Trump Denies $2K Tariff Check Promise Despite November Announcement

President Trump denied making a promise to distribute $2,000 tariff rebate checks to Americans when questioned by The New York Times on January 11, 2026, asking “When did I do that?” despite having publicly introduced the idea in early November 2026 on Truth Social. Trump later acknowledged the checks were planned, stating the tariff revenue collected is “so substantial” that he would issue $2,000 checks “toward the end of the year,” and claimed no Congressional approval would be required.

In November, Trump announced Americans would receive “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high-income people!)” funded by tariff collections he claimed would reach “Trillions of Dollars.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the government would need approximately $600 billion to issue such checks. However, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC News on November 12 that he and Trump had not discussed the tariff rebate possibility, and later advised Americans to save the funds to avoid inflation.

Trump’s tariff policy faces legal scrutiny, with cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding whether the tariffs violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump previously falsely attributed $1,776 “Warrior Dividend” payments to service members to tariff revenue, when the funds actually derived from Congressional appropriations. If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the Treasury Department would refund approximately $774 billion collected, with repayment potentially spread over weeks or a year.

Trump’s claim to unilaterally distribute tariff revenue without Congressional approval contradicts established fiscal law requiring legislative authorization for government expenditures. The shifting timeline—from an undefined date in November to “toward the end of the year” in January—and his initial denial of the promise demonstrate the absence of a concrete plan. Trump has similarly made unilateral economic directives without legislative or procedural authorization, including ordering representatives to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower housing costs.

The discrepancy between Trump’s initial November announcement and his January denial, combined with the absence of a detailed distribution mechanism and Bessent’s explicit contradiction, indicates the tariff rebate remains an unfulfilled campaign-style promise dependent on uncertain tariff collections and unresolved legal challenges to the tariff policy itself.

(Source: https://people.com/trump-asks-when-did-i-do-that-when-asked-about-sending-americans-2k-tariff-checks-11884184?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=photo&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=6965c2e5490dd2000189e8c3&fbclid=IwdGRleAPS4wpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeFyrAxSrIgq2CeX5Yw6brG7rJkPekajqBm2cQ5dveBEOMvcqnR6VLAQwzp3M_aem_ljbHllP-Gcm_wwfEaMjG6Q)

Trump Bizarrely Claims Credit For Ending 1/4 of a War on Fox

During a Fox News interview Thursday night, President Trump claimed credit for ending “eight and a quarter” wars, adding a fractional war to his repeated assertions of peace-brokering accomplishments. Trump attributed the quarter-war credit to Thailand and Cambodia “going at it again,” contradicting his claim of having stopped conflicts entirely. His statements came in response to discussion of María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient who recently offered to give her award to Trump for “liberating” Venezuela.

Trump has routinely inflated his war-ending record on social media and in public appearances, variously claiming to have ended 8, 9, or 10 wars without factual support. Fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked these assertions, yet Trump continues to invoke the falsehood as evidence of his diplomatic achievements and as grounds for his own Nobel Prize candidacy. His willingness to revise the number mid-interview—from “eight” to “eight and a quarter”—demonstrates the malleable nature of his claims.

Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize for her activism against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime and dedicated the honor to Trump during her acceptance. Trump publicly justified the U.S. invasion of Venezuela by stating the operation would secure control over Venezuelan oil reserves. When asked by Hannity whether he would meet with Machado and accept her prize, Trump expressed willingness but pivoted to amplifying his unsubstantiated war-ending claims instead of addressing her political situation or offering concrete support.

The interview highlights Trump’s pattern of manufacturing achievements through rhetorical inflation and repetition rather than documented accomplishment. By presenting fractional credit for unresolved conflicts as proof of peace-brokering success, Trump conflates aspiration with outcome while avoiding accountability for conflicts that persist. His eagerness to accept recognition he has not earned reflects his consistent approach to self-aggrandizement across foreign policy matters.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-bizarrely-claims-credit-for-ending-1-4-of-a-war-in-falsehood-riddled-rant-on-fox-news/)

Smithsonian scrubs negative info about Trump from caption of presidential portrait: report – Raw Story

The Smithsonian Institution removed references to Trump’s two impeachments and the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection from his official presidential portrait caption at the National Portrait Gallery, according to The Washington Post. A Trump official had previously complained about the caption, which documented his impeachments on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection, as well as his Senate acquittal in both trials. The institution also replaced the portrait photograph itself with a new image showing Trump with his fists on the Resolute Desk, removing the prior photo by Washington Post photojournalist Matt McClain.

