Category: Unpresidential

Marco Rubio Slides Private Note to Donald Trump During Televised Press Conference. Trump Looks Down and Reads It Aloud

During a White House press conference on January 9, 2026, President Donald Trump read aloud a private handwritten note from Secretary of State Marco Rubio in front of oil and gas executives, exposing Rubio’s internal directive. The note instructed Trump to “go back to Chevron” to discuss company matters, revealing Rubio’s attempt to manage Trump’s attention during the meeting.

Trump announced the note’s existence to the room before reading it verbatim, causing visible discomfort for Rubio, who appeared to regret the public exposure of his written instruction. Vice President JD Vance was visibly amused by the incident, laughing as Rubio smiled uncomfortably. Trump then patted Rubio on the back and thanked him, apparently unaware of the breach of confidentiality or its implications.

This incident is not Trump’s first encounter with Rubio’s written directives. In October 2025, photographers captured another note in which Rubio instructed Trump to “approve” a Truth Social post announcing an Israel-Hamas peace agreement, suggesting Trump did not draft the statement himself. Trump acknowledged the note publicly at that meeting as well, stating he was “very well represented” by Rubio.

The pattern of Trump publicly disclosing private notes from his Secretary of State demonstrates a lack of operational discipline and respect for confidential communication channels. Rubio’s repeated need to issue written instructions suggests the President requires constant guidance on procedural matters and media strategy.

(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/marco-rubio-slides-private-note-230443426.html)

‘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/)

UNFCCC: Trump moves to pull US out of bedrock global climate treaty, becoming first country to do so

President Trump’s administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a foundational treaty that Congress ratified in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush. If executed, this action would make the United States the first country to exit the agreement, which nearly every nation globally has joined. The UNFCCC established the framework for international climate negotiations, including the 1995 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, and requires participating nations to submit annual climate pollution inventories—a requirement the Trump administration already skipped this year.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the withdrawal by stating the administration will not continue “expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests.” The move is part of a broader executive order directing withdrawal from 66 international organizations deemed to no longer serve American interests, including 31 UN entities such as UN Water, UN Oceans, UN Population Fund, and the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

Former Secretary of State and US climate envoy John Kerry condemned the decision as “a gift to China and a get out of jail free card to countries and polluters who want to avoid responsibility.” The withdrawal follows Trump’s second pullout from the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, demonstrating a pattern of rejecting climate commitments. The Trump administration also moved to withdraw from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize-winning scientific body that publishes global warming assessments, potentially restricting federal scientists’ participation in IPCC reports.

The legality of Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the UNFCCC remains uncertain, as the Senate ratified the treaty in 1992, creating ambiguity over whether presidential authority extends to exiting congressionally approved agreements without legislative consent. Republican majorities in Congress would likely support the withdrawal if required to formally approve it. Withdrawal would exclude the United States from participating in subsequent annual UN climate summits and jeopardize the country’s ability to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which operates under UNFCCC authority.

The withdrawal threatens to destabilize international climate cooperation and may prompt other nations to reconsider their own UNFCCC commitments, undermining global progress on climate action. A US withdrawal would isolate America from allied nations for whom climate action is a priority and signals abandonment of decades-long international environmental partnerships at a critical moment for addressing climate change.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/climate/trump-withdrawal-climate-treaty-international-agreements)

Trump Slams Woman Killed In ICE Shooting, Contradicts Police

President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social on Wednesday claiming that a woman fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis was a “professional agitator” who “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” Trump’s account directly contradicts statements from Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who reported the woman was shot in the head while in her vehicle after it began to drive away from a federal agent on foot.

Chief O’Hara’s preliminary findings indicate the woman was blocking a roadway when a federal officer approached on foot, at which point the vehicle began moving and at least two shots were fired. Video evidence does not show the officer being struck or in immediate danger from the vehicle, yet Trump claimed the officer acted in “self-defense.” The Department of Homeland Security characterized the incident as defensive action after claiming the woman “weaponized her vehicle,” a narrative the mayor and local law enforcement have rejected.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey characterized DHS’s official statement as false and told ICE agents to leave the city. Trump’s post falsely blamed the incident on “Radical Left” violence against law enforcement, despite no evidence suggesting political motivation in the shooting or that the woman posed an active threat to the officer’s safety.

The conflicting accounts between federal and local authorities underscore the Trump administration’s deployment of approximately 2,100 ICE agents to Minneapolis for what officials claim is the largest immigration enforcement operation ever conducted. Trump’s statement weaponizes the incident to justify aggressive federal enforcement and to attack perceived political opponents rather than acknowledge the discrepancies documented by local authorities and video evidence.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/just-in-trump-attacks-woman-killed-in-ice-shooting-directly-contradicts-minneapolis-police-statement/)

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/)

1 2 3 … 430