Monday, July 21, 2025

Trump puts the kibosh on Newsom

 
Buh-bye boondoggle!

Trump puts the kibosh on Dems' leading prez candidate

Rich Lowry, Jewish World Review 

We're a long way from the transcontinental railroad.

We built the iconic American infrastructure project in the 1860s in about six years, putting down 1,776 miles of track and blasting 15 tunnels through the Sierra Nevada mountains.

Granted, working conditions back then didn't exactly meet OSHA standards. Yet, if today's rules and practices applied, the project would have been stalled for years somewhere outside Sacramento, California, caught up in endless environmental lawsuits.

The Golden State's emblematic, modern infrastructure project was supposed to be a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Don't expect, though, to see the equivalent of the Golden Spike any time soon, or perhaps ever.

The high-speed rail project has been agonizingly slow. After about 15 years of grinding delay and cost overruns, not one piece of track has been laid, a record of futility hard to match. California high-speed rail is the West Coast's answer to Boston's notorious Big Dig that took about a decade longer to build than anticipated at a much greater cost, although it was eventually completed.

Now, the Trump administration is cutting off $4 billion in federal funds for the project, arguing that it doesn't want to pour any more money into a boondoggle.

The imagined bullet train was always a misfire. The idea of high-speed rail has a nearly erotic appeal to progressives, who love communal trains over individualized autos and think cars are destroying the planet whereas trains can save it. High-speed rail is to transit what windmills are to energy — an environmentally correct, futuristic technology that will always underdeliver.

California voters passed Proposition 1A getting the ball — if not any actual trains — rolling in 2008. The project was supposed to cost $33 billion and connect L.A. and San Francisco.

What could go wrong? Well, everything. Bad decisions about where to build the tracks, complacent contractors, environmental and union rules — you name it.

The initial, scaled-back line is now supposed to be completed by 2033, and even that is optimistic. Elon Musk might put a man on Mars before California Gov. Gavin Newsom or one of his successors manages to get even a much less ambitious high-speed rail system underway.

The current focus is a line between Merced (pop. 93,000) and Bakersfield (413,000). No offense to the good people of either of these places, but these aren't major metropolises. In Northeast terms, this is less a rail connection between New York City and Washington, D.C., and more a connection between Newark, New Jersey, and Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Passenger estimates for the California system have always been absurd.

The fantasy is that ridership will be double what it is now is in the Northeast corridor. But as Marc Joffe of the California Policy Center points out, population is much denser near Northeast stations, it's easier to get around cities in the Northeast on the way to or from the train, and a rail culture is much more embedded in the Northeast than car-centric California.

As for reducing greenhouse emissions, the long-running project is itself a significant source of emissions, and the benefit of fewer drivers in cars will be vitiated by the fact that more and more people in California will be driving electric vehicles.

The original estimated $33 billion cost is now $35 billion for just the scaled-back line and more than $100 billion and counting for the whole shebang. There is no reason that the feds should pour good money after bad supporting a preposterous project that doesn't have any national significance.

Newsom — too embarrassed to admit failure or too drunk on visions of European-style rail — remains fully committed.

In a statement, he said Trump's defunding decision is a "gift to China," as if Beijing cares whether people get to Bakersfield by car, plane or highspeed rail.

The project has already been a distressing object lesson in California's inability to build anything of consequence, and there's more where that came from.

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

The Biggest Conservative Victory in 30 Years

 

The Biggest Conservative Victory in 30 Years

Stephen Moore, Hot Air 

Everyone knows that the "big, beautiful" tax bill signed into law on the Fourth of July lowers tax burdens for families and businesses. It also averts a $4 trillion tax increase [that would have started] next year. That's enough reason to heartily celebrate.

Here is a list of some of the major policy victories:

• The law is the most aggressive federal advancement of school choice by allowing low-income parents to direct education dollars to private, charter or Catholic schools that are better for their kids.

• The law also expands eligibility for personalized medical savings accounts instead of conventional insurance. ...

• The law increases mining and drilling on federal lands to increase access to America's natural resource supplies to end our dependence on the Middle East or China or Russia.

• The law formally ends the absurd Biden student loan forgiveness program ….

• The law ends the electric vehicle mandate and phases out the Green New Deal, thus allowing Americans to buy whatever car they want.

• The law expands opportunity zones and extends tax benefits for investing in inner cities and economically depressed rural areas. ...

• The law increases the tax to 8% on the near-trillion dollars of bloated university endowments -- money that was never taxed. ...

• The law strengthens work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients. History shows that work requirements end welfare dependency.

• The new law authorizes the sale of expanded spectrum to strengthen rural broadband, secure America's technological dominance and reduce the national debt by nearly $100 billion.

There's much more to shout about, but these are some of the greatest hits in a big and beautiful bill that advances America's freedom and prosperity. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

Will John Brennan Ever Tell the Truth?

 


Will John Brennan Ever Tell the Truth?

Victor Davis Hanson, victorhanson.com 

When asked why the current Department of Justice might be investigating him, former CIA Director John Brennan answered, as was his wont, with a complete lie: “I am clueless about what it is exactly that they may be investigating me for.”

Clueless? Hardly. Brennan knows full well that his fingerprints are on some of the greatest scandals of the last decade. These machinations have threatened the very integrity of our institutions and elections.

He has a record of serially lying to Congress, the public, and the media, and doing so emphatically.

In 2011, as the government’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan absurdly insisted that the Obama administration’s drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border had not killed a single civilian noncombatant. Yet multiple sources proved the claim was clearly false. In truth, the number of innocents killed was likely somewhere between 50 and 70.

In 2014, as director of the CIA, Brennan lied again, doubling down by denying that CIA operatives were hacking into U.S. Senate staffers’ computers.

“As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. . . . We wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do.”

Here, too, he was caught lying and forced to apologize—but never charged with perjury.

But Brennan’s biggest fabrications came in 2017 when, as an ex-CIA director, he testified before a congressional committee that he neither knew who had commissioned the now-infamous bogus Steele dossier nor whether the CIA had relied on it for its intelligence assessments.

But Brennan knew well at the time that then NSA director Michael Rogers and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, had both gone on record that the dossier did play a major role in the intelligence community’s interagency assessment. Indeed, the concocted dossier was delivered directly to President Obama. And John Brennan was one of its most ardent advocates, seeing in it a way to undermine the Trump campaign.

So, Brennan himself played a major role in disseminating the fake brief, more or less violating a cardinal CIA precept not to interfere in domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering. For example, Brennan approached the late Sen. Harry Reid to brief him in hopes that Reid would contact the FBI to help spread the lies of the dossier. And Reid did just that two days later, in a call to then-Director James Comey.

