Posts

Posted on

MSNOW’s Lawrence Slams Treasury Secretary Bessent’s Hypocrisy

An unusually pointed moment on MSNBC’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell saw O’Donnell step into territory most of cable news has long treated as a no-go zone: the personal and political contradiction embodied by an openly gay Cabinet secretary who serves as a vocal defender of an administration and movement that has spent years portraying marriages like his as immoral, illegitimate, or worse. O’Donnell’s target was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official and one of the most prominent openly gay figures to rise within MAGA-aligned economic circles. The charge was blunt and uncomfortable: Bessent is an apologist for a political project that, if fully empowered, would gladly undermine the very legal foundations that make his family possible.

What made the segment so jarring wasn’t simply the criticism, but the fact that Bessent’s marriage and family life have largely been treated as invisible by the mainstream press. Bessent is married to his husband, and together they are raising children—an arrangement that would have been legally impossible not very long ago. Yet media profiles have gone out of their way to sanitize or sidestep this reality, even as Bessent aligns himself with a movement that openly champions “traditional marriage,” entertains rolling back marriage equality, and elevates figures who describe same-sex unions as an abomination. O’Donnell shattered that silence, arguing that this contradiction isn’t incidental or private, but central to understanding Bessent’s role and moral posture within the administration.

O’Donnell went further, explicitly crediting Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama with laying the groundwork that ultimately made Bessent’s marriage and family legally possible. The history is complicated but undeniable. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, a political concession to the era that barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage. But it was the Democratic legal and judicial ecosystem that later dismantled DOMA’s core. The Obama administration declined to defend the law in court, supported the plaintiffs in United States v. Windsor, and appointed Supreme Court justices who formed the backbone of the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, which finally recognized marriage equality nationwide. Whatever one thinks of Bessent’s economic views, Republican administrations did not create the legal scaffolding for his marriage. Democrats did.

That context is what gives O’Donnell’s critique its sting. This wasn’t a cheap shot about sexuality. It was an indictment of political ingratitude and moral compartmentalization: enjoying the protections secured by one political tradition while actively defending another that relies on demonizing people like you to energize its base. O’Donnell framed Bessent not as a passive beneficiary or a token figure, but as a powerful participant in sustaining a coalition that has shown little hesitation in sacrificing LGBTQ rights when it suits broader ideological goals.

Still, the segment raises an unavoidable question: did O’Donnell cross a line? Some viewers recoiled, arguing that invoking Bessent’s sexuality so directly veered into something uncomfortably close to gay-bashing. That concern deserves to be taken seriously. Historically, the media has weaponized sexuality in ways that reinforce stigma rather than challenge power. But intent and framing matter. O’Donnell was not mocking Bessent’s marriage or questioning its legitimacy. He was highlighting that others in Bessent’s political camp do exactly that—and that Bessent chooses to excuse, rationalize, or ignore it. The critique was not “you are gay,” but “you know precisely what is at stake, and you are still carrying water for people who believe your family should not exist under the law.”

Whether Bessent responds remains to be seen. He may argue that economic policy outweighs cultural hostility, or that working within the movement offers a path to moderation from the inside. But O’Donnell’s segment forced an overdue reckoning. Visibility cuts both ways. You don’t get to quietly enjoy the fruits of marriage equality while energetically defending a political project that has made clear—through rhetoric, policy, and judicial ambition—that it would gladly uproot the tree that bore them.

Posted on

Elites Largely Escaping Consequences Of Enabling Epstein

As the fallout from the release of the Epstein Files continues to unfold, a familiar and deeply troubling pattern is coming into focus. In the United States, powerful elites who once minimized, dismissed, or obscured their ties to Jeffrey Epstein are largely skating past meaningful consequences, even as newly released emails shed light on just how close and sustained some of those associations were. Titles may be adjusted, statements may be issued, but real accountability remains elusive. Very few figures have truly relinquished power, prestige, or access as a result of what has been revealed.

MSNOW’s Lisa Rubin captured this dynamic perfectly in her recent segment, using the Paul Weiss situation as a textbook example of cosmetic accountability masquerading as reform. Rubin rightly pointed out the absurdity of portraying Alex Karp’s removal as chairman as a serious sanction while the firm simultaneously retains him as a partner in good standing. In any meaningful sense, this is not punishment at all. It preserves his status, income, and institutional legitimacy, while allowing the firm to claim it has “taken action.” As Rubin emphasized, accountability that leaves power and privilege fundamentally untouched is not accountability—it’s reputation management.

