Category: Policies

Smithsonian scrubs negative info about Trump from caption of presidential portrait: report – Raw Story

The Smithsonian Institution removed references to Trump’s two impeachments and the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection from his official presidential portrait caption at the National Portrait Gallery, according to The Washington Post. A Trump official had previously complained about the caption, which documented his impeachments on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection, as well as his Senate acquittal in both trials. The institution also replaced the portrait photograph itself with a new image showing Trump with his fists on the Resolute Desk, removing the prior photo by Washington Post photojournalist Matt McClain.

The revised caption now contains only Trump’s years in office, making it substantially shorter than the previous text and leaving a visible outline of the old placard on the wall beneath it. This alteration contradicts the Smithsonian’s treatment of other former presidents’ portraits, which continue to include significant events from their administrations. Former President Bill Clinton’s portrait caption, for example, still mentions his impeachment, demonstrating the selective erasure applied only to Trump’s historical record.

The action reflects ongoing Trump administration efforts to systematically dismantle the Smithsonian’s historical narratives through pressure and institutional control. The removal of documented facts about impeachment proceedings and the Capitol attack from the official record demonstrates direct censorship of American history within a federal institution.

This revision represents a factual omission that rewrites the historical record available to the public visiting the National Portrait Gallery. By removing impeachment documentation from Trump’s portrait while preserving it for Clinton, the Smithsonian has created an inconsistent standard that privileges Trump’s image over historical accuracy and transparency about presidential conduct.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-portrait-2674872324/)

US quits global organisation dedicated to preventing violent extremism | Reuters

The Trump administration withdrew U.S. support from the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) on Wednesday as part of a broader pullout from 35 international agencies and 31 U.N. entities deemed misaligned with U.S. interests. GCERF, a Geneva-based organization supporting extremism prevention programs across dozens of vulnerable countries, was eliminated without explanation according to Dr. Khalid Koser, the fund’s director.

Koser stated the decision reflects an ideological shift toward security-focused counterterrorism over multilateral prevention strategies, telling Reuters: “I think it’s a mistake to take out that fundamental piece of prevention. But I don’t think this administration believes in prevention.” The withdrawal contradicts Trump’s stated “America First” foreign policy positioning, as the U.S. originally helped establish GCERF’s programs including reintegration efforts in northeast Syria for families from Islamic State militant circles.

The timing of the withdrawal undermines global security objectives, as extremist violence risks are at their highest level since the 2011 Arab Spring, with escalating attacks documented in Afghanistan, the Sahel region, and northeast Syria camps holding tens of thousands of Islamic State family members vulnerable to radicalization. The 2025 Global Terrorism Index recorded terrorist attacks in 66 countries in 2024, up from 58 in 2023, reversing a decade of improvement and marking a severe deterioration in global security conditions.

Simultaneous with the GCERF withdrawal, the Trump administration quit the 30-nation Global Counterterrorism Forum, further dismantling collaborative international security infrastructure. GCERF now carries the global prevention burden largely alone with a $50 million annual budget insufficient to address expanding gaps left by mass U.S. foreign aid cuts implemented last year.

Koser warned that abandoning prevention work compounds future threats, stating: “If you don’t work on prevention, then in 10 years time, you’re going to have lots of terrorists and lots of problems.” The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the decision.

(Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-quits-global-organisation-dedicated-preventing-violent-extremism-2026-01-09/?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=69617cc5e2c00a000174139f&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPPyMFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe9L9Z_kiKuO10bQQLMkADhMMduDDDaLHmNyKckGNc8OUu6nQtboNAGfEIpIQ_aem_2qQIBLazr7EgIYpJqLB-RA)

US carries out strikes in Syria as part of ongoing retaliation against ISIS | CNN Politics

The US military launched extensive strikes against ISIS positions in Syria on January 10, 2026, as part of “Operation Hawkeye Strike,” an ongoing retaliatory campaign. US Central Command reported that forces fired over 90 precision munitions targeting more than 35 locations using more than two dozen aircraft at approximately 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Operation Hawkeye Strike began on December 19, 2025, in response to an ISIS attack in Palmyra, Syria that occurred on December 13, 2025, killing two US soldiers and one civilian interpreter. The soldiers were identified as Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, Iowa, both members of the Iowa National Guard. Three additional Iowa National Guard members were wounded in the attack.

