President Trump safe after shots fired at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

 

Agents draw weapons after the shots rang out. New York Post/AFP.

President Donald Trump is safe after an apparent assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence Dinner. New York Post. Trump was attending the dinner for the first time and an opening speech had already occurred. A man opened fire with a firearm, striking an agent who was saved by his bullet proof vest. The shooter had tried to get past the metal detectors at the event at a full sprint, but was stopped. CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that he heard around six shots. Another witness said the suspect had assembled an unusual long gun. Trump was not the only high ranking official at the dinner, as Vice President JD Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Health and Human Service Director RFK Jr. were all in attendance. No motive has been released for the attack.

The AP has live updates for this story.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump DROPS SECURITY FOOTAGE appearing to show tonight’s shooting breaking out at the WHCA dinner

Glad the Secret Service got the scumbag and everyone is SAFE 👏🏻 pic.twitter.com/uuZ8YGbzYP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 26, 2026

 

My Comment:

This marks the fourth major assassination attempt against Donald Trump since his political life began. There was the illegal alien that tried to disarm a cop in 2016 in Las Vegas, the Butler assassination attempt, the Florida Golf course assassination attempt and now this. There were other attempts as well, but these were the major ones and the ones that at least had a plausible chance of succeeding. I do believe that this incident means that Trump has faced more threats to his life than any other American President. 

This was extraordinarily concerning, not just because of the attack against Trump, but the fact that most of the Presidential Line of Succession was there too, at the very least the top three. Trump, Vance and Mike Johnson were all there and if this assassin wasn't stopped when he was, we might have been swearing in Chuck Grassley as President... And it wasn't just Republicans at this dinner, at the very least Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats leader in Congress, and Senator John Fetterman were there as well. 

The suspect has been identified online but it's too early to tell what his motivation is. President Trump said it he was likely a "lone wolf nutjob" and that's probably accurate. He's been identified as Cole Allen, a 31 year old teacher from California but no motive has been released. Trump said it was unlikely that it was related to the Iran conflict but as of right now, it is a possibility. 

I did listen to Trump's press conference and I have to say, it seemed like this affected him pretty deeply. He praised the folks that protected him and said that it's a risk of his job. Trump was his usual braggadocios self, but I did notice that his voice cracked a little when he was talking about his wife Melania's reaction to the shooting. Trump remained fairly calm during the shooting but it's also clear that he understands just how dangerous his job is, and mentioned that race car drivers and bull riders have a lower chance of death than an American President. 

The political implications of this are yet to be seen, but I do think that the press realizes that this was an attack on them as well. I don't think that means they will suddenly start giving Trump a fair shake, but they might indeed tone down the rhetoric a bit. Indeed, Wolf Blitzer was put in physical danger in this incident so maybe things will change? Same with the Democrats in the audience, Trump and his team might have been the targets but they were in the line of fire too. 

One thing that I don't think will change is the rhetoric coming from the far left in this country. The leadership of the Democrats is condemning this attack, but the message from Reddit and BlueSky appears to be that "this was staged and Trump deserves it anyways". I just don't think those folks have any shame anymore, and little connection to reality, and if Trump getting shot on stage in Butler didn't change anything, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk didn't change anything, I don't know why this would either...

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration.

 

Pam Bondi and her replacement Todd Blanche. BBC/Getty.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration and will be replaced by her deputy, Todd Blanche. BBC. Bondi's term had been dominated by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, first promising the release of an "Epstein list" of clients of Epstein but then failing to deliver when no such list existed. Trump had praised her for a crackdown on crime that appears to have had results but the Epstein issue was a drag on his administration. Bondi also faced criticism from Trump for not competently prosecuting Democrats suspected of crimes. Bondi is only the third major Cabinet official to resign or be fired in Trump's 2nd term, along with Kristi Noem and Mike Waltz.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. There is an argument to be made that Bondi was more effective in her role than people give her credit for. After all, there was a major decrease in crime under President Trump and Bondi probably does deserve credit for it. And she has done a competent job of defending Trump's policies in court, but that could be due to the weaknesses of the cases.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Bondi made a massive error in how she handled to Epstein files. She made a promise that she couldn't keep and made the issue extremely damaging for the Trump administration. Her presentation that suggested the existence of a "client list" that simply didn't exist sent conspiracy theorists into a frenzy and when she couldn't deliver on that it had the appearance of a coverup. 

It was an own-goal because there really was not a client list. There were a few people that were accused of wrong doing but it was mostly figures that we already knew, like Bill Richardson, Marin Minsky, Jean-Luc Brunel and Prince Andrew. None of those cases were prosecutable and that lead to folks feeling like justice was not being done. 

This was damaging to President Trump. I get the feeling that the general public doesn't care, other than the few people out there that care about nothing else. But it did cause a few prominent Republicans to break with the President, most notable Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I was never a fan of either of them, but still, it made enemies. 

Bondi was also having trouble prosecuting some prominent Democrats. Adam Schiff, James Comey and Laticia James should be awaiting trial right now, but Bondi wasn't able to secure an arrest in any of these cases. It's another point of contention with the Trump administration and the Republican base, we generally want to see these people in jail and Bondi wasn't able to get it done. 

So why did Bondi last so long? Like I said before, she did have some successes, but I am guessing it was because she was loyal to President Trump. Bondi helped to defend Trump during his 2020 impeachment and was seen as a personal friend to Trump. But that couldn't protect her forever. 

President Trump called the police on Jeffrey Epstein.

 

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. New York Post/US government photo. 

President Donald Trump spoke to the police chief of Palm Beach to help with the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. New York Post. Trump called Chief Michael Reiter and Reiter claimed in a newly released file that Trump was among the first to call him to offer help. Trump said "thank goodness you're stopping him, everyone has known he was doing this". Trump also said that Epstein was disgusting and that he had banned him from Mar-a-Lago. He also said that Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was "evil" and to focus on her as she was his "operative". Epstein was eventually arrested for child trafficking and got a "sweetheart deal", before getting arrested again in 2019. 

My Comment:

This release shows a clear pattern of behavior that Trump attempted to have Jeffrey Epstein stopped. A timeline might be helpful. Before 2004, Trump and Epstein were friends, but the relationship soured over several reasons. A real-estate deal was part of it, with Trump outbidding Epstein, but the real end of their relationship was the fact that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were using Mar-a-Lago to recruit victims. Trump was angry about this, as one of his employees, Virginia Giuffre, had been taken by Maxwell. Epstein also hit on the underaged daughter of a club member. After all that Trump barred Epstein from his club. 

Then in 2008, after Epstein's arrest, Trump made a call to the Palm Beach police department to help with the investigation. This probably would have helped more than it did if the FBI hadn't taken over the Epstein investigation and botched it, giving Epstein the "sweetheart deal" that gave Epstein a slap on the wrist.

