Slingshot News: ‘Not When I’m In Charge’: Donald Trump Makes A Fool Of Himself, Believes He Has China Cornered During Press Conference
Reply
Tag Archives: Washington
Raw Story: ‘He’s a nut’: Republicans turn on Trump attack dog who got ‘too big for his britches’
Republican lawmakers are reportedly fed up with housing official Bill Pulte and view him as “a nut,” Politico reports.
The Trump administration’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director is now at the center of President Donald Trump’s heated campaign against the Federal Reserve and has become “one of his most vociferous social media attack dogs” for the commander-in-chief.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confronted Pulte, threatening physical violence during an exclusive Georgetown event for Trump administration officials.
During the cocktail hour, Bessent launched into an aggressive confrontation with Pulte, claiming the housing official had been speaking negatively about him to Trump. Witnesses reported Bessent’s explosive verbal assault, with him demanding, “Why the f— are you talking to the president about me? F— you,” and declaring, “I’m gonna punch you in your f—ing face.”
Republicans are reportedly pleased that Bessent confronted Pulte.
Speaking anonymously to Politico due to the sensitive nature of the administration infighting, one lawmaker shared frustration over Pulte.
“I think he’s a nut,” one House Republican told Politico.
“The guy’s just a little too big for his britches,” said another GOP lawmaker and member of the House Financial Services Committee. “I’ve got great respect for Bessent for taking him on.”
Pulte initiated mortgage fraud allegations against Fed Governor Lisa Cook — Trump later moved to fire her. Like Trump, Pulte also attacks Fed Chair Jerome Powell, claiming his handling of monetary policy and the expensive renovations to the central bank’s Washington headquarters.
“Rank-and-file Hill Republicans” appear to back Bessent and see him as “a key stabilizing force on economic policy within the Trump administration.”
Many Republicans see Bessent as “the adult in the room.”
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA), chair of the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee, prefers Bessent’s approach.
“I’m always in line with where the president wants to go, and I believe [Pulte] is as well,” he said. “I know Secretary Bessent is, and that’s where my loyalties lie, with the president and with Secretary Bessent.”
“I would have done the same,” another Republican who spoke anonymously to Politico said.
Daily Beast: Trump Hit With Fresh Court Blow After Revenge Firing
The Federal Reserve governor’s job is safe for now.
Donald Trump was hit with a legal smackdown after trying to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.
Cook can stay in her job, a federal judge ruled in Washington, D.C., blocking Trump’s unprecedented attempt to boot her using allegations of mortgage fraud.
She will now be present at the Fed’s Sept. 16 meeting, but Cook’s trouble with Trump is not yet over.
“President Trump has not identified anything related to Cook’s conduct or job performance as a board member that would indicate that she is harming the board or the public interest by executing her duties unfaithfully or ineffectively,” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said after issuing a preliminary injunction.
The judge also ruled that removing Cook caused her “irreparable harm” and that the president had likely violated her procedural right to due process by posting his letter to her on social media.
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House and the Federal Reserve for comment.
Trump posted a public termination letter on his Truth Social account last month, addressed to Cook, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2022 as the first Black woman to serve as a Federal Reserve governor.
His post contained allegations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud, claims that predated her time on the board, and said she was being removed from her position “effective immediately.”
At the time, Cook released her own statement, claiming Trump had “no authority” to fire her. She added, “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”
Cook hired lawyer Abbe Lowell, who said in a statement last month that Trump’s “demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority” and they would take whatever actions were necessary to prevent “his attempted illegal action.”
Governors can only be removed by a president with a valid reason for termination, known as “for cause.” Otherwise, they serve in long, fixed roles to add to financial stability. Cook, who was nominated to the post by Joe Biden, is not due to finish her current term until 2038.
The preliminary injunction Judge Cobb granted on Tuesday also found that Trump had likely violated the Federal Reserve Act by using social media to air his allegations about her mortgage fraud and also to fire her in public.
“The court is highly doubtful that Cook should have been required to piece together the evidentiary basis for a ‘for cause’ removal from a scattered assortment of social media posts and news articles,” Cobb wrote. “Even if the notice provided had been sufficient, Cook’s due process rights were nevertheless likely violated because she was not given a ‘meaningful opportunity’ to be heard.”
