Stop The Donald Trump

He's a fascist, authoritarian, racist, sexist, and the former Republican President of the United States of America.

This site is a database of over 4,000 articles of every controversial statement made by Donald Trump and to help you when debating family, friends, and strangers on why this man is the most dangerous candidate and president this country has ever seen.

You can search for articles, or find a set of articles from a categorized list.

Under "Rebuttals" you can also find in-depth articles reviewing the policies of Donald Trump and how they can help or (most likely) harm you.

Trump’s $4 Billion High-Speed Rail Funding Cut Sparks Outrage in California

The Trump administration’s recent decision to withdraw $4 billion in funding for California’s high-speed rail project has triggered widespread condemnation from state leaders, who argue that the move is “illegal.” This decision was made following a federal compliance review that alleged “no viable path forward” for the high-speed rail plan, which was once envisioned as a transformative transportation project. Governor Gavin Newsom and Ian Choudri, the chief executive of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, have vehemently criticized the administration’s actions, emphasizing the administration’s failure to recognize previously binding commitments.

In the wake of this decision, California state officials have asserted that the Trump administration’s conclusions regarding the project are based on outdated information and flawed assessments. They point out the economic and logistical benefits that the high-speed rail project could bring to the Central Valley, including thousands of jobs, in stark contrast to Trump’s portrayal of the project as a misguided waste of federal funds. The funding, which the state has indicated was a legally binding agreement, is crucial for continuing construction efforts.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy assigned blame to California’s leadership, suggesting that “mismanagement” had plagued the project’s progress. He called for a review of other grants related to the endeavor and characterized the California High-Speed Rail Authority as incapable of delivering on its promises. In this cutthroat political framing, Duffy accused state leaders of fostering incompetence and possibly corruption in managing the high-speed rail initiative.

Trump has publicly defended his administration’s decision to terminate the funding, arguing that it saves taxpayers from pouring money into what he has dubbed “California’s disastrously overpriced ‘high-speed train to nowhere.’” His rhetoric plays into a broader narrative of controlling governmental spending while disregarding the significant investment already made into the project and the potential benefits it could yield.

In response to this funding withdrawal, state officials are considering alternative funding methods, including potential public-private partnerships. They remain steadfast in their commitment to the project, which has already sparked significant state investment and community planning. As such, the clash over the high-speed rail project underscores the significant divide between federal and local priorities, further complicating infrastructure development in California amid the contentious political landscape fostered by the Trump administration.

Trump Attacks MAGA Supporters Demand Accountability on Epstein Memo

President Donald Trump has expressed frustration over his supporters’ persistent anger concerning the recently released memo from the Justice Department regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged “client list.” MAGA supporters are disappointed by the lack of substantial evidence in the memo, which concluded that no credible list exists, a result that has sparked outrage among right-wing commentators and Congressional Republicans. Trump himself, who had previously promised transparency in the Epstein case, reportedly vented that MAGA will not “shut the f*** up” about the issue, reflecting his irritation with their reaction.

This controversy has united right-wing voices, including prominent figures like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who described the memo’s conclusion as damaging to the MAGA movement. Owens lamented it as a “terminal cancer,” while Carlson criticized the government’s dismissal of what he perceives as legitimate concerns among the electorate. This situation highlights a fracture within Trump’s support base, which demands accountability and transparency from his administration, especially concerning a scandal with significant implications.

In Congress, representatives like Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene have voiced their demands for full disclosure of the Epstein-related files. Trump, however, insulted these Republicans, labeling their calls for transparency as “stupid” and “foolish.” This internal conflict indicates significant stress within Trump’s administration, which is already facing challenges as it navigates public perception and electoral pressure.

The fallout from the memo’s release has affected internal dynamics within the administration, leading to tensions with officials such as Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino. Trump has placed the responsibility for future disclosures on Attorney General Pam Bondi, suggesting that she should decide what information is credible to release. His shifting stance has left many in his administration and among his supporters questioning the sincerity of his prior commitments.

Trump Administration Targets Hospitals with Cost-Cutting Proposals

The Trump administration has launched a direct attack on hospitals with a proposed rule that undermines the Medicare reimbursement structure. This plan, aimed at equalizing payment rates for outpatient services across various medical settings, threatens the financial stability of hospitals, particularly affecting those that serve vulnerable populations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed to cut payments for outpatient drugs provided in hospitals, positioning it as a move to save taxpayers millions, but at the expense of healthcare providers.

