Category: Federal Budget

Trump wants US taxpayers to reimburse oil firm donors for Venezuela investment

President Donald Trump stated that US taxpayers could reimburse oil companies for reconstructing Venezuelan infrastructure to extract and export oil following the ouster of Nicolás Maduro. Trump declared that “a tremendous amount of money” would be required and suggested his government would compensate energy firms through direct reimbursement or revenue sharing, explicitly linking military intervention to corporate profit.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is scheduled to meet executives from Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil at a Goldman Sachs conference in Miami this week to discuss increasing Venezuelan oil production. These meetings represent the administration’s strategy to restore US oil company operations in Venezuela after nearly two decades of government control of the industry, contradicting Trump’s earlier claims that he had already held talks with “all” major US oil companies regarding Maduro’s removal.

Trump acknowledged no prior briefing of oil companies before military action but claimed companies were aware of discussions about intervention. When asked if he personally contacted top executives, Trump stated it was “too soon” to confirm direct conversations, saying “I speak to everybody,” despite Reuters reporting that no representatives from the three major firms had engaged with the White House on Venezuela operations before or after Maduro’s seizure.

Trump’s blockade announcement of Venezuelan oil tankers exposed the operation’s economic objectives beyond stated anti-drug rationales. Venezuela’s crude production has collapsed to approximately 1.1 million barrels daily from 3.5 million in 1999 due to underinvestment and sanctions, and industry analysts warn that reconstruction requires years of work and billions in investment amid political uncertainty and unclear US policy direction.

Stock markets responded immediately to Trump’s Venezuela initiative, with the S&P 500 energy index reaching its highest level since March 2025 on Monday, as ExxonMobil gained 2.2% and Chevron jumped 5.1%. The White House claimed US oil companies were “ready and willing” to make large investments to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, while the targeted companies declined to comment on their involvement or commitment to Trump’s stated plans.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/trump-us-taxpayers-oil-firms-venezuela-investment?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPKh-pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe_-yezUeRoVFdugcD1nvSw5XtSl1m5n_0dygqy2cYQq8J1z-O6-KB_zPL_K4_aem_UlldULbmcvRIeiE8DDl0jg#Echobox=1767698755)

How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little? – The New York Times

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency claimed to have made over 29,000 federal cuts and slashed billion-dollar contracts, yet federal spending increased rather than decreased under DOGE’s oversight. The group failed to achieve its stated goal of reducing federal spending by $1 trillion before October, contradicting Musk’s core promises about the agency’s mission.

A New York Times analysis of hundreds of federal records found that 28 of DOGE’s top 40 largest savings claims were inaccurate, with the 13 largest claims all proven wrong. Two Defense Department contracts—one for information technology and one for aircraft maintenance—were listed as terminated with claimed savings of $7.9 billion, but both contracts remain active and the savings were fabricated. A U.S.A.I.D. contract with Accenture showed DOGE claiming $312 million in savings by reducing the contract ceiling, despite actual spending patterns making that figure implausible by the original 2033 end date.

Beyond inflated major claims, the overwhelming majority of DOGE’s cuts involved minimal amounts, with 80 percent of contract and grant cancellations claiming savings of $1 million or less. Of approximately 29,000 total cuts reported, 8,611 claimed zero savings, while only 11 claimed savings exceeding $1 billion, demonstrating that DOGE’s disruption of federal operations produced negligible fiscal results.

The analysis demonstrates that DOGE’s extensive disruption of federal programs, grants to small businesses, and foreign aid functioned without corresponding budget reductions. NASA workforce cuts exceeded 20 percent and misinformation campaigns targeted the Social Security Administration, yet these actions produced neither the promised savings nor policy improvements. DOGE’s track record reveals systematic exaggeration masking a failure to deliver on its central mission.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/doge-musk-trump-analysis.html)

Trump Admits No One Wants to Build Him a Monument

Donald Trump publicly acknowledged that his $400 million White House ballroom project functions as a personal monument because he cannot secure one through conventional means. During a meeting with Fox News host Jesse Watters aboard Air Force One, Trump stated, “It’s a monument. I’m building a monument to myself because no one else will,” according to Watters’ account delivered at the Turning Point USA AmericaFest event on December 21, 2025. The admission exposes the vanity-driven nature of a project that Trump plans to name after himself.

