Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

@alexvhenderson

Alex Henderson

New Court Filing 'Obviously Written By Trump' Cites Shooting To Boost Ballroom

Early Saturday evening, during Memorial Day Weekend on May 23, Secret Service agents exchanged fire with a gunman who was approaching a White House security checkpoint in Washington, DC. The gunman was killed, and President Donald Trump is responding to the incident by arguing that it makes a case for his White House ballroom. And Trump's legal team makes that argument in a court filing posted online the day after the incident.

Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein posted the six-page legal document on X, formerly Twitter, noting how decidedly Trumpian the language in the filing is.

Gerstein tweeted, "JUST IN: Another court filing obviously written by Trump, seeks to leverage shooting Saturday to end litigation over WH ballroom project. Calls latest episode 'assassination attempt.' Cites news reports, but no other proof/legal cases. Ends w/a '!"

The filing in National Trust For Historic Preservation, Plaintiff, v. National Park Service, as Gerstein points out, is full of Trump Administration talking points.

"On Saturday night, May 23rd," the document reads, "a shooter once again sought to murder the President, his family, and his staff at the historic White House complex. We submit this urgent filing to update the Court on a second attempted assassination on the President within a single month. Last night, shortly after 6:00 p.m., an armed assassin approached a White House security checkpoint near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, professionally pulled a high caliber gun from a bag, and opened fire in the exact direction of the White House. Brave Secret Service officers returned fire. The gunman was killed and an innocent bystander was seriously wounded in the shooting."

Many of Trump's critics are attacking the proposed ballroom as a vanity project that will cost taxpayers a fortune. But the court filing claims that the ballroom is necessary from a national security standpoint.

"This second attack on the President this month underscores the critical need for top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the Ballroom, a knitted, unified, cohesive part of the East Wing Project, which is vital for National Security, and is being constructed to ensure that the President can perform his constitutional duties in a safe and heavily secured facility," the filing states.

"This court's unlawful injunction has wrongfully cast a cloud of uncertainty around the future of the entire East Wing Project, which is being constructed for the physical safety and security of all Presidents, their families, staff, Foreign Dignitaries, and guests. When completed, this highly knitted, integrated, and unified Project, which is a singular and vital National Security facility, will provide a 'SAFE HAVEN' from attackers such as the one last night, and on April 25th. It will provide a highly secure space for future Inaugurations, and other major events, such as the recent visit of the King and Queen of the United Kingdom, and the coming visit in September of President Xi of China."

The document also states that the "under construction East Wing Project, which is on time and under budget, includes state of the art security features to repel all attacks against the President, his family, his staff, and esteemed visitors."

"These include a heavy steel, drone proof roof, missile resistant and drone proof columns, bullet, ballistic, and blast proof glass, Military grade venting for air conditioning and heating, and much more," the Trump Administration writes. "Together, the entire Facility, which includes bomb shelters, a state of the art hospital and medical facilities, Top Secret military installations, structures, and equipment, protective partitioning, and other features, is a single integrated, complex unit that is vital for the National Security of the United States."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

'Critical Deadline': More Republicans Breaking Ranks Over Trump's Unpopular War

Today marks "a critical deadline" for President Donald Trump and his war with Iran, as The Hill reports that he is running out of time to resolve the conflict while more and more Republicans break ranks and threaten to back measures to force the fighting to stop.

As the deadline loomed, the outlet on Friday morning reported that the milestone now "stands to complicate things" with lawmakers, including a growing number of Republicans, who have "voiced concerns" about the war continuing. Per the War Powers Act, the president requires authorization from Congress for a military conflict after it reaches the 60-day mark, which it will do on May 2, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed, dubiously, that the ongoing ceasefire paused the clock on that count.

"And such concerns already played out ahead of the deadline, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on Thursday breaking rank to vote in favor of a war powers resolution to halt military actions against Iran, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)," The Hill reported. "The resolution however, was ultimately defeated for the sixth time by Senate Republicans. Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) had previously indicated that the 60-day deadline would be a sticking point for him did not break with the GOP in the latest vote."

The White House has insisted that talks with Iran are continuing to progress, but The Hill noted that negotiations are "effectively stalled" as Trump digs in on his decision to blockade Iranian ports in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A statement from the administration also warned lawmakers against trying "to score political points by usurping the Commander-in-Chief’s authority" via a war powers vote, despite Congress having the explicit authority to do so.

"The War Powers Act intends to limit a president’s ability to conduct and continue military action without congressional approval," the outlet added. "Should the hostilities continue past Friday, however, it could prove to be another example of how the president takes another opportunity to bypass the legislative branch’s powers."In keeping with Trump's own assertions about the war, House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that a war powers vote was not needed because, he claimed, the U.S. is not actually at war with Iran.

John Ullyot, a former spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee and National Security Council spokesman during Trump’s first term, suggested that historical precedent is not on Congress's side, despite the letter of the law.

