Trump Approves Disaster Relief—But Just for States That Voted for Him

Whether or not a state receives federal disaster aid under the Trump administration appears to boil down to their vote in the 2024 presidential election.

Donald Trump unlocked Federal Emergency Management Agency aid for several states this week, including Alaska, Nebraska, and North Dakota, but he denied it to others seemingly along party lines.

In multiple posts to Truth Social over the course of the week announcing the aid, Trump boasted that he had “won BIG” in Alaska and was honored to extend federal financial assistance to the “incredible Patriots” of Missouri.

Meanwhile, three states that recently voted blue received nothing: Vermont, Illinois, and Maryland.

Trump pledged $25 million to Alaska to deal with the aftermath of Typhoon Halong, which ravaged the state’s western coast, displaced some 2,000 residents, and killed at least one person. Severe flooding in the wake of the storm lifted houses off their foundations and obliterated some coastal villages.

“It is my Honor to deliver for the Great State of Alaska, which I won BIG in 2016, 2020, and 2024—ALASKA, I WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Tuesday.

North Dakota and Nebraska received aid approval to deal with fallout from multiple storms and tornadoes in August. Trump said Thursday he granted North Dakota $3 million, emphasizing on social media that he “won THREE times in 2016, 2020, and 2024.”

Trump also granted FEMA aid to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota, which is still dealing with thousands of felled trees on tribal lands from a June storm, reported the Associated Press.

The president denied four requests for federal disaster relief. That included Maryland’s appeal for reconsideration to deal with massive flooding that affected the state’s western region in May, despite damages that nearly tripled the qualifying threshold for assistance.

In a statement, Maryland Governor Wes Moore said that Trump’s denial was “deeply frustrating,” leaving residents to deal with the wreckage on their own.

“President Trump and his Administration have politicized disaster relief, and our communities are the ones who will pay the price,” said Moore.

Vermont officials similarly underscored that damages caused by July storms far exceeded what locals could afford to fix on their own.

“It’s well over the annual budget or two years’ budget (of some towns), to fix those roads,” Eric Forand, Vermont’s emergency management director, told the Associated Press.

Far-right commentator and former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon says the president will serve a third term despite being barred by the Constitution. 

In a video interview with The Economist published Thursday, Bannon said, “Well, he’s gonna get a third term.” 

“Trump is gonna be president in ’28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that,” Bannon said, brushing off concerns about the Twenty-Eigth Amendment. 

“There’s many different alternatives. At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is, but there’s a plan and President Trump will be the president in ’28,” Bannon added. 

Bannon’s odious remarks echo several threats and “jokes” made by Trump associates and administration officials, as well as the president himself. It’s not even the first time Bannon has mentioned plans to keep Trump in office longer—he mentioned “many different alternatives” for Trump’s presidency to continue in a NewsNation interview earlier this month. 

One of Trump’s lawyers was also exploring the possibility of Trump violating the Constitution’s term limits back in 2023, and Trump encouraged calls for a third term at a Michigan rally in April. The response from other conservatives, such as Senator Lindsey Graham and even Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, has not been reassuring.  

While Trump has claimed to be “joking,” he still is selling “Trump 2028” merchandise, and should be taken seriously. The question is whether Democrats have a plan to stop him by the time the presidential elections roll around in three years. Judging by their efforts against the president’s agenda this year, work needs to begin immediately.  

Watch the full interview with Bannon on YouTube (third-term chatter begins at 6:15). 

The White House has terminated all trade negotiations with Canada after Donald Trump claimed an advert misrepresented former President Ronald Reagan’s thoughts on tariffs. But that’s not quite true.

Last week, Ontario’s provisional government issued an ad featuring a clip of Reagan from a 1987 radio address in which the conservative icon argued that tariffs undermine economic prosperity, and that they only serve to “hurt every American.”

Late Thursday, Trump nixed trade talks with Canada, declaring the clip was a “fake.” The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation also claimed that the footage of the fortieth president was selectively edited and is reportedly seeking legal options.

The axed negotiations leave in place a 35 percent tariff on Canadian goods, as well as additional tariffs on Canada’s car and steel products, two fines that have particularly devastated Ontario.

