SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
MAGA's "day of love" at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021
Further

Gobsmacking Fabulists 'R Us

For the anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot that almost toppled democracy (more quickly than now), the hacks and crackpots in power have concocted a deranged revisionist history of such "evil," "pathological," "Stalin-level propaganda" it's somehow dragged us even further through the looking glass. In its telling, "orderly patriots" marched to the Capitol, Democrats who "masterfully reversed reality" "staged the real rebellion," and Trump "triumphed over tyranny." Up is down. What the fuck. Orwell lives.

A few days ago, Robert Reich described the Jan. 6 insurrection as "the most shameful day in American history." He later wisely upped the ante to draw a direct line from that crime to all the rest, including his capture of Maduro, arguing they're all based on the same disturbing premise: "The hubris of omnipotence." Many have made the same connection, calling Jan. 6 a stark "fork in the road" whose moral implications - supremacy of political loyalty over the rule of law - poisoned all that followed. It became "the moment we lost the plot," "a riot that never ended," not "the final, violent death spasms of the cult of Trump" as many thought but "the dawn of Trump’s total liberation." Today, amidst all the gaslighting, denial, lies, the ongoing, well-fed hubris, we pay the price.

A few weeks ago, former special counsel Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, testifying that his team had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power." We all know Trump should be behind bars. Tragically, he isn't, because he inexplicably weaseled his way into getting elected, a complicit, lawless SCOTUS gave him an unconscionable lifeline, Merrick Garland was a dud, Biden got old, and Smith was forced to drop the case. Since then, Trump has blasted ahead with his revenge tour, his toadies have gutted the DOJ, the far-right, fueled by Charlie Kirk's death, has soared, and truth has lost at every mournful turn.

And so to Trump's "day of love” as framed by a demented J6 website, widely deemed "disgusting lies," "an absolute disgrace," and "a despicable, shameful distortion of reality by a lawless, rogue White House." With a stark black and white banner portraying a supposed gallery of villains composed of - surprise! - Democrats, along with traitorous Cheney and Kinzinger, it opens with the florid claim, "President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples... They were punished to cover incompetence." It boasts Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned nearly 1,600 "patriotic Americans...treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ" for "exercising their First Amendment rights."

Blasting Nancy Pelosi for creating "a scripted TV spectacle to fabricate an 'insurrection' narrative and pin blame on President Trump" and flaunting contextless quotes - "We have totally failed" - it claims Pelosi "repeatedly" acknowledged responsibility for “catastrophic security failures" after refusing Trump's gracious offer of 10,000 National Guard troops for protection (not, all of it). Thus did wily Dems reverse reality: "In truth it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy.”

Then, a timeline of fictional events: Trump "invites patriotic Americans" to DC for "a peaceful and historic protest against certifying the stolen 2020 election." He "speaks to hundreds of thousands of supporters." The crowd "responds with massive enthusiasm." The march "is orderly and spirited." Capitol Police "fire tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions, deliberately escalating tensions." The "stolen election is certified" despite "hidden suitcases of ballots," also "exploding water pipes"? Trump is "silenced," "weaponized prosecutions," "FBI entrapment," "fabricated indictments," "rigged show trials," "Trump prevails despite relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him," and of course "God’s unmistakable grace." Whew.

The triumphant finale: Trump "corrected a historic wrong - freeing Americans who were unjustly punished in one of the darkest wrongs in modern American history" - reportedly, when faced with the task, saying fuck it and giving all 1,600, even the most vile, a free ride 'cause he was too lazy to go through each case. He pardoned "patriotic citizens viciously overcharged, denied due process and held as political hostages by a vengeful regime." Those victims of "merciless persecution (for) the simple act of peacefully walking through the Capitol" were "finally freed from years of cruel imprisonment" as he "ended the nightmare of weaponized justice and delivered long-overdue vindication to those betrayed by those leaders sworn to protect them."

Speaking of: Since then, Republicans have spinelessly toed the line. To date, unholy Mike Johnson's even refused to install a legally mandated plaque at the US Capitol honoring the brave and still damaged souls in law enforcement who tried to stop the mayhem; challenged, he argues the plaque is "not implementable" as written, and that alternatives offered by Democrats "do not comply with the statute." On Tuesday's anniversary, dozens of Dem lawmakers held a forum to recount their experiences of the traumatic event and honor those who fought to protect them and uphold the law; they gathered in the basement where many had hidden that day after the Speaker's office declined their requests for a hearing room or larger auditorium upstairs.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Also on Tuesday, a twisted, ragtag "family reunion" of several dozen rioters came to D.C. to march again, ostensibly to commemorate Ashli Babbitt, who was killed as she tried to breach the Capitol; the administration paid $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit with her family. The pardoned rioters, many of whom are similarly seeking millions in damages, marched draped in MAGA gear. "This is about redemption," said one. "This is the life force of MAGA." Some tangled with a handful of counter-protesters - "Eat Shit Donald Trump" - and a small fight began when one thug tried to seize the bullhorn from a protester’s hands. She was handcuffed by the police. Color us shocked.