"Almost every President who has used force over the last 45 years has ignored the 60-day deadline, so it’s hard for Congress to make a case to enforce it this time around,” Ullyot told The Hill. "If Congress were serious about having a voice on hostilities, it would either change the law, or get serious about its oversight responsibilities and withhold funding when the executive doesn’t cooperate. Neither of those will happen, especially whenever Congress is run by the same party that holds the White House."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Justice Thomas Delivers 'Historically Illiterate' Speech Berating Progressives

When Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement in 1991 and President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, he wanted the seat to be held by another Black justice. Marshall was an historic figure: Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967, he was the first Black justice in the High Court's history.

But Thomas, now 77, was a major departure from Marshall in terms of judicial philosophy. While Marshall (who passed away in 1993) was decidedly liberal, Thomas is a far-right social conservative. And over the years, he had strong disagreements with not only the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but also, with retired libertarian/conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Thomas looked back on U.S. history during a speech on Wednesday night, April 15, at the University of Texas-Austin Law School, arguing that progressive politics are incompatible with the Declaration of Independence. But The New Republic's Matt Ford, in an article published on April 17, argues that Thomas got history wrong in multiple ways.

Thomas told attendees, "As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th Century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism. Since Wilson's presidency, progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever."

But according to Ford, Thomas' take on U.S. history is wildly inaccurate.

"Thomas is correct that progressivism was introduced around the turn of the 20th Century, that Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president, and that Wilson was a progressive," Ford explains. "The historical accuracy ends there. Presenting Wilson as the inventor of progressivism is historically illiterate, akin to saying that Joseph Stalin invented communism or that Ronald Reagan invented conservatism. In reality, the progressive era emerged in the 1890s from the corruption and excesses of the Gilded Age."

Ford continues, "A broad range of activists, journalists, legislators, and judges challenged the societal ills that had emerged from the nation's rapid industrialization…. I'm sure that Wilson would have liked to claim credit for inventing the progressive movement, but he was one figure in a much larger social and political ecosystem. Republicans and Democrats alike both supported the movement and its reforms, and the first president to embrace it was actually Theodore Roosevelt."

Ford argues that for Thomas, it is "rhetorically advantageous to make" Wilson "the standard-bearer of progressivism" because he "was perhaps the most racist person to hold the presidency between Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump."

"It allows certain conservative intellectuals to adopt the guise of anti-racism while simultaneously opposing the civil rights laws passed decades after Wilson died," Ford notes. "I bring all of this up not to defend Wilson himself, but to point out the importance of getting history correct."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

'Wow Moment' As Wisconsin And Georgia Special Elections Shock Republicans

On Tuesday night, April 7, the top news story was U.S. President Donald Trump agreeing to a two-week ceasefire with Iran after having threatened that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if the regime in Tehran didn't agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The ceasefire, in the United States, overshadowed another news story: elections in Georgia and Wisconsin. And like previous 2026 elections, the result gave Democrats more reason for optimism ahead of the midterms.

Liberal Judge Chris Taylor won a state supreme court race in Wisconsin, defeating GOP-backed Judge Maria S. Lazar by roughly 20 percent. Although the race was technically nonpartisan, Taylor was backed by Democrats and enjoyed a landslide victory.

In a Georgia special election for the U.S. House of Representatives seat once held by former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Trump-endorsed Republican Clay Fuller won by 15 percent. That district is so deep red, however, that Democrat Shawn Harris' 15 percent was an improvement for his party there.

Politico's Andrew Howard stressed that April 7 was a great night for Democrats. On X, Howard posted, "New: Democrats just had one of their best election nights since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. Again. On Wisconsin and Georgia."

Former GOP strategist Brandon Scholz, who left the Republican Party in 2021, told Politico, "It's a wow moment in Wisconsin politics. Republicans ought to be sitting down tonight and going, 'OK, we just screwed up another race. What are we going to do in November?'"

A current GOP strategist, interviewed by Politico on condition of anonymity, said of Lazar's 20 percent loss and the Wisconsin GOP, "Everyone involved should be doxxed, tarred and feathered and run out of Wisconsin politics. The electorate is so different now. GOP voters don't show up for spring (elections) like they used to."

CJ Warnke of the House Majority PAC — a Democratic super-PAC associated with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) — told Politico, "Election after election continues to show what we have been saying over the last year and a half. Americans are fed up with broken promises on no new wars and lower prices on Day 1 from Trump and Republicans."

In a listicle published on April 8, the New York Times' Reid J. Epstein offers three takeaways on the Tuesday-night election results: (1) "a big shift in Georgia," (2) "Democrats romp again in a Wisconsin (Supreme) Court election," and (3) "a blue wave lands in crucial Waukesha County," Wisconsin."