What makes this moment especially jarring is how often these gestures are presented as sufficient in elite American circles. The message, implicit but unmistakable, is that association with Epstein may cost you a title, but not your standing. Not your access. Not your seat at the table. That pattern repeats across industries, from law to finance to politics, reinforcing the idea that consequences in the United States are calibrated not to wrongdoing, but to optics.

Adding to the unease is the manner in which the Epstein Files themselves have been released. Numerous emails detailing communications with Epstein on deeply disturbing topics have surfaced with the senders’ names conspicuously redacted. This stands in direct tension with the stated goals of transparency and has fueled the perception that the Department of Justice is selectively shielding certain powerful individuals. Whether intentional or not, the effect is the same: the public is left with the sense that there remains a protected class for whom full exposure, let alone accountability, is off-limits.

The contrast with Europe is striking. While not perfect and hardly immune to elite self-protection, several European governments have moved more decisively when Epstein-related connections came into view. In the United Kingdom and France, authorities have reopened or expanded investigations into citizens tied to Epstein’s network, with public figures stepping aside pending review rather than clinging to their roles. In other cases, individuals have issued unequivocal apologies and withdrawn from public or professional life altogether, acknowledging that proximity to Epstein—regardless of criminal liability—raises serious ethical questions incompatible with positions of trust. This approach reflects a broader European norm: that the appearance of impropriety itself can warrant real consequences, not just symbolic ones.

That difference matters. Accountability is not only about legal culpability; it is about institutional integrity. When firms and governments act swiftly and decisively, they signal that power does not exempt anyone from scrutiny. When they stall, deflect, or offer half-measures, they send the opposite message—that elite networks will always protect their own.

Whether the accountability emerging in Europe will eventually pressure American institutions to follow suit remains an open question. But Lisa Rubin is undeniably right to call out the hollowness of moves like the one at Paul Weiss. If major firms in the United States want to be taken seriously in the post-Epstein era, they must move beyond cosmetic fixes and confront the uncomfortable truth that real accountability requires real sacrifice. Until that happens, the gap between rhetoric and reality will continue to grow, and public trust will continue to erode.

Posted on

Trump’s Business Dealings With U.A.E. Sheikh Fuels More Corruption Allegations

On the February 1, 2026 edition of ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos raised a question that cuts to the heart of the ethical cloud hanging over the Trump administration: how can President Trump’s private business dealings with a senior foreign power broker not constitute a glaring conflict of interest? Pressing Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Stephanopoulos pointed directly to reporting that suggests the lines between U.S. policy, presidential power, and private profit are once again dangerously blurred.

Citing a Wall Street Journal investigation, Stephanopoulos noted that Sheikh Tahnoum bin Zayed Al Nahyan—one of the most powerful figures in the United Arab Emirates and a central player in its national security and intelligence apparatus—made a substantial investment in a Trump family–linked cryptocurrency venture around the time Trump was inaugurated for his second term. The WSJ underscored how extraordinary this arrangement is: it is virtually unprecedented for a senior foreign government official to hold an ownership stake in a business tied to a sitting U.S. president. The concern is obvious and unavoidable. Such a financial relationship creates at least the appearance, if not the reality, of leverage over the president of the United States by a foreign actor whose interests may not align with America’s.

Those concerns only deepen when viewed alongside subsequent U.S. policy decisions. Not long after Sheikh Tahnoum’s investment became public, the United States approved the sale or transfer of advanced, high-end computer chips to the UAE—technology the country had previously been restricted from accessing due to national security concerns. The timing invites scrutiny. At minimum, it raises the question of whether a foreign official’s financial stake in a president’s business created privileged access or influence over U.S. decision-making. At worst, it suggests a pay-to-play dynamic in which private investment is rewarded with favorable government action.

The national security implications are significant. The United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and advanced computing rests heavily on its control of cutting-edge semiconductor technology. Allowing these chips to flow to the UAE carries the risk that they could be shared, resold, or otherwise end up in the hands of strategic competitors such as China. Even the possibility of that outcome should demand extreme caution. When such decisions coincide with financial entanglements involving the president’s private ventures, the question is no longer hypothetical—it becomes whether U.S. security interests are being subordinated to personal enrichment.

