Trump Prepares to Attack Eighth Country of His Second Term

Weeks after a preliminary peace deal with Iran fell apart, Donald Trump has turned his attention toward his next military conquest.

The Trump administration is reportedly considering taking military action against an  Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Mali known as JNIM, according to several current and former U.S. officials that spoke with The Washington Post Wednesday. 

Doing so would add to the president’s warmongering tally, marking the eighth nation he has ordered strikes on since he began his second term as president.

The other affected countries are Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Trump has also ordered 66 strikes against small watercraft in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific in an admittedly futile attempt to interrupt drug smuggling into the U.S., killing at least 221 people in the process.

One of the administration’s top proponents for using brute force in Mali is Sebastian Gorka, the National Security Council’s senior director for counterterrorism. The London-born Hungarian has been a fixture in Trump’s inner circle since 2017, though his appointment to Trump’s first administration came as a surprise to many in his field. Gorka had previously been known for his extremist, Islamophobic views, which relegated him to the fringes of Washington and his position as an editor at Breitbart.  

But specialists in the region disagree with the violent approach.

Wassim Nasr, a senior research fellow at the Soufan Center, which focuses on the Sahel region, said that America’s influence would be better used in “conflict resolution” by forcing Mali’s stratocracy into talks with JNIM. Otherwise, the White House could be squaring up for another major loss.

“Opting for the military solution one more time won’t get things resolved,” Nasr told the Post. “The French tried that for 10 years. The Russians have been trying for five years. The situation has only gotten worse and worse.”

Lawyers working at the Department of Justice are refusing to put certain information in writing out of fear that it could be used against them.

The DOJ is prosecuting two journalists over their coverage of an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in Minnesota in January, and one of them, Georgia Ellyse Fort, is charged with three felonies, including a hate crime. Fort’s defense counsel is accusing the government of spying on her, and a judge barred the government from using toll records and cell phone simulators that include Fort’s phone activity.

A Homeland Security Investigations agent, Timothy Gerber, allegedly began using customs summonses to get information about Fort, whose lawyers said that the prosecutors would not say whether the government was continuing to use those summonses. The prosecution is supposed to turn over its evidence to defense counsel in any legal case, but only described the cell phone data from Fort’s phone without turning over the data itself.

In a letter to DOJ prosecutors, first flagged by independent journalist Mary Wheeler, Fort’s lawyers referred to a phone call with DOJ lawyer Ned Hedley in which they got the indication that “the government does not intend to respond to our correspondence in writing, out of the concern expressed on the call that what it represents to us could be put before the Court and/or otherwise used against it.”

It’s an astounding thing for government lawyers to say, especially considering that documenting conversations is a basic requirement in the legal profession. Hedley’s words seem to indicate that the Trump administration is trying to hide something, or knows that its activities might not be legal.

Fort was arrested alongside journalists Don Lemon and Michael Beute—and the case against all of them is weak. The three are accused of rioting and protesting, while they say they were merely covering the event. Refusing to put certain things in writing would seem to undermine the government’s case.

President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company is backfiring in his face, as a judge has greenlit the subpoenaing of his inner circle.

Trump last year filed a lawsuit against the BBC over a 2024 episode of Panorama titled “Trump, a Second Chance.” Trump claims the episode was defamatory because it edited together two sections of his January 6, 2021 speech, highlighting his line calling on his supporters to “fight like hell,” while omitting a section in which he told them to peacefully protest. The BBC apologized after Trump threatened them with legal action last year but refused to pay up.

But on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett said the BBC can proceed with subpoenas for Trump’s closest advisers and confidants—including his family members, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon—to make the case on what Trump’s actual goals were on January 6.

Lett also ruled that Trump must hand over hundreds of financial records, as Trump argued in his lawsuit that the episode hurt his many businesses.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said, allowing the BBC to investigate the more than 400 companies owned by Trump’s family trust.

