continue.On Sunday, Trump told reporters that a meeting with Iran is being arranged after the country called to negotiate. “We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up. But we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called, they want to negotiate,” Trump said.Iran’s foreign minister claimed Monday the situation is now under total control following a crackdown on nationwide protests. He also alleged that the protests “turned violent and bloody to give an excuse” for Trump to intervene, though he provided no evidence for this claim.At least two major outlets reported that Trump has been presented with military options for a strike on Iran but has not made a final decision. Iran’s parliament speaker stated that the U.S. military and Israel would be “legitimate targets” if America launches a strike.The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that at least 572 people have been killed in Iran, including at least 496 protesters.Around the world, people have been rallying in support of protests in Iran. In Los Angeles, a driver of a U-Haul truck sped through an anti-Iran demonstration on Sunday. Police say one person was hit by the truck, but nobody was seriously injured. The driver of the truck has not been identified, but officials said they were being detained “pending further investigation.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    President Donald Trump announced over the weekend that Iranian leaders have reached out to negotiate as protests challenging Iran’s theocracy continue.

    On Sunday, Trump told reporters that a meeting with Iran is being arranged after the country called to negotiate.

    “We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up. But we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called, they want to negotiate,” Trump said.

    Iran’s foreign minister claimed Monday the situation is now under total control following a crackdown on nationwide protests. He also alleged that the protests “turned violent and bloody to give an excuse” for Trump to intervene, though he provided no evidence for this claim.

    At least two major outlets reported that Trump has been presented with military options for a strike on Iran but has not made a final decision. Iran’s parliament speaker stated that the U.S. military and Israel would be “legitimate targets” if America launches a strike.

    The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that at least 572 people have been killed in Iran, including at least 496 protesters.

    Around the world, people have been rallying in support of protests in Iran.

    In Los Angeles, a driver of a U-Haul truck sped through an anti-Iran demonstration on Sunday. Police say one person was hit by the truck, but nobody was seriously injured.

    The driver of the truck has not been identified, but officials said they were being detained “pending further investigation.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump ‘inclined’ to keep ExxonMobil out of Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Sunday that he is “inclined” to keep ExxonMobil out of Venezuela after its top executive was skeptical about oil investment efforts in the country after the toppling of former President Nicolás Maduro.“I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force One as he departed West Palm Beach, Florida. “They’re playing too cute.”Video above: President Trump asks oil giants for $100B to restart Venezuela’s oil industryDuring a meeting Friday with oil executives, Trump tried to assuage the concerns of the companies and said they would be dealing directly with the U.S., rather than the Venezuelan government.Some, however, weren’t convinced.“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s uninvestable,” said Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company.An ExxonMobil spokesperson did not immediately respond Sunday to a request for comment.Also on Friday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to ensure that Venezuelan oil revenue remains protected from being used in judicial proceedings.The executive order, made public on Saturday, says that if the funds were to be seized for such use, it could “undermine critical U.S. efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela.” Venezuela has a history of state asset seizures, ongoing U.S. sanctions and decades of political uncertainty.Getting U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure is a top priority of the Trump administration after Maduro’s capture.The White House is framing the effort to “run” Venezuela in economic terms, and Trump has seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, has said the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude, and plans to control sales worldwide indefinitely.Seung Min Kim reported from West Palm Beach, Florida.

    President Donald Trump said Sunday that he is “inclined” to keep ExxonMobil out of Venezuela after its top executive was skeptical about oil investment efforts in the country after the toppling of former President Nicolás Maduro.

    “I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force One as he departed West Palm Beach, Florida. “They’re playing too cute.”

    Video above: President Trump asks oil giants for $100B to restart Venezuela’s oil industry

    During a meeting Friday with oil executives, Trump tried to assuage the concerns of the companies and said they would be dealing directly with the U.S., rather than the Venezuelan government.

    Some, however, weren’t convinced.

    “If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s uninvestable,” said Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company.

    An ExxonMobil spokesperson did not immediately respond Sunday to a request for comment.

