Tag: SECRETARY

Posted on

Minneapolis ICE Shooting Deepens the Trump Administration’s Credibility Crisis

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

Who’s To Blame For The Measles Outbreak?

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

An interesting segment on MSNOW’s All In with Chris Hayes took up the recent measles outbreaks appearing in several parts of the United States, and the thrust of the discussion left little room for ambiguity. Hayes framed the issue as one of clear responsibility, arguing that the resurgence of measles could be laid at the feet of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His guest, Dr. Peter Hotez, fully endorsed that view, tying the outbreaks directly to Kennedy’s long-standing skepticism toward vaccines and suggesting that his influence and policies had helped create the conditions for a public-health setback many believed had been settled decades ago.

After posting the segment on my X account, I was struck by the volume and intensity of the reaction. What stood out most was how sharply many viewers disagreed with Dr. Hotez’s conclusion that Kennedy alone was to blame. A significant share of the pushback came from Kennedy supporters and MAHA advocates, who argued that the segment ignored other plausible explanations for the spike in cases and instead defaulted to a neat but overly simplistic villain.

To their credit, the defenses offered were not frivolous. The most common argument centered on immigration, with critics pointing to the Biden administration’s border policies and asserting that millions of unvaccinated migrants entered the country over the past several years. In that telling, the rise in measles cases is less a consequence of Kennedy’s tenure at HHS and more the predictable outcome of population flows that public-health systems were unprepared to fully screen or vaccinate at scale. Whether one accepts the numbers often cited or not, the broader point they raised was that outbreaks do not occur in a vacuum and cannot be explained solely by the views of one cabinet secretary.

Others highlighted comparative data, noting that Canada—despite having a far smaller population—has reported higher measles case counts than the United States. That comparison, which does check out, was presented as evidence that blaming Kennedy exclusively does not withstand scrutiny. If a country with different leadership, a different health minister, and broadly pro-vaccine public policy is experiencing an even larger outbreak, then the causes are likely more complex than a single official’s ideology.

A third line of argument leaned heavily on lived experience. Many commenters recalled that measles was common when they were children, rarely fatal, and often treated as an inconvenient but unremarkable rite of passage that kept kids home from school for a week. From that perspective, they questioned whether measles should be treated as a dire public-health emergency at all, arguing that it is generally mild, rarely deadly, and even beneficial in building natural immunity. That view, while controversial and disputed by much of the medical community, remains deeply ingrained among a sizable portion of the public and cannot simply be dismissed as ignorance or bad faith.

Taken together, these reactions underscore a larger reality that the segment only partially captured. There is little dispute that a rise in measles cases is a legitimate concern and that public-health officials should take outbreaks seriously. It is also fair to scrutinize Secretary Kennedy’s anti-vaccine record and question how his rhetoric may shape public attitudes. But it is far less convincing to argue that the problem can be laid entirely at his feet. Immigration patterns, international trends, historical experience, and long-standing skepticism about vaccines all intersect here, complicating any attempt to assign singular blame. Reasonable people can agree the outbreak deserves attention while also recognizing that responsibility is more diffuse than the television debate suggested.

Posted on

The History Of Lies Preceeding Findings Of War Crimes

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

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s Last Word dug into what it described as a familiar pattern in U.S. military history: deny wrongdoing first, then slowly acknowledge pieces of the truth once outside evidence becomes impossible to dismiss. Lawrence O’Donnell used the current controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged “boat strikes” in the Caribbean as his launching point, arguing that the initial denials and evasions coming from the Pentagon echo earlier moments when U.S. officials misled the public about military actions that later proved indefensible. O’Donnell’s implication was unmistakable—that when the dust settles, investigators may conclude not only that the strikes were unlawful, but that Hegseth or those operating under his authority initially misrepresented what happened.