Cobb also barred Reserve Chair Jerome Powell or Fed officials from carrying out Trump’s wishes of firing Cook.
“This ruling recognizes and reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference,” Cook’s counsel Lowell said in a statement.
“Allowing the president to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law.”
He added, “Governor Cook will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor.”
Trump did not answer a reporter’s question about a court overruling his firing when he was leaving a seafood dinner on Tuesday.
However, White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai told Politico that Trump’s firing of Cook was “lawful” and boosted accountability for the body that sets interest rates.
“The president determined there was cause to remove a governor who was credibly accused of lying in financial documents from a highly sensitive position overseeing financial institutions,” Desai said.
“The removal of a governor for cause improves the Federal Reserve board’s accountability and credibility for both the markets and American people.”
Judge Cobb’s ruling said this was the first purported “for cause” removal of a governor in the 111-year history of the Federal Reserve.
In her finding, Cobb said Trump’s attempt to remove Cook “was done in violation” of the “for cause” provision.
She said the best reading of that provision was that it was limited to “actions relating to that governor’s ‘behavior in office.’” And because the allegations of mortgage fraud occurred before Cook’s role as governor, Cobb said that “for cause” did “not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they began in office.”
Trump has also attempted to fire Powell this year, unhappy with his refusal to cut interest rates.
Trump Hit With Fresh Court Blow After Revenge Firing
The Federal Reserve governor’s job is safe for now.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hit-with-fresh-court-blow-after-revenge-firing
Associated Press: Judge pauses California’s request to bar Trump administration’s ongoing use of National Guard troops
A federal judge who ruled last week that the Trump administration broke federal law by sending National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area said Tuesday he will not immediately consider a request to bar the ongoing use of 300 Guard troops.
In a court order, Senior District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco said he was not sure he had the authority to consider California’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the administration’s further deployment of state National Guard troops. That’s because the case is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judge said.
Breyer indefinitely paused all proceedings related to the state’s motion, though he suggested California officials could file the request with the 9th Circuit.
An email to the California attorney general’s office late Tuesday was not immediately returned.
Breyer’s Sept. 2 ruling took on heightened importance amid President Donald Trump’s talk of National Guard deployments to other Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York. Trump has already deployed the Guard as part of his unprecedented law enforcement takeover targeting crime, immigration and homelessness in Washington, where he has direct legal control over the District of Columbia National Guard.
The Trump administration sent troops to the Los Angeles area in early June after days of protests over immigration raids.
Breyer ruled the administration “willfully” broke federal law, saying the government knew “they were ordering troops to execute domestic law beyond their usual authority” while using “armed soldiers ( whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.”
He did not require the 300 remaining soldiers to leave but pointed out that they received improper training and ordered the administration to stop using them “to execute the laws.” The order that applies only to California was supposed to take effect Sept. 12, but the 9th Circuit has put it on hold for now.
California later sought a preliminary injunction blocking an Aug. 5 order from the administration extending the deployment of the 300 troops for another 90 days.
The further deployment “would ensure that California’s residents will remain under a form of military occupation until early November,” including while voting on Nov. 4 on whether to adopt new congressional maps — “an election with national attention and significance,” state officials said in a court filing.
Judge pauses California’s request to bar Trump administration’s ongoing use of National Guard troops
A federal judge who ruled last week that the Trump administration broke federal law by sending National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area says he will not immediately consider a request to bar the ongoing use of 300 Guard troops.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-california-national-guard-troops-08f8a71ca5834b8f32ce4c3ee944abca
Washington Post: National Guard documents reveal candor, ‘shame’ over D.C. deployment
The National Guard, in measuring public sentiment about President Donald Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C., has assessed that its mission is perceived as “leveraging fear,” driving a “wedge between citizens and the military,” and promoting a sense of “shame” among some troops and veterans, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
The assessments, which have not been previously reported, underscore how domestic mobilizations that are rooted in politics risk damaging Americans’ confidence in the men and women who serve their communities in times of crisis. The documents reveal, too, with a rare candor in some cases, that military officials have been kept apprised that their mission is viewed by a segment of society as wasteful, counterproductive and a threat to long-standing precedent stipulating that U.S. soldiers — with rare exception — are to be kept out of domestic law enforcement matters.
