Category: Corruption

Trump to Roll Back Fuel Economy Standards, Threatening Environment

President Donald Trump is preparing to announce a substantial rollback of national fuel economy standards this Wednesday at the White House, aiming to weaken the environmentally-focused regulations established during President Joe Biden’s administration. The proposed changes by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) include lowering the fuel-efficiency requirements for vehicles slated for 2022 to 2031, a move that contradicts efforts to lower emissions and reduce gasoline consumption.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy previously ordered NHTSA to rescind Biden-era standards and ceased penalties for automakers that fail to meet fuel economy targets. This rollback is positioned as a strategy to alleviate production costs for companies, such as Ford and General Motors, while simultaneously reversing a 64 billion gallon fuel consumption reduction that was projected under the previous rules.

Critics note that Trump’s changes undermine essential climate policies and public health measures. The previous fuel-efficiency standards were estimated to deliver net benefits of $35.2 billion for drivers and substantially curtail emissions, raising serious ethical concerns over environmental degradation as the administration pivots toward fossil fuel interests, evidenced by other deregulatory actions involving electric vehicle tax credits and state authority over emissions.

With the rollback, officials indicate the new regulations will likely lead to a decrease in the price of new vehicles, potentially saving consumers as much as $1,000. However, the long-term consequences include heightened carbon emissions and a failure to meet climate goals, raising alarm among environmental advocates and countering global progress on reducing fossil fuel reliance.

This rollback signifies a broader trend within the Trump administration to prioritize corporate interests over environmental protections, despite ongoing warnings from experts about the dire implications of climate inaction.

(Source: https://ground.news/article/trump-administration-to-propose-significant-rollback-in-fuel-economy-standards-report)

Trump’s Cabinet Meeting Loaded with Debunked False Claims

President Donald Trump made multiple false claims during a recent Cabinet meeting, echoing many previously debunked statements. He inaccurately asserted that grocery prices were down, when in fact they had risen by 2.7% from the previous year. Trump also distorted figures related to prescription drug price cuts, suggesting reductions that are mathematically impossible, and falsely claimed inflation had been “stopped in its tracks,” ignoring the ongoing uptick in year-over-year inflation rates.

Trump erroneously claimed he inherited the “worst inflation in history,” despite the current rate being similar to that in January when he returned to office. He inflated investment figures, alleging over $18 trillion in commitments, when official sources reported significantly lower numbers. On gas prices, Trump mentioned prices around $2.50 per gallon, which may have been true in certain states but overall remained close to $3.00 nationally.

In foreign policy discussions, Trump repeated the false claim that President Biden had “given away $350 billion” in aid to Ukraine; actual figures show substantially lower amounts disbursed. He exaggerated his achievements by stating he had ended eight wars, including conflicts that don’t fit his categorization. Additionally, a claim about his military strikes on drug boats saving thousands of lives lacked credible evidence and was dismissed as “absurd” by experts.

In relation to environmental issues, Trump misleadingly stated that China “doesn’t have gasoline,” despite its significant oil production. He also misrepresented Biden’s electric vehicle policies, suggesting there were mandates to own electric cars when, in reality, there were only guidelines aiming to increase their production.

Finally, Trump perpetuated lies about the 2020 election being “fake” and “rigged,” despite having lost a legitimate election. He also made false claims regarding crime rates in Washington, D.C., and misrepresented tax implications associated with his latest domestic policy bill regarding Social Security.

Trump Pledges Pardon for Corrupt Ex-Honduran President

Donald Trump has announced his intention to grant a full pardon to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who is currently serving a 45-year prison sentence for drug trafficking. This declaration was made via Trump’s platform, Truth Social, where he asserted that Hernández has been treated “harshly and unfairly.”

Hernández, a former U.S. ally, was convicted last year for conspiring with drug cartels and facilitating the movement of significant amounts of cocaine through Honduras destined for the U.S. Prosecutors accused him of accepting millions in bribes which he allegedly used to bolster his political power.

