Metro: Donald Trump’s warrior image ‘is hiding his war draft dodging past’

Donald Trump’s ‘warrior ethos’ masks his repeated avoidance of military service during the Vietnam War, commentators have suggested.

The US President ‘s record has come under scrutiny after he renamed the Department of Defense as the Department of War to expel ‘wokism’.

He previously claimed the old name was ‘too defensive’ while the new title, last used in 1947, reverted to a time when ‘we won everything’ in wars.   

The move drew criticism from Navy veteran and retired NASA astronaut Captain Mark Kelly, who said: ‘Only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.’ 

The historical evidence appears to back up Capt Kelly’s claim that the commander in chief avoided the draft in the 1960s.  

Documents held in US archives show that he received student deferments while in college, followed by a medical exemption after graduating. 

Trump, now 79, was assessed eight times for military service but was never enlisted, and was disqualified as a result of an armed forces physical examination, one of the records shows.

Although the exact reason is not stated, Trump has previously said that a bone spur — either on one or both of his heels — was the reason.  

Another document only deepens the question marks over why he was not called up — referring to birth marks on both of his heels.  

Professor David Dunn, chair in international politics at the University of Birmingham, said: ‘Trump refuses to release his medical records and he’s never had an operation to remove the bone spur, which suggests that it’s spurious.  

‘His former lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that Trump told him, “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.” 

‘The other aspect of this is the contempt Trump has shown to the military, such as his comment about the former Navy pilot John McCain, who was held in a prisoner of war camp, when he said, “I like people who weren’t captured.” 

‘There’s a long history of Trump having a fraught relationship with the military and we can see within this his contempt of the notion of military service.’ 

Then US President Harry Truman established the agency’s name as the Department of Defense in 1949.

Although the current stamp is set out in law, the executive order introduces a ‘secondary title’, according to a White House document.  

The Trump administration wants a ‘warrior ethos’ at the Pentagon and is ‘not interested in woke garbage or political correctness’, according to the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, whose title has accordingly changed from Secretary of Defense. 

US Presidents who avoided the draft?

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and George W. Bush all avoided service in Vietnam. Clinton received educational draft deferments while he was studying in England and W. Bush got a coveted spot in the 147th Texas Air National Guard as a pilot and was not eligible for the draft. Biden received student draft deferments and a ‘1-Y’, meaning he could only be drafted in a national emergency.

Dr Laura Smith, a specialist in American presidential history at the University of Oxford, told Metro: ‘While being labeled a “draft dodger” was once seen as political dynamite, the ability of politicians to become commander in chief regardless of their service seems to have become a trend, one that is likely to continue considering the unpopularity of America’s foreign interventions.

‘Trump justified his recent decision to return to the War label as somehow a return to glory days. However, the Defense Department has existed since the end of WWII – the entirety of the period of America’s existence as the global superpower.

‘The War Department existed from George Washington’s cabinet and oversaw the long period up until the end of the 19th Century, when America did not have the power to engage or effectively challenge Old World powers on the global stage as Britain still ruled the waves.

‘It seems that once again, this executive decision is made upon a rhetorical concept of history, rather than the facts.’

In addition to the rebranding — a costly endeavour involving changing signs and websites worldwide — Trump has promised to bring one-on-one combat to the White House next year in the shape of a UFC event.

For Dunn, there is a disconnect between the warrior image and reality contained in the service record documents. 

‘We have to ask what Trump’s service record tells us about modern politics or modern America more broadly,’ he said.

‘It tells us that someone shown to have dodged the draft can be elected president, that it’s no block to service.

‘It’s about performativity; it seems Americans prefer candidates, or presidents, who are performative rather than substantive.

Then US President Harry Truman established the agency’s name as the Department of Defense in 1949.

Although the current stamp is set out in law, the executive order introduces a ‘secondary title’, according to a White House document.  