Trump has said the activation of more than 2,300 National Guard troops was necessary to reduce crime in the nation’s capital, though data maintained by the D.C. police indicates an appreciable decline was underway long before his August declaration of an “emergency.” In the weeks since, the Guard has spotlighted troops’ work assisting the police and “beautifying” the city by laying mulch and picking up trash, part of a daily disclosure to the news media generated by Joint Task Force D.C., the military command overseeing the deployment.
Not for public consumption, however, is an internal “media roll up” that analyzes the tone of news stories and social media posts about the National Guard’s presence and activities in Washington. Government media relations personnel routinely produce such assessments and provide summaries to senior leaders for their awareness. They stop short of drawing conclusions about the sentiments being raised.
“Trending videos show residents reacting with alarm and indignation,” a summary from Friday said. “One segment features a local [resident] describing the Guard’s presence as leveraging fear, not security — highlighting widespread discomfort with what many perceive as a show of force.”
A National Guard official acknowledged the documents are authentic but downplayed their sensitivity, saying the assessments are intended for internal use and were inadvertently emailed to The Post last week. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing an unspecified policy. It is unclear how many people mistakenly received the documents.
Spokespeople for the Army, which is overseeing the deployment, did not provide comment.
Social media posts about the military mission in D.C. summarized on Friday were assessed to be 53 percent negative, 45 percent neutral and 2 percent positive, the documents say.
While officials have insisted that troops are not policing, their actions have sometimes blurred the lines between soldiering and law enforcement, including detaining criminal suspects until police have arrived. One soldier has been credited with helping the apparent victim of a drug overdose by giving them Narcan, officials have noted.
For most Washington residents and tourists, though, the troops often are most visible at Metro stops and federal monuments, looking bored and absorbing both praise and insults from passersby.
Friday’s assessment highlights “Mentions of Fatigue, confusion, and demoralization — ‘just gardening,’ unclear mission, wedge between citizens and the military.”
The National Guard was ordered to this mission and does not have a responsibility to make it palatable to the public, said Jason Dempsey, a former Army officer who studies civil military affairs for the Center for a New American Security. But, he said, military leaders should think about how deployments with political undertones could have implications for recruiting and sustaining the force.
The themes raised in these assessments, Dempsey said, also should give pause to American citizens. National Guard troops are overseen by governors, who almost always provide their approval when those forces are mobilized for federal service overseas or within the United States. But the mission in Washington, and an earlier deployment to Los Angeles, both occurred against the consent of civil authorities in those jurisdictions.
“When elected representatives say, ‘We do not want them,’ but the federal government sends them, and then you see these kinds of numbers,” he said, “it does raise existential questions for the health of the National Guard, for how America views its National Guard and how America uses the military writ large.”
Such concerns also were spelled out in a separate cache of internal documents that outlined another Trump administration initiative: the creation of a “quick reaction force” of National Guard troops to respond to civil unrest anywhere in the United States. In that case, first reported by The Post as Trump’s D.C. deployment got underway in mid-August, military officials voiced concern about “potential political sensitivities” and “legal considerations related to their role as a nonpartisan force.”
Trump has since signed an executive order directing formation of the quick reaction force.
In examining public opinions online, Guard officials last week highlighted the sentiments shared by people who self-identified as veterans and active-duty troops, who, the documents show, say they viewed the deployment “with shame and alarm.” The assessment also homed in on how people are reacting to various court cases challenging Trump’s domestic military deployments.
A federal judge last week ruled Trump’s mobilization of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops to Los Angeles in June was an illegal use of military force to conduct law enforcement. An appeals court later granted the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in the case until its argument could be heard in greater detail — allowing the military mission there to continue. About 300 National Guard troops remain in the area.
The D.C. deployment, which includes troops not only from the District but from eight Republican-led states as well, is the subject of a lawsuit by city officials who argue that Trump broke the law by putting Guard troops into law enforcement roles. The public reaction being monitored by military officials focuses on “debate about the legality of the mission, whether it’s needed and if it has been successful,” one assessment reads, noting that there is ongoing criticism of the mission as “federal overreach and politically motivated.”
Others viewed the ongoing lawsuit in Washington as “unreasonable,” the assessment shows.
The National Guard has sometimes struggled to highlight significant impact from their presence. The public summary from Tuesday, for instance, noted a sole example of troops providing undescribed support to police at Union Station when a person was “acting aggressively.” The person was ushered out the door, the Guard noted.