O’Donnell’s framing draws on a long and painful history. From the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, to the Pentagon’s early false account of Pat Tillman’s death, to the denials surrounding the Kunduz hospital airstrike in Afghanistan, the United States military has repeatedly issued confident, categorical explanations that later unraveled. The pattern is not merely that the military gets things wrong; it is that it often knows its initial explanations are incomplete or misleading. In the Kunduz case, commanders first claimed that the deadly strike on the Doctors Without Borders hospital was an accident caused by bad intelligence. Later investigations revealed systematic procedural violations and inconsistencies in the official story. In other incidents, the military has been accused of cleaning up sites, withholding footage, or pressuring witnesses—all in the name of preserving institutional credibility. These reversals feed the larger concern O’Donnell was highlighting: when allegations of war crimes arise, the public’s first encounter with them is often a narrative shaped to minimize responsibility.

That context matters in the current debate over the so-called “double tap” strikes. The term refers to a practice—widely condemned by human rights groups—where an initial strike is followed minutes later by a second one timed to hit rescuers rushing to help the wounded. International law experts have long argued that the tactic constitutes a war crime because it intentionally targets medics, civilians, or anyone giving aid. According to MSNBC’s reporting, the controversy swirling around Hegseth includes allegations that at least some of the Caribbean boat strikes may have followed this pattern. Early statements from Defense Department officials reportedly downplayed or denied this, but as often happens, additional footage and testimony have begun to contradict the earliest claims. O’Donnell suggested that even Hegseth’s own language has shifted—initially presenting the strikes as precise, justified, and unambiguous, while later remarks seem more cautious, as if acknowledging that the official story may not hold under scrutiny. Critics note that this rhetorical drift mirrors earlier cases where U.S. officials’ first instinct was to shield themselves rather than openly confront what occurred.

The pressure is not only coming from television pundits. MSNBC has also reported that the family of a Colombian fisherman killed in one of the “narco-terrorist” drone strikes has filed a formal complaint with a Washington, D.C.–based human rights organization. The filing seeks monetary compensation but also demands an end to the drone campaign altogether. More significantly, it accuses Secretary Hegseth of authorizing extrajudicial killing—an allegation that, if taken up by international bodies, could draw the attention of the International Criminal Court or other tribunals. While the ICC rarely targets officials from powerful nations, a complaint of this nature can still generate diplomatic headaches, congressional scrutiny, and sustained media investigation.

What stands out even more is that, despite the deep polarization in Washington, these boat strikes have triggered bipartisan unease. Lawmakers in both parties have struggled to accept the administration’s rationale that small vessels thousands of miles from U.S. shores pose such a grave and imminent threat that the only viable response is to blow them out of the water. Even some Republicans—normally inclined to defend a Republican administration reflexively—are questioning whether the intelligence behind the strikes is as airtight as officials claim. The complaint filed by the fisherman’s family underscores the fragility of the administration’s narrative; if one case unravels, others may follow, and with them the assertion that all strikes have been lawful counter-narco operations rather than disproportionate uses of force.

The open question is whether Secretary Hegseth will adjust course. Will he dial back the strike policy to accommodate bipartisan concerns, or will he press forward under the belief that forceful action now will be vindicated later? The political calculus is complicated by the reality that former President Trump, as a former head of state, will almost certainly remain shielded from any serious war-crimes prosecution; the ICC has historically avoided pursuing former U.S. presidents, and legal scholars widely agree it is unlikely to break that precedent. Hegseth, however, does not enjoy the same protective aura. Officials below the level of head of state have faced international legal jeopardy before, and those in the Trump administration who assume they are untouchable may discover that this confidence is misplaced.

Whether the unfolding controversy becomes another entry in the long ledger of U.S. military denials followed by partial admissions—or something more legally consequential—remains to be seen. But as O’Donnell’s segment underscored, history has taught observers to pay close attention not only to what officials say at the beginning of these crises, but how their stories change once the evidence emerges and the truth becomes harder to hide.

Posted on

Homeland Security’s $220 Million Ad Controversy: An Objective Look at the Noem Connections

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

A series of recent investigative reports, first published by ProPublica and later picked up by major outlets including MSNBC, has drawn substantial attention to a large Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advertising campaign and its connections to Secretary Kristi Noem’s political circle. Although the DHS has defended its decisions and denies any improper influence, the scope of the contract, the speed at which funds were awarded, and the involvement of individuals tied to Noem have generated intense public scrutiny. What follows is a fact-based, balanced overview of what is known, what is contested, and why the episode continues to raise questions.