Trump’s backing of Hernández coincides with the Honduran elections and is tied to support for another candidate, Nasry “Tito” Asfura. Trump’s statements on social media suggest that U.S. assistance will depend on Asfura’s electoral success, further entrenching the notion of quid pro quo in U.S.-Honduran relations.

This pardon signals Trump’s willingness to undermine judicial outcomes and restore leaders previously implicated in corruption and drug trafficking—a pattern seen throughout his dealings as president. Hernández’s attorney praised Trump, framing the pardon as a rectification of what they described as political prosecution.

The developments arrive amid heightened U.S. military operations in the Caribbean as part of a broader counter-narcotics effort, further complicating the interplay of U.S. foreign policy and local governance in Honduras.

Trump’s Panic as Supreme Court Reviews His Tariffs

President Donald Trump launched into a frantic tirade on social media, calling on his supporters to pray for the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling on his tariff policies. During this rant, he labeled critics of his trade approach as “evil, American hating forces,” demonstrating his growing desperation as legal challenges threaten his presidency.

Trump claimed that his implementation of tariffs has restored America’s international respect, saying, “Without which we would be a poor and pathetic laughingstock again.” Experts, however, predict that the Supreme Court may find his tariffs illegal, which could lead to significant financial repercussions and calls for the U.S. to return collected revenues.

The president’s assertions hinge on the argument that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides him with expansive authority to impose tariffs during perceived emergencies. Trump’s rhetoric indicates a fear that losing these tariffs could lead to a weakening of the U.S. economy, with warnings that it could fall to “almost Third World status.”

His social media posts touted claims of economic strength, boasting about low inflation and high stock market performance, while framing the tariffs as critical to national security and economic prosperity. The contradictory stance shows Trump’s attempt to divert attention from the real threats posed by his policies.

This alarming display reveals a president unwilling to confront the legal ramifications tied to his trade decisions, instead resorting to emotional pleas and inflammatory language. As his reliance on tariffs faces scrutiny, Trump’s narrative becomes increasingly detached from economic realities and grounded in fearmongering.

Trump Administration Is Taking Billions in Stakes in Firms Like Intel – The New York Times

The Trump administration has invested over $10 billion in taxpayer funds to acquire minority ownership stakes in at least nine private companies across steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors within the past six months, with the bulk of deals occurring in October and November. The Commerce Department became the largest shareholder in Intel after an $8.9 billion investment, while the Defense Department took stakes in mining companies including MP Materials and Trilogy Metals. Trump personally purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Intel corporate debt shortly after the government secured its stake, according to financial disclosures released in November.

The administration justified the equity strategy as addressing national security vulnerabilities and reducing reliance on China for critical resources, with officials claiming targeted stakes ensure taxpayers receive fair value. However, multiple analysts and former officials directly contradicted this rationale. Aaron Bartnick, a former Biden White House official, stated that without a clearly articulated strategy, the intervention “could just devolve to arbitrary deals that favor friends or disfavor foes.” William A. Reinsch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said Trump appeared to invest “by whim” rather than following a coherent plan, noting officials arranged several stakes in weeks while Biden officials took months for due diligence.

Darrell M. West of the Brookings Institution found that many investments involved high-risk areas with “almost no serious review,” putting taxpayer money at risk with no guarantee of profitability. Many target companies face financial headwinds and could require years to become profitable. Additionally, industry executives reported reluctance to meet with Trump officials out of fear the government would pressure them into surrendering company ownership, while Intel agreed to the equity deal only after Trump called for its chief executive’s firing over alleged China ties.

The approach contradicts traditional Republican free-market ideology but aligns with emerging bipartisan support for industrial policy driven by China’s dominance in strategic industries. The Commerce Department, led by former New York financier Howard Lutnick, has adopted investment-bank practices to facilitate the equity portfolio. The Defense Department’s Office of Strategic Capital and the Energy Department leveraged existing loan programs to expand stake acquisition across critical mineral and semiconductor sectors.