In another update, the Guard indicates troops “continue efforts to restore and beautify public spaces across the District” and have “cleared 906 bags of trash, spread 744 cubic yards of mulch, removed five truckloads of plant waste, cleared 3.2 miles of roadway, and painted 270 feet of fencing.”
Those statistics may be among the most consequential takeaways of Trump’s use of the military in D.C., Dempsey said, and should prompt scrutiny of whether this mission was ever necessary in the first place.
“That is such a suboptimal use of military training that we should all be asking, ‘Why are they here?’” Dempsey said. “If they’re picking up trash, they’re not here for a security emergency. There’s no clearer metric than that.”
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.
Analysis: Trump claims he can do anything he wants with the military. Here’s what the law says | CNN Politics
Having rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, the president is going on offense with the US military.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/venezuela-trump-military-strike-war-powers-explainer
CNN: Trump’s credibility challenged in Qatar and Poland
Assuming President Donald Trump’s claim that he couldn’t stop Israel’s strike on Hamas officials in a Qatar residential district is true, he’s just suffered another devastating blow to his international credibility.
Trump hurriedly made clear that Tuesday’s raid, which killed five Hamas members but not the top team negotiating a new US ceasefire plan for Gaza, was not his decision and that he’d rushed to inform Qatar when he learned of it.
“I’m not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said as he went for dinner at a Washington, DC, steakhouse. “It’s not a good situation … we are not thrilled about the way that went down.”
That seemed a rare Trumpian understatement.
The strike — in which Israel ignored profound implications for vital American interests — is a new embarrassment for Trump at a time when he’s also being taken for a ride by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who grinned through their summit in Alaska, then escalated attacks on Ukrainian civilians. Poland said early Wednesday that it had shot down drones that violated its airspace during a Russian attack on neighboring Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the violation of Poland’s airspace was “absolutely reckless” and not an “isolated incident.” NATO, Rutte said, will defend “every inch” of its territory.
Trump, meanwhile, seems sincere in his desire to be a global peacemaker. If he succeeds, he could save many lives and leave a valuable legacy. He returned to the White House in January insisting he’d quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. But eight months later, both are even more bloody. And Putin, China’s leader Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi openly defy him.
Events in the Middle East are unlikely to do much to hurt Trump’s political fortunes at home, as his crime crackdown plays out amid worries about a slowing economy. But Israel’s attack in broad daylight in Doha — just like Putin’s violations — could be ruinous to his self-image as a hard-power-wielding strongman who is feared abroad.
That’s because the strike flagrantly trampled the sovereignty of a vital US ally that hosts the largest US base in the Middle East and was negotiating with Hamas at the behest of the White House on a plan Trump predicted would soon yield a deal.
Not only was this a personal affront to Trump, but it also puts Netanyahu’s goals over the critical security priorities of the United States — even after the last two US administrations rushed to defend Israel from two sets of attacks by Iran. CNN reported that some White House officials were furious that it took place after one of Netanyahu’s advisers, Ron Dermer, on Monday met Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff but made no mention of an operation sure to humiliate the US president.
“The attacks take place at a very sensitive moment in the ceasefire negotiations where the Trump administration, the president, and his envoy Witkoff have made clear that the president is looking for a comprehensive ceasefire, the release of all hostages, prisoner exchange and moving forward and ending the war in Gaza,” former US ambassador to Israel Edward Djerejian told Richard Quest on CNN International.
“Israel is not obviously paying much attention to US national security interests,” said Djerejian, who served in eight administrations, starting with that of President John F. Kennedy and ending with that of President Bill Clinton.
Huge ramifications for US foreign policy
The reverberations of the strike seem certain to end any hope of a negotiated peace to end Israel’s war in Gaza — one reason why it may have recommended itself to Netanyahu. There may be horrific ramifications for the remaining Israeli hostages who are still alive after nearly two years of torment in tunnels under Gaza.
It’s also the latest evidence that the Israeli prime minister places more importance on the total eradication of Hamas — a potentially impossible task — than the hostages’ return. And the almost certain result is an intensification of Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip, which has already killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and alienated most of Israel’s foreign allies.
For the United States, there are also serious ramifications.
► The fallout could sour the relationship between the US president and the Israeli prime minister and sow distrust between Israel and its vital ally the United States.