Wisconsin is among the swing states that Trump lost in 2020 but won in 2016 and 2024. And Epstein emphasizes that April 7 was a very bad night for Republicans in that key swing state.

"Judge Taylor's 20-point triumph reshaped Wisconsin's election night map," Epstein explains. "All across the state, counties that had voted for Mr. Trump by wide margins turned blue on Tuesday. Perhaps most worrisome for Republicans was the erosion of their votes in Waukesha County, for generations the party's largest source of votes and a place where, as recently as 2012, Mitt Romney won 67 percent of the vote…. Democrats have been organizing in the county for years, hoping to flip some key seats in the (Wisconsin) State Legislature there this fall in their effort to win control of the State Assembly and Senate for the first time since 2010. And in the mayoral race in the City of Waukesha, Alicia Halvensleben, a Democrat on the city's Common Council, defeated State Representative Scott Allen, a Republican, giving Democrats a triumph in the longtime GOP stronghold."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

'Draft Lindsey Graham!' MAGA War Opponents Troll America's Loudest Hawk

Conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is not only a supporter of President Donald Trump's war against Iran — he also favors an expansion of U.S. troops in that conflict. But he is getting some pushback from other parts of the right.

In Montana, Tom Jandron, a Libertarian candidate running for the U.S. Senate, proposes subjecting the 70-year-old Graham to the military draft. Jandron, in a March 25 post on X, formerly Twitter, wrote, "I'm running for US Senate. If elected, the first bill I introduce will draft Lindsey Graham into any conflict he publicly supports while in office."

Republican opponents of the Iran war are speaking out against Graham as well.

On X, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), tweeted, "Washington's war machine is hard at work. They are try to drag us into Iran to make it another Iraq. We can't let them."

The Hill's Sarah Fortinsky, in an article published on March 30, reports, "Graham, a longtime war hawk and close Trump ally, has drawn sharp criticism in recent weeks from fellow Republicans for urging the administration to ramp up military pressure on Iran and send more troops overseas…. Earlier this month, in an interview on Fox News' 'Hannity,' Graham floated sending more troops overseas as he urged U.S. allies in the Middle East to step up support."

Graham's "longstanding support for overthrowing the Iranian regime," according to Fortinsky, has "fueled backlash among an anti-interventionist wing of the GOP that is wary of a widening conflict and the scope of Graham's influence over Trump Administration policy."

On social media, GOP activist Meghan McCain — the late Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) daughter — said of Graham, "Nothing like a single, childless, septuagenarian telling American mothers to send their children to go possibly die in a war."

On X, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) posted, "There are some in the Senate that advocate for war everywhere. Lindsey Graham is one of them. He does NOT tell the President what to do, nor does he control Congress. I have spoken with the administration a number of times, as well as other members of Congress over the last week or so, and nothing has changed regarding boots on the ground."

Luna also wrote that there should be "NO BOOTS on the ground" in Iran and that if Graham "wants to go fight in a foreign conflict, let him be the first to volunteer."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Why Trump Viciously Celebrated The Death Of Robert Mueller, American Patriot

On Friday night, March 20, Robert Mueller -- a former Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel, ex-FBI director and former deputy U.S. attorney general —passed away at 81 after a long struggle with Parkinson's disease. President Donald Trump was quick to celebrate Mueller's death, posting, on his Truth Social platform, "Good, I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people. President DONALD J. TRUMP."

Mueller was a conservative Republican and decorated Marine veteran, appointed deputy U.S. attorney general by President George H.W. Bush and FBI director by President George W. Bush (although Democratic President Barack Obama kept him as FBI director throughout his first term and into his second). But Trump resented Mueller bitterly because of his work as DOJ special counsel for the investigation of Russian interference in the United States' 2016 presidential election.

Mediaite's Colby Hall looks back on the Mueller Report in an article published on March 23, arguing that its findings still serve as a warning about Trump.

"Start with what Mueller actually established," Hall writes. "Russia carried out a coordinated intelligence operation to influence the 2016 election. Russian military intelligence hacked Democratic e-mails and released them through WikiLeaks in strategically timed waves…. The Trump campaign did not simply exist alongside that effort. It engaged with it in ways that are difficult to dismiss…. None of this resulted in a charged criminal conspiracy."

Hall continues, "Mueller concluded the evidence did not meet that threshold. That finding became the foundation for the claim that the entire investigation was a hoax. But that claim only works if you collapse a legal judgment into a factual one — and if you ignore the sustained effort to make that collapse feel inevitable."After DOJ released the Mueller Report, Hall notes, Trump repeatedly used the phrase "no collusion" — which "does not describe the investigation Mueller conducted."

"The reaction to his death shows how complete that transformation has been," Hall explains. "A lifetime of public service is reduced to a punchline. A documented foreign intelligence operation is recast as a partisan invention. The facts are more stubborn than that."

