MSN

'Brazen grift': Trump ripped over crypto 'rugpull' scheme now valued at $32 billion

President-elect Donald Trump has now found yet another way to convince his followers to throw their money his way — this time with a questionable cryptocurrency venture.

Axios is reporting that the soon-to-be 47th president of the United States has rolled out a "meme coin" dubbed $TRUMP, which is being billed as the "only official Trump meme." According to Axios, $TRUMP has already accumulated a valuation of roughly $32 billion. And because the Trump Organization is keeping 80% of the coins, this means the president-elect and his businesses are roughly $25 billion richer as a result.

Techdirt writer Mike Masnick wrote on Bluesky that the meme coin's market cap topped $9 billion in less than 12 hours, and that it soon jumped to $15 billion just hours later. As of 1:30 PM Eastern Time, the coin is trading at nearly $30 per unit.

READ MORE: Experts warn Trump's plan to deregulate crypto will help terrorists and domestic extremists

"People are dumping like crazy and it's dropping fast," Masnick wrote early Saturday morning. "Noticing many large dollar sales, while buys are small amounts."

Journalist Judd Legum, who publishes the Popular Information Substack newsletter, called the meme coin a "brazen grift." And British novelist Hari Kunzru predicted that the Trump supporters who were eagerly buying the meme coin were in for a shock.

"Wake up to find that the incoming president is pumping a meme coin and is probably about to rugpull his followers and make several billion dollars," Kunzru wrote on Bluesky.

Matt Novak, who writes for tech publication Gizmodo, remarked that it was "crazy" that "the incoming president "launched his fake money right before taking office." He noted that this venture was different from his campaign's non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that he sold alongside pieces of the suit he wore while having his mugshot taken.

READ MORE: 'Must need the money': Trump roasted for selling pieces of suit he wore in GA mugshot

"I assumed this was more NFTs but it’s specifically a *fungible* asset meaning he’s selling his own crypto coin. On top of that, it has a crazy f—ing disclaimer and all the hallmarks of a f—ing rugpull," Novak wrote. "This is f—ing nuts."

The disclaimer Novak referred to in his skeet (the generally accepted term for a Bluesky post) openly tells prospective buyers that it is only meant to be "an expression of support for, and engagement with the ideals and beliefs embodied by" the president-elect. It goes on to warn that the coins themselves "are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract or security of any type."

Author Benjamin Dreyer was more direct in his criticism, telling his followers: "I have no idea what a fungible meme coin is, and if you attempt to explain it to me I’ll block you."

Click here to read Axios' article in full.

READ MORE: 'Melania grift': Incoming first lady hawks her Christmas 'collectibles' in Fox interview

'This isn’t working': Swing state Dem voters aim to 'save the Democratic Party from itself'

Despite raising more money and an army of grassroots campaign volunteers at her disposal, Vice President Kamala Harris lost every single swing state to President-elect Donald Trump in November. Now, Democrats in one of those states are expressing their frustration with party leaders, arguing they have so far failed to learn why they lost.

The Guardian recently reported from Saginaw County, Michigan, where Trump eked out a win over Harris by a little more than 3,000 votes across the county despite President Joe Biden narrowly carrying the county in 2020. Voters there recently had a back-and-forth with Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Democratic state representative Amos O'Neal, but came away unsatisfied in their party's current crop of leaders.

"I’ve been paying careful attention to the influencers within the Democratic party," said biotechnology scientist Vincent Oriedo, who was at the meeting. "Their discussions have centered around, ‘If only we messaged better, if only we had a better candidate, if only we did all these superficial things.’ There is really a lack of understanding that they are losing their base, losing constituencies they are taking for granted."

READ MORE: 'Wake him up early and keep him up late': How Dems can 'nail Trump to the wall' in 2nd term

Saginaw City Council member Carly Hammond agreed that the party was so far learning the wrong lessons from 2024. She told the Guardian that Democratic leaders have "really put themselves in a position of loss for a generation" due to misunderstanding what she views as a fundamental political realignment based on working-class issues.

"We have set ourselves up for generational loss because we keep promoting from within leaders that that do not criticize the moneyed interests," Hammond said. "They refuse to take a hard look at what Americans actually believe and meet those needs."

Saginaw Democratic Party activist Pat Parker — who has been active in Democratic politics over the last 20 years — told the outlet that she had been "screaming locally at the Harris campaign: 'This isn't working" in the lead-up to the election regarding their outreach strategy to Michiganders. She's since been organizing meetings of local union leaders, Black community stakeholders and others to re-energize the base. But Hammond said the national party apparatus has so far been resistant to hearing from local groups.

"A lot of people on the ground level, a lot of community organizers, a lot of people who were giving the warnings are exhausted of trying to save the Democratic party from itself," Hammond said. "They’re the ones who have been shown the door long ago as the party systematically excised criticism from its midst. The leadership actually don’t want a big tent, they want a very top down small tent."

READ MORE: 'Not good enough anymore': Union leader explains why Dems lost economic argument to Trump

Click here to read the Guardian's full report.

'Wake him up early and keep him up late': How Dems can 'nail Trump to the wall' in 2nd term

On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump will be officially sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, with a compliant Republican-controlled Congress eager to ram through his agenda. But he could face significant difficulties despite those majorities.

That's according to journalist Jason Linkins, who recently argued in a New Republic essay that Democrats have a unique opportunity to frustrate Trump's second term plans if they act strategically and in unison. He wrote that because Trump is now term-limited, Democrats no longer have to concern themselves with ways to preemptively drive him out of office. Rather, he suggested that Democrats have a unique opportunity as a pure opposition party to shackle Trump — who made "I alone can fix it" his catchphrase — with an unlimited number of both domestic and international crises to solve.

"In his second term, it should be the task of liberals to force Trump to swallow a daily spoonful of the very real job stress that [former President Barack] Obama struggled so mightily to endure," Linkins wrote.

READ MORE: Trump has 'less than 75 percent chance' of 'making it through second term': doctor

"To get there, liberals need to get into the business of identifying the problems that real Americans face (which honestly, is something they could stand to relearn how to do) and more forcefully blame Trump for those problems’ continued existence," he continued. "They need to raise a hue and cry over everything under the sun that’s broken, dysfunctional, or trending in the wrong direction; pile line items on Trump’s to-do list, wake him up early and keep him up late. Every day, get in front of cable news cameras and reporters’ notepads with a new problem for Trump to solve and fresh complaints about the work not done."

Some of the looming problems Linkins alluded to are the ongoing housing affordability crisis, with Newsweek reporting Saturday that the housing market will be a "thorny problem" in his second term. Should Trump follow through on his promise to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, it could deal a significant financial blow to millions of Americans. Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson recently warned that Trump's proposed tariff on the United States' northern neighbor could cause gas prices to jump by as much as 75 cents per gallon for some Americans, due to the high volume of oil the U.S. imports from Canada.

The president-elect also vowed on the campaign trail to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, which could cause major economic headaches for industries like agriculture, construction, hospitality and healthcare. Should corporations suddenly face a massive labor shortage in the wake of those deportations, it could trigger economic fallout that Linkins says Democrats can then pin that on both Trump and the GOP in advance of the 2026 midterm elections.

"Beyond that, there will be the typical crises of American life — economic predators, polluters, corporate scofflaws, and public health concerns — that Trump has either shown no interest in helping abate or has personally empowered via the decisions of his plutocratic-minded Supreme Court appointments," he wrote. "Democrats should already be planning to hang all the foreseeable albatrosses around his neck, and gaming out how they’ll swiftly nail Trump to the wall for the crises that catch him by surprise."

READ MORE: 'Severe economic downturn': Why MAGA's pro-tariff arguments will backfire

Trump will also inherit a multitude of highly volatile foreign policy crises in his second term like the ongoing war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East (including both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the new Syrian regime) and China's potential invasion of Taiwan. Linkins noted shortly after the November election that the president-elect was "dogged by generals who opposed his fascist inclinations." And he quoted Bulwark writer Jonathan V. Last, who hoped Democrats would "make Donald Trump own every bad outcome that happens, anywhere in the world."

"I think that Last is on to something," Linkins wrote. "I’d actually take this a step further. Rather than exert so much energy trying to thrust Trump out of the presidency, liberals would be well served to spend their time thrusting the presidency upon Donald Trump. Instead of searching for illusory quick fixes for the existence of the Trump administration, start demanding the Trump administration fix everything quickly."

Click here to read Linkins' piece in its entirety (subscription required).

READ MORE: 'Financial pain': Canadian official warns US gas prices will skyrocket under Trump tariffs

'Wasn’t about Donald Trump': The 'real' reason Mike Johnson fired the intel chair

There's more to the story behind House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) decision this week to replace the chairman of one of the most powerful committees.

