Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Lawrence Ferlinghetti protesting ICE fascism at City Lights
Further

Pity the Nation/ Whose Shepherds Mislead Them

Amidst plunging polls and righteous rage at his Epstein Memorial Ballroom, the inept manchild faces growing resistance, sublime to ridiculous, to his nascent kingship. Cue anti-ICE whistle kits - “Form a crowd, stay loud" - rainbow church steps, Newsom hawking knee pads, D.C. Jedi suing individual goons, and a successfully mobilized Bay Area, including his iconic bookstore's revival of Lawrence Ferlinghetti's howling edict that his people not "allow their rights to erode/and their freedoms to be washed away."

Trump was already underwater with the lowest approval rating for any president, even him, at this point in his reign - see no jobs, high prices, cancelled SNAP benefits, murdered innocents, rounded-up brown neighbors - before his abrupt, illegal obliteration of the East Wing for a gilded obscenity to host his billionaire suck-ups. For many, the travesty is a bitter echo of what in part got us here: Obama's mocking, gaudy, then-hilarious 2011 vision of a lurid purple "Trump White House, Hotel, Casino, Golf Course" with glitzy tyrant chandeliers and half-naked women welcoming you. Now, of course, we are about to have the execrable real thing, a tacky "abomination," born of his "poisonous bravado," bearing the "bombast (of) a dictator-for-life megalomania vibe."

Despite widespread horror at a now-$300-million, White-House-dwarfing atrocity for fat cats, smirking, clueless Press Barbie touted the ballroom as "of course the main priority" of the "builder-in chief" with a lifetime of bankruptcies to his tawdry name. Still, the outcry was loud enough for some flunkies to attempt an unhinged distraction: a new, racist, trolling Major Events Timeline on the ballroom that lurches from fake history - for 150 years, everyone has "longed for" it - to George Washington, the Oval Office, the Rose Garden to Clinton/Monica, Obama in a turban hosting Muslim Brotherhood extremists, debauched Hunter in a bath tub with cocaine, Biden with topless transsexuals to, straightfaced, Trump's hellacious, gold-blinged redecorating.

Reflecting the same crude regime run by a petty, vengeful bully - who hung along his new "Presidential Walk of Fame" not a portrait of the man he can't admit defeated him but the image of an autopen and just snarled, "You know nothing about nothing" at a reporter questioning him - comes the story from D.C. of Jedi knight Sam O’Hara, 35, who sometimes mocks the masked, armed, camoed thugs parading around his town by walking behind them, playing Star Wars' "The Imperial March" that marks the arrival of Darth Vader, and posts his videos online. Bemused millions have watched his personal protest, audible but not loud, against "a dystopian occupation," but last month he was accosted by one thin-skinned stormtrooper who was not amused.

Going home after work, O’Hara was following four Ohio National Guardsmen when Sergeant Devon Beck turned back to threaten him with calling D.C. cops to "handle" him. The Empire quickly struck back: Police arrived, tightly handcuffed him, argued "this isn't a protest" when he explained himself, and held him for a while before letting him go without charges. Now O'Hara and the ACLU are suing four police and Guardsmen under a law that renders individuals liable for punitive damages for infringing on a plaintiff's Constitutional rights. "The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away," argued O'Hara, citing the First and Fourth Amendment and a D.C. prohibition on false arrest, but not "in the here and now."

In his complaint, in which he demands a jury trial, O'Hara calls the deployment of military police "a waste of tax dollars, a needless display of force, and a surreal danger" that shouldn't be normalized. Likewise citing a 200-year-old tradition of civilian law enforcement, ACLU senior attorney Michael Perloff defended O'Hara's right to play "The Imperial March" as a "quintessential exercise of free speech." "The government doesn't get to decide if your protest is funny, and can’t punish you for making them the punchline," he said. "That’s really the whole point of the First Amendment." Or, paraphrasing Justice William Brennan on a free nation vs. police state, If you act like an autocrat when you're called an autocrat, you probably are one.