    Also on Friday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to ensure that Venezuelan oil revenue remains protected from being used in judicial proceedings.

    The executive order, made public on Saturday, says that if the funds were to be seized for such use, it could “undermine critical U.S. efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela.” Venezuela has a history of state asset seizures, ongoing U.S. sanctions and decades of political uncertainty.

    Getting U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure is a top priority of the Trump administration after Maduro’s capture.

    The White House is framing the effort to “run” Venezuela in economic terms, and Trump has seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, has said the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude, and plans to control sales worldwide indefinitely.

    Seung Min Kim reported from West Palm Beach, Florida.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: Trump can be hard to take. But his tariffs keep this fisherman afloat

    [ad_1]

    For nearly 50 years, James Blanchard has made his living in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling shrimp from the sea.

    It’s all he ever wanted to do, since he was around 12 years old and accompanied his father, a mailman and part-time shrimper, as he spent weekends trawling the marshy waters off Louisiana. Blanchard loved the adventure and splendid isolation.

    He made a good living, even as the industry collapsed around him. He and his wife, Cheri, bought a comfortable home in a tidy subdivision here in the heart of Bayou Country. They helped put three kids through college.

    But eventually Blanchard began to contemplate his forced retirement, selling his 63-foot boat and hanging up his wall of big green fishing nets once he turns 65 in February.

    “The amount of shrimp was not a problem,” said Blanchard, a fourth-generation shrimper who routinely hauls in north of 30,000 flash-frozen pounds on a two-week trip. “It’s making a profit, because the prices were so low.”

    Then came President Trump, his tariffs and famously itchy trigger finger.

    Blanchard is a lifelong Republican, but wasn’t initially a big Trump fan.

    In April, Trump slapped a 10% fee on shrimp imports, which grew to 50% for India, America’s largest overseas source of shrimp. Further levies were imposed on Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia, which are other major U.S. suppliers.

    Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

    Tariffs may slow economic growth, discombobulate markets and boost inflation. Trump’s single-handed approach to tax-and-trade policy has landed him before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on a major test case of presidential power.

    A hand holding a bag of dried shrimp.

    Blanchard snacks on a bag of dried shrimp.

    But for Blanchard, those tariffs have been a lifeline. He’s seen a significant uptick in prices, from as low as 87 cents a pound for wild-caught shrimp to $1.50 or more. That’s nowhere near the $4.50 a pound, adjusted for inflation, that U.S shrimpers earned back in the roaring 1980s, when shrimp was less common in home kitchens and something of a luxury item.

    It’s enough, however, for Blanchard to shelve his retirement plans and for that — and Trump — he’s appreciative.

    “Writing all the bills in the world is great,” he said of efforts by congressional lawmakers to prop up the country’s dwindling shrimp fishermen. “But it don’t get nothing done.”

    Trump, Blanchard said, has delivered.

    ::

    Shrimp is America’s most popular seafood, but that hasn’t buoyed the U.S. shrimp industry.

    Wild-caught domestic shrimp make up less than 10% of the market. It’s not a matter of quality, or overfishing. A flood of imports — farmed on a mass scale, lightly regulated by developing countries and thus cheaper to produce — has decimated the market for American shrimpers.

    In the Gulf and South Atlantic, warm water shrimp landings — the term the industry uses — had an average annual value of more than $460 million between 1975 and 2022, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group. (Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)

    A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

    A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

    Over the last two years, the value of the commercial shrimp fishery has fallen to $269 million in 2023 and $256 million in 2024.

    As the country’s leading shrimp producer, Louisiana has been particularly hard hit. “It’s getting to the point that we are on our knees,” Acy Cooper, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Assn., recently told New Orleans television station WVUE.

    In the 1980s, there were more than 6,000 licensed shrimpers working in Louisiana. Today, there are fewer than 1,500.

    Blanchard can see the ripple effects in Houma — in the shuttered businesses, the depleted job market and the high incidence of drug overdoses.

    Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

    Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

    “It’s affected everybody,” he said. “It’s not only the boats, the infrastructure, the packing plants. It’s the hardware stores. The fuel docks. The grocery stores.”

    Two of the Blanchards’ three children have moved away, seeking opportunity elsewhere. One daughter is a university law professor. Their son works in logistics for a trucking company in Georgia. Their other daughter, who lives near the couple, applies her advanced degree in school psychology as a stay-at-home mother of five.

    (Cheri Blanchard, 64 and retired from the state labor department, keeps the books for her husband.)

    It turns out the federal government is at least partly responsible for the shrinking of the domestic shrimp industry. In recent years, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized overseas shrimp farming to the tune of at least $195 million in development aid.

    Seated at their dining room table, near a Christmas tree and other remnants of the holidays, Blanchard read from a set of scribbled notes — a Bible close at hand — as he and his wife decried the lax safety standards, labor abuses and environmental degradation associated with overseas shrimp farming.

    James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump's policies. His personality is another thing.

    James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump’s policies. His personality is another thing.

    The fact their taxes help support those practices is particularly galling.

    “A slap in the face,” Blanchard called it.

    ::

    Donald Trump grew slowly on the Blanchards.

    The two are lifelong Republicans, but they voted for Trump in 2016 only because they considered him less bad than Hillary Clinton.

    Once he took office, they were pleasantly surprised.

    They had more money in their pockets. Inflation wasn’t an issue. Washington seemed less heavy-handed and intrusive. By the time Trump ran for reelection, the couple were fully on board and they happily voted for him again in 2024.

    Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard's kitchen.

    Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard’s kitchen.

    Still, there are things that irk Blanchard. He doesn’t much care for Trump’s brash persona and can’t stand all the childish name-calling. For a long time, he couldn’t bear listening to Trump’s speeches.

    “You didn’t ever really listen to many of Obama’s speeches,” Cheri interjected, and James allowed as how that was true.

    “I liked his personality,” Blanchard said of the former Democratic president. “I liked his character. But I didn’t like his policies.”

    It’s the opposite with Trump.

    Unlike most politicians, Blanchard said, when Trump says he’ll do something he generally follows through.

    Such as tightening border security.

    “I have no issue at all with immigrants,” he said, as his wife nodded alongside. “I have an issue with illegal immigrants.” (She echoed Trump in blaming Renee Good for her death last week at the hands of an ICE agent.)

    “I have sympathy for them as families,” Blanchard went on, but crossing the border doesn’t make someone a U.S. citizen. “If I go down the highway 70 miles an hour in that 30-mile-an-hour zone, guess what? I’m getting a ticket. … Or if I get in that car and I’m drinking, guess what? They’re bringing me to jail. So what’s the difference?”

    Between the two there isn’t much — apart from Trump’s “trolling,” as Cheri called it — they find fault with.

    Blanchard hailed the lightning-strike capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as another example of Trump doing and meaning exactly what he says.

    “When Biden was in office, they had a $25-million bounty on [Maduro’s] head,” Blanchard said. “But apparently it was done knowing that it was never going to be enforced.”

    More empty talk, he suggested.

    Just like all those years of unfulfilled promises from politicians vowing to rein in foreign competition and revive America’s suffering shrimping industry.

    James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

    James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

    Trump and his tariffs have given Blanchard back his livelihood and for that alone he’s grateful.

    There’s maintenance and repair work to be done on his boat — named Waymaker, to honor the Lord — before Blanchard musters his two-man crew and sets out from Bayou Little Caillou.

    He can hardly wait.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Washington National Opera is leaving the Kennedy Center in wake of Trump upset

    [ad_1]

    In what might be the most decisive critique yet of President Trump’s remake of the Kennedy Center, the Washington National Opera’s board approved a resolution on Friday to leave the venue it has occupied since 1971.

    “Today, the Washington National Opera announced its decision to seek an amicable early termination of its affiliation agreement with the Kennedy Center and resume operations as a fully independent nonprofit entity,” the company said in a statement to the Associated Press.

    Roma Daravi, Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, described the relationship with Washington National Opera as “financially challenging.”

