Trump Reverses Some Food Tariffs, Claims to Solve Problem He Created

On Thursday, President Trump decided to renege on his 40 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods, ending a problem he created. The agricultural products tariffed—beef, fruit, coffee, cocoa—were getting more and more expensive for Americans everywhere.  

“After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me and the status of negotiations with the Government of Brazil, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the scope of products subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323,” Trump wrote in an executive order. “Specifically, I have determined that certain agricultural products shall not be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323.”

Trump initially levied the tariffs against Brazil on the grounds that it was unfairly prosecuting former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro—who was recently sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting to stage a coup in 2023, which some compare to the January 6, 2021 insurrection in the U.S. Bolsonaro had his supporters raid Brazil’s presidential palace, the Supreme Court, and Congress, all because he’d lost the election to leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. 

Now, with Bolsonaro in jail and grocery prices in the U.S. skyrocketing, Trump is backtracking. The Brazilian president made it clear early on that he wouldn’t cave to Trump, stating over the summer that “at no point will Brazil negotiate as if it were a small country up against a big country.” It appears he meant it.

“Trump’s decision to remove many tariffs on Brazilian products is a significant political victory for the Lula administration ahead of next year’s presidential elections,” Brazilian professor Oliver Stuenkel wrote on X. “And a vindication of Brazil’s choice to pursue a calm and pragmatic negotiation strategy vis-à-vis Trump.” 

The Trump administration is going rogue—and MAGA is not happy about it.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee held a private meeting in July with Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy who spent 30 years in prison for selling U.S. secrets to Israel during the Cold War.

The news caught the rest of the administration off guard, including the CIA and the president, according to three U.S. officials that spoke with The New York Times.

The “friendly” off-the-books encounter took place at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, according to Pollard, who spoke with the Times by phone on Wednesday.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday that the White House was not informed of the meeting beforehand but that, regardless, “the president stands by our ambassador.”

It was unclear if the State Department had given the go-ahead for the meeting, and still more confusing as to why Huckabee and his senior adviser David Milstein believed it prudent to meet with one of the most notorious spies from the Cold War.

MAGA conservatives were outraged by the meeting, arguing online that Huckabee should be removed from his post for meeting with a “traitor.”

“Immediately Recall Ambassador Huckabee, He is Out of Control,” posted Grace Chong, the chief financial officer and chief operating officer for Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast.

“There is no universe where it’s appropriate for Mike Huckabee, who is supposed to be OUR AMBASSADOR and serve our country’s interest, is meeting with Jonathan Pollard, who to this day encourages spying on the U.S.,” wrote right-wing influencer Mike Cernovich, calling for an investigation into the meeting.

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for passing thousands of classified documents pertaining to U.S. nuclear, military, and technical matters along to Israel. Still, some people viewed him as a hero—including Huckabee and some Israelis—spending years lobbying for his early release, which came in 2015.

When he moved to Israel, Pollard was met with a “hero’s welcome on the tarmac at Ben Gurion Airport” by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Times.

“Pollard said he did not regret spying for Israel, claiming the United States had cut Israel out of intelligence sharing. And he castigated [Donald] Trump, calling him a ‘madman who has literally sold us down the drain, for Saudi gold,’” the Times reported.

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is reportedly “encouraging” a federal grand jury investigation into Justice Department official Ed Martin and Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte for potential misconduct in pursuing criminal charges against prominent Democrats.

The new investigation, led by the Maryland U.S. attorney’s office, is focused on whether the mortgage fraud charges against California Senator Adam Schiff and possibly New York Attorney General Letitia James were tainted by the methods of Martin and Pulte, who allegedly shared sensitive information with individuals who were not authorized to be part of the investigation.

Two sources told MS Now that Blanche had grown concerned over unforced errors in their cases, and was helping to oversee the investigation into the potential misconduct.

Appearing on MS NOW Thursday night, reporter Carol Leonnig said that Blanche and other top DOJ lawyers had grown “very frustrated” with Martin’s and Pulte’s methods. Blanche was not only well aware of the probe into their conduct, he also was “not in any way interfering with it, and possibly even encouraging” it, Leonnig said.

“In this case, it is a problem, according to our sources, for Todd Blanche, to have cases that aren’t being handled very properly. And as we saw, there were some unforced errors,” Leonnig said. “In another case in the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday. We’re told Blanche is a little bit embarrassed about all of that.”

Christine Bish, a California realtor who helped compile evidence to support allegations of mortgage fraud against Schiff, said she was specifically subpoenaed to discuss her communications with Martin and Pulte.