The Iowa National Guard deployed approximately 1,800 troops to the Middle East earlier in 2025 as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US mission to combat ISIS. US Central Command stated in its release: “Our message remains strong: if you harm our warfighters, we will find you and kill you anywhere in the world, no matter how hard you try to evade justice.”

Hundreds of American troops remain stationed in Syria supporting the longstanding US counterterrorism mission. The goal of Operation Hawkeye is to deliver significant damage to ISIS remnants in Syria and diminish their capacity to threaten US forces in the region.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/10/politics/syria-strike-retaliatory-isis)

Trump orders ‘my representatives’ to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds in effort to lower housing costs | CNN Business

President Trump announced on January 8, 2026, that he ordered “my representatives” to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower housing costs and mortgage rates. Trump claimed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-owned mortgage entities he did not sell during his first term, are now worth “an absolute fortune” and possess sufficient cash reserves to fund the directive.

Historically, the Federal Reserve has been the primary purchaser of mortgage-backed securities, with large-scale purchases during the pandemic contributing to historically low mortgage rates. When entities purchase mortgage bonds, interest rates on mortgages typically decline, though the mechanism is indirect—the Fed does not directly control mortgage loan rates, and other factors influence pricing. Trump’s framing of the action as executive authority ignores that such major financial operations typically require congressional approval.

Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operations, stated his agency would implement the initiative, writing “We are on it, Mr. President!” immediately after Trump’s announcement. Trump provided no details regarding the identity of his representatives, implementation timeline, or execution methodology, creating uncertainty about feasibility and legal authority for the purchase directive.

The housing market faces structural challenges independent of Trump’s mortgage bond purchases. America has a shortage of approximately 4 million homes according to Goldman Sachs Research, and current inventory and sales remain near their lowest levels since the 2010 financial crisis, indicating supply constraints rather than interest rate problems as the primary affordability driver.

Trump has previously considered privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through initial public offerings during both his first term and recently, with reports indicating Trump uses government entities and appropriations to fund priorities while claiming alternative funding sources. His use of possessive language—”my representatives,” “my military,” “my generals”—demonstrates his treatment of government institutions as personal assets rather than independent entities accountable to law and constitutional process.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/business/mortgage-bonds-trump-purchase-rates?Date=20260108&Profile=CNN+Politics&utm_content=1767910276&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPOXvFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeoJRnKbPnWzIqjBVI2QXlOSMrn84-JBArpue4hMNxT0KIRv_148M8S6HTD8Y_aem_9IAlfe8jwKHuyECCp-wLrg)

‘His dementia is acting up’: Internet skewers Trump for bizarre new ‘elections’ claim – Raw Story

During a Fox News interview Thursday night, Trump claimed Venezuela “wouldn’t know how to have an election,” despite the country conducting elections as recently as last year. When asked by Sean Hannity whether Venezuela would hold free and fair elections, Trump pivoted to stating his administration would control Venezuelan oil infrastructure and “make a lot of money” from the operation.

Social media users and political observers immediately flagged the statement as disconnected from reality. Veteran Frank C stated Trump’s remark indicated cognitive decline, while activist Matthew J Shochat pointed out that Venezuela held an election last year and that Trump’s preferred replacement leader was involved in that election’s irregularities. Former foreign correspondent Roland Ley characterized Trump’s position as “US colonization” rather than liberation.

Political analyst WarMonitor summarized Trump’s stated priorities as replacing one dictatorship with another, with Trump personally running the country. Former Navy wife Rebecca Clester directly challenged Trump’s claim, asking what “closet” he had been living in and highlighting that his explicit focus remains extracting Venezuelan oil rather than establishing democratic governance.

The remarks underscore Trump’s stated intention to personally control Venezuelan oil revenues following the U.S. invasion of Venezuela. Trump has publicly outlined plans to sell 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market rates under his personal oversight, while also proposing that U.S. taxpayers reimburse oil companies for Venezuelan infrastructure reconstruction.

Trump’s election claim contradicts documented Venezuelan electoral processes and reflects his administration’s framing of military intervention as resource extraction rather than democratic restoration.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-venezuela-2674863947/)

Trump dials Collins with ‘profanity-laced rant’ over Venezuela war powers vote

President Trump conducted a profanity-laden phone call with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Thursday after she voted with Democrats on a war powers resolution blocking military action against Venezuela. According to two Senate GOP sources, Trump verbally attacked Collins during the call, which passed 52-47, stating the resolution undermined his authority as commander-in-chief. The call came unexpectedly, as Trump and Collins do not communicate regularly.