This initiative reflects a trend within the Trump administration to prioritize budget cuts over patient care, a stance that disregards the complexities of healthcare delivery. Hospitals have expressed their concerns that the new policy penalizes facilities that treat higher-acuity patients, particularly in rural or impoverished areas. They argue that this reallocation of funds harms Medicare beneficiaries who may already be facing significant health challenges and require more comprehensive care.

The financial implications of this policy shift are stark. CMS estimates that the proposed site-neutral payment structure could save Medicare $210 million while simultaneously reducing costs for beneficiaries by $70 million. While proponents argue this policy will standardize care costs, critics underscore that it ignores the reality that hospital outpatient departments often cater to a sicker, more disadvantaged patient demographic than independent offices.

This policy proposal follows a trend of avoiding substantive discussions about healthcare reform, with the recent bipartisan attempts in Congress failing to yield results. The pushback from the American Hospital Association highlights the pitfalls of the administration’s approach, which prioritizes cost-cutting measures over the need for equitable healthcare access. As hospitals brace for the fallout, the long-term consequences of such policies could further exacerbate disparities in healthcare access and outcomes.

The ongoing attempts by the Trump administration to regulate healthcare through stringent fiscal policies reveal an alarming trend towards undermining hospitals that serve essential roles in their communities. Ultimately, this undercuts the fundamental principles of healthcare accessibility and equity, pushing the system closer to a crisis where those who are the most in need face increased barriers to vital medical services.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/newsletters/health-care/5405321-trump-administration-takes-shot-at-hospitals/)

Trump’s Baseless Accusations Against Adam Schiff Expose Political Distraction Tactics

President Donald Trump has leveled unfounded accusations against Senator Adam Schiff, claiming he engaged in mortgage fraud related to his residences in Maryland and California. The allegation implies that Schiff misrepresented his primary residence to obtain a more favorable mortgage rate, a tactic Trump dismissively termed as “ripping off America.” Schiff firmly rejected these claims, branding them as baseless political retribution stemming from Trump’s long-standing animosity, particularly following Schiff’s role in Trump’s impeachment.

Trump’s accusations were supposedly backed by a memorandum from Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division. However, the memo did not confirm any criminal wrongdoing and notably avoided labeling Schiff’s actions as fraudulent. Instead, it merely indicated a “sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” concerning Schiff’s mortgage arrangements. This contradiction highlights Trump’s propensity for using unverified claims to deflect attention from political controversies, including questions surrounding his administration’s handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s child abuse case.

Schiff emphasized that he has always been transparent about his dual residences, a common practice among members of Congress representing distant constituencies. His spokesperson stressed that there was consistency in reporting his residences to his lenders, aligning with legal norms. This statement contradicts Trump’s narrative of dishonesty and corruption, further reinforcing Schiff’s argument that the accusations are a calculated move to divert attention from Trump’s own legal troubles.

The ongoing tension reflects a larger pattern of Trump targeting prominent Democrats to distract from his administration’s failures. Specifically, Schiff pointed to the growing scrutiny over Trump’s alleged misconduct regarding Epstein, indicating that the timing of Trump’s allegations was strategically calculated. With Trump having previously failed to deliver on promises to disclose important information related to Epstein, his claims against Schiff can be interpreted as an intentional diversion from pressing issues that threaten his political standing.

Despite the personal nature of Trump’s attacks, Schiff remains undeterred, reiterating his commitment to holding Trump accountable for actions that threaten democracy. Trump’s history of issuing unfounded allegations against critics, including calls for treason charges and personal insults, underscores an alarming trend that aims to undermine legitimate political discourse. The interplay between Trump’s unfounded accusations and Schiff’s steadfastness illustrates the ongoing struggle over truth and accountability within contemporary American politics.

Maurene Comey Fired Amid Controversy Surrounding Trump and Epstein

Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and a prominent prosecutor of high-profile cases, was recently dismissed from her role in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. Known for her work on the Jeffrey Epstein case, Maurene’s termination raises questions about the motives behind the decision, especially amid ongoing investigations involving her father, who has been a target of President Donald Trump’s administration.

In her nearly decade-long tenure, Maurene Comey prosecuted both Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking. Her firing follows increased scrutiny of the Justice Department for its handling of Epstein-related documents, an issue that has fueled partisan attacks, particularly from Trump loyalists. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have faced public backlash for not releasing additional files that could shed light on Epstein’s alleged criminal activities.

The exact reason behind Maurene Comey’s dismissal remains unclear, with speculation suggesting her firing could be linked to her father’s contentious history with the Trump administration. James Comey’s role in investigating ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia has long placed him at odds with Trump, who has consistently disparaged the former FBI Director.

