Slingshot News: ‘Go Ahead’ When Donald Trump Forced Every Member Of His Cabinet To Praise Him On National Television

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/go-ahead-when-donald-trump-forced-every-member-of-his-cabinet-to-praise-him-on-national-television/vi-AA1LxqSv

Inquisitr: Trump’s Mass Deportation Plan Hits a Wall as Biden-Appointed Federal Judge Blocks Expedited Removals

Speed cannot replace justice when liberty is on the line.

A federal judge has reportedly blocked Donald Trump‘s administration from fast-tracking the deportation of the people that has been detained till now, far from the southern border, and it has indeed been a blow to Trump’s mass deportation scheme. It has been ruled on Friday by U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb that attempts from the administration to speed up the deportation process create a “significant risk” that can possibly affect the immigrants in a negative way, especially those having legal permission to remain in the U.S.

Judge Jia M. Cobb has been appointed by Joe Biden during his Presidential term, granted a request from Make the Road New York, an advocacy group for immigrants, pausing a couple of policies introduced by Trump in January that made millions more immigrants in the country, eligible for deportation under expedited removal. 

It is known that expedited removals are primarily being used for people who get arrested within 100 miles of the southern border, as well as within a 14-day period. The policies introduced by the President in the first week of his second Presidential term sought to expand such removals nationwide. He previously expanded the expedited removals around the country; however, it was rolled back by the then-President Joe Biden

Now, Cobb ruled that Make the Road New York had made a convincing argument that the extended application of the expedited removal doesn’t align with or go with the immigrants’ due process rights. She also said that she isn’t questioning whether expanding expedited removals is constitutional, but has just ruled the government needs to ensure it affords potential deportees due process.

“[The court] merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process. The procedures currently in place fall short,” Cobb wrote.

“When it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process,” she continued. She also reflected on the people who got affected by this process and said that they – “have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment.” 

The judge has henceforth restricted the expedited removal of immigrants with parole status earlier this month, saying that this action was necessary to change the game for people previously authorized to remain.

As per reports, the population of the country, solely considering immigrants, has dropped by 1.4 million between January and July,  says the Pew Research Center and this has been combining forced removals and people leaving in fear.

Macon Telegraph: Trump Suffers Legal Blow Over Travel Ban

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has ruled that the State Department may not use the Trump-era travel ban to deny immigrant visas to applicants whose cases were placed on hold under the policy. The administration has claimed judicial overreach, while immigration attorneys have urged a less restrictive review. The ruling directs the State Department to process affected visas without invoking the ban.

Immigration attorney Curtis Morrison stated, “Now, let’s hope when it’s time for the Trump administration to review the ban at the 90-day mark they do that in good faith, and it leads to a less restrictive ban that will allow plaintiffs with issued immigrant visas to immigrate the US and start their lives here.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said, “Another example of wrongful judicial overreach aimed at curtailing this Administration’s strong and unwavering efforts to keep Americans and our communities safe.”

Let me fix that for you: You’ll continue your strong and unwavering efforts to abuse immigrants and to make a mockery of the rule of law.

Pigott added, “We will continue to relentlessly work to ensure the President of the United States is able to use every tool he has available, including visas, to finally bring oversight to who we allow to visit our country.”

Sooknanan noted that the legal framework for the travel ban does not allow the State Department to reject visas outright. The Trump administration has maintained the measures are necessary for national security.

Sooknanan wrote, “That provision authorizes the President, subject to specified limitations, to ‘suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.’”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) retains authority to deny entry to visa holders, further limiting immigration options. The State Department is now under pressure to process applications prior to the September 30, 2025 fiscal deadline.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suffers-legal-blow-over-travel-ban/ss-AA1LvWSS

USA Today: Senator snaps back at RFK Jr. for linking antidepressants to Minnesota shooting

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minnesota, said Kennedy should be fired after he suggested antidepressants played a role in the Aug. 27 shooting at Annunciation Catholic School.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the wake of the Minneapolis school shooting that his agency would study whether antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs “might be contributing to violence,” prompting a Minnesota senator to accuse him of “peddling bulls—.”

Kennedy, in a Fox News interview, said HHS is looking at a group of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and “some of the other psychiatric drugs.” The Health secretary has long raised concerns about SSRIs and linked them to school shootings.

2019 study found most school shooters don’t appear to have been prescribed psychotropic drugs and “when they were, no direct or causal association was found.”

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minnesota, said Kennedy is focused on the wrong issue.

