Category: Racist: Hispanic

Trump FEMA Claim Debunked: Agency Not Running Out Of Money Because Of Migrants

 

Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is running low on funds due to spending on migrant assistance. During a recent rally, Trump asserted that Vice President Kamala Harris had diverted billions from FEMA’s budget to house illegal migrants, echoing comments from Fox News host Jesse Watters. However, this claim has been debunked by multiple sources.

FEMA’s funding for disaster relief and migrant assistance comes from separate budget allocations. While FEMA has indeed allocated over $1 billion to aid communities supporting migrants this year, this funding is drawn from the Shelter and Services Program, distinct from the Disaster Relief Fund used for hurricane recovery efforts. This separation means that the financial challenges FEMA faces are not due to migrant-related expenditures.

On October 3, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledged that FEMA is experiencing a cash crunch for disaster relief efforts but clarified that these financial difficulties are not linked to migrant assistance. The Disaster Relief Fund is specifically reserved for managing disasters, and its funds have not been diverted for non-disaster related purposes.

The current issues with FEMA’s budget stem from a lack of additional funding from Congress. Recent stopgap funding measures did not provide the necessary resources, forcing FEMA to prioritize immediate disaster needs while halting non-emergency rebuilding projects. Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about FEMA’s financial situation, urging Congress to reconvene and allocate more funds.

As Hurricane Helene wreaks havoc across parts of the Southeast, estimates suggest the storm could lead to damages exceeding $34 billion. The financial strain on FEMA could hinder its ability to respond effectively to ongoing disaster recovery efforts, especially with hurricane season continuing through November.

Trump’s claims about FEMA’s financial situation have been met with strong rebuttals from the Biden administration, with officials emphasizing the agency’s commitment to assisting all communities affected by disasters without bias. The administration has stressed the importance of accurate communication regarding disaster relief efforts, particularly during such critical times.

 

Trump’s False Claims About Immigrants Eating Pets Spark Controversy During Debate

During a recent presidential debate, Donald Trump propagated a baseless and racially charged rumor regarding Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, claiming they were consuming pets. This statement, made in front of an audience of 67.1 million viewers, has been criticized for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. The rumor originated from fringe online communities, particularly from a neo-Nazi group known as Blood Tribe, which initially circulated the idea of pets being eaten in August. Trump’s comments were seemingly amplified by his running mate, Senator JD Vance, who has made similar claims about the influx of immigrants in the area.

Trump’s assertion was not only unfounded but also drew immediate backlash from various quarters, including his own party members. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham expressed concern, emphasizing that the focus should be on serious issues related to immigration, such as crimes committed by undocumented individuals, rather than whimsical claims about animals. This reflects a broader trend where Trump has consistently highlighted immigration issues, often framing them in a controversial manner.

The spread of the rumor on social media has been significant, with a notable increase in posts discussing the issue leading up to the debate. Research indicated that mentions of Haitians allegedly eating pets surged dramatically on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) in the days prior to Trump’s comments. Vance himself contributed to this narrative, posting about the supposed dangers posed by Haitian immigrants, which helped transition the rumor from fringe discourse to a mainstream debate topic.

Despite the sensationalism surrounding the issue, local law enforcement in Springfield reported no credible evidence supporting claims of pets being harmed. In fact, the claims about pets being abducted and eaten have been dismissed by the Springfield police, highlighting a disconnect between the online narrative and reality. Vance later acknowledged that these rumors could be false, yet continued to leverage them politically.

The incident underscores how fringe conspiracy theories can permeate high-profile political discourse, especially through the lens of social media. Trump’s use of this rumor during a prime-time debate illustrates a tactic of drawing attention to specific grievances that resonate with his base, despite their lack of factual basis. This approach is indicative of a broader strategy to mobilize support by highlighting perceived threats associated with immigration.

The debate echoed a long-standing pattern in Trump’s political career, where he has utilized inflammatory rhetoric regarding immigration, often to stoke fear and division among his supporters. Critics argue that such tactics detract from substantive discussions about immigration policy and public safety, instead prioritizing sensationalism and fear-mongering.