Brennan, against the advice of senior CIA Russian analysts, had insisted that the false dossier’s contents be made part of formal assessments presented to the president. He also must have known that Christopher Steele was also indirectly hired by the Clinton campaign, which had funneled his payments through three covert channels—the DNC, Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS—to hide the campaign’s tracks.

Remember that Brennan was one of the chief architects of the now-infamous “51 intelligence officials” rounded up on the eve of the last 2020 presidential debate by Antony Blinken, a Biden campaign operative.

Blinken had called former CIA interim director Mike Morrel to assemble dozens of supposedly retired intelligence experts to falsely claim to the public that Hunter Biden’s laptop—then in the possession of the FBI, which had insisted on silence about its own authentication of its lurid contents—was a product of Russian intelligence to help Trump.

Brennan and the supposedly retired “authorities” (many of whom were still working for the CIA as contractors, despite claiming to be retired) sought to hide their tracks by the weasel words “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” What they meant by that wink and nod was that their deceptive letter was aimed at tarnishing Trump as a beneficiary of a collusive Russian disinformation project on the eve of the last debate.

The trick worked like clockwork, as an equally lying Biden cited the signed letter to counter Trump during the presidential debate:

“There are 50 [sic] former [sic] national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this has all the … five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.”

Christopher Wray’s FBI also partnered with social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to suppress any accurate news accounts about the genuine laptop, claiming it was “misinformation” or “disinformation.”

In other words, the FBI knew the laptop was real, kept that knowledge hidden, and then helped the media to suppress the truth—in ways that helped Joe Biden’s campaign win the election.

In retrospect, that colossal laptop lie likely affected the final 2020 debate and the news coverage that followed. A controversial post-election Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics poll found that some 79 percent of respondents said their vote might have changed had they known the incriminating laptop was authentic.

As an “expert” MSNBC analyst (relying on his security clearance to monetize his on-screen credibility) and social media gadfly, Brennan did his best to cover his tracks by periodically smearing then-President Trump with incoherent rants like the following:

“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You will not destroy America . . . America will triumph over you.”

Brennan’s perfidy and lying are in addition to his adaptability, going from a Bush-era promoter of “enhanced integration” (i.e.,waterboarding at Guantanamo?) to a sudden Obama convert who lectured the nation about the good intentions of jihadists: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

But mostly, Brennan shouted on the air or tweeted his furor at Trump in increasingly unhinged fashion, “Your kakistocracy is collapsing after its lamentable journey… we have the opportunity to emerge from this nightmare stronger & more committed to ensuring a better life for all Americans, including those you have so tragically deceived.”

Given that Brennan was one of the founders of the Russian collusion hoax, he not only never apologized for the lie but continued to advance the falsehood of Trump-Russian collusion.

In 2018, Brennan called the president a veritable traitor:

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of ‘treasonous.’ Not only were Trump’s comments ‘imbecilic,’ but he is also wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you?”

For a former CIA director, Brennan proved strangely clueless about why Putin had invaded his neighbors during three of the last four American administrations—except Trump’s. When he called Trump treasonous, Trump had already lifted the Obama sanctions on providing offensive weapons to Ukraine. Trump would soon pull out of a disadvantageous missile deal with Russia. Trump would also lecture the Germans on the folly of cutting a natural gas pipeline deal with Putin. He sanctioned Russian oligarchs and ordered the destruction of a cohort of attacking Wagner Group Russian mercenaries in Syria.

Brennan was at the center of three of the greatest scandals in recent history that may well have changed American history. His promotion of the fake Steele dossier sought to destroy the Trump campaign and sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

That continual false charge of Russian collusion in 2017-8 consumed 22 months of Trump’s first term, forcing the president to spend every day defending himself from the truly weaponized Mueller legal team vainly trying to concoct a collusion charge. Often on MSNBC, Brennan lied to the American people that President Trump was all but a traitor in league with Putin.

Not yet done, in 2020, Brennan and his associates likely changed the course of the last presidential debate by spreading a fantasy letter. Thereby, he helped turn a potentially disastrous Biden scandal into a false charge that Trump was once again “colluding” with the Russians to promote a supposedly fake Biden laptop. And those lies may well have swung the close 2020 election.

Now, Brennan thinks Trump has weaponized the Justice Department to investigate Brennan’s many lies and efforts to warp domestic elections. In truth, John Brennan, along with former FBI Director James Comey and James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, more or less destroyed the reputation of our investigative and intelligence bureaus by chronically lying, leaking, and weaponizing the government.

After all that, who would ever believe anything Brennan says—as he still projects his own past sins onto others?

Sunday, July 13, 2025

America’s ‘useful idiots’

 

America’s ‘useful idiots’

 the left calls for revolution as the ultimate virtue signal

Jonathan Turley, The Hill

During the Cold War, Soviet communists reportedly referred to American liberals as “useful idiots.” Although the origin of the quote has been challenged (and attributed to both Lenin and Stalin), it captured many of the adherents of communism after World War II. From higher education to Hollywood, dilettantes on the left embraced Marxism with little real understanding of the philosophy or its implications.

We are now seeing the rise of a new generation of armchair revolutionaries who are calling for everything from the overthrow of the U.S. government to the seizure of factories and homes.

Democratic New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani personifies this new movement of young people lacking any memory of the failure of socialist and communist systems in the 20th Century.

Mamdani is perfect for trust-fund baby Trotskyites. The privileged son of a radical Columbia professor and a Hollywood producer, Mamdani went to the elite Bowdoin College, which charges over $70,000 annually in tuition. He is part of the “radical chic” of American higher education, where extreme views are fully mainstream.

Mamdani shows the appeal of mouthing Marxist manifestos as manifest truths. It is Marxism-lite — promises of everything from rent control to making “Halal eight bucks again.” 

In one speech before the Young Democratic Socialists of America conference, Mamdani even stated matter-of-factly how one of the goals is to “seize the means of production” in America.

“Right now, if we’re talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we’re talking about Medicare for all, you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country,” he said. “But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it’s [boycott-divestment-sanctions against Israel] or whether it is the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.”

Mamdani offers few details of what it would mean to seize all industry in this country or how such a system would work in the United States after failing in literally every nation where it has been attempted.

He has also called for the seizure of unoccupied luxury condos in New York to turn over to the homeless. With pledges of state-run grocery stores and other proposals, many are thrilled by the prospect of Marxism coming to America.

Polls show increasing support among young people for socialism and even communism. That is reflected in the New York primary, where Mamdani received significant support from wealthy and young college-educated voters.

Like Mamdani, these young voters have no inkling of what life was like under socialist and communist governments. They were not alive when radical shifts to socialism in Great Britain and France destroyed their economies and had to be reversed. They did not see the collapse of the Soviet Union or the move toward capitalism by China to avoid economic meltdowns.