The Trump administration wants a ‘warrior ethos’ at the Pentagon and is ‘not interested in woke garbage or political correctness’, according to the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, whose title has accordingly changed from Secretary of Defense. 

In addition to the rebranding — a costly endeavour involving changing signs and websites worldwide — Trump has promised to bring one-on-one combat to the White House next year in the shape of a UFC event.

For Dunn, there is a disconnect between the warrior image and reality contained in the service record documents. 

‘We have to ask what Trump’s service record tells us about modern politics or modern America more broadly,’ he said.

‘It tells us that someone shown to have dodged the draft can be elected president, that it’s no block to service.

‘It’s about performativity; it seems Americans prefer candidates, or presidents, who are performative rather than substantive.

‘What we have now with the Department of War is in marked contrast to the fact that Trump is appeasing Vladimir Putin, who is the enemy of human rights, international law and is wanted for war crimes. 

‘It’s sacrificed for the performativity of Trump cos-playing Ronald Reagan and pretending to be this grand statesman on the world stage.’  

Trump had five deferments: four times as a student and once for medical reasons, assumed to be because of one or more bone spurs. 

In 2018, the daughters of New York foot doctor Dr Larry Braunstein said that he had diagnosed the future president with the condition to help him avoid the draft as a ‘favour’ to his property mogul father, Fred Trump. 

The podiatrist is said to have made the diagnosis in the 1960s while he was working out of an office owned by the Trump family.

Trump Jnr, who graduated from New York Military Academy, would say many years later that a doctor provided a ‘very strong letter’ about the condition, but that he could not recall the person’s name.

Bone spurs are bony lumps that grow around joints and can affect movement or put pressure on nerves.

As far as high school went, they did not seem to have stopped Trump playing sports including baseball, football and soccer.

He also studied at Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, with the medical disqualification covering him after he graduated.  

Seasoned White House watcher Mike Tappin was in the US in 1968 during the nation’s bloodiest year in Vietnam, when it lost almost 17,000 personnel.  

Trump’s record at the time shows he was only classified as being available for service for four months before being marked 1-Y — which is only given to men deemed to qualify for national service ‘in times of national emergency.’  

In 1972, he was finally marked 4-F, which means not qualified, an amendment that may have been caused by the abolition of the 1-Y category. 

‘Trump graduated in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its height, so he should have been eligible for military service as were other men of his age,’ Tappin said.  

‘But of course, the history of American politics shows rich people got out of it. Another famous example of a president who avoided the draft is Bill Clinton. 

‘Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Congressional Medal of Honor holder who was seriously injured in Iraq, publicly called Trump “cadet bone spurs” and a draft dodger.

‘So one could make an argument that Michael Cohen’s words in the Senate were true; Trump did not want to go to Vietnam.’ 

Tappin, honorary fellow at Keele University and co-author of American Politics Today, is among the commentators who believe that Trump’s avoidance of the draft was down to his multi-millionaire father.

‘One can draw the conclusion that his father Fred bought him the deferment,’ he said. 

Tappin also defended Truman’s original emphasis on defence, not war.

‘Trump has said that the Defense Department “went woke”,’ he said.  

‘Truman was anything but woke.

‘He served in the military in the First World War, he was a major, and he was a solid American president. He would be turning in his grave if he knew what Trump has said about his decision.’  

Trump has said in an interview that he had ‘spurs’ in the back of his feet, which at the time ‘prevented me from walking long distances.’  

He has also said that he had a ‘very, very high draft number’ in 1969 which the military draft lottery did not get near to, apparently as it worked in ascending order through a list of eligible men.

In 2019, Trump told Piers Morgan he was ‘never a fan’ of the Vietnam War but would have been happy and honoured to have served. 

US Presidents who avoided the draft?

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and George W. Bush all avoided service in Vietnam. Clinton received educational draft deferments while he was studying in England and W. Bush got a coveted spot in the 147th Texas Air National Guard as a pilot and was not eligible for the draft. Biden received student draft deferments and a ‘1-Y’, meaning he could only be drafted in a national emergency.

