Tag: donald trump
MAGA Propaganda: Trump's Fox News 'Cabinet' Urges Him To Escalate Iran War

MAGA Propaganda: Trump's Fox News 'Cabinet' Urges Him To Escalate Iran War

As President Donald Trump prepares to meet with top aides to discuss next steps in the Iran war, his Fox News Cabinet is advising him to escalate.

Influential pundits on the MAGA propaganda channel are telling the president that he currently holds “the cards” and are urging him to use U.S. military might to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, force open the Strait of Hormuz, assassinate the country’s leaders, and overturn its regime.

Fox has played a key role in getting the U.S. into the quagmire in Iran, with the network’s hosts (who often double as off-the-books presidential advisers) counseling him to launch the campaign in February. They continued to cheer him on over the following weeks, even as Iran’s regime remained intact and in control of its nuclear stockpile, its seizure of the Strait of Hormuz sent fuel prices soaring, public support for the war cratered, and analysts issued dire warnings of U.S. strategic defeat.

With Trump’s ceasefire with Iran failing to produce a more permanent agreement to end the conflict, the president has returned to saber-rattling and reportedly plans to meet with “his top national security team in the Situation Room on Tuesday to discuss military options.” And Fox, which often plays an influential role in shaping Trump’s worldview through its coverage, is already banging the drums for a return to war, telling its viewers — which on any given day can include the president — that the war is a success and that Trump is in control of the situation and can easily escalate without risk.

Brian Kilmeade, one of the network’s most prominent hawks and a co-host of the president’s favorite morning show, Fox & Friends, on Monday morning proposed a series of simultaneous U.S. strikes against Iranian targets.

He called for the U.S. military to “open up the strait,” “grab the uranium,” and “target these bad actors that have been insincerely negotiating with our group,” an apparent reference to assassinating Iran’s diplomatic team. Kilmeade added that “the best chance for no casualties is you open up four different fronts immediately, simultaneously.”

Fox correspondent Trey Yingst stressed on the same broadcast that Trump’s strategy has put him in control of the situation and left Iranian leaders desperate for a deal to avoid further U.S. strikes.

“President Trump holds the cards here, according to regional officials, who say that his strategic patience has given him not only the upper hand on the battlefield but also at the negotiating table,” Yingst said. “Now the Iranians … are grasping at straws. They are trying to find some path forward that would give them an agreement at least temporarily to enter into deeper negotiations to avoid such a bombing campaign.”

He added that Iran’s economic situation is “truly dire” and its officials “are having to try to sell a reality to the people that doesn’t exist. They were defeated militarily during Operation Epic Fury.”

And KT McFarland — a former Fox personality turned Trump national security adviser — even suggested during her Fox & Friends appearance that China would hesitate to engage the U.S. militarily because the U.S. success in Iran has shown them to be “no match for America militarily.”

“If you are the Chinese leader, you’ve got to look at what the United States is just pulling off in Iran,” she said. “The unbelievable precision, the capability, how everything seems to work together. We seem to have done the miraculous.”

Likewise, Mark Levin, the nasal-voiced Middle East hawk who Trump has urged supporters to watch for his Iran commentary, spent the weekend urging the president to push for regime change in Iran.

On Saturday night, Levin hosted retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, a former Fox contributor Trump named as a special envoy in 2024 who has called for “putting boots on the ground” in Iran and for the U.S. to seize its territory “like the Romans did” in Carthage.

After Levin called Trump “the only president that's put his foot down firmly and said no,” Kellogg added that “there's been eight presidents since the revolution in Iran, and only one, Donald Trump, has done something about it.” He then called for Trump to seize Iran’s Kharg Island and Qeshm Island to force open the strait.

“I would just say, go full in, get rid of this regime, whatever it’s going to take out there, because as long as you’ve got the theocratic leaders, as long you’ve got mullahs running that government, you’re going to have this problem, not just today, tomorrow, a month from now, but five or 10 years for the next presidency or our grandchildren, or children as well,” Kellogg added.

“All right, I appreciate that,” Levin replied. “I agree with that. And we’re there. Let’s get it over with already. And what do I mean by that? Destroy the regime, help the people, so they can help themselves.”

After a similar segment on Sunday night’s show featuring right-wing commentator Josh Hammer, Levin again said the U.S. needs to “eliminate that regime, because it’s the only way to prevent them once and for all from getting a nuclear weapon, tomorrow, 10 years from now, 20 years from now.”