Trump didn't forget about Epstein and again helped in actions against him. An attorney for Epstein's victims, Brad Edwards, said that Trump provided assistance for his clients in 2009 and did so on his own volition. He was also the only rich and powerful people that were willing to do this. 

And, of course, Trump was President when Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were arrested. How involved Trump was is a mystery, it appears that he kept a hands off approach but it is important to note that he did not hinder these prosecutions in any way. 

Epstein himself may have believed that Trump was the first person to tip the police off that Epstein was a criminal. Michael Wolff, who had interviewed Epstein for over 100 hours, said that he believed that his legal downfall was due to Trump. That hasn't been proven, as no documents have been released to confirm this, but it's what Epstein himself believed. It would be extraordinary if this is eventually proven as it would completely vindicate Trump. 

This should be the nail in the coffin for the idea that Trump was somehow involved in Epstein's crimes, but I doubt it will actually help things. Trump's opposition to Epstein has been known since the 2016 election and I've posted that video Edwards admitting that Trump helped dozens of times and it doesn't seem to help anything. People don't want to hear the truth, they just want to believe that Trump and Epstein were two peas in a pod. 

Indeed, the media is now downplaying the fact that he called the police chief of his own volition to focus on the idea that Trump knew what Epstein was doing. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Trump went out of his way to help the investigation and may have been the person that started it in the first place. And it's not like it wasn't obvious that Trump knew that Epstein was a creep, Trump may have made some denials, but he also admitted that he banned Epstein for the very behavior he got famous for. Purposefully inserting himself into a police investigation is a good action and is evidence that he did indeed try to stop Epstein. 

President Trump announced a deal has been made over Greenland.

 

President Trump at Davos. Fox News/AP.

President Donald Trump has announced a preliminary deal with NATO and Denmark over Greenland. Fox News. Trump canceled a larger number of tariffs he was going to impose on Europe and said that the deal would respect Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland. He said that the deal accomplished everything the United States wanted, but details still had to be worked out by his foreign policy team, including Marco Rubio. Trump had been threatening to take over Greenland, leading to consternation from Europe, and even minor military deployments, but in the end a deal was made. 

My Comment:

It's amazing, after a decade in politics and almost 40 years after Donald Trump released Art of the Deal, people still don't understand what Donald Trump is about. It was clear that the threats he was issuing to Denmark, NATO and Greenland were a negotiating tactic, one he outlines in his book. Trump even said in the book what you should do is make extreme demands so that when you grant concessions it seems like a win. 

Indeed, the hand wringing and whining about Trump wanting Greenland was always kind of silly. The people that demonize Trump used it to paint him as a madman, which was actually playing right into his hands. What really gets me is that Europe didn't seem to understand it either. There is this idea that Donald Trump isn't predictable, but given how this exact scenario has played out half a dozen times since he started his 2nd term, let alone his 1st term, it's baffling that even governments seem to not understand this is how he works. 

Most news sources have been extremely scant on the details including the Fox News report. From what I understand though, the United States will be granted sovereignty over some territory in order to build military bases. This would be similar to UK's military sovereign territory in Cyprus. Greenland will also be integrated into the "Golden Dome" missile defense system, which is a major reason we wanted the territory in the first place. 

There is also the formalization of previous treaties with Denmark in regards to defense and an agreement over Greenland's vast mineral and oil resources. These resources will likely be critical, if extremely hard to develop. What the agreement would accomplish is making sure that if these resources are extracted, they will go to the United States, not Russia or China. 

There are going to be more than a few people that will whine about this and will be mad about the drama. Those folks are wrong, Greenland was a major issue for the United States and given the current weakness of Europe and the general uselessness of NATO, it was time to excerpt our power to get the Island defended. Now, even if Denmark collapses into economic or social chaos, which is a likely outcome for most of Europe, we will be able to defend Greenland from any threats from China or Russia. 

President Trump still wants Greenland. Can he get it?

 

File photo of Nuuk Greenland. CNBC/Reuters.

President Trump is weighing multiple options for the United States to gain Greenland. CNBC. Trump says that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons and wants to ensure the island isn't conquered by China or Russia. He has not ruled out military force to take the island from Denmark, who currently controls the country, but Secretary of State Rubio says that Trump would prefer to buy the island. So far Denmark has ruled out giving up the territory. Trump's desire for Greenland is a long standing one but is being taken more serious now after the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. 

My Comment:

I don't really understand why Europe didn't take this seriously until the raid on Venezuela. Trump is known for saber rattling but his arguments for why we need Greenland are strong. Greenland is one of the more strategic islands in the world, it can control ship, air and missile traffic in both the Artic and North Atlantic. It also has a lot of natural resources and it would be a huge deal if America was able to take the island. 

The bigger problem though is that Denmark isn't able to defend the Island at all. Denmark is a tiny country with an irrelevant military. If Trump wants Denmark and is indeed willing to use military force, there isn't a thing Denmark could do about it. 

Of course, this actually strengthens the argument that America should take Greenland. If Denmark can't defend Greenland without the help of the United States, then they can't do so against Russia and/or China. And both countries would love to have control over Greenland for the same reason Trump and the United States wants it. It has resources and would be a boon in any war happening in the Atlantic Ocean.   

The problem is that Denmark doesn't seem to want to play ball. I understand why, like most European countries they want to act like they are a major player, even though that hasn't been true since World War II. They either can't accept or like to pretend that they aren't in a Suzerainty with the United States. 

Trump is showing that isn't the case. No matter how much Europe likes to crow about being independent, they are pretty much totally under the control of the United States when it comes to foreign policy. Why? Because at any moment the United States could withdraw from NATO and if they did Europe would not be in a position to defend themselves. 

The debacle that was Ukraine shows how true that is. Though the United States contributed massively, Ukraine has always been Europe's war. And given that Ukrain was the largest, most professional and most skilled army in Europe and hasn't been able to beat back the Russians even if Europe destroying their economies trying to arm them shows that they are not likely to be able to defend themselves once the Ukraine situation is resolved. That means that Europe is either going to have to arm up and go independent or they are going to have to give Trump what he wants. And giving up Greenland is a small cost to pay to remain under the United States. 

I'd also say that this is another example that Trump gets the fact that Europe doesn't have a long term future. I am guessing that with immigration there completely out of control and it being made up of almost exclusively military aged-males from the Muslim world, the countries of Europe will end up at war with itself before the next couple of decades are out. Indeed, before ISIS got destroyed they were already essentially at war, with terror attacks at the peak happening almost weekly. Denmark specifically seems like it's in a better position than most countries, but Europe as a whole is in deep trouble and if the EU collapses, Greenland would be left defenseless outside of the United States. 