    “After careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to part ways with the WNO due to a financially challenging relationship,” Daravi said in a statement. “We believe this represents the best path forward for both organizations and enables us to make responsible choices that support the financial stability and long-term future of the Trump Kennedy Center.”

    Kennedy Center President Ambassador Richard Grenell tweeted that the call was made by the Kennedy Center, writing that its leadership had “approached the Opera leadership last year with this idea and they began to be open to it.”

    “Having an exclusive relationship has been extremely expensive and limiting in choice and variety,” Grenell wrote. “We have spent millions of dollars to support the Washington Opera’s exclusivity and yet they were still millions of dollars in the hole – and getting worse.”

    WNO’s decision to vacate the Kennedy Center’s 2,364-seat Opera House comes amid a wave of artist cancellations that came after the venue’s board voted to rename the center the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. New signage featuring Trump’s name went up on the building’s exterior just days after the vote while debate raged over whether an official name change could be made without congressional approval.

    That same day, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) — an ex officio member of the board — wrote on social media that the vote was not unanimous and that she and others who might have voiced their dissent were muted on the call.

    Grenell countered that ex officio members don’t get a vote.

    Cancellations soon began to mount — as did Kennedy Center‘s rebukes against the artists who chose not to appear. Jazz drummer Chuck Redd pulled out of his annual Christmas Eve concert; jazz supergroup the Cookers nixed New Year’s Eve shows; New York-based Doug Varone and Dancers dropped out of April performances; and Grammy Award-winning banjo player Béla Fleck wrote on social media that he would no longer play at the venue in February.

    WNO’s departure, however, represents a new level of artist defection. The company’s name is synonymous with the Kennedy Center and it has served as an artistic center of gravity for the complex since the building first opened.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Gelt

    Source link

  • Can Cannabis Make 2026 the Best Year Yet

    [ad_1]

    Discover how cannabis make 2026 the best year yet for wellness, balance, fitness, sleep, and mindful living.

    As 2026 unfolds, cannabis is rapidly moving from fringe to frontline in health, wellness, and even mainstream culture. With shifting public opinion, expanding research, and potential federal policy changes looming, many are asking: Can cannabis make 2026 the best year yet? The green plant delivers on its promise — for medicine, lifestyle, and society at large.

    One major reason for optimism is the growing possibility of federal rescheduling. Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act would mark a historic shift. While not full legalization, rescheduling would acknowledge medical value, expand research opportunities, and reduce barriers for doctors, scientists, and legitimate businesses. Even the discussion itself signals how far public policy has evolved, and 2026 could be the year the progress becomes official.

    RELATED: Sara Carter Bailey Approved For New Drug Czar

    The progress is already visible in medicine. Across the country, healthcare providers are increasingly open to cannabis as a complementary therapy. Medical cannabis is now commonly discussed in the context of chronic pain, cancer-related symptoms, neurological conditions, and inflammatory disorders. Patients report benefits for pain management, appetite stimulation during cancer treatment, and relief from nausea and muscle spasms. Importantly, many doctors view cannabis as a potential alternative or adjunct to opioids and other medications with more severe side effects, especially when used thoughtfully and under medical guidance.

    Mental health is another area where cannabis plays a growing role, particularly for younger adults. Anxiety rates among Gen Z have risen sharply, driven by economic stress, social media pressure, and a nonstop digital environment. Rather than heavy intoxication, many in this generation are turning to microdosing cannabis. Low doses of THC or balanced THC-CBD products are used to take the edge off anxiety without impairing focus or motivation. This measured approach reflects a broader trend toward intentional, mindful consumption rather than excess.

    Sleep, often called the foundation of good health, is another reason cannabis is gaining attention. Many adults struggle with insomnia or restless sleep, and cannabis, particularly products with calming terpenes or higher CBD content, is increasingly used as part of nighttime routines. Better sleep can ripple outward, improving mood, productivity, and overall resilience. Similarly, cannabis is being discussed more openly in the context of intimacy, where it may help some people relax, enhance sensory awareness, and reduce anxiety around connection and performance.