Concerns about the strategy include opacity in deal selection, potential favoritism and corruption, market distortion, and loss of taxpayer funds. The administration has discussed establishing price floors for minerals and taking cuts of export revenues alongside equity ownership. One deal involving Vulcan Elements, a rare earth magnet startup, raised questions given that the company received investment from 1789 Capital, where Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. is a partner.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/us/politics/trump-intel-steel-minerals-china.html?unlocked_article_code=1.308.BF-g.V_G-1OC57dmV&smid=nytcore-ios-share)

Trump EPA Abandons Vital Fine-Particle Pollution Regulation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration, is set to abandon a crucial regulation aimed at limiting fine-particle pollution, a decision met with significant backlash from scientists and experts. This rule, which was solidified during the Biden presidency, established stricter guidelines on fine particulate matter, notably soot, which is recognized as the deadliest air pollutant in the U.S.

In a recent announcement, the EPA justified its move by claiming the prior administration lacked the authority to enforce these tighter regulations. Critics argue that this reversal will likely result in increased air pollution and associated health risks, potentially leading to more premature deaths across the country.

Scientific consensus indicates that fine particulate matter is linked to serious health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular problems. The rollback of these protections could exacerbate existing public health crises, raising alarms among environmental advocates.

The Biden-era rule was implemented to protect vulnerable communities disproportionately affected by air pollution, specifically in urban and industrial areas. Environmental advocates are now warning that this latest action undermines years of progress in combating air quality issues and upholding public health standards.

This development reflects a broader trend under the Trump administration of prioritizing deregulation at the potential expense of environmental health and safety, which has drawn widespread condemnation from public health officials and environmentalists alike.

Leavitt Claims Soldiers Should Not Question Orders’ Legality

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that U.S. soldiers should not question the legality of their orders, defining such questioning as detrimental to military command. Speaking on Fox News, Leavitt criticized Democrats for allegedly encouraging active duty service members to defy orders from their commander-in-chief and claimed no orders given by the current administration have been illegal.

Leavitt’s remarks come despite the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) permits service members to be held accountable for following unlawful orders, which can include serious crimes like murder and assault. The UCMJ explicitly states that service members have a legal obligation to refuse orders that are against the law, highlighting a crucial tension with Leavitt’s assertions.

In her comments, Leavitt emphasized the importance of maintaining a strict chain of command in military operations, suggesting that doubt about the legality of orders could disrupt military effectiveness. Yet, her statements have been met with skepticism given the established legal framework governing military conduct.

Leavitt’s insistence that the administration has always acted within legal bounds raises important questions about accountability in the face of illegal orders, especially as historical instances have shown commands interpreted as unlawful can occur. This situation highlights a tension within military ethics and the executive’s role in issuing orders.

Critics have pointed out that Leavitt’s remarks seem to downplay the significant legal responsibilities that service members carry, as well as their duty to uphold the law even when under command. This debate underscores the ongoing struggles surrounding leadership and legal adherence in the military context under the current administration.

Hegseth’s Authority Targets Senator Mark Kelly Over Dissent

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s so-called “Department of War” has issued a threat to court-martial Democratic Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona. This comes after Kelly’s recent comments on a video where he asserted that U.S. troops have a constitutional duty to disobey unlawful orders. The Department of Defense stated they are investigating allegations of misconduct against Kelly under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, suggesting serious repercussions could follow.

The DOD emphasized that all service members must follow lawful orders, cautioning that personal beliefs cannot excuse disobedience. This punitive response highlights the extreme measures the currently authoritarian Republican leadership is willing to pursue against those who advocate for constitutional rights and refuse unlawful directives.

