The future of the National Park System is in doubt as Donald Trump’s federal hiring freeze has put popular sites like Yosemite National Park in limbo and opened the door to privatizing federal monuments and lands.
Trump’s heavy-handed freeze not only stopped the hiring of workers, it rescinded employment for many who had already received job offers. The staffing situation was characterized as “catastrophic” by former Yosemite Superintendent Don Neubacher.
Summer camping reservations are on hold, impacting park sites from June 15 to July 14. This news comes on the heels of Yosemite officials’ announcement that a new reservation system has been delayed indefinitely. The system was supposed to be fully implemented this year and promised to eliminate the long lines and waits park visitors have faced in recent years.
“We understand the impact this has on visitors who are planning camping trips to the park,” read a statement on Yosemite’s official Instagram page. “We are grateful for your patience. Our goal is to release these campground nights as soon as possible and we will provide at least a seven-day advance notice before reservations go on sale.”
Now, Trump has teamed up with billionaires and the authors of Project 2025 to craft a much more robust plan to dismantle our country’s administrative state, which includes carving up as much federal land as possible. Their interests are far more naked and ambitious than those of Trump’s first administration.
Trump ssidekick Elon Musk and his goon squad at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency continue to illegally hamstring congressionally funded programs. The endgame is to force taxpayers to pay billionaires (like Musk) and their private businesses to do the things that our government already does—and could do—for its citizens.
President Donald Trump has done nothing but inflict harm and terror since reentering the White House in January, and history suggests he’ll face a backlash in the 2026 midterm elections.
Historically, the president’s party usually loses congressional seats in midterm elections. In 2018, halfway through Trump’s first presidency, the public slapped the Republican Party with a 40-seat loss in the House, ultimately leading to years of hearings and two impeachments. In 2022, while Democrats beat expectations, they still lost enough House seats to slip into the minority. Ironically, that bodes well for their chances of retaking the House in 2026, especially given their dominance in a recent special election.
However, the Senate is another matter entirely.
This past week, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report released its early Senate ratings for the midterms, which suggest the GOP majority will be impenetrable.
Republicans hold 22 seats that are up for reelection, and 19 are listed as solidly Republican, meaning those seats are all but certain to remain in the GOP’s hands (short of a miracle or a Mark Robinson-type figure running). An Ohio seat held by Sen. Jon Husted, who replaced Vice President JD Vance, is rated as “likely” Republican, meaning Democrats have a chance, if a slim one, of picking it up. After all, the party hasn’t won a statewide race in Ohio since 2018.
But two races “lean” toward Republicans, according to Cook. That means they should be the best pickup opportunities for Democrats. They are held by Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. While the races could be grabbable, Collins won her 2020 reelection by 8.6 percentage points, despite that Democrat Joe Biden won Maine by 9 points in that same election. Meanwhile, Trump has carried North Carolina thrice.
There’s also Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who looks likely to retire. But he represents a deep-red state that Trump carried by more than 30 points in 2024.
Worse, in the 2026 same midterm, Democrats face a tough Senate landscape. According to Cook, the party will defend two “toss-up” seats, and both are in states Trump won last year: Georgia (Sen. Jon Ossoff) and Michigan (an open seat now that Sen. Gary Peters is retiring).
Then there’s Minnesota. Democratic Sen. Tina Smith announced on Thursday that she would not seek reelection. Of course, Democrats have a deep bench of good prospective candidates for this seat, and Cook rates it as a “Likely Democratic” seat, but the party will no longer have the advantage of an incumbent running and Republicans will probably spend big on the race.
Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota
Democrats also face a potentially competitive race in New Hampshire. While incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen comfortably defeated her Republican opponent by nearly 16 points in 2020, Trump came within 3 points of winning the state in 2024. Due to that, Cook rates the seat as only “Lean Democrat.”
What complicates matters further for Democrats is that their toss-up and “lean” seats are arguably more vulnerable than either of the “Lean R” seats held by Republicans. That means the odds are higher that the GOP will keep or even increase its Senate majority in 2026.
