Vance Just Made Trump’s Dolls Comment Even Weirder

Vice President JD Vance has his own particularly bad explanation for Donald Trump’s already ridiculous way of dismissing the rising prices of consumer goods.

In an interview on Fox News Thursday, host Martha MacCallum asked Vance what he thought about the president’s strange warning that American children might need to only have two dolls, instead of 30, in the face of his sweeping reciprocal tariff policy.

“Do you tell the people of this country that you need to make some sacrifices in order to reorganize this bad trade relationship?” MacCallum asked.

“Well, I think the president’s point here is that yeah, we do need to become more self-reliant, and that’s not gonna happen overnight, and it’s not always gonna be easy, Martha,” Vance replied.

“But what I’d ask people is not whether they want two dolls, or five dolls, or 20 dolls for their kids, I’d ask American moms and dads, ‘Would you like to be able to go into a pharmacy and know that the drugs your kids need are actually available to you as an American parent?’” Vance continued.

“Would you like to—God forbid—if your country goes to a war, and your son or daughter are sent off to fight, would you like to know that the weapons that they have are good American-made stuff, not made by a foreign adversary?” he said.

But Vance’s weird pivot to fearmongering about war legitimately makes no sense. America is already the world’s largest arms exporter, accounting for a whopping 43 percent of global weapons exports between 2020 and 2024, according to CNN. Trump’s past efforts to invest in weapons production benefited defense contractors more than soldiers.

As for Vance’s remark about pharmacies, it’s not evident that Trump’s tariffs will actually help increase access to drugs. Trump has said that he plans to make a decision on pharmaceutical tariffs within the next two weeks, but the Trump administration’s efforts to boost the domestic manufacturing of medicines may come at a cost to the people who need them, while U.S. manufacturing struggles to meet demand. Ahead of Trump’s announcement, imports of pharmaceuticals have seen a significant spike.

One by one, different members of the Trump administration have attempted to make sense of the president’s weird “dolls” comment. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller argued that Trump wanted a higher degree of quality for American-made goods, while in the same breath promising that the president would strip the very regulations that ensure that quality in an effort to make production less expensive. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted that a little pain now would lead little girls to a “better life,” while sidestepping concerns that economic damage Trump was threatening now could last generations.

President Trump’s acting FEMA chief was fired Thursday for apparently wanting the agency to continue functioning.

On Wednesday, Cameron Hamilton was asked at a congressional hearing what he thought about the Trump administration’s reported plans to get rid of the emergency management agency. His answer was probably the reason why he was axed.

“I do not believe it is in the best interests of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” Hamilton said to members of Congress, adding that he wasn’t in a position to decide the agency’s future.

Trump has said on multiple occasions that he wants to get rid of FEMA, including days after he was sworn in as president while Los Angeles County was struggling to cope with massive wildfires.

“I like, frankly, the concept when North Carolina gets hit, the governor takes care of it. When Florida gets hit, the governor takes care of it. Meaning the state takes care of it,” Trump said at the time. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is in charge of overseeing FEMA, has also called for eliminating FEMA.

“The president has indicated he wants to eliminate FEMA as it exists today, and to have states have more control over their emergency management response,” Noem said this week to Congress. “He wants to empower local governments and support them and how they respond to their people.”

The White House has already slashed funding for natural disaster recovery and preparedness, putting the country at serious risk. Hurricane season is only weeks away with the start of summer, and the southeastern U.S. is still recovering from Hurricanes Helene and Milton. The president’s budget proposal calls for cutting $646 million to FEMA.

The Trump administration is already trying to deny FEMA relief on a selective basis. The White House was found to have violated a court order by withholding FEMA relief to at least 19 states, all of whom have Democratic attorneys general. States that were particularly affected were those with immigration policies conflicting with Trump’s priorities.

Hamilton’s firing is a bad sign for the future of FEMA, and an even worse sign for disaster response in the U.S. The past few decades have seen some big government mistakes in disaster relief, notably Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in Louisiana and Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico during during Trump’s first term eight years ago. Now, we’re about to see what will happen after massive cuts to emergency disaster relief.