“I dare you to go to Annunciation School and tell our grieving community, in effect, guns don’t kill kids, antidepressants do,” Smith wrote on social media. “Just shut up. Stop peddling bulls—. You should be fired.”

Police say Robin Westman, 23, opened fire at Annunciation Catholic School, killing two children and injuring 18 people. Westman wrote in a journal about suffering from depression and having suicidal and homicidal thoughts, according to media reports. It’s unclear if Westman was taking any psychiatric drugs.

“We need to explain why all this violence is happening and we need to look at every possibility,” Kennedy said on Fox.

Democrats, in the wake of yet another shooting, are raising concerns about access to guns.

“There are 400 million guns in this country,” Smith wrote on social media. “More guns than people. In America, we are ten times more likely to be shot in a school or playground than any other developed nation.”

Kennedy said during an Aug. 28 news conference in Texas that “people have had guns in this country forever.”

“Something changed, and it dramatically changed human behavior, and one of the culprits we need to examine is whether the fact that we are the most over-medicated nation in the world,” he added.

Some conservatives have also focused on Westman’s gender identity.

Westman’s name was legally changed to Robin because “minor child identifies as female,” a judge wrote, according to media reports. Kennedy’s Fox News comments were prompted by questions about Westman’s transition process from male to female.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said at a news conference that “anybody who is using this as an opportunity to villainize our trans community or any other community out there has lost their sense of common humanity.”

Kennedy is a longtime vaccine skeptic whose views on several health matters are considered fringe by mainstream experts. His tenure as the nation’s top health official has been tumultuous. He has sought to oust Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez amid a policy disagreement, but she is refusing to step down.

Monarez’s contested ouster, less than one month after the Senate confirmed her to the role, prompted the resignations of three other top CDC officials in protest of Kennedy’s leadership, including his direction on vaccines.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/29/rfk-minneapolis-shooting-ssri-psychiatric-drugs-hhs/85884626007

Newsweek: Will Venezuela be the first target of Trump’s new MAGA Monroe Doctrine?

President Donald Trump‘s deployment of warships off the coast of Venezuela and authorization for the use of force against drug trafficking organizations is fueling speculation of potential military action looming in South America.

However, the White House’s moves also speak to a broader shift in policy focus under Trump’s “America First” movement that envisions the Americas as a whole as part of the U.S. zone of interest, an outlook reminiscent of the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine that served as the basis for U.S. intervention against European colonialism and communist expansion across the region.

With Venezuela and its leftist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, now in the crosshairs, experts and former officials see the dawn of a new era of U.S. power projection across the Western Hemisphere.

“This massive show of force is consistent with the administration’s efforts to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine that declared the region to be uniquely a U.S. sphere of influence,” Cynthia Arnson, a leading Latin America expert serving as adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies, told Newsweek.

‘Gunboat Diplomacy’

Arnson warned of the potential regional consequences of such an approach, noting how just because “many Latin American democracies would welcome the end of the Maduro regime, that doesn’t mean that they are lining up to applaud a 21st century version of gunboat diplomacy.”

Observers have debated whether or not the recent naval build-up in the waters of South and Central America would serve as a prelude to real action or constituted mere posturing, meant to deliver a message to Maduro who the U.S. has accused of being complicit in drug trafficking.

Arnson argued that “the utility of such a huge deployment in fighting drug trafficking is questionable, although there undoubtedly will be some seizures that the administration will tout to justify the exercise of military force.”

She added: “The number of troops deployed, although large, is not sufficient to invade Venezuela with the aim of toppling the government.”

José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council and U.S. State Department official who has dealt extensively with Latin America policy, said the latest moves would prove far more than showmanship.

“It would be a mistake to consider the U.S. naval deployment off the Venezuelan coast ‘business as usual’ or mere political theater,” Cárdenas, who today is a principal at the Cormac Group consulting firm, told Newsweek. “It is too big, powerful, and costly for that.”

“Rather,” he added, “it is a signal by the Trump administration that the status quo—Venezuela as a hub for transnational organized crime and a regional destabilizer through mass migration—is no longer tenable.”

Believe What He Says, or Else’

Cárdenas spoke of a “wide range of options” available to the Trump administration, short of a “full-scale invasion” that could effect change in Venezuela.

For one, he felt “it is likely the U.S. is in contact with Venezuelan military personnel not involved in narco-trafficking and others in charge of guns to state that if they don’t remove Maduro from power the U.S. is prepared to unleash an asymmetric offensive that could consume them as well.”

