Category: Breaking the Law

Trump DOJ Memo Claims President Above International Law

A classified 20-30 page Justice Department legal opinion presented to Congress on Tuesday argues that President Trump faced no constitutional or international legal constraints when he ordered the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Office of Legal Counsel memo asserts Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution permitted the operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, without prior congressional approval.

The opinion builds directly on a 1989 legal memo authored by William Barr, Trump’s current Attorney General, which claimed presidents possess “inherent constitutional authority” to order law enforcement operations in foreign countries even when doing so violates international law. The new memo treats that premise as settled and argues the Maduro operation did not constitute war in the constitutional sense, therefore bypassing the War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. An unclassified version released simultaneously states that international law “does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law” regarding rendition operations.

The memo conceded that Trump personally justified the operation by stating control of Venezuelan oil reserves was the objective, though the administration maintains it was solely a law enforcement action targeting Maduro as the leader of a narco-trafficking organization. A White House official stated the operation was lawful and that “the Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad,” framing the military-backed seizure as standard law enforcement practice.

Democratic lawmakers directly contradicted this characterization, arguing that removing a foreign head of state by military force constitutes an act of war regardless of law enforcement justifications. The administration has also used success in the Maduro operation to embolden plans for military actions against other targets, with officials accelerating preparations that extend beyond Venezuela.

The memo stipulated that any military support must remain proportional to the law enforcement objective and acknowledged that military commanders had not assessed Maduro’s actions as a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the opinion concluded the likelihood of armed resistance justified deploying U.S. military assets. The opinion was provided to lawmakers after the operation had already been executed, establishing legal justification retroactively rather than constraining executive action beforehand.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics/memo-maduro-capture-olc)

Military Disguised Civilian Aircraft in Caribbean Drug Strike

The U.S. military deployed a disguised aircraft painted to resemble a civilian plane to conduct its first strike against an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in September, according to officials briefed on the operation. The craft lacked visible weapons and military markings, tactics that retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, former deputy judge advocate general for the U.S. Air Force, stated could constitute “perfidy”—a war crimes violation prohibiting combatants from impersonating civilians to deceive enemies. Lepper told The New York Times that an unidentifiable aircraft should not engage in combat operations.

The Pentagon defended the practice, stating aircraft undergo “rigorous procurement processes” to ensure compliance with domestic law, department policies, and international standards including laws of armed conflict. However, the September 2 strike that killed 11 people previously generated controversy over orders to eliminate two survivors clinging to wreckage—a “double-tap strike” that critics said violated war laws. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a Navy admiral, not he directly, ordered the follow-up strike under his general authorization, though Hegseth stated he fully supported the decision.

The Trump administration’s anti-drug campaign has killed at least 123 people across 35 strikes in the Caribbean region, yet the military has not released extensive evidence identifying individuals on targeted boats or establishing their drug-trafficking connections. Legal scholars and critics argue these strikes constitute illegal extrajudicial killings against non-combatants outside conventional war zones, challenging the administration’s claim of valid “armed conflict” with non-state drug groups. Hegseth announced in December that the Pentagon would withhold unedited video of the September strike.

The campaign expanded significantly when U.S. forces entered Venezuela and captured leader Nicolas Maduro, whom the U.S. accuses of collaborating with drug organizations. Lawmakers stated they received no advance briefing on the Venezuela operation, and a bipartisan Senate group voted last week to block Trump from authorizing further military force in or against Venezuela without Congressional approval.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-caribbean-drug-boat-venezuela-b2899245.html)

Trump Makes Sure Everyone Knows Why He Invaded Venezuela

President Trump publicly justified the U.S. invasion of Venezuela by stating the operation would secure control over Venezuelan oil reserves. Trump announced he would personally oversee the sale of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market price following Delta Force operatives’ capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with the military action resulting in hundreds of deaths in Caracas and surrounding areas.

Trump’s original pretext that the invasion targeted drug trafficking has been abandoned despite continued repetition by right-wing media allies. The administration’s actual focus on Venezuelan oil became unmistakable when Trump suggested American taxpayers would reimburse oil companies for reconstructing Venezuela’s energy infrastructure, explicitly linking military intervention to corporate profit extraction.

