Author: Stop the Donald Trump

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)

Trump administration mulls payments to sway Greenlanders to join US

The Trump administration is discussing direct cash payments to Greenland’s 57,000 residents, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, as a strategy to persuade them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States, according to four sources familiar with internal deliberations. A $100,000-per-person payment would total approximately $6 billion. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Trump and his national security team were “looking at what a potential purchase would look like,” while the specific mechanics and conditions of such payments remain undefined.

Among the options under consideration is a Compact of Free Association (COFA), an arrangement previously extended only to Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, under which the United States provides essential services including mail delivery and military protection while operating military facilities freely and establishing duty-free trade. Such an agreement would require Greenland to separate from Denmark first. Trump has claimed Greenland is strategically vital for national security and mineral resources needed for military applications, asserting that the White House is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland, with military intervention explicitly stated as a possible tool.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen rejected the acquisition attempt on Sunday, writing “Enough is enough … No more fantasies about annexation” on Facebook. Denmark, a NATO ally bound to the United States by mutual defense agreement, has firmly stated Greenland is not for sale. On Tuesday, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain, and Denmark issued a joint statement asserting that only Greenland and Denmark can decide matters regarding their relations, underscoring Denmark’s demands for U.S. answers over alleged Trump operations in Greenland.

Internal discussions about acquiring Greenland intensified following Trump’s government’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro over the weekend, with White House aides reportedly seeking momentum to advance the President’s other long-standing geopolitical objectives. Sources indicate that while payment discussions are not entirely new, they have escalated in seriousness in recent days, with officials entertaining higher compensation figures. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet his Danish counterpart next week in Washington to address the matter.

Although polls show an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders desire independence from Denmark, surveys also demonstrate that most Greenlanders do not wish to become part of the United States. Economic concerns about separating from Denmark have prevented most Greenlandic legislators from calling for an independence referendum. The payment strategy risks being perceived as transactional and demeaning to a population with its own historical independence debate.

(Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-administration-mulls-payments-sway-greenlanders-join-us-2026-01-08/?fbclid=IwdGRleAPNL_RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeuOInok69PUqliyuymFV_AN3L61-CrKKZHvXIXFRSzXxCVSvRn6eTLknE4B4_aem_MdSL1V900AKJKBGUc55xCw&utm_medium=Social&utm_social_handle_id=114050161948682&utm_social_post_id=646273254&utm_source=Facebook)

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’s assault on the Smithsonian: The goal is to reframe the entire culture of the US

Trump administration officials are systematically dismantling the Smithsonian Institution’s historical narratives through executive orders, intimidation, and threats of funding cuts. On May 30, 2025, Trump personally fired National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet via social media, accusing her of being “a highly partisan person” supporting diversity programs he had banned by executive order on his inauguration day. Despite lacking legal authority to terminate Smithsonian employees—a power held by the institution’s board of regents—Trump succeeded in forcing Sajet’s resignation by June 12, demonstrating his willingness to weaponize presidential authority against cultural institutions.

In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” that accused the Smithsonian of promoting “divisive, race-centred ideology” and assigned Lindsey Halligan—a mid-30s Trump aide with no arts background—to remove what Trump labeled “improper ideology.” The order directly contradicts the institution’s congressionally mandated mission to present an unbiased account of American history. Vice President JD Vance personally called for Sajet’s removal during emergency board meetings, signaling coordinated pressure from the administration.

Widespread self-censorship has spread through museums nationwide in anticipation of Trump administration scrutiny. Museum professionals report removing language about slavery being “unjust,” scrubbing references to the Dutch empire’s role in enslavement, replacing “diversity” with “variety” even in scientific contexts, and subjecting exhibitions featuring trans subjects to additional review layers. Artist Amy Sherald withdrew her exhibition from the National Portrait Gallery after learning the Smithsonian was pressuring her to contextualize a portrait of a trans woman, demonstrating how institutional self-censorship functions as a preemptive silencing mechanism without requiring explicit government intervention.

Trump has explicitly stated his goal: reframing American museums to present a nationalist, triumphalist narrative that downplays slavery and celebrates only American success. On August 19, 2025, he declared museums “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE'” and vowed to apply the same aggressive tactics used against colleges and universities to cultural institutions. The Smithsonian faces an anticipated $131.2 million budget cut in 2026, and Trump threatens to revoke tax-exempt status from private museums—a tactic that functions as intimidation even without legal enforceability, compelling institutions to self-censor rather than risk losing charitable protections.

