Slate: A Senator Just Unapologetically Declared the U.S. a White Homeland

America, he says, isn’t an idea—and isn’t for everyone.

A Sitting Senator Just Went Full Mask-Off White Nationalist

On Nov. 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the greatest speeches in American history, the Gettysburg Address. It opened “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

On Tuesday, Eric Schmitt, the junior senator from Missouri, declared that Lincoln was wrong.

“What is an American?” This was the question Schmitt posed at the fifth annual National Conservatism Conference in Washington. His answer is that the nation is fundamentally not based on the idea of equality or freedom or any other ideal. Nor is it accessible to people of all races and religions. It is fundamentally, he told an assembled crowd, a white homeland.

The white Europeans who settled America and conquered the West “believed they were forging a nation—a homeland for themselves and their descendants,” he said. “They fought, they bled, they struggled, they died for us. They built this country for us. America, in all its glory, is their gift to us, handed down across the generations. It belongs to us. It’s our birthright, our heritage, our destiny. If America is everything and everyone, then it is nothing and no one at all. But we know that’s not true. America is not a ‘universal nation.’ ”

The implications of this vision are serious. This is a repudiation of our Constitution and the core of a national identity that includes all its citizens. It means that to be American is not about citizenship at all. “What is an American?” Schmitt asked. It is a white person. America is a white homeland that organically binds together white people of the past, present and future. And its policies must be guided for their benefit if they are to succeed.

“A strong, sovereign nation—not just an idea but a home, belonging to a people bound together by a common past and a shared destiny.”

Schmitt makes clear that the problem of immigration is not that people violate the rules or that the rules are not enforced. It is about immigration per se, about non-Europeans stealing the birthright of the descendants of America’s original white Christian settlers. This includes German settlers like Schmitt’s ancestors, a group at one time considered nonwhite, but not the Black slaves who built much of the country and whose roots here largely predate his own, nor countless other ethnic groups who have made significant contributions to this nation.

“We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith,” he said. “Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God.” Their idol, he declares, is Andrew Jackson. “Their trust was in the Lord,” but their cause was not necessarily more righteous. They destroyed the Native Americans, he claims, because they were superior in strength and perseverance. This is a fascist vision of natural selection favoring the group with racial and cultural superiority.

Make no mistake. This is a revolt against Lincoln, a revolt against the idea of a nation built on the proposition that all men are created equal. “America is not just an abstract proposition,” he repeats over and over, clearly referencing Lincoln. The left, he asserts, is “turning the American tradition into a deracinated ideological creed,” an idea literally stripped of its racial foundation. It is stealing the country from the “real American nation”: the pilgrims, the pioneers and the settlers who “repelled wave after wave of Indian war band attacks” to build this country. “It belongs to us. It’s our birthright, our heritage, our destiny.”

Nonwhite people do appear in his vision, but only as the usurpers of our white nation and its resources. They are the “Indians,” whom he portrays as savages who succumbed to the superior ability of their white destroyers. They are Barack Obama and his supporters, who scorned the white patriots for remembering a country “that once belonged to them.” They are the people tearing down Confederate statues and removing Confederate names from buildings, streets, and forts, turning “yesterday’s heroes into today’s villains.” They are the people behind the “George Floyd riots,” as he describes them, “anarchists [who] looted and defaced and tore down statues and monuments all across the country.”

Here, it is quite clear who constitutes “us” and “them” in this Manichaean vision of the American nation. “When they tear down our statues and monuments, mock our history, and insult our traditions, they’re attacking our future as well as our past,” he said. “But America does not belong to them. It belongs to us. It’s our home. It’s a heritage entrusted to us by our ancestors. It’s a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist.”

Even Christianity itself is eclipsed here. Christianity is meaningful only as a marker of the whiteness of the people who embody it. There is no gratitude here, except for the white founders who bequeathed this nation to their biological descendants by achieving its manifest destiny and taking it. There is no obligation here. No grace. No Christian mercy. No reckoning with past crimes, and particularly not with the dispossession of Native Americans or the enslavement of Africans, both of which are literally celebrated.