► It will shatter any credibility that the Trump had in posing as a distant mediator between Israel and Hamas and may cause Qatar to pull out of peace talks. The emirate’s prime minister accused Israel of conducting “state terrorism.”
► Some US observers accuse Qatar of playing a double game by hosting Hamas leaders. But Doha will see the attack by America’s closest Middle East ally as a betrayal after its years working to advance US diplomatic priorities, not just in the Middle East, but in hostage release deals beyond the Middle East as far away as Afghanistan and Venezuela.
► There could also be adverse consequences for Trump’s personal and political interests in the wider Arab world, which he energetically pursued during the first Gulf trip of his second term, including a lavish welcome in Qatar.
► And the administration’s hoped-for expansion of the first-term Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and some Arab states — and which is key to Trump’s push for a Nobel Peace Prize — is now more distant than ever.
► Leaders of other states in the Gulf, a thriving business and leisure hub, will wonder — if Israel can strike with impunity at Qatar, under the noses of the US garrison — whether they will be next.
“It’s a pretty big bill for the Israelis to have conducted this strike,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt. He added that Netanyahu has “been in power forever by US standards. And over time, he’s gotten very comfortable in doing exactly what he wants to do.”
Israel insists it acted alone
Many US analysts will interpret Israel’s attempt to kill negotiators considering a US peace plan a day after they met with Qatari government officials as new proof that Netanyahu wants to prolong the war. The prime minister has succeeded in postponing inevitable investigations into the security lapses after the October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas in 2023. And his personal legal woes can be kept off the boil as long as he stays in power atop his far-right coalition.
Israel’s justification for the strikes was that it will pursue terrorist leaders wherever they are. Netanyahu has waged war on multiple fronts throughout the region, and conducted devastating strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon; Houthis in Yemen; and Iran. He said Tuesday that the “days when the heads of terror enjoyed immunity anywhere are over.”
Many Israelis viewed the Hamas attacks nearly two years ago not just as a strike against Israel but also as the most heinous attempt to wipe out Jews since the Nazi Holocaust. Yet many also now oppose the total warfare on Gaza waged by Netanyahu and are desperate to see the return of the hostages after a negotiated settlement.
Netanyahu was quick to make clear that the attack on Doha was a “wholly independent Israeli operation,” seeking to offer Trump some diplomatic cover. But the Middle East loves conspiracy theories. And the US faces a hard sell over its claim that it knew nothing as Israel got 10 fighter jets and their munitions — possibly American-made F-35 planes — within range of the target.
Some will suspect that Trump gave a green light, or at least tacitly condoned the attacks. The White House, however, said that the US military in Qatar alerted Trump, and he ordered Witkoff to tip off the Qataris. But the government in Doha said it only got a heads-up when the attack, which caused panic in the capital, was already over.
The White House damage-control effort does seem to bolster Trump’s claim that he couldn’t do anything to halt the strike.
“Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a sovereign nation and close ally of the United States that is working very hard in bravely taking risks with us to broker peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
It was exceedingly rare criticism of Israel from the Trump administration. The president later said on Truth Social that “this was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was not a decision made by me.” Trump also said he’d ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to finalize a defense cooperation pact with Qatar.
How Trump’s new Air Force One complicates his response
There are geopolitical reasons to take the president’s comments at face value. But there is a complication. Trump earlier this year accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar to serve as a new Air Force One in violation of any previous understanding of presidential ethics. How can Americans therefore be convinced that he’s acting on his perception of their vital security interests on this matter — and not his own desire to pay back Qatar for the personal gift of a jet worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
That aside, Trump’s credibility with Qatar will need serious repair work.
What of the US security umbrella supposed to be provided by its vast Al Udeid Air Base in the desert outside Doha? It didn’t prevent a deeply humiliating violation of Qatari sovereignty by an enemy the US would like them to engage. By extension, how can other Gulf states and other US allies worldwide be sure that Trump’s security guarantees will be any more airtight than they were for Qatar?
The attack on Qatar will also cement an already widespread belief throughout the Middle East that Trump lacks any influence over Netanyahu despite the leverage of US defense sales to Israel and its vital role in the Jewish state’s defense. There was no public talk from the White House on Tuesday about consequences for the Israeli leader.