Dr Laura Smith, a specialist in American presidential history at the University of Oxford, told Metro: ‘While being labeled a “draft dodger” was once seen as political dynamite, the ability of politicians to become commander in chief regardless of their service seems to have become a trend, one that is likely to continue considering the unpopularity of America’s foreign interventions.

‘Trump justified his recent decision to return to the War label as somehow a return to glory days. However, the Defense Department has existed since the end of WWII – the entirety of the period of America’s existence as the global superpower.

‘The War Department existed from George Washington’s cabinet and oversaw the long period up until the end of the 19th Century, when America did not have the power to engage or effectively challenge Old World powers on the global stage as Britain still ruled the waves.

‘It seems that once again, this executive decision is made upon a rhetorical concept of history, rather than the facts.’

CNN: Trump claims he can do anything he wants with the military. Here’s what the law says

Having rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, the president is going on offense with the US military.

Donald Trump has foisted National Guard troops on Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. Other cities are on edge, particularly after he posted an apparently artificially generated image of himself dressed up like Robert Duvall’s surfing cavalry commander in “Apocalypse Now,” a meme that seemed to suggest he was threatening war on the city of Chicago.

Trump later clarified that the US would not go to war on Chicago, but he’s clearly comfortable joking about it. And he’s of the opinion his authority over the military is absolute.

“Not that I don’t have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States,” he said at a Cabinet meeting in August, when he was asked about the prospect of Chicagoans engaging in nonviolent resistance against the US military.

He’s reorienting the US military to focus on drug traffickers as terrorists and told Congress to expect more military strikes after the US destroyed a boat in the Caribbean last week.

All of this projects the kind of strongman decisiveness Trump admires.

A lot of it might also be illegal.

A ‘violation of the Posse Comitatus Act’

US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled this month that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed a “a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act” when they deployed federalized troops to Los Angeles over the objections of the state’s governor and mayor.

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed by Congress in 1878 as Southern states worked to oust federal troops and end Reconstruction. Questions over how and whether troops can be used to enforce laws goes back to the pre-Civil War period, when federal marshals sought help from citizens and militiamen in recovering fugitive slaves and putting down the protests of abolitionists, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It is not clear why Trump has not yet, as he has promised, called up the National Guard to patrol in Chicago, but he may be waiting for the Supreme Court, which has been extremely deferential to his claims of authority, to weigh in on a preliminary basis.

Trump has more authority to deploy the military inside Washington, DC, which the Constitution says Congress controls. But Congress has ceded some authority to locally elected officials in recent decades. DC’s Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued the Trump administration over the deployment.

Testing the War Powers Act

Trump’s strike on a boat in the Caribbean is also on murky legal ground.

After Vietnam, Congress overrode Richard Nixon’s veto to pass another law, the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military strike. And Trump did do that, at least his third such notification since taking office in January. Trump also sent notifications to Congress about his strike against an Iranian nuclear facility and Houthi rebels who were attacking shipping routes.

The Reiss Center at New York University maintains a database of War Powers Act notifications going back to the 1970s.

Cartels as terrorist organizations

In the notification about the Caribbean strike, Trump’s administration argued that it has declared drug cartels are terrorist organizations and that he operated within his constitutional authority to protect the country when he ordered the strike.

Strikes against terrorists have been authorized under the catchall vote that authorized the use of military force against Islamic terrorists after the 9/11 terror attacks.

But Congress, which the Constitution puts in charge of declaring war, has not authorized the use of military force against Venezuelan drug cartels.

Lack of explanation from the White House

Over the weekend, CNN’s Katie Bo Lillis, Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen reported that the Pentagon abruptly canceled classified briefings to key House and Senate committees with oversight of the military, which means lawmaker have been unable to get the legal justification for the strike.