That conference—despite the protestations of its founder, the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony—has been promoting blood-and-soil nationalism since its first iteration in 2019. That year, University of Pennsylvania Law professor Amy Wax argued, “Our country would be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.” She worried about our “legacy” population, white Americans, being overrun by nonwhite immigrants who, she said, innately lacked the capacity to adapt to Western culture.

In 2024 the senior senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley, gave the keynote speech at the conference. Hawley celebrated Christian nationalism as the core idea animating America. He warned against “cosmopolitans” and “globalists,” both famous tropes for Jews, threatening our country.

This year, Schmitt, a sitting senator, outdid them both. Schmitt opened by reiterating the antisemitic tropes of his senior colleague. America is threatened by the “elites,” he declared, “who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere.” This is the “rootless cosmopolitan” trope at the heart of modern antisemitism. They serve “global liberalism” and “global capital” and support mass migration, he continued, a nod to the “great replacement” theory, which blames Jews for replacing white Americans with nonwhite immigrants.

Though he repeats his predecessor’s implicit antisemitism, he went even further with his explicit advocacy of the U.S. as a white homeland.

This speech, and this conference, demonstrates once again that the MAGA coalition’s endgame is about not just fighting illegal immigration, affirmative action, and “DEI.” It is about not just the alleged destruction of nonracial civic nationalism by liberals and their proactive efforts to achieve equity. It is ultimately about a white (Christian) nationalist vision of America that claims ownership of power and resources for white (Christian) Americans alone. All others are here on sufferance and must remember their place as such.

That a sitting U.S. senator should make such a speech without shame or pushback by his party highlights the extent to which it represents where that party now stands.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/eric-schmitt-white-nationalism-national-conservatism-conference.html

Independent: Trump welcomes guests to ‘Rose Garden club’ after revamp to make iconic White House location more like Mar-a-Lago

Trump hosted a dinner for allies in Congress and spoke at length about the changes he’s made to the iconic White House garden

President Donald Trump welcomed guests Friday evening to the “Rose Garden Club” – the iconic White House outdoor space that now appears strangely reminiscent of another exclusive location.

The new Rose Garden features a limestone patio with country club-style chairs, tables, and striped umbrellas – echoing Trump’s private Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump hosted a dinner for allies in Congress and spoke about some of the changes he’s made to the iconic White House garden since taking office in January.

“You’re the first ones in this great place,” the president said. “We call it the Rose Garden Club and it’s a club for senators, for congresspeople, and for people in Washington, and frankly, people that can bring peace and success to our country.”

Long gone is the central grassy area that Trump claimed was prone to getting muddy and is now replaced with tiles. But flowers remain along the border.

Friday evening’s setup featured four rows of six tables with white tablecloths draped across each one. The white chairs featured bright yellow seat cushions, in the same color scheme as the umbrellas.

Each table was outfitted with a classic country club-style place setting and included a basket of rolls and a saucer with pats of butter.

White House Communications Director Stephen Cheung posted a photo on X, giving a closer look at the individual table settings. Each person appeared to receive a gold-embossed welcome paper that read “The Rose Garden Club.”

“We picked a great stone,” Trump told the audience, referencing the limestone flooring. “And we have a great speaker system.”

The president recently installed a new speaker system in the Rose Garden which he showed off to reporters last month.

Trump has received criticism for making dramatic changes to the historic Rose Garden, which was established in 1913 by former first lady Ellen Louise Wilson, wife of former president Woodrow Wilson, and renovated during former president John F. Kennedy’s administration.

The president reportedly wanted to “recreate” the patio experience at his Mar-a-Lago club to host guests and entertain people, the New York Times reported earlier this year.

Before returning to the White House, Trump often spent evening downtime sitting on the patio at Mar-a-Lago with fellow club members, the Times reported. The president enjoyed sitting back and controlling the club’s playlist from an iPad, the report said, a tech set-up he has now recreated at his Washington abode.

But the Rose Garden revamp is just one of various aesthetic projects the president has embarked upon at the White House.

The Oval Office now features a plethora of gilded accents, from the ceiling’s crown molding to the side table lamps. Every detail has seemingly been turned to the yellow-gold – even the fireplace screen.