“The Trump administration has carefully constructed a policy rationale that this is not ‘regime change’ for the sake of exporting democracy to the world’s benighted peoples,” Cárdenas said. “It is a national security initiative meant to eliminate a source of tons of cocaine from entering the United States. Main Street, USA, can identify with that.”

He also said that plans were likely already set in place, and any upcoming action would serve to send a message to great power competitors such as China and Russia, which U.S. officials have long warned were gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere.

“Credibility, moreover, is the cornerstone of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Believe what he says, or else. There is no climb-down from the current deployment,” Cárdenas said. “No doubt anti-American despots in Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere are watching the unfolding action in the Southern Caribbean carefully.”

When reached for comment, the White House referred Newsweek to remarks made by press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press conference last week.

“What I’ll say with respect to Venezuela, President Trump has been very clear and consistent,” Leavitt said at the time. “He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.”

She continued: “The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela, it is a narco-terror cartel. And Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He’s a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country.”

The Pentagon, meanwhile, shared with Newsweek a statement attributed to chief spokesperson Sean Parnell.

“On day one of the Trump Administration, the President published an Executive Order designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, clearly identifying them as a direct threat to the national security of the United States,” Parnell said. “These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe—that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs.”

He added: “This requires a whole-of-government effort and through coordination with regional partners, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role towards meeting the President’s objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people. As a matter of security and policy we do not speculate on future operations.”

‘Competing Factions’

The brewing crisis is not the first time Trump has sought to unseat Maduro from power, and instead marks the latest episode in a downturn in ties between Washington and Caracas that came about after the Venezuelan leader’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, rose to power through elections in 1999.

Chávez, who would accuse the U.S. of supporting a brief coup against him in 2002, kickstarted what he and his supporters refer to as a Bolivarian Revolution of social and economic reforms that sought to channel 19th-century anti-Spanish colonial leader Simón Bolívar. Somewhat ironically, Bolívar during his time welcomed U.S. President James Monroe’s 1823 declaration of a new doctrine against European imperialism in the Americas.

Yet Washington’s strategy grew increasingly interventionist over the ages, with the U.S. aiding governments and rebels against communist movements across Latin America during the Cold War.

Chávez’s socialist movement emerged from the ashes of this era, painting the U.S. as a new imperialist hegemon seeking to assert its influence across the region. At home, his policies—bolstered by soaring oil prices—initially led to a massive boom in Venezuela’s economic outlook, yet by the time of his 2013 death from cancer, a mix of runaway public spending, economic mismanagement and sanctions had substantially undercut stability, and a subsequent fall in oil prices from 2014 deepened the crisis.

The political situation also escalated in January 2019, as Maduro’s reelection was challenged by critics and rejected by a number of foreign leaders, including Trump, who began a “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela during his first term. An opposition coup led by U.S.-backed National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó was attempted that April only to end in failure.

Like Chávez, Maduro would emerge victorious and went on to easily repel a plot hatched the following year involving dozens of dissidents, as well as at least two former U.S. Green Berets operating as private military contractors.

Tom Shannon, a career diplomat who served as undersecretary for political affairs during the Trump administration, noted how past errors have likely informed the president’s thinking as he grapples with conflicting movements in his second administration.

“When he decides to begin his maximum pressure campaign in Venezuela and recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela and slaps on secondary sanctions on oil and gas and even attempts to generate a military coup against Maduro, all of which fail, he does this on the advice of people who were advising him on Venezuela, including the current Secretary of State,” Shannon told Newsweek.

“And they were wrong, and he knows they were wrong,” Shannon, now senior international policy adviser at Arnold & Porter law firm, added.

Upon taking office in January, Trump took a different approach. He sent special envoy Richard Grenell to strike a deal in Caracas, specifically to negotiate the release of imprisoned U.S. citizens and secure a license for oil giant Chevron to resume operations in the country.

Trump went on to revoke this license, a move Shannon pointed out took place as the president sought to secure votes for his “Big, Beautiful Bill,” only to reinstate it once again last month.

“I think part of the confusion is that there are competing factions around the president,” Shannon said. “You have [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, who would love to do the strike, but then there’s people like [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent, whose attitude is, ‘You’re out of your mind.'”

Noting how “Venezuela is sitting on the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], through its licensing process, gets to control who works in the oil and gas sector,” Shannon argued that if U.S. or European companies were licensed to work in the country, foreign competitors, including some of the nations viewed as hostile to U.S. interests, would be expelled.