The invasion violates international law by overthrowing a foreign government without lawful cause, establishing a precedent that powerful nations can unilaterally remove leaders they deem objectionable. This directly contradicts Trump’s stated support for a rules-based global order, as the administration simultaneously maintains close relationships with authoritarian regimes including Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, whose government also oppresses its population and controls vast oil reserves.

Trump has installed Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president from the previous regime, as successor rather than holding promised democratic elections. The administration demanded Rodríguez crack down on drugs, expel foreign operatives from U.S.-designated hostile countries, and cease oil sales to those nations, while explicitly postponing elections indefinitely—revealing the occupation prioritizes geopolitical control and resource extraction over democratic governance.

The military operation, which killed over 100 people in boat bombings designed to provoke Maduro into an aggressive response, demonstrates Trump’s disregard for the sovereignty of nations unable to defend themselves militarily. By stating “We’re going to keep the oil,” Trump discarded pretense and openly acknowledged the invasion as resource seizure justified by military dominance rather than law or humanitarian concern.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/trump-tells-everyone-why-he-illegally-invaded-venezuela-were-going-to-keep-the-oil/)

Trump Tells Jared Polis and Colorado ‘RINO’ to ‘Rot in Hell’

President Trump attacked Colorado Governor Jared Polis and a Republican district attorney in a December 31st Truth Social post, calling Polis a “scumbag” and the DA “disgusting” while telling both to “rot in Hell.” Trump’s outburst targeted officials responsible for prosecuting former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is serving nine years in prison for seven state-level charges related to 2020 election interference, including providing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s associate unauthorized access to county election software.

Trump falsely claimed earlier in December that he had pardoned Peters, stating she was being “relentlessly” targeted for “demanding honest elections.” However, Trump lacks authority to pardon individuals convicted of state-level crimes; Peters’ conviction and imprisonment remain valid regardless of any presidential pardon claim. Trump characterized her prosecution as evidence that Democrats prosecute election-security advocates while ignoring their own alleged mail-in ballot fraud, assertions contradicted by documented fact patterns showing no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Colorado or nationally.

Trump previously weaponized disaster aid to Colorado, denying federal assistance following wildfires and flooding while Governor Polis governed the state. This pattern of targeting Colorado’s Democratic leadership demonstrates Trump’s use of presidential authority to punish political opponents, further illustrating the authoritarian consolidation of power through weaponized governance.

Trump’s attack on a fellow Republican official as a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) reflects his ongoing purge of party members who do not demonstrate absolute loyalty to him personally. His refusal to accept Peters’ lawful conviction—despite her documented actions undermining election integrity through unauthorized system access—prioritizes Trump’s electoral narrative over institutional accountability and rule of law.

The Truth Social post exemplifies Trump’s pattern of attacking state officials and judicial processes when outcomes conflict with his interests, framing legitimate prosecutions as political persecution while simultaneously attempting to overturn state convictions through false pardon claims that carry no legal weight.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-tells-scumbag-governor-and-disgusting-rino-to-rot-in-hell/)

Outrage and legal threats: Trump justice department slammed after limited Epstein files release | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Trump’s justice department released a limited, heavily redacted batch of Jeffrey Epstein files on Friday, violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated near-complete disclosure by December 19 with only narrow exemptions for ongoing investigations, national security, and victim protection. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, announced in advance that the department would withhold documents and release materials piecemeal over weeks, directly contradicting the law’s requirements.

Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, the bipartisan co-authors of the transparency legislation, publicly condemned the release as non-compliant. Khanna stated they are exploring all legal options, including possible impeachment of justice department officials, finding them in contempt of Congress, and referring obstructionists for prosecution. Massie emphasized that future administrations could prosecute current Attorney General Pam Bondi and others, as the transparency act’s obligations do not expire with Congressional sessions.