This episode fits a broader pattern that has defined Trump’s return to power: persistent allegations that public office is being used as an extension of private business interests. From foreign investments and licensing deals to policy decisions that appear to benefit political allies and financial partners, the administration has repeatedly asked the public to accept ethical gray zones that past presidents were expected to avoid outright. The strategy has been familiar—dismiss every concern as partisan noise or the hysterics of the “radical left”—but the sheer volume and seriousness of the allegations make that defense increasingly untenable.

As the 2026 midterms approach, these issues are unlikely to fade. Voters may disagree on ideology, but conflicts of interest that implicate foreign influence and national security tend to cut across partisan lines. If Democrats can frame these stories not as abstract ethics debates but as concrete examples of corruption that put American interests at risk, they may find a potent line of attack. Simply put, there are now too many red flags, too many suspicious alignments between money and policy, for the administration to wave them away. Whether Trump chooses to confront these questions or continue to ignore them may help determine not only the political narrative of his second term, but the balance of power in Congress come 2026.

Posted on

Trump Lawsuit Against IRS Raises Serious Conflict Of Interest Questions

A recent segment on MSNOW’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki dug into one of the most extraordinary and under-discussed stories of the moment: Donald Trump suing the IRS and the U.S. Treasury for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns. On its face, the lawsuit is framed as a grievance about privacy violations stemming from the unauthorized disclosure of his tax information several years ago. But when you step back and consider who Trump is, the office he holds, and the long history surrounding his tax returns, the case raises profound conflict-of-interest questions that go well beyond a routine civil claim.

Trump’s tax returns were a defining controversy of his first term, not because of a single leak, but because of his unprecedented refusal to release them at all. For years, Trump broke with decades of presidential precedent, claiming audits prevented disclosure—a claim the IRS itself later contradicted. Litigation dragged on through multiple courts, House committees fought for access, and the public was left to speculate about what Trump was hiding. When portions of those returns finally became public, they revealed chronic losses, aggressive write-offs, questionable valuations, and a financial structure deeply entangled with foreign income streams and debt. Those revelations only reinforced why transparency had mattered in the first place.

Against that backdrop, Trump now suing the IRS for $10 billion takes on a far more troubling dimension. As Psaki pointed out, this is not a private citizen suing an independent entity; it is a sitting president suing an agency that ultimately answers to his own administration. Even if the alleged leak was real and improper, the structure of the lawsuit itself creates a situation where government lawyers are placed in an impossible bind. DOJ attorneys tasked with defending the IRS and Treasury know their client is also their boss. Career officials may insist they can act independently, but the chilling effect is obvious. How aggressively does a government lawyer fight a $10 billion claim brought by the president who controls promotions, budgets, and leadership appointments?

This is why critics see the lawsuit not merely as legal redress, but as a potential vehicle for self-enrichment and intimidation. Trump has a long history of weaponizing litigation—not necessarily to win on the merits, but to pressure, exhaust, or extract concessions. We saw this pattern repeatedly in his business career and again during his first term, whether it was targeting critics, inspectors general, or perceived enemies within the federal bureaucracy. Suing the IRS fits squarely into that pattern, particularly when the damages sought are so wildly disproportionate that they function more as leverage than compensation.

The lawsuit also dovetails with the broader corruption narrative now surrounding Trump’s administration and family. From his hotels and golf courses profiting off foreign governments during his first term, to his children maintaining business interests while holding senior advisory roles, Trump has consistently blurred the line between public power and private gain. The Trump Organization’s foreign licensing deals, Ivanka Trump’s fast-tracked trademarks abroad, and Jared Kushner’s post-White House financial windfalls all reinforced the sense that access to the presidency was being monetized. The IRS lawsuit feels like an extension of that same ethos—using the machinery of government not to serve the public, but to settle personal scores and potentially line one’s own pockets.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is normalization. Each individual act can be waved away by defenders as technically legal, procedurally defensible, or politically motivated criticism. But taken together, a pattern emerges: constant ethical edge-pushing, relentless conflicts of interest, and an erosion of institutional independence. When a president can sue his own tax authority for billions while appointing the people who oversee that authority, the guardrails of democratic accountability start to look frighteningly thin.