It’s also important that Democrats don’t lose sight of other states where the president came within 10 points of winning in 2024: New Jersey (Sen. Cory Booker), New Mexico (Sen. Ben Ray Luján), and Virginia (Sen. Mark Warner). While Cook rates these seats as “Solid Democratic,” the party should at least be cautious and, at the very least, not express annoyance toward voters who simply want them to put up a fight.
Indeed, Democrats will have a lot on their plate in 2026. And it doesn’t help that polls show their voters aren’t too pleased with them, while Trump 2025 is so far stronger than he was in 2017. As CNN reported earlier this week, Trump’s second-term approval rating had been in the green for his entire term so far—while he had only 11 such net-positive days during his first term.
The good news, of course, is that Democrats are primed to take back the House due to Republicans’ precarious majority, which currently sits at 218 seats to Democrats’ 215. (Two vacancies, previously held by Republicans, are expected to go to the GOP once their special elections happen.) Unseating the GOP’s House majority will be especially easy if Trump’s approval fades (as it should) and if people turn on his policies.
But even if Democrats retake the House, that would make for a divided Congress, and the Senate arguably matters more. A compliant, GOP-controlled Senate will steadily confirm Trump’s judicial appointments (including potential Supreme Court vacancies). Trump likes to keep score, too, so he will likely try to confirm more judges than Biden did when Democrats had control of the Senate.
Still, a divided Congress is better than a united Republican-led Congress that’s slinging a wrecking ball into the federal government.
Another week of Donald Trump's presidency is in the rearview. And like the two weeks before it, it was filled with lawless actions, lies, and ridiculous behavior that Republicans lined up to defend.
Trump threw Ukraine under the bus and appears likely to let murderous Russian dictator Vladimir Putin seize control of the sovereign nation. He also fired more independent watchdogs, let more corrupt politicians off the hook, slashed grants to medical research, and he even said he might ignore court rulings blocking his unlawful actions.
And like the pathetic lapdogs they are, Republicans defended every move.
After multiple federal judges of all ideological stripes blocked some of Trump’s executive actions, Republicans pushed the country further into a constitutional crisis by backing Trump when he suggested he’ll ignore those court orders and do whatever he wants.
“It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that.’ So maybe we have to look at the judges. ‘Cause I think that’s a very serious violation,” Trump said on Tuesday.
Trump likely got this idea from his own vice president, who wrote in an X post on Feb. 9 that judges shouldn’t be allowed to stop the president’s executive power.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.
And other Republicans agreed with the false statement that the courts are not allowed to check the president’s power—when that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates.
“Of course the branches have to respect our constitutional order but there’s a lot of game yet to be played. This will be appealed, we’ve got to go through the whole process, and we’ll get the final analysis. In the interim, I will say that I agree wholeheartedly with Vice President JD Vance, my friend, because he’s right,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a news conference on Tuesday.
Later that day, he said that the courts should back off of Trump altogether.
“I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out. What we’re doing is good and right for the American people,” Johnson told reporters, specifically referring to the cuts co-President Elon Musk is trying to make with his fake agency, the Department of Government Efficiency.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah
"I don't believe judges, courts have the authority or power to stick their nose into the constitutional authority of the president,” Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said.
“These judges need to back off and get out of the way of what the executive branch is doing to administer the government,” Roy said on Fox News.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also expressed agreement that courts don’t have the power to challenge Trump’s executive orders.
“These judges are waging an unprecedented assault on legitimate presidential authority, all the way down to dictating what webpages the government has. This is absurd,” he wrote on X.
Rep. Darrel Issa, Republican of California, claimed that “nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.”
But, of course, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case that the judiciary has the power to declare laws or actions unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota seemed to acknowledge that ignoring court orders is wrong, but he simply couldn’t bring himself to criticize Trump.
“I think what you're seeing right now is the natural give and take between branches of the government,” he said.
A handful of other Trump sycophants went a step further, saying that they would launch an impeachment effort against the judges who block Trump's actions.
“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer. Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy. The left has done ‘irreparable harm’ to this country. President Trump and his team at @DOGE are trying to fix it,” Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona wrote on X, referring to the federal judge who blocked Musk from accessing Treasury data.
And Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia wrote on X that he is backing Crane’s efforts.