The portraits of famous Americans hanging in the Oval Office have had their frames swapped from wood to intricate gilded ones.

Each president has control over the decor of the Oval Office. They’re allowed to switch out the rug, curtains, couches, and even the desk. Pictures and accolades are put on display to show off a president’s accomplishments.

Trump has also made small changes elsewhere – he added two 88-foot American Flag poles to the White and South lawns of the White House and moved prominent portraits of former presidents to a hidden stairwell.

More changes are coming. The president said he would add a lavish $200 million ballroom to the White House to serve as a place to host state dinners and other events.

How much are the memberships? Are any Epstein girls included?

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-rose-garden-makeover-b2821513.html

CNN: Florida’s new immigrant detention site dubbed ‘Deportation Depot’ is now taking detainees, officials say

Florida has opened its second immigration detention site, dubbed “Deportation Depot,” amid an ongoing legal battle over its controversial “Alligator Alcatraz” facility.

The facility is at a temporarily closed state prison, the Baker Correctional Institution, which is housing 117 detainees with the capacity to hold 1,500 people, according to the office of Gov. Ron DeSantis. It is about 45 miles west of Jacksonville near the Osceola National Forest.

“Deportation Depot” opened a day after a federal appeals court temporarily blocked a judge’s order requiring the state and federal government to shut down “Alligator Alcatraz,” located deep in the marshy wetlands of the Everglades.

The facility, wrapped in tall, wire fencing, is made up of a number of a squat, single-story buildings. Guard towers are positioned strategically around the campus and, out front, a Humvee is parked next to a white pop-up tent.

Other states have announced similar sites to supplement what the Trump administration has described as limited capacity in immigration detention centers nationwide. “Deportation Depot” is part of that equation and just one part of the Florida governor’s push for an expansion of the state’s detention centers to hold immigrants.

DeSantis is doubling down on his plans to build a third detention site in Florida’s panhandle, which he has called “Panhandle Pokey,” along with another facility at a Florida National Guard training center known as Camp Blanding, roughly 30 miles southwest of Jacksonville.

Other proposed immigration facilities include Indiana’s “Speedway Slammer” and Louisiana’s “Camp 57,” located at the country’s largest maximum-security prison. The Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly known as Angola, is an 18,000-acre facility situated an hour north of Baton Rouge.

The new detention facilities are emerging as the White House continues to push authorities to make at least 3,000 immigration-related arrests per day as part of the administration’s mass deportation efforts.

Many detainees have so far been sent to Guantanamo Bay or deported to El Salvador’s CECOT mega prison.

Back in Florida, “Deportation Depot” was announced in August just before a federal judge placed a preliminary injunction on “Alligator Alcatraz” that would have effectively shut that site down.

Since a federal appeals court stayed the lower court’s order to force the closure of “Alligator Alcatraz,” the state has said it will continue transporting detainees out of there.

The ruling was a major blow to environmental groups, who filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to block operations and construction at the site until environmental laws are followed.

The Everglades site had been the subject of intense criticism for its treatment of migrants who had been confined there amid sweltering heat, bug infestations and meager meals, prompting members of Congress and state representatives that witnessed the conditions to demand its immediate closure.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/us/deportation-depot-florida-open

The Hill: Trump orders takedown of longtime protest tent at White House

President Trump ordered the removal of the White House Peace Vigil on Friday, marking an end to a 44-year protest against the nation’s nuclear weaponry and warfare. 

A reporter informed the president of the ongoing protest — now manned by Philipos Melaku-Bello and a group of rotating volunteers — Friday in the Oval Office, describing the long-standing tent as an “eye sore” for visitors supported by the “radical left.” 

“I didn’t know that. Take it down. Take it down today, right now,” Trump told staffers inside the White House.

The president has pledged to erase homeless encampments across Washington, D.C., in an effort to clean the streets ahead of the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding.

Unhoused residents have faced a swarm of police officers and National Guard soldiers in recent weeks who have detained them for sleeping outside.

However, the peace vigil in Lafayette Park stands out as a permanent stakeout for free speech and is widely known as the longest continuous act of political protest in U.S. history. 