    RELATED: The Return of Nostalgic Snacks

    Perhaps most surprising to skeptics is cannabis’s role in healthier lifestyle changes. As more people reassess their relationship with alcohol, cannabis has emerged as a substitute rather than an addition. Many report drinking less when cannabis is available, leading to fewer hangovers, better sleep, and improved workouts. Certain strains and products are also used before exercise to increase focus, enjoyment, and mind-body awareness. Combined with reduced alcohol intake, these shifts may support weight management and more consistent fitness habits.

    Cannabis is not a cure-all, and responsible use matters. But as policy evolves, research expands, and social attitudes mature, cannabis is increasingly seen as a tool rather than a taboo. For millions of Americans, 2026 may be the year cannabis moves fully into the mainstream of health, balance, and intentional living, helping make it one of the best years yet.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Johns

    Source link

  • First Week of 2026 Sets High Stakes for Cannabis

    [ad_1]

    The first week of 2026 sets high stakes for cannabis as Congress, the White House, and regulators clash. 

    Congress is back in session and the first week of 2026 sets high stakes for cannabis. DC has delivered a series of consequential developments for the industry, highlighting growing momentum for reform alongside persistent resistance in Washington which could shape the sector’s trajectory throughout 2026. On Capitol Hill, the U.S. House of Representatives moved quickly to pass an appropriations measure to continue long-standing protections for state medical marijuana programs. The bill maintains language barring the Department of Justice from interfering with state-legal medical cannabis systems, a provision which has been renewed annually for nearly a decade. Notably, the House rejected an effort to include language that would have blocked the federal government from rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.

    RELATED: Sara Carter Bailey Approved For New Drug Czar

    The House vote was seen as a significant signal to the cannabis industry, which has closely watched congressional maneuvering over federal reform. By allowing the spending bill to advance without restrictions on rescheduling, lawmakers effectively cleared one procedural obstacle to a change that could have sweeping financial and regulatory consequences for cannabis businesses nationwide. The measure now heads to the Senate, where similar provisions have historically received bipartisan support.

    These legislative developments come as the executive branch continues to press forward with plans to reschedule marijuana. In late December, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, a classification which would formally recognize its medical use and significantly reduce the tax burden on state-legal cannabis operators by easing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E restrictions.

    Despite the executive order, progress has been uneven. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has publicly expressed opposition to rescheduling, raising concerns about public health and warning against moving too quickly on cannabis reform. His resistance reflects broader divisions within Congress, particularly among conservative lawmakers who remain skeptical of federal marijuana policy changes even as public support for legalization continues to grow.

    Adding to the uncertainty, the Drug Enforcement Administration has indicated it will follow standard administrative procedures before implementing any rescheduling decision. While the White House has called for expedited action, industry observers say the DEA’s internal review process could slow the timeline, potentially pushing final implementation well into the year.

    RELATED: Greenland And Cannabis

    Beyond marijuana itself, federal attention has also turned to hemp and hemp-derived products. Regulatory scrutiny of intoxicating hemp compounds, including delta-8 and similar cannabinoids, remains intense as lawmakers and federal agencies debate tighter limits on THC content and clearer enforcement standards. While recent executive actions did not directly alter existing hemp law, companies across the sector are preparing for potential changes later this year potentially reshaping the rapidly growing hemp marketplace.

    Taken together, the opening days of 2026 underscore a cannabis industry navigating a complex policy environment. Congressional support for medical marijuana protections, executive pressure to advance rescheduling, leadership opposition in the House, and unresolved questions around hemp regulation have combined to create a moment of high stakes and mixed signals. How these forces resolve in the coming months will have lasting implications for patients, consumers, investors, and businesses across the United States.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Sweeping new legislation targets employers who hire undocumented immigrants

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Photo by Mauricio Murillo

    Florida businesses that purposely ignore whether employees are legally in the United States could face hefty fines or even criminal charges if they hire more than 50 undocumented immigrants, according to a sweeping new immigration package.