“They’re investigating each other,” Bish told CNN. “It’s stupid.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham believes that the government owes him restitution for accessing his phone records while investigating Donald Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021.

As part of the budget bill passed to fund the government earlier this month, a provision was passed allowing senators who had their phone records accessed by the government without their knowledge to sue the Justice Department. Senators would be able to win $500,000 of taxpayer money per violation. Many members of Congress found this abhorrent, and this week the House voted to repeal the provision. Graham was incensed and blocked the repeal when it came to the Senate.

“I’m going to sue Biden’s DOJ and Jack Smith, I’m going to sue Verizon, it’s going to be a hell of a lot more than $500,000,” Graham said on the Senate floor Friday, referring to the special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

It’s petty, corrupt, and vindictive for Graham to demand that the government pay him for being one of eight Republican senators whose phone records were subpoenaed by Smith’s team. The bill is specifically written to be retroactive to 2022 to help them out. Even Republicans in the House see the whole thing as corrupt.

“What they did is wrong,” said Republican Representative Austin Scott about the provision. “This should not be in this piece of legislation, and they can say it’s about good governance all they want to. When they made it retroactive, all of a sudden it was no longer about good governance. There’s actually a list of people that know they will get paid as soon as this thing is signed.”

Embattled Republican Representative Cory Mills was caught with sex workers on an unofficial mission to Afghanistan in 2021, when he was still a congressional candidate. 

Mills was traveling with a group to Afghanistan to save Americans after former President Biden’s withdrawal from the country left the Taliban in power. On their way, the group stopped in Tbilisi, Georgia, where Mills was caught in a hallway with sex workers, leaving the group he traveled with irate, NOTUS reports. The group then decided to part ways with him, and he appeared to go to Afghanistan on his own.

The congressman made no mention of the incident, instead framing himself as a hero and attacking the State Department for attempting to take any credit for the evacuation.

“This is an attempt to save face by the administration for the Americans they left behind. This is a woman with three children from age 15 all the way down to 2 years old,” Mills told Fox News Digital then. “And they did nothing to try to expedite this.… But at the very last minute, you have these ‘senior officials’ at the State Department trying to claim credit for this, like, ‘Oh yeah, look what we’ve done.’”

Whenever Mills is in the news, it tends to be for some kind of scandal. This year, five of his former service members accused him of “stolen valor,” saying he didn’t deserve a Bronze Star as he didn’t actually save their lives overseas and wasn’t even present at the event. 

Mills was also accused of assaulting an ex-girlfriend at his Washington, D.C., apartment, and in February saw his ex-girlfriend file a restraining order against him for  “harassment, threatening to release sexual videos, and to harm future boyfriends.”

And this week, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into Mills for “improperly solicited and/or received gifts, including in connection with privately sponsored officially-connected travel,” and allegations that he “received special favors by virtue of his position” and “engaged in misconduct with respect to allegations of sexual misconduct and/or dating violence.”

A report released by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden on Thursday called for Congress to further investigate JP Morgan Chase over its ties to Jeffrey Epstein, one of the bank’s biggest clients, and his alleged sex-trafficking organization.

Before Epstein was arrested in September 2019, JPMorgan Chase reported only a handful of “suspicious activity reports” documenting roughly $4.3 million worth of transactions from his accounts between 2002 and 2016. After he was arrested, and subsequently died in prison, JPMorgan Chase filed “far more comprehensive” reports documenting an additional 5,000 wire transfers moving $1.3 billion in and out of Epstein’s accounts—a total that was 300 times greater than what was previously disclosed.

The report suggests that JPMorgan Chase executives waited to disclose his suspicious transactions to regulators in order “to continue working with Epstein,” even after he was terminated as a client in 2013 over money-laundering concerns. Citing newly unsealed emails, the report indicated this was done because of Epstein’s influence over billionaire Leon Black.

The report implicates multiple JPMorgan Chase executives, who apparently closely monitored the alleged sex trafficker’s accounts, reporting to CEO Jamie Dimon.

In March 2012, John Duffy, the former CEO of JPMorgan’s U.S. Private Bank, instructed Epstein on how to make large withdrawals from his account without raising alarms at the bank, newly unsealed emails showed. In August 2013, Mary Erdoes, the CEO of the wealth and asset management division of JPMorgan who remained in near constant contact with the alleged sex trafficker, “blessed” efforts to continue doing business with Epstein, according to the report.

Wyden said that the extent of the bank’s underreporting went “beyond a total compliance breakdown.”