Many Americans might celebrate the idea of a military strike to take out drug dealers, and the administration is clearly primed to lean on the idea that the cartels are terrorists.

Here’s a key quote from CNN’s report:

“The strike was the obvious result of designating them a terrorist organization,” said one person familiar with the Pentagon’s thinking. “If there was a boat full of al Qaeda fighters smuggling explosives towards the US, would anyone even ask this question?”

Few details

It’s not yet clear which military unit was responsible for the strike, what intelligence suggested there were drugs onboard, who was on the boat or what the boat was carrying.

“The attack on the smuggling vessel in the Caribbean was so extraordinary because there was no reported attempt to stop the boat or detain its crew,” wrote Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal advisor now at International Crisis Group for the website Just Security. “Instead, the use of lethal force was used in the first resort.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US could have interdicted the boat and made a legal case against those onboard, but it decided instead to blow up the boat. The notice to Congress makes clear the administration will continue with other strikes.

War crime? Vance doesn’t ‘give a sh*t’

“The decision to blow up the boat and kill everyone onboard when interdiction and detention was a clearly available option is manifestly illegal and immoral,” Oona Hathaway, a law professor and director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School, told me in an email.

The view of the administration could be best summarized by Vice President JD Vance stating that using the military to go after cartels is “the highest and best use of our military.”

When a user on X replied that the extrajudicial killing of civilians without presenting evidence is, by definition, a war crime, Vance, himself a Yale-educated lawyer, said this:

“I don’t give a sh*t what you call it.”

That’s not an acceptable response even for some Republicans.

“Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” wrote Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in his own post on X. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Congress has power it likely won’t use

Congress has the power to stop Trump’s campaign against boats in the Caribbean. The War Powers Act allows lawmakers in the House and Senate to demand the president seek approval before continuing a campaign longer than 60 days. But that seems unlikely to occur at the moment.

After the strike against Iran earlier this year, Paul was the only Republican senator to side with Democrats and demand Trump seek approval for any future Iran strikes.

During his first term, seven Republicans voted with Senate Democrats to hem in Trump’s ability to strike against Iran after he ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. But there were not enough votes to overcome Trump’s veto that year.

Trump’s authority to use military force without congressional approval of the Caribbean operation technically expires after 60 days after he reports on the use of force, although he can extend it by an additional 30 days, although he could also declare a new operation is underway.

The use of these kinds of tactics has likely been in the works for some time.

In February, Trump designated drug cartels, including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as foreign terror organizations. In April, CNN reported the CIA was reviewing whether it had authority to use lethal force against drug cartels.

But the military strike against the alleged cartel boat happened as part of a broader campaign against Venezuela, including positioning US ships, aircraft and a submarine in the Caribbean, according to a CNN report.

Trump may have campaigned as a president who would end wars, but he’s governing like a president who is very comfortable using his military.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/venezuela-trump-military-strike-war-powers-explainer

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

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

Black Enterprise: Black Beauty Salons Hit Hard By Trump Tariffs: ‘We’re Impacted At Every Level’

Trump’s tariffs are taking a heavy toll on Black-owned beauty salons that rely on Chinese-made hair products.

Diann Valentine, 55, founder of Slayyy Hair, first felt the impact of tariffs when a 145% levy on Chinese imports hit, resulting in a $300,000 bill to clear 26,000 units of braiding hair at the Los Angeles port in May. Since then, she has raised the prices of her braiding hair and drawstring ponytail extensions by 20%. Valentine was also forced to lay off four employees and now works 16-hour days to keep her two Glow+Flow beauty supply stores in Inglewood and Hawthorne, California, running smoothly.

“To lose that kind of money at this stage has been devastating,” Valentine said.

“We’re being impacted at every level,” said Dajiah Blackshear-Calloway, 34, a salon owner based in Smyrna, Georgia. “I’m either having to eat that cost or pass that expense along to my clients, which affects their budgets and their pockets as well.”

