Trump Kicks Off Brand New Trade War With One of Our Biggest Partners

President Donald Trump once again threatened to increase tariffs on one of America’s biggest trading partners, Mexico.

Hours after his roundtable meeting Monday to announce a $12 billion aid package for farmers hurt by his own policies, Trump took to Truth Social to claim that Mexico was under-delivering on its water obligations to the United States.

“Mexico continues to violate our comprehensive Water Treaty, and this violation is seriously hurting our BEAUTIFUL TEXAS CROPS AND LIVESTOCK,” the president wrote.

Trump was referring to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande Treaty, which requires that the United States receive an average of at least 350,000 acre-feet of water from Rio Grande tributaries each year. In cases of “extraordinary drought,” a term not actually defined in the treaty, Mexico is permitted five years to make up the difference—but has repeatedly failed to do so.

“Mexico still owes the U.S over 800,000 acre-feet of water for failing to comply with our Treaty over the past five years. The U.S needs Mexico to release 200,000 acre-feet of water before December 31st, and the rest must come soon after,” Trump wrote, and threatened to levy an additional 5 percent tariff on Mexico, which would raise the tariff rate to 30 percent.

In April, Trump alleged that Mexico had withheld 1.3 million acre-feet of water and threatened unspecified tariffs and even sanctions. Shortly after, the State Department announced that it had struck a deal with Mexico to increase water deliveries. The International Boundary and Water Commission observed an uptick in water deliveries from Mexico to the United States compared to the previous two years.

Raising tariffs on the America’s largest trading partner would undoubtedly continue to raise prices for consumers.

For some strange reason, two members of President Trump’s Cabinet, both men, spoke about the benefits of breastfeeding at Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, Monday afternoon.

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were at the airport to announce new family and health-centric travel initiatives. Kennedy began by waxing poetic about the “mother’s breast.”

“All of the ingenuity of corporate America, all the resources, all the resourcefulness, has not produced an infant formula that is superior in nutrition and all the qualities that we want to the infant formula that God made, which is the infant formula in a mother’s breast,” Kennedy said, adding that the Department of Health and Human Services was encouraging mothers to breastfeed as much as possible.

If hearing those words in Kennedy’s voice wasn’t bizarre enough, Duffy then spoke about his wife’s complaints about a lack of facilities for nursing mothers at airports, and, referring to the presence of Kennedy, himself, and infamous pseudoscience health influencer Paul Saladino, pointed out the obvious: “It’s maybe a little odd for three guys to talk about nursing and options for nursing.”

Duffy then introduced the one woman and mother at the event: conservative content creator Isabel Brown, who was there to speak about the lack of nursing facilities at airports. By that point, though, Kennedy and Duffy had spoken at length about breastfeeding before Brown even said a word. Thankfully, Saladino, known for pushing pseudoscience like a carnivore diet and feeding raw milk to infants, didn’t broach the topic in his remarks.

In Trump’s first term, the U.S. government had the opposite stance on breastfeeding, lobbying against a UN resolution’s language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding.” While moving away from this stance is a positive step, having Kennedy and Duffy speak about the topic doesn’t inspire much confidence, especially considering the pseudoscience Kennedy continues to traffic in.

Five days after he promised the American public that they would be able to see drone footage from the September 2 airstrike in the Caribbean, Donald Trump has decided to walk it all back.

The president scolded a reporter during a White House roundtable Monday, berating her for quoting comments he made less than a week prior, in which he stated that any video of the merciless double tap would be released.

“Mr. President, you said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2 off the coast of Venezuela,” a reporter asked. “Secretary [Pete] Hegseth has—”

“I didn’t say that,” Trump interjected. “You said that. I didn’t say that. This is ABC fake news.”

“You said you would have no problem releasing the full vid—well, OK,” the reporter flustered.

Unfortunately for Trump, it’s not so easy to rewrite history when it exists in recent memory on tape, video, and in print. On December 3, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that “whatever” footage the government had in its possession of the attack, it would “certainly release.”

That, however, was apparently no longer the case come Monday.

“Whatever Hegseth wants to do is OK with me,” Trump said.

“He now says it’s under review. Are you ordering the secretary to release that full video?” the reporter pressed.