The controversy began with DHS’s launch of a national and international ad campaign intended to deter illegal immigration. According to ProPublica, the campaign totals approximately $220 million and includes television, digital, radio, and social-media placements. DHS has stated that the campaign is aimed at discouraging unauthorized crossings by emphasizing tougher enforcement policies and consequences. One of the signature ads features Secretary Noem at Mount Rushmore delivering a tough-on-immigration message that DHS characterizes as a public service announcement rather than a political communication. DHS has consistently argued that the campaign is justified by pressing national security needs and that it reflects policy objectives rather than partisan motives.

The financial and procedural details surrounding this campaign, however, prompted wider concerns. DHS invoked a “national emergency” at the border to bypass the traditional competitive bidding process, fast-tracking the ad contracts. While legal, this mechanism is typically used for time-sensitive, high-risk situations rather than large-scale media campaigns. Critics argue that employing emergency powers for a communications initiative undermines normal procurement safeguards designed to prevent favoritism and ensure transparency. DHS counters that career procurement officials oversaw the process and that all actions complied with federal law.

The most scrutinized element of the spending is the decision to direct $143 million of the campaign funds to a newly formed Delaware company called Safe America Media. The firm was incorporated only days before receiving the contract, an unusually rapid timeline for a high-value federal agreement. Public contracting databases provide little information about how Safe America Media has allocated its funds or whom it subcontracted. This lack of documentation has fueled questions about the nature of the company, who ultimately benefited from the funds, and why the government selected an entity with virtually no track record.

Those questions intensified when investigators identified personal and professional connections between DHS leadership and political consultants aligned with Noem. Safe America Media’s listed address is linked to Republican operative Michael McElwain, and reporting has highlighted the involvement of the Strategy Group, a Republican consulting firm that played a large role in Noem’s South Dakota gubernatorial campaigns. The firm is led by Benjamin Yoho, who is married to Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’s Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. That office, which McLaughlin leads, is the same DHS division responsible for funding the ad campaign. This nexus of relationships has raised concerns from ethics experts and watchdog groups, who argue that—even if no laws were broken—the appearance of a conflict of interest is substantial.

Critics, including former federal contracting officials, contend that the overlap between Noem’s political network and the firms connected to the DHS campaign creates significant risk of improper influence. They argue that the lack of publicly available subcontractor information prevents the public from knowing whether politically connected firms benefited from taxpayer funds. Some experts have described the arrangement as highly irregular, and organizations have called for oversight investigations by congressional committees or the DHS Inspector General. Others have pointed out that the political tone of some of the ads, particularly those referencing Trump-era border policies, may blur the line between public service messaging and partisan promotion, although DHS maintains the messaging is policy-driven.

Defenders of Noem and DHS present a different picture. They note that DHS officials, not political appointees, handled the contracting and that emergency procurement authority exists precisely to allow rapid responses to urgent national issues. McLaughlin has publicly stated that she fully recused herself from decisions related to these contracts, emphasizing that professional ethics protocols were followed. Supporters also argue that the intent of the campaign is clear: to deter migration through communication, a tool that has been used by multiple administrations. They also point out that no concrete evidence has surfaced proving that any funds were intentionally steered to Noem’s allies for political purposes.

Despite those defenses, the situation remains complicated. The unusual contracting timeline, the lack of transparency surrounding subcontractors, and the close personal ties between DHS leadership and outside political consultants make the story difficult to dismiss. Even if every action taken was technically compliant with procurement rules, the optics invite skepticism. In matters of public spending—especially on such a large scale—appearance alone can erode public trust, particularly when political figures and their associates are involved. At a minimum, the episode underscores the importance of transparent procurement processes, clear public reporting on subcontractors, and robust safeguards to prevent even the perception of conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, the controversy exposes a broader tension at the intersection of government communication, national security policy, and political influence. DHS insists the campaign is essential to its mission and was executed properly. Critics argue that the process lacked the transparency and arm’s-length separation needed to ensure public confidence. As calls for additional oversight continue, the resolution of this issue may set important precedents for how federal agencies handle large-scale communications campaigns—especially when those campaigns intersect with the political networks of their leaders.

