Category: Unpresidential

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/)

Trump Says Venezuela Oil ‘Money Will Be Controlled by Me’

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he would personally control revenues from Venezuelan oil sales following the U.S. invasion of Venezuela on Saturday, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. In a Truth Social post, Trump stated he would oversee the sale of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market price, declaring “that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America.” Trump instructed Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute the plan immediately, with oil to be transported by storage ships to U.S. unloading docks.

Trump explicitly tied the military invasion to resource extraction and corporate profit, stating the day after the operation that the administration’s priority was to “fix up the oil” and “have total access” to Venezuela’s resources. He indicated that oil companies had been alerted to his plans prior to the invasion, saying “They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela and they’re going to represent us.” Trump acknowledged that major oil company investments would be required to rebuild Venezuelan infrastructure, positioning private corporations as the primary beneficiaries of military intervention. Trump has separately indicated that U.S. taxpayers may reimburse oil companies for reconstruction costs.

The announcement directly contradicts Trump’s stated rationale for the invasion—that military action was undertaken to benefit the Venezuelan people—by placing personal control of oil revenues in presidential hands rather than under Venezuelan governance or international oversight. Oil stocks surged immediately following Trump’s declaration that his administration would “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future, signaling market confidence in corporate access to Venezuelan resources.

The Trump administration has simultaneously expanded U.S. military presence across Latin America and the Caribbean through security agreements, enabling armed operations under the pretext of counternarcotics efforts while simultaneously conducting resource extraction operations.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-says-hes-selling-venezuelas-oil-and-that-the-money-will-be-controlled-by-me/)

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)

The 5 Most Unhinged Claims From Trump’s January 6 Website

President Trump’s White House launched a website on January 6, 2026, reframing the Capitol riot five years after the attack. The site advances false narratives about the January 6 insurrection, contradicting documented evidence and official investigations.

The website claims Democrats staged a “real insurrection” by certifying the 2020 election and “weaponizing federal agencies” against dissenters, despite no evidence supporting Trump’s assertion that the election was stolen. It attributes the Capitol breach to Capitol Police escalation rather than rioters’ actions, alleging officers “aggressively” deployed tear gas and “inexplicably” removed barricades while simultaneously firing on crowds. These claims contradict the documented timeline of events and sworn testimony from law enforcement present that day.

The site characterizes the fatal shooting of rioter Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd as murder “in cold blood,” omitting that the Department of Justice determined in April 2021 that Byrd acted in self-defense and defense of Members of Congress evacuating the House Chamber as rioters broke through glass doors. The website also falsely attributes deaths solely to non-law-enforcement individuals, though four Capitol Police officers who responded to the riot died by suicide in subsequent months.

Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence is branded a “coward” for declining to reject electoral votes, a power he did not constitutionally possess. The site misrepresents Pence’s role; his stated duty was to “count the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and history,” which he executed on January 6.

The website concludes by labeling January 6 defendants political prisoners held in “harsh conditions” and celebrates Trump’s 2024 election as a triumph over “relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him” through “fabricated indictments” and “rigged show trials.” This narrative contradicts Trump’s criminal convictions and documented legal proceedings.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/the-5-most-unhinged-claims-made-on-trumps-jaw-dropping-new-january-6-website/)

US ‘discussing a range of options’ to acquire Greenland, White House says

The White House confirmed on Tuesday that President Trump’s administration is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland, with military intervention explicitly stated as a potential tool. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that acquiring Greenland constitutes a “national security priority” and that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” according to her statement to CNN.

Trump has escalated his focus on Greenland in recent days, prompting European leaders to issue a statement of support for Denmark, the NATO ally that holds sovereignty over the Arctic territory. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller reinforced the administration’s intent by telling CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday that no nation would militarily oppose U.S. acquisition of Greenland, framing the prospect as inevitable.

The White House’s explicit invocation of military options to seize Danish territory represents an unprecedented assertion of force to acquire a foreign nation’s sovereign land. Denmark has already demanded U.S. answers over alleged Trump operations in Greenland, and this statement escalates tensions with a core NATO ally.