Since Trump's sweeping pardons, even of the worst of the worst, at least 33 rioters have been re-arrested for other crimes. The charges include plotting the murder of FBI agents who investigated Jan. 6 cases, and violent assault - punched a woman in the throat, stomped on a man’s chest at a bar. Three have been arrested for rape, and six have been charged with child-sex crimes, including child rape and child pornography, because only the best. After a five-year manhunt, the DOJ also just indicted the guy accused of planting pipe bombs outside DNC and RNC headquarters the night before Jan. 6, 2021; he's detained pending trial, but oops - it turns out the stable genius may have already pardoned him.

Others pop up in a sordid "Where Are They Now" round-up. Former Proud Boys leader and self-proclaimed “Western chauvinist" Enrique Tarrio, who formed a militia-like Ministry of Self-Defense unit,” got a 22-year-sentence, with terrorism charges included, before being pardoned. He joined Tuesday's march; before that, he was last seen getting charged with another assault, but feds declined to prosecute him. Jan. 6 shaman Jacob Chansley last made the news when he filed an unhinged $40 trillion lawsuit against Trump, declaring himself "the first legal President of the New Constitutional Republic of the United States." In that capacity, he ordered the printing of a $40 trillion coin, and gave himself $1 trillion "for my years worth of pain and suffering."

Of other Jan. 6 heroes, one was arrested on a felony charge after his off-leash dogs viciously attacked multiple people, sending four to the hospital. One was arrested for driving a van loaded with weapons near Barack Obama's home; he also livestreamed threats against Jamie Raskin, threatened to blow up a federal building, and was convicted on a weapons and hoax bomb threat charge. One was arrested for making a “terroristic threat" against Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. One, Jared Wise - "Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” - works at the DOJ under Ed Martin, who represented Jan. 6 defendants. And one, the Instigator-In-Chief, just overthrew the president of Venezuela in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, among many other crimes. He has yet to serve any time; somehow, horrifyingly, he is still babbling in public.

Despite the attempts at revisionist history, "Americans remember that day for a simple reason – we watched it happen." - Gregory Rosen, former DOJ prosecutor of Jan. 6 defendants.

SEE ALL
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
News

New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate

Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.

A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.

First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.

The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."

Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.

Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.

The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.

California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.

Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.

"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."

SEE ALL
As Trump Claims He's Slashing Costs, Big Pharma Jacks Up Prices on 350 Drugs
News

As Trump Claims He's Slashing Costs, Big Pharma Jacks Up Prices on 350 Drugs

President Donald Trump in recent months has made ludicrously false claims about his administration slashing prescription drug prices in the US by as much as 600%, which would entail pharmaceutical companies paying people to use their products.

In reality, reported Reuters on Wednesday, drugmakers are planning to raise prices on hundreds of drugs in 2026.

Citing data from healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors, Reuters wrote that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes next year, including "vaccines against COVID, RSV, and shingles," as well as the "blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance."

The total projected number of drugs seeing price increases next year is significantly higher than in 2025, when 3 Axis Advisors estimated that pharmaceutical companies raised prices on 250 medications.

The median price increase for drugs next year is projected at 4%, roughly the same as in 2025.

Reuters also found that some of the companies raising prices on their drugs are the same ones who struck deals with Trump to lower the costs of a limited number of prescriptions earlier this year, including Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK.

In announcing the deals with the pharmaceutical companies, Trump declared that "starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world."

But Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told Reuters that the projected savings for Americans under the Trump deals are a drop in the bucket compared with the continued price hikes on other drugs.

"These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the US," Rome explained.

Merith Basey, CEO of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, a patient advocacy organization focused exclusively on lowering the cost of medications, also said she was unimpressed by Trump's deals with drugmakers.

"Voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," she said earlier this month. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them."

SEE ALL
A member of the medical staff administers a dose of the measles vaccine
News

'Reckless and Lawless': Trump Admin Overhauls Childhood Vaccine Schedule

Leading US medical groups were among the critics who forcefully condemned the Trump administration's Monday overhaul of federal vaccine recommendations for every child in the country.

Doctors and public health advocates have been warning of such changes since the US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nearly a year ago.

Last month, in a presidential memorandum, Trump directed Kennedy and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill, who is also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "to review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations."