Activist William Thomas propped up the free standing structure in June 1981 parallel to the North Lawn, where dignitaries and world leaders arrive for discussion and dissent. 

As years flew by, Thomas remained posted out front of the White House and faithfully manned the station through the course of seven presidents and various wars, until his death in 2016.

Melaku-Bello then took over the site with tattered signs that read “Ban All Nuclear Weapons or Have a Nice Doomsday” and “Live By the Bomb, Die By the Bomb” as a reminder of their push for peace to all who pass by, The Washington Post reported

Over the years, the tent has drawn the attention of members of Congress who’ve either supported or condemned the collective mission of the White House Peace Vigil. 

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) was inspired by the protesters and has repeatedly introduced the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act on behalf of the group.

The legislation would redirect funding for nuclear weapons to other causes, such as the climate crisis, and human and infrastructure needs, such as housing and health care.

Norton has said it would help reestablish the country’s “moral leadership in the world.“

While she’s rallied behind the demonstrators, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) has advocated for the encampment to be swiftly removed, citing “public safety hazards” in addition to “aesthetic and historical degradation.”

“No group should be above the law, and the continued allowance of this permanent occupation sends the wrong message to law-abiding Americans,” Van Drew wrote in a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum obtained by the Post.

“This isn’t about stopping protest. It’s about upholding the rule of law, preserving one of America’s most iconic public spaces, and ending a double standard that’s made a mockery of both,” he added.

However, Norton told the Post that protesters are well within their right to peacefully assemble outside of the White House on public property. 

“The First Amendment protects peaceful protests, even when they’re seen as unsightly or inconvenient, and even when they occur in front of the White House,” Norton said in the statement. 

“The Peace Vigil has stood in front of the White House for more than 30 years, with its organizers engaged in principled activism at considerable personal cost. If Representative Van Drew’s claim that the vigil creates public safety hazards were valid, it would have been removed long ago.”

Just one more First Amendment violation by the White House Grifter with 6 bankruptcies and 34 felony convictions!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-orders-takedown-of-longtime-protest-tent-at-white-house/ar-AA1LYUWI

CNN: Was fatal US strike on Venezuelan ‘drug boat’ legal?

A strike carried out by US forces on a boat in the Caribbean Sea – which the White House says killed 11 drug traffickers – may have violated international human rights and maritime law, legal experts have told BBC Verify.

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that US forces destroyed a vessel which he said had departed from Venezuela. He said the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel and was carrying drugs bound for the US.

US defence officials have so far declined to offer details on the strike, footage of which Trump shared on Truth Social, including what legal authority they relied upon to justify it.

BBC Verify reached out to a range of experts in international and maritime law, with several saying that US may have acted illegally in attacking the vessel.

The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the US military’s legal advisors have previously said that the US should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions”.

Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this which allow a state to seize a ship, such as a “hot pursuit” where a vessel is chased from a country’s waters into the high seas.

“Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” Prof Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said.

But he added that the use of aggressive tactics must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials”, noting that the US moves were likely “unlawful under the law of the sea”.

Are US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?

Experts have also questioned whether the killing of the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could contravene international law on the use of force.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. Trump has previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of conducting irregular warfare against the US, and the state department has designated the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

But Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Verify that the US actions “stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point”.

“The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets,” he said. “The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.”

“Not only does the strike appear to have violated the prohibition on the use of force, it also runs afoul of the right to life under international human rights law.”

Prof Moffett said that the use of force in this case could amount to an “extrajudicial arbitrary killing” and “a fundamental violation of human rights”.

“Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law,” he said.

Notre Dame Law School Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell told BBC Verify that the strike “violated fundamental principles of international law”, adding: “Intentional killing outside armed conflict hostilities is unlawful unless it is to save a life immediately.”

“Sometimes armed groups waging war against governments deal in drugs to pay for their participation in conflict. There is no evidence the gang President Trump targeted is such a group.”

But US officials have been quick to defend the strike. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wrote on X that the strike was the “ultimate – and most welcome – sign that we have a new sheriff in town”.