The revised caption now contains only Trump’s years in office, making it substantially shorter than the previous text and leaving a visible outline of the old placard on the wall beneath it. This alteration contradicts the Smithsonian’s treatment of other former presidents’ portraits, which continue to include significant events from their administrations. Former President Bill Clinton’s portrait caption, for example, still mentions his impeachment, demonstrating the selective erasure applied only to Trump’s historical record.

The action reflects ongoing Trump administration efforts to systematically dismantle the Smithsonian’s historical narratives through pressure and institutional control. The removal of documented facts about impeachment proceedings and the Capitol attack from the official record demonstrates direct censorship of American history within a federal institution.

This revision represents a factual omission that rewrites the historical record available to the public visiting the National Portrait Gallery. By removing impeachment documentation from Trump’s portrait while preserving it for Clinton, the Smithsonian has created an inconsistent standard that privileges Trump’s image over historical accuracy and transparency about presidential conduct.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-portrait-2674872324/)

Trump Rages For 2 Solid Minutes On Nobel Peace Prize

President Trump spent two minutes ranting about not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize during a Friday photo opportunity with oil executives, then claimed he does not care about the award. Unprompted, Trump mentioned an upcoming meeting with Nobel Peace Prize recipient María Corina Machado and suggested she might be “involved in some aspect” of Venezuelan governance, contradicting his recent public criticism of her.

Trump alleged that Norway is “embarrassed” by the Nobel committee’s decision and claimed he has settled eight major wars, some spanning decades, without nuclear weapons. He stated that he settled wars including India-Pakistan tensions, asserting that “nobody else settled wars” and that he deserved the prize more than any person in history.

Trump contrasted his record with former President Barack Obama’s 1-prize, claiming Obama “had no idea why” he received it, “didn’t do anything,” and was “a bad president.” Trump stated Obama received the award “almost immediately upon attaining office,” implying the selection was unwarranted. He insisted that war prevention should automatically qualify recipients for Nobel recognition.

Trump concluded his tirade by stating “I don’t care about that,” pivoting to claims that he has “saved tens of millions of lives” and citing Pakistan’s Prime Minister for publicly crediting him with preventing 10 million deaths in a potential India-Pakistan conflict. His statements contradicted his evident preoccupation with the award, which he has repeatedly lobbied for through unsubstantiated claims about ending wars.

Trump’s assertions about settling multiple major wars have been repeatedly debunked. His pattern of publicly expressing indifference to the Nobel Prize while simultaneously delivering extended grievances about being denied it demonstrates a disconnect between stated and actual priorities.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-rages-for-two-solid-minutes-on-nobel-prize-then-says-but-i-dont-care-about-that/)

‘His dementia is acting up’: Internet skewers Trump for bizarre new ‘elections’ claim – Raw Story

During a Fox News interview Thursday night, Trump claimed Venezuela “wouldn’t know how to have an election,” despite the country conducting elections as recently as last year. When asked by Sean Hannity whether Venezuela would hold free and fair elections, Trump pivoted to stating his administration would control Venezuelan oil infrastructure and “make a lot of money” from the operation.

Social media users and political observers immediately flagged the statement as disconnected from reality. Veteran Frank C stated Trump’s remark indicated cognitive decline, while activist Matthew J Shochat pointed out that Venezuela held an election last year and that Trump’s preferred replacement leader was involved in that election’s irregularities. Former foreign correspondent Roland Ley characterized Trump’s position as “US colonization” rather than liberation.

Political analyst WarMonitor summarized Trump’s stated priorities as replacing one dictatorship with another, with Trump personally running the country. Former Navy wife Rebecca Clester directly challenged Trump’s claim, asking what “closet” he had been living in and highlighting that his explicit focus remains extracting Venezuelan oil rather than establishing democratic governance.

