GOP Senator Makes Pathetic Excuse for Trump’s Anti-Somali Hate

Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah on Sunday offered a mealymouthed excuse for President Donald Trump’s xenophobic attacks on the Somali community.

“We don’t want ’em in our country,” Trump said of Somali immigrants at a Tuesday Cabinet meeting. “Let ’em go back to where they came from.”

Asked about the remarks on CNN, Curtis refused to criticize them. “I can’t control anybody but me, right?” the senator said.

Rather than address the president’s comments head-on, Curtis took a philosophical detour, urging every American to live as a positive role model for others—to “wake up every morning, look in the mirror,” and ask yourself what you will do “to make all of our immigrants feel more welcome.”

In such a world, Curtis mused, “it would matter less what individuals said.” But, as CNN’s Dana Bash pointed out, Trump is no random individual; “he’s the president of the United States, calling an entire community garbage.”

In response, Curtis deflected again. American voters, he said, “knew very well what we were electing [in 2024]. The country wanted a disrupter.” While acknowledging that such “disruption” can be “painful,” he suggested it was necessary: “You have to remember the reason, I think, the country went that direction is they were very uncomfortable with a number of things we were doing in this country, and we wanted a disrupter.”

Apparently, Curtis’s professed belief in making a daily, personal effort to make “all of our immigrants feel more welcome” did not compel him to provide even the slightest pushback against the president’s bigotry.

Struggling to afford basic necessities? Perhaps you only think you’re feeling the pinch, due to media bias against President Donald Trump—or at least, that’s what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested during a Sunday talk-show appearance.

On CBS News’s Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan asked Bessent about Trump’s recent controversial description of “affordability” as a Democrat-spun “con job.”

Considering that public opinion polls show Americans are widely concerned about the cost of living and largely disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, Brennan wondered if this sentiment would resonate with voters. “Don’t you need to show that you feel the pain?” she asked.

Bessent began: “I think the president’s frustrated by the media coverage of what’s going on—”

“This is the polling of average Americans,” Brennan cut in.

“Yeah, but I think the average Americans are hearing a lot of it from media coverage,” Bessent replied.

The cost-of-living crisis has bedeviled the Trump administration and GOP of late. As recent elections and polls signal widespread public dissatisfaction with the economy under the Republican-run government, some conservative politicians and strategists have urged their party to radically change course, adopting an agenda that would actually address voters’ material concerns.

Another, seemingly less fruitful, option for the party would be to simply insist, as Bessent did, that Americans’ financial hardships are the result of media influence.

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, seems unfazed by recent viral examples of federal agents targeting American citizens.

Over the past week, at least two videos circulated widely online and in the media showing immigration agents detaining or pursuing women as they cried out that they were U.S. citizens.

In Louisiana on Thursday, a 23-year-old mother was chased by agents while walking home from a corner store. She repeatedly told them, “I’m a U.S.-born citizen. I was born and raised here. This is my home. My baby’s waiting for me.”

And in Florida on Wednesday, a health care worker was detained during a traffic stop on her way to work. Despite intending to comply, she was threatened and forcibly removed from her car, she said. Footage captured by a Miami Herald reporter shows her being detained, yelling: “I’m a U.S. citizen. Please help me! This is unfair. Why are you doing this to me?”

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, host Dana Bash confronted Homan with these two incidents.

“I can’t tell you how many times an illegal alien claims to be a U.S. citizen,” the border czar said, appearing comfortable with agents inflicting traumatic experiences on citizens as collateral damage in Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Homan went on to confess that he does not think “there’s been zero U.S. citizens that have been detained for questioning because reasonable suspicion said they may be in the country illegally.” However, he claimed, “as soon as that questioning’s over, if they’re a U.S. citizen, they’d be released.”

A recent ProPublica investigation identified more than 170 U.S. citizens who were detained by federal immigration agents. About 24 of them were reportedly held for more than a day, unable to call lawyers or their friends and family.

President Donald Trump woke up Sunday morning full of anger and regret, it seems.

In a morning post on Truth Social, the president ranted against a man he had recently pardoned—Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas—for not having the common decency to switch parties after Trump did him a favor.

Cuellar, a moderate Democrat, and his wife, Imelda, were charged in 2024 with accepting bribes from foreign entities. Trump, out of the kindness of his heart, as he narrated it, saw fit to pardon them. Then, however, things took a turn.

“Only a short time after signing the Pardon, Congressman Henry Cuellar announced that he will be ‘running’ for Congress again, in the Great State of Texas (a State where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded!), as a Democrat, continuing to work with the same Radical Left Scum that just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in Prison—And probably still do!” the president wrote.

He apparently was not expecting this.

“Such a lack of LOYALTY,” Trump went on, lamenting his decision. “Oh’ well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!”

The implication of all of this is clear, people took to social media to point out: that Trump was hoping, with his presidential power, to procure another House seat for Republicans. That his bid failed has made him extremely angry. And that he doesn’t mind that the world knows it.

President Donald Trump on Saturday put a lofty spin on his White House renovations—namely, claiming that, by renovating a bathroom in the White House, he is “saving the heritage of this country.”

During his speech at the Kennedy Center Honors Dinner, Trump dwelled for a while on what, evidently, matters to him more than most else: his mission to force his dictator chic design taste upon the People’s House.

Trump specifically mentioned his renovation to the bathroom of the Lincoln Suite, in the southeast corner of the White House’s second floor. In October, Trump announced that he had refurbished the bathroom with white-and-black-marble.

Prior to his intervention, Trump said on Saturday, “It was the worst job. It was done in—many years ago. It was done during, actually, the Truman administration, with very cheap, green tile. That wasn’t Lincoln.”

Now the bathroom is “beautiful,” he mused, done in Paradiso marble.

The president acknowledged criticisms he received for the vanity project. “People said, ‘Oh, why is he wasting time?’”

He continued, “That’s not wasting time, that’s saving our heritage. You know, many, many things like that, it’s saving the heritage of this country,” to which the audience applauded.

In reality, Trump’s renovations seem more poised to defile than to preserve history (hence the widespread opposition among preservationist groups—not to mention the public—to the administration demolishing the East Wing to accommodate his gargantuan planned ballroom).

The grandiosity with which Trump described his Lincoln Bathroom renovation this weekend is consistent with his description of the renovation when it was first unveiled, at which time he said the new marble is “very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln.” Historians and designers dismissed the claim.

Edward Lengel, former chief historian of the White House Historical Association, told The New York Times, “It doesn’t look anything like 1860s interiors to me.”