Within just a few hours of white smoke rising out of the Vatican, MAGA is already fuming over the new pope.

Cardinal Robert Prevost was elected the new leader of the Catholic Church Thursday, becoming the first American pontiff. But like any American, Pope Leo XIV seems to have his own opinions about President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. (Spoiler alert: He doesn’t seem like a fan!)

Charlie Kirk, the Christian nationalist founder of Turning Point USA, started out backing Prevost’s selection, pointing to his apparent Republican voting record, but seemed to descend into doubt.

In a video posted to X, Kirk initially appeared nonplussed as he aired his concerns about Pope Leo’s “not-so-great tweets.” The right-wing fanatic was referring to several old reposts by an X account associated with the name Robert Prevost, which has been confirmed as belonging to the new pope. 

Kirk mused that perhaps an American pope had been selected because “they want a voice that is also for the opening of American borders while we have President Trump!”

“God Save the Church,” Jack Posobiec, the pitiable MAGA activist covering the papal conclave for The Charlie Kirk Show, wrote in a post on X.

The “End Wokeness” account on X posted screenshots of reposts from Prevost’s account, including posts that criticized Trump’s first-term immigration polices, one that advocated for gun reform, and another that advocated to “end racism in our hearts and in society,” in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.

While Kirk seemed less certain about what exactly Pope Leo’s appointment meant for the future, far-right internet troll Laura Loomer was decidedly more … decided. “Just another Marxist puppet in the Vatican,” she wrote in a post on X. “Catholics don’t have anything good to look forward to.”

Loomer spread her vitriol across several posts about the new pope’s supposed online activity. “The new Pope once retweeted a post about how we need to keep praying for career criminal & drug addict George Floyd,” she wrote in another post. “The tweet said, ‘May all hatred, violence and prejudice be eradicated.’ What prejudice? Is that another way to spell FENTANYL OVERDOSE? MARXIST POPE!”

In another post, she simply wrote, “WOKE MARXIST POPE.”

This is the same woman who met with the president last month to advise that he oust multiple staffers on his National Security Council—and he did.  

Other MAGA voices weren’t quite as disturbed—even the really far-right ones. Ryan Girdusky, a political consultant who previously wrote for notorious neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, counseled caution, in a post on X. 

“Trying to fit the ideology of the Pope in the context of American politics is a fruitless endeavor,” he wrote. “If you’re Catholic, pray that he’s a good steward of the Church and defends the throne of Christ as the successor of Peter.”

This story has been updated.

The Trump administration’s plan to deport immigrants to Libya was even more extensive and disturbing than initial reports suggested.

Under the plan, nationals from countries including Cambodia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and even Mexico were to be sent to the north African country still recovering from a civil war. According to court filings from immigration rights advocates, who filed an emergency request in Boston federal court to halt the deportations, ICE gathered one Vietnamese national, one Laotian, and four other detainees and demanded they sign paperwork agreeing to be sent to Libya.

When all six refused, they were handcuffed and placed into solitary confinement. Later on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy ruled that any deportations to Libya of third-country nationals without the opportunity to object over torture concerns “would violate this Court’s Order.”

Libya’s two rival governments each denied on Wednesday that they had agreed to accept deported immigrants from the U.S. When asked about the plan Wednesday, Trump himself said, “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.”

The idea that immigrants in the U.S. could be deported to a country like Libya, where “open slave markets” exist and where immigrants are detained in conditions described as a “hellscape” by Amnesty International, is shocking in itself. Even more shocking is that neither of the two entities who control Libya even agreed to accepting any immigrants from the U.S.

But the Trump administration has already taken an unprecedented step in sending immigrants to countries to which they have no connection, such as El Salvador and Rwanda. While a court order appears to have at least put a temporary brake on deportations to Libya, the White House will probably keep trying to skirt the law in trying to expel as many immigrants as possible.