    Filed Wednesday by Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin, the 34-page bill would presume certain non-citizens are at fault in car accidents, severely restrict their employment, and prevent state banks from loaning them money.

    It’s the most wide-ranging immigration bundle proposed so far ahead of the 2026 session, and would extend a 2025 crackdown that removed in-state tuition for undocumented students, imposed state-level penalties for illegally entering Florida, and required all counties to partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The nationwide push to quash all avenues for undocumented immigration has been exemplified in Florida, the first state to create a state-run migrant detention center. Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration last January, Sunshine State officials have mirrored his anti-illegal immigration agenda.

    This includes deputizing hundreds of state and local officials to act as immigration officers; Florida is the only state to have all of its (67) counties entering into 287(g) agreements, which are partnerships with ICE.

    Martin didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    E-Verify penalties

    SB 1380 would create civil penalties for employers who fail to properly use E-Verify, a federal database that checks whether new hires are legally authorized to work in the country. This builds off of another Martin bill, which would require all businesses to use E-Verify.

    Employers who fail to check workers’ immigration status through E-Verify before submitting workers’ compensation claims would be personally liable for any costs, expenses, or benefits for undocumented employees.

    Purposely not checking their status, however, would result in suspension of business licenses for one year and fines up to $10,000. Doing it again would result in a five-year license suspension alongside a $100,000 fine, and a third violation would mean permanent license revocation and a $250,000 fine.

    If the employer purposely flouts this section and the undocumented worker then ends up injuring another person, the employer’s license would be suspended for five years with a $100,000 fine. If the worker kills another person, the licenses would be permanently revoked with a $500,000 fine.

    In a similar vein, the bill would impose a third-degree felony charge for an employer who knowingly hires more than 50 undocumented workers. The business would permanently lose its license. The bill would create a cause of action against the employer for any person injured or the next of kin of a person killed by the actions of an undocumented worker.

    These provisions evoke a recently closed, two-year federal investigation into Archer Western, a road-building company hired by the state that employed undocumented immigrants for years, as the Tampa Bay Times has reported.

    Officials opened the investigation after an undocumented Archer Western employee driving heavy machinery in 2022 hit and killed a Pinellas County deputy. At least 18 of his coworkers on that state-funded construction site were also undocumented.

    Car accidents, foreign remittances, and licensing

    SB 1380 would create a rebuttable presumption of fault in car accidents involving undocumented immigrants from other states. This means if an out-of-state driver who is undocumented is involved in a car accident in Florida, authorities could presume he or she was at fault — as long as the other motorist wasn’t driving recklessly, under the influence, or clearly at fault.

    Insurers could not pay benefits or settle claims with an unauthorized out-of-state driver, the bill says.

    Additionally, the bill requires law enforcement officers investigating car accidents to verify whether the parties are legally in the country.

    Other provisions would ban the state Division of Risk Management from approving a claim submitted by an adult undocumented immigrant. Unauthorized immigrants would be barred from sending money to other countries and state banks could not accept IDs traditionally used by undocumented immigrants or those illegally in the state with down payments or loans.

    All licensing procedures, relicensing instruction, and licensing testing must be conducted in English, the bill says. Interpreters, translators, or alternate language accommodations would be banned.

    The 2026 session begins on Jan. 13.



    [ad_2]

    Liv Caputo, Florida Phoenix
    Source link
  • Philly officials tell ICE to ‘get out’ of city after fatal shooting in Minneapolis

    [ad_1]

    Philly officials told ICE to ‘get out’ of the city following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. District Attorney Larry Krasner condemned the federal immigration agency ahead of a Thursday evening vigil.

    [ad_2]

    Kristin Hunt

    Source link

  • Sara Carter Bailey Approved For New Drug Czar

    [ad_1]

    Sara Carter Bailey approved for new drug czar as cannabis rescheduling debates grow amid strong public support and political resistance.