The remarks underscore Trump’s stated intention to personally control Venezuelan oil revenues following the U.S. invasion of Venezuela. Trump has publicly outlined plans to sell 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market rates under his personal oversight, while also proposing that U.S. taxpayers reimburse oil companies for Venezuelan infrastructure reconstruction.

Trump’s election claim contradicts documented Venezuelan electoral processes and reflects his administration’s framing of military intervention as resource extraction rather than democratic restoration.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-venezuela-2674863947/)

Trump Declares He Is the Absolute Law

During a January 8, 2026 interview with The New York Times, President Trump declared that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” explicitly rejecting international law as a binding constraint on military action. When asked if any limits exist on his global powers, Trump stated: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” and added, “I don’t need international law.” This represents Trump’s most direct acknowledgment of his worldview that national strength, rather than laws and treaties, should determine outcomes when powers collide.

When pressed on whether his administration must abide by international law, Trump affirmed compliance while immediately undermining that commitment by declaring himself the arbiter of when such constraints apply to the United States. “It depends what your definition of international law is,” Trump said, signaling his refusal to accept external legal frameworks as binding. This pattern reflects Trump’s broader approach to governance: acknowledging formal constraints while asserting personal authority to override them based on his subjective judgment.

Trump’s framing of unrestricted executive power extends across military, economic, and political instruments. He acknowledged deploying the National Guard to cities against state and local objections and has pursued what he describes as a maximalist strategy targeting institutions he dislikes, exacting retribution against political opponents, and coercing foreign nations through threatened military action. During the interview, Trump took a call from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who expressed concern over Trump’s repeated threats of military action, mirroring Trump’s pattern of using unpredictability and force as coercion tools.

Trump’s rejection of international law as limiting his authority eliminates foundational constraints on executive power that have structured U.S. foreign policy for decades. His explicit statement that only his personal morality constrains his actions removes any institutional, legal, or constitutional check on military decisions, invasion, or coercion of other nations. This stance directly contradicts the constitutional framework requiring checks and balances and the international legal obligations the United States has accepted.

The interview reveals Trump’s authoritarian conception of presidential authority unchecked by law, institutional independence, or external legal frameworks. His assertion that he personally determines the meaning and applicability of international law consolidates decision-making power entirely in his hands, eliminating separation of powers and the rule of law as governing principles of his administration.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html)

JD Vance Declares: ICE Agent Has ‘Absolute Immunity’

Vice President JD Vance declared during a White House press conference on Thursday that an ICE agent who fatally shot Minneapolis poet and mother Renee Good is protected by “absolute immunity,” a legal claim that is factually incorrect. Vance asserted that the federal law enforcement official conducting federal law enforcement action cannot be prosecuted, stating the officer “was doing his job” and that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz pursuing charges would be “preposterous.”

Vance’s statement misrepresents the actual legal protections available to federal agents. ICE officers are covered under “Supremacy Clause immunity,” which shields them from state prosecution only when acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties in a manner that is “necessary and proper,” according to the State Democracy Research Initiative. This protection does not constitute absolute immunity and explicitly does not apply when federal officials act beyond their duties, violate federal law, or behave in an egregious or unwarranted manner.

The legal determination of whether the ICE officer’s use of deadly force was justified has not yet been evaluated in court, meaning any declaration of immunity is premature. Until a court determines whether the shooting fell within the scope of the officer’s official duties and constituted a lawful use of force, claims of protection remain unresolved. Vance’s invocation of “absolute immunity” bypasses this necessary judicial review.

Vance further claimed that Minnesota officials are “encouraging people to commit violence against I.C.E. officials” and characterized state involvement in the investigation as an “unprecedented” overreach. The reporter’s question had addressed the FBI’s decision to exclude Minnesota officials from accessing evidence in the federal investigation, a procedural issue distinct from Vance’s sweeping immunity assertion.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/jd-vance-declares-ice-agent-involved-in-fatal-shooting-has-absolute-immunity/)

Trump Slams Woman Killed In ICE Shooting, Contradicts Police

President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social on Wednesday claiming that a woman fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis was a “professional agitator” who “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” Trump’s account directly contradicts statements from Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who reported the woman was shot in the head while in her vehicle after it began to drive away from a federal agent on foot.