Levin followed that up by interviewing right-wing commentator Jim Hanson, who served in the U.S. Army special forces, about how the U.S. could, as Hanson put it, “slow roll an internal unrest” in Iran “until the regime finally gets overthrown from within.” Levin suggested that this would be necessary because the Iranian regime could not be trusted to follow through on any deal Trump made.

“We have a deal, whatever the deal is, let's say it's the greatest deal since sliced bread,” Levin pontificated. “Are future presidents, future Congresses, the American people in the future, do you think we're going to be willing to enforce a deal if they break the deal, which I think they obviously will when the president leaves?”


Trump 'Settles' Bogus $10B IRS Lawsuit For $1.8B Thug And Crony Slush Fund

Trump 'Settles' Bogus $10B IRS Lawsuit For $1.8B Thug And Crony Slush Fund

Well, it happened. President Donald Trump really did drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service to instead “settle” for $1.776 billion (ugh) to go to Jan. 6 insurrectionists and whoever else might just have a vibe that former President Joe Biden was mean to them.

As part of this sham, Trump is also dropping his $230 million demand for how sad he was over the Mar-a-Lago documents case, a thing that resulted in no consequences for Trump whatsoever. Trump, his sons, and his family business will not receive money from the settlement, but they do get an apology.

It’s absurd that this arrangement purports to settle Trump’s claims. There is no world where Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns by an IRS contractor is somehow resolved by a $1.7 billion settlement going to entirely different people for entirely different things. That’s just not how lawsuits work.

The Department of Justice is calling this an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and issued a slender little two-pager that does not at all specify who will get this money or how much money they will get. The only requirement, it seems, is that someone alleges they suffered “weaponization and lawfare.”

The attorney general gets to appoint the five people who will oversee the slush fund, though one has to be chosen “in consultation with Congressional leadership.” That’s a very weaselly way of saying the administration will only be checking in with Republicans, since they currently control both houses.

Trump can remove anyone he wants for any reason, but the replacement “must be chosen the same way as the replaced member was selected.” On the surface, that sounds like some sort of meaningful restriction on Trump until you remember that the DOJ is nothing but Trump’s puppet and personal law firm these days, so any replacement tapped by the attorney general will no doubt be Trump’s pick.

The attorney general gets to appoint the five people who will oversee the slush fund, though one has to be chosen “in consultation with Congressional leadership.” That’s a very weaselly way of saying the administration will only be checking in with Republicans, since they currently control both houses.

Trump can remove anyone he wants for any reason, but the replacement “must be chosen the same way as the replaced member was selected.” On the surface, that sounds like some sort of meaningful restriction on Trump until you remember that the DOJ is nothing but Trump’s puppet and personal law firm these days, so any replacement tapped by the attorney general will no doubt be Trump’s pick.

According to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, however, this is a totally normal thing the government does. The DOJ’s press release and the settlement agreement both mention the Obama-era settlement in the Keepseagle v. Vilsack matter, calling it “legal precedent” for this slush fund. Seriously?

The Keepseagle fund was set up in 2011 to resolve a lawsuit where Native American farmers sued the government, alleging longtime, systemic discrimination by the Department of Agriculture in the distribution and servicing of farm loans from 1981 to 1999. The settlement was for $760 million, or less than one-half of Trump’s little slush fund.

The settlement capped most claims at $50,000, provided up to $12,500 to the IRS on the claimant’s behalf, and forgave USDA loan debt. Farmers who provided additional documentation of damages could receive up to $250,000 and forgiveness of farm debt. Out of 3,601 eligible claimants, 3,587 were paid $50,000, with only 14 farmers eligible for the higher payout.

Moreover, the Keepseagle settlement resolved a case that had been going on since 1999, ran 52 pages, and was required to be approved by the court.

Blanche also smugly explained why the slush fund for Trump is much better than the Keepseagle settlement; any money not claimed by treasonweasels goes back to the government, where in Keepseagle, “the remaining money—which ended up being over $300 million—was distributed to the entities that had not even submitted claims.”

Blanche failed to mention that such an arrangement, known as cy pres, is a longstanding feature of class action settlements, where any money left over after all claimants have been paid can be distributed to nonprofit organizations that directly support the class of claimants. In Keepseagle, $38 million went to nonprofits supporting Native American farmers via a grant-making process, while $266 million went to a trust to fund programs supporting Native farmers for the next 20 years.

Blanche also failed to mention that the move was implicitly approved by the Supreme Court when it refused to hear an appeal over the cy pres distribution.

Similarly, the settlement in Pigford v. Glickman over discrimination against Black farmers was reached only after nearly two years of litigation and, as with Keepseagle, was approved by the court. Class members had to show the USDA discriminated against them by denying loans or providing less favorable terms than those to white farmers. Those claims were also largely capped at $50,000, and over 20,000 claimants received a portion of the $1.01 billion in the settlement.