The ballroom, originally budgeted at $200 million, has surged to $400 million in costs and occupies 90,000 square feet—reportedly four times the size of the White House itself. Trump demolished the East Wing in October to make room for the project without submitting official plans to the National Capital Planning Commission, violating standard federal construction oversight procedures. The National Trust Preservation Committee has questioned Trump’s authority to proceed with construction absent independent architectural and historical reviews.

Corporate donors including Microsoft, Caterpillar, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, and Comcast are funding the project—many of which hold private government contracts, creating direct conflicts of interest. The White House claimed the ballroom represents “historic beautification” at no taxpayer expense, though the reliance on corporate donors with federal business relationships contradicts assertions of independence from public financial burden.

The structure will include a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, multi-level colonnade, passageway to the executive residence, visitor entrance, bedrooms, offices, and “monumental stairs,” designed for completion by 2029 coinciding with the end of Trump’s second term. Trump’s explicit framing of the project as a personal monument to himself, combined with his documented attacks on journalists questioning the project’s costs, demonstrates his use of federal property and resources for self-aggrandizement.

Critics have characterized the ballroom as Trump’s most ambitious vanity project, part of a broader pattern of rebranding federal landmarks and institutions to bear his name. The project’s escalating cost, corporate funding mechanism, lack of regulatory compliance, and Trump’s own admission of its purpose as a personal monument collectively demonstrate how Trump weaponizes presidential authority to enrich and memorialize himself at the expense of constitutional process and institutional integrity.

(Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admits-no-one-wants-to-build-him-a-monument/)

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.

FEMA Chief Karen Evans Cuts Funding, Targets Muslim Groups

Karen Evans, the new FEMA chief, previously served as a senior adviser tasked with tightening spending controls at the agency. Known as the “terminator,” she has gained a reputation for slashing grants, contracts, and staff, often prioritizing budget alignment with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) agenda over community needs. Critics have described Evans’ oversight as excessively rigid, hampering the agency’s ability to respond to emergencies effectively.

Evans has been accused of orchestrating the removal of numerous FEMA staff members, including seasoned emergency management experts, thus enabling DHS to consolidate power over the agency. Her approach reportedly involves significant delays in fund approvals and fostering a toxic work environment marked by conflict with personnel. This management style raises questions about the agency’s capability to handle disaster response adequately.

Moreover, she has been linked to controversial efforts to strip funding from Muslim organizations deemed problematic by the DHS. Initial proposals suggested broadly banning these groups from receiving security grants, driven by concerns over their perceived connections to terrorism. Although a blanket ban was ultimately not implemented, many Muslim groups were still disqualified from receiving federal assistance under her influence.

Evans’ lack of experience in emergency management, coupled with her DHS loyalty, has led to skepticism regarding her capacity to lead FEMA effectively during significant crises. The agency’s future remains uncertain, particularly with ongoing debates about its oversight and operational structure in relation to DHS.

Amid criticisms of delayed funding and response efforts, many within and outside FEMA view Evans as a figurehead, executing the directives of DHS leadership rather than serving as an independent decision-maker for disaster relief efforts. With growing calls from lawmakers for FEMA to operate independently, Evans’ role may be pivotal in shaping future agency dynamics.

Trump Claims Tariffs Critical for Economy, Spouts $17 Trillion

President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning of an impending “economic disaster,” claiming that the future of U.S. tariffs is crucial for the nation’s financial stability. He attributed an astonishing $17 trillion to the tariffs, despite this amount exceeding the total value of annual U.S. imports and being more than half of the entire U.S. economy. Trump’s continued exaggerated assertions reflect a disturbing lack of regard for factual accuracy and economic realities, echoing his long history of dishonest statements.

In an interview on “The Scott Jennings Radio Show,” Trump declared that a reversal of tariffs would be catastrophic, stating bluntly, “If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.” He consistently escalated the rhetoric around this issue, previously stating that a recent federal appellate court ruling against his tariffs would “literally destroy the United States” and reduce it to a “third world nation.”