When white smoke began pouring from the Sistine Chapel’s chimney Thursday, after as few as four ballots, many assumed that meant the sitting Catholic cardinals had selected the consensus front-runner Pietro Parolin, who had served as Pope Francis’s secretary of state since 2013, as the new pope. If there’s one thing you have to hand to the assembled leaders of the Catholic Church, it’s this: They do know how to surprise you. 

When the curtains of a balcony on St. Peter’s Basilica were drawn an hour later, Parolin did emerge—to announce that Robert Francis Prevost had been elected pope. Few had thought that the Chicago-born Prevost—now known as Pope Leo XIV—was a contender. But there he was: the first American pope in the history of the Catholic Church. 

Prevost, like Parolin, was a close ally of Francis. Ordained in 1982, he has spent much of his time in Peru and was appointed by Francis as bishop of Chiclayo in 2014. In 2023, he was appointed to the influential position of prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. As with Parolin, Prevost is seen as a continuity pick, given his close ties to his predecessor. 

In his opening speech, the newly anointed Pope Leo XIV paid tribute to Francis, who had last been seen speaking on the same balcony shortly before Easter. “Let us keep in our ears the weak voice of Pope Francis that blesses Rome,” Leo XIV said. 

“The pope who blessed Rome, gave his blessing to the entire world that morning of Easter. Allow me to follow up on that blessing. God loves us. God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,” he said in Italian as he addressed a massive, multinational crowd of more than 100,000 people. 

Prevost is seen as being to Francis’s right on LGBTQ issues. In 2013, shortly after assuming the papacy, Francis expressed openness toward gay parishioners, saying, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Prevost, meanwhile, has been critical of what he has called the “homosexual lifestyle” and culture, which encourages “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.” 

Like Francis, he is deeply critical of “gender ideology,” which he has said “seeks to create genders that do not exist.” Prevost’s record on what is arguably the single biggest issue in the church—rampant sexual abuse by clergy—is troubling. He not only provided housing to a priest who had been accused of abuse but provided him a residence that was near a Catholic school.  

He is, nevertheless, considerably more moderate on social issues than many other contenders. Like Francis, he is outspoken about the danger posed by climate change and the need to provide ministry, support, and sympathy to migrants and the poor. Last year, in an interview with the Vatican’s news outlet, he distilled his vision of the church, which is one in which leaders are constantly in communion with the poor. 

“The bishop is not supposed to be a little prince sitting in his kingdom,” he said, but is “called authentically to be humble, to be close to the people he serves, to walk with them, to suffer with them.” 

Much has been made of Prevost’s X account, which was recently confirmed to belong to the new pontiff by journalist Rocco Palmo. That account is mostly fairly standard Catholic stuff—pictures of church gatherings and community events. But it is outspoken on one subject: That JD Vance, the Catholic convert who is currently vice president, has views on migration that deviate substantially from the Gospels. Prevost has posted and reposted several posts and articles attacking Vance’s treatment of migrants. Pope Leo XIV will continue his predecessor’s work in one other notable way as well: By hating JD Vance. 

It’s clear that Pope Leo XIV cares deeply about the plight of migrants, like Francis before him. Whether he has strong feelings about deep-dish pizza or the Chicago Bears quarterback situation is another matter altogether. 

The first American-born pope is not a fan of the Trump administration.

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who is now Pope Leo XIV, has multiple posts on his X account that criticize or outright rebuke the words and policies of President Trump.

In February, he shared an article from the National Catholic Reporter titled “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others,” in response to Vance’s bastardization of the concept of ordo amaris, a narrow interpretation of love that Pope Francis himself admonished.

In April, he reposted Catholic writer Rocco Palmo, who wrote, “As Trump & Bukele use Oval to [aid] Feds’ illicit deportation of a US resident, once an undoc-ed Salvadorean himself, now-[Auxiliary Bishop Evelio Menjivar of Washington, D.C.] asks, “Do you not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?”