A second lawsuit, known as Pigford II, was resolved in 2010 for $1.25 billion, with Congress passing the Claims Resolution Act by unanimous consent to appropriate $1.15 billion of the funds.

The Trump Slush Fund is nothing like these settlements. It doesn’t resolve any longstanding litigation. It won’t be approved by a court. There are no restrictions on who can receive money or caps on how much they can get. It massively dwarfs the few million dollars here and there that Trump’s DOJ has showered on Trump cronies and insurrectionists thus far.

This is nothing but a transfer of your tax dollars to the pockets of Jan. 6 insurrectionists and Trump pals, simply because Trump demanded it.

It’s getting really tiresome to say that this is not how government works, but this is really, really not how government works.

Insider Trading? Thousands Of Stock Transactions Detail Trump's Market Grift

Insider Trading? Thousands Of Stock Transactions Detail Trump's Market Grift

Rarely does President Donald Trump evoke bipartisan applause while delivering a State of the Union address, but he inspired just such a moment last February -- when he called out former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her husband’s history of stock trading.

"As we ensure that all Americans can profit from a rising stock market, let's also make sure that members of Congress cannot corruptly profit from using insider information," said Trump as members of both parties stood to applaud.

While Republicans and Democrats in both houses have long invested in markets, with some banking huge profits from such dubious trades, it is Pelosi who has endured the most flak. Republican members named a bill to restrict Congressional stock trades after her: the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments or PELOSI Act. During that speech a smirking Trump urged the former Speaker to stand up and demanded that Congress “pass the Stop Insider Trading Act without delay.”

Yet neither that bill nor any other reform legislation would have stopped the eye-popping orgy of recent stock trades by none other than Trump himself, with thousands of individual market transactions on his account revealed this week in disclosure documents. A new filing with the Office of Government Ethics, released on May 14, showed more than 3500 specific trades in Trump’s name during the first quarter of 2026, with a value between $220 million and $750 million. represents by far the largest series of securities transactions by a sitting president in American history.

As one observer noted on X, that adds up to 60 trades per day, while he issues executive orders, talks with foreign leaders, shifts tariffs, and gives policy directives that directly affect the value of his holdings.

Former White House ethics counsel Richard Painter told Forbes magazine that he had researched the financial history of every preceding chief executive. “I don’t think we’ve had any president trade in the stock market.” Previous presidents had blind trusts with index funds, if they owned any stocks at all.

What outraged ethics experts was not just the volume of Trump’s market activity, but the obvious overlaps between his actions and policies and the equities that he bought and sold. Although it is impossible to determine exactly how much he may have profited from what looks suspiciously like insider trading – exactly the crime he accused the Pelosis of perpetrating – there can be little doubt that he has made millions.

Not long before he delivered that State of the Union slap at Pelosi, Trump bought somewhere between $1 million and $5 million in Dell Computers stock. Then on May 8, less than three months later, he gave a public speech at the White House where he urged “everyone” to “go out and buy and Dell,” driving the company’s stock to an all-time high. Since he bought Dell stock in February it has gone up a whopping 96 percent.

Around the same time, Trump bought a big chunk of Nvidia stock, just before that firm announced a big chip agreement with Meta,and then purchased still more Nvidia a week before the Commerce Department permitted the sale of the company’s chips to Saudi Arabia. Ironically, Nvidia was among the stocks whose purchase by Paul Pelosi provoked Republican outrage, which he later sold before its value rose astronomically.

Praising such companies as Palantir and Intel on his social media platform has similarly inflated their stocks after he bought chunks for his account.

Trump increased his Palantir holdings just as the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security were awarding billion-dollar contracts to the company, whose principal shareholder is the fascist-curious, Trump-backing billionaire Peter Thiel.

During the same period, Trump invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Robinhood, the financial technology firm. News reports indicate that those purchases occurred as the Treasury Department named Robinhood as the brokerage and trustee for the federally funded “Trump Accounts” to be set up for American kids. Those children don’t stand to earn much, but never mind -- Trump will do very well.

The list of sleazy transactions goes on and on, with many more examples no doubt to be unearthed in months to come. The response from the White House and the Trump family echoes their usual “move along, nothing to see here” refrain. Don Junior recently complained that charges of rampant corruption against his father were “getting old.” And it is true that the crooked misconduct dates back to the first Trump administration; it is simply more widespread, more encompassing, and more brazen now.

