SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
karoline leavitt
White House Press Secretary Lashes Out at Journalist to Avoid Answering Tough Question About ICE Conduct
"What was inaccurate about what I said?" asked the Hill's Niall Stanage.
Jan 15, 2026
Instead of answering a difficult question about the conduct of immigration agents, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt lashed out at a reporter during a press briefing on Thursday, degrading him as "biased" and a "hack."
In recent days, following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent's fatal shooting of 37-year-old mother of three Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, officers of ICE and other federal agencies have been documented engaging in blatant racial profiling, unconstitutional "citizenship checks," and extreme uses of physical force, including another shooting of a man at a traffic stop on Wednesday night.
The White House has given unqualified support to Good's killer, claiming he shot in self-defense and attempted to squelch Minnesota's efforts to launch a criminal investigation into the shooting, even as video of the incident contradicts their narrative of events.
Niall Stanage, a Northern Irish-American journalist who works a White House columnist at the Hill, questioned Leavitt about a recent statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem that ICE agents were doing "everything correctly."
He pointed out that "32 people died in ICE custody last year, 170 US citizens were detained by ICE, and Renee Good was shot in the head and killed by an ICE agent," and asked Leavitt, "How does that equate to them doing everything correctly?"
Rather than answer the question, Leavitt began to interrogate Stanage about his personal viewpoint on the shooting of Good.
"Why was Renee Good unfortunately and tragically killed?" she asked the reporter.
Befuddled, he responded, "Are you asking me my opinion?" to which she said, "Yes."
"Because an ICE agent acted recklessly and killed her unjustifiably," Stanage answered.
"OK, so you're a biased reporter with a left-wing opinion," Leavitt shouted in response.
“What do you want me to do?” Stanage interjected, clearly confused since Leavitt herself had asked him to give his opinion.
The press secretary went on: "You're a left-wing hack. You're not a reporter. You're posing in this room as a journalist, and it's so clear by the premise of your question."
"You and the people in the media who have such biases but fake like you're a journalist, you shouldn't even be sitting in that seat," she continued. "But you're pretending like you're a journalist, but you're a left-wing activist..."
Stanage again interjected, drowned out by Leavitt's continued ranting, asking, "What was inaccurate about what I said?"
Leavitt continued that Stanage's answer to her question on his opinion of the shooting "proves you're biased." She added, "You should be reporting on the facts."
Notably, she did not attempt to provide any evidence that Stanage was incorrect about any of the facts he cited.
She then pivoted the conversation away from ICE's conduct: "Do you have the numbers of how many American citizens were killed at the hands of illegal aliens who ICE is trying to remove from this country? I bet you don't."
She said she "bet" Stanage "never even read about Laken Riley or Jocelyn Nungaray," both young women who were killed in 2024 by assailants found to be in the United States without authorization.
"The brave men and women of ICE are doing everything in their power to remove those heinous individuals and make our country safer,” she said. “Shame on you people in the media who have a crooked view, a biased view, and pretend you’re an honest journalist.”
Ryan Sprouse, an assignment editor at CBS News, noted on social media that after making the scene, Leavitt "didn’t answer his question." It was evident to many observers that she was attempting to avoid discussing a subject that has become increasingly difficult for the Trump administration to spin.
The majority of Americans now hold negative opinions of ICE. According to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released Wednesday, just 26% of Americans said they felt Good's killing was justified, while 56% said it was an inappropriate use of force. That same poll found that 51% felt ICE's presence was making US cities less safe, compared with just 31% who felt it was making them safer.
A poll earlier this week by YouGov revealed that for the first time ever, "abolishing ICE" had more support (46%) than opposition (43%).
In response to Leavitt's outburst, another social media user quipped that by her logic, "apparently the majority of Americans are 'left-wing.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Dec 18, 2025
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Claims Trump 'Has the Authority to Kill' Survivors of Boat Strikes
One legal expert called the press secretary's remarks "painful" to watch and warned of "how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members."
Dec 01, 2025
While continuing to deny that the Pentagon chief ordered those carrying out the first known US military strike on an alleged drug-running boat to "kill everybody" on board, the top White House spokesperson on Monday reiterated the administration's position that President Donald Trump has the authority to take out anyone he deems a "narco-terrorist."
Rights advocates, legal scholars, American lawmakers, and leaders from other countries have condemned the boat bombings in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, which began on September 2, as murders, and rejected the Trump administration's argument to Congress that the strikes are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels.