Politico's Rachel Bade reported Saturday that when Johnson fired House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio), it actually "wasn't about Donald Trump," despite the speaker mentioning there were "concerns from Mar-a-Lago" about Turner remaining in his role. In fact, Bade reported that Trump distanced himself from the Louisiana Republican's decision and "accused Johnson of trying to paper over his own political considerations."

The "real" reason for Turner's firing is, according to Bade, an effort by Johnson to curry favor with the faction of the House Republican Conference most opposed to his speakership. Turner's replacement, Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) is more in line with the MAGA wing of the GOP, and his appointment as Intelligence Committee chairman has been interpreted as an olive branch to the far-right House Freedom Caucus.

READ MORE: 'Concerns from Mar-a-Lago': Speaker Johnson boots pro-Ukraine Intel Chair in 'big shakeup'

But in extending a hand to his biggest critics, Johnson has ended up turning off other members of his fractured majority. One unnamed House Republican said that Turner's firing was a "shame." That member lamented: "Politics trumps substance, work ethic and experience."

"You have a two-seat majority, and you shot one of your members," another House Republican anonymously told Politico.

Those concerns could potentially result in Turner sinking critical Republican legislation out of spite. Johnson was barely reelected speaker on January 3, only securing the 218 votes necessary after Trump twisted the arms of two Republican members who were initially going to vote for Reps. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). But with Turner now apparently "mad" about being stripped of his powers as Intelligence Committee chairman, the embattled speaker may be in for major headaches in the 119th Congress.

Johnson's majority is also expected to soon shrink to just one seat. assuming Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) is confirmed as United Nations ambassador, her seat will become vacant along with the additional vacancy from Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who the president-elect tapped to be National Security Advisor. With such a slim advantage, Johnson won't be able to lose a single vote from his conference if he hopes to pass legislation without Democratic support.

READ MORE: 'He's mad': GOP reps say ousted intel chair now 'never going to vote' for Johnson's bills

Click here to read Bade's full article in Politico.

'Definitely going to use it': Bannon exploiting bill to drive wedge between Trump and Musk

Steve Bannon — President-elect Donald Trump's former chief White House strategist — may have just gotten an edge over his rival, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, thanks to a bill likely to pass with bipartisan support.

The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote Saturday that one provision in the Laken Riley Act currently being debated in Congress could be exploited by what Bannon calls the "populist right" to get a major edge in his immigration-based civil war with the Silicon Valley wing of the MAGA movement (which is led by billionaire executives like Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy). Should the bill become law, language that allows state attorneys general to sue to block the admission of migrants from specific countries could throw a wrench in the gears of the H-1B visa program, which corporations rely on to hire foreign workers.

"We’re definitely going to use it, and we’re going to get after attorneys general," Bannon said. "We certainly will call for state A.G.s to do this."

READ MORE: 'Must be removed from the Republican Party': Elon Musk blasts MAGA as 'contemptible fools'

Bannon is specifically hoping Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton will take advantage of the Laken Riley Act to argue that immigrants from a country like India — which supplies numerous tech companies with foreign workers — shouldn't get visas. This could complicate hiring at companies like Tesla and SpaceX, as Musk has argued that American workers are simply not as good as their foreign counterparts.

"There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent. It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley," Musk tweeted on Christmas Day.

The president-elect has already sided with Musk in the H-1B visa fight, despite his previous statements railing against the program. While he said H-1B visas were "a cheap labor program" that was used for the "explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay" during his 2016 campaign, he's since said it was important "to have the most competent people in our country." But Bannon believes that Trump — who he still supports — will ultimately embrace his nativist approach.

"I believe strongly that President Trump will have our back," Bannon said.

READ MORE: 'I didn't change my mind': Trump pressed on apparent flip-flop

Click here to read Sargent's full report in the New Republic (subscription required).

'So hot': Fox host argues Kristi Noem 'shooting a dog isn’t a deal breaker' due to her looks

According to a Fox News primetime host, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary-designate Kristi Noem is too good-looking for shooting her puppy to death to matter.

The Independent recently reported that Fox host Greg Gutfeld said that the United States was better off with Noem at the helm of DHS compared to outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas due to her physical appearance. And he notably argued that Noem's looks overshadowed her admission of shooting her family dog, Cricket, in a gravel pit.

"You’re going from a garden gnome to Kristi Noem,” Gutfeld said during an appearance on Fox News' The Five. “I mean, she’s so hot that shooting a dog isn’t a deal breaker.”

READ MORE: 'I hated that dog': Kristi Noem recalls taking family pup to gravel pit and killing it

The Fox host went on to make the case that conservatives were better-looking than liberals, and as a result would be better fit to run the country.

"And I’m telling you, you look at this crop of nominees and the party, there’s something there, man. They’re all in great shape. You’ve got to look at people who preserve and maintain what’s important in their lives," Gutfeld continued. "If they’re going to do that with their physical self, they’re going to do that in other areas. This is why, like, a lot of liberals are just fat, out of shape losers because they don’t believe in structure or discipline."

While looks are subjective, Noem's record of handling natural disasters in her home state of South Dakota has given even her own constituents pause. In June of 2024, CNN reported that severe flooding in the Mount Rushmore State "delayed requesting federal disaster assistance." She also had a shortage of National Guard troops to help her state recover from the floods, as many of them had been dispatched to the Southern border at President-elect Donald Trump's request.

"I have zero faith that Gov. Noem is going to be instrumental in helping after a natural disaster. They better make a plan for themselves. It was everyone for yourself when it came down to our disaster," South Dakota-based environmental activist Renae Hansen told CNN. "Our city failed us, our county failed us, and our state failed us."

READ MORE: South Dakotans have 'zero faith' in DHS pick Kristi Noem after botched handling of flood disaster

Click here to read the Independent's full article.

How a Trump DOJ could bring an end to the yearslong investigation of a notorious ally

When President Donald Trump appeared in a New York courtroom last spring to face a slew of criminal charges, he was joined by a rotating cadre of lawyers, campaign aides, his family — and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Paxton had traveled to be with Trump for what he described on social media as a “sham of a trial” and a “travesty of justice.” Trump was facing 34 counts of falsifying records in the case, which focused on hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from disclosing their sexual relationship.

“It’s just sad that we’re at this place in our country where the left uses the court system not to promote justice, not to enforce the rule of law, but to try to take out political opponents, and that’s exactly what they’re doing to him,” Paxton said on a conservative podcast at the time.

“They’ve done it to me.”

A year earlier, the Republican-led Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Paxton over allegations, made by senior officials in his office, that he had misused his position to help a political donor. Trump was not physically by Paxton’s side but weighed in repeatedly on social media, calling the process unfair and warning lawmakers that they would have to contend with him if they persisted.

When the Texas Senate in September 2023 acquitted Paxton of the impeachment charges against him, Trump claimed credit. “Yes, it is true that my intervention through TRUTH SOCIAL saved Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from going down at the hands of Democrats and some Republicans …” Trump posted on the social media platform he founded.

The acquittal, however, did not wholly absolve Paxton of the allegations brought by his former employees. The FBI has been investigating the same accusations since at least November 2020. And come Monday, when Trump is inaugurated for his second term, that investigation will be in the hands of his Department of Justice.

Paxton and Trump have forged a friendship over the years, one that has been cemented in their shared political and legal struggles and their willingness to come to each other’s aid at times of upheaval. Both have been the subjects of federal investigations, have been impeached by lawmakers and have faced lawsuits related to questions about their conduct.

“If there’s one thing both guys share in common, people have been after them for a while in a big way. They’ve been under the gun. They’ve shared duress in a political setting,” said Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist and Paxton friend. “They’ve both been through the wringer, if you will. And I think there’s a kinship there.”

Neither Trump nor Paxton responded to requests for comment or to written questions. Both men have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, claiming that they have been the targets of witch hunts by their political enemies, including fellow Republicans.

Their relationship is so cozy that Trump said he’d consider naming Paxton as his U.S. attorney general pick. He ultimately chose another political ally, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Although Trump did not select Paxton, the two men will get yet another opportunity to have each other’s backs now that he has returned to office, both when it comes to the federal investigation into Paxton and pushing forward the president’s agenda.

Before and during Trump’s first term, Paxton filed multiple lawsuits challenging policies passed under former President Barack Obama. He then aggressively pursued cases against President Joe Biden’s administration after Trump lost reelection. Such lawsuits included efforts to stop vaccine mandates, to expedite the deportation of migrants and to block federal protections for transgender workers.

Trump has supported Paxton over and over, not only as the Texas politician sought reelection but also as he faced various political and legal scandals. The president-elect’s promises to exert more control over the Justice Department, which has traditionally operated with greater independence from the White House, could mark an end to the long-running investigation into Paxton, several attorneys said.