As the country heads toward the 2026 midterms, these issues are unlikely to fade. Midterm elections are historically difficult for the party in power, and this one appears especially volatile given persistent voter anger over corruption, cost of living pressures, and perceived abuses of power. Whether this IRS lawsuit becomes a defining symbol of those concerns remains to be seen, but it already stands as a stark illustration of how deeply intertwined Trump’s personal interests are with the public institutions he is supposed to lead—and why so many Americans remain alarmed by that reality.

Posted on

Another Epstein Files Release Deadline Passes

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A segment on MSNOW’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell focused on yet another missed deadline for the release of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. O’Donnell noted that Friday, 01/16/26, was the date by which Trump’s Department of Justice was required either to release the documents or explain to a federal court why it could not do so. Even as he laid out the requirement, O’Donnell expressed skepticism that the administration would comply.

That skepticism proved well founded. The DOJ did not release the Epstein files by the deadline, nor did it offer a straightforward justification for continued secrecy. Instead, it submitted a filing advancing a far more provocative claim: that the federal court itself lacks the authority to impose disclosure deadlines on the DOJ under the transparency law. In effect, the department argued that judicial oversight does not extend to enforcing Congress’s mandate for public release.

The filing struck many observers as both evasive and revealing. The DOJ had no shortage of familiar excuses it could have relied upon. It could have requested additional time, citing the need to review millions of Epstein-related files it now claims to have “discovered” years after Epstein’s death—an explanation that few in the public find credible, but one that would have followed the well-worn script of bureaucratic delay. Instead, the department chose to challenge the court’s authority outright, a move that signaled a deeper resistance to transparency rather than a temporary logistical problem.

That posture stripped away any remaining doubt about the administration’s intentions. From the beginning, critics warned that Trump’s DOJ would engage in procedural gamesmanship—offering symbolic compliance while ensuring that the most consequential material never sees the light of day. The latest filing suggests those warnings were prescient. By disputing the court’s power to impose deadlines, the DOJ is effectively asserting the right to delay disclosure indefinitely, regardless of statutory language, judicial orders, or public demand.

At this point, what once sounded like cynical speculation is hardening into an unavoidable conclusion. Despite sustained public outcry, congressional action, and repeated court-imposed deadlines, less than one percent—one percent—of the Epstein files have been released. That figure alone tells the story. At this pace, full disclosure is not merely delayed; it is effectively being denied. The administration appears content to manage optics rather than deliver transparency, releasing token material while the core of the record remains sealed. With each missed deadline, the promise of accountability fades further, leaving the public with a grim realization: the dream of a full Epstein files release may never be realized, and the cynics may have been right from the very beginning.

Posted on

Less Than One Percent Of The Epstein Files Have Been Released Thus Far

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A recent segment on MSNBC’s Weeknight featured Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who joined the program to discuss his ongoing efforts to force the release of the Epstein files. What he revealed caught many viewers off guard. Despite the passage of the Epstein Transparency Act, Garcia said the Department of Justice has released less than one percent of the total body of material related to Jeffrey Epstein. For an audience that assumed the law had jump-started a meaningful disclosure process, the figure landed like a gut punch.

While few people believed the government had released anything close to half of the files, most assumed the number was at least significantly higher than one percent. Garcia clarified that even within that already minuscule fraction, extensive redactions further limit what the public can actually see. In other words, the amount of usable, unredacted information is effectively even smaller. The disclosure process, far from accelerating, appears to be stalled almost entirely, raising serious questions about whether the law is being honored in anything more than name.

The segment also revisited Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent appearance before the U.S. Senate, including pointed questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Bondi’s posture during the hearing was notably defiant, offering little indication that the Justice Department feels compelled to move faster or provide fuller transparency. If that testimony is any guide, expectations for a voluntary release of the Epstein files remain exceedingly low, regardless of statutory requirements.

Garcia noted that House Democrats are now planning to call Bondi before the House Oversight Committee to explain why the DOJ continues to withhold the vast majority of the files despite the clear intent of the Epstein Transparency Act. That hearing could become a pivotal moment, not only in determining whether the law has any real enforcement power, but also in testing whether congressional oversight will be allowed to function at all. The looming question is whether Bondi will bring the same combative resistance to the House—and whether House Republicans will once again enable stonewalling rather than demand answers the public has been waiting years to hear.