His fellow Republican senator, Bernie Moreno from Ohio, wrote: “Sinking this boat saved American lives. To the narco traffickers and the narco dictators, you’ll eventually get the same treatment.”

A White House official told BBC Verify that Trump had authorised the strike on the boat, which they said was crewed by Tren de Aragua members, after it left Venezuela. The official added that the president was committed to using all means to prevent drugs reaching the US.

The Pentagon has declined to share the legal advice it obtained before carrying out the strike.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News: “we’ve got incredible assets and they are gathering in the region… those 11 drug traffickers are no longer with us, sending a very clear signal that this is an activity the United States is not going to tolerate in our hemisphere.”

Can Trump launch attacks without Congressional approval?

Questions have also been raised as to whether the White House complied with US law in authorising the strike. The US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war.

However, Article II – which lays out the president’s powers – says that “the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army” and some constitutional experts have suggested that this grants the president the power to authorise strikes against military targets. Trump administration sources have previously cited this provision when defending US strikes on Iran.

But it is unclear whether that provision extends to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels.

Rumen Cholakov, an expert in US constiutional law at King’s College London told BBC Verify that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for the attacks.

“Its scope has been expanded consistently in subsequent administrations,” he added. “It is not immediately obvious that drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua would be within the President’s AUMF powers, but that might be what “narco-terrorists” is hinting at.”

Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which demands that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”.

How did the US conduct the strike?

It is unclear what method the US used to launch the attack. Trump did not offer details in his news conference in the Oval Office and the Department of Defense has failed to offer further information.

In Venezuela President Maduro has yet to respond to the US strikes, but his Communications Minister Freddy Ñáñez has suggested that the footage released by the White House may have been generated using AI. In a post to X, he suggested that water in the video “looks very stylized and unnatural”.

BBC Verify has run the clip through SynthID – Google’s AI detection software – and found no evidence that the footage is fake.

The strikes come amid reports that the US has deployed several naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela.

We’ve not been able to track all of these vessels. But using information from publicly-available onboard trackers, and videos on social media, we’ve potentially identified four of them in the region.

A ship identifying itself as the USS Lake Erie – a guided missile cruiser – last transmitted its location in the Caribbean Sea on 30 August, east of the Panama Canal on 30 August.

Two others identifying themselves as the USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham last transmitted their locations in mid-August, at the American base in Guantanamo Bay. A fourth, the USS Fort Lauderdale, transmitted its location north of the Dominican Republic on 28 August.

Trump – who has long sought to oust Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro – has authorised a US$50m reward for any information leading to his arrest. The Venezuelan leader claimed victory in last year’s elections, widely viewed as rigged by international observers.

The consensus seems to be that it was illegal. Only Trump’s merry band of misfits, suck-ups, and sycophants seems to think otherwise.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o

ABC News: DC attorney general sues to end federal National Guard deployment

Nearly 2,300 troops from seven states have been stationed in D.C. since Aug. 11.

Washington, D.C., Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb filed a lawsuit on Thursday to end the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the city, calling it an unlawful “military occupation.”

Nearly 2,300 troops from seven states have been stationed in the district since Aug. 11, a move Schwalb says goes beyond the president’s authority and violates local autonomy under the Home Rule Act.

The lawsuit argues the troops were placed under Defense Department command and later deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to perform law enforcement, which Schwalb’s office says is “in violation of the foundational prohibition on military involvement in local law.”

By law, the president’s emergency deployment can last only 30 days unless extended by Congress, meaning the surge is set to expire Sept. 10.

Schwalb also alleges the federal government is unlawfully asserting command over state militias without formally bringing them into federal service, which he says is a violation of the Constitution and federal law.

The complaint says the deployments threaten to erode trust between residents and police, inflame tensions and damage the city’s economy — particularly in the restaurant and hospitality industries as, just last month, the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington extended summer restaurant week in an effort to draw customers during the surge.

The attorney general’s office further argues that the deployments violate the Home Rule Act by overriding local autonomy and undermining public safety “by inflaming tensions and eroding trust between District residents and law enforcement.”