Justice Department and FBI officials declined to comment on the story and the status of the investigation, but as recently as August, a former attorney general staffer testified before a grand jury about the case, Bloomberg Law reported. Paxton also referenced the FBI’s four-year investigation of him during a speech in late December without mentioning any resolution on the case. The fact that Paxton hasn’t been indicted could signal that investigators don’t have a smoking gun, one political science professor told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, but a former federal prosecutor said cases can take years and still result in charges being filed.

“As far as I’m aware, this is pretty unprecedented, this level of alliance and association between those two figures,” said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

“Don’t Count Me Out”

In 2020, when then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr found no evidence to support Trump’s claims that voter fraud turned the election results in his opponent’s favor, Paxton emerged to take up the argument.

He became the first state attorney general to challenge Biden’s win in court, claiming in a December 2020 lawsuit that the increased use of mail ballots in four battleground states had resulted in voter fraud and cost Trump the election.

Trump eagerly supported the move on social media, writing, “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, ruling that Texas had no legal interest in how other states conduct their elections. Trump, however, didn’t forget Paxton’s loyalty.

He offered Paxton his full-throated endorsement during the 2022 primary race for attorney general against then-Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush. His decision to back Paxton, who was under federal criminal investigation at the time and had been indicted on state securities fraud charges, was a major blow to Bush, the grandson and nephew of two former Republican presidents. Bush had endorsed Trump for president even though Trump defeated his father, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, in the Republican primary and repeatedly disparaged his family.

Trump properties in Florida and New Jersey served as locations for at least two Paxton campaign fundraisers over the course of that campaign. And at a rally in Robstown in South Texas, Trump repeated debunked claims that the election was stolen and said he wished Paxton had been with him at the White House at the time. “He would’ve figured out that voter fraud in two minutes,” Trump said.

While Paxton pursued reelection, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort as part of an investigation into how his administration handled thousands of government documents, many of them classified. Paxton led 10 other Republican state attorneys general in intervening in court on Trump’s behalf, arguing in a legal filing that the Biden administration could not be trusted to act properly in the case.

Paxton won another term in office in November 2022, but the celebration was short-lived. Six months later, the Texas House of Representatives considered impeaching him over misconduct allegations including bribery, abuse of office and obstruction related to his dealings with Nate Paul, a real estate developer and political donor. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.

Hours before the House voted on whether to impeach Paxton, Trump weighed in on social media.

“I love Texas, won it twice in landslides, and watched as many other friends, including Ken Paxton, came along with me,” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Hopefully Republicans in the Texas House will agree that this is a very unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed — I will fight you if it does. It is the Radical Left Democrats, RINOS, and Criminals that never stop. ELECTION INTERFERENCE! Free Ken Paxton, let them wait for the next election!”

Despite Trump’s threat, the House voted 121-23 in May 2023 to impeach Paxton. The Senate then held a trial that September to determine Paxton’s fate. “Who would replace Paxton, one of the TOUGHEST & BEST Attorney Generals in the Country?” Trump posted before the Senate acquitted Paxton.

Trump is among the few people who understand what it’s like to be under the kind of scrutiny Paxton has faced and how to survive it, Miller said.

“There is that quality [they share] of, ‘Don’t count me out,’” he said. “‘If you’re counting me out, you’re making a mistake.’”

On Monday, Trump will become the first president also to be a convicted felon. A jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying records in the hush money case. A judge, however, ruled that he will not serve jail time in light of his election to the nation’s highest office.

Trump has repeatedly decried the case, as well as the Justice Department’s investigations that resulted in him being charged in June 2023 with withholding classified documents and later with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election by knowingly pushing lies that the race was stolen. Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the DOJ investigations, dropped both cases after Trump’s reelection. A Justice Department policy forbids prosecutions against sitting presidents, but in a DOJ report about the 2020 election released days before the inauguration, Smith asserted that his investigators had enough evidence to convict Trump had the case gone to trial.

Not only have Paxton and Trump supported each other through turmoil that could have affected their political ambitions, they have taken similar tacks against those who have crossed them.

After surviving his impeachment trial in 2023, Paxton promised revenge against Republicans who did not stand by him. He had help from Trump, who last year endorsed a challenger to Republican Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, calling Paxton’s impeachment “fraudulent” and an “absolute embarrassment.” Phelan, who has defended the House’s decision to impeach Paxton, won reelection but resigned from his speaker post.

For his part, Trump has tried a legal strategy that Paxton has employed many times, using consumer protection laws to go after perceived political adversaries. In October, Trump sued CBS News over a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, saying the news organization’s edits “misled” the public. Instead of accusing CBS of defamation, which is harder to prove, his lawsuit argues that the media company violated Texas’ consumer protection act, which is supposed to protect people from fraud. The case is ongoing. In moving to dismiss the case, CBS’ attorneys have said the Texas law was designed to safeguard people from deceptive business practices, “not to police editorial decisions made by news organizations with which one disagrees.” (Marc Fuller, one of the CBS attorneys, is representing ProPublica and the Tribune in an unrelated business disparagement case.)

The move indicates a broader, more aggressive approach that the Justice Department may pursue under the Trump administration, said Paul Nolette, director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University, who researches attorneys general.

“It’s a signal to me that, yes, the federal DOJ is going to follow the path of Paxton, and perhaps some other like-minded Republican AGs who have been using their office to also go after perceived enemies,” Nolette said.

Cleaning House

On Dec. 21, six weeks after Trump won reelection, Paxton stepped onstage in a Phoenix convention center at the AmericaFest conference, hosted by the conservative organization Turning Point USA.

The event followed Trump’s comeback win. It also represented a triumphant moment for Paxton: He’d not only survived impeachment, but prosecutors agreed earlier in the year to drop long-standing state securities fraud charges against him if he paid about $270,000 in restitution and performed community service.

But Paxton spent much of his 15-minute speech ticking off the grievances about what he claimed had been attacks on him throughout his career, including impeachment by “supposed Republicans” and the FBI case.

He praised Trump’s selection of Bondi to run the DOJ. It was time to clean house in a federal agency that had become focused on “political witch hunts and taking out people that they disagree with,” Paxton said.

Before taking office, Trump threatened to fire and punish those within the Justice Department who were involved in investigations that targeted him. FBI director Christopher Wray, a Republican whom Trump appointed during his first term in office, announced in December that he would resign after the president-elect signaled that he planned to fire him. After facing similar threats, Smith, the special prosecutor who led the DOJ investigations, stepped down this month.

In his speech, Paxton made no mention of the agency’s investigations into Trump, nor did he connect the DOJ to his own case. But a Justice Department that Trump oversees with a heavy-handed approach could benefit the embattled attorney general, several attorneys told ProPublica and the Tribune.

Trump could choose to pardon Paxton before the case is officially concluded. He used pardons during his first presidency, including issuing one to his longtime strategist Steve Bannon and to Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father. He’s been vocal about his plans to pardon many of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day in office.

More concerning, however, is if Trump takes the unusual approach of personally intervening in the federal investigation, something presidents have historically avoided because it is not a political branch of government, said Mike Golden, who directs the Advocacy Program at the University of Texas School of Law.

Any Trump involvement would be more problematic because it would happen behind closed doors, while a pardon is public, Golden said.

“If the president pressures the Department of Justice to drop an investigation, a meritorious investigation against a political ally, that weakens the overall strength of the system of justice in the way a one-off pardon really doesn’t,” Golden said.

Michael McCrum, a former federal prosecutor in Texas who did not work on the Paxton case, said “we’d be fools to think that Mr. Paxton’s relationship with the Trump folks and Mr. Trump personally wouldn’t play some factor in it.”

“I think that the case is going to die on the vine,” McCrum said.

Miller, Paxton’s friend, agreed.

“I would expect his troubles are behind him.”

Epic failure: How Merrick Garland may have just destroyed American democracy

It’s hard to say who is the worst attorney general in American history. The candidates are many and comprise a veritable rogue’s gallery of sadists, reactionaries and incompetents. They range from A. Mitchell Palmer, mastermind of the original Red Scare that decimated the left in the wake of the First World War, to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and William Pelham Barr, who sacrificed the rule of law in service to Donald Trump.

Merrick Garland may not share the malignancies of his fellow train wrecks, but he deserves to be in the discussion. Decades from now, historians will memorialize Garland not as a dedicated public servant and fair-minded federal judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court was torpedoed by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, but as the head of the Justice Department who brought a butter knife to an existential gunfight with Trump, quickening our collective descent into neo-fascism.

After his appointment to helm the DOJ, Garland had one overarching mission: to swiftly convene a grand jury to investigate Trump for his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. This was a task a third-year law student could easily have accomplished. Garland failed, abjectly.

This was a task a third-year law student could easily have accomplished.