Many others are rising up and acting out in the belief that, argues Rev. Rachel Griffin-Allison, "Silence is not neutral. Silence in the face of harm always sides with the oppressor." The senior pastor of Oak Lawn United Methodist Church in Dallas, she and her congregation took to painting their church steps in rainbow colors after an inane order from Gov. Greg Abbott banning "all political ideologies from our streets," including existing rainbow crosswalks or other "political" pavement designs; he said he wanted to "keep roads safe and free from distraction" - a claim, under threat of cut funding, many called "highly questionable" and, given his law requiring the Ten Commandments in schools, deeply hypocritical. The reverend called it "political bullying."

"A rainbow is not a political statement," she said. "It’s a universal symbol of inclusion, hope, and pride in diversity (representing) a safe space for a community that’s been marginalized. The rainbow is for everyone." Undercutting Abbott's brazen fear-mongering, she noted the multi-hued crosswalks were funded by private donations and approved by the city, and their re-painting action was "not one of defiance, but of faith, a visible witness to the gospel we preach...When the forces of power try to erase symbols of inclusion, the Church has a choice - to retreat into comfort or to step forward in courage. We choose courage. This is not a political act; it’s a pastoral one. It says, 'The love of God meets you exactly as you are.'"

Many elsewhere are also fighting back with courage. In and around besieged Chicago, organizers have rallied groups of hundreds of volunteers to create 30,000 anti-ICE kits packed with warning whistles for ICE sightings, handouts about how and when to use them, and bilingual flyers detailing migrants' rights: "Immigrants keep us moving forward." Last week, when masked agents descended on a Chicago suburb - variously claiming they were looking for an escaped dog, gang member, sex offender - residents texted one another - “ICE IS HERE," "Fucking helicopters," "On our way" - before emerging to scream, film, tail and honk at them. "You don’t belong here,” one yelled. "Our neighbors, our community members, they do belong here.”

In California's diverse, liberal Bay Area, which just won a billionaire-bought reprieve from ICE invasion, officials and residents were organized and mobilized after months of Trump threats and his announcement troops were finally going there to bring down its record-low crime rate and "make it great." Good luck on that With Marvin Gaye blaring, pre-dawn protesters at Alameda's Coast Guard base blocked the entrance, bore signs urging "Protect Our Neighbors/ Protegemos Nuestros Vecinos," and faced off against about 100 agents already there who quickly fired flash-bang grenades, injuring several. Are we great yet? "In the Bay we're involved, and our kids know what's happening," said one father. "They’re going to see they’re not wanted here."

Officials were just as adamant. If ICE was loosed on them, state and city attorneys would be "in court within hours, if not minutes." Newsom, slamming voter suppression and "a direct assault on the rule of law,” vowed to sue "within nanoseconds"; he also added to his satirical, union-supplied Patriot Shop "KNEE PADS FOR ALL CEO’s, UNIVERSITIES, AND GOP BENDING THE KNEE TO DONALD TRUMP." Meanwhile, Steve Bannon's witless, flip-flopping "vehicle of divine providence" called off his "surge" after some tech oligarchs told him to - what, no Fox or Loomer or Goebbels? - and San Francisco's mayor "very nicely" asked him to. At immigration court the next day, Aztec dancers led a cleansing ritual and defiant protesters called for a general strike.

The crisis also sparked the return of a seminal voice as City Lights Books unfurled banners quoting co-founder, poet, veteran, pacifist and "philosophical anarchist" Lawrence Ferlinghetti's “Pity the Nation,” a 2007, George W-era lament against tyranny. Beginning in 1953 and over seven decades - he died age 101 in 2021 - Ferlinghetti nursed the hub of free speech and Beat poets, thinkers and dissenters that was City Lights; he also fiercely defended Allen Ginsberg's 1955 Howl - "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked" - in an obscenity trial that ended in a landmark victory for the First Amendment. Despite "the iron circumstances of the world," Ferlinghetti was always seeking "a renaissance of wonder," and he was not afraid. Be like him, and California, Chicago, D.C., all the rest.

Update: A federal judge in Portland, Oregon rejected Trump's request to lift her order blocking the deployment of goons there, at least for now. And a judge in D.C is still hearing arguments to remove over 2,000 troops from there.

From comedian  Bill Jubran: "Fox News wants you to be afraid." 185K views · 5.8K reactions | This is how Fox News indoctrinated a whole generation. | Bill Jubran www.facebook.com

PITY THE NATION

Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them

Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves

Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerors
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture

Pity the nation that knows
No other language but its own
And no other culture but its own

Pity the nation whose breath is money
And sleeps the sleep of the too well fed

Pity the nation oh pity the people
who allow their rights to erode
and their freedoms to be washed away

My country, tears of thee
Sweet land of liberty!