Hall adds, "Russia interfered. The Trump campaign was not a passive bystander. And calling the investigation a hoax requires ignoring not just Mueller's findings, but those of the Republican-led Senate committee that confirmed them — and then watched quietly as they were erased."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Greene Stokes MAGA's 'America First' Outrage Over Trump's Iran Strikes

When former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) announced that she was resigning from Congress, she wasn't shy about expressing her disappointment with President Donald Trump — who, in her view, has betrayed his America First agenda with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy. Now, the MAGA Republican and former Trump ally is vehemently criticizing Trump's military strikes against Iran. And she isn't the only person in the MAGA movement who wants Trump to stay out of that country.

Washington Post reporters Emily Davies and Hannah Knowles, in an article published on March 1, explain, "President Donald Trump's major attack on Iran has rattled parts of the coalition that twice delivered him the White House, a fracture that could spell trouble for a divided GOP as the midterm elections approach. The strikes, which killed Iran's supreme leader, followed a visible buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East. But Trump's decision to carry them out nonetheless surprised some of his supporters, who had expected the self-described anti-interventionist president to stop short of a direct attack."

Greene attacked Trump's Iran policy in a lengthy March 1 rant on X, formerly Twitter.

The far-right congresswomen tweeted, "We said 'No More Foreign Wars, No More Regime Change!' We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech. Trump, Vance, basically the entire admin campaigned on it and promised to put America FIRST and Make America Great Again. My generation has been let down, abused, and used by our government our entire adult lives and our children's generation is literally being abandoned. Thousands and thousands of Americans from my generation have been killed and injured in never ending pointless foreign wars and we said no more. But we are freeing the Iranian people. Please."

Greene continued, "There are 93 million people in Iran, let them liberate themselves. But Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Yeah sure. We have been spoon fed that line for decades and Trump told us all that his bombing this past summer completely wiped it all out. It’s always a lie and it’s always America Last. But it feels like the worst betrayal this time because it comes from the very man and the admin who we all believed was different and said no more."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is praising Trump's Iran operation. But MAGA Republican Blake Neff, known for producing The Charlie Kirk Show, expressed strong reservations about the Iran strikes.

In a February 28 post on X, Neff wrote, "Charlie was opposed to a regime-change war with Iran, as was I. Wars by their nature are expensive and unpredictable. They endanger American lives and can last far, far longer than anyone anticipates. Nevertheless, President Trump has elected for regime change in Iran. As an American patriot I must hope for the best. Trump's instinct is to avoid prolonged fighting and boots on the ground. We must simply trust that he has a strategy that will prevent both."

Neff continued, "Right now some of my right-leaning friends are messaging me: 'F*** this.' 'This is extremely depressing.' 'Never voting in a national election again'…. If this war is a swift, easy, and decisive victory, most of them will get over it. But if the war is anything else, there will be a lot of anger."

Davies and Knowles note, however, that so far, "MAGA allies long skeptical of foreign intervention" have "largely stuck by the president."

"Trump officials cast the strikes on Iran last summer as a limited intervention meant to take out a nuclear threat — and pushback within his coalition faded as the conflict ended without morphing into a broader war," the Post reporters observe. "But each conflict has threatened more entanglement abroad than the last, testing the movement's tolerance.

Natalie Winters, a co-host for Steve Bannon's War Room podcast, believes that Trump needs to do a better job explaining the Iran strikes to his MAGA base.

Winters told the Post, "The messaging, much like the Epstein files, is all over the place. I would think they would know their base better. Some of his donors are probably happy so congratulations to them."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Massive Backlash Surging Against MAGA's 'Hard-Edged Right-Wing Culture'

President Donald Trump drew widespread criticism after forwarding, on his Truth Social platform, an overtly racist, AI-generated video depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. Much of the criticism came from a combination of liberals, progressives, centrist Democrats and right-wing Never Trump conservatives, yet there was some outcry in MAGA World as well.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) called the video out, and a frustrated 2024 Trump voter from New Mexico called C-SPAN and lamented, "I voted for the president; I supported him. But I really want to apologize. I mean, I'm looking at this awful picture of the Obamas. What an embarrassment to our country. All this man does is tell lies. He is not worthy of the presidency. He takes bribes blatantly, and now he’s being a racist blatantly."

A few days after that, Puerto Rican reggaetón star Bad Bunny performed en español at Sunday's 2026 Super Bowl Half Time Show — much to Trump's chagrin — and the event enjoyed way more viewers than Turning Point USA's alternative halftime show, headlined by Kid Rock. According to CBS News, 135 million viewers watched Bad Bunny; the El Paso Times reports that 6.1 million people watched Turning Point's event.

During a conversation for The New Republic's podcast posted on February 9, host Greg Sargent (formerly of the Washington Post) and NR reporter Alex Shephard stressed that between the "backlash" to the racist video and all the viewers who watched Bad Bunny, it's obvious that many Americans are rejecting MAGA's view of the world.