Probable cause for an early indictment was abundant and obvious. On Jan. 6, millions of Americans watched Trump stand on the Ellipse at the south end of the White House and urge his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Millions watched the actual assault that followed, blow by medieval blow. Even the corrupt McConnell, who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial in February 2021, declared on the Senate floor, “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [Jan. 6].”

Instead of targeting Trump and his chief lieutenants immediately, Garland set out to arrest and try the foot soldiers of the uprising. And while he did a commendable job in that respect (eventually charging more than 1,500 with federal crimes), he dithered on Trump until November 2022, when he appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to probe Trump for the insurrection and absconding from the White House with a trove of highly classified documents.

By then, it was too late.

Although Smith secured an indictment of Trump in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy, obstruction and election subversion on Aug. 1, 2023, the indictment was gutted by the Supreme Court (Trump v. United States) the following July in a decision that granted Trump sweeping and unprecedented immunity from criminal prosecution.

Written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a lifelong conservative activist with an undeserved reputation as a judicial institutionalist, the ruling is arguably the worst edict handed down by the high court since the Dred Scott case of 1857. “Trump v. United States is distinct as a deliberate attack on the core institutions and principles of the republic, preparing the way for a MAGA authoritarian regime much as Dred Scott tried to do for the slavocracy,” wrote Sean Wilenz in a scathing article for the New York Review of Books.

Smith also indicted Trump in Florida in the documents case, but that prosecution was subsequently scuttled by District Court Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon, an inexperienced MAGA sycophant whom Trump installed on the federal bench in the runup to the 2020 election.

In addition to Garland, the Supreme Court and Cannon, Joe Biden also shares responsibility for letting Trump off the hook. From Day 1, Biden should have used the bully pulpit to attack, isolate and destroy Trump and his MAGA base. Instead, he pursued a politics of accommodation, preaching a return to the false neoliberal normalcy of bipartisanship. Most critically of all, Biden decided to seek a second term, when it was apparent to everyone with two eyes and ears that he was no longer fit, either physically or mentally, for another stint behind the Resolute Desk. With Biden’s approval rating plunging to 40%, Kamala Harris had little to no chance of defeating Trump at the polls.

But standing atop the heap, Garland will forever bear the principal stain of wimping out when courage and — to put it in the vernacular — balls were needed to stop Trump before the forces of reaction had time to regroup and reorganize. They are now in control.

NOW READ: The better choice for Democrats on Monday

'Show them what mean really is': Influencer calls on Dems to start bullying MAGA

After losing the White House and both chambers of Congress to President-elect Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, one social media influencer is hoping that Democrats will abandon civility and get in the trenches.

TikTok creator Suzanne Lambert — a 33 year-old political consultant who lives in northern Virginia — recently told the Washington Post that she believes the current political moment requires Democrats to embrace being mean to their political opponents. She called herself a "Regina George liberal," in reference to the character from the 2004 film Mean Girls. Lambert frequently goes viral in her roasts of Trump supporters, and is hoping other Democratic voters will follow suit during the second Trump administration.

"I think that the narrative of ‘don’t stoop to their level’ benefits exactly one side," Lambert told the Post. “And I’m kind of like, well, if I don’t stoop, they’re not going to be able to hear me.”

READ MORE: 'Soft and old': Critics ridicule Trump after inauguration is moved inside away from MAGA

Lambert fondly recalled when Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz (Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate) called Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance "weird" during the 2024 campaign cycle. Although the Harris campaign didn't lean into Walz's attack, Lambert said it felt like "one of the only times where Democrats felt human, in terms of how they talk."

"We were like, finally,” Lambert said. “Can we call these people out? For how we see them?”

Guardian contributor Peter Rothpletz has also joined the call for Democrats to drop civility. In a Friday essay, Rothpletz argued that Democrats "must get mean — ruthlessly, bitterly mean."

"Time and again congressional Democrats have swept in to save Republican leaders – and Republican voters – from their own lawmakers. This generosity must end," he wrote. "The Dems must bleed the Republican party of its political capital at every opportunity, even if it means the American people experience some pain."

READ MORE: 'Listen to the guy!' Dem gov explains why calling Trump 'weird' is most 'effective attack line'

In the comment threads of Lambert's TikTok videos, Republicans often chime in to critique her. Lambert goes viral not only for her content, but for her spicy comments. And her followers have taken note and piled on.

“MAGAs already perceive us as stuck-up and mean,” one commenter wrote. “May as well show them what mean really is at this point.”

According to the Post, Lambert viewed Trump's ascension as the start of a "new era of incivility in politics." She felt that Democrats have so far been too "cautious" and have failed to meet the moment.

"I can’t do four years of, like, us preaching peace, love and kindness, while they’re just on a rampage against people’s rights," she said.

READ MORE: Why being called 'weird' infuriates MAGA 'authoritarians': historian

Click here to read the Post's report in full (subscription required).

The Fall of Rome 2.0: Trump's rise to power isn't a new story

This week, President Biden warned America that an oligarchy is forming in Washington DC and that it threatens our republic. Turns out, this is not a new story.

For 482 years (509 BCE–27 BCE), ancient Rome ran as a democratic republic. America has lasted in that state for 236 years (1789-2025).

The end of the democratic phase of the Roman republic was brought about by wealthy, elite Romans like Marcus Licinius Crassus (115–53 BCE) — the richest man in the nation at the time — who frankly hated the Roman “free bread for all” welfare system.

He and others like Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great, 106–48 BCE) wanted to end the voice of the public in political decisions (because they were demanding free bread, paid for with rich peoples’ taxes), so they used their massive wealth to promote rightwing authoritarian populism and buy off legislators who’d then be loyal to them.

This created political gridlock in the Senate, leading many Romans to lose faith in their democratic form of government.

Three primary elements were used by the morbidly rich of that era to erode the power of Rome and replace it with sycophants loyal to them: polarization and elite gridlock, the erosion of democratic norms, and the concentration of power in the hands of a small elite who funded and thus controlled Rome’s senators.

It took decades, but they finally succeeded in using that lack of faith in government to replace Roman democracy with Caesarism, aka authoritarian strongman rule, kicked off by Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon River to seize the seat of government in Rome and finalized by Augustus Caesar ending any semblance of democracy.

Here in America, a handful of rightwing billionaires have spent decades fighting to end the New Deal and Great Society programs that use their tax dollars to distribute “free bread” to Americans in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, quality free primary education, and cheap or free college.

While their efforts began in earnest in the 1970s following Lewis Powell’s infamous Memo, they really kicked into high gear when the billionaires succeeded in the 1990s in installing Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.

Newt pioneered a new form of American politics based on political warfare, delegitimization of the US government and programs of the New Deal and Great Society, manipulation of the media, populist messaging, and using obstruction as a political strategy.

His efforts were amplified by billionaire-owned media like Fox “News” and rightwing hate radio, always trash-talking New Deal and Great Society programs, calling for more tax cuts to de-fund government, and encouraging hatred of politicians and the political process.

The result was political gridlock, the end of democratic norms of collegiality and compromise, and the concentration of power in the Speaker’s office and ultimately the GOP itself. This led most Americans (over 75%) to eventually lose faith in our government; out of that came today’s increasing calls for an American version of Julius and Augustus Caesar.

One of the first was rightwing blogger and JD Vance mentor Curtis Yarvin, who began arguing over a decade ago — with his “dark enlightenment” movement — that America needed a new Caesar to free us from gridlock and stagnation.

As JD Vance noted in a 2021 podcast:

“There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin who’s written about some of these things. One has to basically accept that the whole thing is going to fall in on itself. … The task of conservatives right now is to preserve as much as can be preserved and then when the inevitable collapse comes you build back the country in a way that’s actually better.”

Others who could be characterized (or characterize themselves) as American Caesarists include Trump advisors Michael Anton and Charles Haywood, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

So, here we are, with Joe Biden’s warning.

— Just like in the Roman republic, America’s morbidly rich and their business interests have funded efforts to denigrate popular government and its programs for decades, all to serve their own financial and political interests.
— Just like in the Roman republic, the politicians funded by these elite rightwingers and companies have crippled the ability of our government to meaningfully meet the needs of anybody other than their patrons.
— Just like in the Roman republic, this billionaire-funded gridlock has led the nation to widespread immiseration, homelessness, and a breakdown of the social contract, accompanied by the eruption of militia groups and billionaire-funded Astroturf movements like the Tea Party.
— Just like in the Roman republic, this seizure of government by rich men and its subsequent inability to meet the needs of the majority of its citizens has driven popular discontent, loss of trust, and calls for radical reform that includes an abandonment of democratic principles and the rule of law.
— Just like in the Roman republic, that call for reform has been met by a strongman figure who claims that he, alone, can fix things and who demands total loyalty and subservience from elected officials and the institutions of the state.

Trump has now crossed the Rubicon: he’ll be inaugurated in less than a week. He’s seized the government and, as we saw with his utter humiliation of Joni Ernst this week, is demanding Caesar-like pledges and performances of loyalty and fealty.