Notably, Maurene has also endured public criticism from Trump’s alt-right allies, with figures like Laura Loomer calling for her dismissal over the handling of Epstein-related documentation by the Justice Department. These coordinated efforts highlight the political weaponization of law enforcement, aiming to undermine those associated with investigations of powerful individuals.

The dismissal has led to unrest within the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, mirroring a broader trend of turmoil that started when the acting U.S. attorney and other prosecutors resigned following orders to drop a corruption investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams. On her last day, numerous colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s office showed their support for Maurene Comey by accompanying her out, signaling a united front against what they perceive as politicized justice.

(h/t: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/16/maurene-comey-fired-doj-00458921)

Trump Administration Appoints Climate Change Contrarians Undermining Scientific Consensus

The Trump administration has appointed three prominent climate change contrarians to positions within the Department of Energy, raising alarm among scientists and environmental advocates. The appointments include John Christy and Roy Spencer, who have long rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, and Steven E. Koonin, known for questioning mainstream climate science. These hires are part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration, under Secretary Chris Wright, to influence government policy in favor of the fossil fuel industry.

Each appointee brings a history of undermining established climate science. Koonin, who previously served in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and worked for BP, is known for pushing fringe ideas regarding climate science. Christy and Spencer have questioned the validity of surface temperature data, aligning themselves with a small minority of scientists who downplay the impact of human activity on climate change. The appointments are seen as an attempt to tilt federal research and policy towards contrarian views.

As the Trump administration aims to dismantle existing climate regulations and scientific findings, hiring these contrarians appears to be an effort to produce favorable outcomes for their agenda. Notably, they plan to overturn a critical 2009 finding that recognized greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to public health. This reflects a shifting priority towards protecting corporate interests over public welfare and environmental safety, as evidenced by proposed budget cuts to agencies crucial for climate science.

Concerns have been voiced by leading climate scientists regarding the potential for these appointments to lead to skewed interpretations of climate data, which could result in a misleading version of the National Climate Assessment. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, criticized the administration’s approach, stating that the appointed scientists are selected not for their expertise but for their willingness to provide desired conclusions. This trend signifies a troubling disregard for legitimate scientific inquiry in favor of political objectives.

The ongoing undermining of climate research, including recent disbanding of crucial assessment teams and the removal of informative resources, highlights an alarming commitment to climate denialism that threatens public health and safety. The positions of Koonin, Spencer, and Christy signal a broader strategy that seeks to promote fringe perspectives at the expense of scientifically-backed evidence, ultimately endangering vital climate action while favoring the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/climate/doe-climate-contrarians-trump)

Trump’s Radical Rhetoric Targets NYC’s Zohran Mamdani with Unfounded Communist Claims

During a recent rally in Iowa, President Donald Trump launched a vehement attack against Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. Trump characterized Mamdani as a “communist” and expressed his belief that the candidate aims to “destroy” New York, a city Trump claims to love. This hyperbolic language is consistent with Trump’s strategy of labeling his opponents with extreme ideologies to rally his base.

Trump’s incendiary remarks included a declaration that the sacrifices of past generations should not be in vain, warning against what he termed “Marxist lunatics” threatening America as it approaches its 250th anniversary. He claimed America will “never be communist,” a statement that reflects his attempts to stoke fear and division within the political landscape.

The rhetoric directed at Mamdani is telling of the broader Republican tactic to demonize perceived leftist figures to fortify their own political power. Mamdani, who immigrated to the U.S. from Uganda as a child, has become a focal point for GOP attacks, highlighting how Trump is willing to extend threats beyond mere rhetoric. The conflation of Mamdani’s policies with radical ideologies serves to misinform voters and distract from substantive policy discussions.

Adding another layer to the tension, Trump threatened legal action against Mamdani, claiming he would investigate his immigration status if Mamdani obstructs ICE operations in New York. This blatant intimidation tactic underscores the authoritarian tendencies within Trump’s rhetoric and his administration’s immigration policies, which target vulnerable communities.

In response, Mamdani has denounced Trump’s statements as an affront to democracy and a threat to anyone who speaks up against government actions. He has positioned himself as a defender of the rights of all New Yorkers, particularly those who may fear reprisals for their political beliefs. This confrontation is emblematic of the ongoing struggle between progressive and far-right ideologies as the mayoral election approaches.

Trump’s UFC Proposal at the White House Signals a Disturbing Shift from Governance to Entertainment

Donald Trump has proposed hosting a UFC match on the White House grounds to commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence in 2026. This suggestion, announced during a rally in Iowa, highlights Trump’s continued close ties with UFC President Dana White and his interest in mixed martial arts. Trump specifically stated that the event could accommodate 20,000 spectators, emphasizing the “lot of land” available at the White House.