A week after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that people on board survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. The Washington Post provided more details on Friday, including that Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley ordered a second strike on two survivors to fulfill US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's alleged directive to kill everyone.
CNN also spoke with an unnamed source who confirmed Hegseth's supposed edict—which the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, denied on Monday.
During Monday's press briefing, NBC News White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez noted Trump's "confidence" in Hegseth's claim that he did not give an explicit order to kill everyone on the first vessel, and asked Leavitt, "Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?"
"The latter is true," Leavitt said. She then read a statement that she often referred back to throughout the briefing:
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Adm. Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.
"And I would just add one more point," Leavitt continued, "to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place: Because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as a foreign terrorist organizations, the president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America, and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate—which is what they are doing."
Asked by Gutierrez to confirm Bradley ordered the second strike, Leavitt did so, saying that "he was well within his right to do so."
Multiple other reporters also inquired about the recent reporting, including Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, who said: "You said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors?"
Leavitt responded: "The strike conducted on September 2 was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict."
Noting that exchange on social media, former Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said: "This is not how self-defense works. Everyone understands that self-defense requires an immediate physical threat and proportionality. Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not. This isn't complicated."
"This is not how self-defense works... Repelling a missile attack with a missile is self-defense. Blowing up boats hundreds of miles from US shores is not.
Ryan Goodman, a former Pentagon special counsel who's now a New York University law professor and Just Security coeditor-in-chief, also weighed in. "This has got to be one of [the] most painful responses to watch," he said, also pointing out that "the 'law' Leavitt cites is utterly irrelevant (self-defense is non sequitur, it's not armed conflict, and 'no survivors' is a crime)."
"Part of the pain in watching that response is knowing how the reported patently illegal orders will affect US service members," Goodman added, referring to a new Just Security essay by Mark P. Nevitt, a retired judge advocate general who is now an associate law professor at Emory University.
Notably, Trump suggested last month that Democratic members of Congress who previously served in the US military and intelligence agencies and recently warned service members of their duty not to comply with illegal orders should be hanged. The Pentagon has since threatened to court-martial one of them: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain.
Asked by CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang about Hegseth's reported spoken directive to kill everybody on the boat. Using Trump's preferred term for the Defense Department's leader, she said: "I saw that quoted in a Washington Post story. I would reject that the secretary of war ever said that. However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists... are trafficking illegal drugs toward the United States, he has the authority to kill them, and that's what this administration is doing."
According to a CNN timeline, from September 2 to November 15, at least 22 US boat strikes killed 83 people and left two survivors who were initially taken onto a warship but ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador.
So far, Congress has failed to advance war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump's boat-bombing spree. However, since the Post reporting, top Democrats on both the US House and Senate Armed Services Committees have promised vigorous oversight.
Following Leavitt's remarks on Monday, the New Republic's Greg Sargent said that "it's doubly relevant that Adm. Bradley is in talks about briefing the House Armed Services Committee," and pointed to his new interview with Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the panel's ranking member.
The congressman told Sargent he will pressure GOP members of the committee, including Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), to "use whatever leverage is available to us to try to get answers," including subpoenaing top civilian and military officials.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Smith also discussed the reporting during a weekend appearance on MS NOW. Posting a clip of it on social media Monday, he declared that "Americans want to live in a constitutional republic, not an authoritarian dictatorship."
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber's floor Monday that "I don’t think we have ever seen someone so unserious, so childish, so obviously insecure serving as secretary of defense as Pete Hegseth—and that should alarm every single one of us."
Schumer called on Hegseth to release the tapes "that would show exactly what happened during these military strikes," and to "come before the Congress to testify under oath about the nature of his order, the evidence supporting the strikes, and an explanation for what the goals are in Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Baseless Fraud Claim, White House Says Trump Preparing Anti-Voter Executive Order
Asked to provide evidence supporting her claim of voting fraud in California, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded, "It's just a fact."
Nov 04, 2025
President Donald Trump is drafting an executive order aimed at rolling back voting rights, a measure that may include attacks on mailed ballots, a top administration official said Tuesday.
"The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our elections in this country and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we've seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system," Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
“Like any executive order, of course, any executive order the president signs is within his full executive authority and within the confines of the law," she added.
Asked by a reporter what is her evidence of electoral fraud in California, Leavitt replied without evidence that "it's just a fact."