Shephard told Sargent, "I think that one of the big shifts is that there was this idea in the last election — 'Let Trump be Trump' — sort of pushed by Susie Wiles in particular, currently the chief of staff. That, essentially, the president knows best and that what he's doing may seem kooky and off the wall and irrelevant to politics as usual — but pursuing that kind of stuff is what people like about him, and you should just let him do it…. I think what we’re starting to see now is an increased willingness for politicians to call this kind of stuff out."Shephard argued, however, that even with the "backlash," Trump is still going to say and do offensive things.

Shephard told Sargent, "I think that we're not even close to seeing the bottom here yet, but it's really, really starting to break…. But the truth of the matter is that if they go anywhere, they're met with massive public resistance and backlash. You see it at the Grammys. You see it at the Super Bowl. You see it in the streets of Minneapolis. You see it all over the country. And I think there was this brief moment where it seemed like we were entering into a kind of 'new era' defined by hard-edged, right-wing culture, and that everything had changed. And all of that power that they had a year ago? It's just already gone now."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Loud, Profane Chants Against ICE Erupt At Major Wrestling Event In Vegas

Chants attacking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are common at the many protests and demonstrations opposing President Donald Trump's mass deportations policy. But on Wednesday, February 4, an anti-ICE chant broke out somewhere else: a major pro-wrestling event in Las Vegas.

The event was the All Elite Wrestling (AEW) Dynamite, held at Vegas' T-Mobile Arena—where Maxwell Jacob Friedman (MJF) was up against "Big, Bad" Brody King. Fans, according to Newsweek immigration reporter Billal Rahman, broke out in chants of "F—— ICE."

"During the event on Wednesday," Rahman reports, "the anti-ICE chant drew MJF's attention, and he appeared momentarily surprised. He paused and looked toward the audience as the chant echoed loudly throughout the arena."Trump's policies have encountered both support and opposition in the professional wrestling world.

The late Hulk Hogan was a major Trump supporter, but Jesse "The Body" Ventura — a former pro-wrestling star who went on to become governor of Minnesota — is a scathing critic of the ICE raids being conducted in Minnesota, describing the fatal shooting of Renne Nicole Good as a "murder" and telling reporters, "The Republican Party is a domestic enemy to our Constitution."

The anti-ICE chant at the AEW event in Vegas is drawing a lot of responses on X, formerly Twitter.

Missouri Democrat and former wrestler Justice Horn commented, "Oh we've taken the AEW fan base, it's over for MAGA."Horn, in a separate tweet, wrote, "Game recognize game — I watched the video and bursted out laughing. It's like he looked at the viewer like, 'Welp, the Midterms are cooked.'"

KrassenCast's Ed Krassenstein tweeted, "Trump has to hate this! Last night's AEW Dynamite wrestling match took an unexpected turn when the crowd in Las Vegas started cheering 'F—— ICE' over and over again just before the main event between MJF and Brody King."

Allen Insights founder Brian Allen observed, "WOW: At AEW Dynamite in Las Vegas, the entire crowd broke into loud, unified chants of 'F*** ICE!' before the main event. Directed at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."Journalist Aaron Rupar posted, "Wow! What sounded like the entire AEW Dynamite audience in Las Vegas tonight chanted 'F—— ICE! F—— ICE!' in unison before the main event."

Democratic activist Lucas Sanders noted how audible the chants were, posting, "WATCH: Loud F—— ICE" chants."

'Pathetic': Norwegians Furious After Machado Delivers Nobel Medal To Trump

When U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to a federal detention center in New York City, leftist Vice President Delcy Rodríguez (an ally of Maduro and his predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez) was sworn in as Venezuela's acting president — not opposition leader María Corina Machado. And President Donald Trump said Machado didn't have enough support for the position.

But Nobel Peace Prize laureate Machado still has hopes of becoming president of Venezuela. And on Thursday, January 15, she gave Trump her award in what her supporters see as a gesture of good will.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, however, is saying that giving Trump her award is a blatant violation of Nobel rules. According to an official statement, "A Nobel Prize can neither be revoked, shared, nor transferred to others. Once the announcement has been made, the decision stands for all time."

Bloomberg News reporters Ott Ummelas and Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth, in an article published on January 16, explain, "Norway reacted with disbelief to the news that Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado gave her award medal to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has long coveted the award…. Trump, who claims to deserve the peace prize for having resolved numerous wars during his second term, accepted the medal from the Venezuelan opposition leader at a White House meeting on Thursday. He has earlier expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision by the Norwegian Nobel Committee."

University of Oslo professor Janne Haaland Matlary is vehemently critical of Machado's act, describing it as "pathetic" and "meaningless."

Matlary told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (abbreviated NRK in Norwegian), "That's completely unheard of. It's a total lack of respect for the award, on her part."