“The Chinese are out. The Iranians are out. The Russians are out,” Shannon said of such a scenario. “We control the oil and gas. And guess what? We get to repatriate some of our earnings.”

‘You Should Use Your Power’

Yet the fight for resources does not entirely encapsulate the stakes over Venezuela, nor the administration’s interest in the country.

Trump’s Western Hemisphere doctrine includes pressure campaigns against a host of nations, including otherwise friendly U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as territorial ambitions to seize control of foreign-owned territory like Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Drug cartels, from Mexico to Venezuela, are the latest target of Trump’s rhetoric as he portrays a battle against an “invasion” of narcotics, including fentanyl produced with precursors exported by China.

“He has said he is going to use American power to protect American interests, and he is not tied by diplomatic niceties, or by practice, or even by what we could consider to be the norms of international law,” Shannon said. “He believes that if you are powerful, you should use your power.”

He continued: “He’s focused on drug trafficking, cartels, gangs, whatever you want to call them, because first of all, for him, they’re a political winner. He knows that there is broad support in the United States for the use of the American military and intelligence capabilities against these entities that, in his mind, present a very real threat to the United States, to Americans.”

But Shannon also alluded to the costs of a more assertive position in a region that, despite its complex relationship with Washington, has largely courted U.S. influence and investment. In the globalized 21st century, unlike two centuries ago, he argued that the Trump administration may be better suited to bring China-style infrastructure deals than warships and tariffs to win over South America.

“If there is a new Monroe Doctrine, it’s kind of emasculated in the sense that the president is not bringing what you need to the game in order to win,” he said.

The ‘Ultimate Arbiter’

The dissonance in Trump’s “peace through strength” approach is not lost on his support base. A number of influential voices in the president’s populist “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement voiced displeasure toward his decision in June to conduct limited yet unprecedented strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and some continue to criticize his continued support for Israel’s ongoing wars in the region.

Francisco Rodríguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the Trump administration was looking only to mount a “credible threat of force” that “some hardline opposition figures and Washington hawks” believed “could be enough to push Venezuela’s military to abandon Maduro.”

Yet he said that a similar approach to Trump’s isolated strikes on Iran “cannot be ruled out,” citing former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper‘s memoir in recounting how “targeted strikes on Venezuelan military installations were seriously discussed at the cabinet level” back in 2019.

Today, “some of the same hawkish voices who favored such strikes are again influential in Venezuela policy,” Rodríguez told Newsweek.

And Rodríguez saw neither contradiction nor incoherence in what he called the “broader Trumpian assertion of hemispheric dominance in line with a MAGA interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine,” despite “the coexistence of that vision with a pronounced aversion, in some MAGA circles, to costly military involvement abroad.”

“Rather, it reflects the dynamics of a personalistic regime in which competing factions with divergent preferences overlap, leaving the final decision to the chief executive,” Rodríguez said. “That enhances Trump’s authority as ultimate arbiter, but it also makes policy unpredictable and inconsistent.”

He added: “The Venezuela case illustrates this perfectly: announcing the deployment of warships while simultaneously authorizing Chevron to expand its oil dealings in the country. It is almost as if, after placing a bounty on bin Laden, Washington had turned around and licensed Halliburton to do infrastructure projects with his family business in Afghanistan.”

https://www.newsweek.com/will-venezuela-first-target-trumps-new-maga-monroe-doctrine-2121883

Salon: Trump’s DOJ power play on sanctuary cities fuels resignations

New DOJ directive on sanctuary cities sparks internal revolt, prosecutors warn politics not law drive key decisions

The Justice Department is in turmoil as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to penalize sanctuary cities, prompting multiple resignations among senior attorneys who say they were sidelined in the enforcement push.

Since January 2025, the administration has rolled out a series of executive actions aimed at jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Executive Order 14287, signed in April, requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) to identify and pursue legal remedies against non-compliant cities. Meanwhile, the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” order emphasizes enforcement against individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., with a focus on public safety threats.

Officials within the DOJ say the administration has sidelined career attorneys and replaced them with political appointees, prompting several high-level resignations. Critics describe the reshuffling as a political purge rather than a legitimate enforcement initiative.

Legal challenges from sanctuary cities are already underway. Courts in Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles have issued preliminary injunctions blocking attempts to withhold federal funding. The administration has signaled its intent to appeal, keeping the battles over federal authority versus local jurisdiction unresolved.

Despite the legal pushback, the administration is moving forward with enforcement operations. DHS plans to deploy hundreds of officers to cities like Chicago as part of a crackdown targeting sanctuary jurisdictions, focusing on individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., particularly those involved in criminal activity.

