Newsweek reports a trade group representing the trucking industry is supporting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s pause of work visas for immigrant truckers, despite the halt potentially aggravating work shortages in the U.S. trucking industry.
Rubio’s announcement followed a fatal crash on a Florida highway earlier this month involving a trucker from India who officials confirmed was in the country illegally. Newsweek reports preliminary findings by the Department of Transportation (DOT) revealed the driver failed assessments on his English language proficiency and his understanding of U.S. highway traffic rules.
Rubio did not reference the fatal accident at the time of his announcement, reports Newsweek, but did claim in a post on X that the increasing number of foreign truckers was “endangering American lives and undercutting the livelihoods of American truckers.”
In a statement released Thursday, Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), said his group supported the move, and that the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) “needs serious scrutiny, including the enforcement of entry-level driver training standards.”
“At a minimum, we need better accounting of how many non-domiciled CDLs are being issued, which is why we applaud Transportation Secretary Duffy for launching a nationwide audit in June upon our request,” Spear told Newsweek. “… We also believe a surge in enforcement of key regulations — including motor carrier compliance — is necessary to prevent bad actors from operating on our nation’s highways, and we’ll continue to partner with federal and state authorities to identify where those gaps in enforcement exist.”
Industry reporters claims many employed in the trucking industry supported Trump for president.
As part of his crackdown on immigration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Duffy to tighten regulations on English proficiency for commercial drivers in April, despite English language requirements already being included in federal regulations.
In February, trucking industry newsletter Matrack reported The U.S. trucking industry faces a severe driver shortage, “with a projected shortfall of 160,000 by 2030, disrupting supply chains and increasing costs.” It added that the aging workforce and CDL licensing challenges, combined with low pay, health concerns and high turnover, plague the industry.
“Long-haul trucking has a turnover rate of over 90 percent in large companies, reported Matrack. “This means that almost every driver in the industry will leave their job within a year. Long hours, stressful working conditions, and time away from home make the job unattractive.”
Labor Department data said that the number of foreign-born truckers in the U.S. comprise around 18 percent of the total workforce, said Newsweek.
Read the Newsweek report at this link.
Experts on U.S.-Mexico relations have told Newsweek that reported plans by the Trump administration for potential military operations against cartels in Mexico would be condemned as an act of aggression that could have disastrous unintended consequences — while also “fundamentally misdiagnosing” how the groups operate.
The reported plans, first revealed by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, are set to be ready for mid-September, and would involve action on Mexican soil at the direction of President Donald Trump.
“Absent Mexican consent, any military action in Mexico will be condemned, I believe justifiably, as an act of aggression in violation of the most basic provision of the UN Charter and customary international law,” Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech School of Law, told Newsweek.
“The U.S. will undoubtedly assert it is acting pursuant to the inherent right of self-defense. But that right is only applicable in response to an actual or imminent armed attack, not on activities of a non-state group that cause harm to the nation, which I believe is the case.”
The increased enforcement action would come after the Trump administration classified select cartels and transnational criminal gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in February. The president has long argued that the U.S. needed to be firmer in how it dealt with the groups, widely seen as the driving force feeding the cross-border drug trade.
Sending a Message
When Newsweek asked the Department of Defense about the report, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon‘s spokesperson, reaffirmed the president’s FTO designation and the belief that the groups are a “direct threat” to national security.
“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,” Parnell said.
Klippenstein’s report is not the first to detail potential military action, however, with the U.S. moving personnel into the seas around Mexico and Latin America in recent weeks.
“On the practical level, we have to clarify what ‘military action’ means. One could think of drone strikes on infrastructure, but fentanyl production and trafficking in Mexico is highly fragmented—small networks, labs inside houses in cities like Culiacán. Drone strikes there would be complicated and dangerous,” David Mora, senior analyst for Mexico at International Crisis Group, told Newsweek Thursday.
“If it were instead a deployment of U.S. troops to capture or eliminate a criminal leader, Trump might sell it as a victory. It would sound good and grab headlines, but it would be an empty victory. History shows that this strategy does not solve drug trafficking or organized crime.
“On the contrary, it increases violence. Even the Department of Justice and the DEA have admitted this.”
Military Action Could Backfire on the Border
When the FTO designation was first signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, policy experts raised concerns about the unintended consequences the move could have, particularly around immigration.
While Trump has all but shut down the southern border with Mexico, one critic said branding cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to stronger claims for asylum – a concern echoed by Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, the head of the North American Observatory at Global Initiative Against Transational Organized Crime.
