Category: Racist: African-American

Trump’s Unapologetic Bigotry Against Somali Immigrants

President Donald Trump recently launched a xenophobic tirade, labeling Somali immigrants as “garbage” and expressing his disdain for their presence in the United States. His comments were made during a cabinet meeting, where he voiced a sentiment that is increasingly indicative of the nativist rhetoric he employs regarding immigration. Trump’s history of insulting Black individuals, particularly from African nations, makes this outburst especially troubling.

While speaking on Somali immigrants, Trump declared, “When they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don’t want them in our country.” These remarks were particularly targeted at Representative Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee and U.S. citizen, whom he derogatorily called “garbage.” This kind of language has been a hallmark of Trump’s political strategy, as he frequently associates immigrants with crime and societal decay.

Despite appearing disengaged during parts of the meeting, Trump fiercely reacted when immigration was brought up, indicating a strategic shift towards an anti-immigrant stance amid mounting pressures over his administration’s shortcomings. His comments followed a shooting incident linked to an Afghan national, which he exploited to intensify his criticism of immigrant communities, particularly in Minnesota.

Local leaders, including the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul, condemned Trump’s remarks as reckless and dangerous, invoking the principle of inclusion in America’s founding creed. Mayor Melvin Carter emphasized the importance of defining who is included in “We the People,” highlighting the need for a more equitable understanding of citizenship.

Trump’s attack on Somali immigrants aligns with broader patterns of dehumanizing language used by his administration, reflecting a dangerous normalization of hate. Experts caution that such rhetoric may incite violence against marginalized groups, further underscoring the immediate threat posed by Trump’s ongoing inflammatory discourse.

Noem Urges Trump for Nationwide Travel Ban on Immigrants

Kristi Noem, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, pressed President Donald Trump to implement a comprehensive travel ban targeting countries she labels as “flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.” In a post on social media, she expressed her view that America’s ancestors built the nation for its citizens, not for foreign individuals, stating, “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.”

Noem’s call for a travel ban reflects Trump’s recent promises to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries,” particularly following violent incidents attributed to immigrants, including a shooting involving a suspected Afghan national. Trump has criticized existing immigration policies, insisting they undermine American society and finance, stating that migrants benefit disproportionately from U.S. resources.

Noem’s focus on immigration policies aligns with Trump’s broader immigration agenda, which features extreme measures such as denaturalizing migrants deemed detrimental to national cohesion, ending federal benefits for non-citizens, and aggressive deportation policies. Both officials are vocal about viewing immigration as a central issue affecting national security and social stability.

This rhetoric from Noem and Trump echoes an intensifying trend in Republican politics, wherein immigration is depicted as a significant threat. Their comments play into a narrative that directly targets specific nationalities while advocating measures that many deem as xenophobic and divisive.

As their statements draw further attention, they contribute to an ongoing dialogue about the future of immigration in the U.S. amid rising tensions and increasing calls for stricter enforcement of immigration laws. Their extreme posturing reinforces a culture of fear and aggression toward immigrants in American political discourse.

Pentagon Grants Press Credentials to Extremist Laura Loomer

The Pentagon has credentialed Laura Loomer, a divisive right-wing activist, to cover President Trump’s Department of Defense. Loomer announced her credentialing on social media, claiming her work has significantly influenced personnel decisions within the Executive Branch and intelligence agencies. This decision is part of the Pentagon’s recent media policy shifts aimed at promoting more conservative and alternative media.

Loomer is known for her controversial attacks against even some of Trump’s allies, a fact that has drawn criticism from multiple quarters, including within the Republican Party. Her influence raises alarms about the Pentagon’s increasing alignment with extremist viewpoints. Loomer had previously criticized Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over plans to host a Qatari air force facility in Idaho, arguing it was opposed by Trump supporters.

The credentialing follows reports that major news outlets, such as The Hill and The New York Times, have declined to accept the Pentagon’s new press policy. This policy drastically restricts media access and aims to control the flow of information from the Department of Defense, indicating a troubling trend in governmental transparency and press freedoms.

This development occurs against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s ongoing transformation of media engagement, notably favoring voices that align with far-right ideologies. Critics view this as a threat to journalistic integrity and an attempt to marginalize traditional news organizations that uphold independent reporting standards.

As Loomer’s credentialing illustrates the growing influence of extremist figures in the realm of American politics, it poses serious questions about the future of military and governmental media relations under Trump’s administration.

Trump’s ‘Third World’ Immigration Ban Threatens Rights

Donald Trump announced a plan to “permanently pause” immigration from what he refers to as “third world countries” following a shooting incident involving National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C. This announcement came just hours after the tragic death of Guardsman Sarah Beckstrom and escalated Trump’s already inflammatory rhetoric on immigration. His proposal includes the “reverse migration” of millions of migrants currently residing in the U.S.

In a lengthy social media post, Trump vowed to eliminate Biden’s immigration policies and deport individuals he deems “non-compatible with Western Civilization.” He specifically indicated that visa issuance for Afghan nationals has been stopped, tying the pause to national security concerns despite the context of ongoing conflicts in those regions.