LEAVITT: It's absolutely true that there's fraud in California's electionsQ: What's the evidence of that?LEAVITT: It's just a fact
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 4, 2025 at 10:43 AM
Leavitt's remarks came hours after Trump baselessly attacked California’s vote-by-mail system in a post on his Truth Social network.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump alleged without evidence. “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!”
Trump has previously vowed to ban mail-in ballots, a move legal experts say would be unconstitutional.
The White House's announcement also came as Americans voted in several high-stakes elections, including California's Proposition 50 retaliatory redistricting proposal; the New York City mayoral race between progressive Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa; gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia; and a crowded contest for Minneapolis mayor highlighted by democratic socialist state Sen. Omar Fateh's (D-62) bid to unseat third-term Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey.
The announcement also followed a federal judge's permanent blocking of part of Trump’s executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms.
Democracy defenders have repudiated Trump's attacks on mailed ballots and claims of voter fraud—a longtime right-wing bugaboo unsupported by facts on the ground.
"Voting by mail as permitted by the laws of your state is legal," ACLU Voting Rights Project director Sophia Lin Lakin says in a statement on the group's website about Trump's order from March.
"In his sweeping executive order, Trump tried to bully states into not counting ballots properly received after Election Day under state law by threatening to withhold federal funding," she continues. "A federal court has temporarily blocked this part of the executive order."
"Trump’s effort to target mail-in voting is a blatant overreach, intruding on states’ constitutional authority to set the rules for elections," Lin Lakin adds. "It threatens to disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible voters and would no doubt disproportionately impact historically excluded communities, including voters of color, naturalized citizens, people with disabilities, and the elderly, by pushing unnecessary barriers to the fundamental right to vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Threatens Brazil With 'Military Might' as Bolsonaro Faces Coup Plot Reckoning
"Instead of protecting absolute freedom of speech to shield groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the right of murderers to enter schools with rifles, our Constitution addresses issues relevant to our country," one leftist lawmaker retorted.
Sep 09, 2025
A White House spokesperson suggested Tuesday that US President Donald Trump could use military force against Brazil as two of the country's Supreme Court justices said they would vote to convict former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro of a coup plot involving the assassination of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials, including a leading member of the high court.
Speaking during a daily press briefing, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that Trump—a staunch Bolsonaro ally who has called the effort to bring him to justice a "witch hunt"—has "taken significant action with regards to Brazil in the form of both sanctions and also leveraging the use of tariffs."
In addition to imposing 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports, Trump has sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—who has led efforts to hold Bolsonaro accountable and who placed the former president under house arrest during his trial—while threatening further punitive action.
.@PressSec: "Freedom of speech is arguably the most important issue of our time. It is enshrined in our Constitution and @POTUS believes in it strongly... we have take significant action with regards to Brazil in the form of both sanctions, and also leveraging the use of tariffs… pic.twitter.com/mkWz3eA7tR
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 9, 2025
The alleged coup plot for which Bolsonaro and seven other defendants are being tried allegedly involved assassinating Moraes, Lula, and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin.
Leavitt dubiously couched her threat as defense of "free speech," saying that "this is a priority for the administration, and the president is unafraid to use the economic might, the military might of the United States of America, to protect free speech around the world."
In 1964, the US assisted a coup against the mildly reformist democratically elected government of Brazilian President João Goulart, ushering in two decades of military dictatorship that crushed dissent and free speech under the pretext of fighting communism. In a move similar to Trump's deployment of US warships to the coast of Venezuela, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson secretly deployed a naval task force to Brazil for possible invasion.
While there was no invasion, the US subsequently supported the 21-year dictatorship, including by sending specialists who taught Brazilian security forces more efficient torture techniques.
Bolsonaro, who was a young army paratrooper during the dictatorship, has infamously praised the brutal regime and pined for its return.
Tuesday's threat came as Moraes and fellow Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino voted to find Bolsonaro and the seven other defendants—who include senior military and intelligence officers—guilty of plotting a coup.
"The defendant, Jair Bolsonaro, was leader of this criminal structure," Moraes told the court in the capital city of Brasília.
"Brazil nearly went back to being a dictatorship... because a criminal organization made up of a political group doesn't know how to lose elections," the justice added. "Because a criminal organization made up of a political group led by Jair Bolsonaro doesn't understand that the alternation of power is a principle of republican democracy." s
In addition to attempting a coup, Bolsonaro is charged with involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, violent damage of state property, and other charges. A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years' imprisonment under Brazilian law. However, if convicted on all counts, Bolsonaro and his co-defendants could face decades behind bars.