“It is mutually exclusive from the border and migration objectives the administration has. Evidence shows that violence drives internal displacement,” Farfán-Méndez told Newsweek. “U.S. military action in Mexico, and potential responses by criminal groups in Mexico, could generate displacement of communities.
“As with other episodes of violence and displacement, it is not unthinkable these communities migrate to the border and seek asylum in the US. This prevents the orderly migration process the Trump administration has sought.”
All three experts Newsweek spoke with raised concerns about the viability and constitutionality of making such moves, when cartels have not necessarily carried out a coordinated attack on the U.S. that could be defined as military action that would require like-for-like retaliation.
Farfán-Méndez said she believed there was a misdiagnosis on the part of the White House regarding how criminal gangs operate, explaining that the drug trade was not “three men hiding in the Sierra Madre that you can target and eliminate”, and that there were actors working in concert on both sides of the border.
U.S. Sentencing Commission data for 2024 backed that up, showing 83.5 percent of those sentenced for fentanyl trafficking within the U.S. were American citizens, rather than foreign nationals.
Sheinbaum Could Be Political Victim
The experts also questioned how operations could affect the relationship between the U.S. and its southern neighbor, where President Claudia Sheinbaum has been clear publicly in her efforts to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs across the border while managing her relationship with Washington over other issues like trade.
“Mexico has always had less leverage,” Mora said. “If during Sheinbaum’s government there were any kind of unilateral U.S. action, it would be extremely politically sensitive. In Mexico, any unilateral action is equal to invasion.
“Imagine the slogan: being the president under whom the United States invaded Mexico again. Politically, it would be almost the end for her.”
For the Trump administration, which came into office in January promising strong border security and the end of fentanyl trafficking into the U.S., the likelihood of stronger actions on cartels appears clear, if the methods and strategy are less so.
Parnell told Newsweek that taking action against cartels, at the president’s directive, required a “whole-of-government effort and thorough coordination with regional partners” to eliminate the abilities of cartels to “threaten the territory, safety, and security” of the U.S.
Corn said any use of military force against the cartels would ultimately do more harm than good.
“I think this also is consistent with a trend we are seeing: when you think your best tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail,” the lawyer said. “This administration seems determined to expand the use of military power for all sorts of what it designates as ’emergencies.’ But this is fundamentally not a problem amenable to military attack.”
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-plans-military-action-mexico-cartels-2117318
Donald Trump displayed a breathtaking lack of understanding about the Cold War during his recent summit with Vladimir Putin — and left his own advisors “basically helpless” as he waved away their attempts to interject.
That’s according to the president’s biographer, who spoke to the Daily Beast on Wednesday.
On the podcast “Inside Trump’s Head,” Michael Wolff said that Trump’s version of Cold War history was so mangled that “it would appear that the U.S. and USSR are on the same side.”
Friday’s chaotic meeting in Alaska began with Trump launching into what Wolff described as “a combination of flattery” mixed with “things that he’s just pulled out of somewhere…observations, it’s both inconsequential and incoherent.”
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff attempted to redirect the conversation with an actual agenda, Trump simply “talked over them,” leaving the meeting rudderless after 20 minutes with “nothing clear about what anyone is doing there except that Putin is totally impassive.”
Putin eventually delivered what Wolff characterized as a “history lesson,” explaining “why [Russia] should conquer Ukraine.” Not to be outdone, Trump launched into his own historical dissertation on the Cold War that bore little resemblance to reality, Wolff said.
He said that Trump’s version of the long-running international crisis with the Soviets “didn’t seem much like a war at all.”
Trump aides’ attempts to stop him proved futile. “They sit there occasionally trying to interject, but you can’t really interject because Trump just talks all the time,” Wolff said.
He added that this worked “to Putin’s advantage” since Trump showed no interest in crucial details about territory or trade-offs.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung dismissed Wolff with the comment he usually gives the Beast, calling Wolff “a lying sack of s–t” with “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
A new report has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a federal court filing in 2016 that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status when he was a Republican senator running for president, a position that now stands in sharp contrast to the executive order issued by Trump in January which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.
Rubio’s 2016 filing responded to a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth, he was not a “natural born citizen.”
As The New York Times points out, the court dismissed the case, but Rubio’s arguments went further than necessary, affirming that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that “all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.”
Rubio went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that “persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.”
Trump’s executive order, by contrast, states that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens if their mothers were either unlawfully present or only in the country on a temporary basis and if their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has been blocked in lower courts, but the administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.