“Whatever he decides is OK with me,” Trump repeated. “So every boat we knock out of the water, every boat, we save 25,000 American lives. That was a boat loaded up with drugs.”

Since early September, the U.S. has conducted at least 22 strikes on small boats traversing the Caribbean that Trump administration officials have deemed—without an investigation or interdiction—were smuggling drugs. At least 86 people have been killed in the attacks. The White House has defended the violence, chalking it up to allegedly necessary efforts to thwart the pipeline of fentanyl into the country.

“Are you committed to releasing the full video?” the ABC News reporter asked for clarification—a move that seemingly really got under the president’s skin.

“Didn’t I just tell you that?” Trump said.

“You said it was up to Secretary Hegseth,” she responded.

“You are the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place. Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious—actually, a terrible reporter, and it’s always the same with you,” Trump said.

It could be that Trump’s sudden reluctance to release the footage is because the tapes make his administration look cruel, callous, and careless. Lawmakers that were briefed on the September 2 double tap left the meeting appalled by the country’s actions, relaying to members of the media that they were “deeply disturbed” by footage of the killings.

President Donald Trump revealed Monday just how clueless he is about his own tariff policies, and appeared to improvise new rice tariffs on the fly after speaking with one rice farmer.

During a roundtable to unveil a $12 billion bailout package for American farmers, Meryl Kennedy, CEO of Louisiana-based Kennedy Rice Mill, told Trump that she believed other countries were “dumping” rice into the United States.

“Which countries?” Trump asked.

“India, Thailand, even China into Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico used to be one of the largest markets for rice, we haven’t shipped rice into Puerto Rico for years,” Kennedy said, adding that the president needed to “double down” on his tariffs.

“You want more?” Trump asked incredulously, and Kennedy replied that other countries were “cheating” by subsidizing their rice production.

Trump seemed to have no idea whether other countries were “dumping” rice, and asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent if India had a tariff exemption for rice.

“No sir, we’re still working on their trade deal,” Bessent replied. As of August, India is facing steep 50 percent tariffs on all exports, with exceptions for certain agricultural products, such as tea, coffee, and spices—not rice. In October, exports from India to the United States rose for the first time in months as trade negotiations were underway.

As Kennedy tried to explain how India might be illegally subsidizing its rice production, Trump interrupted her. “Give me the countries, if you could? Go ahead. India, who else? Mark it down, Scott,” the president said.

Kennedy repeated the “main culprits” of India, Thailand, and China, adding, “But there’s others too, and we can get you a full list.” Trump promised he’d “take care” of the problem quickly.

U.S. rice production is small compared to that of other grains, such as soybeans or corn. Across the six states that produce rice, there are only an estimated 5,500 farmers for that crop. In 2025, rice production in the U.S. reportedly suffered from adverse weather, while rice production in South American countries surged.

During the same roundtable, Trump also floated placing “very severe” tariffs on fertilizer imported from Canada—the largest supplier to the United States—which could boost domestic production but risks further hurting farmers.

President Trump on Monday lashed out at a reporter who asked about impending GOP House resignations.

“There’s at least 20 House Republicans who have either said they’re going to retire or not run again—”

“And Democrats, and Democrats also. And Democrats also,” Trump chimed in. “Why don’t you mention them? How many Democrats have retired? How many Democrats?”

“Well that’s what I was gonna ask—”

“Well, why don’t you tell me the number of Democrats too?”

“Well, are you concerned about the narrow margins?”

“No, I’m not concerned, I think we’re gonna do well,” Trump said, talking over the reporter. “We’re gonna have the greatest economy.... We’re gonna have the greatest economy in history. How many Democrats are retiring? How come you only know the Republicans and not the Democrats?”

“Because I came prepared to ask you a question—”

“No no, you’re unprepared. Because you should know the Democrats. You’re totally unprepared.”

This weekend, Puck News reported that 20 House Republicans will announce their retirement in the coming weeks, in addition to the 23 who’ve already said they’re leaving Congress.

The reporter at the roundtable Monday, who was from Newsday, was likely asking President Trump a question about the Republican resignations because he is the Republican president. But the question—coming in the wake of months of reporting on internal rifts within the GOP—clearly struck a nerve with President Trump.