The developments highlight the administration’s aggressive posture on immigration, the tensions between federal and local governments, and internal strains within the DOJ as political priorities collide with career enforcement norms.

https://www.salon.com/2025/08/30/trumps-doj-power-play-on-sanctuary-cities-fuels-resignations

Independent: Trump revokes Kamala Harris’ secret service protection, reversing Biden order

Harris is set to begin a promotional tour connected with her forthcoming book next month

President Donald Trump has ordered the Secret Service to stop providing a protection detail and other protective measures for former Vice President Kamala Harris, revoking an order signed in January by then-president Joe Biden to extend her security until January 2026.

Trump issued the directive Thursday in the form of a memorandum to the agency informing officials that they were “hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum” concerning Harris, who under normal circumstances would have lost her protection on July 20, six months after the end of her term.

The end of Harris’s protective detail and the existence of the memorandum were first reported by CNN.

In a statement to the network, Harris adviser Kristen Allen said the former vice president is “grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety.”

Since returning to office, Trump has used his authority over the Secret Service to punish perceived political adversaries by removing previously authorized protective details, even in cases where there have been documented threats to the people in question.

In his first days back in the White House, the president ordered the agency to stop protecting his first-term national security adviser, John Bolton, and his former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Both men have been on a list of officials targeted for assassination by Iran in retaliation for the Trump-ordered drone strike on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani during the president’s first term.

But Trump nonetheless ordered their protective details to be withdrawn.

In March, he ordered an end to protection for former president Biden’s adult children, including his son Hunter Biden, at the urging of conspiracy theorist and far-right influencer Laura Loomer.

The ex-president had signed a directive extending protection for his adult children for six months after leaving office — something Trump had done for his own family before vacating the White House after losing the 2020 election.

But Trump declined to extend Biden the same courtesy and in a social media post, he expressed his disapproval of what he said were 18 agents assigned to Hunter Biden‘s security detail during his visit to South Africa this week. Hunter’s wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, is originally from South Africa.

“Hunter Biden has had Secret Service protection for an extended period of time, all paid for by the United States Taxpayer,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“There are as many as 18 people on this Detail, which is ridiculous! He is currently vacationing in, of all places, South Africa, where the Human Rights of people has been strenuously questioned.

Trump also said that Ashley Biden, who he said had 13 agents assigned to her, would be “taken off the list.”

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kamala-harris-secret-service-canceled-b2816561.html

One India: Trump Stuns Allies With Proposal To Deploy Chinese Peacekeepers In Ukraine Ceasefire Plan

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-stuns-allies-with-proposal-to-deploy-chinese-peacekeepers-in-ukraine-ceasefire-plan/vi-AA1LxMUf

Wall Street Journal: White House Moves Forward on Plans for a Department of War

The Trump administration is drawing up plans to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War, according to a White House official, following up on the president’s push to revive a name last used in 1947.

Restoring the discarded name of the government’s largest department could be done by an act of Congress, but the White House is considering other avenues to make the change, according to the official.

Trump has broached the idea repeatedly since taking office. “As Department of War, we won everything. We won everything,” Trump said Monday, referring to wars fought before the creation of the Department of Defense after World War II. “I think we’re going to have to go back to that.”

The Pentagon began developing legislative proposals to make the change in the early weeks of Trump’s second term, according to a former official. One idea was to ask Congress for authority to restore the former name during a national emergency, while also reviving the title of secretary of war for the department’s top civilian official, the former official said.

The old name “has a stronger sound,” Trump said Monday in an Oval Office meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae-myung. He added the change would be made “over the next week or so.”

The structure of the military has evolved considerably since the Department of War was created in 1789, and so has the name for the bureaucracy overseeing it. Initially the Department of War oversaw the Army, while a separate Department of the Navy ran naval forces and the Marines.

After World War II in an effort to increase efficiency, President Harry S. Truman put the armed forces under one organization, initially called the National Military Establishment under a bill passed by Congress in 1947. The legislation merged the Navy and War Departments and the newly independent Air Force into a single organization led by a civilian secretary of defense.

Much of the opposition to the changes arose over ending the Navy’s status as an independent department. “We shall fight on The Hill, in the Senate chamber, and on the White House lawn,” read an inscription on a blackboard of a Navy captain who opposed the new system, according to a December 1948 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article. “We shall never surrender.”