Next week, we’ll find out how closely Trump and his Caesarist allies will follow the ancient roadmap to replace democracy with oligarchy and then tyranny that was first pioneered by Gaius Julius and Gaius Octavius Augustus.

Will America fall like ancient Rome? Or will we, like we did in the 1860s and 1930s when oligarchs last tried to destroy our system, fight back and not only hold but improve our democracy?

Stay tuned…

NOW READ: Trump spits on the military. Again.

'Go hard': Trump seems to want to be more feared than loved

The following are the “official” portraits of Trump and Vance in advance of their swearings-in Monday, released yesterday by their transition team:


Trump’s isn’t the standard portrait of a smiling new president. (Vance’s pose and expression are more typical.) Trump’s closely resembles the defiant mug shot of Inmate No. P01135809, taken during a 20-minute booking at the Fulton County Jail after Trump and 18 co-defendants were charged in a scheme to undermine the results of the 2020 election (see below).

Trump seems to have instinctively seen that mug shot’s marketing potential. Moments after it was taken, he posted it on his Truth Social platform along with a fundraising link. Later, he shared it on X, in his first post to the platform in more than two years. The mug shot sparked a fundraising bonanza as Trump used it to represent his response to a “politically motivated” prosecution.

Trump’s official portrait, released yesterday, also bears a striking resemblance to the portraits of fascist strongmen in history. Here, for example, is Benito Mussolini:

And here’s Adolf Hitler:

Mussolini, Hitler, and other fascist leaders were more interested in being feared than loved. Apparently, the same is true for Trump.

The Trump-Vance transition team, in a message accompanying their official portraits, said the photos “go hard.”

NOW READ: The first victims of Trump's hit list

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/."

'Spent thousands': Trump fans who traveled to DC furious after inauguration moved indoors

Supporters of President-elect Donald Trump have been flocking to Washington D.C. in advance of his second inauguration on Monday. But many were caught off-guard at the news that the incoming president would be conducting his swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol rotunda, where only V.I.P. guests will be able to attend.

The Daily Beast reported Friday that after the news broke that the outdoor inauguration ceremony had been relocated, Trump fans who traveled from across the country were outraged. NBC Washington was the first to inform Oklahoma resident Ken Robinson that the inauguration had been moved indoors due to frigid temperatures and high winds in Monday's weather forecast.

"I don't like it! I mean we came all the way from Oklahoma, and now we're not gonna get to see him?" Robinson said. "We might as well have stayed home and watched it on TV."

READ MORE: 'Soft and old': Critics ridicule Trump after inauguration is moved inside away from MAGA

"We have farms," Oklahoma-based Trump supporter Harry Troyer said. "We don’t get to not feed the cows cause it’s cold."

National Park Service officials had already begun the process of giving out the approximately 220,000 tickets for inauguration attendees prior to the announcement that the ceremony had been moved to the U.S. Capitol. Attendees have been invited to watch the inauguration via livestream at Washington D.C.'s Capital One Arena (home of the Washington Wizards NBA franchise), though the facility only has roughly 20,000 seats, meaning many Trump supporters will still be unable to even watch the inauguration there.

Following the change in venue, CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane tweeted that those inauguration tickets have now been designated as merely "commemorative." This is despite some tickets selling for $500 apiece on Craigslist as of Thursday.

"The majority of ticketed guests will not be able to attend the ceremonies in person," read a memo by the House Sergeant at Arms.

READ MORE: 'Fear small crowds?' Trump and team mocked as 'snowflakes' for inauguration move

"It's actually something that we've been looking forward to for historical purposes and being a part of it, that's once in a lifetime," Trump supporter Jose Granado, who traveled to D.C. from Florida, told NBC Washington. "Made all the plans, all the arrangements to come up and be a part of this event. And all of a sudden to hear that it's moved indoors, it's kind of like a bummer."

“Spent thousands of dollars on a hotel room and now they aren’t having an Inauguration for the public,” one Trump supporter wrote on X. “Wtf.”

“We have coats and will wear them. Already bought expensive hotels, rental cars, subway tickets etc etc,” another X user wrote. “We the people were prepared for the cold. We want to see Trump in person. Rain snow sleet warm cold it don’t matter.”

Watch NBC Washington's interviews with Trump supporters below, or by clicking this link.

READ MORE: Research tracker exposes Trump inaugural committee as 'cesspool of special interest financing'

'Mental': Former Trump WH lawyer shreds Judge Cannon for keeping Jack Smith report secret

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon indicated in a recent hearing that she wasn't planning on allowing even just a handful of congressional leaders to view the second volume of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith's final report.

In a Friday evening interview with CNN host Erin Burnett, Ty Cobb — who was a White House counsel in President-elect Donald Trump's first administration — blasted Cannon's hesitancy to make the report even somewhat transparent. When Burnett pointed out that Cannon asked the DOJ "what's the urgency of doing this right now," while wryly mentioning that Trump was due to be inaugurated in just three days, Cobb didn't hold back.

"The mere fact that she can ask that question shows why she is the star of the mental midget olympics," Cobb said, as Burnett choked back a laugh. "You know, it's such a silly question."

READ MORE: 'Ludicrous, ridiculous, dangerous and unnecessary': Ex-Trump lawyer rips Judge Cannon's 'palpable bias'

As Politico reported Friday, the DOJ wasn't asking Cannon to make the report publicly viewable. Rather, prosecutors were insisting that the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees simply be allowed to view the report at the DOJ, without any electronic devices or staff and must agree to not disclose any details of the report.

Cobb reminded Burnett that Cannon appeared to be willing to prevent the DOJ from "following its own internal regulations," as special counsel reports are typically shared with leaders of congressional committees so they can use them to guide future lawmaking.

"Congress has a compelling interest in terms of potentially legislating with regard to how to further protect classified documents and how and how to tighten up on classifications, if necessary, of the type that are at issue in the documents that Trump clearly took, clearly had in his possession, clearly showed other people." Cobb said.

Judge Cannon — who Trump appointed to the federal bench just months before he was voted out of office — oversaw Trump's classified documents case in the Southern District of Florida. After she dismissed the 37-count indictment last summer, Cobb opined on Burnett's show that "it was always her objective, frankly, to prevent this from going to trial."

READ MORE: Former Trump lawyer slams Judge Cannon for indefinitely postponing docs trial

Watch the video of Cobb's segment below, or by clicking this link.


Treasury secretary says she’ll take 'extraordinary measures' day after Trump inauguration

Outgoing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is announcing that she's planning to take "extraordinary measures" to save the U.S. economy beginning on January 21 — the day after President-elect Donald Trump will officially begin his second term in office.

Politico reported Friday that Yellen made the announcement in a letter to congressional leaders including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The letter comes as the United States prepares to reach the statutory limit on borrowing, which Yellen wrote last month would happen between January 14 and January 23. She warned in that letter that the Department of the Treasury would need to take "extraordinary measures" in order to avoid a debt default, should Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling before then.

In her latest letter, Yellen said she would begin taking those "extraordinary measures" next Tuesday, which will reportedly include tapping into federal retirement funds that aren't immediately needed to pay out benefits to retired postal workers and other federal employees. She also plans to temporarily suspend investments into those funds in order to keep the U.S. current on its debt service obligations.

READ MORE: 'Start taking extraordinary measures': Treasury secretary issues ultimatum to Mike Johnson

"The period of time that extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty, including the challenges of forecasting the payments and receipts of the U.S. Government months into the future," she wrote in her January 17 letter to Congress.

According to Politico, Yellen's move could kick the can down the road to summer of 2025, meaning Congress wouldn't need to pass legislation raising the debt ceiling for several more months. However, that could prove complicated for Speaker Johnson, who only barely managed to get the 218 votes necessary to keep his gavel earlier this month. Nearly a dozen far-right members of the House Republican Conference indicated that their support for Johnson was conditional, and would depend on whether he adheres to strict fiscal policy — like only agreeing to new federal spending if it was paired with offsetting budget cuts.

And because Johnson will have just a one-seat majority to work with assuming Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) join the Trump administration as United Nations ambassador and National Security Advisor respectively, it isn't likely he'll be able to raise the debt ceiling solely with Republican votes. This could mean that a debt ceiling increase — which is needed to keep the global economy stable — could potentially cost Johnson the speakership.