Yet, as Mamdani stated, the radical left has to wait to seize such powers until it has “the same level of support at this very moment.” Unfortunately, socialist programs can produce the very dire conditions that lead to even greater consolidation of state controls and power.

Notably, most of Mamdani’s proposals would violate the Constitution or bankrupt the city. For example, efforts to seize multimillion-dollar luxury condos would constitute unconstitutional takings unless he was prepared to buy the units at their market value — a virtually impossible proposition.

Such considerations are rarely raised, let alone resolved, in radical conferences. Earlier this month, University of Minnesota liberal arts professor Melanie Yazzie joined others for a “teach-in” in which she delighted the audience with calls for the overthrow of the country by “people who come from nations who are under occupation by the United States government.”

She added, “it’s our responsibility as people who are within the United States to go as hard as possible to decolonize this place because that will reverberate all across the world. Because the U.S. is the greatest predator empire that has ever existed.”

That includes forcing “[the] U.S. out of everywhere,” including “Turtle Island” (the Native American name used to describe North America). Yazzie insisted that “the goal is to dismantle the settler project that is the United States for the freedom and the future of all life on this planet. It very much depends on that.”

Yazzie is an example of how most faculties in this country now run from the left to the far left. Applicants who espouse center-right viewpoints are often rejected as lacking “intellectual rigor” or depth. However, you cannot be too far left to secure a position in many departments that do not have a single Republican or conservative.

Take University of Chicago Assistant Professor Eman Abdelhadi, who used her recent appearance at the Socialism 2025 conference to denounce the University of Chicago as an “evil” and “colonialist” institution. Nevertheless, she insisted that she wanted to remain at the evil institution — not for its intellectual community, but to “organize” and “leverage” to build a socialist coalition.

Keep in mind that the faculty not only decided that Abdelhadi was worthy of a faculty position in the university’s Department of Comparative Human Development, but then also made her the Director of Graduate Studies.

For some, the calls of professors like Yazzie to “dismantle” the U.S. constitute the ultimate virtue signal. Like demands to seize factories and homes, the willingness to burn down the system is a cheap and easy way to establish your bona fides as one of the enlightened — something to brag about with your other 20-something fellow travelers as you order your $7 latte on the way to your Hyrox workout.

Lenin once mocked many in the West as idiots who would “transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind [and] toil to prepare their own suicide.”  What he never imagined was how some would still be transforming themselves decades after the revolution failed.


Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”


Wednesday, July 09, 2025

Antifa Goons Charged With Attempted Murder

Open warfare?

Ten Antifa Goons Charged With Attempted Murder After 4th of July Ambush on Texas ICE Facility

 Debra Heine, American Greatness

Ten antifa agitators from the Dallas-Fort Worth area were charged Monday with attempted murder after allegedly ambushing an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas on the 4th of July.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a press release that the militants were “heavily armed with military gear, guns, AR-15 style rifles, 12 sets of Kevlar bullet proof vests, masks, goggles, tactical gloves, two-way radios, and helmets.”

An Alvarado Police officer was shot in the neck at around 11 p.m. Friday night while responding to reports of suspicious activity outside the facility.

The shooting, like the attack on the Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, on Monday, was designated a “planned ambush” by authorities.

According to the criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Texas, the defendants, dressed in black military-style clothing, began shooting fireworks at the the Prairieland Detention Center to lure law enforcement to the facility “as part of an organized attack.” The center is used to hold people who have committed immigration violations and are awaiting deportation.

After about ten minutes, one or two of the agitators allegedly broke off from the main group and began to spray graffiti on vehicles and a guard structure in the parking lot, while another agitator, armed with an AR-style rifle, positioned himself in the woods nearby.

Included in the complaint are photos of the graffiti, flyers, flag, body armor, and magazines containing ammunition.

Correctional officers called 911 to report “suspicious activity,” and when an Alvarado police officer arrived at the scene, the agitator in the woods shot the officer in the neck.

Another armed assailant across the street allegedly “fired 20 to 30 rounds at unarmed correctional officers who had stepped outside the facility,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated.  AR-style rifles were reportedly found at the scene.

"The assailants fled from the detention center but were stopped by additional law enforcement officers. Some defendants were wearing body armor, some were armed, and some had two-way radios. A total of twelve sets of body armor were found during searches of vehicles associated with the defendants, on their persons, and in the area around the Prairieland Detention Center."

"Additionally, officers found spray paint, flyers stating, “FIGHT ICE TERROR WITH CLASS WAR!” and “FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS,” and a flag stating, “RESIST FACISM – FIGHT OLIGARCHY.” One of the alleged attackers had cell phones inside a “Faraday bag,” used to block phone signals and commonly used by criminal actors to try to prevent law enforcement from tracking their location."

The Justice Department named the ten defendants charged in the shooting: Cameron Arnold, also known as Autumn Hill; Savannah Batten; Nathan Baumann; Zachary Evetts; Joy Gibson; Bradford Morris, also known as Meagan Morris; Maricela Rueda; Seth Sikes; Elizabeth Soto; and Ines Soto. One suspect remains at large.

Each of the agitators have been charged with three counts of attempted murder of a federal agents and three counts of discharging a firearm during, in relation to a violent crime. Each of the individuals faces a mandatory prison term of ten years to up to life in prison, said Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy E. Larson, Monday night.

“Make no mistake, this was not a peaceful protest,” Larson stated during a press conference announcing the charges. “This was an ambush on federal and local law enforcement officers. This increasing trend of violence against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the Northern District of Texas. Those who use violence against law enforcement officers will be found and prosecuted using the toughest criminal statutes and penalties available.”

“While one suspect remains at large, the remaining 10 are being charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER and DOMESTIC TERRORISM,”  ICE’s official X account posted on Tuesday. “If convicted, they could spend the rest of their lives in prison.”

The investigation was conducted by multiple law enforcement agencies, including the Dallas FBI, the ICE Removal Office, Homeland Security Investigations, the ATF, Texas Department of Public Safety, Alvarado Police Department, and Johnson County Sheriff’s Office.

Border Czar Tom Homan told Fox news Monday that the suspects appeared to be “typical protesters that go from protesters to criminals.”

Since President Trump returned to office, left-wing “protesters” have escalated their violent tactics against their political enemies while the corporate media has attempted to excuse or downplay the violence.

Early into Trump’s 2nd term, agitators targeted then-DOGE chief Elon Musk by vandalizing and firebombing Tesla dealerships and harassing Tesla owners.