Blackshear-Calloway’s salon, staffed by two stylists, offers a range of services from $50 natural hairstyles to $745 tape-in weave extensions. Her most popular services include $254 sew-in weaves and $125 quick weaves, where extensions are glued onto a stocking cap.

However, tariffs have driven up the cost of a package of hair imported from Vietnam from $190 in May to $290, while a bottle of hair glue from China jumped from $8 to $14.99 at her local supply store. To avoid passing these costs on to clients, Blackshear-Calloway now asks them to bring their own hair, making a quick weave $140 without hair, compared to $400 with hair provided.

Diann Valentine, 55, founder of Slayyy Hair, first felt the impact of tariffs when a 145% levy on Chinese imports hit, resulting in a $300,000 bill to clear 26,000 units of braiding hair at the Los Angeles port in May. Since then, she has raised the prices of her braiding hair and drawstring ponytail extensions by 20%. Valentine was also forced to lay off four employees and now works 16-hour days to keep her two Glow+Flow beauty supply stores in Inglewood and Hawthorne, California, running smoothly.

“To lose that kind of money at this stage has been devastating,” Valentine said.

Tariffs are hitting Black business owners particularly hard, including many salon owners. Andre Perry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, notes that the wealth gap leaves Black entrepreneurs, especially those in low-margin industries like consumer goods or haircare services, in financially vulnerable positions, with tariffs further eroding their profits.

“Many Black entrepreneurs started off with less wealth,” Perry said.

Black businesses have endured for generations through innovation and resilience, and it will take that same spirit to navigate the challenges Americans now face due to Trump’s tariffs. Industry experts have been offering tips for small business owners affected by the tariffs, including communicating openly with customers, reassessing supply chains, streamlining operations to address inefficiencies, consulting a financial advisor, and exploring business credit lines.

Alternet: ‘We have been seriously hit’: The Trump economy is coming for your coffee

The New York Times reports a coffee brewer in Maine has lost its fight against President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

“Our bean prices will be increasing within the next week,” posted Rock City Coffee chief executive Jessie Northgraves on Facebook.

Northgraves said her company had tried to keep prices stable, but they are now forced to raise prices on new, more expensive inventory coming in from offshore, courtesy of Trump’s additional tax on many imports. Trump vowed in July to impose a 50 percent tariff against Brazil, which directly goes to U.S. coffers, despite coffee brewers already having to pay more for beans due to droughts in Vietnam and Brazil.

Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently announced his giddiness at Trump’s tariffs generating $100 billion in new revenue, but it is U.S. businesses like Rock City Coffee that are paying that revenue. The Times reports small businesses in high competition markets, including coffee suppliers, have less cushion and are loathe to raise prices and discourage customers.

“I thought maybe it would be temporary,” said Northgraves. “We were kind of trying to ride it out the past few months, not change our prices and just kind of absorb it as much as we could.”

She told the Timers she had tried to ignore the president’s on-again/off-again tariff threats, but her profit margins kept slipping with the cost of beans doubling. Trump’s tariffs even hit the price of the company’s Chinese-sourced coffee bean packaging.

“We have been seriously hit by the tariffs in coffee-exporting countries, and must raise the prices of our beans,” she wrote in an accompanying Facebook post. “Please know that we wouldn’t do this if it wasn’t totally necessary.”

While compiling a script to explain the higher prices to customers, Northgraves took care to include the reason behind the hikes. She says linking them honestly to tariffs rather than “quietly” raising prices gives her customers a much deserved explanation.

“It just felt better to be upfront about it,” she told the Times.

50% increase in price of coffee beans plus higher tariffs on packaging sourced from China, all of which King Donald thinks will just somehow magically pay for itself!

https://www.alternet.org/trump-tariffs-coffee

Reuters: ICE may deport migrants to countries other than their own with just six hours notice, memo says

U.S. immigration officials may deport migrants to countries other than their home nations with as little as six hours’ notice, a top Trump administration official said in a memo, offering a preview of how deportations could ramp up.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will generally wait at least 24 hours to deport someone after informing them of their removal to a so-called “third country,” according to a memo dated Wednesday, July 9, from the agency’s acting director, Todd Lyons.