“It’s impossible to believe the decisions that led to the coverup of Epstein’s financial transactions regarding his sex trafficking never reached the very top,” he wrote in a series of posts on X. “Given the scale of Epstein’s trafficking operation, it’s clear that many more powerful people were involved. My staff have seen a paper trail with their own eyes. Banks that helped enable him should be investigated. As should anybody involved in Epstein’s trafficking ring.”

Earlier this week, House Oversight Committee Chair Jamer Comer subpoenaed JPMorgan Chase for access to some of Epstein’s financial records.

On Tuesday, multiple congressional Democrats made a video reminding members of the military and intelligence community of their duty to the Constitution, not to President Trump.

The comments—made by military and intelligence veterans Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan—set the MAGAverse off. By Thursday, President Trump suggested they be charged with sedition and executed. And yet the Democratic lawmakers remained unfazed.

“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation,” they wrote in a joint statement posted by Kelly. “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.” They signed it with a reminder: “Don’t Give Up the Ship!”

Kelly later responded personally to Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s claim that their comments are part of an “insurrection” and “a general call for rebellion.”

“I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol,” Kelly wrote. “I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don’t.”

Slotkin posted her own response.

“Earlier today President Trump threatened myself and a number of other service and veteran lawmakers with arrest, trial, and death, because he didn’t agree with a video we put out this week,” Slotkin said. “I swore an oath to the Constitution many times, most recently less than a year ago as a senator. To the Constitution—not to any one man, not to any one president.”

Here is their original message to troops:

ICE is claiming the computer ate its records the day after it was sued for abuse.

404 Media reports that after ICE’s Broadview Detention Center outside Chicago was sued October 30 for allegedly abusing detainees, the agency said that two weeks of video footage that could have shown how immigration detainees are treated in the facility was lost in a “system crash” on October 31.*

“The government has said that the data for that period was lost in a system crash apparently on the day after the lawsuit was filed,” one of the lawyers representing detainees, Alec Solotorovsky, said in a Thursday hearing about the footage, according to 404 Media. “That period we think is going to be critical … because that’s the period right before the lawsuit was filed.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security said in court that the video footage was “irretrievably destroyed,” and on Thursday, government lawyers said that “we don’t have the resources” to keep preserving surveillance footage from the detention facility. In a seemingly flippant remark, the government’s attorneys suggested if the detainees’ lawyers provide “endless hard drives where we could save the information, that might be one solution.”

The idea that ICE doesn’t have resources to preserve video footage is absurd on its face, as the agency is receiving an astronomical amount of funding thanks to President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Some $200 billion has been allocated to immigration enforcement, more than some countries allocate to their entire militaries, and at least some of that should be allocated to data preservation and I.T. maintenance.

Also, it seems too convenient for ICE to have had a system crash the day after they were sued. The detainees who filed the lawsuit claim that the ICE facility is rife with abusive treatment and poor living conditions. In response, the government hasn’t provided much information on the footage, directing attorneys to a company called Five by Five Management “that appears to be based out of a house,” said Solotorovsky.

“We tried to engage with the government through our IT specialist, and we hired a video forensic specialist,” he said, adding that the government specialist attorneys spoke to “didn’t really know anything beyond the basic specifications of the system. He wasn’t able to answer any questions about preservation or attempts to recover the data.”

Immigration enforcement under Trump seems to continuously flout the law, with little recourse available except for lawsuits. At best, legal action seems to only slow the Trump administration’s actions. Will the detainees in Broadview be able to overcome what looks like a government cover-up?

* This story has been updated with the correct location of the ICE detention center.

The U.S. Coast Guard is no longer going to consider the swastika a hate symbol. 

The Washington Post reports that a new policy will take effect next month at the military branch that will reclassify the swastika, used by the German Nazi Party and adopted as a global symbol of fascism and white supremacy, as “potentially divisive.” Other symbols being reclassified include the Confederate flag and nooses, although displaying the flag will still be banned.

Some historic displays or art with the Confederate flag will still be permitted, the Post reports. The new policy comes even though the Coast Guard isn’t part of the Department of Defense, under which Secretary Pete Hegseth has sought to overhaul standards on harassment and hazing. 

Instead, the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, but that hasn’t shielded the military branch from the Trump administration’s attempts to change military culture. On Donald Trump’s first day as president, he fired the first woman commandant at the Coast Guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, ostensibly for focusing too much on diversity initiatives. 

Days later, the new acting commandant, Admiral Kevin Lunday, suspended the Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy, which included the swastika in a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.”

Both in his first and second terms, Trump has trafficked in racist tropes, and reclassifying the swastika may be an attempt to retain and attract people the military would have previously turned away. In any case, racism is becoming less and less of a dealbreaker for national service under Trump.