Trump administration defends White House ballroom construction with security arguments!!
The Trump administration is sticking to plans to build a large ballroom at the White House and is explicitly citing national security to justify the project. In a court filing, it rejected a lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is seeking to halt construction until environmental reviews, design assessments, public hearings, and congressional approval have been completed. The planned addition would cover roughly 90,000 square feet and would significantly alter the historic complex. Critics from the fields of historic preservation and architecture see it as a massive intrusion. Particularly sensitive is the fact that the deputy director of the Secret Service stated in a declaration that the construction site does not yet meet all of the agency’s security requirements. The government offered the court to submit security related details only confidentially, without the presence of the plaintiffs. The case is thus developing into a fundamental dispute over how far a government may rely on security arguments to bypass transparency and oversight.
Numbers without restraint – how Trump’s success narrative is constructed
Donald Trump is spreading a celebratory message from his spokesperson and selling it as proof of his own economic competence. 119,000 new jobs, rising real wages, slowing inflation – everything is attributed to him, nothing is contextualized. The fact that employment figures fluctuate, expectations are politically framed, and monthly data have limited explanatory power goes unmentioned. Construction is allegedly booming, as if a president personally erected scaffolding. Long term effects, lead times, and global factors disappear from the equation. What remains is a mix of numbers designed to create an impression, not understanding. Economics is not explained here, it is asserted. Anyone who contradicts it is positioned as opposing success. And anyone who asks questions is deemed disloyal.
Particularly striking is the moral loading of the statistics. Inflation is attributed exclusively to Biden, stability exclusively to Trump. Real wage losses are dramatized, gains generalized. Then comes the political core: new jobs are now said to be reserved for natives, no longer for immigrants. This is not economic analysis, but a signal. The labor market is used for demarcation, not description. Numbers do not serve understanding, but division. In the end, there is no argument, but an imperative: trust Trump. Not the methods, not the sources, not the context. Trust replaces scrutiny. And that is precisely where the lie lies.
Washington signals security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a peace deal
US government officials report that Washington is prepared to offer Ukraine security guarantees as part of a possible peace agreement. The commitments are part of ongoing negotiations to end Russia’s war of aggression, the details of which have not yet been made public. According to sources close to the talks, such guarantees would have to be approved by the US Senate. It remains unclear whether this would take the form of a formal treaty or another type of resolution. The signals from Washington are being interpreted as an attempt to encourage Kyiv to make concessions without promising formal NATO membership. At the same time, they increase political pressure on Congress. How binding these guarantees would be remains an open question and is likely to shape the further course of the negotiations.
Judge allows fake electors case in Wisconsin to proceed
A judge in the US state of Wisconsin has ruled that a criminal case against former allies of Donald Trump may proceed. At the center are former campaign lawyer Jim Troupis and former Trump aide Mike Roman, who are accused of organizing a fabricated group of Republican electors after the 2020 presidential election. The aim was to mislead Congress into believing Trump had won Wisconsin, even though he had lost the state and the electors belonged to the actual winner. At the preliminary hearing, an investigator from the state Department of Justice described the sequence of events and internal communications that, in the view of the prosecution, constitute document forgery. The judge found this sufficient probable cause for a trial. Troupis and Roman were present in the courtroom but did not make statements. The hearing against the third defendant, attorney Ken Chesebro, was postponed because it remains unclear which of his previous statements to investigators may be used in court. Wisconsin thus remains one of the few states where attempts to overturn the 2020 election through alternative electors are being pursued consistently through the courts.
“Hunt for the unvaccinated” – a sentence that lingers
It was not a throwaway remark, but an accusation with weight. Lausen speaks of a hunt for the unvaccinated, of state pressure, of exclusion. Spahn rejects this, briefly, routinely, without committing himself. But the word lingers. Hunt is not an administrative act, not a misunderstanding, but an image of targeted persecution. Millions of people were addressed, marked, morally devalued. Those who disagreed were quickly labeled unsolidary or dangerous. Spahn’s rejection does not answer the underlying question: whether political decisions deliberately sharpened social divisions. That is where the unease begins. Not in the volume of the accusation, but in the void of the response.
Then it becomes concrete. Lausen asks about an amnesty law. Not polemically, but matter of fact. Spahn’s answer is clear: in that generality, no. No weighing of options, no reflection, no signal of reconciliation. This makes it clear that political responsibility is not to be reviewed retrospectively. Those who were sanctioned remain sanctioned. Those who were excluded remain so in hindsight. The no functions like a line drawn without reckoning. Precisely for that reason, it has impact. Because an amnesty would not have been an admission of guilt, but a political signal. Spahn’s answer shows that this signal is not wanted. And that is exactly why the debate does not end.