On Thursday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a paper showing the U.S. had $36.1 trillion in debt, with $28.8 trillion of that debt "held by the public." But the CRS emphasized in the first paragraph of that paper that the vast majority of debt held by the public is just U.S. Treasury securities. Institutional investors (like world governments and the super-rich) prefer U.S. Treasury securities to bank deposits, as the latter are only guaranteed up to $250,000 by the FDIC whereas U.S. Treasury securities are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

READ MORE: 'I would lead the charge': Trump says he agrees with Democrats on this major policy issue

"[W]e might want to look at the national debt from a different perspective. In particular, it seems more accurate to view the national debt less as form of debt and more as a form of money in circulation," the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis wrote in 2020. "Investors value the securities making up the national debt in the same way individuals value money — as a medium of exchange and a safe store of wealth. The idea of having to pay back money already in circulation makes little sense, in this context."

Should Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling and make the U.S. default on its debt service obligations, it could throw the global economy into chaos, as institutional investors across the world would suddenly no longer have their U.S. Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Trump has previously called for the abolition of the federal debt ceiling, saying "it doesn't mean anything, except psychologically."

The debt ceiling was initially created by Congress during World War I, after fiscal conservatives championed for its inclusion in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. At the time, the U.S. was still bound to the gold standard, which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did away with in the 1930s. President Richard Nixon ending the Bretton Woods Agreement in the 1970s officially delinked the U.S. dollar from gold. How much money is in circulation is now entirely up to Congress, which has the sole power to "coin money" under the U.S. Constitution.

Click here to read Politico's full report.

READ MORE: (Opinion) What to say to a Republican who complains about the federal debt

'Not as easy': Trump faces significant obstacles in dismantling these Biden policies

President Joe Biden may be leaving the White House in a matter of days, but his environmental legacy may stick around for much longer than his successor would like.

The Washington Post reported Friday that President-elect Donald Trump's stated goal of rolling back Biden's climate and environmental policies could prove difficult over the next four years. This includes more than a hundred new regulations pertaining to oil drilling, air pollution, chemical safety and land conservation, among others. The incoming president has signaled that overhauling Biden's environmental agenda is a top priority.

"I will sign Day One orders to end all Biden restrictions on energy production, terminate his insane electric vehicle mandate, cancel his natural gas export ban [and] reopen ANWR in Alaska," Trump said in December.

READ MORE: 'Pretty damn good': Why Biden's goal to 'Trump-proof' the courts has been deemed a success

In his first term as president, Trump often ran into a wall of litigation in his attempts to undo President Barack Obama's environmental agenda. The Post reported that Democratic attorneys general and environmental advocacy groups often got the better of the Trump administration in the federal judiciary, convincing judges to side with plaintiffs roughly 40% of the time when challenging Trump's EPA.

In the final weeks of his lame-duck period, Biden successfully managed to confirm a spate of federal judges, outperforming Trump's number of judicial appointees confirmed by one. Whereas Trump entered the White House in 2017 with 127 judicial vacancies to fill. He now has just 47, and that number may dwindle as some judges are expected to renege on their retirement plans in hopes of waiting out the second Trump administration. This could prove costly when the incoming administration faces legal challenges in its efforts to gut Biden's environmental policies.

“They learned the first time around that if you take shortcuts, you’re going to lose in court,” Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program director Jody Freeman told the Post. “It’s not as easy as waving your magic deregulatory wand.”

When Biden took over after Trump's first term, he successfully managed to roll back roughly three-quarters of his predecessor's environmental policies aimed at deregulating extractive industries and curtailing federal land protections. One of the Biden Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) major environmental wins is the phasing out of the production and importing of harmful hydrofluorocarbons used in HVAC products. Undoing that rule would require Congress to pass new legislation.

READ MORE: EPA bans known carcinogens used in dry cleaning, other industries

During his four years in the White House, Biden managed to put roughly 670 million acres of land and water under federal protection — more than any other administration in history, according to the Post. While Trump could pass new executive orders rolling back these protections, conservation groups are likely to challenge him in the federal judiciary.

Biden's EPA also succeeded in banning a carcinogen used in degreasing agents and auto repair products that's been known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The agency also imposed steep fees on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities — something that even the oil industry's chief lobbying organization supports.

"We do support the federal regulation of methane, and we want to work with this administration on making [Biden’s] methane rules more workable," American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers said on Monday.

Click here to read the Post's report in full (subscription required).

READ MORE: How Trump accidentally helped get several of Biden's judges confirmed

'Bend the knee': CBS considers settling Trump’s '60 Minutes' lawsuit to get merger approved

President-elect Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News for alleged "deceptive conduct" may end up with him raking in a significant sum of cash in exchange for the incoming administration green-lighting a proposed merger.

That's according to a Wall Street Journal article published Friday, which reported that executives at the network are mulling whether to offer a settlement to the president-elect as a gesture of goodwill. CBS parent company Paramount is reportedly hoping a settlement will lead to its potential merger with Skydance Media being approved by federal regulators.

"It’s become clear to executives at both companies that Trump’s dissatisfaction with CBS News will make the review tougher than they anticipated, and that they’ll likely need to offer concessions to win approval," wrote the Journal's Jessica Toonkel and Drew FitzGerald, citing "people familiar with the situation."

READ MORE: 'Will not be soon forgotten': Trump threatens CBS over Harris' 60 Minutes interview

Trump initially filed the suit just before the November election, arguing that CBS selectively edited Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with 60 Minutes reporter Bill Whitaker. His complaint accused the network of "malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive and mislead the public." Trump declined his own interview with 60 Minutes, even though the program traditionally interviews both major party candidates ahead of each presidential election.

As Semafor reporter David Weigel observed, Trump's lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Texas, even though Trump is a resident of Florida and CBS is headquartered in New York and incorporated in Delaware. Weigel tweeted that if the suit went to court, it would be assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who is a Trump appointee that regularly issues rulings favorable to the president-elect. Even if Kacsmaryk rules in CBS' favor, Trump's legal team could appeal an unfavorable decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is widely regarded as by far the most conservative federal circuit.

The Journal noted that no settlement offer has been formally entered, and that executives are still contemplating whether to litigate or settle with the incoming president. CBS is also reportedly considering making other concessions to Trump, like releasing the full transcript of Whitaker's interview with Harris and "adding new processes around programming."

“What’s going on here is a lot of bluster to discipline the future operations of CBS,” public interest attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told the outlet. “My guess is that this is just to kind of soften them up and a warning to others.”

READ MORE: 'Doesn't mean it has any merit': Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News slammed

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of General Counsel typically reviews merger proposals, and incoming FCC chair Brendan Carr (who authored the section of Project 2025 that mentions FCC reform) has indicated that perceived bias will play a role in determining whether to approve mergers of media conglomerates. But former FCC official Blair Levin said that a media company allowing the Trump administration to influence its journalism could trigger a costly boycott from high-profile voices in Hollywood.

"Paramount has the same problem, which is if you bend the knee on the editorial side, there’s a talent problem on the streaming side," Levin said.

The president-elect has already obtained a $15 million settlement from a previous lawsuit against ABC, and he has an ongoing lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer, who published a poll just before the election predicting Harris would narrowly win the Hawkeye State. The Register has said it plans to fight the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.

Click here to read the Journal's report in its entirety (subscription required).

READ MORE: 'Open season': Experts slam Trump's 'disgusting' lawsuit against Iowa newspaper and pollster

'Really screwed up': Biden hammers red states over pandemic response in exit interview

President Joe Biden will leave office on Monday, after President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated at 12 PM Eastern Time. But the 46th president of the United States is using one of his final public appearances to take swings at Republican-led states' economic management.

NBC News recently reported that Biden didn't hold back when blasting how his political opponents in state governments across the country handled the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic – particularly when it came to rebuilding their economies after millions were put out of work due to the virus. Biden's remarks came in response to a question from MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, who asked the outgoing president why his administration "invested more in red states than blue states."

"Red states really screwed up in terms of the way they handled their economy and the way they handled manufacturing and the way they handled access to supply chains," Biden said. He also admitted that, despite getting the U.S. economy back on track in the wake of the pandemic, he made a "mistake" in "not getting our allies to acknowledge that the Democrats did this."

READ MORE: 'One of the biggest policy changes': This 'grave miscalculation' may have been fatal for Dems

Biden said he overlooked the need to "let people know that this was something the Democrats did, that it was done by the party," when it came to passing critical legislation like the American Rescue Plan. That legislation — which passed largely on party lines — injected roughly $2 trillion into the economy that provided relief for renters, workers, homeowners, student borrowers, small businesses and state governments to aid in pandemic recovery.

"Ironically, I almost spent too much time on the policy and not enough time on the politics," the president told O'Donnell.

The outgoing president observed that Trump's decision to sign the first wave of Covid-19 stimulus checks was smart politics. Even though it didn't result in him winning the 2020 election, Biden said voters' hazy memories going into the 2024 election led to a lot of confusion about who was ultimately responsible for getting the U.S. through the pandemic.

"It helped [Trump] a lot, and it undermined our ability to convince people that we were the ones that were getting this to them," Biden said.