Posted on

Gov Pritzker Blasts DHS Sec Noem on CNN’s State of the Union

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker appeared on CNN’s State of the Union (10/05/25), where he sharply criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over the conduct of federal officials in Chicago.

Pritzker disputed Noem’s earlier claim that Chicago residents were “clapping” for DHS agents—calling it a misleading portrayal meant to suggest public support. He argued that DHS is turning Chicago into a “war zone” by targeting peaceful protesters instead of focusing on “the worst of the worst.”

The clash may soon land in court. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has warned that if federal troops are deployed to Chicago, the state will file suit.  Raoul is already suing over the administration’s withholding of public safety funds from states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. 

The question now: will the courts permit President Trump to deploy military forces in Chicago over Gov. Pritzker’s objections?

Posted on

Three Questions Alex Acosta Must Answer Re Epstein

MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin appeared on the 09/19/25 edition of Deadline White House show where she made a compelling argument as to how Congress can and should go about getting Jeffrey Epstein-related information from former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta.

Rubin said that there are a bunch of Epstein-related documents that Acosta either saw, or was involved in creating. This, she argued, meant the said documents were either currently in the possession of the Department of Justice, or even by Acosta himself.

The first question Congress needs to ask Acosta is about the 60-count federal indictment drafted by prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña in 2007. DOJ definitely has this document, and the allegations therein, may shed a lot of light as to Epstein’s illicit operation, and potentially, the actions of his his co-conspirators, most of who were later granted immunity.

The second question regards the lengthy prosecution memo that aforementioned Villafaña wrote regarding the federal case re Epstein. Rubin says this can shed a lot of light as to the evidence the feds had against Epstein to support the 60-count indictment

Finally, Rubin says Congress should ask Acosta about his own interview transcript from the office of professional responsibility investigation that was conducted at DOJ in 2020. That was an investigation started at the instigation of Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Rubin argues that Acosta must have that transcript in his possession because he and his lawyers were given an opportunity to review it and suggest any corrections.

Long story short, the lingering questions about Jeffrey Epstein and his child sex trafficking operation must be answered, and key players like Acosta must not be allowed to come before Congress and just gaslight the public. These crucial documents are currently in the possession of the DOJ and/or Acosta, and the public deserves to see them.

An alternative route would be to have Ann Marie Villafaña testify before Congress. Who knows, she might have “kept receipts”.

Posted on

New Questions About Trump And His Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues to heat up, new questions are being raised about the infamous 2008 sweetheart plea deal he received from then U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who later joined the Trump administration as Labor Secretary in 2017

The running narrative thus far, has been that after details of the sweetheart plea deal started getting a lot of media coverage, the Trump administration was forced to cut ties with Acosta—he became a liability, if you will.

However according to Kristy Greenberg, herself a former federal prosecutor, President Trump might have known all along about Alex Acosta’s shady Epstein deal when he made him his labor secretary. As Greenberg further put it, “he [President Trump] didn’t seem to care.”

If Greenberg’s account holds up, it would reflect very poorly on the president as America’s moral leader. Republicans have for decades, put a premium on moral values, so it will be interesting to see how they navigate this Trump-Acosta relationship. 

Posted on

Sen Rand Paul Promises Vigorous Oversight Of DHS

$upport via CashApp👇

In his opening remarks at the Senate confirmation hearings for incoming DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, GOP Senator Rand Paul, Chairman of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, laid out brilliantly, the case as to why the behemoth that is DHS, begs for some serious oversight.

Senator Paul characterized DHS as a very powerful agency that was created after the 9/11 attacks to secure the homeland, but has since veered from its intended course, and into attacks against Americans simply exercising their free speech rights.