Former Oslo Mayor Raymond Johansen had an equally blistering response.

On Facebook, Johansen posted, "This is unbelievably embarrassing and damaging to one of the world's most recognized and important prizes. The awarding of the prize is now so politicized and potentially dangerous that it could easily legitimize an anti-peace prize development."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Why The Kremlin Is Welcoming Trump's New 'National Security Strategy'

During former U.S. President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, the phrase "new Cold War" was often used to describe relations between the United States and Russia — especially after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine and Biden promised military aid to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

President Donald Trump, since returning to the White House, has been mildly critical of Putin at times. But on the whole, he has had a much friendlier tone with Putin and the Kremlin than the Biden Administration.

The Guardian's Shaun Walker, reporting from Kyiv, Ukraine, examples U.S./Russia relations in an article published on December 7. And Walker notes that the Kremlin has "heaped praise on Donald Trump's latest national security strategy, calling it an encouraging change of policy that largely aligns with Russian thinking."

The praise, according to Walker, followed the release of a new 33-page document called "the National Security Strategy of the United States of America," which lays out the Trump Administration's foreign policy objectives — including its ideas on Europe, which Trump officials claim is in danger of "civilization erasure."

In a statement issued on December 7, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, "The adjustments that we see correspond in many ways to our vision." And Peskov praised the Trump Administration for promoting "dialogue" and "good relations."

Peskov, sounding MAGA-like, argued that "the deep state" might try to undermine Trump's vision for U.S./Russian relations.

"It came as the White House's efforts to push through a peace deal in Ukraine enter a key phase," Walker notes. "U.S. officials claim they are in the final stage of reaching an agreement, but there is little sign that either Ukraine or Russia is willing to sign the framework deal drawn up by Trump's negotiating team."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

How Tucker Carlson Is Dragging J.D. Vance Down Into The Neo-Nazi Fever Swamp

Before Fox News fired him, Tucker Carlson was among the most influential figure on the right-wing cable news outlet. Carlson had so much power on the right that when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said something that offended him, the GOP senator made a beeline for his show to smooth things over.

Although Carlson, post-Fox News, doesn't have as much power as he did in the past, he still has plenty of followers on the far right

According to journalist/author Jamie Kirchick, Carlson is promoting a great deal of infighting among MAGA Republicans. And one MAGA Republican who has the most to lose, Kirchick reports, is Vice President JD Vance.

In an article published by the Washington Post, Kirchick highlights Carlson's friendly relationship with Nick Fuentes — a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who, in 2024, attacked Vance for being married to an Indian-American woman, attorney JD Vance.

"Ironically, the politician Carlson is harming most with his antics is the person he wants to succeed Trump: Vice President JD Vance," Kirchick explains. "Carlson, who praised Vance in his discussion with Fuentes as one of the very few people on the right who shares his foreign policy views, reportedly played a decisive role in convincing Trump to name Vance as his running mate. Vance, who has since employed Carlson's son as his deputy press secretary, invited Carlson to the White House when he guest-hosted the Charlie Kirk Show following the assassination of its eponymous host. Having benefited from Carlson's scorched-earth campaign against 'the neoconservatives,' Vance now appears stuck with Carlson's antisemitic, conspiratorial, anti-American baggage whether he likes it or not.".

Kirchick continues, "Thus far, Vance has done nothing to distance himself from this kind of politics. When Politico exposed racist and antisemitic text messages sent by members of Young Republican clubs last month, the vice president forgivingly characterized the appalling behavior of these 20- and 30-somethings as “what kids do.” A more disturbing incident occurred last week, when Vance responded to a question from a student at the University of Mississippi. Sounding very much like one of Fuentes' 'groyper' followers, the young man in a MAGA hat asked Vance why the U.S. supports Israel “considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution (sic) of ours.”

According to Kirchick, Carlson is fueling — not discouraging — the civil war among MAGA Republicans.

"The inevitable fracturing of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement is in sight, the instigator of its rupture that most narcissistic and destructive of media personalities: Tucker Carlson," Kirchick reports. "Since his firing from Fox News two years ago, Carlson has turned his podcast into a weekly circus featuring guests such as rancid conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Russian despot Vladimir Putin and Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust denier who claims Winston Churchill was the villain of World War 2 and whom Carlson praises as 'the most important historian in the United States.' Carlson’s approach with his guests is not that of a skeptical interlocutor, prodding their arguments for weaknesses, but rather, that of a reputation-launderer making reprehensible ideas respectable for mainstream conservative consumption. Even Trump calls Carlson 'kooky.'"

Trump is cracking down on large universities over protests against Israeli operations in Gaza — protests he attacks as antisemitic. Yet a prominent figure in the MAGA movement is Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and Holocaust denier who often criticizes other MAGA figures for not being far-right enough.