In May, Elias Rodriguez, 30, opened fire on Yaron Lischinsky, 28, and Sarah Milgrim, 26, at the Capital Jewish Museum, killing both.  He shouted “Free, free Palestine” as he was being arrested.

Last month another pro-Hamas  radical shouted “Free Palestine” as he threw Molotov cocktails at Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, wounding thirteen people, and killing one.

Also in June, downtown Los Angeles saw antifa-fueled anti-ICE riots where agitators assaulted immigration officers, slashed tires, torched vehicles and and defaced public buildings.  President Trump had to call in thousands of National Guard troops and 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to the city to quell the violence.

Left-wing militants also clashed with federal officers at an ICE facility in Portland, Oregon on the 4th of July, with hundreds of agitators attempting to storm holding cells.

Kyle Shideler, Director for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center For Security Policy, commented Tuesday that antifa’s escalation of political violence was foreseeable.

“For several years we have warned that Antifa cells were moving from mass movement protest tactics to small cell violent direct action, including firebombing police cars, pregnancy resource centers, and Tesla dealerships, and now attempted murder of police,” Shideler posted on X.

"These warnings aligned with the historic practice of the New Left communist urban guerrillas from which Antifa is a direct linear descendant, as we proved in testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate.

This was also the conclusion of the German ministry of interior as early as 2020, which my colleague Michael Waller was first to report, making available in English translation intelligence reports on the growing threat of Antifa violence.

We’ve provided this information to hundreds of local, and state agencies as part of our law enforcement program. Antifa remains our most requested briefing subject because, officers tell us they just can’t get the info anywhere else.

We have also consulted with state legislators on anti-terror and anti-rioting legislation which has passed in multiple states, and which directly counter and criminalize Antifa tactics.

Warning has been provided, and off the shelf and easily customizable legislative solutions are available. Now action has to be taken."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced legislation in January to deem certain conduct of members of Antifa as domestic terrorism and designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. So far, no action has been taken on the measure.

Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media. 

Thursday, June 26, 2025

Iran strike 'a complete obliteration'

 

Iran strike 'a complete obliteration'

TRUMP SAYS IRAN STRIKES SET NUCLEAR PROGRAM BACK ‘DECADES,’ PRAISES NATO SPENDING PUSH

During NATO summit in The Hague, president pushes back against reports that U.S. bombing strikes didn’t deliver knockout blow.

American Legion

President Donald Trump on Wednesday hailed NATO’s push to increase defense spending at the start of a high-level summit, where he also pushed back against reports that U.S. bombing strikes on Iran’s nuclear program had failed to deliver a knockout blow. 

“It was a complete obliteration,” Trump said of the Saturday strike in Iran. 

Trump’s comments at the NATO gathering in the Dutch city of The Hague came after reports that Saturday’s bombardment had set Iran’s nuclear program back by only a couple of months. 

An assessment by the administration’s Defense Intelligence Agency determined that the attack did not completely destroy Iran’s program, according to reporting by The Associated Press and other news agencies on Tuesday. 

But Trump, flanked by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, said that such reports are false and that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back “decades.” 

“I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. … I think they’ve had it,” Trump said. “I mean, they just went through hell. I think they’ve had it. The last thing they want to do is enrich

Trump also said the U.S. strike on Iran paved the way for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. 

“This ended that with the war,” he said. 

The U.S. attack on Iran and the broader conflict between Tehran and Israel have overshadowed what was billed as a historic NATO summit in The Hague, where leaders on Wednesday approved a plan for major defense spending increases inside the alliance. 

Trump, who has delivered tough critiques of NATO over the years, praised allies for meeting his demand to spend much more on defense. During his first term, Trump frequently voiced doubts about the alliance’s value and characterized the bloc as a collection of security free riders because of their weak defense spending. 

On Wednesday, he said his outlook has changed. 

“It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help (allies) protect their country,” Trump said of the 32-nation pact. 

When asked about the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5 provision that calls for allies to come to one another’s defense in the event of an attack, Trump said, “I stand with it. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it I wouldn’t be here.” 

A day earlier, Trump delivered a more ambiguous message on NATO’s mutual defense pact. When asked whether he backed the linchpin NATO concept, Trump said, “depends on your definition. There’s numerous definitions of Article 5.” 

Rutte, who has credited the American president with being the force behind NATO’s increased spending, said he is convinced of Trump’s support for the alliance. 

“For me, there is absolute clarity that the United States has totally committed to NATO, totally committed to Article 5,” Rutte said Wednesday. 

Rutte also heaped praise on Trump, saying his election was the reason that close to 10 NATO countries finally hit the 2% mark this year. Other factors, namely Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, also have been a major contributor to increased defense spending in Europe over the past several years. 

“Given our long-term threat of Russia but also the massive buildup of the military in China and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran are supporting the war effort in Ukraine, it’s really important we spend more,” Rutte said. 

NATO’s new 5% plan includes a target date of 2035, when members are supposed to reach the mark. Spain, however, has said it won’t achieve that threshold. 

Trump singled the country out for criticism, saying there would be consequences. “We’re going to make them pay twice as much. ... They want a little bit of a free ride, but they’ll have to pay it back to us on trade,” Trump said. 

Trump said all other allies were on board with the 5% plan. The program means that countries must spend 3.5% of GDP on traditional military capabilities, such as tanks and ammunition, while 1.5% would go to military-related infrastructure. Some analysts have described the formula as a workaround to get to Trump’s 5% demand. 

It’s unclear how NATO will define military infrastructure. The alliance also didn’t say what consequences, if any, there would be if allies fail to hit the spending target. 

Still, the agreement marks a major turn for many of the alliance’s militaries, which for years fell well short of the 2% level. 

“For too long, one ally, the United States, carried too much of the burden of that commitment,” Rutte said. “And that changes today.” 

The U.S. currently spends about 3.4% of GDP on defense. Rutte said he considers the United States to already be at NATO’s 5% level, saying American investments in military-related infrastructure easily make up the difference. 

After the meetings, Rutte was questioned by reporters about his various flattering statements on Trump’s leadership. 

“Doesn’t he deserve some praise?” Rutte answered. 

The issue of defense spending has dominated Trump’s approach to NATO and has put him at odds with numerous countries, most notably Germany. The situation came to a head during Trump’s first term, when he publicly bashed allies during a 2017 NATO summit for their shortcomings, stoking fears in Europe that the U.S. could quit the alliance. 

Berlin, however, met NATO’s 2% level for the first time in decades in 2024. And Chancellor Friedrich Merz also has been vocal about the need to increase expenditures. That has won Germany praise from several U.S. leaders, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO. 

In a statement after talks Wednesday, Merz said the spending increases are not about doing Trump a favor. “Russia is threatening the entire political order of our continent,” he said. “Particularly Europe needs to step up its efforts to ensure its own defense.”