Sen Paul: “Think about it, an agency [DHS] commanding over $110 billion annually, can’t account for its own activities. This is not just bureaucratic incompetence, it’s emblematic of a deeper issue. An agency unsure of its own boundaries and commitments.”

He went on to add that DHS is increasingly focusing on people’s social media posts, and even placing people on terrorism watchlists based on such posts—a total travesty.

Bottom line folks, the criticisms Senator Paul levels at DHS are well founded and longstanding. The only question now is whether he’ll follow through, and use his position as Senate Homeland Security Chair, to provide the much-needed oversight DHS cries for.

Sadly, if the past is anything to go by, Sen Paul’s oversight promises might devolve into his just using his lofty committee chair perch to score political points by digging into, idk, Hunter Biden files. Let’s hope that doesn’t end up being the case, but I’ll readily admit, I would not be surprised.

Posted on

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo:”Texas Is Being Run From Maralago”

$upport via Cash App

Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo appeared on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (09/24/2021), where she blasted elected Republicans in Texas for giving in to former President Trump’s baseless demands for an audit into the state’s 2020 election results. The decision by the Texas Secretary of State’s office to conduct an audit into the election results of Collin, Dallas, Harris and Tarrant counties, came literally a few hours after Trump’s demand, which led a visibly upset Judge Hidalgo to tell host Maddow that Texas was “being run from Maralago.”

Judge Hidalgo told Maddow:“We have to remember we had incredibly successful elections here in Harris County in 2020. We had innovations that led to record turnouts from both parties, the highest in 30 years, I mean it was beautiful, and since then, no evidence has come out that would in any way cause the need for this kind of audit. All we’ve seen is [former]President Trump exhorting the state, or [Governor]Abbott, to have this audit…The reality of it is Texas is being run from Maralago, and that is dangerous, and it’s not appropriate…it’s extremely concerning.”

Judge Hidalgo added that time had come for politicians in Washington to get off the sidelines, and actively join the fight against voter suppression in the states, telling host Maddow, “We need the federal government to act, I mean, this has gone too far… This should be another call to action. We’ve got the writing on the wall. We’ve got to get off our chairs and get moving on all this.”

Bottom line folks, as Judge Hidalgo correctly pointed out, time has come for some decisive action to be taken against these naked efforts by Republicans at the state level, to restrict the voting rights of minorities. Democrats in Washington cannot just sit on the sidelines, and watch their counterparts in Republican-led states like Texas, go to war against GOP’s efforts to restrict minority voting rights. Simply put, time has come for Democrats in Washington to finally do away with the filibuster, and institute a national voting standard geared towards making it easier for people to vote, as opposed to GOP’s scheme of limiting access to the ballot box. As Judge Hidalgo correctly put it, congressional Democrats need to “get off their chairs and get moving” on a comprehensive federal voting rights law.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Putin Told Trump To Stop Joint Military Exercises With S. Korea

$upport via Cash App

From the beginning Yours Truly has maintained that there is something very strange/suspicious about the Trump/North Korea deal–that this is a Putin operation designed to help Trump politically, not solve the nuclear crisis

A bombshell 6/25/2018 segment on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show just confirmed Yours Truly’s suspicions. Turns out per Maddow, that Trump had initially wanted to end  joint military operations between the U.S. & South Korea but dropped the idea after pushback from Defense Secretary Mattis.

Later however, following a phone conversation with Putin, Trump abruptly decided to end the crucial joint military exercises that are meant to provide readiness in the unfortunate event North Korea launches a nuclear strike.

Even more troubling, and an issue that Congressional Dems should definitely inquire into, is the shocking revelation by Maddow that prior to Trump making the highly consequential decision on S. Korea joint exercises, neither Sec Def Mattis nor senior White House officials were consulted. In other words Putin simply told Trump to do it and he did it—fast!!

This is a very troubling development given that virtually all U.S. Intel agencies agree that Russia is not only America’s enemy but is actively working to inflict harm on America. The shocking report by Maddow that despite this threat, Putin is literally telling the U.S. President what to do with senior government officials seemingly left in the dark should be cause for great alarm.

Bottom line Congressional Dems must push for hearings on this issue

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More