Pope Leo was also critical of Trump’s family separation policy. In 2018, he retweeted a scathing post from Cardinal Cupich: “There is nothing remotely Christian, American, or morally defensible about a policy that takes children away from their parents and warehouses them in cages. This is being carried out in our name and the shame is on us all.”

The new pope also has multiple reposts showing sympathy and support for George Floyd, the Black man whose police murder was a catalyst for racial justice movements in 2020. He reposted words in opposition to Trump’s refugee ban and Muslim ban, as well as articles on “rivers of blood” flowing from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Russian attack on a Catholic missionary headquarters in Mariupol.

The pope is expected to strike a Francis-like chord on issues of immigration and poverty, two things the current administration is directly opposed to.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that it was “a good thing, not a bad thing” that he’d crippled the international economy, putting workers’ livelihoods in jeopardy.

During a press briefing in the Oval Office, Trump downplayed concerns over job security sparked by a significant drop in cargo volumes as a result of his sweeping tariff policy and ongoing trade negotiations with China.

One reporter said that traffic at U.S. ports “has really slowed, and now thousands of dockworkers and truck drivers are worried about their jobs,” before being interrupted by the president.

“That means we lose less money, you know? When I see that, that means we lose less money,” Trump replied. He claimed that China had been making “over a trillion, 1.1 trillion, in my opinion.”

“And frankly if we didn’t do business, we would have been better off,” Trump continued. “So, when you say it slowed down, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

Trumpian algebra dictates that shrinking trade with China may curtail the country’s trade deficit, but he doesn’t even know what a trade deficit is, let alone how big it is.

Unlike Trump’s enormous estimate, America’s trade deficit with China was just $295.4 billion in 2024. The president has previously claimed that the U.S. is losing $2 trillion a year on trade, but the country’s trade deficit with the rest of the world was $917.8 billion in 2024.

All of this comes back to Trump’s fundamental misunderstanding of economics. A deficit isn’t money lost but an indication that the U.S. has imported more goods and services than it exports. Economists say that having a trade deficit is not an inherently bad thing at all, because the U.S. simply can’t and shouldn’t make everything.

Trump’s continued insistence we’ve been taken for a ride betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, built off a dislike of other countries. Crucially, when he says that the U.S. would be “better off” if they hadn’t done business with China, what he actually means is that China would be worse off, which to him is the same thing.

But what gets lost in Trump’s phony economic model? Actual workers, whose jobs at U.S. ports undoubtedly will be affected by a sudden reduction in trade.

In Seattle, port commissioner Ryan Calkins told CNN Wednesday night that there were “no container ships at berth.”

“That happens every once in a while at normal times, but it’s pretty rare,” Calkin said. “And so to see it tonight is I think a stark reminder that the impacts of the tariffs have real implications.”

Ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, have already seen a 44 percent drop in docked vessels from the same time last year, according to NBC4 News.

Trump also has no concern for consumers, who soon will begin to see shortages on goods from other countries, and an inevitable price increase on the scant products that remain. The president has suggested that concerns over shortages are as trivial as having fewer dolls and pencils.

FBI Director Kash Patel seems to be interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution how he sees fit, contradicting legal precedent. 

At a Senate hearing Thursday, Patel was asked by Senator Jeff Merkley if people deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 had the constitutional right to due process, which the Trump administration claims is not the case. 

“Are you gonna launch an investigation of the reported violation of the due process of several hundred individuals?” Merkley asked Patel. The FBI director’s answer was not comforting, as he began by saying, “It’s not for me to call the balls and strikes on it.”  

“Your position is that every one of those individuals is by constitutional right afforded due process. I don’t know the answer to that,” Patel replied, before questioning whether immigrants sent to El Salvador were afforded due process. 

“You haven’t read the Constitution? It says ‘all persons,’” Merkley said, adding that “it concerns me you’re not familiar with the core concept of due process applying to all persons.”  

Patel was evasive on whether he would enforce the law against other agencies found to be violating the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, claiming that no government agencies were doing so and the Supreme Court had not ruled to that effect. 