Thursday, June 19, 2025

Israel, Iran, and the Trump Doctrine

 

Israel, Iran, and the Trump Doctrine

Brian T. Kennedy, American Mind 

President Trump is already engaged in an old war—and he wants to make sure the U.S. wins it.

President Donald Trump, like the American Founders, believes that this republic is constituted to protect the citizenry against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When it comes to foreign affairs, we are not obliged to fight and die for anyone but our fellow citizens. Our social compact is with one another as Americans. Whatever we do militarily and strategically is first and foremost to preserve the freedom and well-being of the American people.

President Trump thinks this is just common sense.

There is a disagreement now over what America’s role should be, if any, in supporting Israel after its preemptive strike on Iran. President Trump has authorized the use of American air defenses to stop Iranian attacks on American assets and citizens: our military bases in the region, our consulate in Tel Aviv, and the Americans living in the surrounding area. This is not an endorsement of the Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and personnel. It is designed to protect the lives of Americans; the U.S. is well within its right to do so. It should be noted that we do not have an embassy in Iran, and for good reason.

Responses by the American Left to condemn Israel were not unexpected, as the Left has long sympathized with the anti-Western, anti-American hatred propagated by the Islamic world. More surprising is the reaction of some in the America First/MAGA movement, who seem to perceive President Trump’s policy as a betrayal of his promise to keep us out of new wars. Some perspective is required, because two decades of endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have discredited the use of American military power and tarnished the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel.

Let us be clear: the idea that there will be no new wars, however attractive that may sound, misses the point. We are already in a “People’s War” that the Chinese Communist Party declared in May of 2019 when President Trump committed to stop their theft of America’s intellectual property. Communist China is in a strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which includes massive contracts for oil—some 16% of China’s current imports. The CCP has been instrumental in both advancing Iran’s nuclear program through scientific cooperation with North Korea, and abetting Iran’s terrorist activities throughout the region, including Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

President Trump, therefore, has not endorsed the start of a new war. He is engaged in an old war—one that may well be seen, in retrospect, as World War III. He wants to make sure it is won by the United States.

Who is Israel to Us?

America has been friends with Israel since its inception in 1948. This friendship is founded in part upon our shared Judeo-Christian heritage, but mostly it arose pragmatically out of alliances formed during the Cold War. Israel was an outpost of the West—and still is. That doesn’t mean the Israelis are American or that we must die for them.

Separately from these calculations, Israel also evokes strong passions because of its status as the Jewish homeland. Many Americans—especially evangelical Christians—have a spiritual attachment to the Israelis that transcends mere politics. The Biblical teaching that the Jews are God’s chosen people lives in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, including a substantial portion of the MAGA base. Yet there are other Americans who embrace varying degrees of the anti-Semitism that has been with us from time immemorial.

Nevertheless, the tension between these two groups has been defused throughout most of modern American history by our shared commitment to defy the Communist world. It was the goal of the Communists to break the will of the West to fight, and to strengthen those progressive elements within Western societies—and especially within the United States—that would ally with terrorist organizations such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization against Israel and America. Their purpose was to advance the cause of global Communism against the forces of freedom and Western Christendom, of which Israel is a part.

These bonds between Israel and America will not be broken easily, if ever. This does not mean that America’s strategic decisions do not begin and end with what is good, first and foremost, for America. What it means is that it is not a difficult call to wish the Israelis well in their attempt to permanently degrade Iran’s nuclear capability.

The Case of Iran

Many today suggest that American foreign policy is led by Israel. The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil.

The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the Soviet Union did. It was a global struggle for primacy. Such is the case in world affairs. Communist China’s current support of Communist groups in the United States such as “No Kings” is a reminder of this.

It was hoped that supporting the Shah of Iran would help create a pro-Western regime that could advance pro-Western interests. This held for a time, until the Shah was overthrown by a mixture of Soviet-backed Communists and radical Islamic clerics led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The failure of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, was in part due to his inability to maintain a regime that was authoritarian enough to suppress the Communists and the Islamists. Lacking a strong hand—the Shah, it was said, did not want to turn his guns on his own people, even if it meant his own downfall—Iran was a regime ripe for revolution.

The United States’s strategy during the Cold War was to promote stability in the Middle East through the hegemonic powers of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. All of these were pro-Western regimes that, whatever animosity may have existed between them, would create a balance of power that benefited the United States and the West. This strategy would collapse over time. The Shah of Iran fell in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Saudi Arabia, an economic power because of its oil exports, would come to support anti-Western Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its more violent offshoots such as Al Qaeda. And Turkey, a member of NATO, has come to see itself as the vanguard of a new Islamic caliphate, and has allied with Islamic forces in the region that might help them achieve this, including Iran. Although President Trump has established good relations with the Saudis and Qataris, this is a work in progress. The remaining power on the side of the West is Israel.

The fall of the Shah in 1979 led to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard seizing the U.S. Embassy and taking hostage 52 diplomats and staff. They were released on January 20, 1981, while President Reagan was being sworn into office. By all definitions, this was a textbook act of war against the United States. And it was an act of war that was never addressed. That the Iranian regime was not punished for their action confirmed in their minds that the war against the United States was just.

Likewise, there was no action taken in April of 1983 when the Iranians, intimate in the art of proxy war, used Hezbollah forces to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people. Nor in October of 1983, when Iran used Hezbollah forces to blow up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. service members. Both of these were, again, textbook acts of war that should have been met with decisive action—war if necessary—to establish the principle that American citizens cannot be killed with impunity.

As expected, such attacks did not assuage Iranian grievances regarding the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. Far from it. The Iranian regime began the practice of having their schoolchildren recite, “Death to America and Death to Israel.” This is dismissed as mere Islamic rhetoric, the fervor of an oppressed people. In reality, it is a signal of a national commitment to wage war against the United States at the time and place of their choosing.

Iran undertook to couple this fervor with a large army, complete with advanced missilery and a developing nuclear weapons program. This was not a covert effort. It was well publicized in order to achieve the political effect of warning regional powers and the West that the Iranian military was lethal and not to be crossed.

During the war in Iraq following September 11, Iran regularly used various Shia forces to kill American soldiers using munitions made in Iran and coordinated by Iranian operatives. That our war in Iraq was misguided and badly executed does not obviate the fact that, once again, textbook acts of war were committed by Iran against the United States. Many on the America First Right today somehow dismiss all this as if it were irrelevant to how we should understand Iranian intentions. But the killing of Americans is wholly unacceptable, whether a war is widely supported or not.