"It was only a matter of time, then, that Carlson would invite Nick Fuentes up to his Maine cabin home studio for a chummy colloquy last week in which the self-professed Hitler and Stalin admirer ranted about 'neocon Jewish types behind the Iraq War,' 'organized Jewry,' 'Zionist Jews.… controlling the media apparatus,' and 'the historic animosity between the Jewish people and the Europeans,'" Kirchick explains. "The furthest Carlson went in rebuking Fuentes was to offer the friendly advice that he refrain from condemning 'the Jews' per se, because 'going on about the Jews helps the neocons.' Otherwise, the two were simpatico, particularly on the subject of Christian Zionists, who, Carlson said, have been 'seized by this brain virus.'"

Kirchick adds, "Carlson's jovial exchange with Fuentes naturally stirred controversy, particularly within the conservative movement, which many pro-Israel Christians call home. So intense was the anger that the Heritage Foundation removed Carlson's name from a donation page on its website. The scrubbing must have been unauthorized, however, because the following day, Heritage President Kevin Roberts released a defiant video reaffirming the organization's relationship with Carlson."

According to Kirchick, arguments over antisemitism are only growing more intense in the MAGA movement.

"Finally, the battle lines are being drawn," Kirchick writes ". Earlier this week, Carlson said the controversy over his parley with Fuentes is really 'a fight over what happens after Donald Trump.' He's right."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Trump Fears Supreme Court Will Strike Down His Unilateral Imposition Of Tariffs

On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — a case that challenges President Donald Trump's right to unilaterally impose steep new tariffs using the Emergency Powers Act of 1977.

The plaintiff in the case argues that Trump, without Congress' input, is imposing a policy that is harmful to his business. Trump, however, argues that his tariffs are vital to the country's economic wellbeing.

Axios' Courtenay Brown reports in an article published on November 4, that Trump is claiming the tariffs are a "life or death" matter for the U.S.

"President Trump claimed on Tuesday that the U.S. would be 'virtually defenseless' against other nations if the Supreme Court strikes down a slew of tariffs," Brown reports. "Why it matters: Trump's comments come just one day before the highest court will hear oral arguments challenging the legality of a key part of his economic agenda. Trump officials have played down the effects of a potential loss, saying the administration would step in to reimpose any tariffs overturned by the Supreme Court using other trade authorities."

Brown adds, "Still, Trump for months has been warning that a loss would be economically devastating for the country — even though the U.S. had long survived without the highest tariffs in nearly a century."

On his Truth Social platform, Trump posted, "Tomorrow's United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us. Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now. A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them."

Brown notes that what the High Court ultimately decides "could curb Trump's powers — or open the door for Trump and future presidents to use the emergency powers to bypass Congress."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Broad Outrage Over Bessent's $40B Bailout For Argentina (And US Billionaires)

On Tuesday afternoon, October 14, President Donald Trump met with visiting Argentina President Javier Milei at the White House. Trump is offering the South American country, which has suffered major problems with its currency, a $20 billion bailout.

Trump, talking to reporters, made it clear that the bailout money is conditional on the right-wing Milei staying in office.

Trump told reporters, "If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina… I think he’s going to win. And if he wins, we're staying with him — and if he doesn’t win, we're gone."

$20 billion, however, may not be all the money Argentina receives from the U.S. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Argentina may receive as much as $40 billion from the U.S. when all is said and done.

As Semafor's Eleanor Mueller reports, "The Trump administration is 'working on a $20B facility that would be adjacent to our swap line' for Argentina, Bessent [told] reporters Wednesday.

"That would be a total of $40 billion for Argentina," Bessent added, according to Mueller.

According to the New York Times, "major hedge funds, including those led by friends of Mr. Bessent, stand to benefit financially from an Argentina economic lifeline. Funds at investment firms including BlackRock, Fidelity and Pimco are heavily invested in Argentina, as are investors such as Stanley Druckenmiller and Robert Citrone, both of whom worked with Mr. Bessent when he was an investor for George Soros."

The $40 billion figure and Bessent's comments are getting a lot of reactions on X, formerly Twitter.

MeidasTouch's Ron Filipkowski posted, "Now we are up to $40 billion for Argentina. Can anyone stop Bessent from unilaterally sending unlimited amounts of our money to South America? And Republicans won’t even negotiate with the Democrats on health care for Americans. Where is Congress?"

X user Jordan wrote, "America First is slashing SNAP funding for hungry American families while sending $40 billion to Argentina.

Another X user, Scott, commented, "Why doesn't congress have to approve 40 billion of our tax [money] going to Argentina? Can Bessent legally send our tax [money] there?"

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) tweeted, "Breaking news! 15 days into a government shutdown, and Trump has promised a $40 billion bailout to the Argentinian government on the backs of the American people using YOUR taxpayer dollars, while threatening to cut off food assistance to American families."