The loss of Trump’s credibility is especially critical since the new US peace plan envisages the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas in Gaza in return for a ceasefire. Trump would then guarantee to Hamas that Israel would stick to the deal while negotiations continue. Tuesday’s attacks in broad daylight in Doha suggest that’s an empty promise.
So yet again, Trump’s self-proclaimed role as the president of peace is thrown into question. And his foreign policy team’s understanding of ruthless global strongmen was left badly exposed.
And our Grifter-in-Chief is badly compromised by having accepted the gift of a free 747 from Qatar!
Analysis: Trump’s credibility challenged in Qatar and Poland | CNN Politics
Assuming President Donald Trump’s claim that he couldn’t stop Israel’s strike on Hamas officials in a Qatar residential district is true, he’s just suffered another devastating blow to his international credibility.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/trump-israel-qatar-airstrikes-hamas-analysis
Slingshot News: ‘The River Is Right Out Their Window’: Trump Shows Signs Of Cognitive Decline, Believes The Federal Reserve Is Located On The Potomac River [Video]
During his remarks at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. several weeks ago, Donald Trump lashed out at Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the ongoing renovation of the Federal Reserve. Trump believes the Federal Reserve is located “right next to a thing called the Potomac River.”
Inquisitr: Donald Trump’s Latest 6,250-Mile Travel Gaffe Sparks ‘Senile’ Accusations
Raw Story: Bipartisan fury spreads after ‘evil’ Trump treats domestic violence as ‘no biggie’
President Donald Trump downplayed domestic violence in a Monday speech as part of his White House Religious Liberty Commission — and was hit by swift condemnation.
Not only were onlookers outraged by the president’s dismissal of spousal abuse, some also called out Trump’s own long history with women. The so-called “Access Hollywood” tape, for example, recorded Trump bragging that he can grab women’s genitals without consent.
Trump had been complaining that domestic crimes were being counted in Washington, DC — which, he said, was diminishing the success of him sending in troops to tackle crime.
“If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say, this was a crime, see?” he added. “So now I can’t claim 100%.”
His comment was made on the same day that an appeals court ruled unanimously against Trump’s appeal of a defamation case in which he relentlessly attacked E. Jean Carroll publicly, claiming she was lying when she claimed he sexually assaulted her in a department store.
It also happens while Trump is being criticized for his administration working to conceal the files around the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself after being arrested for sex trafficking and child molestation.
“Just the president Benedict Donald co-signing that your husband beating you or forcing you to have sex against your will is ‘like no biggie,'” wrote actor Rachel True on X.
The Voter Protection Project account on X characterized it, “Donald Trump just said domestic violence shouldn’t be a crime.” The group noted it was “curious to see how MAGA will try to spin this.”
Politico columnist Jonathan Martin expected the upcoming spin would be, “Look, he was on the Old Testament section of the speech.”
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) posted a screen capture of a reporter in which biographer Harry Hurt III said that he acquired Ivana Trump’s divorce deposition in which she alleged that Trump raped her.”
Republican and Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell called it, “Just a casual dismissal of domestic violence as a crime.”
Professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfers, posted, “Let me say what the President won’t: Domestic violence is not okay. It’s immoral, illegal and abusive, and no real man is okay would do it, approve of it, or minimize it.”
“Utah is one of the worst states in the nation for women’s equality. Republicans here will defend against those claims forcefully, but they won’t back away from their support of a president that endorses domestic violence. Their claims are hollow,” wrote Utah state Sen. Nate Blouin.
Lawyer Mark Ramos called the comment, “Grossly irresponsible. And un-Christian. Yet *that’s who he is* – zero change from his entitled, amoral, “grab ’em” bully mindset. If you supported him before for whatever policy or party loyalty or false promises, it’s not too late to stop ignoring his vile idiocy. Your choice.”
“That ‘see’ at the end is as evil as the statement because it frames bs as empirical evidence. Smh,” said college faculty member Antoine Hardy.
Analyst Julie Roginsky wrote on X, “Of course the man whose wife accused him or rape and tearing out chunks of her hair would say this.”
Researcher Will Stancil called on officials to say something. “Every single Democrat should instantly condemn him for this and demand a retraction and apology. They should demand Republicans condemn it too, although they’ll be too cowardly to do it. Blow it up. He’s supporting domestic violence – it’s grotesque and nightmarish,” he wrote on X.