It is not controversial among U.S. policymakers that Iran tested its ability to launch a ballistic missile from a ship twice, in the Caspian Sea in the early 2000s. The test missile launched had a non-nuclear warhead that created an explosion in the high atmosphere and simulated an electromagnetic pulse attack. There would be no other reason to test the explosion of a conventional warhead in the high atmosphere. This test was meant to relay to the United States that such an attack—an attack that could destroy the U.S. power grid and ultimately bring death upon hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens—could be executed against America. It beggars belief that anyone could believe Iran’s nuclear program is some kind of political theater rather than a program to wage war. Iran sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of natural gas. They don’t produce nuclear power for any other reason than enriching uranium that they will process for use in nuclear weapons.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in March that “the [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” However, she noted an increase in Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, describing it as “at its highest levels and unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

This has been seized on by some as proof positive the Israeli attack was unwarranted. But the Intelligence Community that Director Gabbard leads was inherited from the Biden Administration, which was and is highly politicized and historically not pro-Israel. What confidence can there be that the CIA or the DIA is right about this? These are the same agencies that promoted the idea that President Trump is a Russian agent.

It is not as if the creation or acquisition of a nuclear warhead is an impossible achievement. The Iranians are an extremely resourceful people, with a large military and very capable intelligence services. They have been working closely with the North Koreans for over 40 years on their nuclear weapons program. The aforementioned Scud III missile tested in the Caspian Sea was built on the North Korean Nodong missile design. That Iran could have acquired one or more warheads from North Korea is not inconceivable. Nor is the possibility that Iran acquired two warheads from Pakistan in the 1990s. Iranian scientists, working alongside Chinese and Russian scientists, must be at least as capable as those of the hermit kingdom.

Let it be said of Iran that for a nation that does not have nuclear weapons, it certainly behaves as if it does. What Prime Minister Netanyahu finds himself up against today is an Iran that is emboldened against the West, backed by Communist China, and unafraid to give financial and logistical support to assaults such as the October 7 Hamas attack and the subsequent Houthi attacks on U.S. sea power.

It would appear obvious that Netanyahu will never get a better U.S. president than Donald Trump. Although President Trump wishes for world peace, he understands we are in a conflict between great powers that will determine the future of the world. President Trump has also said unequivocally that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If you are Netanyahu, you will have three-and-a-half more years of President Trump’s leadership with which to reconstruct the Middle East politically. And the president understands well the asymmetric capabilities of an Iranian nuclear missile, as indicated by their tests in the Caspian Sea. His Golden Dome missile defense system includes an open architecture to account for such possibilities, and he has urged that they be deployed as soon as possible.

Proponents of an immediate attack to finish the Iranian nuclear program point often to Iran’s millenarian version of Shia Islam, which holds that there will be a return of the 12th Imam in the course of an apocalyptic event; it is certain some hold this view. Whether they are in power at this moment in Iran is unclear. Claremont Institute scholar and International Relations professor Angelo Codevilla would often say that the Iranians may be crazy, but they are not stupid. It will be amply clear to many in Tehran that the age of the Mullahs has come to an end.

The Persians may be an ancient people and the possessors of a once great empire, but they were conquered in the 7th century by the Arabs, who imposed Islam upon them. After 1,400 years, regular attendance at Friday Mosque services ranges from a high of 12% to perhaps as low as 1.5%, the lowest in the Middle East. That the Iranians could be liberated from this Islamic Republic and could live at peace with the West would be a highly desirable thing. To bring that about, however, will be the job of the Iranian people.

As we Americans consider what is good for us, we should calculate that a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel seems less likely than an attack on the United States from a ship-launched ballistic missile, or the importation of a nuclear device by terrorists who would wish our destruction. After all, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel—which may be fatal for Israel—will certainly be met with the nuclear annihilation of Iran. An attack on the U.S. from Iran—the strategic ally of Communist China—may well be hard to trace in the scenario just described. Retribution will not therefore be swift in coming. The need for the Golden Dome missile defense system in the U.S. is ever more clear.

Whatever decision President Trump makes during the next days, weeks, and months will be arrived at with the best intelligence at the time and with his signature resolve to put America first. Let us pray for God’s blessing on his decisions and on these United States.


Brian T. Kennedy is Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, President of the American Strategy Group, and a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. Follow him on X at @BrianTKennedy1 and on Gettr and Truth Social at @BrianTKennedy.

Wednesday, June 11, 2025

Neville Singham Funding Anti-ICE and Pro-Hamas actions

 

Amazing how many faces are identified from demonstrations coast to coast

Funding Anti-ICE and Pro-Hamas actions

House Oversight Committee Launches Investigation into Neville Singham, the Maoist Millionaire Funding Anti-ICE, Pro-Hamas Demonstrations

Debra Heine, American Greatness 

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is about to focus its investigative powers on Neville Roy Singham, the pro-China Marxist multimillionaire behind many of the destructive far-left demonstrations plaguing the United States in recent years.

The Committee is reportedly issuing a formal document request to Singham over his alleged financial support of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)—an extremist Marxist group that has been helping to organize violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

As the main funder of The People’s Forum, Singham, 71, has also bankrolled the “Free Palestine” protests that erupted after 1,400 innocent Israelis were slaughtered by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The People’s Forum works closely with other organizations in Singham’s network, including PSL and the ANSWER Coalition, all of which have been involved in the anti-Israel protests and anti-ICE riots.

PSL describes itself as a revolutionary socialist party that believes “only a revolution can end capitalism and establish socialism.”

The group supports the Communist Party of China (CCP) and argues that “militant political defense of the Chinese government” is necessary to stave off “counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment.”

As part of their national anti-Israel mobilization efforts, ANSWER and PSL have promoted slogans such as “Intifada revolution” and “resistance is justified.”

A prior member of the PSL, Elias Rodriguez, opened fire outside of the Jewish Museum in Washington DC on May 21, resulting in a Jewish couple being murdered.

A witness at the scene of the attack stated the shooter chanted “there’s only one solution, Intifada revolution,” raising concerns about PSL’s radical messaging and documented connections to Iran.

The group is currently helping to organize anti-ICE demonstrations in LA, San Antonio, Oakland, Chicago and other U.S. cities.

Singham, a Maoist who lives in Shanghai with special permission from the Chinese government as a “friend of the Party,” works closely with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and state media to help spread pro-Chinese government propaganda, according to a the New York Times investigative report in August 2023. Singham reportedly manages this by donating to various groups and news organizations through his non-profit groups and shell companies.

Following the NYT report, then-Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, asking him to open an investigation into Singham’s dark money operations for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Biden’s Justice Department took no action.

The American-born tech entrepreneur reportedly helped finance the pro-Hamas encampments and student uprisings that began at Columbia University and spread to other campuses last year.