Posted on

Minneapolis ICE Shooting Deepens the Trump Administration’s Credibility Crisis

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

The fatal shooting of a 37-year-old American woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent has once again thrown a harsh spotlight on a problem that has increasingly defined Trump administration 2.0: a deepening credibility crisis. What began as a disturbing law-enforcement encounter quickly metastasized into something larger—another episode in which the public was asked to accept an official account that appeared to conflict with what many people could see with their own eyes.

This credibility gap did not emerge overnight. Over the past year, Americans have grown increasingly skeptical of information coming from the administration, including economic data once treated as authoritative, public-health guidance from HHS, representations made in court filings, and on-the-record statements from senior officials. Americans have always practiced a degree of “trust but verify” when it comes to government pronouncements, but the level of doubt now surrounding official statements is markedly different—more pervasive, more reflexive, and more corrosive.

In the Minneapolis case, video of the encounter circulated quickly on social media, allowing the public to assess the incident independently. To many observers, the footage appeared to show a verbal confrontation between the woman and ICE agents, followed by her attempt to leave the scene in her vehicle. Based on the available video, critics argued that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and disproportionate, raising immediate questions about judgment, training, and accountability.

Those questions intensified when DHS Secretary Kristi Noem addressed the incident publicly. Her description of events sharply diverged from what many believed the video showed. She claimed the woman had “run over” an ICE agent, sending him to the hospital, and went further by characterizing the incident as an act of domestic terrorism. These assertions were widely challenged and fueled accusations that the administration was misrepresenting the facts rather than awaiting a full investigation. President Trump later echoed the secretary’s account on social media, amplifying a narrative that many Americans had already begun to doubt.

While the president relied on information provided by his cabinet, the responsibility for accuracy rested squarely with the Department of Homeland Security. It is the job of senior officials to verify facts from agents on the ground before presenting a definitive account to the public—particularly in cases involving lethal force. When that process fails, the damage extends far beyond a single incident.

As a result, what might have remained a grave but contained use-of-force controversy instead became another data point in the administration’s broader credibility problem. MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude captured this sentiment on Deadline: White House, noting that the administration now faces a public conditioned to doubt its word. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz echoed similar concerns, emphasizing the importance of transparency and factual accuracy as the situation unfolded.

If this were an isolated misstatement—an early briefing that later required correction—the public might have been more forgiving. But because the Minneapolis shooting followed a series of prior episodes in which official accounts were revised, contradicted, or quietly abandoned, skepticism hardened almost instantly. Each incident compounds the last, reinforcing a perception that truth is being shaped to fit political needs rather than facts.

In a democratic society, credibility is not a cosmetic asset; it is foundational. When government officials lose the public’s trust, even accurate statements are greeted with suspicion, and accountability becomes harder to achieve. The Minneapolis shooting underscores how urgently the Trump administration must confront this problem. Leveling with the public is not optional—it is essential to restoring confidence in institutions meant to serve, protect, and answer to the people.

Posted on

Senior Official At Trump’s Interior Department Accused Of Corruption

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

The January 5, 2026 edition of MSNOW’s Rachel Maddow Show devoted a lengthy segment to corruption allegations involving Karen Budd-Falen, a powerful but little-known figure who served as the number three official at Donald Trump’s Department of the Interior and previously held senior posts there during Trump’s first term. Maddow framed the story as emblematic of a familiar pattern from the Trump years: public office intersecting uncomfortably with private financial interests, and the ethical guardrails that normally prevent that collision appearing either weakened or ignored.

Maddow opened with a sardonic observation that Budd-Falen may have been an unintended beneficiary of Trump’s dramatic weekend escalation involving Venezuela, which dominated headlines just as The New York Times was preparing a major investigative report on Budd-Falen. The international crisis effectively crowded out what might otherwise have been a front-page political scandal, buying time and quiet for a senior Interior Department official facing serious scrutiny.

At the center of the allegations is Budd-Falen’s role at Interior, where she wielded substantial influence over land use, water rights, and energy development—particularly in the West. Before and during her government service, Budd-Falen was well known as a lawyer representing ranchers, mining interests, and extractive industries, often in disputes against federal regulators and environmental protections. That background made her appointment controversial from the start, as critics argued she was now overseeing, from inside the government, policy areas that directly overlapped with her prior clients and personal interests.