Of course all of this is to show that the United States could take Greenland if they wanted to, not if they will or not. I am guessing that this is just more Trump bluster, we all know his playbook by now. I don't think Trump realistically thinks that using military force would be a good idea, it would blow up NATO and create a domestic backlash, though as we are seeing with Venezuela, the domestic backlash would probably be limited to progressive Democrats. He's keeping the option open as a negotiating tactic. Rubio gave the game away, he admitted that Trump wants to buy the island, not go to war over it. 

The United States Military has captured the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, in an incredible early morning raid in Caracas.

 

Smoke rises from the La Carlota airport in Caracas Venezuela. AP. 

The United States Military has captured the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro in a incredible lightning raid on Caracas. AP. Explosions from airstrikes in Caracas were captured on video along with attacks by US attack helicopters. Maduro was successfully captured along with his wife in the raid. The attack barely lasted 30 minutes and it is unclear if there will be any further action. The operation came a week after President Donald Trump announced an attack on a drug port in Venezuela, the first attack on Venezuelan soil in the low intensity drug conflict. It is unclear who is in control of Venezuela with Maduro in custody. 

The New York Times and CNN have live updates for this story. 

pic.twitter.com/s95IpxZnSH This is an attack helicopter attack on an airbase in Caracas Venezuela. Not sure if it's an Apache or Venom, but either way, crazy video.

— Jeff H (@politicswarblog) January 3, 2026

My Comment:

 I will admit to being caught flat-footed by this operation. I had assumed we would have seen many more months of pressure tactics targeting Venezuela and a few more strikes targeting the country before we went for Maduro himself. I guess the timeline was pushed up quite a bit. 

If I was caught flat-footed, the Venezuelan military was caught totally asleep. The New York Times say that there were zero US casualties in this raid, which is incredible. Indeed, in none of the video I have seen was there any indication of return fire from the Venezuelans. No air defenses were apparently launched against US planes and helicopters, no planes were launched and there were not any real reports of gunfire on the ground. 

This was a special forces operation. Supposedly it was a Delta Force operation, though they obviously had a lot of help. The 160th SOAR "Nightstalkers", the Army Special Forces air unit, have been confirmed to be involved as well. And I would assume that the Navy helped with the bombing campaign. Either way, the rather pathetic military of Venezuela was unable to do anything about this operation. 

I do wonder if someone in Maduro's government cut a deal with the United States. It's possible that in exchange for amnesty someone ordered Venezuela's air defenses to stand down. They have a few SAM's, MANPADS and flack guns and they also have a few F-16's and SU-30 Flankers. But none of those weapons appear to have been used in this raid. Though the raid was a total surprise, it does strike me as a bit suspicious that none of those systems were used at all. It's even possible that Maduro himself was in on the deal, but that seems unlikely at this point. 

What happens next is an open question. Venezuela's Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was not taken in the raid and is presumably in control of the country, but who knows if that will continue. I know that Venezuela also has a major opposition movement and they may be able to take power. And I am guessing they probably will, Rodriguez now understands that what happened to Maduro can and will happen to him as well. 

What I don't expect is the kind of "nation building" mission we got stuck with in Iraq and Afghanistan. We aren't sending in huge divisions of troops, we just bombed a city and took out the leader. There were a few people that were angry that we were supposedly getting into another war, but that obviously isn't going to happen. 

I am not sure how the reaction to this is going to be. I think some of the doves in the Republican Party might be a little upset for awhile, but given the mission was a total success they won't have much of a leg to stand on. Progressive Democrats will wail and gnash their teeth and may make noise about the War Powers Act, but they won't actually be able to do anything. But I think just about everyone else will be on board with this operation. 

As for the justification for this? I guess I don't care. Maduro was a socialist and that's good enough for m. He, along with the late Hugo Chavez, ran Venezuela into the ground. Given how rich in resources Venezuela was it's absurd that they were able to do so. Maduro was involved in the drug trafficking that kills Americans every day and he's generally a bad person. 

Regardless, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by what our military accomplished here. There were a lot of things that could have gone wrong here and they didn't. Indeed, this should be a pretty big message to both our enemies and allies that America isn't going anywhere and we still have one of the most impressive militaries in the world. 

President Trump announced major strike on Venezuelan dock facility.

 

President Donald Trump. BBC/Reuters. 

President Donald Trump announced a major strike on a Venezuelan dock facility suspected to be involved in drug smuggling. BBC. Trump was cagey on the details, and did not reveal where the facility was, who had hit it, and when the attack occurred. Venezuela has not responded to the incident either. Trump had made threats to attack the Venezuelan mainland to deal with drug smugglers and the attack would be the first one targeting Venezuelan territory directly. Trump has launched major strikes against narco smugglers in a campaign to curtail fentanyl trafficking. The campaign, which has included taking Venezuelan oil tankers, is putting pressure on Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro to step down. 

My Comment:

Not a lot of details on this story, but it's worth covering as it's a major escalation in the battle against the drug smugglers. This is an obvious step up from the campaign against drug boats, which has been a low intensity conflict. Blowing up a smuggler dock in Venezuelan territory (assuming that is where it is, details are lacking) is a new step in this conflict. We don't know if it was an air strike or some kind of CIA op, but in either case it would be an escalation. 

I hate the hedging the news with these strikes. It's very clear that these are all drug boats and drug smugglers getting blown up. They want people to think that Trump is just blowing up a bunch of fishermen or something. Fishermen don't tend to run speed boats with no fishing equipment.

I am guessing the same thing will be said about this strike as well, and in this case the lack of transparency will help the media out. We don't know very much about these strikes, or even where they happened. This is going to give the media a lot of room to speculate as to what happened. In previous strikes they released video to show exactly what happened. Sure, the media tried to spin it anyways, but with the video it could be clearly seen by anyone who wasn't a rabid partisan that the vessels were indeed drug boats. They should absolutely do the same thing here, and I wonder if Trump jumped the gun a bit, announcing the strikes before video was ready. 

As for the Venezuela campaign, this probably won't actually change much. It's not like Venezuela can respond in any way. The most they could probably do is file a protest with the UN, which will be promptly ignored and won't change anything regardless. Venezuela's military is a joke and they cannot respond to attacks like this. 

I also don't think this will do a whole lot to increase the pressure on Nicholas Maduro. There were rumors that he was considering leaving the country, but I don't think one strike on a drug dock is going to be the thing that pushes him out of power. The blockade of sanctioned oil tankers is going to be a lot more effective as it will directly effect the bottom line of the Venezuelan government for every oil tanker that doesn't make it to delivery. 