Peter J. Spiro, a citizenship law expert at Temple University, told the NYT that Rubio’s earlier arguments remain significant and that “there’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order.” Rubio, now secretary of state, oversees the implementation of immigration and passport laws.
Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, dismissed the focus on Rubio’s past filing, saying he is “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda,” and claiming that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories.”
Rubio has faced backlash for his contrasting stances on issues affecting immigrants in the past few months, especially Latinos. A group called Keep Them Honest erected signs in May accusing him of betraying Venezuelans after supporting the administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. Rubio, once a leading Republican advocate for TPS, has recently called the designation harmful to U.S. interests and linked it to security threats.
During Donald Trump’s first term, his top advisers attempted to run a traditional process for shaping foreign policy, tapping experts from the White House’s National Security Council, debating recommendations from across the government, and steering the president away from decisions that they feared would damage America’s interests. But Trump was deeply mistrustful of the NSC, which he saw as too big, too cumbersome, and too attached to Republican orthodoxy.
Back in office, Trump has pushed away the help of career experts, and major decisions—the handling of the war in Gaza, for example, and negotiations over Ukraine—are now made by a tiny core group of loyal advisers, including Vice President J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie WiIes, and one or two others. The president “is now fully the quarterback, and he doesn’t want too many guys in the huddle,” a former official, who remains in close contact with the White House, told us. “And those that are there need to run the play he calls, no questions asked.”
Donald Trump’s administration stopped all visitor visas from Gaza — including those for humanitarian and medical aid — on Saturday after far-right provocateur and Trump friend Laura Loomer posted about several Palestinian children being allowed into the U.S. for medical care amid Israel’s relentless siege and blockade.
The State Department said it will “conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days,” in a post on X.
“It’s amazing how fast we can get results from the Trump administration,” Loomer wrote on X, adding an applause emoji.”
Loomer posted a video Friday showing children from Gaza arriving in San Francisco for treatment, greeted by a cheering crowd. Loomer called the video an “exclusive,” posting it to X with her watermark on it, despite it being posted on Aug. 6 by the nonprofit HEAL Palestine, which provides medical care to Palestinians.
“How did Palestinians get Visas under the Trump administration to get into the United States? Did @StateDept approve this? How did they get out of Gaza? Is @SecRubio aware of this?” she asked Friday.
The caption of the Aug. 6 video reads, “Leyan, Ghazal, and their siblings will [begin] medical treatment and school as soon as possible under the care of HEAL.”
Loomer messages Rolling Stone on Saturday afternoon: “The MAGA base didn’t vote for more Islamic immigration into the United States. I applaud Secretary of State Marco Rubio for halting the Visas of Gazans from a HAMAS hot zone and look forward to seeing the State Department’s review of the rogue State Department employees who signed off on visas for Gazans who have shown a disrespect for American life as Hamas continues to hold hostages.”
According to NBC Bay Area, Leyan is a 14-year-old who was burned and injured by shrapnel in an explosion at her school. Ghazal, 6, was also hurt in an explosion. Another child who arrived, 8-year-old Anas, was hurt in an explosion that killed his entire family. There were 11 children in total evacuated, the largest medical evacuation of injured children from Gaza to the U.S.
“The logistics of getting them out is also a nightmare,” Talha Baquar of HEAL Palestine told NBC Bay Area. “The Israeli government has to approve of their release. One of the children who’s coming today, he’s been on a waitlist to get out. He’s had his medical visa since November of last year.”
“These children could not wait,” Dr. Zeena Salman, pediatric oncologist and co-founder of HEAL Palestine, said in a statement. “Their lives are at stake, and this mission is about giving them a future.”
After the children receive medical care, they will go to Egypt, where HEAL will continue to support them, the organization said. HEAL has evacuated 63 injured children and 148 people total as of August 4, according to its website.
Andrew Miller, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs, posted on X that the State Department’s move reflected “prejudice.”
“I dealt with such cases during the Biden admin. No one leaves Gaza w/o Israel’s approval & everyone’s vetted through U.S. databases. Any security risk is negligible. This is rank ethnic/religious prejudice. Denying sick people critical medical care is cowardly & depraved.”
Loomer declared victory after the State Department announced it would stop visas from Gaza.
“This is fantastic news,” she posted on X. “Hopefully all GAZANS will be added to President Trump’s travel ban. There are doctors in other countries. The U.S. is not the world’s hospital!”
“Thank you for bringing attention to this matter, @LauraLoomer,” Jan. 6 rally organizer Caroline Wren wrote on X.