President Donald Trump has further incited tensions, claiming that Democrats reminding troops of their obligation to resist illegal orders could be guilty of treason and suggesting they could face the death penalty. In response, Kelly defended his stance, stating that standing up for the Constitution is fundamentally American, contrasting it sharply against Trump’s authoritarian and fascistic inclinations.

This alarming sequence of events has raised concerns about rising authoritarianism within military and governmental institutions under Trump. Kelly’s insistence on constitutional duty underscores the essential role of dissent in safeguarding democracy, which is critically under threat from those in power.

The implications of Hegseth’s threats reflect a broader authoritarian push from the Trump administration, seeking to punish dissent and uphold compliance through fear, further undermining democratic principles essential to the U.S. political landscape.

Trump Fuels Authoritarianism as Beck Urges Attacks on Democrats

Donald Trump leveraged Glenn Beck’s assertions to accuse six Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behavior,” which he suggested was punishable by death under federal law. This heightened rhetoric follows the Democrats posting a video reminding military personnel of their duty to disobey unlawful orders. Trump’s amplification of Beck’s claims, which cite 18 U.S.C. § 2387, raises alarms about the administration’s approach to dissent, framing legitimate political discourse as criminal.

In response, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) condemned Trump’s accusations, characterizing them as blatant lies aimed at suppressing dissent. Crow emphasized that the video simply reminded citizens of constitutional obligations, countering the administration’s portrayal of their message as dangerous. He pointed out the political intimidation this rhetoric fosters, noting that Capitol Police had to provide continuous security for lawmakers due to escalating threats.

Beck’s encouragement of Trump’s aggressive stance underscores the broader theme within Republican circles of weaponizing legal language against political opponents. This tactic is seen as an attempt to undermine democratic processes and silence opposition through fear-mongering. The implications of labeling opposition as “seditious” can have severe consequences for political discourse in the country.

Trump’s continued rhetoric implies a willingness to escalate the situation further, prolonging the cycle of intimidation against not only the targeted lawmakers but also those who support them. The use of threats coupled with misleading narratives signifies a troubling trend in U.S. politics where dissent is met with hostility rather than dialogue.

This incident reflects the broader authoritarian tendencies displayed by Trump and his allies, who frequently seek to diminish dissent and evade accountability. As political divisions deepen, the potential for abuse of power and disregard for democratic principles grows alarmingly evident.

Justice Department Changes Trump Pardons, Sparks Outrage

The Justice Department recently caused a stir by changing signatures on pardons issued by former President Donald Trump, raising major questions about the integrity of these records. Amid ongoing scrutiny of Trump’s actions during and after his presidency, the Department’s replacement of “identical” signatures on these documents has sparked outrage among critics who view it as yet another attempt to obscure the truth behind Trump’s controversial pardons.

Legal experts have criticized the Department’s actions, arguing that the integrity of judicial processes must be maintained and that any modifications to official records should be met with transparency rather than secrecy. This incident highlights the ongoing issues surrounding the handling of documents from the Trump administration, which has faced repeated allegations of deceit and manipulation.

Among the pardons affected is a case involving a close associate of Trump who faced serious charges during his administration. Trump’s history of pardoning individuals linked to his political interests raises concerns about the misuse of executive power, as these actions appear to be motivated more by a desire to protect allies than by a commitment to justice. Critics have pointed out the troubling pattern of Trump leveraging his position for personal gains rather than upholding the law.

Moreover, Trump’s behavior surrounding pardons aligns with a broader trend of flouting established norms within the White House. Legal scholars assert that these actions not only undermine public trust in presidential pardons but also reflect a deeper disregard for accountability and the rule of law faced by Trump. The Justice Department’s quiet modifications only add to the sense that the former president’s legacy is one of divisiveness and manipulation.

As investigations continue and political tensions escalate, the fallout from Trump’s presidency remains palpable. This latest development serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive reforms aimed at ensuring greater oversight and transparency in executive powers. Ultimately, it illuminates the potential dangers of a president who operates outside the bounds of traditional ethics and accountability.

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 40