“The real constitutional crisis is taking place in our judicial branch. Activist judges are weaponizing their power in an attempt to block President Trump’s agenda and obstruct the will of the American people. [Crane] and I are leading the fight to stop this insanity,” he wrote.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called for the impeachment of another federal judge who blocked Trump’s freeze on congressionally appropriated federal funds.
“This judge is a Trump deranged Democrat activist. Below is proof he is not capable of making good decisions from the bench. He should be impeached,” Greene wrote on X.
Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio backed those efforts, saying the judges blocking Trump’s actions “should be mocked and ignored while articles of impeachment are prepared.”
“These clowns are undermining every lower court, leaving the sole burden on SCOTUS. This is not sustainable. Sadly, excesses in judicial and executive authority are a symptom of the real problem: Congress keeps failing to take action. Time for #DeedsNotWords,” he wrote on X.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, once a fierce defender of watchdogs, was fine with Trump axing the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development who said that Trump's unlawful shuttering of the agency let hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food aid go to waste.
Grassley said that he "should have been fired," and gave Trump a workaround to make the firing legal.
"I'm just trying to make the president's job easier," Grassley said, completely ditching his past watchdog advocacy to bow down to Trump.
Other GOP lawmakers chose Trump over their own constituents, who are being directly harmed by the president’s actions.
Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said that Trump’s decision to drastically cut back National Institutes of Health funding for medical research institutions is a good thing, even though it would decimate institutions in his own state and beyond.
“Well, I think what happens is the president is exactly right. I think if you ask the average American if we were spending a billion dollars to cure childhood cancer, how much of the billion dollars would go towards during childhood cancer? They’d probably say a billion. The idea that 60% goes to indirect cost and overhead is insane. And so I applaud the president,” he told the Bulwark
And Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said that Trump's funding freeze, which is hurting farmers who are not being paid for contracts, is just a "little bit disruptive."
“But that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington,” Smith said on CNN, “is that they would be disruptive.”
Rep. Jason Smith dismisses farmers in his state who are getting stiffed by the US government not fulfilling contracts: "Right now it's a little bit disruptive, but that's what this administration promised whenever they were coming to Washington is that they would be disruptive."
President Donald Trump insulted Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and questioned his childhood battle with polio after the senator opposed anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation Thursday to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
When asked by a reporter whether McConnell’s past bout with polio influenced his “no” vote, Trump responded, “I have no idea if he had polio. All I can tell you about him is that he shouldn’t have been leader.”
The president added, “[McConnell’s] not voting against Bobby, he’s voting against me.” He later called McConnell “a very bitter guy.”
McConnell has voted against several of Trump’s recent Cabinet picks, including Tulsi Gabbard (for director of national intelligence), Pete Hegseth (for secretary of defense), and Kennedy. In the cases of Gabbard and Kennedy, McConnell was the only Republican to buck the president. With Hegseth’s vote, however, two other Republican senators—Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined him in voting against Trump’s nominee.
In addition to calling Trump a “despicable human being,” a “narcissist,” and “stupid” in a recent biography, McConnell has blasted Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs. He said they were “bad policy” and would raise prices.
Trump’s “aggressive proposals leave big, lingering concerns for American industry and workers,” McConnell wrote in a Wednesday op-ed for Louisville’s Courier-Journal.
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
McConnell wasn’t always this big of a thorn in Trump’s side, though. At the beginning of Trump’s first term, the senator helped Trump confirm hundreds of judges and fill three Supreme Court vacancies—moves that will shape the judiciary for a generation. (Notably, in 2016, McConnell helped block Merrick Garland, whom then-President Barack Obama nominated to the Supreme Court, from getting a hearing.) McConnell was also instrumental in Trump’s 2017 effort to pass sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy.
Despite minor disagreements, the Republicans’ relationship didn’t turn icy until the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. McConnell called Trump “practically and morally responsible” for the insurrection, but ultimately, he did not vote to convict the president.
The two also squabbled over the party’s failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s first administration. (More recently, McConnell said the repeal effort against the law seems “largely over.”) And they have traded a fair share of nasty personal attacks. Despite this, McConnell still endorsed Trump’s reelection bid.
