Trump Launches Attacks on Fed Chair Powell Over Economic Failures and Demands His Removal

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his targeted criticism against Jerome Powell, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, demanding his immediate “termination” for not reducing interest rates swiftly enough in response to Trump’s economic policies. This outburst came just after Powell warned about the severe implications of Trump’s extensive tariffs on the economy during a recent event.

Trump’s remarks, posted on his social media platform, portrayed Powell as incompetent, stating “Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG,” and characterized a recent report by Powell as a “complete ‘mess!’” Such statements exemplify Trump’s recurrent pattern of deflecting blame onto the Federal Reserve for economic turmoil that is largely the result of his administration’s own misguided policies.

During Powell’s recent address, he reiterated that the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are creating unprecedented challenges, contributing to inflation and potential recession. As evidence mounts, even billionaires are starting to recognize the economic backlash, with some predicting a recession may already be underway.

The tension between Trump and Powell dates back to 2018, when Trump himself appointed Powell, only to later refer to him as “the enemy” due to various Fed decisions that Trump disagreed with. Despite being recommended by Trump, Powell’s tenure has now become a focal point for Trump’s frustrations as he struggles to take accountability for his administration’s economic failures.

Speculation around Trump’s ability to unseat Powell raises concerns about the integrity and independence of the Federal Reserve, a vital institution meant to operate without political interference. Trump’s threats seem to undermine that independence, mirroring tendencies seen in authoritarian regimes, which is deeply troubling for the future of American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/17/economy/trump-fed-chair-powell-termination/index.html)

Trump Threatens Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status in Authoritarian Attack on Academic Freedom

President Donald Trump has issued a stark threat against Harvard University, proposing to revoke its tax-exempt status after the government decided to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding for the institution. This escalation forms part of a broader authoritarian tactic aimed at curtailing academic freedom in American universities. Trump’s comments came in a post on Truth Social, where he suggested that Harvard should be treated as a political entity if it persists with what he calls politically charged ideologies and antisemitic tendencies.

The White House’s decision to withhold funding was based on claims that Harvard fails to address antisemitism on its campus, reflecting a broader campaign to exert governmental control over elite educational institutions perceived as liberal havens. The administration has demanded sweeping changes in Harvard’s hiring, admissions, and teaching practices, asserting that they must comply with conditions designed to combat antisemitism. Harvard, however, has collectively rejected these demands, arguing that they infringe on its independence and violate constitutional rights.

Trump’s threats could lead to significant financial repercussions for Harvard, given the hefty sum at stake. Losing its tax-exempt status would further compound Harvard’s challenges, potentially costing the university millions each year. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the president expects an apology from Harvard for what his administration perceives as ongoing tolerance of antisemitism. Such demands illustrate the drastic measures Trump is willing to impose on academia to enforce his political agenda.

The response from Harvard emphasizes its commitment to academic freedom and rights, with President Alan Garber stating that yielding to such demands would amount to relinquishing the institution’s autonomy. Faculty members have voiced concerns over the Trump administration’s attempt to suppress free speech, citing the move as an “entirely groundless and vengeful attack on liberty.” The chilling atmosphere under Trump’s regime extends to various universities, creating an environment of fear and repression targeting academic dissent.

As this confrontation unfolds, it exemplifies the Republican Party’s ongoing assault on educational institutions that uphold liberal ideas. The party’s recent actions underscore a broader anti-intellectualism and hostility toward independent thought, aiming to reshape higher education through intimidation and coercive tactics. The attack on Harvard represents a pivotal moment in the struggle for academic integrity against a backdrop of increasing authoritarian impulses from Trump and his administration.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz01y9gkdm3o)

America’s Moral Failure: Trump and Republicans Enable Putin’s War Crimes Against Ukraine

The United States has recently hindered a G-7 collective condemnation of Russia’s brutal missile strikes on Ukraine, framing its reluctance as a strategy to preserve ongoing negotiations with Moscow. This stance has drawn widespread criticism, particularly as Russia launched two short-range ballistic missiles, including a lethal cluster munition, targeting the northeastern city of Sumy on Palm Sunday, resulting in the tragic loss of at least 35 lives and injuries to 119 others, including children.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy emphasized the horrific nature of the attacks, stating that they occurred while Ukrainians were engaged in church services. The U.S.’s decision to not publicly denounce these acts of violence raises concerns about its commitment to Ukraine, amidst a backdrop of increasing hostility from Republican leaders who have historically shown an alarming proximity to authoritarian regimes. This pattern appears to embolden Russia, undermining the very principles of democracy and human rights that the West claims to uphold.

