Trump Finds a Brilliant New Way to Wreck the Tourism Industry

A visa to the land of the free may soon cost you $15,000.

The State Department issued a notice Monday saying that it will require bonds of up to $15,000 to secure some tourist and business visas.

The high bond fees, which would be kept as insurance and then refunded when visitors leave the country, will be levied against tourists from countries with high rates of overstays, according to the notice. The administration has not yet specified what those countries will be.

The 12-month pilot program is set to go into effect this month, and joins other recent visa restrictions, such as the reinstatement of in-person interviews.

Donald Trump tried this once before: In 2020, during the final months of his presidency, he instituted visa bonds for travelers from a number of African countries. However, the Covid-19 pandemic dampened travel so severely that it didn’t have much impact and the measure was struck down by President Joe Biden when he took office.

This move will likely make travel to the U.S. unaffordable for many at a time when the number of international visits to the U.S. is already plummeting. Forbes projected that Trump’s policies will cost the U.S. up to $29 billion in lost tourism and put millions of jobs at risk—and that’s without visa bonds.

The Trump administration will no longer distribute disaster relief funds to states—unless their cities pledge not to boycott Israeli companies.

The revision targets the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to curb Israel’s violence in Gaza by peeling financial support away from the nation and its businesses.

Trump’s condition will affect $1.9 billion that is supposed to be distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and that would apply to grants for search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries, backup power systems, and other emergency-related equipment, according to nearly a dozen grant notices reviewed by Reuters. More than a quarter of the funds—approximately $553.5 million—are earmarked for terrorism prevention in high-risk areas such as New York, which stands to receive the largest chunk at $92.2 million.

In order to access the funds, states or cities must certify that they would not avoid or end “commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies,” the grant notices state.

But the FEMA notice is just the latest in a long line of warnings from the Trump administration regarding its alliance with Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Department of Homeland Security announced in April that boycotting Israel was forbidden for any state or city intending to receive federal funding, and the White House has rescinded billions of dollars from universities around the country for failing to meet Trump’s metric of support for America’s genocidal Middle Eastern ally.

Specifically targeting New York is another way to challenge New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s chances of running the country’s most populous city. Mamdani’s support for the divestment movement has fueled the ire of the president, who has issued several sharp threats to Mamdani since the 33-year-old Democratic Socialist swept the primary. Those include telling the Queens lawmaker that he “better behave” or face “big problems.” Trump has also baselessly accused Mamdani of being an illegal immigrant.

Trump Media CEO and former Representative Devin Nunes has lost yet another lawsuit, this time against Rachel Maddow and NBC Universal.

This case, which has dragged on for more than four years, hinged on Nunes’s accusation that the MSNBC host was acting with malicious intent and malice when she mistakenly stated that Nunes “refused” to hand to the FBI documents given to him by a suspected Russian spy.

Nunes argued that Maddow and MSNBC hold “an institutional hostility, hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will” toward him. Maddow and the network simply stated that the Politico reporting they were following at the time of the statement was not up to date.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel dismissed the case on Friday, arguing that Nunes failed to prove that Maddow demonstrated actual malice toward him.

Nunes has had two other high-profile, highly unsuccessful lawsuits. In 2019, he tried to sue Twitter and two parody accounts on the site—one pretending to be his mother and another pretending to be his cow. He lost, and the cow account is still active on X. That same year, Nunes sued Esquire for libel after the magazine published a story stating that Nunes’s family dairy farm employed undocumented workers, a massive political contradiction for the Trump confidant. Nunes’s case was tossed four years later, as a judge deemed Esquire’s reporting to be correct.

A Republican representative has waded into the redistricting war—but not on Donald Trump’s side.

California Representative Kevin Kiley introduced legislation Monday to prevent congressional districts from being redrawn mid-decade. The bill, though ostensibly targeted at California Governor Gavin Newsom, would nullify any new districts drawn before the 2030 census.

“This is already the law in California under our State Constitution, which provides that redistricting is done once a decade by an Independent Commission,” Kiley posted on X about his new bill’s boundaries. “But Newsom is planning to blow all of this up so he can impose his own partisan map on voters before the next election.

“Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country,” he continued.

Kiley conveniently left out the reason this war has broken out in the first place: President Donald Trump’s push for Texas to gerrymander its districts beyond recognition in a quest to maintain a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Some powerful blue-state governors, such as Newsom and Kathy Hochul of New York, have abandoned their traditional resistance to gerrymandering, threatening to redraw their own districts to create more Democratic representatives in response.

“This is war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off, and I say, bring it on,” Hochul said Monday.

Democratic representatives from Texas aren’t playing around, either. They’ve fled the state, making it impossible for the Texas House to reach a quorum and vote on the new maps.

Despite his stated focus on fighting Newsom in California, if Kiley were to pass his bill, it would also nullify any new districts drawn in Texas.