But I do think it was a good warning for Maduro. The strike does show America's unquestioned military supremacy over Venezuela. We were able to strike a drug facility with impunity so that also means we could do the same thing to Maduro, assuming we had the intelligence to find out where he is. That has to be in the back of Maduro's mind and it may contribute to him leaving power voluntarily. 

President Trump floats giving Americans a $2000 Tariff rebate check.

 

President Donald Trump. NBC News/Bloomberg/Getty.

President Donald Trump has proposed giving Americans a $2000 tariff rebate check. NBC News. Trump said on Truth Social that he wanted Americans to get the checks, but would exclude the wealthy. The statement appears to indicate the plan is in the extreme early stages as even his Treasury Secretary was in the dark about what the plan would be. Complicating things is the fact that the government is still shut down and no negotiations over the payments will occur until the government reopens. This is not the first time Trump has asked for these payments and a bill that would have provided $600 checks has lingered in the Senate. 

My Comment:

It seems the message that the Republicans got after the 2025 elections is "it's the economy stupid". This seems like an obvious bone to throw to the American people who are still very unhappy with the state of the economy. A large stimulus check from tariff revenue might change some peoples minds. 

Tariffs would indeed cover the costs if the wealth restrictions are similar to the previous stimulus checks provided in the wake of the pandemic. Tariff revenue has been about $200 billion a year, if projections stay accurate, and that could presumably pay for these checks, though it would obviously use most of that profit from both this year and next year. It's absolutely doable. 

Inflation would be a slight concern in this scenario though. It won't be like previous checks, which were paid for by printing billions of dollars. Instead, we would be using money we already have. The problem is that people would probably spend this money on goods and services, which would obviously lead to inflation. Not much inflation, but folks might not be so happy to get the checks if everything they wanted to buy was getting more expensive. Still, it's not going to result in the runaway inflation that we saw due to previous spending as this time, things would be paid for. 

The main problem is how do you get this into place. The Democrats have currently shut down the government pretty much out of spite (though there are early reports that they will end the shutdown this week), so I don't see them going along with this without concessions on what they want. This is pretty irrelevant though as I am assuming this would go through the reconciliation process, which doesn't need any Democratic support in either chamber given Republican control over both houses. 

The bigger problem is the existence of fiscal hawks in the Senate. Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee could blow up the whole thing because they want tariff revenue to go to paying down government debt. They have an argument too as sooner or later we have to deal with the debt and it would be wise for at least some of the tariff money to go to that. 

My guess is that there is a decent chance that some form of checks are cut in a deal passed with those Republicans but it's likely not going to be $2000. Something like the $600 checks already proposed in the Senate, or perhaps as high as $1000, is a lot more likely than the full $2000. It's no sure thing, obviously, but I think it's probably close to 50/50 that checks are cut. It's also possible that some kind of deal with a few Democrats could neuter these fiscal hawks in the Senate, but that seems a lot less likely.

What impact would any checks have? I am guessing mostly positive. These checks are popular even if they risk inflation for pretty obvious reasons. There is something very appealing about the "little guy" getting something back from the government and folks would likely use this money to stimulate economic growth. If folks are smart they will use the money to pay down debt but I am guessing most people will spend it on nonsense, which, to be fair, I probably will too. 

Politically it's a winner too. There are folks that voted for Republicans solely for these kinds of handouts and I can't blame them. And it's further evidence that the Republicans "get it" when it comes to economic issues. That's been a concern for the past few months as Trump has had a major focus on foreign policy and immigration instead of the economy. A major fiscal refocus could help the Republicans a great deal in the midterms. 

Trump Administration slashes refugees to lowest level in years.

 

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau meets South African refugees. Politico. 

The Trump administration is slashing new refugee admissions to the lowest level in years, with only 7500 being accepted next year. Politico. Priority will be giving to Afrikaners from South Africa who face discrimination from their government, along with other victims of discrimination. This would be a dramatic reversal compared to Biden, who allowed 100,000 refugees in a year, and even less than Trump's first term that allowed 11,000 in. Trump said that Biden was abusing the refugee program and that it was being reformed. 

My Comment:

This is long overdue. The refugee system had long been abused to allow people in that were anything but. Instead of taking people from actual warzones, like Ukraine/Russia, we were taking economic migrants from countries like Haiti and many from Central and South America. Those folks might have had hard lives at home, but they were hardly refugees. 

The focus now seems to be Afrikaners and I agree they are in serious trouble in South Africa. The media likes to downplay how badly they are treated and how the whole area seems like it is in pre-genocide mode. The media hates the idea that a white group of people could be a victim so they downplay what is happening there. 

There's another advantage in taking the Afrikaners and that's that they will be likely to contribute to America. Many of our more recent refugees are just sitting on the dole and not actually helping the economy by working. I think these folks will do so, just like former waves of actual refugees like the ones that came from Vietnam or the first wave or two from Cuba. Generally speaking, folks that are actually fleeing from violence or threats are going to be a lot more grateful for being rescued over some economic migrant who just wants government benefits. 

Indeed, I think we should consider sending at least some of these refugees from the Biden area home. Syria and Iraq are good examples. They aren't exactly safe now, but the wars that devastated both countries have ended. At least some of them should be allowed to go back. 

As for refugees in general, I think it's clear that America has taken more than their fair share. We really don't need to take anymore at this point, and honestly the only reason we are taking these South Africans is because nobody else will. We don't necessary owe the Afrikaners anything but if anyone qualifies as a refugee it's them.  

Hunting stand found near Palm Beach Airport had a line of sight where President Trump boards and departs from

 

The hunting stand found near the airport. NBC News/Secret Service photo.

A hunting stand near Palm Beach International Airport had a line of sight where President Trump boards and departs from Air Force One, raising major security concerns. NBC News. The stand was found across the street where private planes, along with Air Force One, taxi and unload. Air Force One doesn't always park there but was doing so during construction. The stand had been there for a considerable time and there was no one present when the stand was discovered during a routine security check before President Trump arrived there on Friday to visit Mar-A-Lago. President Trump faced multiple assassination attempts and the incident comes after the assassination of Charlie Kirk last month. 

My Comment:

Given the location of this stand, there is approximately zero chance of this being a legitimate hunting stand. If the images I am seeing of the location of this stand is correct, it's next to an Army Reserve center and north of a government research lab. It's a small stand of trees in an otherwise extremely urban area, and I doubt there are any deer to hunt there. It did appear to have a clear line of sight to Palm Beach International. I really can't think of any other reason for this stand to be up in this tree outside of something disturbing. I mean, maybe someone wanted to watch planes taking off and landing, but there is a public park across the canal and street that would serve that purpose fine. This wasn't a plane watcher. 