– Lawrence Ferlinghetti (after Lebanese American poet Kahlil Gibran)

SEE ALL
Rikki Held, a plaintiff in multiple youth climate cases
News

'We Will Appeal': Judge Dismisses Youth Suit Against Trump Attacks on Climate

American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.

"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.

"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."

"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."

US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.

"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."

The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."

While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."

Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."

"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "The judge recognized that the government's fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent."

"We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," Olson added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."

SEE ALL
Epstein Files Transparency Act
News

CNBC Host Doesn't Know How to Fix Runaway Healthcare Costs. Ro Khanna Says: Medicare for All

With the second-longest federal government shutdown dragging on and Americans concerned about soaring health insurance premiums and coverage losses, Congressman Ro Khanna on Thursday again made the case for Medicare for All.

On CNBC's "Squawk Box," co-host Joe Kernen made clear he doesn't support Medicare for All but expressed concern about rising premiums. He also admitted, "I don't know what the answer is."

Khanna (D-Calif.), meanwhile, reiterated his support for a single-payer system, in part by highlighting how private health insurance companies are raking in billions of dollars in profits each year, at the expense of patients.

If the United States extended eligibility for Medicare, which is now only available to Americans ages 65 and older, "it would help private business," the congressman argued. "It would lower healthcare costs."

A 2020 analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that Medicare for All would benefit companies and workers by supporting self-employment and small business development, boosting wages, increasing job quality, and lessening the stress and economic shock of losing or changing employment. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that shifting to Medicare for All could save $650 billion annually.

Khanna on Thursday pushed back against claims that under Medicare for All, Americans wouldn't be able to get the healthcare they need, saying: "I don't think Medicare is rationing more than the private industry. [If] you are on private insurance, that's where you get rationed. You have to get your pre-authorization. You have things denied. Medicare, actually, doesn't do that."

Although Medicare can deny coverage, KFF found in 2023 that people with employer-sponsored health insurance were twice as likely as those on Medicare for Medicaid—which covers people with low incomes and disabilities—to have a claim denied.

"Traditional Medicare, also known as Original Medicare, has historically required little in the way of pre-authorization for beneficiaries seeking services; pre-authorization was typically the domain of Medicare Advantage," or plans administered by private insurance companies, Kiplinger reported this summer. "But that's about to change."

Under President Donald Trump's "profoundly unqualified" pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS will require prior authorization for 17 services it claims "are vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse" in six states next year.

Beginning in January, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington will serve as testing grounds "to provide an improved and expedited prior authorization process relative to Original Medicare's existing processes, helping patients and providers avoid unnecessary or inappropriate care and safeguarding federal taxpayer dollars," CMS said in a June statement.

Julie Alderman Boudreau, who has worked as a researcher at various organizations, warned at the time that "this is a Medicare cut by another name. This will cause seniors to delay care or forgo it altogether."

The CMS announcement came just days before Trump signed Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which contained cuts to Medicaid and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. The current government shutdown, which began on October 1, stems from Democrats' fight to undo the GOP attacks on Medicaid and ACA subsidies.

The CBO estimates that 10 million Americans could be booted off Medicaid because of cuts. Additionally, more than 20 million Americans who buy insurance via ACA marketplaces are expected to see their premiums spike next year, and some of them may not be able to afford any plans. Multiple polls released this week show that US voters are concerned about premium hikes.

One of those surveys, released Monday by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, also shows that voters want Democrats in Congress to keep fighting for a fix to the looming healthcare crisis, even if it means the shutdown continues.

Khanna—one of several Democrats considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate—noted on social media earlier this week that KFF polling shows that "78% of Americans favor extending ACA credits."

"Republicans are once again trying to reward the ultrawealthy at the expense of regular folks," he added. "It's time to pass Medicare for All and solidify Americans' right to affordable healthcare."

SEE ALL
Steve-Bannon-Speaks-at-National-Conservatism-Conference
News

Bannon Says Trump Will Run for an Illegal 3rd Term Because ‘He’s a Vehicle of Divine Providence’

In a frightening interview, one of President Donald Trump’s top allies said there is a “plan” for the president to remain in power after 2028, despite constitutional limits.