The former president and seven other defendants are accused of being the "crucial core" of a plan to overturn the results of the 2022 election, which Lula narrowly won in a runoff. Like Trump in 2020, Bolsonaro and many of his supporters falsely claimed the contest was "stolen" by the opposition. And like in the US, those claims fueled mob attacks on government buildings. Around 1,500 Bolsonaro supporters were arrested in the days following the storming of Congress and the presidential offices.
Bolsonaro is already banned from running for any office until 2030 due to his abuse of power related to baseless claims of electoral fraud.
Members of Lula's Workers' Party (PT) and other leftist lawmakers applauded Tuesday's conviction votes.
"Our expectation is that justice will be done," Federal Deputy Nilto Tatto (PT-São Paulo) said outside the court. "It was, clearly, an attempted coup. They tried to discredit the electoral system and even set up a scheme to assassinate President Lula."
Leftist lawmakers also condemned the White House's threat, with Federal Deputy Lindbergh Farias (PT-Rio de Janeiro) calling it "a blatant attempt to interfere with our sovereignty and judicial independence."
"This has nothing to do with 'freedom of expression': It is external pressure, blackmail, and intimidation to sabotage Brazilian justice," Farias asserted. "Brazil is neither a backyard nor a colony of anyone. And the trial of the coup plot, which already has two votes in favor... will continue to the end, because here the Constitution decides, not Donald Trump."
Federal Deputy Erika Hilton (Socialism and Liberty-São Paulo) called Leavitt's "free speech" justification "ridiculous."
"First of all, no one is restricting Bolsonaro's freedom of speech," she said. "He can say whatever he wants, from inside his house, where the ineligible individual is serving house arrest due to the risk of flight."
"It's also important to remember that US legislation does not apply to Brazil," Hilton continued. "Instead of protecting absolute freedom of speech to shield groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the right of murderers to enter schools with rifles, our Constitution addresses issues relevant to our country, our democracy, and our people. And in this Constitution, made after the end of a military dictatorship, there is provision for... punishment against those who attempt a coup d'état."
"Of course, besides not caring, Trump isn't even capable of understanding all this," she added. "He's too busy planning his defense for the next public accusation of child sexual exploitation, his next round of golf, or his next dip in a pool of Doritos-flavored sauce. And with his brain in an advanced state of degeneration, Trump was only capable of an empty threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End This White House Cover-Up': House Dems Pounce on Latest Trump-Epstein Bombshell
"All of this is so disturbing and so disgusting," said Rep. Greg Landsman.
Sep 08, 2025
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Monday released a photo showing a pornographic birthday card that US President Donald Trump allegedly sent to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The birthday card's existence was originally reported by The Wall Street Journal back in July, and it features an outline of a naked woman along with Trump's squiggly signature in the area where the woman's pubic hair would be.
🚨🚨HERE IT IS: We got Trump’s birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein that the President said doesn’t exist.
Trump talks about a “wonderful secret” the two of them shared. What is he hiding? Release the files! pic.twitter.com/k2Mq8Hu3LY
— Oversight Dems (@OversightDems) September 8, 2025
Trump has for weeks denied that he ever sent Epstein such a birthday card and he filed a libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal that sought at least $20 billion in damages for what it described as "glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting."
With the note's existence seemingly confirmed, however, many Democratic lawmakers rushed to charge the president with trying to cover up the full extent of his relationship with Epstein, who was accused by multiple women of sexually abusing them when they were teenagers.
"We got the Epstein note Trump says doesn't exist," said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). "Time to end this White House cover-up."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called on the Trump White House to release the full Epstein files.
"Trump said it didn't exist, but here it is," she said. "Thank you, Oversight Dems, for proving he is lying. And if he's lying about this, what else is he lying about? Makes it clear why he is so opposed to releasing these files..."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) had a similar reaction to the card.
"No surprise the note does exist," she said. "More proof this White House cover-up is to protect Trump, the powerful, and the wealthy. Release the full files now."
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) also took note of Trump's past denials about the letter's existence and declared, "All of this is so disturbing and so disgusting."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt took a defiant tone after the note's publication and continued to insist that it was all a "hoax."
"As I have said all along, it's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it," she said. "President Trump's legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation... This is FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'World's Leading Trump Whisperer' Sheinbaum Gets Another 90 Days for Tariff Talks
"Sheinbaum continues to run circles around Trump," said one observer.