READ MORE: Democrats had an 'economic populist message' but voters were 'utterly indifferent': columnist

Click here to read NBC News' full article.

Secret jars in a prison fridge hold AZ’s lethal injection drugs — and they may be expired

In a locked and alarm-equipped refrigerator at an Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry facility in Florence are eight unmarked glass containers that resemble Mason jars. Inside the jars is a white substance that the agency claims is pentobarbital salt, the active pharmacological ingredient in the drug used to execute Arizona Death Row prisoners.

It’s enough poison to kill every Death Row prisoner in the United States and then some, according to a legal declaration obtained by a federal public defender who interviewed the manufacturer.

And how long it’s sat in that refrigerator is a question that ADCCR staff won’t answer, because state law forbids divulging details about execution sources and executioners themselves. It’s also unclear if the drug has an expiration date.

The current Arizona Corrections administration did not procure the drug. Instead, it was purchased by the administration of former Gov. Doug Ducey. The invoice from the manufacturer is dated October 2020, and the drug was used in three executions in 2022.

Now it sits, unmarked in a refrigerator, ostensibly waiting for the next execution, which is being discussed in the Arizona Supreme Court. Aaron Gunches, who killed a man in 2002, has asked to be put to death, and Gov. Katie Hobbs is trying to accommodate him.

But there are questions.

The ‘inner terror’ of lethal injection is cruel, law prof argues in bid to stop Gunches execution

“I’m flabbergasted that a medical doctor would draw anything from an unmarked container and put it into people,” said David Duncan, the retired federal magistrate judge who Hobbs hired in 2023 to investigate the state’s lethal injection protocols. Duncan was unceremoniously fired late last year by Hobbs, who he has never met, before he could finish a report that promised to be scathing.

“…While certainly possible in theory, lethal injection is not a viable method of execution in actual practice,” he wrote in a summary before he was canned.

Duncan was told by ADCRR personnel that the pentobarbital salt can last forever. But Kelley Henry, a federal defender in Tennessee, claims she was told by the drug manufacturer, Absolute Standards, that the salt is unstable, needs to be refrigerated and has a shelf life of 2 1/2 years.

So, whether it was delivered to Arizona at the end of 2020, as suggested by the purchase invoice, or sometime in 2021 before the executions, it may well be at its limit.

Duncan is not the only one raising concerns.

On Jan. 15, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland withdrew the federal execution protocol using pentobarbital because of the likelihood that the drug, once thought to be the most humane form of execution, in fact causes a painful death by pulmonary edema that has been likened to drowning or waterboarding torture. Earlier this month, a Virginia law professor tried to file a “friend of the court” brief in the Arizona Supreme Court in the Gunches case on the exact same grounds.

So, can Arizona go forward with any executions using the pentobarbital in those unmarked jars in Florence?

Snuffing out an independent investigation

Duncan, who sat on the federal bench in Phoenix for 17 years, was appointed by Hobbs in early 2023 to study the state’s execution protocol and suggest ways to move forward with executions. There had been a long history of problems, some associated with the drugs used. In 2010, for example, the corrections department side-stepped federal laws and FDA and DEA regulations to import a drug from the United Kingdom, and later, in 2015, tried to import it from India.

Then, in 2014, Arizona used a questionable cocktail that took 15 injections and nearly two hours to kill the prisoner as he panted and gasped on the execution gurney.

And there were repeated problems getting doctors and other medical staff competent enough to set the catheter lines in the condemned mens’ arms and legs. Consequently, there were no executions between the 2014 botch and 2022, when then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed death warrants for three death row prisoners. All three were executed and the problems setting lines persisted.

Brnovich also obtained a death warrant for Gunches, but not in time to carry out the execution before his term ended. Hobbs and the newly elected Arizona attorney general, Kris Mayes, decided not to, and instead appointed Duncan to do an independent review of the process.

I’m flabbergasted that a medical doctor would draw anything from an unmarked container and put it into people.

– David Duncan, a retired federal magistrate judge who had been hired by Gov. Katie Hobbs to examine Arizona's death penalty procedures

Duncan pored over thousands of documents, conducted numerous interviews and uncovered some unsettling facts, including how prison staff had to consult Wikipedia at the last minute before one of the executions to estimate a fatal dose of pentobarbital. He also was concerned that the drugs were delivered by the manufacturer in unmarked containers to a private residence.

“Until the very end, I thought they were open to every question I had,” he said. He was supposed to make recommendations of best practices, after all.

“At the end, it completely shifted.”

Duncan wanted to watch a rehearsal of the process, and the department refused on grounds of confidentiality. The medical staff did not want to be seen, for fear that, if outed, they would lose their respective medical licenses.

“They said it’s against the law to reveal their identities,” Duncan recalled.

He was incensed at the insinuation.

“To sit across from a federal judge and suggest that the retired federal judge is going to violate the law is a ridiculous notion. And I said, I can’t accept that. Then they said I could not watch a dry run for the same reason — that I would create a risk.”

Poorly executed: The politics behind executions

Duncan took issue with the things that they were rehearsing: parking, crowd control, where to seat journalists, how to walk the prisoner from his cell to the death chamber. While the pomp and circumstance were rehearsed, the actual execution — how to set the lines and administer the drugs — wasn’t, even though the current medical team has never participated in a lethal injection.

His contact at ADCRR “volunteered to me that there was no expiration date on pentobarbital, the base chemical. And I said, ‘How do you know that?’ And she said, ‘Because I checked with the manufacturer.’”

In the course of his research, Duncan didn’t recall seeing any documentation of a phone call with the manufacturer saying there was no expiration date. His source said those records had been thrown away.

“I found it hard to believe that the documents showing provenance and vitality and potency of the medication, that you would just throw them away. That was a step away from transparency,” he said.

One pharmaceutical company that used to make pentobarbital sodium salt says on its product page that the drug has a shelf life of three years.

Duncan concluded that lethal injection was too prone to error and suggested the state should consider firing squad, which, though shocking to witnesses, had a lesser chance of being botched.

Then politics raised its ugly head. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office was in a pitched battle with Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell over who had legal authority to request death warrants for execution. And Donald Trump, who is a booster of capital punishment was reelected, and Republicans won up and down the November 2024 ballot.

It was not a good time for a Democratic governor hoping to boost her reelection chances in a state that just shifted to the right to issue a scathing review of execution practices. The mood changed.

Hobbs fired Duncan and turned to an in-house review of execution protocol by the Corrections Department, which concluded that all problems were resolved and executions were ready to resume.

Sourcing execution drugs

In April 2022, Henry, an assistant federal public defender from Tennessee, and an investigator in her office showed up at the Connecticut offices of the only domestic supplier of pentobarbital salt, Absolute Standards, to ask questions.

Because of a 2015 U.S Supreme Court decision, defendants about to be executed were required to find the drugs to do so if they didn’t like the executing state’s decision. Pentobarbital was thought at the time to be the most humane alternative.

Although the drug is used in clinical settings under its trade name, Nembutal, its European manufacturer refused to allow its use in executions, forcing state corrections departments to buy the raw materials and then find a compounding pharmacy to turn it into something that could be injected into the condemned prisoner.

Absolute Standards saw a hole in the market and filled it. Furthermore, the company owner assured Henry that his company was the only domestic source of the drug’s raw material, known in technical parlance as the active pharmaceutical ingredient. He told her his company had supplied the drug to the federal government and to Arizona and other states. (The company said in 2024 that it stopped producing the drug for executions at the end of 2020. It did not respond to a request for comment from the Arizona Mirror.)

Poorly executed: IVs and ironies

Henry and the investigator were told that the price was $1.5 million — the same price that Arizona paid in 2020 — and that it would take a year to produce. The reason for the time and the high price was that, in order to be of adequate quality and stability, it had to be made in batches of at least one kilogram, and the process was time-consuming.

“They very specifically said it has a shelf life,” Henry told Arizona Mirror, raising questions as to whether the Arizona supply is still viable.

And now the feds have renounced the use of pentobarbital altogether in federal executions.

“Having assessed the risk of pain and suffering associated with the use of pentobarbital, the review concluded that there is significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection for execution treats individuals humanely and avoids unnecessary pain and suffering,” Garland wrote in his order ending the use of the drug by the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Because it cannot be said with reasonable confidence that the current execution protocol ‘not only afford[s] the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States’ but ‘also treat[s] individuals [being executed] fairly and humanely,’ … that protocol should be rescinded, and not reinstated unless and until that uncertainty is resolved. In the face of such uncertainty, the Department should err on the side of treating individuals humanely and avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering.”

What the incoming presidential administration decides remains to be seen.

The Governor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Corrections did not responded to inquiries before this story was published. Several hours after publication, a spokeswoman for Hobbs said the governor was “committed to upholding strict protocols and ensuring lethal injection drugs are thoroughly tested before use.”