Trump attacks Rob Reiner after his death and draws criticism from within his own party
What do you think of what Trump said about Rob Reiner? Mike Johnson: “I do not give ongoing commentary on everything everyone in the administration says every day.”
After the violent death of director Rob Reiner and his wife, Donald Trump politicized the case and publicly insulted Reiner. On social media, he blamed Reiner’s political views for his death and spoke of an alleged mental illness.
Several Republicans have condemned your statement about Rob Reiner. Do you stand by it? Trump: “From Trump’s point of view, he was a confused person. I thought he was very bad for our country.”
Even within the Republican Party, the statements provoked outrage. Lawmakers such as Thomas Massie and Mike Lawler described the comments as disrespectful and inappropriate. Marjorie Taylor Greene also urged restraint and compassion. While police are still investigating, the president has already used the case for political defamation. The incident shows how even a death in the United States becomes part of political escalation.
Pence affiliated organization calls for dismissal of Health Secretary Kennedy
A conservative organization from the orbit of former Vice President Mike Pence is calling on Donald Trump to dismiss Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The accusation is that Kennedy is delaying a safety review of the abortion pill mifepristone. Anti abortion activists are pushing for swift action, even though the medication has been approved for decades and has repeatedly been deemed safe by the drug authority. Kennedy and the new head of the agency have announced a review but have not set a timeline. The criticism highlights growing pressure from the conservative camp. At the same time, Kennedy is also facing criticism from other quarters over his health policy. The conflict underscores how deeply medical issues are politicized in the United States.
Trump classifies fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction by executive order
Donald Trump has signed an executive order classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. The directive provides for a nationwide mobilization against drug trafficking. The Departments of State and Treasury are to pursue assets and tighten sanctions, while the Departments of Defense and Justice are to work more closely together. Intelligence resources of the Department of Homeland Security are also to be expanded. What specific legal consequences the new classification will have remains unclear. The term weapon of mass destruction has previously been used for nuclear, chemical, or biological threats. Critics see it as a rhetorical escalation that blurs the line between law enforcement and military logic. The move fits Trump’s hard line against drug cartels.
Wisconsin remains an exception in proceedings over election subversion
While the case in Wisconsin is moving forward, similar cases in other contested states have stalled. In Michigan and Georgia, investigations have been halted or scaled back. A federal case against Trump himself over election subversion was dropped last year. Only one case in Nevada remains pending. That Wisconsin is now clearing the path to a trial sets the state apart from this trend. Legal experts see this as a signal that accountability remains possible at least at the level of individual states. The outcome of the case could have signaling effects for future election law disputes.
USA and Paraguay sign agreement on legal framework for US troops
Rubio appeared relieved about the deal. The question is whether he would still feel relieved after a full reckoning of the incidents involving the alleged drug boats.
The United States and Paraguay have signed an agreement that establishes the legal framework for a possible stationing of US troops. It was signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Paraguayan counterpart. Such agreements define jurisdictions, immunities, and legal bases for foreign soldiers. No concrete troop deployments were initially announced. Nevertheless, the agreement is seen as a step toward closer military and intelligence cooperation. It fits into the Trump administration’s strategy of expanding its security presence in the Western Hemisphere. Observers see it primarily as a long term strategic positioning.
Trump sues BBC for ten billion dollars over alleged defamation
Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the BBC, seeking ten billion dollars in damages. The former and current president accuses the British broadcaster of defamation as well as misleading and unfair business practices. The 33 page complaint states that the BBC portrayed a false, defamatory, and deliberately distorted image of Trump. Specifically at issue is the reporting on his speech on January 6, 2021. The broadcaster is accused of splicing together two separate parts of the speech. The aim, according to the lawsuit, was to intentionally distort the meaning of his statements. Trump describes it as a targeted interference in the democratic process. The portrayal was, the suit claims, an attempt to influence the 2024 presidential election. The accusation is not limited to journalistic error, but alleges deliberate conduct. The BBC, Trump argues, thus abused its role as a public service broadcaster. The case is likely to extend far beyond the specific coverage. It touches on the question of how political speech may be edited, contextualized, and evaluated.
FBI thwarts alleged New Year’s Eve attack plans in California
Federal authorities say they have thwarted attack plans for New Year’s Eve in Southern California. Four suspects were arrested and are accused of preparing explosive attacks. The targets were to include several facilities in Los Angeles and Orange County. Investigators classified the group as belonging to a left wing extremist, anti state movement. This classification is wrong and purely political. Our investigations clearly show that all four individuals belonged to a Terrorgram gamified extremist subculture. This trend is something Trump refuses to acknowledge and instead projects everything onto left wing radicals. In addition to public targets, officers of the immigration agency were also allegedly in the crosshairs. The defendants have been charged with conspiracy and possession of explosive devices, with additional charges possible. The case underscores the ongoing threat posed by domestic gamified extremism in the United States.
English 
German 