McConnell, who will turn 83 this month, is up for reelection in 2026, but it’s unclear whether he’ll run again. He’s suffered a series of falls as of late, including two last week. A spokesperson for the senator suggested that “the lingering effects of polio in his left leg” contributed to it, but said the fall would not disrupt McConnell’s “regular schedule of work.”
It makes sense, then, that McConnell would vote against Kennedy, an alleged animal abuser with a history of attacking vaccination and promoting bogus conspiracy theories. Shortly after his confirmation, Kennedy appeared on Fox News and confirmed there were plans to cut the number of HHS employees. Notably, Kennedy said those who have been “involved in good science” (whatever that means!) have “nothing to worry about.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine nut now in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services
“If you care about public health, you’ve got nothing to worry about. If you’re in there working for the pharmaceutical industry, then I should say you should move out and work for the pharmaceutical industry,” he said.
On Thursday, Trump questioned McConnell’s mental acuity and said “he’s not equipped” to lead the GOP. This is the Trump way: viciously attack anyone who doesn’t do your bidding, regardless of how they’ve helped you in the past. It’s also a classic authoritarian tactic, and given that Trump is a petty narcissist, it’s not shocking that he’s going after McConnell.
That said, McConnell doesn’t deserve a pat on the back for voting against just a handful of Trump’s awful nominees. The senator’s pushback is not just politically convenient—he’s no longer Senate majority leader—but it also comes far too late in the game.
Maybe McConnell feels guilty for elevating Trump and is voting against the Cabinet picks as a way to make up for his past transgressions. Either way, given how much he helped Trump to get to where he is now, he’s just as complicit in the downfall of American democracy.
A new book details Donald Trump’s paranoia during his 2024 presidential campaign over a potential assassination threat from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Reports that Iranian operatives had access to surface-to-air missiles led Trump and his advisers to use his staff as a decoy in a plane switcheroo, according to Politico’s Alex Isenstadt.
The threat stemmed from Trump’s first-term decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. The revelations are in Isenstadt’s upcoming book, "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump's Return to Power." The reporter was given access to the Trump campaign’s inner circle, and Isenstadt reveals that Trump was so afraid that he secretly switched planes to travel to an event—leaving some of his staff feeling like bait.
Trump’s fear was stoked by foiled assassination attempts at a Pennsylvania rally and at his Florida golf course. While neither of the incidents were linked to Iran, Trump’s security detail had him fly on billionaire buddy Steven Witkoff’s plane after the Florida attempt while the rest of his staff took his privately owned plane, dubbed Trump Force One. According to Isenstadt, staffers didn’t find out about the new security arrangement until they were on board Trump Force One.
Campaign leaders tried to assure Trump aides they weren't being used as bait. But if Iranian operatives had access to surface-to-air missiles, several aides wondered, why were they put on board?
Trump has a history of indifference when it comes to the security of friends and foes alike. He has revoked security details for a host of officials from his first administration who have found their way onto his “enemies list.” This includes people like former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and special envoy Brian Hook—all of whom face the same threat of assassination from Iran for their roles in Soleimani’s assassination.
Trump’s continuing paranoia and vengefulness were apparent as recently as last Tuesday, when he told reporters that Iran “would be obliterated” if he were to be assassinated.
“I’ve left instructions if they do it, they get obliterated, there won’t be anything left,” Trump said.
Trump’s threat to destabilize the region even further has been reiterated by his very unqualified Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. During an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Hegseth said invading or attacking countries or regions that are home to “foreign terrorist organizations” is "on the table.”
Trump’s enemies list goes beyond former Cabinet members directly threatened with assassination by foreign adversaries. It also includes former Trump administration officials facing domestic threats due to Trump and the right wing’s increasingly dangerous lies.
The petty plutocrat has also revoked security details for former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Gen. Mark Milley, and former top U.S. health official Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Donald Trump is a Russian asset, whether willing or unwilling. His obsequiousness toward Russian strongman Vladimir Putin during his first term wasn’t just embarrassing—it became a grave national security threat.
Trump literally sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. And why wouldn’t he? Russia was a major factor in his 2016 election victory.
