The Dictatorship

Trump’s ‘America First’ is becoming ‘America Alone’ — at the worst possible time

Published

1 year ago

April 28, 2025

Trump’s ‘America First’ is becoming ‘America Alone’ — at the worst possible time

After reports that the Trump Administration is pursuing major cuts at the U.S. State Department, constituents have asked me to explain the “chaos” of Trump’s foreign policy. But when I look at his decisions, I don’t see chaos. I see the implementation of a coherent and dangerous neo-isolationism. Essentially, “America First” means “America Alone.”

At a time when China has already surpassed the U.S. in having the most widespread diplomatic presence in the world, the Associated Press reported that the White House Office of Management and Budget proposed slashing the department’s budget by almost 50%, eliminating funding for the UN, NATO, and other institutions. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a reorganization that includes cutting department staff in the U.S. by 15%, while there are reports that the Trump administration is looking at closing 10 embassies and 17 consulates.

European leaders tell me that they do not believe the U.S. would fulfill its Article 5 responsibility to come to the defense of other NATO members, as they did for us.

Trump’s nostalgia harkens to a time when American strength was measured in dollar signs. “We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913,” Trump said in the Oval Office. There is an understandable attractiveness to this vision, but it ignores what happened in 1914 — the eruption of World War 1. At the outbreak of the war, President Woodrow Wilson called for “America First” and kept the U.S. out of the war. The famous aviator Charles Lindbergh and other isolationists repeated that call to keep America out of World War 2. But both times, the U.S. was drawn into the conflict anyway. The wars taught us that wealth alone wasn’t going to keep us safe from the dangers of the world.

The era of the great wars also saw the rise of American diplomacy. While it was military might that broke through the German defenses on D-Day, it was American diplomacy that forged the Transatlantic alliance and helped unite the Allied forces. After the war, American diplomacy gave rise to its greatest contribution in the 20th century: predictability. America created a more predictable world, and Americans benefited enormously. It generated unimaginable wealth for the United States by giving businesses breathing space to invest and innovate as well as access to new foreign markets. It drastically reduced global poverty and hunger, and helped prevent diseases from reaching our shores. And while conflicts still erupted, we saw an avoidance of catastrophic wars between major powers.

In the face of Trump’s zeal to gut diplomacy and international development, some of my constituents ask me, “So what?” My answer is that the president is like a builder blaming a wobbly house on the tools instead of the design. We cannot create the change we want and need if we are alone.

I joined the State Department in the post-9/11 world. I lived and worked on a NATO military base in Afghanistan, surrounded by coalition nations who rallied to America’s side after the attacks. Over 1,100 servicemembers from other NATO members died in Afghanistan alongside our American troops. Now, European leaders tell me that they do not believe the U.S. would fulfill its Article 5 responsibility to come to the defense of other NATO members, as they did for us. Who could blame them? Trump, when asked about his willingness to defend NATO allies, said, “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.”

Last year, a leader of a U.S. ally nation asked me a question that has stuck with me: “Is America a reliable partner?” He didn’t expect an answer; we both knew the truth. America right now is not a reliable partner. Reliability is the midwife to predictability. But due to the chaos of tariffs and the reductions in global engagement, we are quickly becoming a country that others, including our own citizens, cannot rely on.

Other nations, reacting to policies like the abandonment of Ukraine, are already preparing for a post-America world.

As a result, we struggle to address global problems that need fixing. We should respond to the inspiring yet daunting innovations of AI by working with partners to set norms for its use, growing prosperity for American businesses and securing us from its dangers. With the proliferation of drones and hypersonic technology, and the prospects of greater militarization of space and cyber space, we should reform security agreements to better secure American families from the changing nature of war.

Some of Trump’s actions could be reversed in the years to come, but others could do strategic damage to the U.S. that we will never fully recover from. Other nations, reacting to policies like the abandonment of Ukraine, are already preparing for a post-America world. The tariffs are causing them to realign their supply chains to be less reliant and dependent on the U.S. — and, in many cases, more entwined with China.

“America Alone” is becoming a reality, at the worst possible moment. The world is more dangerous than at any other point in my lifetime. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea all pose incredible risks both regionally and globally. All four have demonstrated willingness to cooperate and even coordinate their efforts, as we’ve seen with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Advancements in technologies like AI and drones are putting dangerous power in uncontrollable hands.