According to reporting discussed on Maddow’s show, Budd-Falen and her husband own a ranch in Nevada that became strategically important to investors seeking to build a lithium processing facility nearby. Lithium, a critical mineral for electric vehicle batteries and energy storage, has been the subject of intense political and economic interest, and Interior Department approvals can make or break such projects. The investors allegedly offered the Budd-Falens $3.5 million for the ranch’s water rights—a staggering sum in itself—but the payment was reportedly contingent on the Interior Department approving the lithium plant. As Maddow summarized it, the deal appeared to hinge on a simple but troubling condition: no approval, no money.

What deepens the ethical concerns is the timeline. Maddow reported that Budd-Falen met with the investors for lunch in the Interior Department cafeteria during Trump’s first term. Not long afterward, the department gave the lithium project the green light. Even more striking, the project was reportedly fast-tracked, allowing it to bypass layers of environmental and regulatory review that similar projects typically face. Critics argue that this accelerated process reduced the chances that internal watchdogs or career civil servants would flag the apparent conflict of interest between a senior official’s personal financial stake and her department’s decision-making.

From an ethics standpoint, the issue is not merely whether Budd-Falen personally signed off on the approval, but whether her position and influence created an environment in which subordinates understood what outcome was desired. Federal ethics rules are designed to prevent even the appearance of such impropriety, precisely because public trust erodes when officials stand to gain financially from decisions made by their agencies.

At the same time, Maddow emphasized that Budd-Falen and the lithium investors deny any wrongdoing. A potential defense is that the water rights transaction was a private land deal negotiated at arm’s length, and that Interior Department approvals followed standard procedures driven by policy priorities rather than personal enrichment. Budd-Falen could also argue that she formally recused herself from decisions directly involving the project, or that career staff—not political appointees—made the ultimate determinations. Without full documentation and testimony, those claims remain unresolved, and they underscore why independent investigations, rather than television segments or partisan talking points, are essential to establishing the facts.

Still, the optics are undeniably damaging, particularly when viewed against the broader backdrop of corruption and ethics scandals that repeatedly engulfed Trump’s senior officials. From former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s real estate dealings, to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s resignation amid revelations of lavish perks and secret meetings with lobbyists, to Cabinet members like Tom Price and Wilbur Ross facing scrutiny over private travel and undisclosed financial ties, the Trump administration developed a reputation for blurring the line between public service and private gain. Even figures outside the Cabinet, such as Jared Kushner, drew sustained criticism for foreign financial entanglements that appeared to follow directly from their government roles. More recently, other high-profile Trump allies and officials, including Kristi Noem, have faced their own waves of controversy and ethical questions, reinforcing the sense that these were not isolated incidents but part of a recurring pattern.

Whether Karen Budd-Falen ultimately becomes another confirmed example of that pattern remains to be seen. What is clear is that the allegations strike at the heart of public trust in government: the expectation that officials act in the public interest, not their own financial self-interest. For now, Budd-Falen’s case sits in an uneasy limbo between denial and suspicion, with unanswered questions about influence, transparency, and accountability. As Maddow suggested, time—and thorough investigation—will determine whether these allegations collapse under scrutiny or become yet another entry in the long ledger of Trump-era corruption scandals.

Posted on

A Strong Case For Trump’s Military Intervention In Venezuela

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An interesting segment on MSNOW featured Hagar Chemali, who made one of the most coherent and intellectually serious cases yet for President Trump’s military posture toward Venezuela. Going into the segment, the prevailing narrative across television news was nearly unanimous: Trump’s actions were framed as a reckless violation of international law, untethered from any legitimate U.S. national security interest. What Chemali did—methodically and without theatrics—was complicate that narrative in a way most pundits either cannot or will not.

Chemali did not dispute that Trump’s actions strain, and may even violate, existing international legal frameworks. Instead, she argued that focusing exclusively on legality misses the more consequential question of national security. According to Chemali, the post–World War II international system—particularly institutions like the United Nations—has become largely incapable of enforcing the very rules it was designed to uphold. That vacuum, she contends, has been aggressively exploited by rogue states and non-state actors who operate with near impunity, often embedding themselves in fragile or hostile regimes much closer to U.S. shores than many Americans appreciate.