At least 16 files disappeared from the justice department’s public webpage without explanation, including a photograph showing Trump alongside Epstein, Melania Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell inside a drawer. House Democrats noted the removal of this image and questioned what else was being withheld, demanding transparency.

Democrats across both chambers condemned the rollout. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Robert Garcia called the release a coverup, with Ocasio-Cortez demanding Bondi’s resignation. The House oversight committee Democrats, led by Garcia and Jamie Raskin, stated Trump’s administration is violating federal law by continuing to conceal facts about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and announced they are examining all legal options.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the release violated both the transparency law’s spirit and letter, pledging to pursue every option to ensure the truth emerges. The justice department defended itself on social media, claiming no politically exposed persons were redacted and pointing to released Clinton photographs as proof of compliance, despite the law’s explicit mandate for comprehensive disclosure absent narrow statutory exceptions.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/20/trump-justice-department-legal-threats-epstein-files-release)

US seizes second vessel off Venezuelan after Trump’s blockade threat, reports say | The Independent

The United States Coast Guard seized the Panama-flagged tanker Centuries off the coast of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea, marking the second vessel confiscated in recent weeks as part of Trump’s blockade of Venezuelan oil. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated the Coast Guard would “continue to pursue the illicit movement of sanctioned oil that is used to fund narco terrorism in the region,” though legal experts dispute the justification for seizing unsanctioned vessels.

Jeremy Paner, a former U.S. Treasury Department sanctions investigator, directly contradicted Trump’s stated policy by confirming the Centuries had not been sanctioned by the United States. Paner stated the seizure of an unsanctioned vessel “marks a further increase in Trump’s pressure on Venezuela” and “runs counter to Trump’s statement that the U.S. would impose a blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers,” exposing the operation’s scope beyond its stated legal framework.

The Centuries carried 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China under a false vessel name and was part of a shadow fleet designed to evade sanctions. Since Trump’s first tanker seizure last week, Venezuelan crude exports have collapsed sharply, with an effective embargo forcing loaded vessels to remain in Venezuelan waters rather than risk confiscation, despite many not being under U.S. sanctions.

Trump’s military campaign against Venezuela has killed at least 100 people through more than two dozen strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean, with announced plans for imminent land operations. Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro contends the military buildup aims to overthrow his government and seize the nation’s vast oil reserves, the world’s largest crude deposits.

The seizure strategy contradicts international law governing unsanctioned vessels and exposes economic objectives beyond counter-narcotics claims. If the blockade persists, the loss of nearly one million barrels daily will drive global oil prices higher, shifting market leverage and destabilizing energy markets while demonstrating Trump’s use of military and economic coercion to control foreign governments and resources.

(Source: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-seizing-vessel-venezuela-trump-blockade-oil-tanker-b2888347.html)

Trump Administration Will Withhold SNAP Aid from Democratic States

The Trump administration has announced its intention to withhold SNAP food aid from 42 million Americans in predominantly Democratic states unless those states provide detailed recipient information, including names and immigration status. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that this measure aims to combat fraud in the program, despite many Democratic governors challenging the requirement in court as an invasion of privacy.

This decision comes at a time when SNAP, which offers about $190 in monthly benefits per person, has recently been scrutinized amid broader political maneuvers. Supporters of the plan argue it is essential, while opponents emphasize the detrimental impact on low-income families who heavily rely on this assistance for their daily needs.

Most Republican-led states have complied with the request, while Democratic-led states have fought back, pushing back against what they view as an unfair imposition. The administration had initially sought this information back in February, framing it as a necessary step to ensure program integrity.

Legal disputes continue to evolve around the issue, particularly following the recent federal government shutdown, which resulted in temporary interruptions to SNAP benefits. The ongoing debates highlight the deeper political divides as states navigate their responsibilities to assist vulnerable populations while facing federal mandates.

This situation not only affects food security but raises critical questions about the federal government’s role in regulating state-level welfare programs and the privacy of those who benefit from them.