HHS said in a Monday statement that "after consulting with health ministries of peer nations, considering the assessment's findings, and reviewing the decision memo" presented by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, O'Neill "formally accepted the recommendations and directed the CDC to move forward with implementation."

O'Neill claimed that "the data support a more focused schedule" and the HHS secretary said that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent," but leading experts pushed back against their framing.

“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision."

Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an American Medical Association trustee, said in a statement that the AMA "is deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunization schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children. Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving."

“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision," she continued. "When long-standing recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease."

"The scientific evidence remains unchanged, and the AMA supports continued access to childhood immunizations recommended by national medical specialty societies," the doctor added. "We urge federal health leaders to recommit to a transparent, evidence-based process that puts children's health and safety first and reflects the realities of our nation's disease burden."

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) President Dr. Andrew D. Racine was similarly critical of the "dangerous and unnecessary" move, stressing that "the long-standing, evidence-based approach that has guided the US immunization review and recommendation process remains the best way to keep children healthy and protect against health complications and hospitalizations."

As Racine explained:

Said to be modeled in part after Denmark's approach, the new recommendations issued today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer recommend routine immunization for many diseases with known impacts on America's children, such as hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, and meningococcal disease. AAP continues to recommend that children be immunized against these diseases, and for good reason; thanks to widespread childhood immunizations, the United States has fewer pediatric hospitalizations and fewer children facing serious health challenges than we would without this community protection.

The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America's families. America is a unique country, and Denmark's population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own.

At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.

The doctor urged parents who "have questions about vaccines or anything else" to speak with their pediatricians and pledged that the AAP "will continue to stand up for children, just as we have done for the past 95 years."

Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, also slammed Kennedy and his deputies for starting out "2026 by escalating and accelerating their mindless assault on the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule."

"Extreme and arbitrary changes to the childhood vaccination schedule without full public discussion and scientific and evidence-based vetting put children and families at risk and undermine public health," Steinbrook said. "The uncalled-for changes are likely to further erode trust in vaccines and decrease immunization rates, rather than increase confidence or boost vaccine uptake, as federal health officials assert. Once again, medical professional societies and states must act to prevent suffering and death from preventable diseases."

As the Associated Press noted Monday: "States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration's guidance on vaccines."

Lawrence Gostin, founding chair of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University, predicted that "red states will mostly follow HHS guidance. Blue states will certainly keep the current schedule. We'll see a checkerboard of different rules across America. Infectious diseases will surge as pathogens don't respect state borders."

Ripping the CDC's move as "reckless and lawless," Gostin added that "RFK Jr. is plunging the nation into uncertainty and confusion. Will pharmacies and pediatricians offer vaccines without clear recommendations? Will insurers cover vaccines? Will school boards worry about liability? Needless hospitalizations and deaths are all but certain to occur."

SEE ALL
Mayor Jacob Frey, Minneapolis press conference about Trump administration targeting of Somali immigrants
News

Mayor to ICE After Fatal Shooting: 'Get the Fuck Out of Minneapolis!'

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey had a message for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a federal agent fatally shot a woman in his city on Wednesday: "To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis!"

"We do not want you here," the Democratic mayor said at a press conference. "Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety, and you are doing exactly the opposite. People are being hurt. Families are being ripped apart."

"Long-term Minneapolis residents that have contributed so greatly to our city, to our culture, to our economy, are being terrorized and now, somebody is dead," Frey continued. "That's on you. And it's also on you to leave."

Jacob Frey: "To ICE -- get the fuck out of Minneapolis"

[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 7, 2026 at 1:40 PM

The woman killed has not been identified, but US Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said she was a US citizen. The senator also joined Frey and other elected officials, including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), in calling on ICE to leave Minnesota's largest city.

The US Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday that "the largest DHS operation ever is happening right now in Minnesota," with 2,000 federal agents expected in the Twin Cities amid a fraud scandal involving some Somali residents.

Since President Donald Trump returned to office last year after campaigning on a promise of mass deportations, he has also sent large groups of immigration agents to other major Democrat-led cities, including Los Angeles and Chicago. In September, a federal agent fatally shot Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez, a Mexican immigrant, while he was in a vehicle just outside the Illinois city.

As with the shooting in Minneapolis, video footage of the killing in Illinois undermined DHS claims. The department said Wednesday that the woman in Minnesota tried "to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism."

One witness told Minnesota Public Radio that she saw a federal agent confronting the woman, who "was trying to turn around, and the ICE agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in—like, his midriff was on her bumper—and he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times."

Frey also challenged the DHS narrative on Wednesday: "What they are doing is not to provide safety in America. What they are doing is causing chaos and distrust. They're ripping families apart. They're sowing chaos on our streets. And in this case, quite literally killing people."