Patel’s stance shows that the Trump administration is interpreting the law, and even federal court rulings that are supposed to be binding, to serve its own mass deportation agenda. Already, the administration continues to defy a Supreme Court ruling urging the return of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, where he was mistakenly deported in March. 

As a Trump appointee with very little law enforcement experience, it’s not surprising that Patel is pushing legal limits, and probably crossing them, to defend Trump expelling as many people from the United States as possible. It’s funny that Patel sees this as his job as head of the FBI, even as he isn’t living up to many of his other responsibilities.

Chief Justice John Roberts offered a gentle rebuke of Donald Trump’s escalating attacks on the judiciary. 

During a fireside chat Wednesday night marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Buffalo, Roberts emphasized the importance of judicial independence. 

“In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a coequal branch of government separate from the others with the authority to interpret the constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,” Roberts said. “And that innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent.

“Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence,” he said.

The chief justice’s impartial recounting of the nation’s founding document flies in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts to sidestep the checks and balances provided by the judiciary. 

Roberts also doubled down on his rare public criticism of Trump, after the president called to impeach a federal judge who ruled against his illegal deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. 

“Well, I’ve already spoken to that, and impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,” Roberts said. 

But Roberts’s mild criticism may not be enough, as the administration has escalated into making direct threats. When announcing his inane plan to reopen Alcatraz Sunday, Trump listed “judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals” alongside the “criminals” and “thugs” he hoped to imprison there. 

Josh Gerstein, a senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, suggested that there may be a method to Roberts’s missing madness. 

“Subdued Roberts seemed to be keeping his powder dry since many of the big fights, like law firms, deportations, contempt, are making their way to the court or already there,” Gerstein wrote on X Thursday.  “A reasonable strategy, but that’s not some rousing defense of the judiciary or separation of powers.”

Gerstein noted that Roberts’s “‘judicial independence’ stuff” was “thinner” than his 2024 Year End report on the federal judiciary, which had compared political bias to doxxing and disinformation as some of the “illegitimate activity” that threatens independent judges. At the time, his comments seemed to echo Trump’s complaints about critics who went after judges that ruled in his favor. Now the Trump administration has taken to attacking so-called “activist” judges who rule against him. 

Roberts’s refute is comparatively limp when held beside Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent indictment of the right-wing campaign of threats being used to intimidate judges.

“The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law,” Jackson said last week.

Trump had a press conference Thursday to explain to everyone that the beautiful, spectacular trade deal that he’s made with Britain is actually unfinished.

“The final details are being written up in the coming weeks; we’ll have it all very conclusive, but the actual deal is a conclusive one,” Trump said to reporters with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the other line. “We think just about everything has been approved, so good for both countries.”

While details remain extremely unclear, this “deal” is said to include greater market access and mutually lowered tariffs.

Trump taking a victory lap for an unfinished, undefined deal immediately raised eyebrows.

“Why Britain? And why now? … You’ve described this deal as a full and comprehensive deal, and yet … clearly, there’s much more work left to do,” said James Matthews of Sky News. “With respect, are you overstating the reach and significance of this deal, because you’re a president who needs a result at a difficult time?”

Trump proceeded to ramble, almost completely avoiding Matthews’s question.

“I think that it’s a great deal for both parties.… It opens up a tremendous market for us. It works out very well, very well. A lot of assets, you see the chart. Those are tremendous assets. But we’ve been trying, and when you say, ‘Why us?’ meaning your country; we’ve been trying for years, and they’ve been trying for years to make a deal.… This is a maxed-out deal, not like you said it, really incorrectly. This is a maxed-out deal that we’re gonna make bigger. And we’ll make it bigger through growth.”

The framework of the deal that has been announced would reduce U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 0 percent and reduce auto tariffs to 10 percent, while leaving in a baseline 10 percent tariffs on all other products. Trump also bragged about greater market access in the United Kingdom for American beef, before being reminded by a reporter that the U.K. doesn’t accept American beef because of its higher food standards.