Trump Attacks Jewish Voters Supporting Zohran Mamdani as ‘Stupid’

President Donald Trump launched a shocking tirade on Election Day against Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor. Trump labeled Mamdani a “Jew hater” and controversially remarked that any Jewish individual voting for him is “stupid.” This inflammatory rhetoric adds to Trump’s history of targeting Jewish voters, previously asserting that they should be ashamed for supporting Democrats.

Trump’s tirade signals a desperate attempt to bolster support for former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent. Trump criticized Mamdani’s stance towards Israel and the Jewish community, citing his failure to condemn Hamas and his controversial statements surrounding the October 7 terrorist attacks. These accusations reflect a troubling trend in Trump’s continuous use of anti-Semitic language and baseless claims against his political opponents.

In a similar vein, Trump has previously implied that Jewish voters should reconsider their affiliation with the Democratic party, suggesting that their loyalty is misplaced. His recent comments not only reflect a blatant disregard for the complexities of political identity but also serve to further polarize the electorate in a deeply sensitive and divided political climate.

Trump’s warning about the consequences of a Mamdani victory struck fear into the hearts of New Yorkers, as he threatened to withhold federal funding should Mamdani be elected. He painted a grim picture of the city’s future under Mamdani, claiming that it would devolve into a “Complete and Total Economic and Social Disaster.” This kind of scorched-earth political rhetoric aims to intimidate voters and eliminate support for Mamdani based on fear rather than factual concerns.

As the election unfolds, it is imperative for voters to analyze the substance of Mamdani’s platform rather than succumb to Trump’s incendiary remarks. Engaging in constructive dialogue and dispelling misinformation is essential for promoting a more informed electorate in the face of blatant manipulation and divisive tactics from Trump.

The Pentagon’s Illegal $130 Million Donation

The Pentagon has confirmed the acceptance of a $130 million anonymous donation aimed at supporting military pay during the current government shutdown. This unprecedented action falls under the Pentagon’s general gift acceptance authority, enabling private contributions for specific uses.

According to Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, this donation is designated to offset costs associated with service members’ salaries and benefits. He expressed gratitude toward the donor, describing them as “a patriot” who wanted to assist troops amid funding shortages created by stalled negotiations in Congress.

However, this contribution addresses only a minor portion of the military pay needs. Recent reports indicate that typical military pay periods cost about $6.5 billion, which means the donation only represents a fraction of a day’s payroll for service members.

Trump, during a White House event, praised the donor as a “friend” who supports the military. The move also raises legal questions regarding compliance with the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from spending funds beyond congressional appropriations. Furthermore, any gifts over $10,000 that benefit military personnel require an ethics review.

As discussions continue around military funding, a Republican measure called the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2025, intended to protect pay for active-duty troops during this crisis, failed to pass in the Senate. The vote fell short at 54-45, reflecting a division along party lines.

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering minting a coin

The U.S. Treasury Department is considering minting a coin featuring Donald Trump’s image to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States. This proposal has faced scrutiny for potentially violating legal standards regarding the portrayal of living individuals on currency. The suggestion has drawn criticism from various quarters concerned about the appropriateness of honoring Trump, whose presidency has been marred by controversy and corruption.

The proposal comes amid ongoing conversations about Trump’s significant impact on American politics. Trump’s presidency has been characterized by lies, racist rhetoric, and attempts to dismantle democratic norms, raising questions about the implications of such a commemoration. Critics argue that celebrating Trump’s controversial legacy could undermine the values that the anniversary is meant to represent.

Furthermore, the idea reflects a troubling trend in Republican politics, where loyalty to Trump often overshadows commitment to constitutional principles. The potential coin symbolizes an ingrained aspect of fascism within the Republican party—elevating one individual’s image over the collective ideals of democracy and unity in America.

This proposal not only represents a personal tribute to Trump but also blurs the line between political governance and the commodification of presidential legacy. The Trump administration’s focus on image and spectacle continues to divert attention from pressing national issues, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes authoritarianism over democratic values.

Ultimately, the proposal to mint a coin bearing Trump’s likeness serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles against the erosion of democratic integrity in the United States, driven by a leadership that is increasingly authoritarian and disconnected from the founding principles of the nation.

1 2 3 … 21