Self-described "straight, white alpha male" Politics Sloth wrote, "MAGA — 'We need to stop sending money overseas [and] use the money on Americans!' Support cutting government programs — bailing out a foreign country."

Some MAGA Republicans are speaking out as well, arguing that giving $40 billion to Argentina is inconsistent with the America First agenda.

America First proponent Kwasny posted, "Wow. Yesterday, it was $20 billion. Today, it is $40 billion? Sounds like you are pulling numbers from your rear end."

White House Xray wrote, "The Monroe Doctrine 2.0: Dollar Diplomacy edition. Trump's admin rebrands imperialism as 'philosophical charity' -—where foreign aid becomes a loyalty test administered through ATMs. They’ve tied $40 [billion] to Milei’s Oct 26 election, Trump admitting 'we don’t have to do it' (10/15). Yet during America’s 15th day of shutdown, farmers beg for relief while Medicaid gets $1 [trillion] cuts. Bessent calls this 'strategic interest' as Argentina’s market drops 30percent YTD - but US workers? 'Gone,' per Trump’s playbook. Priorities: ideological crusades abroad, austerity at home."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

'No Coming Back': Loyalist Loomer Sternly Warns Trump Against Maxwell Pardon

Far-right conspiracy theorist and self-described "proud Islamophobe" Laura Loomer often attacks fellow MAGA Republicans for not being pro-Donald Trump enough. Loomer considers herself Trump's "loyalty enforcer," even attacking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) — who is way to the right — and accusing her of being impure in her devotion to Trump and the MAGA agenda.

But now, Loomer is voicing some criticism of Trump in response to comments he made during a White House press conference on Monday, October 6.

When CNN's Kaitlin Collins asked Trump if he would consider a federal pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell — who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes — the president said he would "have to look at it" and added, "I haven't heard the name in so long."

In an October 6 post on X, formerly Twitter, Loomer wrote, "I strongly advise AGAINST anyone lobbying the Trump admin and the DOJ to Pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Do not do it. I repeat. Do not do it. There will be no coming back from that. I repeat again. For the love of God. Do Not Do It @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @PamBondi."

Loomer's tweet is receiving a lot of reactions on X.

Olga Lautman, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), tweeted, "Would think you would be demanding the release of the files."

Self-described "constitutional conservative" Kelly McCarty wrote, "Why wouldn’t Trump's first instinct be to say there’s absolutely no chance of a pardon from him?"

X user Laura Johnson posted, "It would be a huge stain on this POTUS. Same for Sean Combs. Don't do it. Both of these criminals have abused women. We need the female vote. Keep that mind!"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Flag Officers Unmoved By Hegseth's Loud 'Cringey' Speech

On Tuesday morning, September 30, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a speech before U.S. military generals. The far-right MAGA Republican and former Fox News host emphasized culture-war themes during the speech, claiming that a push for diversity and "woke" policies have been hurting the military.

"For too long," Hegseth told attendees, "we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons. Based on their race, based on gender quotas. Based on historic so-called firsts. We've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing…. We became the woke department."

Hegseth also remarked that it is "unacceptable" for the military to have "fat generals."

Hegseth's speech is drawing plenty of responses on X, formerly Twitter.

The progressive group Call to Activism tweeted, "Breaking: Pete Hegseth’s speech to the Generals literally sounds like a speech from 40s Germany: 'For too long we've promoted uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons - based on their race, gender quotas…But not anymore.' Absolutely disgraceful."

Media Matters' Matt Gertz commented, "I think my takeaway from this speech is that Pete Hegseth is going to challenge JD Vance for the GOP nomination in 2028, and my takeaway from recent anonymous leaks about Hegseth is that Vance knows it."

X user Aurelio Muaca posted, "Alcoholic ex-Fox News host Pete Hegseth — booted [for] drunkenness, sexism, and total incompetence — has the nerve to lecture top generals about military matters. The same guy who can barely keep a job thinks he knows better? Good luck with that trainwreck!!"

Finnish X user Joni Askola posted, "During his speech, Hegseth is announcing plans that will shrink the US military. He's pushing sudden physical standards, even for generals, applying male standards to women, and making the force more toxic by 'not walking on egg shells anymore.' Russia and China must be happy."

Comics writer Charles Scaggs wrote, "Short version of Pete Hegseth's Patton-wannabe speech to military officers this morning: 'Anyone who isn't a straight, white male' shouldn't be promoted in the military.'"

Democratic strategist DJ Koessler remarked, "I can't explain it but Hegseth's speech is giving washed-up, annoying senior lecturing the chapter about standards during fraternity rush."

X user The Tennessee Holler noted a lack of applause during the speech.

Holler tweeted, "To our enemies: FAFO [f—— around and find out]” (holds for applause that doesn’t come) Cringey awkward moment as Hegseth summons all generals to hear him do a one-man show about how strong we are

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter and never miss a story.

About The National Memo