Islamophobic Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) applauded Loomer for posting the video. “Massive credit needs to be given to @LauraLoomer for uncovering this and making me and other officials aware. Well done, Laura,” he posted on X.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement that the State Department’s move seemed “intentionally cruel.”
“Blocking Palestinian children injured by American weapons from coming to America for medical treatment is the latest sign that the intentional cruelty of President Trump’s ‘Israel First’ administration knows no bounds,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
Israel has led a brutal onslaught and near-total blockade in Gaza since October 7, 2023, following the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in Israel. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, Gaza’s Health Ministry said at the end of July. More than 50,000 children in Gaza have been killed or injured during this period, according to UNICEF, and more than one child has been killed per hour, according to The Washington Post. In April, an Israeli airstrike destroyed part of the last fully functional hospital in Gaza. Israel has tightly restricted food and humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza, creating widespread famine throughout the strip.
Trump previously called Loomer a “free spirit” when the two traveled together last September, and she continues to privately advise him and others in the administration.
After Trump won in November, various Gazan families and immigration attorneys — who were already largely sickened by the Biden administration’s actions during this conflict — were in panic mode, fearing the worst for how any slivers of relief and options they were offered under the Democratic presidency would evaporate under a second Trump government.
Those fears are being realized, and then some.
“I’ve visited with some of the children in Houston, [Texas], who have been brought here from Gaza for medical treatment,” human rights lawyer Maria Kari told Rolling Stone in January. “I’m a mother and I don’t know how many diapers you’ve changed. But until this war, I had never seen someone have to change a diaper on a baby — who was just under two years old — who had third-degree burns on the diaper-change area. The sound the baby makes is horrifying. It’s seared into your brain. It haunts you forever. I’ve sat and ate with a girl who had to hold her jaw while we ate because there’s a hole in her jaw and food was falling out while she ate. I’ve sat and painted ceramic dinosaurs with these children — the same things I do with my children — and they’re so beautiful, they’re so cute and resilient. One of them had just buried her baby sister just before she got on a plane to come here.”
This is whom Republicans and their allies are working hard to shun, banish, and deny relief.
The State Department is proposing a rule requiring some business and tourist visa applicants to post a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States, a step critics say could put the process out of reach for many.
According to a notice set for publication on Tuesday in the Federal Register, the department plans a 12‑month pilot program targeting applicants from countries with high visa overstay rates and weak internal document security.
Under the plan, applicants could be required to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 when applying for a visa.
Why It Matters
This move marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and revisits a controversial measure briefly introduced during Trump’s first term.
A previous version of the policy was issued in November 2020, but was never fully enacted due to the collapse in global travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. That version targeted about two dozen countries, most of them in Africa, with overstay rates exceeding 10 percent.
What To Know
The new visa bond program will take effect on August 20, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek and a notice previewed Monday on the Federal Register website. The Department of Homeland Security says the goal is to ensure the U.S. government doesn’t incur costs when a visitor violates visa terms.
“Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,” it said.
Under the plan, U.S. consular officers can require a bond from visa applicants who meet certain criteria. This includes nationals of countries with high visa overstay rates, countries with deficient screening and vetting, and those that offer citizenship-by-investment programs, particularly where citizenship is granted without a residency requirement.
Visitors subject to the bond will receive it back upon leaving the U.S., naturalizing as a citizen, or in the event of death. If a traveler overstays, however, the bond may be forfeited and used to help cover the costs associated with their removal.
Citizens of countries in the Visa Waiver Program are exempt, and consular officers will retain the discretion to waive the bond on a case-by-case basis.
What Countries Could End Up Being Affected
The U.S. government has not provided an estimate of how many applicants may be affected. However, 2023 data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows that countries with particularly high visa overstay rates include Angola, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Cabo Verde, Burkina Faso, and Afghanistan.
The list of affected countries will be published at least 15 days before the program begins and may be updated with similar notice. In the 2020 version of the pilot, countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen were included.
What People Are Saying
The public notice stated: “The Pilot Program will help the Department assess the continued reliance on the untested historical assumption that imposing visa bonds to achieve the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States remains too cumbersome to be practical.”
Andrew Kreighbaum, a journalist covering immigration, posted on X: “It’s getting more expensive for many business and tourist travelers to enter the U.S. On top of new visa integrity fees, the State Department is imposing visa bonds as high as $15,000.”
What Happens Next
Visa bonds have been proposed in the past but have not been implemented. The State Department has traditionally discouraged the requirement because of the cumbersome process of posting and discharging a bond and because of possible misperceptions by the public.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-visas-tourist-business-major-change-2108642
Walmart, Apple , and Amazon, the most successful companies in the U.S., base their corporate strategies on data: consumer behavior data, market research, financial, product, and competitive analysis data.