    The U.S. cannabis industry stands at an inflection point as federal policy debates over rescheduling marijuana intensify. After decades of cannabis being listed as a Schedule I controlled substance — the federal designation reserved for drugs deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse — recent actions by the executive branch have signaled a willingness to reconsider the status. In 2025, the current president  signed an executive order aimed at expediting the rescheduling of cannabis, potentially from Schedule I to Schedule III, a move acknowledging its medical use and ease research and regulatory burdens which have long hampered the industry. This shift has been buoyed by strong public support: polls consistently show a majority of Americans favor federal cannabis reform, even as some political leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have expressed resistance to broader legalization efforts. Federal rescheduling has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about drug policy and states’ rights. And to add something to the mix, Sara Carter Bailey approved for new drug czar, adding another  level of unknown.

    RELATED: 5 Ways Microdosing Cannabis Can Boost Work Performance

    The U.S. Senate confirmed Bailey on 6 January 2026, as the new Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), often referred to as the federal “drug czar,” in a 52–48 vote. Her appointment comes at a consequential juncture for national drug policy, including cannabis reform. Bailey’s confirmation marks the first time a woman has led the ONDCP, placing her at the center of efforts to shape how the federal government approaches both illicit substances and regulated medical drugs.

    Bailey’s background is unconventional for the post. She built her career as an investigative journalist, covering drug trafficking, national security, and cartel operations, including time as a contributor to national news outlets. She has never before held public office, nor does she have formal training in public health, law enforcement, or drug policy — a point which drew scrutiny from some senators during her confirmation process. Critics questioned her qualifications, while supporters highlighted her on-the-ground reporting experience and understanding of the complex landscape of illegal narcotics.

    On issues directly affecting the cannabis industry, Bailey has left a mix of signals. During her confirmation hearing, she described cannabis rescheduling as a “bipartisan issue” and emphasized federal policy should be informed by “research and data” as the administration evaluates next steps. She also acknowledged past public comments supporting medical cannabis, saying she does not “have any problem if it’s legalized and monitored,” particularly for therapeutic use. However, as the incoming head of ONDCP, she has stopped short of advocating specific policy changes, noting her role requires compliance with existing federal law and collaboration with interagency partners.

    RELATED: There’s No Known Cure For Arthritis, But Marijuana Works Wonders

    Industry observers and advocates will be watching closely to see how Bailey’s tenure influences the cannabis sector. Rescheduling to Schedule III could remove significant legal and financial obstacles for medical cannabis businesses, including access to banking services and federal research opportunities. As ONDCP director, Bailey can play a key role in advising the president and shaping the interagency strategy on drug scheduling, public health education, and enforcement — all of which could either accelerate or complicate the pace of federal cannabis reform. Her path forward will require balancing statutory responsibilities with the growing momentum for change among lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and the public.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Bondi’s Minnesota probe timeline omits pre-Trump history

    [ad_1]

    After a recent viral video claimed Somali-run daycares in Minnesota were committing fraud, Trump officials quickly pointed to ongoing prosecutions over such allegations, and credited the administration.

    Responding to the video from conservative influencer Nick Shirley, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in late December that the Justice Department “has been investigating this for months. So far, we have charged 98 individuals — 85 of Somali descent — and more than 60 have been found guilty in court.”

    In the Dec. 29 thread, Bondi praised the work of Trump administration appointees like Daniel Rosen, who was sworn in as the U.S. attorney in Minnesota in October. She said other agency leads “continue unraveling this scheme.”

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has recently mentioned a similar number of fraud prosecutions in the state, while President Donald Trump has framed the case as “a new thing in Minnesota with the Somalians.”

    But this isn’t new. The initial investigation dates back years, not months, and the bulk of the resulting charges were brought before Trump took office.

    The administration’s narrative distorts that timeline, and misleads on some of the facts.

    Trump and administration officials have ramped up rhetoric about fraud in the blue state of Minnesota since November, following a report from a conservative activist that said Somalis stole the money to use it for terrorism. The years-old claim lacks evidence.

    The majority of the defendants in these fraud scandals are Somalis. Trump has cited the fraud schemes to support his immigration enforcement agenda, even though most Minnesota Somalis are U.S. citizens. 