Speaking to a pair of interviewers at The Economist, Steve Bannon—Trump’s former chief strategist and one of the most influential voices in the MAGA movement—described a third Trump term as a divinely ordained fait accompli that people must simply accept.

“Well, he’s gonna get a third term, so Trump ’28,” Bannon said. “Trump is gonna be president in 2028, and people ought to just get accommodated with that.”

Asked about the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which plainly forbids a president from serving more than two terms in office, Bannon proclaimed that “there are many different alternatives” to get around it.

“At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is,” he said. “But there’s a plan. And President Trump will be president in ’28.”

Bannon continued: “We have to finish what we started... I know this will drive you guys crazy, but [Trump] is a vehicle of divine providence. He’s an instrument. He’s very imperfect. He’s not churchy. But he is an instrument of divine will.”

“We need him for at least one more term,” Bannon reiterated, “and he’ll get that in ’28.”

In recent days, Trump has increasingly signaled his intent to run for a third term, selling “Trump 2028” merchandise on his website and displaying it in the Oval Office during negotiations with Democrats over the government shutdown.

His recent demolition of the White House’s East Wing to build a luxury ballroom has also raised alarms that Trump increasingly views himself as its permanent resident rather than a temporary steward.

Bannon was adamant that Trump would not only serve a third term, but that his staying in office would be “by the will of the American people.”

This assumption is out of line with what polls would seem to predict: Trump’s support recently hit a new low in his second term, with just 37% of voters approving of his job performance in the latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, compared to 61% who disapprove.

Bannon’s comments came days after the New York Times reported that Trump’s handpicked election officials have called for him to declare a “national emergency” ahead of the 2026 midterm election, which they say would allow him to assert more control over election laws and impose new rules on state and local elections without approval from Congress.

Max Flugrath of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, who warned earlier this week of Trump’s plans to “hijack” the next elections, said that by pushing for a third term for the president, “Bannon is basically saying, ‘Let’s light the Constitution on fire.’”

Author and activist Jim Stewartson noted that Bannon “uses the same alchemy as [House Speaker] Mike Johnson and [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth to rationalize destroying the Constitution: ‘spiritual war.’”

Johnson has argued that the US government “must be biblically sanctioned” and that the Founders’ idea of the separation of church and state was “a misnomer.” Hegseth, meanwhile, has endorsed a video of a far-right pastor discussing the need to repeal the 19th Amendment, which enshrined the right of women to vote.

Some pointed out that Bannon often manages to create a stir in the media by saying provocative things and claiming to have privileged knowledge about the machinations of Trump’s inner circle. It’s not the first time Bannon has raised the possibility of a third Trump term.

“A question that I’ve never seen fully resolved is to what degree Bannon is just trying to get attention as a media figure and to what degree he’s actually clued in to what’s going on in the White House,” said HeatMap News correspondent Matthew Zeitlin.

However, Bannon was in the know about Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election well before it happened. Days before the vote, he was recorded telling right-wing allies that “What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory... He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”

Others said that Bannon’s prognosis about a third Trump term is gravely serious, especially given Trump’s other actions during his second term.

“I would love to be wrong, but they keep saying this in public,” said writer John DiLillo. “He’s selling Trump 2028 merch. He’s massively remodeling the White House as if it were his personal residence. I don’t really see why the idea shouldn’t be taken seriously just because it’s ‘unconstitutional.’”

Mehdi Hasan, founder of the media outlet Zeteo, meanwhile, said: “They’re literally shouting it out loud! Their plan to overturn the Constitution and democracy. They’re not hiding it. They’re bragging about it. And the media are just ignoring it, or worse, normalizing it; the biggest story perhaps in modern American history.”

SEE ALL
'It Pisses Me Off': Chicago Neighborhood Furious as Feds Lob Tear Gas, Detain US Citizens
News

'It Pisses Me Off': Chicago Neighborhood Furious as Feds Lob Tear Gas, Detain US Citizens

Residents of Chicago's Little Village are angrily lashing out at federal immigration officials who rolled into their neighborhood and detained residents for a second consecutive day.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that US Border Patrol agents, led by Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, stormed into Little Village on Thursday morning wearing military-style gear and gas masks. Witnesses tell the Sun-Times that the agents began by trying to enter a discount mall in the neighborhood, only to realize that it had been closed.