The one-minute advertisement uses portions of Reagan’s five-minute speech, creating the impression that Reagan is saying several sentences in succession that were actually separate during the original address. As edited, Reagan appears to say this during Ontario’s ad:

When someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works—but only for a short time.

But over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

In reality … Reagan was still very critical of tariffs during the brief speech, perhaps even more so than depicted by the ad’s brevity. Not all of the sentences used in the advert, however, are in the exact order they appear in the complete speech. Here’s what Reagan actually said in his full address at Camp David on April 25, 1987, as released by the Reagan Foundation:

My fellow Americans, Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week.

It’s an important visit because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda. As perhaps you’ve heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan’s inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors.

Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take, and in a moment I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this, that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I’ve often said, our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs, we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So next week, I’ll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on our trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada’s leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first when someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works—but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is, first homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.

The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the ’30s made me determined when I came back to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in the Congress—just as there were back in the ‘30s—who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than five million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.

Well, I’ve never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we’ve done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we’ve taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we’ve still maintained our basic long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it’s terribly important not to restrict the president’s options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I’ll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation because it’s just another form of protectionism, and I may need your help to stop it. Remember, America’s jobs and growth are at stake. Until next week, thanks for listening and God bless you.

Watch Reagan’s full speech here.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is the latest Cabinet member to draw the ire of the Trump administration after pissing off the world’s richest man.

Last week, Duffy continued his push to fold NASA under his Transportation Department, a move that has angered both Elon Musk and other Cabinet members, as Musk and Trump’s original pick to head NASA, Jared Isaacman, has returned to favor among Republicans and Trump may once again nominate him for the role. But Duffy still resists, as he seems to desire the power that would come with NASA under his belt.

“Sean Dummy is trying to kill NASA!” Musk posted on X on Tuesday. “Having a NASA Administrator who knows literally ZERO about rockets & spacecraft undermines the American space program and endangers our astronauts,” he said the next, another shot at Duffy.

But according to NOTUS, it isn’t just Musk who’s angry.

“There are people in the White House who believe Duffy has made unnecessary chaos rather than just accept that his time is in the sunset,” one anonymous official said.

“Sean has overplayed his hand,” said another. “Not so much in dealing directly with the president, but more so with the West Wing and the rest of the administration. He has spent the last couple of weeks being a cowboy, and it’s caught up to him.”

Putting NASA under the Transportation Department would be an unprecedented move, as the agency does not handle transportation at all. And Duffy’s insistence on it has made him the whipping boy of the month in an administration that can never seem to go more than a month without one.

“Everyone, and I mean everyone in the West Wing, is furious at him,” said another source.

President Trump himself has yet to comment on the situation.

Republicans want Jack Smith to testify about his investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Now the former special counsel is calling their bluff: He says he wants to do it in front of the public.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley on Thursday, Smith’s legal team requested that their client be given the opportunity to testify publicly to refute the “many mischaracterizations” of his investigations.

Smith’s lawyers also requested DOJ guidance on what exactly their client would be allowed to discuss, as well as access to the special counsel’s files.

“With the guidance and access described above, Mr. Smith is available to testify in an open hearing at your earliest convenience,” they wrote.

Last week, Jordan demanded that Smith appear in a closed-door session to discuss his investigations. Specifically, Jordan was incensed by a revelation that Smith had requested Senate Republicans’ phone records from the days before and after the deadly January 6 riot, in order to see who may have been involved in Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert the election. Trump earned himself four felony counts for those alleged efforts. Those charges were dismissed after he was elected to the White House in 2024.

“As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement,” Jordan wrote.

Speaking on CNN Thursday as a senior law enforcement analyst, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe said it was a great idea for Smith to go public. “I think it’s important that he’s speaking up in a way to kind of demystify what has been grossly misrepresented to the American people by the senators,” he said.

McCabe also explained that the kind of telephone records Smith had requested were run-of-the-mill investigative practice, and that it would have been conducted under the purview of a grand jury subpoena.

“This is not something that a prosecutor, an FBI agent, [would] just dream up off the top of their heads and, you know, call up the phone company and say, ‘Hey, send us everything you have.’ There is a process. These records are accessed lawfully under the purview of the grand jury,” he said, adding that the request had been “grossly misrepresented” by Republicans.