Yet in this critical moment, we have gone from the indispensable nation to the unreliable nation. There is still time to course correct. I urge my Republican colleagues to reject gutting the State Department and the Trump White House’s larger push toward isolationism. We should welcome sensible reforms for the State Department and U.S. foreign policy, but we should reject actions that will cede the ground to our adversaries and weaken our critical alliances. That will only mean leaving our kids and grandkids a world that is less secure, less prosperous, and less predictable.

Sen. Andy Kim

Andy Kim represents New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.

The Dictatorship

Trump administration admits canceling grants based on politics

Published

2 minutes ago

July 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump administration admits canceling grants based on politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” — in this case, 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

The statement contradicts repeated assertions by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or had other problems that made them a poor investment of taxpayer dollars.

Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing Friday, saying the administration had “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views.

Democrats say what was ‘obvious’ has now been acknowledged

“This administration has now admitted in court what has long been obvious: it terminated nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects for no reason other than the fact that the states they were in did not vote for the president in the 2024 election,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state. Both are high-ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees, respectively.

“Weaponizing the federal government like this is outright un-American, and it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power,” Kaptur and Murray said.

They called on congressional Republicans to join them in holding the Trump administration “accountable for the President’s failure to look out for all Americans.”

The Energy Department announced last October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated, saying that after review, they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.”

The cuts, part of broader attacks from President Donald Trump on climate programs and clean energy funding, slashed federal support for projects to build battery plants, develop hydrogen technology, upgrade the electric grid and capture carbon dioxide emissions.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, highlighted the cutbacks in a social media post, saying money “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.”

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Projects from many states were cut

Projects that were cut were located in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. All 16 targeted states supported Harris, but Wright said the cuts were “business decisions” based on whether the projects were a good use of taxpayer money or not.

The cuts were immediately challenged in court, and more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, wrote a letter to the Energy Department’s acting inspector general requesting a formal investigation. The department’s internal watchdog launched an investigation in December.

Government lawyers had p reviously confirmed in a court filing late last year that the selection of grants in fact “was influenced by whether a grantee’s address was located in a State that tends to elect … Democratic candidates in state and national elections (so-called “Blue States”).”

That filing came in a separate suit filed by clean energy groups and the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, over the canceled funding. The most recent admission came in a case called Thakur v. Trump that’s been ongoing since last spring. Federal lawyers acknowledged that they used keywords related to diversity, gendervaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, said the latest court filing shows “the Trump administration is brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach to cancelling much-needed energy infrastructure that ignores the job losses, air pollution and increasing bills that people are experiencing everywhere.”

Instead of “building the energy projects we desperately need,” billions of American taxpayer dollars are “going to line the pockets of a small handful of fossil fuel company CEOs,” Bender said, citing nearly $3 billion pledged by the Trump administration to cancel offshore wind projects in favor of fossil fuel projects such as natural gas and coal.

The Dictatorship

Trump orders signs warning of ‘inaccurate information’ at Smithsonian museum

Published

9 hours ago

July 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump orders signs warning of ‘inaccurate information’ at Smithsonian museum

Christmas. 25, 2026, 4:21 PM EDT

If President Donald Trump gets his way, the first thing visitors to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History will be greeted with are signs warning them that because of “inaccurate information presented in the Museum” they should seek “accurate information” elsewhere.

The president on Friday ordered the installation of temporary “warning” signs on the museum’s sidewalks, marking a major escalation in his campaign to pressure the Smithsonian Institution to rewrite American history to better align with his administration’s ideology.

The executive order directs Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and several other Cabinet officials to utilize “all available authorities to encourage” the Smithsonian Institution to “correct the issues found” in a scathing White House reportreleased on July 4 that accused the museum of “extreme political activism” and claimed it “cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic.”

The sidewalks and walkways outside of the popular museum, which welcomes just shy of two million visitors annually, are federal property controlled by the National Park Service. The signs would “notify visitors that the Museum exhibits should be renovated consistent” with the findings of the July 4 report. They would also “direct visitors to locations and resources for accurate information regarding America’s history.”

Trump also accused the museum of failing to “to appropriately honor the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence during this 250th anniversary year of the founding of our country,” and instructed Burgum to install “temporary exhibits” on Smithsonian walkways to correct “inaccurate information presented in the Museum.”

“The Report demonstrates that the Smithsonian leadership does not present American history as a shared national inheritance to be taught and celebrated, but instead views American history as a ‘prime tool’ to advance ideas of social justice and the radical transformation of our society,”according to the newly signed executive order.

The signage order followed a week of congressional testimony by Smithsonian officials in hearings called by House Republicans in response to the White House report. Anthea Hartig, head of the National Museum of American History, was grilled over her patriotism and dedication to country.

Hartig said the White House report “does not fairly characterize the full body of work of this museum.” And under questioning from GOP lawmakers she reaffirmed her allegiance to her country multiple times, at one point answering, “I love this country unconditionally.”

The report, oversight hearings and signage demand compound more than a year of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against the world’s largest museum, education and research complex. In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order that vowed to strip federal funding from Smithsonian programs that present what he viewed as “improper, divisive, or anti-American” ideology.

The Trump administration has since threatened to withhold federal funding from the Smithsonian Institution unless a number of its museums submit documentation for an expansive content review.

Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens full-scale war as his tariffs take hold and gas prices soar

Published

9 hours ago

July 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Christmas. 25, 2026, 2:30 PM EDT

As his new tariffs went into effect and gas prices climbed on Saturday, President Donald Trump said he’s not ruling out a full-scale war.

In a phone interview with French journalist Sonia Dridi, Trump said he’s “absolutely” considering resuming full-scale war with Iran if the U.S. doesn’t “get 100% of what we want.”

The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday the U.S. is “talking” to Iran, adding that he believes Iran is “getting more and more serious as the days go by” but “that doesn’t mean we get there.” Friday night was the first in 13 consecutive nights that the U.S. did not strike Iran.

The national average gas price rose slightly Saturday to $4.11 a gallon as Trump’s newly imposed tariffs on goods from more than 80 countries threatened to heap further financial strain on Americans ahead of the midterms. The reporter said when she asked Trump whether he would follow through with his threat to levy “substantial” new tariffs on the European Union, which he has accused of “robbing” American tech companies, he declined to comment.

The tariffs, which took effect Friday and have already been challenged in court, could cost American households an extra $1,100 annually, according to an analysis by The Budget Lab at Yale University. That comes at a time when consumers are already shelling out more for necessities, including gas and groceries, as the Iran war drives inflation and energy prices upward.

Gas price averages in the United States surpassed $4 a gallon on July 20 for the first time in more than a month as fighting in the Iran war escalated following the collapse of a temporary ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran, which the White House billed as a significant step toward substantial nuclear negotiations and a permanent peace deal.

With the war soon to enter its sixth month, there has been little public progress on an agreement between Washington and Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuzthe vital trade waterway that has become a major source of contention since the war began on Feb. 28. Iran declared the strait closed “until further notice” earlier this month, and the U.S. military’s bid to forge an alternate route for shipping oil and other goods along Oman’s coast has been hamstrung by new threats.

In the middle of it all, Americans are feeling the pain.

More than half of Americans reported feeling more stressed about their finances than they were one year ago in a quarterly CNBC and SurveyMonkey survey released last week. Optimism for a better financial outlook was low, too, with half of Americans reporting they believe the U.S. economy will worsen over the next year because of international turmoil, government policy and the rising cost of living.

Patience with the economic cost of the president’s military campaign in Iran has slipped in recent polling, even among Trump’s most ardent supporters, with 37% of self-identified MAGA Trump voters saying the U.S. should only continue the war if it does not further increase costs, according to a POLITICO poll published on July 22. In May, half of Trump’s base thought the war was worth its economic costs.

While the White House has taken steps to address the prices at the pump as the midterms approach, Trump himself has so far done little to publicly address the financial pain Americans are feeling.

And his latest effort to resurrect his global tariff regime following the Supreme Court’s February strike down of his “liberation” day tariffs threatens to add insult to injury. The latest tariffs apply to countries that make up 99.4% of U.S. trading partners. Brought under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which enables the government to levy import taxes in response to unfair trade practices, the tariffs range from 10% to 12.5%.

The Liberty Justice Center, the legal nonprofit that represented the plaintiffs in the successful challenge of Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, is leading a new lawsuit challenging his authority to levy the Section 301 tariffs.

Emily Hung contributed to this report.