    Amid this drumbeat, Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee who has faced criticism over massive fraud that happened on his watch, announced Jan. 5 that he will not seek a third term.

    FBI launched investigation in 2021 leading to dozens of charges in 2022

    Feeding Our Future was a Minnesota nonprofit that received federal funding to provide meals to low-income children. 

    The FBI started investigating the program in May 2021, according to a state legislative auditor report.

    In September 2022, federal prosecutors announced charges against 47 people, saying they stole $250 million in federal money and spent it on international vacations, real estate, jewelry and luxury cars. 

    They charged more people in 2023 and 2024. In June 2024, five people were indicted in a related juror bribery scheme. Before Biden left office, Andrew Luger, his U.S. attorney in Minnesota, said 70 people had been charged in the Feeding Our Future case. 

    The case continued under Trump. Federal prosecutors charged eight defendants in 2025, bringing the total to 78. 

    Other fraud cases followed

    The Trump administration has brought charges against people in additional schemes tied to the earlier investigation.

    Prosecutors during Trump’s current term charged 13 defendants for misusing Medicaid money to help people with disabilities, mental illnesses and substance use disorders secure housing. They also charged two defendants in a program to provide services for people with autism spectrum disorder. 

    “What we see are schemes stacked upon schemes, draining resources meant for those in need,” acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson said

    At a news conference announcing initial charges in the housing cases, Thompson said that most of the health care fraud investigations grew from the Feeding Our Future investigations. “We just went down that rabbit hole of looking at bank records and looking to these individual companies,” he said.

    Thompson also referenced the Feeding Our Future and housing charges when he later spoke about the autism investigation.

    “This is not an isolated scheme,” Thompson said. “Each case we bring exposes another strand of this network.”

    Fact-checking DOJ’s evidence

    We asked the Justice Department why Bondi said the agency has been investigating for “months” when the majority of charges stem from an investigation that launched before Trump’s second term began.

    A DOJ spokesperson said that a charge is only the beginning of the prosecution and that more people have pleaded guilty during the Trump administration than the Biden administration. As of October 2024, 23 had pleaded guilty.

    Bondi noted developments during her tenure, writing on X, “In August, we successfully secured the conviction of the Feeding Our Future scheme leader, Abdiaziz Shafii Farah.” Farah was convicted at trial in 2024; he was sentenced in August. 

    In massive fraud investigations, much of law enforcement’s heavy lifting happens before charges are filed as authorities obtain and vet hundreds of thousands of pages of records.

    “The investigative part is the most time consuming and sometimes extremely time consuming,” said Joel DeFabio, a South Florida criminal defense attorney who has represented fraud clients.

    Bondi said that more than 60 had been found guilty in court, including 57 convicted in Feeding Our Future.

    It’s typical for most federal charges to lead to convictions, usually as a result of plea deals because defendants want to reduce prison sentences. Their cooperation can lead to charges against additional defendants.

    “There is a saying in federal court: those who cooperated and those who wish they cooperated,” DeFabio said. “You get highly rewarded at sentencing if you cooperated.”

    Most of the Feeding Our Future defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted; some went to trial in 2024 and 2025.

    Our ruling

    Bondi said the Justice Department has been investigating fraud in Minnesota “for months. So far, we have charged 98 individuals.”

    Bondi omits context about when the bulk of the charges happened.

    Law enforcement and prosecutors in Minnesota have investigated this major fraud for years, starting in 2021. By mid-January 2025, before Trump took office, 70 had been charged in the Feeding Our Future case in addition to five for the related juror bribery scheme. That means about 75% of defendants charged so far predated Trump.

    The Trump administration prosecutors have continued the investigation. Late in 2025, the number of Feeding Our Future defendants grew to 78, and prosecutors charged 15 in other related schemes.

    We rate this statement Half True.

    PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check.

    RELATED: Tim Walz says he takes responsibility for jailing MN fraudsters. He’s wrong; the feds jailed them

    [ad_2]

    Source link