Chief O’Hara’s preliminary findings indicate the woman was blocking a roadway when a federal officer approached on foot, at which point the vehicle began moving and at least two shots were fired. Video evidence does not show the officer being struck or in immediate danger from the vehicle, yet Trump claimed the officer acted in “self-defense.” The Department of Homeland Security characterized the incident as defensive action after claiming the woman “weaponized her vehicle,” a narrative the mayor and local law enforcement have rejected.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey characterized DHS’s official statement as false and told ICE agents to leave the city. Trump’s post falsely blamed the incident on “Radical Left” violence against law enforcement, despite no evidence suggesting political motivation in the shooting or that the woman posed an active threat to the officer’s safety.

The conflicting accounts between federal and local authorities underscore the Trump administration’s deployment of approximately 2,100 ICE agents to Minneapolis for what officials claim is the largest immigration enforcement operation ever conducted. Trump’s statement weaponizes the incident to justify aggressive federal enforcement and to attack perceived political opponents rather than acknowledge the discrepancies documented by local authorities and video evidence.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/just-in-trump-attacks-woman-killed-in-ice-shooting-directly-contradicts-minneapolis-police-statement/)

The 5 Most Unhinged Claims From Trump’s January 6 Website

President Trump’s White House launched a website on January 6, 2026, reframing the Capitol riot five years after the attack. The site advances false narratives about the January 6 insurrection, contradicting documented evidence and official investigations.

The website claims Democrats staged a “real insurrection” by certifying the 2020 election and “weaponizing federal agencies” against dissenters, despite no evidence supporting Trump’s assertion that the election was stolen. It attributes the Capitol breach to Capitol Police escalation rather than rioters’ actions, alleging officers “aggressively” deployed tear gas and “inexplicably” removed barricades while simultaneously firing on crowds. These claims contradict the documented timeline of events and sworn testimony from law enforcement present that day.

The site characterizes the fatal shooting of rioter Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd as murder “in cold blood,” omitting that the Department of Justice determined in April 2021 that Byrd acted in self-defense and defense of Members of Congress evacuating the House Chamber as rioters broke through glass doors. The website also falsely attributes deaths solely to non-law-enforcement individuals, though four Capitol Police officers who responded to the riot died by suicide in subsequent months.

Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence is branded a “coward” for declining to reject electoral votes, a power he did not constitutionally possess. The site misrepresents Pence’s role; his stated duty was to “count the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and history,” which he executed on January 6.

The website concludes by labeling January 6 defendants political prisoners held in “harsh conditions” and celebrates Trump’s 2024 election as a triumph over “relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him” through “fabricated indictments” and “rigged show trials.” This narrative contradicts Trump’s criminal convictions and documented legal proceedings.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/the-5-most-unhinged-claims-made-on-trumps-jaw-dropping-new-january-6-website/)

Trump claims he predicted 9/11 but says no one listened to him

Donald Trump claimed on Air Force One that he predicted the September 11 attacks in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve” and warned about Osama Bin Laden, asserting the attacks could have been prevented if U.S. officials had acted on his warning. Trump’s assertion contradicts fact-check findings showing his book contained only a brief, vague reference to Bin Laden as a “shadowy figure” among general security threats, not a specific warning about him or al-Qaeda.

While Trump’s book did reference the possibility of a major terror attack, it neither identified Bin Laden nor al-Qaeda as potential perpetrators. By 2000, concerns about Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were already public knowledge, and U.S. intelligence agencies were actively monitoring both the organization and its leader, meaning Trump’s observations reflected widely available information rather than unique foresight.

Trump’s post-9/11 claim mirrors his pattern of associating himself with 9/11 commemoration events while promoting narratives disconnected from documented fact. His invocation of his own predictive ability, unsupported by the actual text of his book, demonstrates his use of false historical revisionism to construct an image of prescience and leadership.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-president-bin-laden-al-qaeda-b2895001.html)

1 2 3 180