Following the vote, Trump posted on Truth Social that Collins and four other Senate Republicans who supported the resolution—Josh Hawley, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Todd Young—”should never be elected to office again.” Trump claimed the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security” and strips him of powers necessary to defend the country. Senate Majority Leader John Thune characterized Trump as “fired up” before the vote and described the social media posts as a “short-term, immediate reaction.”

Collins responded to Trump’s public condemnation by telling reporters his reaction indicates he would prefer to see her replaced by a Democratic opponent in November’s election. The Maine senator, widely viewed as the most vulnerable Republican incumbent seeking reelection, did not engage further with Trump’s attacks but suggested his preference for her loss by referencing potential challengers including Democratic Governor Janet Mills.

This episode demonstrates Trump’s willingness to weaponize both direct intimidation and public statements against members of his own party who exercise independent judgment on national security matters. The incident reflects a pattern of Trump attacking opponents through name-calling and intimidation when they oppose his directives, extending that approach to Senate Republicans who deviate from his preferred policy positions.

(Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5682106-trump-collins-call-venezuela-vote/)

Trump Vows to Acquire Greenland ‘Easy Way’ or ‘Hard Way’

President Trump declared during a Friday meeting with oil executives that he will “do something” regarding Greenland “whether they like it or not,” explicitly threatening action through either an “easy way” or “hard way.” Trump rejected a reporter’s question about financial inducements to Greenland’s residents, stating he is considering unspecified action regardless of local consent or Danish sovereignty.

Trump justified forced acquisition by invoking geopolitical threats, claiming Russian and Chinese military assets near Greenland necessitate U.S. control to prevent rival powers from occupying the territory. He cited the presence of Russian destroyers, Chinese vessels, and submarines as rationale for his stated determination to act unilaterally, dismissing Denmark’s 500-year historical claim to the autonomous region.

The White House has previously confirmed that military intervention remains an option for acquiring Greenland, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt designating the acquisition as a “national security priority.” The administration has also discussed direct cash payments ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per resident as a coercive strategy, totaling approximately $6 billion if applied universally to Greenland’s 57,000 inhabitants.

Trump expressed purported admiration for Denmark while dismissing its legal authority over Greenland based on historical precedent. His framing of acquisition as inevitable—not conditional on Danish agreement or democratic consent from Greenland’s population—represents an explicit rejection of international law and the sovereignty of NATO ally Denmark.

These statements escalate Trump’s position that his authority is constrained only by “his own morality,” treating territorial acquisition as subject exclusively to his discretionary judgment rather than international legal frameworks or diplomatic protocol governing U.S.-allied relations.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-promises-to-do-something-on-greenland-whether-they-like-it-or-not/)

Trump Declares He Is the Absolute Law

During a January 8, 2026 interview with The New York Times, President Trump declared that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” explicitly rejecting international law as a binding constraint on military action. When asked if any limits exist on his global powers, Trump stated: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” and added, “I don’t need international law.” This represents Trump’s most direct acknowledgment of his worldview that national strength, rather than laws and treaties, should determine outcomes when powers collide.

When pressed on whether his administration must abide by international law, Trump affirmed compliance while immediately undermining that commitment by declaring himself the arbiter of when such constraints apply to the United States. “It depends what your definition of international law is,” Trump said, signaling his refusal to accept external legal frameworks as binding. This pattern reflects Trump’s broader approach to governance: acknowledging formal constraints while asserting personal authority to override them based on his subjective judgment.

Trump’s framing of unrestricted executive power extends across military, economic, and political instruments. He acknowledged deploying the National Guard to cities against state and local objections and has pursued what he describes as a maximalist strategy targeting institutions he dislikes, exacting retribution against political opponents, and coercing foreign nations through threatened military action. During the interview, Trump took a call from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who expressed concern over Trump’s repeated threats of military action, mirroring Trump’s pattern of using unpredictability and force as coercion tools.

Trump’s rejection of international law as limiting his authority eliminates foundational constraints on executive power that have structured U.S. foreign policy for decades. His explicit statement that only his personal morality constrains his actions removes any institutional, legal, or constitutional check on military decisions, invasion, or coercion of other nations. This stance directly contradicts the constitutional framework requiring checks and balances and the international legal obligations the United States has accepted.