This scenario reflects a troubling trend where negotiations are prioritized over immediate strong denunciations of acts that could easily be labelled as crimes against humanity. The Biden administration’s balancing act appears increasingly tenuous, especially as it continues to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape shaped by Donald Trump’s enduring influence and the Republican party’s complicity in fostering a pro-Putin narrative.

Such actions from American leadership erode moral authority and signal a disconcerting pivot towards normalizing violence through inaction. The consequences of this dereliction of duty could be far-reaching, as it not only affects Ukraine but also resonates with other nations that depend on U.S. backing in the face of aggressors. Failing to explicitly support Ukraine sends a message of weakness and inconsistency that the world cannot afford.

As the implications of the U.S.’s stance become evident, the call for accountability grows louder. The actions of the Republican party, once again revealing their alignment with anti-democratic interests, further deepen the crisis of American values on the international stage. It is imperative that the United States reassert its commitment to standing against tyranny, reaffirming its role as a defender of democracy and justice.

(h/t: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-15/us-derails-g-7-condemnation-of-russian-missile-strike-on-ukraine?sref=3OTf8B4q)

Trump Defies Supreme Court AP Excluded from White House Coverage

Despite a federal court ruling mandating equal access for journalists, Donald Trump is deliberately disregarding the First Amendment by excluding the Associated Press (AP) from the White House press pool. On Monday, AP journalists were denied entry to cover a meeting between Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, prompting a statement from the AP demanding their reinstatement according to the court’s injunction.

This ongoing conflict stems from a February 2025 incident where Trump barred the AP from accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One after the agency refused to adopt his controversial renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The AP subsequently filed a lawsuit, contending that Trump’s actions violated constitutional protections for free press.

The latest denial of access signals an alarming escalation in Trump’s authoritarian tactics to control media narratives. His administration has also displayed a blatant disregard for other court orders, particularly those addressing harsh immigration policies, further undermining the rule of law and contributing to an ongoing constitutional crisis.

Such aggressive attempts to intimidate the press illustrate Trump’s broader objective: to manipulate and suppress independent journalism that does not align with his interests. This troubling behavior raises serious concerns about the future of free speech and press freedom in America.

Unless there are consequences for these constitutional violations, Trump’s actions represent a significant threat to democratic principles, highlighting the urgent need for accountability in the face of blatant disregard for the judicial system.

(h/t: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-openly-defies-court-order-202132432.html)

Trump’s Threat to Harvard Highlights Dangerous Assault on Academic Freedom

Amid escalating tensions with higher education institutions, President Donald Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status as part of a broader effort to impose his political agenda. In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated, “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’” This bombastic statement reflects ongoing attacks from the Trump administration against perceived liberal strongholds in academia.

The Trump administration is demanding that Harvard adjust its policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion, alongside restrictions on campus protests, as a precondition for retaining over $2 billion in federal funding. This ultimatum directly comes in the wake of the administration’s dissatisfaction with perceived anti-Israel sentiments on campus following the recent Hamas attack on Israel. Harvard, however, has staunchly rejected these demands, emphasizing that no government should dictate the governance of private educational institutions.

Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, articulated that institutions of higher learning should remain free from political coercion, highlighting the principle of academic freedom. “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach,” Garber stated. This rejection of Trump’s authoritarian tactics has garnered praise from prominent figures, including former President Barack Obama, who commended Harvard for its stance, advocating for the protection of intellectual inquiry and robust debate.

In a reaction to Harvard’s defiance, Trump’s administration has taken the drastic step of freezing federal grants. Such actions are indicative of a broader authoritarian trend from Trump and his allies, who continually seek to coerce educational institutions into compliance with their narrow ideological perspectives. The attempt to control higher education underscores the ongoing attack on academic freedom and civil liberties under the guise of funding oversight.

Trump’s threats against Harvard demonstrate his willingness to weaponize governmental power in an attempt to silence dissenting views and undermine the educational foundations that support critical thought. The implications of this conflict extend beyond the university itself and pose a significant threat to the principles of democracy and freedom of expression in the United States.

Trump’s Controversial Land Transfer to Military Raises Legal Concerns Over Migrant Detention

A section of federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border is set to be transferred to the Department of Defense under orders from President Donald Trump. This land will be managed by the Army as part of an Army installation, effectively circumventing federal law that prevents military involvement in domestic law enforcement on U.S. soil. The Trump administration aims to leverage this maneuver to facilitate the detention of migrants crossing into the U.S.

The Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide buffer zone running from New Mexico to California, has previously been administered by the Interior Department. Trump’s recent directive to transfer control to the Defense Department raises significant legal questions. Analysts are already preparing for a potential court challenge against this action as it clearly contradicts the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military policing of civilians.

Under the current plan, the Pentagon will begin testing its authority in a portion of the Roosevelt Reservation in New Mexico. The Army is expected to erect additional fencing and signage to warn trespassers. Migrants caught on this federal land could be apprehended by Army security personnel and subsequently handed over to local law enforcement, despite ongoing debates about the legality of such actions.

Experts, including Elizabeth Gotein from the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that the “military purpose doctrine” will not apply in this case. For the Army to justify its presence as legitimate military action rather than border enforcement, substantial evidence would be required to indicate that their primary mission does not internally relate to law enforcement at the border. Gotein emphasizes that the primary intent behind transferring the Roosevelt Reservation clearly involves border security efforts.

Government insiders acknowledge that the legality of this military action remains precarious. Any attempt to detain migrants through military means is fraught with risk of legal battle, further illustrating Trump’s disregard for established legal frameworks. This initiative reflects not only a push for militarization at the border but also a troubling attempt by the Trump administration to prioritize political rhetoric over legal and ethical governance.

Trump Administration Proposes Over $9 Billion in Cuts to Public Broadcasting and Aid Programs

The White House is set to propose significant funding cuts totaling over $9 billion aimed at essential public broadcast and international aid services. Among the targets of this proposed rescission package are the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS, and USAID, the agency responsible for humanitarian aid and development efforts. This action aligns with long-standing objectives of the Trump administration to dismantle institutions they view as misaligned with their ideological agenda.

A White House official confirmed that the package will be submitted to Congress after the Easter recess. The planned cuts include around $1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and more than $8 billion affecting USAID and other State Department programs. The rationale provided for these cuts highlights content produced by PBS, such as a specific program that featured a transgender story, as being contrary to Trump’s views.

The request also notes controversial remarks made by NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who previously referred to Trump as a “fascist” on social media. This reflects the administration’s ongoing campaign to undermine media organizations that hold them accountable. The cuts encompass various well-received aid programs, including funds for electric buses in Rwanda and initiatives aimed at reducing xenophobia in Venezuela, which demonstrate America’s commitment to global influence and humanitarian assistance.

Simple majorities in both the House and Senate will need to approve these cuts to take effect. Although Republicans hold power in both chambers, the narrow margin in the House raises questions about the package’s fate. Trump and his allies have targeted funding for public broadcasting, viewing it as overly liberal, while making aggressive moves to limit USAID’s operations under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

These actions signal a troubling trend of prioritizing partisan politics over humanitarian needs, compromising critical authority and support for vulnerable communities globally. As advocates for these programs stress their importance, the proposed cuts echo a systematic effort to hamper the very foundations of American democracy and international goodwill through funding reductions and the dismantling of essential public services.

Trump’s Disturbing Proposal to Ship U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Brutal Prisons Reveals Authoritarian Tendencies

In a controversial meeting with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, former President Donald Trump proposed a disturbing idea: to incarcerate U.S. citizens in the brutal and overcrowded prisons of El Salvador. During the discussion, Trump emphasized that these “home growns” should be prioritized for incarceration, echoing previous sentiments he has expressed about outsourcing American criminal management to foreign facilities. Bukele, known for his oppressive prison system, appeared to entertain the proposal.

Trump described the El Salvadoran prison complex, referred to as a “tropical gulag” by human rights advocates, as a place that could house U.S. criminals, including those guilty of violent crimes. He declared his support for the initiative and mentioned his discussions with Attorney General Pam Bondi about the legal implications of such actions. Trump’s comments raise alarming questions about the respect for civil rights and constitutional protections within the framework of governance.

This proposal has been met with legal skepticism, as many experts assert that it is unconstitutional to deport U.S. citizens to foreign prisons. Law professor M. Isabel Medina highlighted that no statutory provision permits the transfer of U.S. inmates to other countries, and such an act may violate multiple constitutional rights, including due process and protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Trump’s disregard for these legal statutes underscores a troubling trend of promoting authoritarian governance.