Any CEO who deliberately relied on falsified data, or who demanded cooked books, would be fired immediately — and likely sued by the Board of Directors.
Any CEO of any company who tried to manipulate the appearance of short-term success for his own personal gain, at the expense of long-term viability for the company, would also be fired and likely sued for malfeasance, and worse.
A successful CEO knows that falsifying economic or financial data can lead to charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and other financial crimes, because false data can ruin investors, corporations, and markets overnight.
Enter Donald Trump, whose self-proclaimed governing philosophy is “running the country like it’s a business.” Debunking the lie of his own manufactured image as a “successful businessman,” last Friday Trump angrily fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner because he didn’t like her data — even as he wears 34 felony convictions for falsifying records.
Dr. Erika McEntarfer, a widely respected statistician, enjoyed bipartisan support, including confirmation votes from Marco Rubio and JD Vance. Appointed commissioner under the Biden administration, she holds a Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech, and served at the Census Bureau for two decades under both parties prior to her BLS appointment.
By federal law, McEntarfer’s appointment ends in 2028. Trump fired her anyway because he was embarrassed by jobs data that didn’t match his own hype.
In May, the White House said that April’s jobs report “proved” that Trump was “revitalizing” the economy. In June, Trump posted, “GREAT JOBS NUMBERS.” After the Labor Department released revised jobs figures for those months — a common practice because jobs reports are sample projections that get adjusted when actual employer data come in — Trump fired the messenger.
Trump’s penchant for hiding and falsifying data has put American corporations and the economy in more danger. Just as he scrubbed government websites of climate data to bolster his fossil fuel donors, just as he ordered the Smithsonian to remove an exhibit accurately reflecting his own impeachments, Trump thinks reality is whatever he says it is.
As he fantasizes about returning America to the Gilded Age, where robber barons extracted the earth’s resources for unimaginable profit while laborers worked for starvation wages, he’s forgetting that his oligarch donors need accurate economic data too. At least oligarchs creating real products and delivering real services—as opposed to merely speculating in Trump’s image—need real, reliable, and uncooked data.
McEntarfer should sue
When Trump fired McEntarfer in a social media post, he declared that her numbers were “phony.” He wrote on Friday, “In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” adding: “But, the good news is, our Country is doing GREAT!”
He said the numbers had been manipulated for political purposes, and announced he fired McEntarfer as a result.
Trump also baselessly accused McEntarfer of manipulating jobs numbers before the November election to advantage Kamala Harris. Trump said to reporters, “I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election, and there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.”
When asked what his source was, he said, “my opinion,” confirming that there was no evidence to back up his reckless claims, claims that permanently tanked the reputation of a celebrated career professional.
Presidents not immune from civil prosecution
No doubt Trump slurred McEntarfer based on his own “opinion” to avoid defamation liability, but an opinion that implies a false fact is still defamatory, it is still actionable, and presidents are not immune from civil lawsuits for defamation.
The four legal elements of defamation are easily found here: false statement; publication; negligence in repeating the falsehood; and reputational harm.
More, a president has immunity from civil lawsuits only for actions taken in furtherance of his core constitutional powers. One of the main “core constitutional powers” of a president is ensuring the faithful execution of laws, such that acting to impede the execution of federal law would fall outside core official responsibilities. (As an aside, even under the disastrous Trump v. US criminal immunity ruling, Trump’s J6 conduct would likely have fallen outside his core function, had it proceeded to trial.)
Trump knowingly and intentionally lied about the BLS commissioner in a manner that directly conflicts with the Department of Labor’s statutory mission; as such, it was not a “core Constitutional function.” Announcing that previous labor reports were “falsified” causes immediate reputational harm to the Commissioner, the Department of Labor, and the US economy overall. It directly impedes the accurate compilation of labor data, a charge mandated by the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act.
By implicitly directing that all future US data should be falsified to suit his own political narrative, Trump’s statements not only harm America’s economy, but they hinder rather than aid the faithful execution of laws.
As McEntarfer’s predecessor puts it, McEntarfer’s “totally groundless firing” sets a dangerous precedent and “undermines the statistical mission of the bureau.”
“We need accurate Jobs Numbers,” Trump told reporters, suggesting McEntarfer’s jobs numbers weren’t.
“She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,” he added, suggesting McEntarfer was neither.
Missing the risible irony as he seeks manipulated jobs data for his own political purposes, Trump added, “Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.”
https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-lie-debunked