This stand was about 200 yards, give or take, from where Trump would have been exiting Air Force One. That's not a difficult shot for someone with a scoped rifle, and even with iron sights it would have been doable. Anyone with even moderate training and/or range time could have made a shot at the President if this has not been discovered. 

And it's not like this is a spur of the moment thing. You don't put a tree stand in this area for any benign reason. This is something that takes a bit of effort to set up. I'm not a hunter so I have never used a tree stand, but it does take some time put into place and it's more effort that someone is likely to make. This was someone working with some kind of plan.

The real question is why the plan wasn't put into motion? From what I understand Trump hasn't been to Mar-A-Lago that much this year, at least compared to his first term, and he usually doesn't visit it during the summer. And until very recently, construction was in place that meant that this tarmac wasn't being used. The reason this stand was discovered is because they were starting to use the tarmac again. I am guessing that whoever set up the stand abandoned it after it was clear that Trump wasn't going to be a viable target from the perch for months.

It is a relief that the Secret Service was able to find this. The threat to Trump was real and unlike the Butler assassination attempt, they crossed their "t's". They had missed an obvious sniper perch during the Butler speech, but this time they managed to catch it. Perhaps cleaning house had a positive effect?

Now we have a manhunt on our hands. Whoever made this perch probably has an active plan to attack President Trump and it needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Given the obvious competence in picking the spot, I do worry that this guy is pretty smart and if he isn't caught soon, he might try an attack. Hopefully there is some kind of evidence from the site that can be used to track this person down. Given that the stand was there I am guessing they should have at least some evidence there. 

What really concerns me is that he knows he is burned and will attempt an attack. Perhaps not on President Trump, given his location was burned and the plan appeared to have been abandoned months ago. But I am concerned that he could target someone with considerably less protection than Trump, like a local politician or media figure that lives in the Miami area. I am hoping that this person is caught very quickly before they can put any further plans into place... 

Trump nationalizes Washington DC law enforcement to deal with crime.

 

FBI and ICE agents arresting a man. USA Today/Getty.

President Trump announced that he was taking over law enforcement in Washington DC. USA Today. Trump described the city as being overrun by criminals, drug users and the homeless and that it would no longer be tolerated. Trump used the 1973 Home Rule act that allows the President to take over law enforcement for 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days, or longer with congressional action. Trump will also deploy the National Guard to assist with law enforcement. Trump has cited several high profile attacks, including the most recent attack against DOGE staffer Edward Coristine, the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in May and the stabbing of a Rand Paul staffer in 2023. Democratic critics say that the crackdown is unnecessary as crime has dropped a bit since its peak. Trump has also threatened to do similar things in other Democrat controlled cities. 

My Comment:

I do think this is long overdue. Crime has been out of control in Washington DC for as long as I remember and it's a national embarrassment that our capitol is such a mess. Given that, I am not surprised that Trump is doing this. I think the attack on Edward Coristine was the last straw and it was one that personally angered Trump and many of his friends in the White House. Coristine is a popular figure in the White House and is a media figure as well. 

The main argument against the crackdown is that crime is supposedly down. As someone who knows quite a bit about crime statistics reporting, I am obligated to remind you that outside of homicide data, most crime statistics are nonsense. Any police department that is using analytics is vulnerable to people downgrading crimes and failing to report them so their numbers look better. Not to mention that a lot of crimes never get reported given the perception that police are either useless or racist. Both perceptions have gained prominence in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd riots and the abandoning of traditional policing as a response. 

Of course, homicide data is pretty much impossible to fudge and it does show that the murder rate is going down. Does that mean much? I am guessing it's just a regression to the mean. The murder rate was out of control since the summer of Floyd and peaked in 2023, with 274 murders that year. This year they have had 99, which is an improvement, largely because the crime wave burned itself out a bit. Such out of control crime isn't sustainable given that the majority of folks being killed are criminals themselves. I think it has more to do with that than anything the Washington DC police are doing. 

Regardless, the perception isn't just that crime is out of control, it's the perception that the government won't do anything about it. This crackdown is an effort to look like something is being done, which is an improvement over letting criminals out on no bail. There is also a major loss of face in having a member of the Administration beaten up for no reason and that's not something that will be allowed to stand. I think that even if the crime rate is going down (and that's no sure thing) this is justified because it at least shows that crime will be dealt with, which should have a deterrence effect. 

There really isn't any question as to if this is legal or not, but the real question is how effective it will be. I do think that we should see a drop in crime as federal resources are going to be poured into the city. The main problem is that it's a temporary solution. Trump has 30 days without congressional approval and if that doesn't come then the feds are going to go back home. A lot of criminals will probably be swept up in the crackdown, but most will keep their heads low and will be able to weather the storm. 

What is needed is a permanent solution. We know that the race-based policing that the Democrats have implemented do not work. I mentioned in the DOGE attack post that instead of keeping the race-based policing we should go back to either or both broken windows policing and community oriented policing. Broken windows means going after smaller crimes to solve and prevent bigger ones while community relations means just that, working with the community to solve crimes. I don't think the crackdown is sustainable unless it is somehow made indefinite (which I doubt) or Democrats finally say goodbye to race based policing. 

President Donald Trump celebrates six months in office.

 

President Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty. 

President Donald Trump is celebrating six months in office. Fox News. Trump said that the country was "dead" under President Biden and bragged that the first six months of his 2nd term has been among the most consequential for any US President. In foreign policy, Trump has had major successes with ending wars, including the conflict between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the India-Pakistan conflict and the Israel-Iran war, which ended after successful airstrikes. A Russia-Ukraine peace deal has been elusive though. Domestically, Trump and Congress passed the Big Beautiful Bill, which funded large numbers of Trump's priorities. Trump also cited polling that shows Republicans almost exclusively approve of what he is doing, with a 90% approval rate. 

My Comment:

Love the man or hate him, he is absolutely right about one thing, the past six months have been momentous. Indeed, it seems a lot longer than six months. It's hard to believe that Joe Biden was president at any point in 2025, but it was just six months go. 

I do agree that Trump's foreign policy has been mostly masterful. His gamble with Iran, which I still think was a bad idea, worked out perfectly, to the point that the Israel-Iran conflict is over and probably will be for awhile. And he deserves a lot of credit for helping to end that war, and the wars between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (a war that most people didn't even know was happening, let alone that Trump helped to end it) and the conflict between India and Pakistan. Given that two of those three conflicts involved countries with nuclear weapons, it's an accomplishment that he was able to end any of them without getting nuked. That alone justifies my vote for him. 