“Our office is currently reviewing the DOJ report, and we have no further information to share at this time,” spokeswoman Liliana Soto told the Mirror.

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with a comment from the Governor’s Office.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected].

'Fear small crowds?': Trump and team mocked as 'snowflakes' for inauguration move

When Donald Trump raises his right hand on Monday to swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution as America’s 47th President, he will do so not as most Presidents have done, outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., but inside. Amid forecasted temperatures in the mid-20s, Trump has decided to move the proceedings inside, a decision that was quickly met with mockery and prompted speculation about crowd size concerns.

Washington, D.C. suffers from — or boasts, depending on personal preference — a wide range of temperatures. In January, temperatures in recent years have ranged from a balmy 80 degrees (2024) to a frigid 5 degrees (2015). And while temperatures in the mid-40s are average for January, 24 degrees, the forecast for Inauguration Day, is not especially unusual.

“Due to the dangerously cold temperatures expected Monday, President-elect Trump’s inauguration is moving indoors. Expect Trump and Vance to be sworn in inside the Capitol Rotunda,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported Friday. A short time later she added: “Trump confirms it’s moving inside, citing the danger posed to attendees by the cold. He says guests will be brought inside the Capitol.”

READ MORE: Biden Sparks Legal Battle by Declaring Equal Rights Amendment Is Now ‘Law of the Land’

Trump posted a dramatic explanation: “January 20th cannot come fast enough! Everybody, even those that initially opposed a Victory by President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Administration, just want it to happen,” he claimed.

“It is my obligation to protect the People of our Country but, before we even begin, we have to think of the Inauguration itself. The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows,” Trump also claimed.

“There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!),” he wrote.

“Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather. The various Dignitaries and Guests will be brought into the Capitol. This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience!”

The temperature during Reagan’s second inauguration was 7 degrees, with a windchill making it feel like -40, Fox News reports.

The decision surprised many.

“It was 28°F when Barack Obama was sworn in at noon on January 20, 2009 before a crowd of nearly two million people,” observed Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff to U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). “NOT INCLUDING THE INSANE WIND CHILL!!”

Susan Rice, a former top advisor to both Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, mocked Trump and team: “SNOWFLAKES,” she snarked, using the common derisive term occasionally leveled at Democrats by the right.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens FBI Office, Alleges ‘Corruption,’ Demands They ‘Preserve All Records’

Some critics suggested the issue was not weather but attendance — just like when Trump was inaugurated before a small crowd in 2017, only to make his first White House Press Secretary’s job to denounce those claims and declare, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period,” he emphatically and infamously insisted — reportedly at Trump’s direction.

“Moving the inauguration inside due to freezing temps takes crowd size ‘off the table’ as Trump’s second term begins,” CNN’s Brian Stelter, citing his colleague Dana Bash, noted.

Sam Stein of The Bulwark suggested that President-elect Trump has been trying to get more people to show up: “Trump has been running twitter ads to get folks to come to the inauguration. If they’re now moving it indoors, you have to imagine folks who booked travel will be left distraught.”

David Axelrod, senior advisor and chief campaign strategist to President Barack Obama, also mocked Trump.

“In ’61, John F. Kennedy was Inaugurated on the Capitol steps, in windchills of 7 degrees. It was almost as cold for Obama in ’09. In fairness, Trump IS more than 3 decades older than JFK & Obama were. Or did he just fear small crowds?”

Former Obama Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton, offering a history lesson, suggested there aren’t a large number of people interested in attending Trump’s second inauguration. He wrote “Tell me you have a crowd size problem without telling me you have a crowd size problem. It was colder for Obama’s and JFK’s inaugurations and JFK didn’t even wear a coat.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘My Eyes and Ears’: Trump Names Ambassadors to Hollywood, Critics Question Motives

Trump mega-donor’s company pays $1 million settlement for illegal workers

The family-owned company of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign co-chair in Louisiana has agreed to pay $1.025 million to resolve allegations that it hired workers ineligible to work in the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice announced this week.

Bollinger Shipyard LLC of Lockport was accused of violating the False Claims Act for knowingly billing the U.S. Coast Guard for the labor the illegal workers performed. The company’s settlement with the federal government is not an admission of guilt but effectively brings the matter to a close.

Bollinger is a longtime military contractor that manufactures the Coast Guard’s fast response cutter (FRC) vessel. The Justice Department alleged the shipbuilder’s violations took place from 2015-20 under its FRC contracts.

Bollinger Shipyard’s Lockport office directed a reporter’s call with questions to executive vice president Geoffrey Green, who has not yet responded.

The federal government requires contractors to confirm their employees are eligible to work in the United States, and officials alleged Bollinger failed to comply with this requirement. As a result, “several ineligible employees worked on the contract,” according to the Justice Department, and the company was paid for the work they performed.

“Companies that conduct business with the United States are required to do so in a legitimate manner,” U.S Attorney Duane Evans said in a news release.

President Joe Biden appointed Evans to lead federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

As of November, Bollinger delivered 58 of the 67 fast response cutters the Coast Guard has ordered from the company at a cost of about $2 billion.

The former chairman and CEO of Bollinger Shipyard, Donald “Boysie” Bollinger Jr., has served as co-chair of the Trump campaign in Louisiana for the past three elections. Bollinger’s nephew, Ben Bordelon, took over as company leader in 2014, marking the third generation of family leadership at the 79-year-old business.

Bollinger has served as treasurer of the Republican Party of Louisiana and chaired the Louisiana presidential campaigns for George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Since 2016, Bollinger has donated more than $1.13 million to Republican candidates through Bollinger Enterprises, his separate investment company, based on numbers from OpenSecrets.org.

Over the same period, Bollinger’s donations to Democrats totaled $5,600, though he notably backed Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu in her re-election loss to Bill Cassidy in 2014.

Bollinger’s largest political contributions in 2024 were $113,000 to the Republican National Committee and $100,000 to Make America Great Again Inc.

Last June, Bollinger hosted a $3,300-a-person fundraiser at his New Orleans home for Trump. The event raised $5 million, The Times-Picayune reported.

Efforts to reach Bollinger for comment were unsuccessful.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: [email protected].

'Financial pain': Canadian official warns US gas prices will skyrocket under Trump tariffs

Americans may be in for a nasty surprise at the pump when filling up their cars, should President-elect Donald Trump follow through on a key campaign promise.

Trump has pledged to impose a 25% tariff on goods brought in from Canada, as well as 25% for Mexican goods and 10% for Chinese imports. But the Canadian tariff in particular could result in a big hit to Americans' wallets should Trump make good on his tariff threat, according to a recent report in the Canadian Globe and Mail.

“The imposition of tariffs against the U.S.’s closest friend and economic partner will cause financial pain for Canadian families, no doubt,” Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said during a panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But it will also increase prices of energy and food for American consumers.”

READ MORE: 'Everything is on the table': Canada promises trade war with Trump if he imposes tariffs

Data from Trading Economics shows that Canada exported more than $131 billion worth of "mineral fuels, oils and distillation products" in 2023 alone. Wilkinson said that a 25% import tax on Canadian oil could mean that gas prices for Midwestern customers could jump by as much as 75 cents per gallon.

"For Midwestern U.S. refineries there are no real economically viable alternatives," Wilkinson said, adding that the U.S. imports roughly four million barrels of Canadian oil each day. "And for U.S. Gulf refineries, the alternative is to purchase from Venezuela – hardly a friendly or stable partner."

Rather than tariffs that could lead to a costly trade war between the U.S. and its northern neighbor, Wilkinson is instead proposing a closer alliance between the United States and Canada particularly focused on petroleum products (including both crude oil and natural gas). He argued that this would help reduce reliance on countries like China and Russia, especially in regions of the U.S. where there are no resources to extract locally.

"Canadian gas supplies parts of the U.S. where local supply does not exist, such as in the Pacific Northwest and California," WIlkinson said during the panel discussion.

READ MORE: 'Everything will go through the roof': Americans stock up in preparation for Trump tariffs

In addition to fossil fuels, Canada also supplies the U.S. with uranium exports, which are used for nuclear power plants. According to Wilkinson, this is all the more reason for an energy-specific trade agreement with the U.S. and Canada given that the only other parts of the world where uranium can be obtained have an adversarial relationship with the United States. He added that this arrangement could also be economically beneficial for the U.S. in the long term.

"The U.S. leverages the resource abundance that Canada possesses for energy and minerals that its economy requires," Wilkinson argued. "And it obtains low-cost energy and low-cost minerals, which allows the U.S. to access energy at a discount, then thousands of American workers refine or transform it, and sell it at a higher price to the rest of the world."

Click here to read the Globe and Mail's report in full (subscription required).

READ MORE: 'Not immune': Walmart confirms new tariffs will mean higher prices for customers

@2024 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.