Trump’s pursuit of Greenland abandons established international law and diplomatic norms governing territorial acquisition, reversing decades of Arctic policy based on cooperation rather than coercion. The military already dismissed a base commander in Greenland for criticizing Vice President Vance’s political agenda, signaling the administration’s intolerance for dissent within its ranks on this territorial ambition.

Trump’s prior Greenland video masked imperial ambitions and elite interests, and these statements confirm the administration will consider military force to achieve territorial expansion, fundamentally departing from U.S. commitments to international law and alliance partnerships.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-greenland-military)

Trump claims he predicted 9/11 but says no one listened to him

Donald Trump claimed on Air Force One that he predicted the September 11 attacks in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve” and warned about Osama Bin Laden, asserting the attacks could have been prevented if U.S. officials had acted on his warning. Trump’s assertion contradicts fact-check findings showing his book contained only a brief, vague reference to Bin Laden as a “shadowy figure” among general security threats, not a specific warning about him or al-Qaeda.

While Trump’s book did reference the possibility of a major terror attack, it neither identified Bin Laden nor al-Qaeda as potential perpetrators. By 2000, concerns about Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were already public knowledge, and U.S. intelligence agencies were actively monitoring both the organization and its leader, meaning Trump’s observations reflected widely available information rather than unique foresight.

Trump’s post-9/11 claim mirrors his pattern of associating himself with 9/11 commemoration events while promoting narratives disconnected from documented fact. His invocation of his own predictive ability, unsupported by the actual text of his book, demonstrates his use of false historical revisionism to construct an image of prescience and leadership.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-president-bin-laden-al-qaeda-b2895001.html)

U.S. changes childhood vaccine schedule to require fewer immunizations

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced on January 5, 2026, that it is eliminating routine childhood vaccinations for numerous diseases previously covered under federal recommendations. Children will still receive vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Hib, pneumococcal disease, HPV, and chickenpox, but vaccinations for hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, RSV, bacterial meningitis, influenza, and COVID-19 are now classified as optional through “shared clinical decision-making.” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine opponent, stated the changes “protect children, respect families, and rebuild trust in public health.”

The policy reversal stems from a December 2025 presidential memorandum signed by President Trump directing the health department to align the pediatric vaccine schedule with practices from peer-developed countries, specifically citing Denmark’s more limited schedule of 10 diseases. However, public health experts including Dr. Kelly Gebo of George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health note that Denmark’s approach reflects its disease prevalence, universal healthcare system, and higher screening rates for conditions like hepatitis B—factors absent in the United States, where less than 85% of pregnant women receive hepatitis B screening.

Pediatricians and public health officials rejected the changes as dangerous and unnecessary. Dr. René Bravo, president of the California Medical Association, stated the decision “undermines decades of evidence-based public health policy and sends a deeply confusing message to families at a time when vaccine confidence is already under strain.” The American Academy of Pediatrics condemned the schedule as “dangerous and unnecessary” and announced it will continue publishing its own independent immunization recommendations.

The federal changes follow a pattern of health authority reversals under Trump appointees. A Kennedy-led CDC panel previously voted to drop the routine newborn hepatitis B vaccination, a decision that contradicts 35 years of disease elimination since the vaccine’s 1991 introduction. Dr. James Alwine, a virologist with Defend Public Health, characterized the rollback as releasing “viruses and bacteria that were under control” onto vulnerable populations, describing the policy as fundamentally incompatible with disease prevention efforts in the United States.

Insurance companies remain required to fully cover all vaccines on the revised schedule, including those now designated optional. Four states—California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii—announced in September they would adopt independent immunization schedules based on American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical group recommendations, effectively rejecting the federal revision.

(Source: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2026-01-05/u-s-changes-childhood-vaccine-schedule-to-require-fewer-immunizations)

1 2 3 4 5 … 431