The situation stems from a recent ruling by a federal court that threw out many of Trump’s unilateral tariffs, which had already caused fluctuations in the stock market and increased bond yields. As his claims grow more extreme, it is evident that Trump is misrepresenting the economic impact of these tariffs to foster a sense of crisis and bolster support for his trade policies. This manipulation is indicative of authoritarian tactics often employed by those seeking to maintain power.

Trump’s outlandish figures of $17 trillion in tariff revenue are scientifically unfounded and contradict previous estimates from his own administration, which significantly downplayed the tariffs’ economic contributions. Such discrepancies illustrate Trump’s ongoing pattern of misinformation that prioritizes political leverage over the truth.

As the administration prepares to file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, one must question the broader implications of Trump’s actions and words, which not only distort the economic landscape but also serve his authoritarian governance style. His rhetoric represents a troubling trend aimed at undermining rational economic discussion, framing dissent as an existential threat to the nation.

Trump Approves $32 Million for Storm Recovery in GOP States

Donald Trump announced the approval of nearly $32 million in federal storm recovery funds targeted primarily at storm-ravaged states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin. This partial aid comes in the wake of Hurricane Helene’s devastation and subsequent flooding from Tropical Depression Chantal. Trump’s repeated pattern of selectively issuing disaster relief underscores a troubling favoritism towards Republican states while neglecting areas that may not align with his political base.

This funding announcement was posted on Trump’s Truth Social account, emphasizing his conversations with Republican lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Budd from North Carolina and Sen. Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. Such engagement with GOP representatives reflects Trump’s reliance on party loyalty, leaving states led by Democrats, like North Carolina, at the mercy of politically skewed decision-making processes.

Significantly, some Republican leaders, including Budd, have criticized the Trump administration’s pace regarding disaster aid. Budd’s threats to delay Department of Homeland Security nominees until their concerns were addressed exemplify the internal pressures Trump’s administration faces, suggesting that responses to natural disasters are influenced by political bargaining rather than the immediate needs of affected residents.

In addition to North Carolina, Trump announced nearly $30 million in funding for Wisconsin and smaller amounts for Kansas and South Dakota. This selective funding strategy raises questions about the efficiency and fairness of disaster relief under the Trump administration, especially as an Associated Press analysis reveals that approval times for disaster declarations have stretched beyond a month, significantly longer compared to previous administrations.

These administrative delays and the targeted nature of the funding illustrate an alarming trend where disaster relief appears more driven by politics than by a genuine commitment to assist all Americans who are suffering from the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. As such, the aid appears more about shoring up loyalty among Republican constituents than about equitable disaster management.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5499262-trump-approves-storm-recovery-funding/amp/)

NASA Cuts Over 20% Workforce Amid Trump’s Large Budget Slash

NASA is undertaking significant workforce reductions, with plans to cut over 20% of its staff in alignment with President Trump’s strategy to downsize the federal government. Nearly 4,000 employees have opted to leave the agency, responding to a deferred resignation program that closed its application window recently. This mass departure will reduce NASA’s workforce from approximately 18,000 to around 14,000.

The downsizing includes about 870 employees who applied in the initial round, along with an additional 3,000 in the second round. This reduction, exacerbated by the 500 workers lost through normal attrition, poses serious challenges to NASA’s operational capabilities. Workers have expressed concerns that these cuts threaten safety, scientific progress, and the effective use of public resources.

A budget proposal from the Trump administration threatens to decrease NASA’s overall budget by 24%, reducing it from $24 billion to $18 billion. Over 360 NASA employees have publicly urged against these proposed cuts, stating they are arbitrary and disregard established congressional appropriations laws. Their letter highlights the potential “dire” consequences of these reductions on NASA’s mission.

The initiative to downsize stems from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created during Trump’s term, aimed at reducing waste and the size of the federal workforce. This plan raises alarms within the scientific community about the potential erosion of decades of progress in research and inclusivity, particularly as funding cuts threaten ongoing missions to the Moon and Mars.