Meanwhile, Trump’s first impeachment was literally centered on his effort to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, drumming up a fake Hunter Biden investigation in exchange for anti-tank weapons to try to stave off a looming Russian invasion.
Last year, Trump repeatedly promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of taking office, which many took to mean pulling U.S. support for Ukraine and freezing the conflict in its current state—something Russia desperately needs.
Yet a funny thing has happened. Trump slobbered over Putin, believing that he and Russia are strong and mighty, serving as an example for his own imperialist and undemocratic designs. But Russia is not strong and mighty. In fact, Russia has run out of tools to prop up its failing economy. And out-of-control inflation, sky-high interest rates, and lower global energy prices have put Putin in a precarious position.
Somehow, Trump noticed this, and his disdain couldn’t be clearer. We just might have somehow lucked into a pro-Ukraine Trump presidency.
Trump shared his thoughts about Russia’s war in Ukraine on Truth Social Wednesday morning.
I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin - and this despite the Radical Left’s Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a “deal,” and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way - and the easy way is always better. It’s time to “MAKE A DEAL.” NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST!!!
How does Trump always manage to get so much wrong?
Russia didn’t lose 60 million lives in World War II; it lost 27 million. And, really, seven million of those were Ukrainian, as that total is for the Soviet Union, not Russia. That’s a lot, so why the need to exaggerate it? Probably because the total number of people killed in World War II is around 60 million, and Trump is just too stupid to know the difference—or to fact check.
Furthermore, tariffs don’t mean shit to Russia, since the U.S. doesn’t really trade with them. In 2022, the United States imported just $15 billion in Russian goods and services. Thanks to deep sanctions, what little we exported, like intellectual property (movies and such), was either appropriated by Moscow or just stolen.
But sanctions are something that could be hiked up, which would be a welcome response from the Trump administration.
If Trump really wants the war to end (and to take credit and have statues raised all over Ukraine in his honor), then he needs to do what former President Joe Biden was loath to do: open up the arms spigot and remove all restrictions on their usage.
More specifically, he needs to flood Ukraine with aircrafts—Ukraine now flies F-16s—and long-range missiles.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump
Russia has endless manpower to incrementally take ground in Ukraine. In October 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies estimated Russian casualties for the entire war at more than 600,000, including those killed and wounded. And that pace has increased year over year as Russia runs out of armor but continues to send soldiers on foot, motorcycle, and even civilian vehicles.
Yet manpower continues to be sourced from Russia’s poorest, more remote regions, insulating the oligarch elites in Moscow and St. Petersburg from direct consequences.
That economic instability, on the other hand, hits those oligarchs in the only place it matters, and a continued 10% inflation rate is taking a bite out of everyone’s earning power.
How long can the czar remain in power if his people are starving?
Meanwhile, the country’s banking system is on the verge of collapse as Moscow forces them to lend to the military industrial complex—at levels that far exceed their ability to cover the risk. With their inability to access foreign reserves due to sanctions, they are isolated and exposed. Wary of being caught up with retaliatory sanctions from the United States and the European Union, China is steering clear.
While Russia still has significant financial reserves to cover its massive defense-related budget deficits, they are on pace to be depleted by 2030, according to an analysis by Janes—and that’s assuming energy prices don’t crater.
Saudi Arabia has been threatening to open the spigot, and if Trump’s policy to encourage additional domestic drilling pans out, global prices might further tumble to Russia’s great peril. And additional Western sanctions on oil and on countries that help Russia circumvent sanctions (cough, cough, looking at you, India) will further tighten the noose.
Long-range missiles would help accelerate Russia’s economic woes. Ukraine’s biggest war gains the past year came from systematically targeting Russian economic engines like refineries and factories. On the ground, Ukraine needs to merely hold the line, extracting a steep price on Russian advances. But if they want to win the war, it will be with long-range missiles.
Unfortunately, Trump didn’t threaten that, but once Putin ignores Trump’s demands for “A DEAL,” it would be a logical next step to ratchet up the pressure. Someone might even whisper in his ear—with their fingers crossed behind their back—that if he helps end the war, a Nobel Peace Prize is on the table.
Trump’s 180-degree turn on Putin clearly stems from Russia’s weakness not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria following the country’s humiliating defeat.