The president also threatened to strip federal benefits from noncitizens and to reassess the u.s. status of green card holders from 19 countries, particularly focusing on Somalia. Previous remarks directed at the Somali community in Minnesota had incited concern and drawn reactions of criticism from various advocacy groups.

Critics, including U.N. officials and migrant advocacy organizations, have condemned Trump’s actions and rhetoric as harmful and unconstitutional. They warn that using one tragic event to justify a crackdown on all immigrants, especially Afghan refugees, undermines fundamental American values and legal protections. These proposals are likely to face significant legal challenges if pursued.

Trump’s language and policies hark back to previous attempts to ban visas from majority-Muslim countries, which faced substantial opposition and legal scrutiny during his first term. The increasingly aggressive stance against immigrants reflects broader authoritarian tendencies and has sparked alarm among civil liberties organizations.

Albert Pike Statue Reinstalled in D.C., Igniting Outrage

A statue of Confederate general Albert Pike, removed during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, has been reinstated in Washington, D.C.’s Judiciary Square. This reinstallation reflects the National Park Service’s controversial decision to restore a monument that had long been criticized for its association with problematic historical narratives.

The Pike statue, which had been erected in 1901, stands as the only outdoor tribute to a Confederate general in the nation’s capital, despite its lack of acknowledgment of Pike’s military actions. Historians have pointed to Pike’s possible connections with the early Ku Klux Klan, which further complicates the statue’s place in public space.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) vocally opposed the statue’s return, stating it is disrespectful to the diverse, predominantly Black and Brown community of Washington, D.C. She highlighted Pike’s historical record, including a dishonorable military service that ended in disgrace from his own troops—a clear contradiction to the values that should be celebrated in the capital.

The reinstallation is seen not only as a historical misstep but also as a direct challenge to the ongoing efforts to address racial injustices symbolized by Confederate monuments. Norton has introduced legislation to permanently remove the Pike statue, insisting that such artifacts should be relegated to museums rather than celebrated in public spaces.

The National Park Service’s decision to restore the statue follows executive orders aimed at beautifying the capital, raising questions about the prioritization of historical preservation over community sentiments and the moral implications of commemorating figures tied to the Confederacy.

Trump Mocks Schumer and Jeffries, Promotes 2028 Bid in Office

President Donald Trump attempted to give Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries “Trump 2028” hats during a recent Oval Office meeting, which they declined. Trump’s gesture sparked a moment of humor in the room, particularly when Vice President JD Vance responded with “No comment” to Jeffries’ inquiry about Trump pursuing a third term, leading to laughter among attendees.

Following the meeting, Trump posted photos of Schumer and Jeffries next to the hats, further mocking them. In a disturbing turn, Trump shared a video depicting Jeffries in a sombrero, which Jeffries condemned as racist, urging Trump to address him directly rather than resorting to demeaning portrayals. Jeffries emphasized that such attacks reflect Trump’s ongoing history of racism.

The incident is reflective of a broader pattern in which Trump uses humor to undermine his political opponents while dismissing serious accusations of racism against him. Jeffries reiterated the importance of direct confrontation against such racial insensitivity, emphasizing the need for accountability in political discourse.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has publicly expressed unconstitutional support for Trump’s potential bid for a third term, suggesting a growing faction within the Republican Party that embraces Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. Graham’s comments underline a troubling erosion of constitutional norms regarding presidential term limits.

Overall, these interactions in the Oval Office illustrate the ongoing tensions between Trump and Democratic leaders, with racism and potential autocratic tendencies coming to the forefront of political dialogue. As Trump trolls his opponents with juvenile antics, the serious implications of his rhetoric and aspirations are undeniable.

Trump Aide Overseeing Smithsonian Pushes Lost Cause Myth

**Trump Targets Smithsonian to Censor Historical Narratives on Slavery**

The Trump administration’s recent initiative to review the Smithsonian Institution has sparked significant controversy due to accusations that it aims to censor critical discussions surrounding slavery in America. Lindsey Halligan, a special assistant to Trump, claimed that the Smithsonian exhibits place an “overemphasis on slavery” and suggested that they should instead highlight America’s progress since that era. This rhetoric aligns with Trump’s broader narrative to eliminate what he terms “woke” ideology from cultural institutions.

In a bizarre effort to reshape the nation’s historical narrative, Trump criticized the Smithsonian’s portrayal of slavery, asserting that it paints a negative picture of American history. He described the museum’s focus on slavery as indicative of a culture that refuses to acknowledge success and achievement in U.S. history. This manifests a disturbing trend where an administration seeks to rewrite history, erasing and minimizing the contributions and suffering of enslaved individuals.

Critics, including established historians, have pushed back against this revisionist approach. Historian Douglas Brinkley stated that it is nonsensical to diminish slavery’s significance when discussing American history, especially since it was a pivotal factor leading to the Civil War. The Smithsonian, in presenting the realities of slavery, provides essential context, as it deals robustly with human rights and civil rights issues alongside the history of slavery.