ICE could remove them, however, to a so-called “third country” with as little as six hours’ notice “in exigent circumstances,” said the memo, as long as the person has been provided the chance to speak with an attorney.

The memo states that migrants could be sent to nations that have pledged not to persecute or torture them “without the need for further procedures.”

The new ICE policy suggests President Donald Trump’s administration could move quickly to send migrants to countries around the world.

The Supreme Court in June lifted a lower court’s order limiting such deportations without a screening for fear of persecution in the destination country.

Following the high court’s ruling and a subsequent order from the justices, the Trump administration sent eight migrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam to South Sudan.

The administration last week pressed officials from five African nations – Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon – to accept deportees from elsewhere, Reuters reported.

The Washington Post first reported the new ICE memo.

The administration argues the third country deportations help swiftly remove migrants who should not be in the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

Advocates have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit against such rapid third-county deportations at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the policy “falls far short of providing the statutory and due process protections that the law requires.”

Third-country deportations have been done in the past, but the tool could be more frequently used as Trump tries to ramp up deportations to record levels.

During Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, his administration deported small numbers of people from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala.

Former President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration struck a deal with Mexico to take thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, since it was difficult to deport migrants to those nations.

The new ICE memo was filed as evidence in a lawsuit over the wrongful deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-may-deport-migrants-countries-other-than-their-own-with-just-six-hours-2025-07-13

From Los Angeles to Washington, Trump leans in as commander in chief

On one coast, military forces are arriving by the thousands to defend federal buildings and agents. On the other, they’re readying a celebration of American military might.

President Donald Trump loves displays of military force. He’s parading two very different kinds this week.

On one coast, military forces are arriving by the thousands to defend federal buildings and agents, facing off with civilians protesting the president’s immigration agenda. On the other, they’re readying a celebration of American military might in a parade held on the Army’s — and Trump’s — birthday.

Trump has wanted to hold a military parade in Washington since he accompanied French President Emmanuel Macron to a 2017 Bastille Day parade, where troops marched down the Champs-Élysées while fighter jets flew overhead, leaving trails of red, white, and blue smoke behind them. Trump later called it “one of the greatest parades I’ve ever seen,” but aides advised him against throwing a similar affair.

Trump seems to forget that Bastille Day largely marked the end of French royalty. King Donald, too, shall pass.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/11/trump-military-parade-protests-00398716

Alternet: ‘Can’t you just shoot them?’ Inside Trump’s threat to deal with ‘radical left thugs’ in America

“You just [expletive] shot the reporter!”

Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet.

Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same “non-lethal” ammunition.

The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States”. He then deployed the National Guard.

‘Can’t you just shoot them?’

As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US.

In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the killing of a Black man, Rodney King.

Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people.

During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He’s classified them as “un-American” and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression.

During last year’s election campaign, he promised to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”. Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump’s “political enemies” as “echoing Hitler, Mussolini”.

The Trump administration’s mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out.

In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of ten million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises.

https://www.alternet.org/national-guard-la-trump

Alternet: America ‘being ripped apart’: Vietnam vet removes U.S. flag in Trump protest

Vietnam marine Morgan Akin, 84, has taken down his American flag, and he’s outspoken about his opposition to the White House in his conservative California community.

“He’s just tearing the country apart. The whole fabric of the country is just being ripped apart,” Akin said of President Donald Trump. “The worst part is the people that are getting hurt – the migrants that came here in earnest.”

The Guardian reports Akin took down his flag after flying it for decades. He says this is an official stand against a nation that has become unrecognizable to him over the decades. He says it “won’t fly again until things get straightened out down the line and administrations change.”

https://www.alternet.org/donald-trump-veterans-2672248921