The president’s wanton spitefulness, which has earned him a payoff in cases against CBS and ABC, may now be the chief reason he’s finally exposed.

American families are unlikely to be reimbursed for the money they lost to President Donald Trump’s illegal tariff plan.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer thwarted attempts by the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday to pin down when the Trump administration would return the money it has reaped from American consumers since Donald Trump initiated his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025.

“The question I’m asking the administration: Are you going to give money back to the American people who paid more?” asked Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. “What the data shows is that the American people picked up about 95 percent of the costs of those Trump tariffs.”

Warren then cited a figure from a February 2026 fact sheet compiled by the Joint Economic Committee Minority, which estimated at the time that Trump’s tariffs had cost American families more than $1,700 each over the course of his second term.

“I just want to know if you even have the slightest effort—are making even the slightest effort—to try and get some of that money back into the pockets of American families,” she continued. “Or does that just not matter to the Trump administration?”

“So what happened is the foreign and domestic importers, right? Who were buying foreign goods, not goods from American workers, foreign goods made by foreign workers who had to pay a fee on those foreign goods, those foreign importers … they can file, they had to pay the tariff, they can get the tariff back,” Greer said, throwing the responsibility of the situation on the Biden administration and what he suggested was its poor budgeting.

“I take that what you’re saying … is that the Trump administration just doesn’t care,” Warren said, chastising Greer for fixating on foreign producers rather than struggling Americans. “[The administration] isn’t even lifting a finger to try and get one nickel of the money that was collected from consumers back into the pockets of consumers.”

She then accused the White House of attempting to peel even more money from the American public by implementing new tariffs under an “obscure law from the 1930s.”

“Here’s my question: Ambassador Greer, if the Supreme Court strikes down your next round of tariffs, do you have a plan in place on how to return the money that American consumers pay under those tariffs?” she asked.

But Greer only regurgitated his previous response, claiming that U.S. Customs had already outlined how foreign manufacturers could recoup their losses.

The Supreme Court deemed Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs illegal in February, throwing not only the White House’s economic plan into wack, but also the primary driver behind the administration’s foreign policy agenda. The ruling, however, did not stop the president, who within days had already announced new plans to impose more global levies.

An independent autopsy report has raised more questions around the suspicious death of Nolan Wells.

Wells was a Black college freshman who went missing on July 4 in the water near Mississippi’s Horn Island while attending a boat party with around 300 other young people. According to Jackson County Sheriff John Ledbetter, Wells stayed behind on the island with a young woman while the friends he came with left, as he was apparently expecting to get a ride home from someone else. His friends brought back his phone and keys, but not him. His body was found two days later.  

Ledbetter announced that there was likely no foul play involved before even completing an official autopsy, leading civil rights lawyer Ben Crump to step in and call for an independent one, paid for by former NFL quarterback and activist Colin Kaepernick and conducted on July 10. It found Wells’s cause and manner of death to be “undetermined” but did not rule out foul play.

The independent autopsy most notably showed “red discoloration” on the back of Wells’s head, just above the start of his neck.

While the toxicology report is still missing, this is much more information than what the state was prepared to provide. The state performed an autopsy as well, but has yet to make its findings public.

Ledbetter’s premature dismissal of foul play, the involvement of the son of a local judge, the lack of pictures or videos from that day on Wells’s phone, and the picture his mother shared on social media of him from the day of his disappearance—smiling with three white peers—fueled speculation that race played a role in his death. This most recent finding will only stoke the flames more. 

“We are in Mississippi,” Crump said during a speech at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta on Sunday. “These were three young white men. Nolan was the only young Black man. Had the roles been reversed, we know this investigation would be going differently. It would be like the first 48. They would be interrogating those young, Black boys.”

While there are still questions swirling, claims of foul play or racism are not completely unfounded. Mississippi has a long, disturbing history of anti-Black racism, from the murder of Emmett Till 71 years ago to more recent decisions by state medical examiners to ignore police brutality and other misdeeds during autopsies.