Donald Trump’s latest attempt to appeal to American farmers involves imagining that he’s ever operated a piece of farm equipment.

The country’s agriculture industry is in the toilet—largely thanks to the president’s volatile tariff plan, which has destabilized relationships with some of the industry’s biggest foreign markets. In the middle of announcing a $12 billion bailout package to offset the damage he caused to America’s farmers on Monday, Trump claimed that lawn mowers (of all things) had become so difficult to operate that you’d need to be a certified genius in order to turn on the ignition.

“Farming equipment has gotten too expensive, and a lot of the reason is because they put these environmental excesses on the equipment which don’t do a damn thing except make it complicated, make it impractical,” Trump said. “In many cases, you need about 185 IQ to turn on a lawn mower now.”

This is coming from the same very down-to-earth billionaire real estate mogul who claimed in 2017 that he didn’t want a “poor person” in his presidential Cabinet, and earlier this year threw a Great Gatsby-themed party at Mar-a-Lago during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, as well as paved over the White House’s rose garden and repeated that he believes the term groceries is “an old-fashioned word.”

“We have a term, groceries,” Trump told the leaders of the United Arab Emirates in May. “It’s an old term, but it means basically what you’re buying, food, it’s a pretty accurate term but it’s an old-fashioned sound but groceries are down.”

Trump’s tariffs have devastated the American farming industry from both ends, hurting both supply and demand by raising costs on equipment and fertilizer while nixing key international markets such as China.

When the bailout was initially pitched in September, Trump said he intended to use the country’s supposedly surplus tariff money to subsidize American soybean farmers, though his concept of how much cash could be infused to America’s food producers was not coherent. Speaking with reporters, Trump mixed up “billions” and “millions,” apparently confused on the specifics of what government funds could amount to actual aid. Meanwhile, the Trump administration moved forward with a plan to send $40 billion in aid to Argentina.

Protesters packed the Indiana Statehouse Monday to fight against Republican plans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to give their party an extra advantage and eliminate the state’s two Democratic congressional seats.

President Trump has pushed for the redistricting, which passed Indiana’s House of Representatives last week. Republicans in the state Senate have warned that there aren’t enough votes for new maps to pass, which Trump has met with insults and threats.

Monday is the last day for public testimony on the bills, and the past week has been full of dueling pro- and anti-redistricting rallies. Loud chants of “Stop the steal” filled the statehouse as lawmakers in the Senate Committee on Elections began their session Monday afternoon, with many protesters bringing homemade signs.

When public testimony began, pro-redistricting speakers were booed and heckled. One person yelled that Republicans were stacking the deck with redistricting supporters, which may be true considering those who signed up to testify on the bill stated their position on the form. Committee chairs often group speakers by position, according to the Indianapolis Star’s Cate Charron.

CNN’s Eric Bradner said that Monday’s anti-redistricting rally was much larger than the pro-redistricting rallies at the Statehouse, including one last week organized by Turning Point USA. The reason for that, CNN reports, is that there isn’t much enthusiasm among Indiana Republicans, with much of the pro-redistricting pressure coming from national groups such as TPUSA and the Club for Growth.

Trump likely sees redistricting as the only way to protect his presidency from a hostile Democratic Congress, and is threatening to support primary challengers to Republican senators who oppose redistricting and calling them names on his Truth Social account. At least 11 elected Indiana Republicans have faced swatting threats, including state Senator Greg Goode, who hadn’t even made any public comments about redistricting.

But in spite of the pressure campaign, Indiana Republicans are not coming out in droves to support the idea.

“It’s ridiculous to bring the whole thing up to begin with, but it’s what the president wants,” Debbie Myers, a Republican small-business owner in Martinsville, Indiana, told CNN about redistricting. “It’s wrong, and it’s a waste of money and a waste of these people’s time, and I don’t think it should have happened.”

President Trump’s former lawyer and interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba is stepping down from her role in the wake of a 3–0 appeals court ruling that found she was “unlawfully” serving in the position.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit  agreed with a lower court’s ruling that Habba was given the U.S. attorney position through a “novel series of legal and personnel moves” and was not legally able to take the job. 