But the article is right, not all peace deals are in reach. The Russia-Ukraine war is continuing and will likely do so until Ukraine's ultimate defeat. Neither side really wants to end the war but Trump doesn't seem like he can impose his will to end it. And the Israel-Hamas war? Forget about it. Again, neither side seems likely to want peace, though there have at least been more progress there than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

Domestically, things are also going well, at least in terms of what Trump has accomplished. It's very clear that things have changed in terms of immigration. Border crossings are essentially done, proving that Democrats could have ended it at anytime they wanted. And illegal aliens are getting deported, though it would take a very long time to remove all of them. 

The Big Beautiful Bill passed and it's obviously a huge win for Trump. He was able to herd the cats in Congress to at least pass one keystone piece of legislation. It was no sure thing and there are universes where Trump was simply not able to pull it off. Getting it done was a huge victory for him and proof that he has pretty strong control over the Republican Party. 

There have been a few missteps as well. Losing Elon Musk was a problem, and one that might be a longer term issue, though it was probably worth it to get the BBB passed. And the Epstein story, which is probably close to done now, was a total self-inflicted wound. The messaging there was not great, even when given the context that the Wall Street Journal was working on the ridiculous Trump-Epstein love letter story. 

I do think that Trump is having a better time of it than his first term. Polling indicates that his approval rating among Republicans is really good, around 90% in even anti-Trump polls. General approval is mixed, with only conservative outlets having him as approved, but that's a far cry from what it was in his 1st term, with even pro-Republican outlets having him exclusively in the negative. And, given that the Democrats in Congress are rocking an approval rate in the 20%-30% range, with one Quinnipiac poll recently released at 19% with Democrats being under water with their own party, he's sitting pretty.  

As for me, I would say that I generally approve of what Trump has done in his 2nd term so far. At least some of that is due to just how bad Joe Biden was. Not only did I not agree with a single one of his policies, I thought the man was both personally loathsome, and totally unqualified for office. Almost anyone would have done better, except Kamala Harris. 

But I do agree with the vast majority of what Trump has done. There are a few problems of course, he could have been stronger on gun rights, I'd prefer we either cut off Ukraine entirely or join the war on Russia's side, and the Epstein messaging was a classic blunder, and, forgotten by everyone, I absolutely hated the "Take it Down Act" due to free speech implications. But you are never going to get a President that's 100% on the same page as you and the bad absolutely does not outweigh the good. 

I'd also say that the "sky is falling" chicken littles (or as Trump designates them "panicans" have been proven wrong again and again. Tariff's didn't hurt the economy, and inflation basically stopped. The Iran conflict didn't devolve into World War III. Trump isn't going to be brought down because of Jeffrey Epstein. If there is one thing that Trump is really good at it's making his critics look ridiculous in the end, and that has continued into the first six months of his 2nd term. 

Wall Street Journal releases ridiculous article claiming Donald Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

 

President Donald Trump. Politico.

The Wall Street Journal has released a claim that said Donald Trump sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Politico. The letter was supposedly part of an album that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein as a gift from his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter supposedly contained a drawing of a naked woman with a typewritten note and a signature of Donald Trump. Epstein has been in the news since Attorney General Pam Bondi closed the case and Trump has shown frustration over the backlash. This report was immediately denounced by Trump and Trump went through with his threat to sue the Wall Street Journal for releasing it. Other pundits have condemned the story. 

Trump supposedly wrote: 

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. 

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. 

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. 

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? 

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. 

Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The original story is paywalled but an archived version of the Wall Steet Journal report can be found here.

My Comment:

Well, this story appears to have single handedly destroyed any momentum that the Epstein controversy had. This is an absolutely ridiculous story that, even if it was true, is not damaging to Trump in any way. But there are serious doubts that this story is even true. 

For one thing, I can't imagine President Donald Trump sounds anything like this. Trump has never been an eloquent man and this note reads like erotic fan fiction. Indeed, it doesn't sound like a man wrote this at all, as it reads to me as absurdly feminine. Men don't call each other enigmas or say that every day should be another "wonderful secret". No straight man writes like that and Donald Trump certainly doesn't. The chances that Trump wrote that little poem himself is almost certainly close to zero. Nothing in his life tells me he's the kind of person that would write like that under any circumstances. Even Elon Musk, who has been very critical of Trump about Epstein and is responsible for much of the outrage, says it sounds nothing like him

I guess it's possible that Trump's assistant or someone wrote the thing and the story has some legitimacy, but even then, it's not damaging. The letter supposedly happened in 2003, long before anyone knew that Epstein was a criminal. There is no admission of guilt or anything that even suggests criminal behavior. And other than making Trump sound effeminate, there is nothing about it that is new, Trump's always been a cad. Him signing a fruity letter with a hand drawn picture to Epstein before anyone knew what he was, does not change my opinion of him at all, though I doubt it is at all real. 

It does explain why Trump has been surly about this issue ever since Pam Bondi closed the case. Trump's actions were confusing a lot of people as nobody could understand why he was upset why folks were focusing on the issue. Well, I guess we know why now. He knew this story was coming, as he was quoted in the story, and wanted to get in front of it. And a lot of Trump's critics on the right look pretty ridiculous now. 

But even then, I can't understand why this story is supposed to matter. Everyone already knew that Trump and Epstein knew each other socially in the early 2000's, and everyone knew that the relationship ended as soon as Trump knew what Epstein was. There have never been any credible accusations of wrongdoing for Trump when it comes to Epstein and he was indeed helpful to the criminal investigation against him. 

pic.twitter.com/p5rPJgB0TE

— GOP (@GOP) July 18, 2025

Given that Trump is now going to release the last real files in the Epstein case (assuming that the judge signs off) and this story landed like a lead balloon, I am guessing that this whole frenzy that has dominated social media for the last couple of weeks will quickly fade away. And it's not like it was really damaging to Trump in the first place. Though a few folks were extremely loud about the files, Trump's approval rating actually went up since the story exploded, according to recent polling. 

🚨NEW: CNN's Harry Enten "SURPRISED" Trump's approval among GOP has *RISEN* amid Epstein backlash🚀

"Republicans who approve of Trump — look at our CNN poll. The prior one: 86%. The one out this week: 88% with Republicans."

"How about Quinnipiac? The prior poll: 87% approval… pic.twitter.com/2tjXM6KDUO

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) July 17, 2025

I am not expecting any real new evidence in the sealed Grand Jury documents, as I honestly don't think there are any real revelations left. It's just going to be repeats of what the victims have said publically and perhaps more graphic descriptions of what Epstein did. There isn't going to be a smoking gun that "blows the whole thing open". 

Finally, I have to say that this whole thing was an ordeal for me. As someone that has followed the story since 2015, it's been insane how misinformed or deluded people have been. Some of those folks were just Trump haters, the folks that will actually try and hype this story as if it's at all believable. But many of them were folks that should have absolutely known better. 