One Russian Telegram channel claimed that secret negotiations between Russia and Trump representatives in December failed when the Americans made demands that Putin was unwilling to meet.
All media, public authorities and controlled leaks of [Russian] economic data not only abroad, but also inside the country, the main goal was to convince first the ruling group of Biden, and in the last few months of Trump, about the normal state of the Russian economy, its moderate growth, the absence of critical problems, and the ability of the Russian Federation to continue the confrontation as long as necessary.
For example, our group had all the real indicators of the Russian Federation – a growing decline in GDP by 1-4%, inflation growth of up to 25% over the last year, etc. The main figures for the public space were carefully adjusted, the emerging holes were quietly filled with reserves from the National Wealth Fund. While there was a high probability of reaching an agreement with the US by demonstrating ‘muscles’, it was much more profitable and cheaper to demonstrate them with hidden doping.
There was a categorical ban not only on discussing serious restrictions and deprivations for the population, but also on actually working out such measures – because of possible leaks and confirmation of the ‘weakness’ of the Russian economy for US analysts.
The main scenario assumed that the newly elected U.S. president, who had his hands ‘untied’ at the beginning of his term, would be convinced of Russia's ability to continue the conflict throughout his presidency would want to resolve the crisis quickly, and that this would be the best time for agreements.
There were tense secret negotiations between Russia and Trump's representatives through almost all of December, but the conditions put forward by the Americans were completely unacceptable for the pro-Chinese elite group in Russia, which at this stage has the greatest weight [...]
China will not allow an agreement with the US (probably, China leaked the real data of the Russian economy to the US, hence such tough conditions from their side), it will not only receive resources below the cost price and supply its products with 200-300% markup but it will also solve its geopolitical task – talking about friendship and partnership of the Russian Federation, Russia's forehead will hit the US and the EU, bargaining for agreements for itself and preventing its open conflict with the US.
That is quite the conspiracy theory.
The United States doesn’t need China to know the state of the Russian economy. Heck, I’ve linked to a bunch of Western media sources and analysts who have had their finger on Russia’s true economic situation throughout the entire war.
But the underlying point is quite interesting. Not only is it against China’s interests for the war to end, but Russia is also reliant on it for just about everything right now. Plus, China loves to see EU and U.S. dollars and assets spent on Putin’s theater rather than on Taiwan.
The end result is a weak Russia and a pathetic Putin, groveling before North Korea for weapons and manpower. And if there’s one thing Trump abhors, it’s weakness.
By aligning himself against China, Republicans’ favorite geopolitical boogeyman du jour, Trump is further susceptible to influence from pro-Ukraine voices inside the GOP and his administration.
If he wants to end the war, Trump needs to give Ukraine the means and permission to further target Russia’s failing economic engine. Long-range missiles are the way to do it.
Fearing the wrath of Dear Leader, congressional Republicans are either refusing to comment on Donald Trump's disgusting pardons of violent Capitol insurrection convicts, or are flat-out lying about what Trump actually did to avoid having to criticize his behavior.
Hours after being sworn in to his second term, Trump gave unconditional pardons to 1,550 people who either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of crimes related to their actions at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The pardons and pending dismissals also covered more than 600 rioters were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement officers at the Capitol, nearly 175 of whom were accused of doing so with deadly or dangerous weapons including baseball bats, two-by-fours, crutches, hockey sticks and broken wooden table legs.
Trump also commuted the sentences of members of right-wing militia groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in planning and encouraging violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021—leading to the release of those men from prison.
But multiple members of the House and Senate, including Republican congressional leaders, told reporters on Tuesday that they couldn’t make a judgement on the blanket pardons Trump issued because they haven't read up on them yet—the least believable lie on earth.
“I haven’t gone into the detail,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said.
SEN RICK SCOTT: “If you violate the law you should be prosecuted.” ABC: “What about those [Jan 6 rioters] who assaulted police officers and then were pardoned by the president?” SCOTT: “I haven’t gone into the detail.” pic.twitter.com/TlIU4sidCn
“I don't know all the cases. I certainly don't want to pardon any violent actors. But there's a real miscarriage of justice here so I'm totally supportive of it,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, apparently unaware that Trump pardoned violent actors.
Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said he wouldn't be for pardoning the violent insurrectionists, but wouldn't comment because he "didn't see" if Trump did that.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota knew that Trump issued pardons, but played dumb about what they entailed.
“My understanding, there was a range of actions that he took. And I guess I want to look and see what those are,” Hoeven said.
Other lawmakers straight-up lied about the pardons, saying Trump issued them on a "case-by-case basis."
“We’re not looking backwards, we’re looking forward,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN’s Manu Raju, adding, “I think they were case-by-case.”
“Republican senators are physically shrugging when reporters ask them what they think of Trump pardoning January 6 defendants,” Haley Byrd Wilt, a Capitol Hill reporter for the nonprofit news outlet NOTUS, wrote in a post on X.
Former Sen. Marco Rubio, who is now Trump's secretary of state, said he wouldn't comment.
"I'm not going to engage in domestic political debates," Rubio told NBC News.
In another interview with CBS, Rubio refused to comment again, saying “I work for Trump.”
“You said the images of the attacks stirred up anger in you. You said the nation was embarrassed. How do you reconcile that with the pardons?” RUBIO: “I work for Trump.” pic.twitter.com/enD3dJQRwW
“I assume you're asking me about the Biden pardons of his family,” Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa told Semafor’s Burgess Everett—a ridiculous whataboutism. “I’m just talking about the Biden pardons, because that is so selfish.”
“You've seen President Biden's preemptive pardons. Pardons of his own family. The power presidential pardons is one granted to a president and there's really no role for the Congress … it's the president's prerogative,” Cornyn said.
The pardons go against what Trump's own vice president said just a few days ago that Trump would do.
“If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned,” JD Vance said in a Jan. 11 appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”
WATCH: @JDVance lays out President-elect Trump’s pardon process for January 6th participants. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of Shannon's exclusive interview with Vice President-elect JD Vance. pic.twitter.com/RvqXrL6rO3
“I’m disappointed to see that and I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of the few Republicans who’s actually stood up to Trump in the past, said.
"Anybody who is convicted of assault on a police officer, I can't get there, at all. I think it was a bad idea," Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said.
“Well I think I agree with the vice president,” Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told Semafor, referring to Vance’s belief that violent insurrectionists shouldn’t have been pardoned. “No one should excuse violence. And particularly violence against police officers.”
Of course, we don’t want to praise anyone for doing the bare minimum and speaking the truth about Trump’s awful actions.
And McConnell is largely to blame for the fact that these pardons took place at all, as he refused to convict Trump in the impeachment trial in January 2021, allowing Trump to run for president again.
Donald Trump has terminated the Secret Service detail assigned to his former national security adviser John Bolton. The move comes at the same time that Trump revoked Bolton and other former national security officials’ security clearances.
“I am disappointed but not surprised that President Trump has made this decision,” Bolton confirmed to CNN. “Notwithstanding my criticisms of President [Joe] Biden’s national-security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to once again extend Secret Service protection to me in 2021.”
In 2022, the Justice Department revealed that Bolton was allegedly the subject of an assassination plot by a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “The Justice Department has the solemn duty to defend our citizens from hostile governments who seek to hurt or kill them,” the DOJ explained in a statement at the time.
At the time, the DOJ said that Bolton and other Trump-era officials became a focus of the IRGC after Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. The Biden administration levied sanctions on Iran over the alleged plots to kill Bolton and others in 2023.
Donald Trump is appointing three washed-up actors to serve as "special ambassadors" to Hollywood, including the notoriously racist and antisemitic Mel Gibson.
"It is my honor to announce Jon Voight, Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone, to be Special Ambassadors to a great but very troubled place, Hollywood, California," Trump wrote in a Thursday post on Truth Social. "They will serve as Special Envoys to me for the purpose of bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK—BIGGER, BETTER, AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE! These three very talented people will be my eyes and ears, and I will get done what they suggest. It will again be, like The United States of America itself, The Golden Age of Hollywood!"
Choosing Gibson to serve as whatever this is ... is certainly a choice.
In 2004, Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ” was panned as antisemitic for depicting Jews as responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.