As the fallout continues, political analysts and commentators are left to ponder the implications of Trump’s comments and the role of misinformation in shaping public perception. This incident serves as a reminder of the potent intersection between social media, political rhetoric, and the dissemination of false information, particularly concerning immigration.

Ultimately, the Springfield rumor illustrates the challenges faced in combating misinformation and the potential consequences it holds for public discourse and policy discussions.

 

Trump Posts “The Great Replacement” Conspiracy Popular With Neo-Nazis

Former President Trump’s recent Truth Social post concerning immigration has drawn critical attention for echoing a dangerous and unfounded conspiracy theory – the “Great Replacement.” This theory, alleging a coordinated effort to replace white Americans with immigrants, has long been a cornerstone of white nationalist and far-right ideologies. Its presence in a mainstream political figure’s post demands careful analysis.

It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country. IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111667694816747840

While concerns about immigration trends and their potential impact on society are legitimate topics for discussion,Trump’s post utilizes inflammatory language and unsubstantiated claims. The assertion that millions of immigrants are being deliberately “unvetted” and signed up to vote solely for partisan gain fuels xenophobia and undermines trust in democratic processes. This narrative conveniently omits the complex web of economic, social, and political factors driving immigration patterns, instead choosing to paint a picture of nefarious outsiders infiltrating American society.

Trump’s post echoes disturbing historical rhetoric with its coded language and divisive framing. Phrases like “millions and millions” and “totally unvetted” bear striking resemblance to slogans chanted by white supremacist groups like those who marched in Charlottesville. Their hateful chants targeting Jewish communities openly invoked the “Great Replacement” theory, highlighting its dangerous potential to incite real-world violence and discrimination.

Dismissing such language as mere political rhetoric carries significant risks. Normalizing these narratives, even unintentionally, emboldens extremist groups and provides validation for their hateful ideologies. It has the potential to further erode social cohesion, fuel animosity towards immigrants and minorities, and ultimately weaken the fabric of American society.

Instead of indulging in fear-mongering and unsubstantiated claims, responsible political discourse should prioritize facts and evidence-based solutions. By addressing legitimate concerns about immigration while rejecting harmful stereotypes and conspiratorial narratives, we can foster a more informed and inclusive national conversation. Let’s focus on building a stronger nation where all members feel welcome and contribute to its shared future, rather than succumbing to the shadows of hate and division.

Trump Echoes Hitler’s Immigrants Poisoning Blood of the Country

Former President Trump’s recent Truth Social post, declaring illegal immigration to be “poisoning the blood of our nation,” reverberates with disturbing historical echoes. The language, while veiled, taps into a wellspring of dehumanizing and exclusionary rhetoric used throughout history to ostracize and discriminate against marginalized groups. Examining the post through this lens reveals the potential dangers of such inflammatory language and underscores the importance of responsible political discourse.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION. THEY’RE COMING FROM PRISONS, FROM MENTAL INSTITUTIONS — FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111593149429973351

Firstly, the stark metaphor of “poisoning the blood” is deeply concerning. It dehumanizes immigrants, reducing them to a toxic threat infiltrating the nation’s very core. This echoes similar language used throughout history to demonize groups based on ethnicity, religion, or origin. Nazi propaganda, for instance, frequently depicted Jews as a “poisonous bacillus” infecting the Aryan body politic. Such language not only creates a stark “us vs. them” dichotomy but also lays the groundwork for justifying discrimination, hostility, and even violence against the targeted group.

Furthermore, the post’s claim that immigrants come from “prisons, mental institutions, and all over the world” further fuels harmful stereotypes. This paints a generalized picture of immigrants as criminals, deviants, and outsiders, fostering fear and distrust. It disregards the vast diversity of experiences and circumstances among immigrants, reducing them to a monolithic threat instead of recognizing them as individuals seeking a better life. Such generalizations often stem from xenophobic sentiments and lack factual basis, contributing to an atmosphere of prejudice and discrimination.