As much as I would like to see perp-walks in this case, given that many of the main players, including Jeffrey Epstein, Marvin Minsky, Bill Richardson and Jean-Luc Brunel are dead. The main witness, Virginia Giuffre, is dead. And given the lack of evidence for many of the accusations, there wasn't ever going to be any further arrests, let alone convictions. I would have liked to see Prince Andrew, at least, facing the music, but with Giuffre dead, there is no chance of that now. Folks absolutely should have known this and the demands for other outcomes were never realistic in any way. 

One year after Donald Trump was wounded at a campaign rally in Butler Pennsylvania, questions still remain about the failures of the Secret Service.

Donald Trump raises his fist seconds after being hit by a bullet in the famous AP photo. 

One year after Donald Trump was wounded in a failed assassination attempt at Butler Pennsylvania, questions still remain about the failures of the Secret Service. AP. The 20 year old assassin was able to climb onto a roof and fire 8 shots, wounding Trump and two other people and killing Corey Comperatore, in a massive breach of presidential candidate security. That incident, along with a 2nd failed assassination attempt on Trump last September, raised serious questions about the competence of the Secret Service. 

One problem is that the Secret Service had expected farm equipment to be blocking the line of sight from the roof, but did nothing when that equipment was not there. There was also no unified command center between the Secret Service and local police. It was also found that the Secret Service denied extra protection for Trump due to threats, threats that were not shared with local police or agents at the Butler rally. The Secret Service has implemented changes in response to the incident and former head of the Service, Kim Cheatle, did resign, and a few agents were suspended, but nobody was fired for the incident. No motive for the crime has ever been discovered or released. 

My Comment:

It's both hard to believe that this was already a year ago and it's also hard to believe that it was only a year ago. So much has happened since this failed assassination attempt that the world is absolutely a different place. And it absolutely was a 9/11 moment, one where you will always remember where you were when you heard the news. 

It was also the moment that Trump won the 2024 election. There was no serious chance of Trump losing after taking a bullet and being able to shake it off quickly enough that he was able to raise his fist in the air and yell "fight". Trump was still in danger at that point, nobody knew if there were more assassins or if the first guy was really dead, so it was a display of courage to do so. It changed more than a few minds about who exactly Donald Trump was, his haters still hate him, but it gave cover for a lot of folks to change their votes to him. 

The failures of the Secret Service were disturbing, especially after it was clear that they hadn't learned their lessons when Trump was almost assassinated again that September. That attack could have worked had the assassin there been better at concealing himself. 

Of course those of a more conspiratorial mindset would obviously have questions that maybe this was all allowed to happen. I am not so sure. Never blame malice on which can be adequately be explained by incompetence, and without direct evidence that the attack was either directed or allowed to happen, that is what I am going with. 

Because it sure seemed like the Secret Service was incompetent in this case. The mistakes that they made are things that seem pretty obvious in hindsight. Having local police and Secret Service agents on different command structures seems like almost day one stuff. And the whole line of sight thing should have been obvious as well. 

Are things better now? Possibly. Possibly not. Trump now has the full presidential protection, which was not something he was afforded during the campaign season. And they have at least made noise about fixing things, creating an aviation unit and buying armored ATV's and command vehicles. Plus, I get the feeling that much of the problem was due to Kim Cheatle, who was incompetent and probably a DEI hire. With her gone things may have gotten better in the Secret Service. It would have been hard to do any worse. 

The final mystery is one that is unlikely to be solved. There has been little in terms of revelations as to why Thomas Michael Crooks did what he did. Even his politics seem to be a mystery, with several contradictory things coming out. He never wrote a manifesto and may have simply been doing it for notoriety. Perhaps if Joe Biden had been doing a rally in Butler instead, he may have targeted him. As frustrating as it is, we might never know the truth as to why he did what he did. 

Majority of Democrats vote down impeachment push of Donald Trump over Iran strikes.

 

Congressman Al Green and President Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty.

The majority of Democrats joined Republicans to vote down an impeachment push of President Donald Trump over his strikes in Iran. Fox News. The measure was brought by Congressman Al Green who was famously ejected from Trump's Joint address to Congress earlier this year. 128 Democrats joined all Republicans to kill the impeachment, with only 79 Democrats voting in favor. All three of the Democrats major leadership, Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries, Minority Whip Kathrine Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, voted against the measure. Democrats were put in a difficult position with the vote. 

My Comment:

This was a pretty serious rejection of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party's leadership understood this was a losing cause and wisely voted against it. Though Al Green and AOC might be upset about this, it was the smart thing to do for the Democrats, a rare case of them doing a sensible thing. 

Why? Well for one, with the ceasefire still holding, it sure looks like Trump was justified in what he did. Bombing Iran was controversial, but the results were effective. Iran's nuclear program has been dealt a severe blow and now the war is over. Polling hasn't been done but I am guessing Trump's actions will be popular with all but the most dedicated Trump haters. 

Second, Trump didn't do anything wrong here, under the laws of the United States. The War Powers Act gives the President the right to do strikes like this. And he followed the rules on consultations and notifications as well.  You could argue that the War Powers Act should be changed but under the rules that we have now, Trump is absolutely in the clear. 

And it's not like the Democrats hate the War Powers Act. Every Democratic President since the law was passed has used the act in some way, with even Carter having the Iran rescue operation, which failed spectacularly, under the act. I am guessing that the Democrats understand if they impeached Trump over this, there would be nothing stopping a now more anti-war Republican congress from doing the same thing to their next president. 

Finally, I think that they might have finally realized that impeaching Trump twice made him a lot more popular among his base. Much like the lawfare against him, it was clear that both impeachments were just political in nature and that Trump didn't actually do anything wrong in either case. To impeach him over something that is not only on completely ridiculous ground, it's also likely to be very popular, would be political suicide for the Democrats. 

The problem the Democrats have is that they still have 79 members in the house, and large parts of the base, that don't care about any of those reasons. They care less about winning and more about getting Trump at all cost, even when he is doing something that is popular and legal. It makes it very easy for Republicans to, correctly I might add, dismiss all criticism from the left as Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

What's funny is that I do think Trump deserves some criticism for his actions in Iran. I still don't think that Iran was that close to the bomb and at the very least, we should be allowed to see the intelligence that informed the decision. I can't argue with the results but like I said in my last post, this was a roller coaster, and it didn't necessarily have to be. It's absolutely not worth impeaching Trump over, and I certainly still support his Presidency, but he's not above all criticism here. 

With that being said, I do think that Trump is now pretty well suited to having a successful 2nd term. Some of it might depend on the 2026 midterms, but given that a few states are redistricting the map should be easier. If impeachment actually does happen again, it would require the Democrats capturing the house, and should that happen, which seems unlikely, it will be a repeat of the first two. Based on nonsense and defeated in the Senate. 