“While I was focused on delivering real results, judges in my state took advantage of a flawed blue slip tradition and became weapons for the politicized left.... They joined New Jersey senators, who care more about fighting President Trump than the well being of residents which they serve,” Habba wrote in her resignation letter, posted on X. “As a result of the Third Circuit’s ruling, and to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love, I have decided to step down in my role as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. But do not mistake compliance for surrender. This decision will not weaken the Justice Department and it will not weaken me.”

Habba was originally meant to leave her interim position over the summer, as New Jersey federal judges refused to extend her 120-day appointment as U.S. attorney. But the Trump administration fired Desiree Grace, the U.S. attorney first assistant and Habba’s planned successor, prior to the end of Habba’s appointment, purposefully leaving the role unfilled. It then made Habba first assistant, allowing her to take the role of acting U.S. attorney without a Senate confirmation—which she may have likely failed. 

“My fight will now stretch across the country. As we wait for further review of the court’s ruling, I will continue to serve the Department of Justice as the Senior Advisor to the Attorney General for U.S. Attorneys,” Habba’s statement concluded. “Make no mistake, you can take the girl out of New Jersey, but you cannot take New Jersey out of the girl.”

It’s not looking so good for former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter—or any Democratic appointees at federal agencies.

While hearing arguments Monday in a case challenging Slaughter’s removal earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed primed to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that established Congress can pass laws limiting the president’s ability to fire executive officials of independent federal agencies.

The court’s six conservative justices voiced concerns that agencies wielding executive power weren’t really accountable to the executive, Bloomberg Law reported. “Tomorrow we could have the Labor Commission, the Education Commission, the Environmental Commission, rather than Departments of Interior and so forth,” warned Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The court’s liberal justices weren’t convinced. Justice Elena Kagan said allowing Slaughter’s removal would place “massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”

Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced “concerns” about handing over the Federal Reserve, which is meant to set monetary policy without political interference.

The Supreme Court previously approved Donald Trump’s emergency request to remove Slaughter, despite the rulings of two lower courts and a law stating that presidents may only legally remove FTC commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” At the time, Kagan torched her colleagues for empowering Trump to remove “any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all.”

“And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence,” Kagan wrote in her opinion. Slaughter was the only Democrat left on the FTC board.

Breaking with precedent on Humphrey will allow Trump to continue his unfettered firing campaign against Democratic appointees, but it would also grant the president unprecedented control over agencies that regulate the economy, the stock market, as well as federal campaign finance and communication rules.

The Supreme Court previously allowed Trump to oust Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris at the Merit Systems Protection Board—whose terms weren’t due to expire until 2029—as well as three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

President Trump has been quite upset over six Democratic legislators telling members of the military that they have to refuse illegal orders, calling the lawmakers seditious and saying their statements are “punishable by DEATH.”

But as it turns out, Attorney General Pam Bondi has said the same thing.

Last year, as a lawyer for the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, Bondi filed a brief with the Supreme Court writing, “Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders.”

“The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets. Indeed, service members are required not to do so,” Bondi wrote in the brief, filed to support Trump in his effort to convince the Supreme Court to grant him immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Bondi was in fact trying to cover for one of Trump’s lawyers in January 2024, who was asked by Judge Florence Y. Pan in federal appeals court, “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

D. John Sauer, who is now Trump’s solicitor general, said no, seeming to hurt his case. Bondi’s friend-of-the-court-brief was meant to cover for Sauer by arguing that Pan’s hypothetical question wasn’t realistic because military officers would disobey such an order.

“A president cannot order an elite military unit to kill a political rival, and the members of the military are required not to carry out such an unlawful order,” Bondi wrote in her brief. “It would be a crime to do so.”

When the case reached the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Samuel Alito agreed.

“I don’t want to slander SEAL Team 6,” Alito said to laughter in the courtroom. “Because they’re—no, seriously, they’re honorable. They’re honorable officers, and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders.”

While the president won his immunity case, the six Democrats have been targeted by Trump’s supporters with violent threats and unrelenting attacks from the White House. And Bondi is not the only administration official who has affirmed that the military should disobey illegal orders—Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is on video saying the same thing in 2016. But to this administration, Trump can’t break the law, only the people who disobey him do.