The event is part of a broader celebration that includes a culminating festival on the National Mall and athletic competitions for high school athletes across the nation. Trump’s push for a UFC fight reinforces his penchant for blending politics with entertainment, echoing the troubling normalization of spectacle over substantive governance.

This proposal follows a trend of Trump’s increasing participation in UFC events, indicating a troubling intertwining of sports and politics. His attendance at recent fights has been marked by enthusiastic receptions, but these moments serve to distract from the significant political challenges and democratic responsibilities he faces as a sitting president.

The lack of detail from White House officials raises questions about the feasibility and appropriateness of such an event on government property. Critics argue that hosting a UFC fight at the White House exemplifies Trump’s tendency to prioritize personal interests and entertainment over the solemn responsibilities of the presidency.

The idea underscores a broader narrative where Trump, much like other authoritarian figures, uses public spectacle to consolidate power and engage his base. This proposed event further blurs the line between presidential duties and personal entertainment, reflecting a concerning trend away from traditional norms of leadership and governance in America.

Trump’s Antisemitic Rhetoric: The Dangerous Implications of Using ‘Shylocks’ at Iowa Rally

During a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on July 3, 2025, President Donald Trump employed the antisemitic term “shylocks” while denouncing bankers, a usage that echoes a long-standing ethnic slur rooted in Shakespeare’s portrayal of Jewish moneylenders. Trump’s remarks not only revive harmful stereotypes but also serve to manipulate racial and ethnic narratives for political gain.

The term “shylock,” originating from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, represents a grotesque caricature of Jewish people as greedy and vengeful, portraying them as exploitative financial figures. By invoking this slur, Trump disregards the serious history of antisemitism associated with it, further stoking prejudices amidst a climate of increased violence against Jewish communities.

In his speech, Trump shifted from attacking bankers to unleashing vitriol towards congressional Democrats, whom he claimed universally opposed his spending bill. He asserted, “I hate them,” expressing a dangerously divisive rhetoric that reinforces political antagonism and undermines democratic discourse.

This spending bill, containing cuts to Medicaid and food assistance for millions, has drawn criticism for its potential to exacerbate poverty while adding significantly to the national debt. The bill also includes provisions extending tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest, demonstrating Trump’s alignment with elite interests rather than the working class.

Trump’s rhetoric is symptomatic of a broader trend within Republican politics, characterized by divisiveness and exploitation of historical prejudices. Such language not only erodes democratic norms but also reflects an adherence to fascistic tendencies that threaten the foundational principles of equity and justice in America.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-denounces-shylock-bankers-and-says-of-democrats-i-hate-them/)

EPA Employees Punished for Speaking Out Against Trump Administration’s Environmental Policies

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has placed approximately 140 employees on administrative leave following their signing of a public letter that criticized the agency and the Trump administration’s detrimental policies on climate and public health. The letter, which was signed by over 270 individuals, expressed grave concerns that the Trump administration was systematically dismantling the EPA’s research and development capabilities, canceling vital environmental justice initiatives, and creating a culture of fear aimed at suppressing dissent among federal workers.

Scarlett VanDyke, an EPA employee from the Research and Development office, recounted her unsettling experience of being escorted out of the building after signing the letter. She highlighted the surreal nature of her termination, especially as she is regarded as a top-performing employee. The overt retaliation against her and her colleagues showcases the chilling atmosphere fostered by leadership under Trump’s administration, which openly punishes those who dare to dissent.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has categorically defended this punitive action, framing it as necessary to protect the agency’s integrity against what he claims is sabotage. He has stated the agency adheres to a zero-tolerance policy towards employees undermining the administration’s agenda. This aggressive response to employees’ expression of concerns about ethical governance raises serious questions about the treatment of federal workers under an administration that has repeatedly undermined scientific consensus in favor of corporate interests.

Internal communication from the EPA conveyed that the ongoing investigation into the employees’ actions was not disciplinary, despite the public branding of their dissent as an act of sabotage. This contradiction, coupled with a similar incident at the National Institutes of Health where employees faced no repercussions for dissent, further highlights the oppressive measures implemented by Zeldin’s administration to silence critical voices within the agency.

As cautionary tales emerge about the environment of fear that inhibits transparency and accountability, employees like Amelia Hertzberg have expressed disappointment in the perceived failure of whistleblower protections. They assert that the agency’s leadership interprets dissent as hostility rather than constructive criticism, further endangering the fundamental mission of the EPA to uphold environmental and public health standards amidst a landscape characterized by political manipulation and ethical breaches.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/03/climate/epa-letter-employees-suspended-investigation)

1 2 3 … 451