What gives Chemali’s argument particular weight is her background. She is not a partisan talking head or an armchair strategist. Chemali served in senior roles at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, including in the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, where she worked directly on counterterrorism, sanctions policy, and efforts to disrupt the financial networks of hostile states and extremist groups. She also held positions during the Obama administration and has worked closely with interagency national security teams, giving her firsthand exposure to how threats are assessed when cameras are not rolling. In other words, she understands how national security doctrine is applied in practice, not just debated on cable news panels.

From that vantage point, Chemali argues that Venezuela cannot be viewed in isolation. It is not merely a failing state or a humanitarian crisis; it has become a strategic foothold for U.S. adversaries seeking influence in the Western Hemisphere. In that context, she suggests, the United States asserting a policing role in the Americas is less about imperial ambition and more about responding to a security architecture that no longer functions. When international bodies fail to act—or selectively enforce rules—power vacuums do not remain empty for long.

Chemali’s analysis effectively provides the Trump administration with a serious national security rationale that goes beyond bluster or appeals to raw power. It offers a framework for countering the charge that the administration is acting lawlessly by arguing that the law itself has become disconnected from enforcement realities. Whether one agrees with that conclusion or not, it is a far more substantive defense than the caricature of Trump acting on impulse or ego.

Trump has occasionally gestured toward the Monroe Doctrine when addressing Venezuela, at times referring to his own version as the “Donroe Doctrine,” but he has rarely articulated the argument with the clarity or discipline Chemali brings to it. Her explanation distills what the administration seems to believe but has struggled to communicate: that American restraint, in a world where enforcement mechanisms are broken, can itself become a liability. Whether Trump adopts this rationale more explicitly going forward remains to be seen, but Chemali’s intervention may well give the administration an opening to reframe the debate on terms that are strategic rather than merely legalistic.

Posted on

How Long Will The U.S. Keep Boots On The Ground In Venezuela?

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) appeared on MSNOW this weekend to discuss the rapidly unfolding developments surrounding the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. When pressed by one of the hosts on how long Americans should expect U.S. military boots to remain on the ground in Venezuela, Luna offered little beyond a hope—saying she “hopes” the deployment won’t last long. That answer may sound reassuring, but history gives us little reason to share her optimism.

Hope is not a strategy, especially when it comes to U.S. regime-change operations. If there is one consistent lesson from America’s modern military interventions, it is that removing a leader is usually the easiest part. What follows—stabilization, governance, security, and reconstruction—is where things unravel, drag on, and become vastly more expensive in both blood and treasure. Libya and Iraq loom large as cautionary tales, and Venezuela shows every sign of following the same grim script.

Iraq is perhaps the clearest example of this delusion. Military planners and television pundits alike once spoke confidently of a war that would be over in days or weeks. And indeed, the initial invasion was swift and overwhelming, culminating in the rapid toppling of Saddam Hussein. But the fall of a dictator did not produce the democratic transformation Washington promised. Instead, the United States found itself mired in a prolonged occupation, battling insurgencies, sectarian violence, and political chaos that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Libya followed a similar trajectory: regime change first, disorder and state collapse afterward.

There is little reason to believe Venezuela will be any different. Removing Maduro does not magically resolve deep political divisions, economic collapse, or regional instability. Those problems do not disappear when a strongman is captured; they intensify. The idea that U.S. forces can simply step in, flip a switch, and then quickly depart belongs more to fantasy than to serious strategic thinking. The smart money says that once boots are on the ground, they stay—often far longer than anyone publicly admits at the outset.

This reality also collides head-on with “America First” rhetoric. An unprovoked military incursion into Venezuela, paired with open threats toward other governments in the region, hardly aligns with a foreign policy supposedly focused on rebuilding at home. Every dollar spent sustaining an open-ended military presence abroad is a dollar not spent addressing America’s own crumbling infrastructure, healthcare gaps, or economic inequality. And as history has shown, these ventures rarely remain bloodless. Casualties are not an unfortunate possibility; they are an almost inevitable outcome.

Americans should therefore be clear-eyed about what is unfolding. If past is prologue, the United States is not heading for a brief, tidy mission in Venezuela, but for a long and costly entanglement. Congress cannot simply defer to vague hopes or executive assurances. It has a constitutional obligation to demand accountability, debate the mission honestly, and decide whether this path truly serves the nation’s interests—before yet another “quick intervention” turns into a generational tragedy.