Over the weekend, data expert @DataRepublican reported on X that Singham has funneled over $20 million into far-left organizations in the U.S. though his dark money network.

“Thanks to the investigative work of Data Republican, House Oversight will issue a formal document request to Neville Singham regarding his funding of a communist group linked to the LA riots and the CCP,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X Tuesday evening. She added: “IF HE REFUSES TO APPEAR, HE WILL BE SUBPOENAED, AND IF HE IGNORES THAT HE WILL BE REFERRED TO THE DOJ FOR PROSECUTION.”

In a short video posted on social media, Luna asserted that the PSL is only using the immigration issue as a political wedge to promote its Communist agenda.

In response to Data Republican’s posts, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, signaled what questions could be asked of the Marxist multi-millionaire.

“Is this war on ICE and America being funded by Neville Singham. Is it being funded by China? Was BLM riots funded by China? Are Antifa Communists funded by China? Are the cartels linked? This is an actual war being waged against our country,” Greene wrote on X.

Singham  is married to Marxist antiwar agitator Jodie Evans, 70, who co-founded Code Pink with Medea Benjamin in 2002 to protest the Iraq War.

In 2020, Evans launched a “China Is Not Our Enemy” campaign, leading a series of webinars on Code Pink’s YouTube page where she praised China’s “beautiful history” and Communist political structure.

Singham was once “a big fan” of Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez, describing the beleaguered country under his rule (February 2, 1999 to April 11, 2002 and April 14, 2002 to March 5, 2013) as a “phenomenally democratic place.”

On Wednesday, several leftist groups, including PSL, planned to hold “ICE-OUTs”  in American cities, including Eugene, Oregon and  Seattle, Washington.

Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.

Monday, June 09, 2025

Trump Should Crush the L.A. Riots

 

Trump Should Crush the L.A. Riots—with a Subtle Hand

How the president can restore order and win the war for visual symbolism

Christopher F. Rufo, City Journal 

Los Angeles is burning. Earlier this year, seasonal fires ripped through the Southern California city, but now, the fires are entirely manmade. In response to the Trump administration’s deportation policy, left-wing activists and opportunistic rioters have taken to the streets to vandalize property, incinerate automobiles, and assault law enforcement officers. The images emerging from the city are shocking: thugs hurling rocks from an overpass onto police; men spinning motorcycles around burning debris; a masked, shirtless rioter waving a Mexican flag atop a burned-out autonomous car.

In short, the Left is giving President Trump all the visual symbolism he needs to advance his immigration agenda. Most Americans see chaos in the name of a foreign flag and find it repellent. Though Trump’s language about a migrant “invasion” has sometimes been dismissed as hyperbolic, it seems that the Left is intent on turning it into a material reality.

The question: How should the president respond? Many on the right may feel an instinctual reaction to “send in the troops.” While this concern for law and order is natural and merited, it must be pursued in a way that maximizes the chance for success and minimizes the chance for blowback. As the president considers his options, he might keep in mind a number of strategic points that, if implemented, will increase his leverage in the fight for large-scale deportations.

The administration must deny the Left a strong visual counterargument. It’s easy to see how scenes of militarization, abuse of demonstrators, or a violent death could reverse public sympathies and present the administration as abusing its authority. The language of politics is visual—and therefore emotional, which means that a single mistake can reverse the flow of opinion and imperil the president’s immigration agenda. Left-wing tacticians have trained their foot soldiers to bait law enforcement into confrontation and to play victim for the press, to great effect.

To prevent this scenario, Trump has a number of strategic options available to him. First, rather than sending in more troops to stop the fires, the president might be better advised to hold off. Right now, California governor Gavin Newsom has sided with the demonstrators, but if the riots spread further, this stance will cost him in public opinion, and eventually, he will have to assume the mantle of authority. The public will expect Newsom to restore order, and he’ll have to incur the risk of using force.

Second, the president should pressure local leaders to buy in to the task of quelling the riots. He could wait for Governor Newsom to request the National Guard or appear at a press conference with Los Angeles County officials, bringing state Democrats into the risk-reward calculus and creating the option for the president to shift the blame in the future if they fail to respond effectively. California Democrats are anticipating that Trump will assume all the authority and, therefore, relieve them of any responsibility. He should resist the temptation to be the only player on the field with skin in the game.

Third, the president should direct federal agencies to create a hard-soft, or visible-invisible, approach to riot control. In public, the National Guard should mobilize with enough manpower to smother the protests and avoid protracted conflict or hand-to-hand combat, which carries with it the highest level of risk. At the same time, as we saw demonstrated in Portland, Oregon, during the George Floyd riots, the agencies should dispatch unmarked vans to follow key agitators and snatch them from the streets while the media are not looking. The most effective riot control is to take movement leaders off the field, infiltrate their networks, disrupt the flow of funding, and roll them up in federal investigations. Denying the Left trained protest leaders now will create a strong precedent for the rest of the president’s term.

President Trump has often tweeted “law and order” in all capital letters. This is a powerful formulation—half a century ago, it won Richard Nixon a landslide reelection—but especially in today’s media environment, it must be carried out subtly and with an eye toward visual language. To reestablish order on the streets but lose the war for public opinion would constitute an empty victory and a real danger to the president’s agenda. The desire to quell rioting is a noble one, but the president should remember that, ultimately, California is responsible for California’s streets.

The president’s approach to the rioting and lawlessness should be guided by a higher goal: enacting his immigration agenda. The mayhem in downtown L.A. represents his first real test in that effort.


Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution.

Sunday, May 25, 2025

Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

 

Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

What to Know About Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency Over Federal Spending

The president can decline to spend money appropriated by Congress, with restrictions. Trump wants to reduce or clear away those restrictions.

Joseph Lord, congressional reporter for The Epoch Times 

The stage is set for a constitutional battle between President Donald Trump and a federal watchdog over the extent of presidential authority on spending, as Trump seeks to make sweeping federal spending and personnel cuts.

Trump and administration officials want to reduce existing restrictions on the president’s impoundment power, which allows a president to decline to spend money appropriated by Congress.

According to Trump, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—which requires the president to seek permission to rescind, or officially end, funding—violates the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Specifically, Trump argues that the chief executive has broad authority to interpret and make decisions about congressionally mandated spending—including the decision not to disburse funding.

His critics, meanwhile, say that the White House is transgressing Congress’s power of the purse.

Since taking office, Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have sought to identify and implement budget cuts, through actions such as shuttering or reorganizing federal agencies, mass staff reductions, and blocking funds.

In response, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the watchdog that oversees the Impoundment Control Act—has opened dozens of investigations into the executive branch.

The office issued its first finding on May 22, saying that the Department of Transportation had violated the impoundment law in its directive to revoke electric vehicle-related funding that had been mandated by Congress.

A series of lawsuits related to the issue is also pending in federal courts, meaning the issue could make its way to the Supreme Court.

Here’s what to know about the legal conflict and the potential court showdown.

Impoundment Use

In legal terms, impoundment refers to a situation in which the president declines to spend money appropriated by Congress.

It has been used often by presidents throughout history, beginning with President Thomas Jefferson.

In that instance, Congress called for the construction of 15 new gunboats at a cost of $50,000. Jefferson decided against it. In October 1803, in his third annual address, he informed Congress that the boats remained unconstructed and the money unspent.

The legislation had “authorized and empowered” Jefferson to build “a number not exceeding fifteen gunboats.”

Devin Watkins, an attorney at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, wrote that this was entirely within Jefferson’s power as Congress had not explicitly required him to spend the money or build the boats.

Supporters of presidential impoundment point to the unilateral decision as the basis for the practice in U.S. law.

In Kendall v. U.S. ex Rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court ruled that there were limits to the doctrine, however. The president could not unilaterally refuse to delegate funding when Congress’s intention was clear, the court found.

The issue has been barely litigated since then—meaning that many of the questions involved still haven’t been defined by the courts. Those questions primarily have to do with the separation of powers.

The Impoundment Control Act

Impoundment gained more attention during President Richard Nixon’s tenure in office.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 authorized federal funding to municipalities including New York City to combat water pollution.

Nixon initially vetoed the legislation. Congress overrode his veto by a two-thirds vote.

After the law was enacted, Nixon sought to block funding to New York City, prompting the city to sue.

In Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled 8–0 that Nixon had superseded his authority in refusing to disburse the funding.

Congress said that Nixon’s actions had crossed from the executive function into the policy-making function—a prerogative of Congress.

In response, it passed the Impoundment Control Act. It was the first legislative effort to define the limits between Congress and the president on the impoundment issue.

“[Impoundment] wasn’t an issue until Nixon made it an issue,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told The Epoch Times.

Watkins said that the perception of policy-making through impoundment was the main driver behind the 1974 law, in which Congress imposed new limits on the president’s power.

The law requires the president to send a rescission request to Congress if he wishes to reduce or alter spending previously required by Congress. Congress then has 45 days of continuous session to respond to the request.

Within that time, Congress must vote to either approve the president’s request and rescind the funding, or reject it, in which case the president is obligated to spend the funds as originally appropriated.

GAO Investigations and Lawsuits

The GAO says it’s investigating various moves made by Trump that may violate the legislation.

U.S. Comptroller General and GAO head Gene Dodaro told a Senate panel in April that 39 investigations into impoundment violations are currently open.

If any of those investigations yield evidence of violations of the Impoundment Control Act, the GAO could bring a suit against the administration.

In the past, Watkins said, Impoundment Control Act disputes have often arisen between the GAO and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A lot of times, what you see is this jousting between OMB and the GAO.”

Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the OMB, has been an outspoken critic of the Impoundment Control Act, vowing to work to strengthen the president’s impoundment power in Trump’s second term.

It’s rare for an impoundment issue to make it all the way to trial, however.

In the 1970s, the GAO brought a suit against President Gerald Ford for his use of impoundment in Staats v. Ford. However, the case was resolved before being litigated.

In Trump’s first term, he faced challenges from the GAO over his handling of federal funding related to the temporary impoundment of $214 million in military aid to Ukraine.

That act was referenced during the first impeachment proceedings against Trump, though the GAO didn’t file a lawsuit.

The GAO’s May 22 report marks the first escalation of the dispute.

That report centers around a Feb. 6 Transportation Department (DOT) announcement of a freeze on new electric vehicle infrastructure grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. That legislation appropriated $5 billion toward constructing new charging stations and other electric vehicle infrastructure as part of President Joe Biden’s push to phase out gas-powered vehicles.

The GAO said that the move to cancel funding appropriated by Congress is in violation of the 1974 law. It said the 2021 infrastructure law included a “mandate to spend,” so the department “is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program.”

The report said the administration needs to resume funding to comply with the law, but proposed that the department could also send a rescission request to Congress.

Responding to the findings, Vought posted on X that over the next few months, the GAO is “going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt.”

Other agencies besides the GAO have also brought suits against the Trump administration’s spending cuts and federal worker firings, arguing they are unlawful uses of impoundment.

Most of these have failed to result in court action.

One exception is State of Rhode Island v. Trump, an ongoing case involving a suit from 21 attorneys general, who argue that Trump’s sweeping executive moves to shrink the federal bureaucracy violate the Impoundment Control Act and other separation of powers laws.

A judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sued on similar grounds, contending that a Jan. 24 State Department notice suspending federal funding for refugee and asylum programs violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Both a temporary restraining order and an injunction were denied in this case.

Purse Strings and Executive Authority

Trump has made the case for broad presidential impoundment authority, saying it is simply a means for the president to exercise oversight on taxpayer funding.

“This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers,” Trump said in a 2024 campaign video. He vowed to attempt to overturn the Impoundment Control Act during his second term.

However, Democrats and other critics say that Trump’s use of impoundment transgresses congressional authority.

“From day one, President Trump has unilaterally frozen or contravened critical funding provided in our bipartisan laws,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during the April Senate hearing in which Dodaro testified.

“That is really not what the Constitution envisioned. Congress has the power of the purse period, our presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of a law that they can follow.”

Rahmani echoed Murray’s perspective, saying he disagrees with the argument that the Impoundment Control Act unfairly intercedes on executive authority.

“The bottom line is … Congress passes a law. The president can’t choose to ignore the law, especially when it comes to the appropriation of funds. So this is a pretty clear issue,” Rahmani said.

He suggested Republicans wouldn’t be as open to a Democrat exercising such power over funding.

In contrast, Watkins argued for a more expansive interpretation, noting that presidents throughout American history have refused to spend appropriated money for a variety of reasons.

The 1974 legislation could be interpreted as making changes to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, he said—which could render some components of the bill unconstitutional.

Congress foresaw this concern, stating in the opening to the legislation that nothing in it “assert[s] or conced[es] the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President.”

Watkins argued that the 1974 law was a legislative overcorrection “with significant interpretive challenges,” and proposed that the criteria for impoundment be based on whether Congress explicitly set terms around the use of funding.

Often when Congress appropriates funds, it doesn’t “specify either the amount of money or who that money should be going to, or when that money should be spent,” he said.

In less clear cases, he said, the presumption should be in favor of presidential authority.

Several congressional Republicans, meanwhile, are currently pursuing legislation that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act altogether.

However, that faces long odds in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would need to sign on for the legislation to pass.