Ultimately, Trump’s post exemplifies the perils of employing divisive and dehumanizing language in political discourse. It stokes fear, fosters prejudice, and risks normalizing dangerous rhetoric with historical roots in exclusion and hate. As responsible citizens and journalists, we must critically analyze such language, expose its harmful origins, and advocate for a more inclusive and fact-based political discourse. Only then can we truly build a nation where all members, regardless of their background or origin, feel welcome and valued.

Trump Speeds Up Plans To Force Foreign Students, Others Out Of U.S.

Faced with the prospect of losing the power to make immigration policy after the November 2020 presidential election, Trump administration officials are speeding up efforts to force foreign nationals to leave the United States, including a new policy that could push out many international students. The latest policy should be seen in the context of the June 22, 2020, presidential proclamation that blocked the entry of foreign-born professionals and encouraged them to depart the country by preventing the entry of many family members. The proclamation also included a plan, if implemented, that could drive many long-time H-1B visa holders out of America.

“The Trump administration seems to be doing everything it can to stop all immigration to the United States,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell Law School professor and an advisor to the National Foundation for American Policy, in an interview. “Families are separated and employers can’t bring in needed workers. These latest actions are hurting, not helping, our economy.”

On July 6, 2020, the Trump administration announced that international students at U.S. universities “operating entirely online may not take a full online course load and remain in the United States,” according to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). “The U.S. Department of State will not issue visas to students enrolled in schools and/or programs that are fully online for the fall semester nor will U.S. Customs and Border Protection permit these students to enter the United States. Active students currently in the United States enrolled in such programs must depart the country or take other measures, such as transferring to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status. If not, they may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings.” (Emphasis in original.)

The announcement sent shockwaves through U.S. universities, many of which decided for health and safety reasons to offer classes exclusively online in the fall. Public universities facing state budget crises already expected to be harmed financially by the near absence of new international students, who often pay full tuition. Administration policies that may drive out existing international students as well will be a further financial blow and are likely to crush the dreams of many students, note analysts.

“By not allowing continuing international students who are studying at institutions that make the decision to continue with online classes, rather than moving to in-person or hybrid models, SEVP has made it more difficult for both these students and institutions. This is very unfortunate,” said Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, in an interview. She recommends the administration, at minimum, to continue the current flexibility from the spring on allowing all online classes, which was extended into the summer. Feldblum would also like to see online fall semester enrollment count towards eligibility to participate in Curricular Practical Training (CPT).

The Department of Homeland Security plans to publish a new regulation on the policy as a temporary final rule, allowing it to take effect immediately, though it is expected to be challenged in court. “The policy forces schools to pick a model and stick to it, despite the fact that Covid-19 is a moving target,” said Dan Berger, a partner at Curran, Berger & Kludt, in an interview. “Depending on how the virus progresses, schools with hybrid models [in-person and online classes] may go online this fall. The administration’s message does not allow much-needed flexibility based on public health as the Covid-19 situation plays out.” 

“The policy also forces some students to leave who are here and safe, even if the country they are going to has a Covid-19 outbreak or closed borders,” said Berger. “Schools offer more than just classes. There is support here for students who have nowhere to go, even if the students are taking classes online. And forcing schools that were online to add an in-person class to meet the ‘hybrid’ definition would mean bringing students into contact with each other just for immigration purposes.”

The new Trump administration policy may force international students currently enrolled at Harvard University to leave the United States. Harvard recently announced that “all course instruction (undergraduate and graduate) for the 2020-21 academic year will be delivered online.”