Still, Gregg Pemberton, the D.C. union chairman said the long-term goal is for the Metropolitan Police Department to resume full responsibility.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dc-attorney-general-sues-end-federal-national-guard/story?id=125240857

Alternet: Legal expert warns Trump saving this ‘big heavy gun’ for ‘when all hell has broken loose’

In an article for Democracy Docket published Thursday, journalist Jim Saksa argued that President Donald Trump is systematically expanding his authority to deploy military force within U.S. cities, and that the lack of sufficient legal or legislative pushback risks making such aggressive domestic deployments routine.

Saksa noted that over the past two weeks Trump has repeatedly threatened to send the National Guard not only to Chicago, but also to New York, Baltimore, Seattle, New Orleans and other major American cities. These threats follow earlier deployments of thousands of troops to Los Angeles in June and Washington D.C. in August.

Most recently, Trump signed an executive order establishing a National Guard “quick reaction force” prepared for rapid nationwide mobilization.

While these troop deployments are of questionable legality, Saksa pointed out that previous actions, particularly the deployments to LA and D.C., have largely gone unchecked by either the courts or Congress.

This, he warned, could embolden the president to continue deploying military force in Democratic-led cities

Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced this trajectory. He described Chicago as “a killing field right now,” despite evidence of its safest summer in decades.

He further asserted, “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the President of the United States of America,” and added, “If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger in these cities, I can do it.”

Saksa examined the legal response: a district court in California ruled that Trump’s administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which broadly prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, but the court did not deem the deployment itself illegal.

The Ninth Circuit, moreover, upheld the administration’s actions, concluding the deployment to LA was lawful. As a result, around 300 National Guard personnel remain on federal active duty in Southern California nearly three months later.

The article noted the slow governmental response: nearly a month passed before Washington filed a legal challenge, a delay compounded by the District’s unique legal status.

Meanwhile, the White House continues to rely on obscure statutes and novel legal theories, while avoiding reliance on the Insurrection Act of 1807, a more traditional yet controversial legal pathway to deploy troops domestically.

David Janovsky, acting director of the Project on Government Oversight’s Constitution Project, told the outlet that courts and Congress have been “mostly feeble” in response to what he termed a “power grab.”

He voiced concern that there may be no clear limits left on such presidential authority: “I don’t know what the next meaningful limit is,” he said.

The article also included comments from William Banks, professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law, who said: “The insurrection act is the big heavy gun.”

He added: “It was intended to be utilized, if at all, when all hell is broken loose. It’s for extreme circumstances.”

https://www.alternet.org/trump-military-deployment

New York Times: Seal Team 6 slaughters unarmed crew of N. Korean fisherman diving for shell fish.

Their real mission was a flop.

Trump failed to report the covert mission to Congress as required by law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/us/navy-seal-north-korea-trump-2019.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jk8.hF-Z.CC2MsPBmUyK2&smid=url-share

Washington Examiner: Congress seethes over Trump’s $5 billion clawback that risks a government shutdown

GOP critics of President Donald Trump’s nearly $5 billion “pocket” rescission for foreign aid said the controversial move, which some have suggested may flout the law, would do them no favors in winning over enough Democrats later this month to fund the government by Oct. 1.

The words of caution extended beyond the GOP’s usual centrist detractors, such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), foreshadowing what is likely to be a messy showdown with Democrats in the upper chamber over the coming weeks.

“Anything that gives our Democrat colleagues a reason not to do the bipartisan appropriations process is not a good thing,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said. “And if they can use that as an excuse, that causes us a problem.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), a leadership member, said her “preferable route” to cancel previously appropriated funds would be through the standard annual budget process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) predicted the legality of pocket rescissions, not used since 1977, will “be tested and litigated in courts.” He reassured Democrats that GOP leadership remained committed to ongoing budget negotiations.

“I think [Democrats] may try and use that as an excuse for not working in a bipartisan way on appropriations, but that’s all it’ll be: an excuse,” Thune told reporters. “They know that I’m committed, Senator Collins is committed, our conference is committed to working constructively to try and fund the government through the normal appropriations process.”