Senator Rand Paul is tired of being the only Republican senator willing to stand up to President Trump.

The libertarian spoke with Politico’s Dasha Burns just days after being deliberately left out of Trump’s gathering of GOP senators in the Rose Garden. “We have everybody but one person here,” Trump said Wednesday. “We’re just missing one person. You’ll never guess who that is. Let me give you—he automatically votes no on everything. He thinks it’s good politics. It’s really not good politics.”

Paul addressed the rift between himself and Trump in an interview with Burns, released on Friday.

“The president considers it to be bizarre and weird, but I believe that we should have less debt, and we should balance our budget.... I take it as a badge of courage, really,” Paul said. “There has to be someone left. What if there’s no one left who actually believes in balanced budgets? To me, I’m worried about the demise of a conservative voice within the Republican Party if we all become rubber stamps.”

While the Kentucky senator is certainly a supporter of the president, he has made a string of decisions that make his commitment to a more traditional brand of conservatism clear. He has come out against the extrajudicial Caribbean drug boat bombings, was “not a big fan” of Trump’s military parade, and most notably was one of only three Republican senators to vote against Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the grounds that it would increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion.

“If I’m given the choice of President Trump versus Harris or versus Biden, without question, I choose President Trump over and over again,” Paul told Burns. “But that doesn’t mean I’m going to sit back and just say, ‘Oh, I’m leaving all my beliefs on the doorstep. I’m no longer going to be for free trade. I’m no longer going to be for balanced budgets. I’m no longer going to be opposed to killing people without trials, without naming them, without evidence.’ No, I have to remain who I am.”

Paul also expressed discomfort with Trump’s willingness to attack any Republican who may disagree with him, like Representative Thomas Massie, who the president wants primaried, or even Paul himself.

“It’s a warning sign: ‘Oppose me or my policies and I’ll come after you.’ And I don’t think that’s good for the Republican Party, nor do I think it’s good for the country,” Paul continued. “I think what made America great is capitalism ... it’s a fallacy to say the nation’s being hollowed out by trade,” referring to Trump’s trade wars.

Paul also shed light on a deep fear of challenging the president on anything within the party.

“I hear a lot of flack from Republicans and they want me to do it. They say, ‘Oh, well, you’re not afraid of the president. You go tell him his nominee can’t make it,’” Paul said. “I’m just tired of always being the whipping boy.”

The full interview is available here.

Donald Trump is mad at Canada again, this time over a TV ad criticizing his tariffs.

In a Truth Social post late Thursday night, Trump declared that “ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED” thanks to an ad, paid for by the government of Ontario, which used audio from a 1987 speech from President Ronald Reagan where he said, “Trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.”

In a statement, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute—which thus far has not had much to say about Trump’s tariffs—said that the ad misrepresented Reagan’s remarks and that the Province of Ontario did not seek permission to use the audio, and that it “is reviewing its legal options in this matter.” Trump attached this statement to his post.

On Friday morning, Trump blasted Canada again, claiming the country “CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!”

“They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY,” Trump ranted on Truth Social. He claimed that the country was trying to “illegally influence” the Supreme Court against the president’s tariffs, and that Canada had a long history of cheating on import taxes.

Trump is failing (or refusing) to realize that the province of Ontario took out this ad, not the entire Canadian government. Trump’s anger is equivalent to another country blaming him and the U.S. government for an ad made by California or New York. Ontario happens to be led by Premier Doug Ford of Canada’s Conservative Party, who was a supporter of Trump prior to the president’s trade war and attacks on the country’s sovereignty.

The breaking off of trade negotiations comes only days after Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to revamp the country’s economy to be less dependent on the U.S., saying the once-close ties between the two countries are now a vulnerability.

“Our relationship with the United States will never again be the same as it was.... We have to take care of ourselves, because we can’t rely on one foreign partner. We have to take care of each other because we are stronger together,” Carney said in a Wednesday night speech. Trump’s freakout over a TV ad is already proving Carney right.

Watch the ad that made Trump so angry below.

President Donald Trump floated the idea of expanding his extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels to dry land—or as one might refer to it, he pitched declaring war.