According to a police report, "Gibson blurted out a barrage of anti-semitic remarks about 'fucking Jews'. Gibson yelled out: 'The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.' Gibson then asked: 'Are you a Jew?'"
Gibson later apologized, saying, “I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.”
Then in 2010, audio tapes were released in which Gibson was heard verbally abusing Oksana Grigorieva, his then-girlfriend and the mother of one of his children.
"You look like a fucking pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of [N-words], it will be your fault," he screamed at her. Gibson also threatened her, saying on tape, "I am going to come and burn the fucking house down ... but you will blow me first."
That Trump would choose someone so vile to serve his administration in any capacity at all is despicable.
But it’s also random.
Maybe Trump thought of the “Mad Max” for this ridiculous made-up role because he saw Gibson’s Jan. 10 appearance on Fox News, where he spread paranoid theories about the raging wildfires in Southern California.
“I can make all kinds of horrible theories up in my head, conspiracy theories and everything else,” Gibson told fellow bigot Laura Ingraham. “But it just seemed a little convenient that there was no water, and that the wind conditions were right and that there were people ready and willing and able to start fires, and are they commissioned to do so or are they just acting on their own volition?”
Gibson: I can make all kinds of horrible theories up in my head… But, it just seemed a little convenient that there was no water… and that the wind conditions were right and that there were people ready and willing and able to start fires and are they commissioned to do so.. pic.twitter.com/1x2iZUBdub
Gibson also appeared on podcast bro Joe Rogan’s show, where he claimed to know people with Stage 4 cancer who were cured after taking ivermectin, the horse deworming pill COVID deniers are bizarrely obsessed with. Ivermectin does not cure cancer.
Appointing these three clowns to somehow tell Trump how to fix Hollywood feels more like the latest attack on California from the notoriously fame-hungry incoming president.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, will not attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday, her spokesperson confirmed to Daily Kos.
Pelosi is the second big-name Democrat to announce that they won’t attend. Earlier this week, former first lady Michelle Obama said she also plans to skip the event, which will take place on Monday. Other Democratic lawmakers who will play hooky that day include Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.
News of Pelosi’s pending absence was first reported by ABC News.
Pelosi’s spokesperson didn’t elaborate on why she won’t make the pilgrimage to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.,this go-around. Her absence may be because Pelosi is still recovering from hip surgery she underwent in Germany following a fall in December. It’s also possible that, like most Democrats, she just hates Trump.
No one would blame her if that were the case. The two have long had a tumultuous professional relationship. Since Trump’s first administration, their disdain for one another has seemingly only increased. Pelosi famously spent the final days of Trump’s first term trying to oust him from the Oval Office after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Trump, for his part, spent much of his first term avoiding Pelosi, even as the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged states and lawmakers attempted to work together to deliver aid.
Since then, Trump has called Pelosi “crazy,” “crooked,” “evil,” and “sick,” among other abhorrent things. In November, he nearly called her a bitch during a campaign rally, though he stopped himself from saying the word outright.
Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally on July 29, 2023, in Erie, Pennsylvania.
“She’s a bad person, evil. She’s an evil, sick, crazy—” Trump said at a rally in Michigan amid his 2024 campaign, sounding out the letter “B” but stopping just short of uttering the obscenity. “It starts with a ‘B,’ but I won’t say it. I wanna say it.”
Pelosi’s inauguration absence marks a break in tradition for the octogenarian. In addition to attending Trump’s first inauguration, in 2017, ABC News reports that Pelosi has gone to 11 presidential inaugural events.
Senior leaders of both parties typically attend presidential inaugurations, regardless of the incoming president’s party. But Trump has no room to complain about Pelosi’s absence: He famously skipped President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021.
In reality, Trump probably won’t notice that Pelosi’s gone. He’ll be too busy trying to impress his trio of tech-bro sugar daddies—Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—who have been rewarded with plum seats at the inauguration. (All three men also donated at least $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.)
Meanwhile, while they will attend Monday’s inauguration, former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama will skip Trump’s inaugural luncheon. According to NBC News, both Obama and Clinton were invited but declined. Bush’s office told the outlet that he never received an invite.