Earlier this year, NASA experienced internal instability as Trump’s initial nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, was withdrawn prior to a confirmation vote. Following this setback, Trump appointed Sean Duffy as the interim administrator, a move seen as indicative of Trump’s ongoing efforts to influence NASA’s direction amid substantial operational challenges.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5421675-nasa-workforce-20-percent-cuts/)

Trump’s Plan to Tackle National Debt: Asking Citizens to Fix $7.8 Trillion Deficit Caused by His Policies

The Trump administration has devised a controversial scheme to address the burgeoning national debt, now totaling around $36.7 trillion, by soliciting donations from citizens via digital payment platforms like Venmo and PayPal. This initiative comes as Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” threatens to exacerbate the already staggering debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this bill includes substantial funding for military expenditures and Trump’s mass deportation agenda, it simultaneously slashes vital social programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.

The Pay.gov website, an official U.S. Treasury program, has been updated to allow Americans the option to contribute financially towards the public debt, a move that raises significant ethical concerns about fiscal responsibility. Historically, the “Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt” program has garnered only $67.3 million in donations since its inception in 1996, highlighting the absurdity of asking average citizens to rectify the financial mismanagement perpetuated by the administration.

The administration’s messaging around this initiative attempts to frame it as a positive step towards reducing the financial burden on future generations. However, the stark reality is that the administration continues to pile on new debts rather than addressing the root causes of fiscal irresponsibility. The press release from the White House emphasized that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” would purportedly enhance economic growth and reduce debt—a narrative that contradicts tangible evidence of the impending financial crisis.

In stark contrast to this narrative, reputable analyses indicate that the national debt is significantly on the rise due to short-term tax cuts favored by the administration, leaving a grim outlook for working-class Americans who now face the prospect of financially supporting the consequences of reckless fiscal policies. The messaging appears more aimed at diverting accountability than offering genuine solutions to the debt crisis.

This unsustainable approach indicates not just a failure in responsible governance but highlights a troubling willingness to exploit vulnerable American citizens to mitigate the repercussions of the administration’s own fiscal failures. The reliance on donations to manage national debt underscores the administration’s flawed economic policies and its disregard for equitable financial stewardship.

(h/t: https://people.com/trump-administration-accepting-venmo-payments-reduce-national-debt-11779514?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=photo&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=68840bbdf679720001e43aeb&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR7wCfgY0RLLhYrMO6bgKyErrSdQJcB5SRDByfI3VJiGvx1PzKaB72rQZb6Jug_aem_wdlHwOwR-QdBrJUFlSd6jQ)

Trump Administration Orders Incineration of Lifesaving Food Aid

In a shocking move, the Trump administration has ordered the incineration of 500 tons of emergency food aid, enough to feed 1.5 million children for one week, instead of delivering it to those in need. These high-energy biscuits, which were meant for vulnerable children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will go to waste due to the administration’s drastic cuts to foreign aid programs. The food, purchased for approximately $800,000, is set to expire soon as the administration has halted almost all foreign assistance since January.

Current and former USAID employees revealed that requests to ship the food to its intended recipients were ignored by the newly appointed heads of foreign assistance. The transfer and distribution of the biscuits depended on bureaucratic approval from political appointees like Pete Marocco and Jeremy Lewin, both closely aligned with the Trump administration. Despite promises from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to facilitate aid delivery, the decision to destroy the food had already been made.

The aid effectively represents the increasing neglect of humanitarian responsibilities under the Trump administration, raising questions about its commitment to global welfare. In addition to Afghanistan, other regions like Sudan, suffering from extreme famine, could have benefited from the aid; however, the administration’s rationale for ceasing support is fundamentally flawed, linking it to unfounded claims about aiding terrorist groups.

As a consequence of the logistical breakdown, numerous other food supplies are now languishing in American warehouses, threatening to meet the same fate. Current estimates suggest that at least 60,000 metric tons of food—which includes vital staples—are collecting dust, with only limited shipments being dispatched recently. This represents a significant failure of the administration whose actions could lead to severe repercussions for millions globally facing starvation.

Moreover, this ongoing crisis highlights the broader implications of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy and humanitarian aid, sharply contrasting with America’s historical role as a leader in global assistance. With more food aid potentially on the verge of expiration, the lack of effective management and commitment raises red flags about the administration’s values, turning a blind eye to the vulnerability of those in dire need.

(h/t: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/07/usaid-emergency-food-incinerate-trump/683532/)

1 2 3 … 8