Museum directors, curators, and senior officials privately acknowledge the transformation but fear retaliation for speaking publicly. Steven Nelson, who recently left the National Gallery of Art, stated bluntly that “the administration don’t really have to do anything, because institutions are doing it all for them.” This systematic capture of cultural institutions reframes the entire narrative of American history from foundational levels, erasing discussions of slavery, racism, and injustice to impose an ideologically mandated version of national identity that serves authoritarian political goals.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/donald-trump-smithsonian-reframe-entire-culture-united-states?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPNDpRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeqGOf7N3A_RR8g6_b7eRWQEJBaE8o7uAtOzYP0CaIP5euVBiS7HpFHc0fr_E_aem_hEk2VO2Y27gNvD9zJLdkPA#Echobox=1767870506)

UNFCCC: Trump moves to pull US out of bedrock global climate treaty, becoming first country to do so

President Trump’s administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a foundational treaty that Congress ratified in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush. If executed, this action would make the United States the first country to exit the agreement, which nearly every nation globally has joined. The UNFCCC established the framework for international climate negotiations, including the 1995 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, and requires participating nations to submit annual climate pollution inventories—a requirement the Trump administration already skipped this year.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the withdrawal by stating the administration will not continue “expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests.” The move is part of a broader executive order directing withdrawal from 66 international organizations deemed to no longer serve American interests, including 31 UN entities such as UN Water, UN Oceans, UN Population Fund, and the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

Former Secretary of State and US climate envoy John Kerry condemned the decision as “a gift to China and a get out of jail free card to countries and polluters who want to avoid responsibility.” The withdrawal follows Trump’s second pullout from the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, demonstrating a pattern of rejecting climate commitments. The Trump administration also moved to withdraw from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel Prize-winning scientific body that publishes global warming assessments, potentially restricting federal scientists’ participation in IPCC reports.

The legality of Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the UNFCCC remains uncertain, as the Senate ratified the treaty in 1992, creating ambiguity over whether presidential authority extends to exiting congressionally approved agreements without legislative consent. Republican majorities in Congress would likely support the withdrawal if required to formally approve it. Withdrawal would exclude the United States from participating in subsequent annual UN climate summits and jeopardize the country’s ability to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which operates under UNFCCC authority.

The withdrawal threatens to destabilize international climate cooperation and may prompt other nations to reconsider their own UNFCCC commitments, undermining global progress on climate action. A US withdrawal would isolate America from allied nations for whom climate action is a priority and signals abandonment of decades-long international environmental partnerships at a critical moment for addressing climate change.

(Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/climate/trump-withdrawal-climate-treaty-international-agreements)

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/)

Trump Makes Sure Everyone Knows Why He Invaded Venezuela

President Trump publicly justified the U.S. invasion of Venezuela by stating the operation would secure control over Venezuelan oil reserves. Trump announced he would personally oversee the sale of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market price following Delta Force operatives’ capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with the military action resulting in hundreds of deaths in Caracas and surrounding areas.

Trump’s original pretext that the invasion targeted drug trafficking has been abandoned despite continued repetition by right-wing media allies. The administration’s actual focus on Venezuelan oil became unmistakable when Trump suggested American taxpayers would reimburse oil companies for reconstructing Venezuela’s energy infrastructure, explicitly linking military intervention to corporate profit extraction.

The invasion violates international law by overthrowing a foreign government without lawful cause, establishing a precedent that powerful nations can unilaterally remove leaders they deem objectionable. This directly contradicts Trump’s stated support for a rules-based global order, as the administration simultaneously maintains close relationships with authoritarian regimes including Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, whose government also oppresses its population and controls vast oil reserves.

Trump has installed Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president from the previous regime, as successor rather than holding promised democratic elections. The administration demanded Rodríguez crack down on drugs, expel foreign operatives from U.S.-designated hostile countries, and cease oil sales to those nations, while explicitly postponing elections indefinitely—revealing the occupation prioritizes geopolitical control and resource extraction over democratic governance.

The military operation, which killed over 100 people in boat bombings designed to provoke Maduro into an aggressive response, demonstrates Trump’s disregard for the sovereignty of nations unable to defend themselves militarily. By stating “We’re going to keep the oil,” Trump discarded pretense and openly acknowledged the invasion as resource seizure justified by military dominance rather than law or humanitarian concern.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/trump-tells-everyone-why-he-illegally-invaded-venezuela-were-going-to-keep-the-oil/)

Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE officer during immigration-related operation, DHS says

An ICE agent fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday during the Trump administration’s largest immigration enforcement operation, which has deployed approximately 2,100 officers to the city. The Department of Homeland Security claimed the woman “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over” agents, but video evidence and Minneapolis officials directly contradict this narrative, with Mayor Jacob Frey stating the DHS account is false after reviewing footage himself.

Video shows ICE agents approaching a burgundy SUV and ordering the driver out; when an agent grabbed the door handle, the vehicle reversed then moved forward, prompting the agent to fire three shots fatally. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara expressed concern that agents fired into a vehicle at someone who was not armed, calling the tactic inconsistent with professional law enforcement training to minimize deadly force. Witness Aidan Perzana told NBC News there was “plenty of space between the officers” for the vehicle to pass through, contradicting claims the driver was attempting to run down agents.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem characterized the incident as “an act of domestic terrorism,” a designation Mayor Frey rejected, stating the woman appeared to be blocking the street in response to federal law enforcement presence—a pattern occurring nationwide. Frey declared “To ICE, get the f— out of Minneapolis,” condemning the agency for “ripping families apart, sowing chaos in the streets and, in this case, quite literally killing people” through reckless use of power.