“We are deeply concerned that the guidance issued today by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement imposes a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach to a complex problem, giving international students, particularly those in online programs, few options beyond leaving the country or transferring schools,” said Harvard President Larry Bacow in a statement. “This guidance undermines the thoughtful approach taken on behalf of students by so many institutions, including Harvard, to plan for continuing academic programs while balancing the health and safety challenges of the global pandemic. We must do all that we can to ensure that our students can continue their studies without fear of being forced to leave the country mid-way through the year, disrupting their academic progress and undermining the commitments – and sacrifices – that many of them have made to advance their education.” (Note: On July 8, 2020, Harvard and MIT filed a lawsuit seeking to block the upcoming rule on international students.)

In response to the question, “Does it look like Harvard will have international students on campus in the fall?” William Stock of Klasko Immigration Law Partners said, “Apparently not.”

The new policy may upend hundreds of thousands of lives, but for Trump administration officials, who fear this is their final chance to institute lasting changes to U.S. immigration policy, it is just one of many measures designed to discourage international students and others to follow their dreams to America. Attorney Dan Berger said, “The chilling effect of this new policy on international students coming to the United States will be tremendous.” That is the point.

[Forbes]

“Birth tourism” is Trump’s next immigration target

The Trump administration has a new target on the immigration front — pregnant women visiting from other countries — with plans as early as this week to roll out a new rule cracking down on “birth tourism,” three administration officials told Axios.

Why it matters: Trump has threatened to end birthright citizenship and railed against immigrant “anchor babies.” The new rule would be one of the first tangible steps to test how much legal authority the administration has to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S.

  • “This change is intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry,” a State Department official told Axios.
  • The regulation is also part of the administration’s broader efforts to intensify the vetting process for visas, according to another senior administration official.

The big picture: “Birth tourists” often come to the U.S. from China, Russia and Nigeria, according to the AP.

  • There’s no official count of babies born to foreign visitors in the U.S., while the immigration restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies — which has close ties to Trump administration immigration officials — puts estimates at around 33,000 every year.

How the new regulation would work: It would alter the requirements for B visas (or visitor visas), giving State Department officials the authority to deny foreigners the short-term business and tourism visas if they believe the process is being used to facilitate automatic citizenship.

  • It’s unclear yet how the rule would be enforced — whether officials would be directed to consider pregnancy or the country of the woman’s citizenship in determining whether to grant a visa.
  • Consular officers who issue passports and visas “are remarkably skilled at sussing out true versus false claims,” the senior official said.
  • “The underlying practical issue is that very few people who give birth in the U.S. got a visa for that specific purpose. Most people already have visas and come in later,” according to Jeffrey Gorsky, former chief legal adviser in the State Department visa office.

This is but one step in the administration’s plans to make it harder for people from other countries to benefit from birthright citizenship.

  • “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” the senior official said. “Just the legal recognition that this is improper and wrong and not allowed is a significant step forward.”
  • The plans to address the use of B visas for birth tourism were included in the latest version of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
  • Immigration experts expect there to be a similar rule for Customs and Border Protection to go along with the State Department’s regulation.

What to watch: Most of Trump’s major immigration moves have been met with lawsuits. If the regulation leaves it to officers’ discretion to ensure that B visas aren’t used for birth tourism, it would be difficult to challenge in court, according to Lynden Melmed, an attorney and former chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

  • “State Department officials have all the discretion in the world to deny people visas,” said Sarah Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute. Foreign nationals who are outside the U.S. and have not yet received visas “don’t have a lot of legal standing.”
  • But specific restrictions that could keep out non-birth tourism visitors — such as pregnant women coming to the U.S. for business, etc. — would be legally questionable, according to Melmed and Gorsky.

[Axios]

Trump administration refuses to release all available aid to Puerto Rico despite earthquakes

The Trump administration is refusing to release all available disaster aid to Puerto Rico despite this week’s earthquakes, citing concerns about “corruption” and “financial mismanagement” on the island, the Daily News has learned.

President Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development was supposed to start disbursing $9.7 billion in aid to Puerto Rico in September as part of a congressional allocation to beef up natural disaster readiness following the devastating hurricanes that battered the island in 2017 and killed nearly 3,000 people.