The Trump administration’s immigration policies have been characterized by a punitive approach towards immigrants, with a history of illegal deportations and inhumane treatment of detainees. Trump’s recent remarks further reinforce a narrative that aims to vilify both immigrants and American citizens based on their criminal background. The notion of sending American citizens to a foreign jail without due legal process illustrates a dangerous shift toward authoritarianism.

Ultimately, Trump’s comments reflect a broader issue within Republican ideology, where the pursuit of harsh punitive measures is prioritized over human rights and legal integrity. This troubling willingness to bypass legal norms in favor of draconian measures against perceived criminals is indicative of a party that embraces fascist tactics, undermining the very democracy it claims to uphold.

Trump’s Administration Defies Supreme Court in Illegal Deportation Case of Innocent Man

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele recently asserted that he will not return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man the U.S. government falsely deported to his country, during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. Bukele dismissed the idea of smuggling Garcia back to the U.S., stating, “The question is preposterous.” He emphasized that El Salvador does not favor releasing individuals labeled as terrorists.

Trump and his administration, known for its inhumane immigration policies, have tried to downplay accountability for Garcia’s wrongful deportation, with Trump insisting on a narrative wherein Bukele should accept more criminals. Despite Trump’s false claims, Garcia has no criminal charges against him in the U.S. or El Salvador, which underscores the absurdity of the administration’s position.

This situation escalated after a federal judge highlighted the defective nature of Garcia’s deportation, directed by the Supreme Court to “facilitate” his return. The court deemed the deportation as illegal due to an existing judicial order preventing Garcia’s removal to El Salvador. The Justice Department even admitted their error, yet high-profile officials in the Trump administration like Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller continue to evade responsibility, insisting on fabricating a story that Garcia should remain in El Salvador.

Miller, on Fox News, attempted to validate the false narrative that Garcia was appropriately sent to El Salvador, dismissing Justice Department admissions of an administrative error. His comments stand in stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s ruling against the removal as it deemed Garcia’s deportation illegal.

As the judicial battle continues, it’s evident that the Trump administration’s approach has only exacerbated the vulnerabilities within the immigration system, while simultaneously showcasing the manipulative tactics in play to shift blame and maintain control over immigrant narratives. This episode not only highlights the horrific consequences of Trump’s harsh immigration policies but reinforces the ongoing challenges faced by individuals wrongly ensnared in this system.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/president-el-salvador-wont-return-deported-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-rcna201136)

Trump Makes More Legal Threats Against CBS

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his longstanding feud with CBS News by demanding that the network’s iconic program, 60 Minutes, be taken off the air. Claiming he’s been characterized in a “derogatory and defamatory way,” Trump stated via Truth Social that he found the show’s recent coverage of Ukraine and Greenland to be “highly inaccurate.” This public outburst continues his trend of dismissing media criticism as biased and fraudulent, particularly as he faces legal challenges against CBS related to alleged election interference.

Trump’s tirade isn’t just a random venting of frustration; it reflects a pattern of hostility towards media organizations that dare to challenge him. In the past year, he has sued CBS for a staggering $20 billion, accusing it of “partisan and unlawful acts” stemming from a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. His lawyers allege that CBS manipulated the interview to mislead voters, but the network has consistently rebuffed these claims, defending its journalistic integrity and the editing process as standard practice.

In a particularly revealing moment, Trump lambasted CBS’s handling of Harris’s responses during the interview. He asserted that the network unfairly edited her answers to present her in a more favorable light, something CBS denies, citing unaltered transcripts to validate their reporting. This constant back-and-forth underscores Trump’s attempts to control the narrative surrounding his actions and the media portrayal of his presidency.

The former president’s animosity towards the press has further manifested in actions like banning reporters from the Associated Press from attending White House briefings over trivial disagreements about terminology. This anti-press agenda aligns with broader Republican strategies that seek to undermine journalistic scrutiny and weaken constitutional protections for free speech, fueling a dangerous trend toward media hostility in American politics.

Negotiations between Trump and CBS, including mediation efforts, are reportedly in progress to resolve their disputes. However, Trump’s persistent public attacks on the media raise serious questions about his respect for democratic norms and the role of the press in holding leaders accountable. Such ongoing conflicts not only jeopardize journalistic integrity but also threaten to stifle dissent and critical inquiry, cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

(h/t: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cbs-60-minutes-off-air-2059351?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR6hRbT-cWeoQPxTL_39rlIFAKIaOC9x9O-aghv20Zzn_kiqCasvXZVsl19eBA_aem_f948vZMBJhf47H5u549sCA#Echobox=1744620974)

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 435