At least it would be better if the family and the administration flacks could get their stories straight. Eric Trump says that his family’s stock holdings are exclusively in broad market indexes like the Schwab 1000, a claim belied by Trump’s own filings, which show thousands of individual trades. Meanwhile, a White House spokesman told Fortune that all of Trump’s assets are in a trust “managed by his children” with no conflicts of interest, another obvious contradiction.

The Trumps – and the Kushners, and many others associated with the First Family – have gaslighted the American public with such bogus “explanations” of their grift-gorging for many years. Everybody in the Trump circle, including Cabinet officers such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has long known that the president is a crook. Out of cowardice and personal ambition they have turned away from challenging his self-enrichment. The public, too, has largely ignored Trump’s corruption, believing that “both parties do it,” and there is plainly some basis for that cynicism.

But the scale of Trump’s exploitation of public resources, his incessant stealing with both hands, is exponentially worse than any theft previously perpetrated by Democrats or Republicans. At a time when voters expected this president to look out for their pocketbooks, he does nothing but stuff his own, plundering them and profiting hugely. Polls suggest that they have at last begun to notice – and don’t like what they see.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, is now available wherever books are sold.

Trump's China Visit Displayed His Weakness, Narcissism And Insecurity

Trump's China Visit Displayed His Weakness, Narcissism And Insecurity

More often than not, the geopolitical impact of high-level summitry takes times to reveal itself, so perhaps history will record this differently than I do here. But virtually all the reporting from the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing last week suggests the US came out looking like the weaker partner.

Anyone whose been paying attention could see this coming. Donald Trump has two modes in foreign policy: bully those who he believes he has sway over, and be the supplicant to those who have something he admires. Strategic assessment and pursuit of goals that would help the US and its citizens are beyond his reach.

Moreover, Trump went into the summit with a sharp disadvantage: it’s no secret to anyone, most notably his Chinese counterparties, that he has dragged the US into a costly war with no clear rationale. Even worse, we’re stuck in the conflict as a tiny opposition army continues to hold us to a stalemate. Such weakness is toxic in this context, emboldening Beijing in its designs on Taiwan, a situation made significantly worse by Trump’s suggesting that “a potential multibillion-dollar weapons sale to Taiwan" is a “negotiating chip” with China, "raising new doubts about the pace and scale of American military support for the island democracy.”

The problem is that Trump’s approach to foreign policy is extremely simplistic, and is all about, to cite his favorite phrase, “who holds the cards?” Like all insecure narcissists1, he’s a bully who aspires to intimidate other leaders over whom we have an advantage, as in we buy more from them than they do from us. But Xi recognized early on that even while we have a large goods trade deficit with China, we require access to their rare earths, of which they refine 90 percent of global capacity. In those cases, Trump’s foreign policy reduces to making sure the opposing leader is his “friend,” a word he used frequently, if unrequitedly, to describe Xi in this visit.

End of the day, it looks like the two main results of this summit are 1) China might buy more soybeans and Boeing aircraft from us, though this remains unconfirmed, and if past is precedent, the likelihood that such an “agreement” will hold is low, and 2) Xi has further confirmation that the US is weakened by a feckless yet unchecked president who has alienated his international allies, is more focused on his ballroom than expanding American influence, and is bogged down in what is surely the most unpopular war in recent history.

None of this is at all surprising or even that interesting. The more compelling question is what, if anything, does all the above mean for the average American, or for that matter, to the average Chinese citizen, who, for the record, is one of 1.4 billion? This essay by Yi-Ling Liu tries to get at that:

Moving between the two countries, I’ve been struck by how they have come to mirror and resemble each other. There is a shared sense of precarity that lies beneath the envy and distrust: The technological future is taking shape at vertiginous speed, yet its promise is not shared by all.

I’m sure that’s true, and while it’s worse now given the AI-driven angst and uncertainty, along with the exacerbated wealth concentration—in both countries—that I see as another symptom of this technology’s proliferation, such precarity is nothing new.

In fact, it’s inherent to economies both capitalistic and communistic. What matters then is what guardrails the political system puts in place to protect innocent bystanders from everything from job displacements to higher utility costs driven by data centers. It’s what pathways to opportunity we clear for those whose economic starting point blocks their access. It’s the affordability policies we put in place to help people meet their basic needs for healthcare, housing, childcare, and food.

Our federal government is making life more precarious, and, while I’m no expert, I don’t think China’s doing much better. To be clear, I’m not saying international diplomacy is a sideshow. But I am saying that most Americans can be forgiven for being a lot less interested in whether Xi is Trump’s “friend” than what’s left in their paycheck after they filled their gas tank.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World