Jul 31, 2025
On the eve of President Donald Trump's dramatic tariff hike on countries around the world, the U.S. leader and his Mexican counterpart on Thursday announced another 90-day extension in trade deal negotiations.
"I have just concluded a telephone conversation with the President of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, which was very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other," Trump wrote on his Truth Social network. "The complexities of a Deal with Mexico are somewhat different than other Nations because of both the problems, and assets, of the Border."
"We have agreed to extend, for a 90 Day period, the exact same Deal as we had for the last short period of time, namely, that Mexico will continue to pay a 25% Fentanyl Tariff, 25% Tariff on Cars, and 50% Tariff on Steel, Aluminum, and Copper," Trump added. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many."
Sheinbaum wrote on the social media site X that she "had a very good call with the president of the United States, Donald Trump. We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow and secured 90 days to build a long-term agreement through dialogue."
Trump had threatened to impose a 30% tariff on Mexico, the United States' largest trading partner, on Friday, absent an agreement. However, for the third time, Sheinbaum negotiated her way around his ultimatums. In March, the last time she did so, The Washington Post's Mary Beth Sheridan and Leila Miller dubbed her "the world's leading Trump whisperer."
The aplomb with which Sheinbaum has handled Trump has earned her widespread praise in Mexico and beyond, and has strongly contributed to her 80% approval rating.
"Sheinbaum secures another pause on Trump's tariffs," Mexico City-based journalist José Luis Granados Ceja said on X. "Given yesterday's positive economic news that shows a growing economy, shrinking inequality, and a drop in poverty, the Mexican government is accomplishing extraordinary things in a very unpredictable situation."
Eric Michael Garcia, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the British news site The Independent, said on X that "Sheinbaum continues to run circles around Trump for the exact opposite reason the [European Union] conceded to Trump: The success of Trump's presidency relies on the border with Mexico. She can open the spigot anytime he crosses her."
Mexican journalist Jorge Armando Rocha opined on X that "among all nations, Mexico has the best possible trade agreement with the United States."
Some observers warned against Mexican triumphalism or complacency, given Trump's volatility and past threats against Mexico—including talk of an invasion targeting drug cartels. The United States has launched three major invasions and even more minor incursions into Mexico, including an 1846-48 war waged on false pretenses that ended with the U.S. taking more than half of Mexico's territory.
As Trump makes progress in talks with one U.S. neighbor, he's making threats against another. On Wednesday, Trump said that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to conditionally recognize Palestinian statehood "will make it very hard" to complete a trade deal ahead of the president's August 1 deadline to avoid 35% tariffs on all imported Canadian goods not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that "at some point this afternoon or later this evening" Trump will order tariffs against dozens of nations with which agreements have not been reached.
Although Trump administration officials promised "90 deals in 90 days," only around half a dozen tariff agreements have been reached, including with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
In stark contrast with these agreements, Trump also imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil for prosecuting his friend and fellow far-right insurrection inciter Jair Bolsonaro, widely known as the "Trump of the Tropics" during his tenure as president of the South American giant.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Staffers Own Up to $2.2 Million in Big Oil Stock: Watchdog
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reviewed financial disclosure forms of White House staffers and discovered that 17 of them own stocks in assorted fossil fuel giants.
Jul 23, 2025
A new report from a government watchdog details how more than a dozen Trump White House staffers collectively own millions of dollars worth of stock in major oil companies.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reviewed financial disclosure forms of White House staffers and discovered that 17 of them own stocks in BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, Phillips 66, Shell, TotalEnergies, or Valero Energy.
The values of individual staffers' stock holdings range from $820,036 up to $2,250,000, and the staffers collectively hold up to $845,000 worth of Chevron shares, $505,000 worth of ExxonMobil shares, and $300,000 in Marathon shares.
"The 17 aides invested in Big Oil companies work across the White House from communications staffers like Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Presidential Speechwriter Samuel Mangold-Lenett to policy staffers like Special Assistants to the President for Political Affairs Ashley Walukevich and Christopher Escobedo and Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Kara Frederick," writes CREW. "Other notable holders include economic policy staffers, deputy counsels to the president, and a legislative staffer."
As CREW notes, the oil and gas industry spent an estimated $75 million last year to boost Trump's campaign and his administration has rewarded these companies by taking a hatchet to multiple environmental regulations and renewable energy initiatives. Trump earlier this month signed a Republican-passed budget bill that rolled back green energy tax credits that had been enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats and signed into law by former President Joe Biden in 2022.