Appropriators are working behind the scenes to craft a yearlong bipartisan spending plan but are likely to need another stopgap funding measure to avoid a shutdown, which will require at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle and break a 60-vote filibuster. Some Democrats say Trump’s pocket rescission, a legally untested maneuver under the Impoundment Control Act that allows presidents in certain cases to withdraw funds without lawmakers’ approval, underscores the need to bolster their resistance to the administration.  

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a Democratic leadership member with potential 2028 presidential aspirations, previewed the blunt message he was advocating to his progressive colleagues: “It’s time to fight.”

“This is a time to draw a line. I am not giving my vote away to Donald Trump on a budget that’s going to hurt people, on a budget that’s going to take away healthcare, on a budget that’s going to hurt families who are really struggling,” Booker said. “I’m telling folks this is a crossroads.”

Republican leaders expect the rescission, announced last week by the White House budget office, to be ultimately settled by the courts and is already the subject of ongoing litigation. The administration’s legal justification last week was that the money, $3.2 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development and $1.7 billion for State Department programs, was for “wasteful foreign assistance programs” and international groups that “do not support major U.S. policies or priorities or have been operating contrary to American interests for many years.”

A separate rescission from Trump earlier this year required the approval of Congress, which both GOP-led chambers supported. But without buy-in this go-around and so close to a funding cliff, the heartburn is palpable among even Republican appropriators.

Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations panel facing a battleground reelection next year, has criticized the rescission as a “clear violation of the law.”

Murkowski, another centrist and frequent critic of the president who sits on the Appropriations Committee, doubled down Tuesday in her belief that the White House was unlawfully attempting to further flout Congress’s authority.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of tools, do we?” Murkowski said. “In terms of, is there something legislatively we can do, that’s the challenge. There are a lot of political paths.”

Does anyone actually think a narcissist like Trump cares one bit if his actions adversely affect anyone other than himself?

Independent: Trump asks Supreme Court to approve his tariffs after warning US would be ‘destroyed’ if they don’t go ahead

President demands highest court weigh in on his use of International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 to slap hefty levies on imported goods

Donald Trump has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the basis for his “reciprocal tariffs” policy was not legal, having warned the country would be “destroyed” without it.

The Court of Appeals ruled on Friday in agreement with a May finding by the Court of International Trade that the president had overstepped his authority by invoking a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977 to place hefty levies on goods imported from America’s trading partners.

Trump was incensed by the decision, insisting it was “highly partisan” and “would literally destroy the United States of America.”

Now, the administration has asked the conservative-majority Supreme Court to decide whether to take up the case by September 10, despite its new term not beginning until October 6, with a view to hearing arguments in November.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General D John Sauer wrote in his filing. “The president and his cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.”

Attorneys representing small businesses challenging the tariff program said they were not opposed to the Supreme Court hearing the matter and said, on the contrary, they were confident their arguments would prevail.

“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival,” said Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center. “We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”

Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs in the White House Rose Garden on April 2, invoking the IEEPA to set a 10 percent baseline tax on all imports and even higher taxes on goods being shipped from nearly every one of America’s trading partners, with China, Canada and Mexico among those hardest hit.

However, his announcement sent shockwaves through the world’s stock markets as investors panicked over their likely economic consequences, eventually forcing Trump into a rethink. He duly announced a week later that the implementation of the tariffs would be suspended for 90 days, a deadline that was eventually extended until August.

Administration officials led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick used the intervening summer months to attempt to broker custom deals with other countries but only succeeded in securing a handful of agreements, notably with the U.K. and Vietnam.

A revised list of tariffs that came into effect on August 7 saw India (51 percent), Syria (41 percent), Laos (40 percent), Myanmar (4o percent) and Switzerland (39 percent) particularly hard done by.

Then, last week, the Court of Appeals agreed with two challenges, one brought by the small businesses and another by 12 states, to rule in a seven-four majority decision that the president’s power to regulate imports under the law does not include the power to impose tariffs.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the justices wrote in their decision.

They added that U.S. law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

Bubba dearest,

Your tariffs are illegal.

You had no legal authority to levy them.

They gotta go.

You gotta go, too.

Period.

Stop.

End of story.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-appeal-b2819975.html