But HUD has to date only released about $1.5 billion of those funds, and a senior agency official said Thursday that the remainder of the relief cash won’t be released anytime soon despite a string of earthquakes that rocked the island this week and left thousands of residents without power.

“Given the Puerto Rican government’s history of financial mismanagement, corruption and other abuses, we must ensure that any HUD assistance provided helps those on the island who need it the most: the people of Puerto Rico,” the HUD official told The News, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal operations.

The official did not give a timeline for when the aid will be released and downplayed the island’s need for more assistance.

“Puerto Rico already has access to $1.5 billion and has so far only spent $5.8 million — less than 1% of those funds,” the official said.

Congressional Democrats were outraged and said the Trump administration is breaking the law by withholding the congressionally approved money.

“The ongoing withholding of funds appropriated by Congress to Puerto Rico is illegal,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters at a Thursday press conference.

Queens-Brooklyn Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who grew up in Puerto Rico, said HUD’s own inspector general recently concluded there’s nothing to suggest the island can’t properly manage the aid.

She also said it isn’t HUD’s prerogative to block the funds, as they were approved by Congress.

“The real motivation for withholding these dollars is Donald Trump’s disdain for the people of Puerto Rico and heartless disregard for their suffering,” Velazquez told The News.

Velazquez joined Queens-Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in sending a letter earlier this week to HUD Secretary Ben Carson demanding the outstanding $8.3 billion be released to Puerto Rico immediately, arguing the island needs whatever assistance it can get in the wake of the earthquakes.

Schumer said Carson had not responded as of Thursday and reiterated a call for the administration to end its “counterproductive vendetta” with Puerto Rico.

“As opposed to erecting hurdles to recovery, the administration should be clearing a path, righting past wrongs and delivering the support our fellow American citizens so clearly need,” he said.

At least one person has died since a magnitude 6.4 earthquake shook Puerto Rico on Tuesday. Several major aftershocks have followed, destroying homes and leaving two-thirds of the island without electricity.

Trump declared a state of emergency for Puerto Rico earlier this week, opening up about $5 million in federal funds to be spent on emergency services in light of the earthquake.

But Democrats say that’s not close to enough and urged the administration to stop withholding the hurricane relief cash that was supposed to be released months ago.

“Holding these resources back means delaying the island’s economic and physical recovery, period,” Velazquez said.

Trump has had a thorny relationship with Puerto Rico’s leaders for years.

After the 2017 hurricanes, critics accused the president of racism after he expressed reluctance about releasing aid to Puerto Rico while pledging sweeping support for states like Texas and Florida when they suffered natural disasters.

Trump infamously tossed paper towels at a crowd of Puerto Ricans when he visited the island in the wake of Hurricane Maria in October 2017.


[New York Daily News]

Trump Just Called DACA Recipients ‘Hardened Criminals’ Hours Before Their Supreme Court Case

Hours before the Supreme Court would hear arguments in a case to determine the legal status of nearly 700,000 immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, President Trump tweeted a message for them.

“Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals,” wrote Trump, referring to immigrants who’ve benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

The missive came as protestors and activists swarmed the Supreme Court ahead of its hearing on the Obama-era law that gives certain immigrants temporary legal status and a work permit, which they can renew every two years. Recipients need to have come to the U.S. before age 16, graduated high school (or be enrolled), and passed a background check.

Trump’s Tuesday morning tweet echoes the language he frequently uses to describe immigrants. But according to a 2017 report from the libertarian think tank CATO Institute, DACA recipients have lower incarceration rates than people born in the U.S. And to be eligible for the program, applicants can’t have been convicted of a felony — or even a string of misdemeanors.

After he took office, Trump initially waffled on whether his administration would preserve the policy. In February of 2017, Trump called DACA beneficiaries “absolutely incredible kids.” But facing pressure from immigration hard-liners, Trump swiftly changed his tune. By September of that year, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security would end the program completely.