"They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video... myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bullshit," Frey added. "This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying—getting killed."

SEE ALL
US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-CONGRESS
News

'I'm Just Talking About Globally': Forget Greenland, Says Rubio, US Reserves Right for Military Invasion Anywhere It Wants

On the heels of President Donald Trump’s threats to use military force to conquer Greenland, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested during a Wednesday press conference that US presidents reserve the right to do so not only in the Danish territory, but anywhere in the world.

The conference came shortly after Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers about Trump's illegal operation to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last weekend.

After Rubio laid out plans for the US to take control of 30 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil following a deal with its newly installed government, reporters attempted to ask Rubio to explain the administration's designs on Greenland.

On Tuesday, amid international outcry, the White House issued a statement that acquiring Greenland was a "national security priority" and that "utilizing the US military is always an option" to annex the Arctic island.

European leaders met on Wednesday to discuss a potential response if Trump were to launch a military operation to seize Greenland, which has been a territory of Denmark—now a NATO member—for over 300 years.

Rubio appeared sheepish about discussing Trump's saber-rattling. Asked by a reporter whether he'd take military intervention "off the table," he shrugged: "I'm not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I'll be meeting with them next week."

Rubio pivoted to discuss the president's interest in buying Greenland, which he has suggested since his first term in office. But reporters continued to press on what was meant by Trump's suggestion that the military may be used.

After continuing to stall—and, at one point, interrupting a reporter to tell him he'd "lost a lot of weight"—Rubio obliquely addressed the president's threats.

He said: "Guys, what I think the White House said yesterday is what I will tell you now, and I've always said: The president always retained the option—every president, not this president, every president—always retains the option... I'm not talking about Greenland, I'm talking about globally. If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the United States, every president retains the option to address it through military means."

"As a diplomat, which is what I am... we always prefer to settle it in different ways," Rubio continued. "That included in Venezuela. We tried repeatedly to reach an outcome here that did not involve having to go in and grab an indicted drug trafficker. Those were unsuccessful, unfortunately."

The United Nations Charter, which the US has signed, allows for the use of military force against other sovereign nations only in very narrow circumstances: in self-defense against an imminent attack, or when approved by the UN Security Council as necessary to prevent a threat to peace.

The Trump administration has attempted to stretch this definition to justify its overthrow of the Venezuelan government, claiming that supposed drug trafficking from Venezuela constitutes an imminent threat to the US. But Venezuela is not considered a large player in the global drug trade, and even if it were, drug trafficking has never been considered equivalent to an armed attack under international law.

Rubio did not clarify what "threat" Greenland supposedly poses to the United States. Earlier this week, Trump stated that the US "needs" the island because it is supposedly "covered with Russian and Chinese ships," which isn't true, but would not constitute an imminent threat to the US even if it were.

When a reporter then asked Trump what justification the US would have to take Greenland, he responded that “the [European Union] needs us to have it.” Several major EU members, in fact, issued a harsh condemnation of the idea on Tuesday.

International relations scholars agree with virtual unanimity that for the US to forcibly annex Greenland would not be a legitimate use of force. But Section 2(4) of the UN Charter also forbids the threat of military force as a tool of leverage in negotiations, which Trump may be using in a possible bid to buy Greenland.

"International law does not recognize title obtained through unlawful force," wrote Edmarverson A. Santos, a Dublin-based international law and policy researcher. "The prohibition extends beyond actual armed attack. Contemporary doctrine recognizes that serious threats of force, particularly when coupled with political or military pressure, can fall within the scope of Article 2(4)."

Since its attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration has threatened to use similar force to knock over the governments of several other countries as part of what he has described as a 21st-century revival of the colonial-era "Monroe Doctrine."

Trump issued threats to Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Rubio, meanwhile, said that if he were part of Cuba's socialist government, he'd "be concerned, at least a little bit."

On Tuesday, André Nollkaemper, a professor of public international law at the University of Amsterdam, warned that Trump's increasing belligerence toward Europe was the direct outcome of European leaders' meek response to his attack on Venezuela.

"The long-term impact of US intervention in Venezuela will not be decided in Caracas or Washington, but elsewhere," he wrote for the German academic site Verfassungsblog. "With intervention now framed as a standard policy instrument of the USA, it is the response of other states—including in Europe—that will determine whether the erosion of international law becomes normalized across regions."

"In deciding the course and content of its response, Europe might be tempted to assume that this new strategy is limited to Latin America, and that the United States should be given some room there," he continued. "That would, of course, be irresponsible; in terms of its implications for international law, and with regard to Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—not to mention Greenland."

SEE ALL