And to be fair, Kiley’s loud silence on Texas’s redistricting may not just be an attempt to fly under the radar of a vengeful, gerrymander-happy president: It could also be a purely self-motivated attempt to keep his seat!

A new report from Harvard’s student newspaper suggests that Trump administration officials planted a lie in The New York Times about the university capitulating to the president.

The Times reported last Monday that Harvard has “signaled a willingness” to shell out up to $500 million to settle with the Trump administration, which accuses the university of being “run” by “antisemitism and DEI.” The story, based on “four people familiar with the negotiations,” seemingly detailed a prominent domino falling as Ivy League universities and other institutions increasingly submit to the president’s shakedowns.

But reporting by The Harvard Crimson cuts against the Times’ story and even suggests that it may have been based on misinformation propagated by Trump’s team.

Citing anonymous Harvard faculty members, the Crimson reported Sunday that President Alan Garber told others that it’s “false” that the university is considering a $500 million settlement, and a deal “is not imminent.” In fact, per the Crimson, the university is actively considering fighting the matter out in court rather than settling. The president also reportedly told a faculty member that the rumor about a hefty potential payment was leaked to the media by the Trump administration.

The Trump White House lying about its battle with Harvard to give a false impression of victory would certainly track with its strategy elsewhere; take, for example, its misleading braggadocio on tariffs and trade deals. It also underscores yet again how the claims of Trump officials warrant extreme suspicion.

Please, won’t somebody think of the billionaires?

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren defended mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s plan to tax the wealthiest New Yorkers in order to make the city more affordable for working people during a CNBC interview Monday.

Journalist David Faber repeated a common talking point about wealthy New Yorkers and businesses being “chased out” of the city if they were to be taxed at a higher rate, and Warren was having none of it.

“The issue is affordability. Do you know how many working families are chased out of New York City every day?” she asked, resolute. “What Zohran is saying is, ‘I want people to be able to afford to live in New York City, that’s what keeps it a vibrant city.’”

Faber interjected: “Nobody disagrees with that, Senator, but raising taxes in order to do it?”

Voice dripping with faux-earnestness, Warren responded, “Oh my goodness! Oh dear! Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry?”

Mamdani’s affordability-centric message proved to be a winning one, landing him the New York City Democratic mayoral nomination by 12 points in ranked-choice voting, a margin that shocked the media ecosystem and Democratic establishment. Disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo had been seen as a shoo-in for the nomination, with most polls predicting his win up until the primary. But Mamdani’s simple, progressive goals, grassroots strategy, and infectious energy won the day.

The young assemblymember’s proposed tax hike of 2 percent for the top 1 percent of New Yorkers has sparked hysteria among some in the business community, and much has been written about the potential mass exodus of millionaires and billionaires in search of lower taxes.

But this billionaire bogeyman isn’t backed by convincing evidence, “according to copious research on taxes and their impact on migration,” reported USA Today. A 2023 study by the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute found “no evidence of significant tax-motivated migration” from New York state after previous tax increases.

Meanwhile, one in four New Yorkers can’t afford essentials such as housing and food, according to a report from Columbia University and an anti-poverty nonprofit.

Our thin-skinned president went on yet another anti–Elizabeth Warren rant after the progressive Massachusetts senator offered some scathing critiques of his economic performance Monday morning on CNBC.

“Remember: Donald Trump ran for office saying he would lower costs on day one. Costs of groceries are up, cost of housing is up, cost of health care is up. He’s passing a signature bill to throw people off their health care so he can do tax cuts for billionaires,” Warren said, referring to Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” “Democrats are the people who say ‘billionaires actually should pay their fair share,’ and that we need to focus on affordability for American families. And that’s what we’re fighting for.”

Trump, who often keeps an eye on cable news, responded almost immediately on Truth Social.

“In just 6 months, I cut costs, especially Energy and Taxes, Tremendously. Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren, on CNBC, said costs have gone up,” Trump wrote, referring to Warren’s controversial past comments referring to herself as Native American. “She is just angry that I blew up her terrible Presidential Campaign. Call her out!!!

“Elizabeth Warren is a LOSER! She lies about everything, including the fact that she is an Indian. She’s NOT. She’s no Pocahontas!!!” he continued, before adding in another post, “Ask Pocahontas the real questions, CNBC!!!”

It’s clear that Warren struck a nerve, as the president is particularly sensitive to any negative talk about the economy at the moment. On Friday, Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer for simply reporting that his job numbers were poor.

Warren used the rest of her CNBC hit to defend New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani and his plans to raise taxes on billionaires, which she elaborated on in an article for Rolling Stone on Monday.

The president is stoking conspiracies in the wake of last week’s jobs report, apparently still writhing around in an attempt to find a beneficial angle on the abysmal economic figures.

“Last week’s Job’s Report was RIGGED, just like the numbers prior to the Presidential Election were Rigged,” Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “That’s why, in both cases, there was massive, record setting revisions, in favor of the Radical Left Democrats.