President Trump leaves G7 summit early to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict.

 

President Trump stands with the leadership of the G7 countries. ABC News/Getty.

President Trump will leave the G7 summit early to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict. ABC News. Though Trump signed a major trade deal with the United Kingdom, he will leave the Canadian hosted summit to return to the United States, skipping a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky and Mexican President Sheinbaum. The announcement came after Trump issued a warning to Iran on Truth Social, asking them to both make a deal and "evacuate Tehran" the capital. Trump also said during a press conference with Canadian Prime Minster Carney that Iran wasn't winning the war and that they should talk immediately. 

My Comment:

Things are heating up to be sure. The optimistic take is that Iran is going to get the message and Trump had to head home to try and get a deal in place. It's clear he wants the war to end with diplomacy and not spiral out of control and his Truth post is a good example of trying to intimidate Iran into making a deal. He's making a threat, but probably an empty one, and one that will put pressure on Iran's government to make a deal. 

The pessimistic take is that something major has happened that absolutely forced Trump to return. I can think of two reasons why that would happen. The first would be that Israel is going to launch a major strike on Tehran itself. Not so much the city but the Tehran nuclear research facility. Such a strike would be dangerous as it could result in a release of radiation. The amount would not be a lot, but it could absolutely kill and injure people exposed to it. It wouldn't be a city destroying thing or anything but it would be a serious incident. The repercussions from that would mean that Trump absolutely has to head home. 

The second scenario is that something happened and that there is a real chance of the United States going to war with Iran. There have been a few military deployments that could support that view, like the deployment of the USS Nimitz to the Middle East, but I find this very unlikely. 

Why? Trump pretty obviously does not want war. He has always been a diplomat and it sure seems like this is just an intimidation tactic. The only way I could see America joining the war directly is if it was to avoid a strike on US interests or to prevent Israel from doing something stupid. Iran has made noise about striking the US but not officially, and they would be insane to do so. I guess it is possible that our intel agencies caught wind of an upcoming strike, but is Iran that stupid? I don't think so. 

But could Israel do something stupid? It's possible. The only nuclear site that Israel can hit easily is the one in Tehran, as it's not hardened and underground like the two more important sites at Fordo and Natanz. Israel doesn't actually have the weapons to destroy those two sites as they are underground. They would need American penetrator bombs to even seriously damage those sites. Or perhaps nuclear weapons. Such a launch would be an extreme escalation and would probably lose all credibility Israel has left, so I doubt it would be something that could happen. But you never know. 

There is also a fear that Israel could launch a "false flag" against US forces or civilians and that could be what Trump is responding too. I find that pretty ridiculous, false flags very uncommon and when they do happen they are very easy to spot. I just think that theory is just a rather deranged conspiracy theory by the same folks that think everything is a false flag.  

Hilariously, it's possible that Trump just wanted out of the G7 summit. The important work was done, the only thing he really wanted out of the summit was the deal with the UK. Trump doesn't really care about the other things the G7 was working on, like the meeting with Zelensky. Indeed, this could be seen as a diplomatic insult to him, a message that the United States is not really interested in dealing with Ukraine anymore when there is a conflict that might actually be solved. Iran would be the perfect excuse to skip town. This is pretty unlikely but I kind of want it to be true. 

What is my take? I am guessing the optimistic scenario is the real one. Trump is known to talk loud but he is also very eager to make a deal. He absolutely likes turning enemies into friends and is practically begging the Iranians to play ball. This is most likely a pretty obvious attempt to intimidate them into playing ball. 

And they absolutely should. The war has been pretty one sided at this point. Iran hasn't had any real victories so far, just some missile strikes that accomplished very little in terms of stopping the Israeli air strikes. And their air force and air defenses have been complete no shows. They are at the point where they can claim the strikes they have done have satisfied honor and making a peace deal is the best move they can make. Hopefully they will do so. 

Trump says he is trying to get a deal to end the war between Israel and Iran.

 

President Trump at the 250th birthday celebration for the US Army. Reuters. 

President Trump says that he is trying to get a deal that would end the war between Israel and Iran. Reuters. Trump said that there are meetings happening that could help and that he hopes that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has influence over Iran, will help set up a peace deal. Israel and Iran have hit each other hard in the conflict though it's unclear if Israel will stop before their goal is complete. Trump lamented the fact that he gets very little credit for his efforts as a diplomat and cites the recent end to the conflict between India and Pakistan as evidence that he could get the job done between Israel and Iran. Republicans seem split on the war, with many being critical of aiding Israel and wanting to avoid conflict, while others, like Lindsey Graham, want to join the war. 

My Comment:

Unlike the war between Russia and Israel, I do think that a negotiated settlement is likely to happen. Israel is more powerful than Iran, but they are unlikely to be able to destroy Iran's government. And Iran isn't anywhere near powerful enough to destroy Israel. So if the fighting is to be stopped then a deal must be made eventually. 

I think this is why Trump vetoed Israeli plans to kill Ayatollah Khamenei. Though Khamenei isn't the secular leader of Iran, he is the de facto one and if Israel had killed him then there wouldn't really be anyone to negotiate with. Indeed, the folks they did kill were the hardliners that were resisting any chance a deal as they assumed Israel would attack anyways. They may have been right, but they are dead now and with them gone and Iran under siege their replacements might be more amicable to a deal. 

The real problem is the Israelis. Their hardliners are still in place and they might not want to settle until the Iranian regime collapses. Such a thing is unlikely, I know Iran's government isn't exactly popular among their people, but they are also very good at controlling rioting and proto-revolutions. I don't really believe that Iran was close to getting a nuke so I don't really think it's about that, but I also don't think they can accomplish those goals militarily. But they might double down regardless. 

The real hope is that America isn't drawn into the war. President Trump pretty obviously doesn't want that to happen, if he wanted to be in the war he would be. And he knows that his base would not be happy if we got involved in the war unless something really stupid happened, like a rash of terrorism across the United States at the direction of Iran. 

And it does seem that Iran doesn't want the United States in the war either. Obviously they are already in a tough fight with Israel and they absolutely do not want American air power involved as well. They could have at any time struck US bases in Iraq and Syria. The fact that they haven't is good evidence that they want to keep the United States out of the war, and Trump has told them directly that it would be an extremely bad idea to attack US interests in the Middle East. 

I do think that Trump is capable of cutting a deal. He has absolutely done so in the past and was able to end the India-Pakistan conflict. He is a diplomat at heart and if anyone can end the war it is Trump. The problem is that I don't think either side is desperate enough to end the war just yet and until that happens, the killing will continue...