During a roundtable press conference Thursday, Trump claimed that he had all but eradicated drug trafficking by sea, after launching the ninth strike on a foreign vessel earlier this week without providing any actual evidence linking the boats to any drug cartel.

“So, now they’re coming in by land, and even the land is concerned, because I told them, that’s gonna be next,” Trump rambled. “You know the land is gonna be next? And we may go to the Senate, we may go to the Congress and tell them about it, but I can’t imagine they’d have any problem with it.”

“What are they gonna do? Say ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in?’” Trump added.

But only Congress can decide if the United States is at war—not Trump—even if he thinks the GOP-led legislative branch is too weak-willed to stop him. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the president has attempted to bypass Congress’s authority.

Trump has already decided to unilaterally declare war on the so-called narcoterrorist drug boats, by announcing a state of “non-international armed conflict” against vessels that are part of “designated terrorist organizations.” A memo sent to Congress last month claimed that Trump had the authority to determine cartels were “nonstate armed groups,” and that their transport of drugs constituted “an armed attack against the United States.”

Two Americans are suing Donald Trump for razing the White House’s East Wing.

While the rest of the nation was stunned by the haphazard destruction of one of the nation’s oldest and most cherished democratic symbols, at least two individuals moved to stop it. Charles K. Voorhees and Judith A. Voorhees filed a temporary restraining order Thursday intended to stop Trump’s bulldozing.

In a three-page court filing, the plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration violated the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 by failing to acquire the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission, which has been closed since the government shutdown began 23 days ago.

The Voorhees further claimed that, in fast-tracking the East Wing’s demo, Trump had breached the National Historic Preservation Act and bypassed legally required oversight from the Commission of Fine Arts. They also alleged that Trump and his associates had intentionally “decoupled” the demolition and construction process, picking apart semantics in order to stretch a loophole that could justify their unapproved blueprint for federally-owned grounds.

But their lawsuit may be too late to salvage the historic monument. Nothing but rubble remained of the East Wing by midday Thursday, according to satellite images of the grounds. The demo was apparently an essential component of the president’s plan to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he had initially pledged wouldn’t interfere with the preexisting structure.

The White House’s partial destruction is, ultimately, another illustration that the country’s constitutional system of checks and balances has all but eroded. The international real estate mogul’s desire to destroy the government—and with it, the architectural face of American democracy—has received practically zero pushback from his allies in Congress, who appear all too willing to sit back as Trump courts billionaires to fund his golden banquet hall.

Resisting Trump’s drafts for the East Wing would require someone in power to actually hold the president accountable. But his desire to destroy and redevelop the White House as he sees fit should come as no surprise, since he’s never appeared to be a fan of the national symbol. During his first term, Trump reportedly called the White House “a dump” (an allegation that he has publicly refuted) and has spent no small part of his second term living and dining at his own properties rather than the executive mansion.

A Justice Department investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James yielded information that may potentially spoil the Trump administration’s plans to convict her of mortgage fraud.

The DOJ, led by inexperienced Trump-appointed interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, accused James of committing mortgage fraud and lying about a second home being rented out as an “investment property,” collecting “thousands” in rent money and saving over $17,000 in the process.

But prosecutors who investigated James warned Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Seibert, that the evidence for those claims wasn’t so clear. They found that James allowed her niece and her children to live in the house rent-free in 2020, and she only reported collecting $1,350 in rent money on her tax return from that year, which was allegedly to cover the cost of utilities. The small sum undercuts the DOJ theory that she was using it as an investment property.

Government lawyers are also doubtful that they’ll be able to prove that James committed mortgage fraud due to the vague standards around what does and doesn’t count as occupancy in a second home. While the DOJ argues that James didn’t visit the home enough to be an occupant, Fannie Mae guidelines don’t specify that a person needs to sleep in the property overnight.

This all points to signs that the indictment is simply revenge for James’s successful fraud suit against Trump, which made her a lifelong enemy of our spiteful president.

“I will not bow, I will not break, I will not bend,” James said earlier this month at a rally for New York’s Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani in the midst of her federal indictment. “I will not capitulate, I will not give in.”

The Trump administration’s desperate attempt to incriminate her may have made doing that a bit earlier.