“Those big adjustments were made to cover up, and level out, the FAKE political numbers that were CONCOCTED in order to make a great Republican Success look less stellar!!!” the president added. “I will pick an exceptional replacement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAGA!”

Trump abruptly fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday after the release of the report, claiming that the Biden-era appointee’s work analyzing the granular data of America’s economy was “faked” and could not be trusted.

At the core of Trump’s gripe with the July report was its revision of figures from the preceding months, which moved the three-month growth average to 35,000, a lag that hasn’t emerged since 2010 and that makes his first six months in office—and his controversial tariff overhaul—look particularly bad. The report’s downsizing also suggested that while some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, gained jobs, the vast majority of the market lost employment.

America’s most prominent economists suggested that the weak jobs report could be the first major indicator that a recession is on the horizon.

Trump’s favor toward the people producing the jobs report has been anything but consistent, apparently entirely dependent on whether the bureau helps him look good and feel good about his administration. In March, when the BLS released a better-than-expected report, Trump elevated and praised the department, claiming that the “great job numbers” were evidence that his trade policies were “already working.” But mere months later, Trump and his top allies are now insisting that the data is phony and can’t be trusted.

The president of the United States of America on Monday weighed in on the viral American Eagle advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney. In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump expounded on Sweeney’s reported Republican Party membership, “woke” advertisements, and, bizarrely, his vehement dislike of pop star Taylor Swift.

“Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the ‘HOTTEST’ ad out there. It’s for American Eagle, and the jeans are ‘flying of [sic] the shelves.’ Go get ’em Sydney!” Trump wrote.

The day prior, the president had been informed that Sweeney is reportedly a card-carrying Republican. Then and there, he grew fond of her recent ad campaign. “If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic,” Trump said.

Last week, several Republican officials, including Vice President JD Vance, also commented on the recent ad campaign, which caused a stir as some netizens claimed the slogan “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” has eugenic undertones. Vance falsely conflated these random social media users with Democratic officials, suggesting that the party’s “actual strategy” is telling “everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi.”

Trump’s Monday Truth Social post went on to compare American Eagle’s advertising campaign with what he called a “disgraceful” ad from British car manufacturer Jaguar, which he said fell flat because it was “WOKE.” Trump also mentioned conservative backlash against Bud Light in 2023 for the beer band’s promotion with a transgender TikTok personality.

Trump then pivoted to attacking “Woke singer Taylor Swift.”

“Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT.”

Trump has a perennial fascination with Swift and her “hotness” or lack thereof. In a May post, he asked, “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer HOT?’” That post was referencing an all-caps, September 2024 post, which stated, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”

Trump’s post concluded that conservatives enjoy increased influence over American culture: “The tide has seriously turned—Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be.”

Notably, this all-important communiqué from the commander in chief was actually a revised version of a post he shared, then deleted, earlier Monday morning. In the first version, the president had misspelled Sweeney’s first name, twice, as “Sidney.”

The extent of Donald Trump’s involvement with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle continues to deepen: The president reportedly had a vulgar conversation with Prince Andrew in 2000 in which he gave the royal a list of masseuses.

According to an excerpt from a new book by historian Andrew Lownie, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, Trump was seen hanging out with Prince Andrew at multiple events in 2000, where listeners overheard the two men talking about “pussy.”

Trump was quoted as saying about the prince, “He’s not pretentious. He’s a lot of fun to be with.” Trump denied knowing Prince Andrew in 2019, despite being photographed with him on numerous occasions.

Lownie continues in his description of Trump and Prince Andrew’s relationship: “Shortly afterwards and clearly good friends, Trump and Andrew were overheard at an event to discuss Trump’s plans for a golfing complex in Scotland, talking entirely about ‘p***y’, with the American producing a list of masseuses for the prince.”

Trump’s comfort with vulgar misogyny isn’t exactly a shock—the president’s infamous Access Hollywood tape caught him bragging in 2005 that he grabbed women “by the pussy”—but the comment about providing the prince with a list of masseuses is ominous.

Virginia Giuffre, a central figure in the Epstein case, was approached in 2000 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and hired as a masseuse for the financier. She was then repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein and his network of wealthy friends, including Prince Andrew, Giuffre said. She accused the prince of sexually assaulting her three times while she was a minor, a case that Andrew settled in 2022.

And where did Maxwell meet Giuffre? At Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach club, where she worked as a spa attendant as a teenager.

In July, Trump told a reporter that Epstein “stole” Giuffre from him. The president has recently claimed that he fell out with “terrific guy” Epstein because the financier poached workers from his club.

When asked if one of the people in question was Giuffre, Trump responded: “I think so. I think that was one of the people. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.”

Giuffre committed suicide in April. Her family was shocked by Trump’s disclosure, and demanded answers from the president. “It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal actions, especially given his statement two years later that his good friend Jeffrey ‘likes women on the younger side … no doubt about it,’” Giuffre’s family told The Atlantic.