In addition to ending the tax credits, the administration has been shutting down projects aimed at building out America's green energy infrastructure. On Wednesday, for instance, the U.S. Department of Energy terminated loan guarantees for the Grain Belt Express, a high-voltage direct current transmission line that was being built to link wind and solar capacity throughout Kansas and Missouri.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Ousts Wall Street Journal From Scotland Press Pool Over Epstein Report
"Due to The Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board," said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Jul 21, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's White House on Monday once again retaliated againstThe Wall Street Journal days after it published a story about a sexually explicit birthday card that Trump reportedly gave to late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to celebrate his 50th birthday back in 2003.
Politico reports that the Journal has been removed from the pool of reporters who are tagging along with the president during his upcoming trip to Scotland. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Politico that the move was a direct response to the Rupert Murdoch-owned paper's decision to publish a story about the card Trump allegedly sent to Epstein, whom authorities have concluded died by suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges.
"Due to The Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board," Leavitt said. "Every news organization in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible."
A spokesperson for the Journal declined to comment when contacted by Politico.
According to the Journal's reporting, the card Trump sent to Epstein "contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker" and features "the future president's signature" as "a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair."
Trump quickly filed a libel lawsuit against the paper that sought at least $20 billion in damages for what it described as "glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting." WSJ parent company Dow Jones stood by the paper's reporting in the wake of the Trump lawsuit and said that "we have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting."
The Trump administration earlier this year revoked The Associated Press' access because it refused to refer to the body of water known as the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Lies About Budget Bill's Tax Cuts as US Public Opposes Giveaway to Rich
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt misleadingly touted tax deductions for overtime and tips—while neglecting to mention the bill's much larger tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
Jul 03, 2025
As the Republican reconciliation bill barrels toward final passage in Congress, the Trump White House is misrepresenting the measure's tax provisions in an attempt to paint the unpopular legislation as a boon for workers and ordinary seniors rather than a massive handout to the wealthiest Americans.
In an X post late Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that any lawmaker who opposes the 887-page bill is voting against "no tax on tips," "no tax on overtime," and "no tax on Social Security" benefits.
Leavitt's post was sufficiently misleading as to draw a "community note" on the Elon Musk-owned platform, which clarified that the Republican bill "does not fully eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security as claimed; it offers limited deductions with caps (e.g., $25,000 for tips, $12,500 for overtime) and excludes high earners, with no provision to remove taxes on Social Security."
As Axios reported Thursday, the Republican legislation does include "an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older," but the benefit "leaves out the poorest seniors" and expires in 2028, when President Donald Trump is set to leave office.
The tax deductions for overtime and tips also expire in 2028.
That's unlike the major tax breaks for the wealthy that are included in the legislation, which extends soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law. For example, the new Republican bill would permanently raise the estate tax exemption, allowing ultrawealthy individuals and married couples to give their heirs up to $15 million or $30 million without paying any federal taxes.
"A married couple worth $30 million where both spouses die in 2026 would pay some $6 million less under the bill compared with current law," The Wall Street Journal observed.
Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the GOP reconciliation bill's tax breaks for the richest 1% are roughly 10 times larger than the tax deductions for tips and overtime combined.
You left something out. https://t.co/LwMFX2nbyM pic.twitter.com/9Dn2FoBZNH
— Brendan Duke (@Brendan_Duke) July 3, 2025
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in a recent analysis that the Senate-passed legislation also "includes permanent corporate tax breaks (involving more generous versions of tax rules for bonus depreciation, research, and limits on interest deductions) that lawmakers have attempted to enact in recent years."
Contrary to the Trump White House's characterization of the reconciliation bill as a historic "middle- and working-class tax cut," ITEP found that "the richest 1% of Americans would receive a total of $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026."
By contrast, according to ITEP, "the middle 20% of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that has 20 times the number of taxpayers as the richest 1%, would receive less than half that much, $53 billion in net tax cuts that year."
"The effects of President Trump's tariff policies alone offset most of the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans," the group added. "For the bottom 40% of Americans, the tariffs impose a cost that is greater than the tax cuts they would receive under this legislation."
Survey data released Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that the Republican legislation is unpopular with a majority of likely U.S. voters. The new poll, conducted between June 27 and July 1, found that 62% of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about the bill's "cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
About
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy