The Dictatorship

Trump needlessly renews his Greenland obsession, sparking fresh pushback from U.S. allies

Published

1 hour ago

July 8, 2026

Trump needlessly renews his Greenland obsession, sparking fresh pushback from U.S. allies

As 2026 got underway, there was reason for cautious optimism about Donald Trump’s obsession with acquiring Greenland. On Jan. 21, the American president announced he had agreed to “a framework” with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on the future of Greenland, which was apparently designed to satisfy the Republican’s demands.

A day later, in an interview with Fox Business, Trump suggested it was unlikely the United States would actually take ownership of the Arctic island — a priority that he had said in recent days was paramount — though he emphasized that he expected the deal to provide U.S. officials with greater “access” to Greenland. (The fact that we already had ample access was a detail that apparently eluded him.)

There were plenty of questions at the time about the relevant details of the agreement, none of which the president was prepared to address, and about whether Trump would reverse course and renew his crusade to annex the island.

Nearly six months later, Trump has reversed course and renewed his crusade to annex the island. CNBC reported:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday resurrected his push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, and suggested the U.S. could pull all of its armed services members out of Europe in response to the Continent’s continued pushback on the issue.

The island territory “should be controlled by the United States,” Trump said shortly after he arrived in Ankara, Turkey, for a NATO summit.

As part of his comments on Tuesday, the American president not only said the U.S. should control Greenland, he added that NATO’s reluctance to simply give him the island he wants “hurt” his relationship with the alliance.

A day later, Trump kept going, insisting that he considered it “a big problem” that he had not been able to acquire Greenland, followed by a fresh round of whining about NATO members not giving him what he wants.

For good measure, the Republican added, “We took Greenland and then, stupidly, we gave it back. We shouldn’t have given it back to them, because we’re the ones that need it. We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States. And it’s very important.”

Why does all of this matter? For one thing, Trump’s nonsense suggests the “framework” announced in January is effectively meaningless. For another, it set off a new international incident of sorts, as European leaders scrambled to make clear that the U.S. needs to leave Greenland alone.

“We are ready to defend every inch of NATO, including our own territory,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told reporters. “One of the reasons why we built NATO many, many years ago is if anything happens to one of us then everybody should stand up for each other.”

Just as notable is that Trump’s focus on Greenland had already done significant harm to U.S. diplomacy and our international standing. For the Republican to renew his obsession for no reason does fresh harm to his own country in exchange for … nothing.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

‘I think it’s over’: Trump puts future of Iran ceasefire in doubt amid new strikes

Published

3 minutes ago

July 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘I think it’s over’: Trump puts future of Iran ceasefire in doubt amid new strikes

In the three weeks since Donald Trump declared that a “deal” between the United States and Iran was “complete,” the president and his team have been dogged by a series of difficult questions. Why does Iran have to make so few concessions under the memorandum of understanding? Why have prominent members of both parties slammed the agreement as inadequate? Why is Trump’s deal so much worse than the Obama-era Iran deal?

Now, however, the world is confronting a qualitatively different kind of question: Does Trump’s deal still exist?

On Tuesday, U.S. Central Command announced a new round of strikes against Iran, following reports of attacks on merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration simultaneously said it was reinstating sanctions on Tehran, which had been eased as part of last month’s MOU.

Soon after, Iran’s military said it had fired missiles and drones targeting U.S. military installations in Bahrain and Kuwait in retaliation for the strikes confirmed by CENTCOM hours earlier.

As for the tenuous ceasefire and peace process, it’s increasingly difficult to be optimistic. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday from the NATO summit in Turkey, Trump called Iranians “scum” and “evil people.” He added, “Frankly, we’ve wasted a lot of time with them. I think we should just do our business.”

The Republican didn’t elaborate as to what that “business” entails, but in context, he appeared to be referring to additional military strikes.

And then he kept going.

Asked specifically whether the ceasefire is over and the peace framework is dead, the American president told reporters, “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum. … They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. … As far as I’m concerned, it’s over. … As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. … They’re liars. … There’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo.”

Right on cue, oil prices jumped and stock market indexes started falling. There’s no great mystery as to why: If the ceasefire is over and the peace framework is dead, then we’re right back to where we were when the hot war was still underway.

The trouble, however, is that Trump is erratic and easily confused. It’s effectively impossible to know whether he’ll take the opposite position at any given moment, opening the door to new diplomatic talks or making matters vastly worse.

Either way, the truce appears to be unraveling.

The Dictatorship

Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 7.8.26: Maine’s Platner scraps fundraisers, ads

Published

1 hour ago

July 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 7.8.26: Maine’s Platner scraps fundraisers, ads

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy isn’t officially over yet, but as the Maine Democrat hemorrhages supporthis campaign has canceled fundraising events and scheduled ad buys. What’s more, Platner’s team acknowledged Tuesday that it had reached out to the Maine Democratic Party to discuss the process for possibly replacing him on the ballot.

That process, should it proceed, will apparently not be smooth: State party Executive Director Devon Murphy-Anderson accused members of Platner’s team late Tuesday of “trying to put their thumb on the scale” of the process to find his replacement, even though the scandal-plagued candidate has yet to withdraw.

The Maine Democratic Party chief added that Platner would have “no role” in the selection process.

In the meantime, as the candidate faces new allegations of sexual misconduct, Platner’s would-be Democratic successors are taking unsubtle steps to make clear they’re interested in getting the nod for the general election race against incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

As for what to expect if Platner exits, Axios reported that Republicans “are preparing to welcome a potential Graham Platner replacement in Maine’s Senate race with $8 million in negative ads, aiming to introduce a new Democratic nominee to voters on their own terms before Democrats can.”

* It’s too late for Maryland to redraw its district map ahead of the midterms, but the Democratic-led legislature is moving forward with plans for a special legislative session next month to overhaul its congressional districts ahead of the 2028 election cycle.

* In Colorado’s Republican gubernatorial primaryVictor Marx, a controversial religious nonprofit leader, is ahead of state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer by roughly 2,000 votes in the latest tallies, but it might be a while before the race is officially called.

* Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida has faced a great many scandals of late, but last week, one of his primary rivals filed a formal legal complaint alleging that Mills improperly notarized his candidate documents, making him ineligible for the ballot. (Mills did not respond to MS NOW’s request for comment about the allegations.)

* As if Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton didn’t have enough troublesthe Republican Senate candidate is now facing mockery after spending July Fourth in Europe with a woman who is not his estranged wife.

* And a year after congressional Republicans passed their domestic policy megabill to significant partisan fanfare, it’s Democrats who are eager to tell voters about the regressive package ahead of November’s elections.

The Dictatorship

Judge rejects Team Trump’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post

Published

1 hour ago

July 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Judge rejects Team Trump’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post

It can be challenging to keep up with the many lawsuits Donald Trump and his team have filed against assorted news organizations, but the president’s media company sued The Washington Post over a 2023 articleaccusing the newspaper of a “years-long crusade” and being part of a “conspiracy” to harm the company. As part of its defamation suit, the Trump Media and Technology Group sought $3.8 billion in damages.

That didn’t go well. The Post reported:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled in favor of The Washington Post, throwing out a $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit filed in 2023 by President Donald Trump’s social media company, Trump Media and Technology Group.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber, who is based in Tampa, wrote in a summary docket entry — known as a minute order — that Trump Media “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that The Post “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”

Time will tell what becomes of the litigation — an appeal seems likely — though recent history suggests the plaintiffs should keep their expectations low. Indeed, recent history is highly relevant.

The Trump campaign’s 2020 case against BLN failed. Trump’s 2021 case against The New York Times failed. Trump’s 2023 case against journalist Bob Woodward failed. The Trump campaign’s case against the Post failed. Trump’s class-action lawsuit against social media giants also failed.

Last year, Trump filed a $15 billion civil suit against The New York Times, which was thrown out four days later, not because it lacked merit, but because a federal judge found that the president’s lawyers’ court filing was simply too ridiculous.

Two months later, Trump’s media company also lost a defamation suit against The Guardian.

As recently as April, Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit against The Wall Street Journal was also thrown out of courtthough he and his lawyers refiled the case a month later.

Americans have never before had a president who sued independent news organizations, individual journalists or both for publishing reports the White House disapproved of, but we have also never before had a president lose so many cases while in office.

As for the larger context, let’s not miss the related larger lesson related to the importance of pushback. When Trump filed a dubious case against ABC News, the network and its corporate parent agreed to a $16 million settlement. When he filed an even weaker case against CBS News, its owner, Paramount, also struck a $16 million deal.

In the weeks and months that followed, Trump repeatedly pointed to these controversial settlement agreements as evidence of his targets’ guilt, even as those networks denied any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, news organizations that stood up for themselves and resisted the ridiculous attempts at intimidation have prevailed.

Let this be a lesson to the larger political world: Resistance is far more successful than appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firmsit’s true when it comes to higher education and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.