The shooting occurred as ICE intensified operations following a December video alleging Somali-run day care centers committed fraud, though Minnesota’s on-site investigation of targeted facilities found them operating normally with children present. The surge has coincided with Trump disparaging Somali immigrants as having “destroyed” Minneapolis, calling Representative Ilhan Omar “garbage” and stating Somalis should leave the country, causing many Somali-American residents and citizens to reduce outdoor activity from fear.

Since December, ICE arrests in Minneapolis have risen to approximately 1,400 people, a sharp increase from roughly 300 by mid-December, marking a significantly larger operation than previous city-specific enforcement surges. In September, an ICE agent fatally shot a man during a Chicago-area traffic stop, with the family demanding justice and the FBI investigating the death, establishing a pattern of lethal force escalation under the current administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.

(Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-law-enforcement-involved-ice-related-shooting-minneapolis-rcna252812)

Trump Says Venezuela Oil ‘Money Will Be Controlled by Me’

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he would personally control revenues from Venezuelan oil sales following the U.S. invasion of Venezuela on Saturday, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. In a Truth Social post, Trump stated he would oversee the sale of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market price, declaring “that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America.” Trump instructed Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute the plan immediately, with oil to be transported by storage ships to U.S. unloading docks.

Trump explicitly tied the military invasion to resource extraction and corporate profit, stating the day after the operation that the administration’s priority was to “fix up the oil” and “have total access” to Venezuela’s resources. He indicated that oil companies had been alerted to his plans prior to the invasion, saying “They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela and they’re going to represent us.” Trump acknowledged that major oil company investments would be required to rebuild Venezuelan infrastructure, positioning private corporations as the primary beneficiaries of military intervention. Trump has separately indicated that U.S. taxpayers may reimburse oil companies for reconstruction costs.

The announcement directly contradicts Trump’s stated rationale for the invasion—that military action was undertaken to benefit the Venezuelan people—by placing personal control of oil revenues in presidential hands rather than under Venezuelan governance or international oversight. Oil stocks surged immediately following Trump’s declaration that his administration would “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future, signaling market confidence in corporate access to Venezuelan resources.

The Trump administration has simultaneously expanded U.S. military presence across Latin America and the Caribbean through security agreements, enabling armed operations under the pretext of counternarcotics efforts while simultaneously conducting resource extraction operations.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-says-hes-selling-venezuelas-oil-and-that-the-money-will-be-controlled-by-me/)

Trump wants US taxpayers to reimburse oil firm donors for Venezuela investment

President Donald Trump stated that US taxpayers could reimburse oil companies for reconstructing Venezuelan infrastructure to extract and export oil following the ouster of Nicolás Maduro. Trump declared that “a tremendous amount of money” would be required and suggested his government would compensate energy firms through direct reimbursement or revenue sharing, explicitly linking military intervention to corporate profit.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is scheduled to meet executives from Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil at a Goldman Sachs conference in Miami this week to discuss increasing Venezuelan oil production. These meetings represent the administration’s strategy to restore US oil company operations in Venezuela after nearly two decades of government control of the industry, contradicting Trump’s earlier claims that he had already held talks with “all” major US oil companies regarding Maduro’s removal.

Trump acknowledged no prior briefing of oil companies before military action but claimed companies were aware of discussions about intervention. When asked if he personally contacted top executives, Trump stated it was “too soon” to confirm direct conversations, saying “I speak to everybody,” despite Reuters reporting that no representatives from the three major firms had engaged with the White House on Venezuela operations before or after Maduro’s seizure.

Trump’s blockade announcement of Venezuelan oil tankers exposed the operation’s economic objectives beyond stated anti-drug rationales. Venezuela’s crude production has collapsed to approximately 1.1 million barrels daily from 3.5 million in 1999 due to underinvestment and sanctions, and industry analysts warn that reconstruction requires years of work and billions in investment amid political uncertainty and unclear US policy direction.

Stock markets responded immediately to Trump’s Venezuela initiative, with the S&P 500 energy index reaching its highest level since March 2025 on Monday, as ExxonMobil gained 2.2% and Chevron jumped 5.1%. The White House claimed US oil companies were “ready and willing” to make large investments to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, while the targeted companies declined to comment on their involvement or commitment to Trump’s stated plans.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/06/trump-us-taxpayers-oil-firms-venezuela-investment?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRleAPKh-pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe_-yezUeRoVFdugcD1nvSw5XtSl1m5n_0dygqy2cYQq8J1z-O6-KB_zPL_K4_aem_UlldULbmcvRIeiE8DDl0jg#Echobox=1767698755)

1 2 3 … 110