Congress discarded the National Military Establishment in 1949 and renamed it the Department of Defense, giving the cabinet-level secretary more power to oversee the services, including their procurement procedures. That ignited concern that the enhanced powers would make the defense secretary a “military dictator,” according to a July 1949 article in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Trump has said his concern is that the title isn’t bellicose enough. In April, during an Oval Office event, he said that the Defense Secretary used to be known as the War Secretary. “They changed it when we became a little bit politically correct,” he said.

He raised the idea of reviving the title at a NATO summit in The Hague in June: “It used to be called Secretary of War,” Trump said at a gathering of foreign leaders. “Maybe we’ll have to start thinking about changing it.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth weighed in Tuesday during a cabinet meeting, saying Defense Department “just doesn’t sound right.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-moves-forward-on-plans-for-a-department-of-war/ar-AA1Lyg8m

Fortune: A different shock to the system’: De minimis tariff dodge ending means less purchasing power for Americans

  • The de minimis exemption, which allowed overseas orders under $800 to come into the U.S. duty-free, ended Friday. In effect, American consumers will experience less purchasing power for goods produced or sourced from other countries.

The de minimis exemption—a tariff loophole that for years made millions of direct-to-consumer imports duty free—is gone, and its end marks a structural shift for American shoppers and logistics providers. 

Up until Friday, U.S. consumers could order up to $800 in goods per package from overseas without paying any tariffs or taxes. Now, this landscape is changing, adding to inflationary pressures that will squeeze everyday purchasing power, particularly for low- and middle-income Americans, experts tell Fortune.

“It’s a different shock to the system at a different level than what we’ve seen with the tariffs on large industrial goods,” Rob Haworth, senior investment strategy director at U.S. Bank, told Fortune. “It does start up another near-term challenge for consumers and for businesses and spending overall.”

The de minimis exemption ended in May for imports from China, where an estimated three-quarters of goods under the $800 threshold came from, with a large share coming from e-commerce companies Shein and Temu. The de minimis suspension for parcels from all other countries implemented Friday now means the American dollar won’t buy as much as it used to, when it comes to shoppers purchasing goods made overseas.

“Categories like footwear and apparel will see some of the highest impacts, estimated at 15%-25% increased end consumer pricing, given the manufacturing origin often being China,” Sean Henry, CEO of Stord, an e-commerce and fulfillment company, told Fortune.

A senior Trump administration official said that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has collected more than $492 million in additional duties on packages shipped from China and Hong Kong since ending the exemption.

And tariffs on goods that previously fell under de minimis could raise as much as $10 billion a year, U.S. trade advisor Peter Navarro told reporters Thursday. Putting that into perspective, the 2024 trade deficit in goods was $1.2 trillion.

“The net number (of tariff revenue without de minimis) is not all that meaningful in terms of how big the deficit is,” Baird Investment Strategist Ross Mayfield told Fortune. “The bigger difference is going to be the extent to which the government is levying these bigger, kind of broader swaths of tariffs.”

Over the past decade, the number of shipments entering the U.S. de minimis surged by more than 600%, from approximately 139 million in 2015 to almost 1.4 billion, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. However, the amount of revenue generated by these new tariffs depends on whether consumers are willing to continue to purchase cheap products from abroad.

“Nearly 40% of online shoppers abandon their carts when faced with these extra tariff and duty surcharges at checkout,” Stord CEO Henry said.

Lee Klaskow, a senior analyst of transportation and logistics at Bloomberg Intelligence, told Fortune he expects spending on these largely “discretionary” purchases to decrease.

“That Shein shirt that you really want that’s $5—maybe you’ll think twice about getting it because it’s going to be more expensive,” Klaskow said.

Prior to the pandemic, consumers had a “huge appetite for cheap things,” but Klaskow expects consumer behavior to flip in response to the change. 

U.S. Bank’s Haworth said he’s more focused on how the government will implement the change, as it will require new systems, investment, and infrastructure to collect on small purchases. 

He added the whole purpose of de minimis was to streamline the process of bringing small imports into the country, since they are more complex to track. The government has previously said this allowed illicit substances like fentanyl to cross into the U.S. more easily. Still, the system will need to recalibrate to adhere to the new rules.

“Originally why you had a de minimis exemption is so that you weren’t spending a lot of time on small transactions that didn’t net anything,” Haworth said. “So that’s kind of an interesting or challenging cost that is going to come into the business system.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-different-shock-to-the-system-de-minimis-tariff-dodge-ending-means-less-purchasing-power-for-americans/ar-AA1LxCkK