The agents' presence drew the attention of local residents who gathered around them and demanded that they leave their neighborhood.

Baltazar Enriquez, president of the Little Village Community Council, said that he arrived on the scene and tried to deescalate tensions between the agents and the community. However, he told the Sun-Times that Bovino appeared to be itching for confrontation and was the first federal official to lob a tear gas canister into the crowd.

"I told him not to throw it because all he was going to do was rile people up, but he just smirked at me and threw it anyway,” said Enriquez, who also accused Bovino of leading an "orchestrated" assault on the neighborhood.

At the end of the operation, Border Patrol agents detained five people, including at least two people whom locals said were US citizens.

Illinois state Rep. Edgar González (D-23), who grew up in Little Village, expressed fury at the agents' tactics.

“It pisses me off to see them coming into our neighborhood and terrorizing our people,” he said, while also cautioning residents against getting into violent confrontations with federal officials.

"It’s a normal reaction to want to resist and to be angry,” González said. “I’m angry, too. But we need to remember not to take the bait."

The raid in Little Village came on the same day that Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the use of excessive force by federal immigration officials on protesters, journalists, and volunteer street medics outside of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Illinois.

According to Human Rights Watch—and reporting published since the Trump administration launched Operation Midway Blitz last month—federal agents have repeatedly lobbed tear gas canisters and fired projectiles into crowds of peaceful protesters who are posing no threat to law enforcement officials.

“This is not crowd control, but a campaign of intimidation,” said Belkis Wille, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch. “Federal agents are using chemical irritants and firing projectiles at peaceful protesters, volunteer street medics, and journalists in broad daylight. The message is clear that dissent will be punished.”

SEE ALL
'Another Unlawful Extrajudicial Killing' as Trump Expands Boat-Bombing Spree to Pacific
News

'Another Unlawful Extrajudicial Killing' as Trump Expands Boat-Bombing Spree to Pacific

The Trump administration launched another military strike on a purported drug trafficking boat on Tuesday night, and for the first time expanded its campaign of extrajudicial killing to the Pacific Ocean.

In a social media post, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed that President Donald Trump had authorized "a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel being operated by a designated terrorist organization and conducting narco-trafficking in the Eastern Pacific." Hegseth also said that the strike killed two passengers who were aboard the vessel.

This marks at least the eighth time the US military has attacked a purported drug-trafficking boat, although the previous seven strikes took place in the Caribbean. Collectively, the strikes have killed at least 34 people.

In the wake of the latest boat attack, many Trump critics once again slammed the administration for carrying out what they described as acts of murder.

Conor Friedersdorf, a staff writer at The Atlantic, described the attack as "another unlawful extrajudicial killing of a boat our military could have stopped and investigated."

Friedersdorf also emphasized that these killings would be unlawful even if the people on the boats were involved in narcotics trafficking.

"Even when convicted drug smugglers go to court, they don't get the death penalty," he wrote. "This is immoral."

Kenneth Roth, former executive director for Human Rights Watch, tore apart the administration's legal argument for treating alleged drug smuggling as an act of war by a hostile foreign power.

"Trump's rationale for his repeated murders at sea don't hold water," he wrote in a post on X. "There is no 'self-defense' because no one is attacking the United States. There is no 'armed conflict' because there are no hostilities approaching a war."

Jill Wine-Banks, former Watergate prosecutor and US general counsel of the Army, warned in a post on Bluesky about the dangers of further widening Trump's bombing campaign.

"He must be stopped," she wrote. "This is illegal and endangers America."

Journalist Mark Jacob said he was highly skeptical that the administration was carrying out these attacks to stop the flow of drugs into the US.

"The Trump regime lies all the time," he wrote on Bluesky. "A more likely explanation for these attacks is US imperialism: Trump wants to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela (with vast oil reserves) and intimidate Colombia (which criticized previous attacks)."

Colombian President Gustavo Petro this past weekend said that the Trump administration had "committed a murder" after one of its boat attacks killed a Colombian citizen named Alejandro Carranza, who had been out on a fishing trip when the US military attacked his boat.

Trump responded by baselessly calling Petro "an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs," while also levying new tariffs against Colombia.

SEE ALL