The interview reveals Trump’s authoritarian conception of presidential authority unchecked by law, institutional independence, or external legal frameworks. His assertion that he personally determines the meaning and applicability of international law consolidates decision-making power entirely in his hands, eliminating separation of powers and the rule of law as governing principles of his administration.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html)

Trump administration mulls payments to sway Greenlanders to join US

The Trump administration is discussing direct cash payments to Greenland’s 57,000 residents, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, as a strategy to persuade them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States, according to four sources familiar with internal deliberations. A $100,000-per-person payment would total approximately $6 billion. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Trump and his national security team were “looking at what a potential purchase would look like,” while the specific mechanics and conditions of such payments remain undefined.

Among the options under consideration is a Compact of Free Association (COFA), an arrangement previously extended only to Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, under which the United States provides essential services including mail delivery and military protection while operating military facilities freely and establishing duty-free trade. Such an agreement would require Greenland to separate from Denmark first. Trump has claimed Greenland is strategically vital for national security and mineral resources needed for military applications, asserting that the White House is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland, with military intervention explicitly stated as a possible tool.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen rejected the acquisition attempt on Sunday, writing “Enough is enough … No more fantasies about annexation” on Facebook. Denmark, a NATO ally bound to the United States by mutual defense agreement, has firmly stated Greenland is not for sale. On Tuesday, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain, and Denmark issued a joint statement asserting that only Greenland and Denmark can decide matters regarding their relations, underscoring Denmark’s demands for U.S. answers over alleged Trump operations in Greenland.

Internal discussions about acquiring Greenland intensified following Trump’s government’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro over the weekend, with White House aides reportedly seeking momentum to advance the President’s other long-standing geopolitical objectives. Sources indicate that while payment discussions are not entirely new, they have escalated in seriousness in recent days, with officials entertaining higher compensation figures. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet his Danish counterpart next week in Washington to address the matter.

Although polls show an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders desire independence from Denmark, surveys also demonstrate that most Greenlanders do not wish to become part of the United States. Economic concerns about separating from Denmark have prevented most Greenlandic legislators from calling for an independence referendum. The payment strategy risks being perceived as transactional and demeaning to a population with its own historical independence debate.

(Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-administration-mulls-payments-sway-greenlanders-join-us-2026-01-08/?fbclid=IwdGRleAPNL_RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeuOInok69PUqliyuymFV_AN3L61-CrKKZHvXIXFRSzXxCVSvRn6eTLknE4B4_aem_MdSL1V900AKJKBGUc55xCw&utm_medium=Social&utm_social_handle_id=114050161948682&utm_social_post_id=646273254&utm_source=Facebook)

JD Vance Declares: ICE Agent Has ‘Absolute Immunity’

Vice President JD Vance declared during a White House press conference on Thursday that an ICE agent who fatally shot Minneapolis poet and mother Renee Good is protected by “absolute immunity,” a legal claim that is factually incorrect. Vance asserted that the federal law enforcement official conducting federal law enforcement action cannot be prosecuted, stating the officer “was doing his job” and that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz pursuing charges would be “preposterous.”

Vance’s statement misrepresents the actual legal protections available to federal agents. ICE officers are covered under “Supremacy Clause immunity,” which shields them from state prosecution only when acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties in a manner that is “necessary and proper,” according to the State Democracy Research Initiative. This protection does not constitute absolute immunity and explicitly does not apply when federal officials act beyond their duties, violate federal law, or behave in an egregious or unwarranted manner.

The legal determination of whether the ICE officer’s use of deadly force was justified has not yet been evaluated in court, meaning any declaration of immunity is premature. Until a court determines whether the shooting fell within the scope of the officer’s official duties and constituted a lawful use of force, claims of protection remain unresolved. Vance’s invocation of “absolute immunity” bypasses this necessary judicial review.

Vance further claimed that Minnesota officials are “encouraging people to commit violence against I.C.E. officials” and characterized state involvement in the investigation as an “unprecedented” overreach. The reporter’s question had addressed the FBI’s decision to exclude Minnesota officials from accessing evidence in the federal investigation, a procedural issue distinct from Vance’s sweeping immunity assertion.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/jd-vance-declares-ice-agent-involved-in-fatal-shooting-has-absolute-immunity/)

1 2 3 … 332