Furthermore, reports indicate that Trump’s administration has actively sought to promote a version of American exceptionalism that ignores the complex and painful aspects of the country’s past. The White House’s fact-sheet outlining its concerns with the Smithsonian’s exhibits has been criticized for straying from factual historical accuracy and displaying a clear bias against comprehensive learning about America’s past. Efforts like this only serve to exacerbate historical ignorance rather than educate the populace.

This push aligns with other actions taken by Trump, including reinstating names of military bases associated with Confederate leaders, thereby glorifying individuals who fought to maintain slavery. The attempt to sanitize U.S. history under the guise of restoring patriotism reflects a broader authoritarian approach to governance, revealing a clear intention to rewrite American history in favor of a racially biased narrative. The implications of such a campaign threaten the very foundation of education and historical integrity in the United States.

Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Fuels Fear and Division in Europe

During a recent visit to Scotland, President Donald Trump made alarming comments regarding immigration, asserting that a “migrant invasion” is causing severe consequences in Europe. This rhetoric plays into his pattern of inflammatory claims aimed at furthering a xenophobic agenda. Trump’s remarks included harsh advice for European leaders to “get your act together” and defend their nations against what he described as an existential threat from immigration.

Upon his arrival at Glasgow Prestwick Airport, Trump was received by thousands, including Scottish Secretary Ian Murray. He met with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whom he praised, while simultaneously promoting his own business interests, including his luxury golf resorts. This underscores the troubling mixture of personal gain and national dialogue that has characterized much of Trump’s public engagement.

Trump’s ongoing fixation on immigration is not just rhetoric but aligns with the authoritarian trends seen in Republican policies, creating an atmosphere of fear and division. By framing migrants as an invasion, he signals support for extreme and inhumane immigration measures that threaten the rights and dignity of individuals seeking refuge or a better life.

Additionally, Trump made disparaging comments about windmills, falsely claiming they are damaging the environment. Such statements illustrate a disregard for factual information and demonstrate his enduring commitment to denying climate change—a stance that has dire implications for environmental policy and public health.

This visit serves as a stark reminder of Trump’s persistent divisive tactics and the dangerous political discourse he champions, benefiting from fearmongering in an attempt to solidify his political influence while undermining democratic values across the globe.

Trump’s Condescending Remarks on Liberian President Spotlight Cultural Ignorance

Donald Trump recently lauded Liberian President Joseph Boakai for his impressive command of English during a White House meeting with several African leaders. Trump’s comment, however, sparked outrage as it was seen as ignorant and condescending. Liberia, where President Boakai was educated, has English as its official language, leading many to question Trump’s perception of African nations and cultures.

Archie Tamel Harris, a Liberian youth advocate, expressed feeling insulted by Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that his suggestion that Boakai’s English skills were exceptional implies a stereotype of Africans as uneducated. A Liberian diplomat described Trump’s question as inappropriate, further highlighting the condescension perceived in his remarks.

The White House attempted to defend Trump’s comments as a compliment, suggesting that the administration has a strong commitment to Africa. However, critics, including a South African politician, questioned the appropriateness of Trump’s remarks and called for African leaders to stand up against such patronizing behavior.

In response to the backlash, Liberia’s Foreign Minister clarified that Boakai did not perceive any offense and suggested that Trump recognized the American influence in Liberia’s English. Despite this, Trump’s history of derogatory comments regarding African nations casts a shadow over his diplomatic interactions.

This incident underscores the ongoing need for awareness and sensitivity concerning historical contexts and cultural perceptions in international relations, particularly from leaders who have previously exhibited xenophobic attitudes towards Africa.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/africa/trump-praises-liberian-president-latam-intl)

Trump’s Inappropriate Comments Undermine Serious Peace Efforts Amid Congo-Rwanda Accord

During a recent Oval Office event, President Donald Trump made inappropriate comments directed at a female reporter, Hariana Veras, while acknowledging a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Trump lightheartedly called Veras “beautiful” and expressed a wish for more reporters like her, undermining the seriousness of the diplomatic occasion.

The exchange occurred amidst a signing ceremony aimed at addressing decades of violent conflict in eastern Congo, where millions have died due to ongoing strife fueled by over 100 armed groups. Trump’s comments shifted the focus away from the historical significance of the agreement, trivializing the efforts toward peace in a region beset by a long humanitarian crisis.

Trump’s remarks, “I’m not allowed to say that…it could be the end of my political career,” reflect a troubling attitude towards women in professional settings, particularly in a role as significant as that of the President. Flirting with a reporter during an official event not only displays a lack of professionalism but also reinforces harmful gender dynamics in political discourse.

As he touted the peace deal, dubbed the “Washington Accord,” Trump diverted attention to himself, even suggesting it could be renamed the “Trump Accord.” This self-serving behavior is emblematic of a leader more focused on personal accolades than on the serious implications of foreign policy and its impact on affected populations.

Overall, Trump’s antics during this diplomatic event exemplify his ongoing pattern of behavior that undermines the integrity of the presidency, showcasing a troubling blend of misogyny, narcissism, and a lack of decorum that has steadily contributed to the erosion of America’s democratic values.

(h/t: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-flirts-with-female-reporter-wish-more-were-like-you/)

1 2 3 … 15