That fight has now arrived at the Supreme Court, which will decide whether it’s lawful for the Trump administration to end the program. Nearly 700,000 immigrants rely on DACA to live and work in the U.S., the vast majority of which are women under the age of 25.

Despite the fact that his own administration is pushing to dismantle the program, Trump has punted the issue to Democrats in Congress. He added in his tweet that, if the Supreme Court rules in his administration’s favor, the White House will work with Democrats on a plan to keep DACA beneficiaries in the U.S.

“President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!” Trump wrote.

[VICE]

Trump approves plan for record low number of refugee admissions

President Trump has approved a plan to reduce the cap for refugee admissions to the country for fiscal 2020 to 18,000, the lowest level on record since the program began more than three decades ago. 

In a statement announcing the move this weekend, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “the core of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy is a commitment to make decisions based on reality, not wishes, and to drive optimal outcomes based on concrete facts.” 

Pompeo went on to say that “this year’s determination on refugee admissions does just that, even as we sustain our longstanding commitment to help vulnerable populations and our leadership as the world’s most generous nation.” 

The plan, which was announced in late September, has drawn pushback from Democratic lawmakers, including governors who have said they will continue to welcome refugees to their states despite the steep reduction.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) said last month that her state is a “sanctuary state” and that Oregon will continue to “stand with refugees” in light of the executive order issued by the Trump administration, which allows states to turn away refugees. 

“These are people who cannot return home because they fear for their lives and their families. And to make matters worse, the Trump administration wants to slash the number of refugees our country will welcome this coming year to 18,000, the lowest ever on record,” she said then.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) said in a letter to Trump last month that his state will continue to accept refugees fleeing violence and added that he was “dismayed” by the administration’s plans to drastically reduce the refugee cap to 18,000 — a significant jump from former President Obama’s proposed cap of 116,000 refugees in 2016.

“To reject refugees outright emboldens the message of those who seek to inspire hatred by saying that we, as Americans, do not have compassion or care for specific groups of people in the world facing persecution or worse,” Wolf wrote in the letter.

According to The New York Times, under the new move by the Trump administration, only 5,000 people who wish to flee their home countries for fear of persecution due to their religion will be allowed admission into the U.S. as part of the refugee program.

Fewer than 2,000 Central Americans will reportedly be allowed admission under the program going forward as well as 4,000 Iraqis who aided the United States military during the Iraq War.

The new cap for Iraqi refugees is reportedly less than half of the 9,829 who were admitted under the Obama administration in fiscal 2014. Under the Trump administration during fiscal 2019, just 153 Iraqi refugees whose applications were given high priority were admitted into the country. 

[The Hill]

Trump suggested shooting Hispanic migrants in the legs

President Trump suggested having migrants shot in their legs during a March meeting with White House advisers in the Oval Office, The New York Times reported Tuesday. 

The Times’ report is based on interviews with more than a dozen White House administration officials involved in the events the week of the meeting. The article is adapted from a forthcoming book by reporters Mike Shear and Julie Hirschfield Davis, titled “Border Wars: Inside Trump’s Assault on Immigration.” It will be published Oct. 8. 

The aides told the Times Trump suggested to advisors during the Oval Office meeting that they should shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. 

The suggestion came after Trump had publicly suggested shooting migrants if they threw rocks, the Times reports. Trump had made the suggestion about shooting migrants that threw rocks during a speech in November. 

Officials who spoke to the Times also recall Trump often suggesting fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators. 

Trump also “wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh,” the Times reports. 

When advisors told Trump some of his suggestions were not allowed, he reportedly became frustrated. 

“You are making me look like an idiot!” Trump shouted, according to the Times, citing multiple officials in the room’s description. “I ran on this. It’s my issue.”

The meeting was set for 30-minutes and the Times reports it lasted more than an hour. Officials in the room included then Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Customs and Border Protection Chief Kevin McAleenan, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Steven Miller, according to the Times. 

A White House spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

[The Hill]

1 2 3 4 … 22