The Dictatorship
Trump’s emerging Gaza aid plan is not serious
The Trump administration says it is taking steps to help alleviate starvation in the Gaza Strip induced by Israel’s genocidal restriction of food into the enclave. But based on what we know so far, the efforts would fail to address the real problems with the flow of aid into Gaza — and could provide political cover for Israel as it carries on with its assault on civilian life in the territory.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee signaled Wednesday that the U.S. will take a more prominent role in expanding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s distribution of food in Gaza. He said in an interview with Fox News that the plan is to expand the number of sites distributing food from four to 16. Huckabee also said the sites would operate for longer periods of time; while sites in some cases have opened for mere minutes before announcing they’re out of food, Huckabee said that in the future they could operate for “as much as 24 hours a day.”
This would be an incremental improvement, but akin to placing a Band-Aid on a gaping wound — while also stabbing the patient elsewhere.
This would be an incremental improvement, but akin to placing a Band-Aid on a gaping wound — while also stabbing the patient elsewhere. Here’s why.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is, by its very design, a terrible way to distribute aid to Gaza. Gaza is under a blockade, and prior to May, the United Nations and its partner humanitarian organizations provided food throughout the enclave. The U.N. infrastructure was long-standing, had hundreds of distribution sites and was capable of handing out fresh meals and supplies door-to-door. For more than two months this spring, however, Israel blocked all food and other vital items into the enclave and then largely replaced the U.N. infrastructure with a slapdash operation called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
The GHF is a private group backed by the U.S. and Israel and, according to The Washington Postwas conceived of by an “ad hoc group of Israeli business representatives, the Israel Defense Forces and U.S. private security consultants.” And its emergence as a de facto replacement for U.N. infrastructure is crucial for understanding Israel’s current starvation regime. It reduced primary distribution of food to just four sites, and three out of its four initial sites are in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, making it hard for much of the population to access food. Moreover, the sites provide a much smaller range of food that is not suitable for children or starving populations, and all the sites are in military zones; accessing them is incredibly dangerous. As I explained in a recent pieceGHF sites create a horrifying dilemma for Gazans by forcing them to choose between starving or risking being shot:
Close to a thousand people have been shot and killed while seeking food, according to the United Nations. A former retired Green Beret who worked at the GHF sites said that they ‘were designed as death traps’ and that he witnessed civilians being targeted. (‘Death trap’ is also the term used by a U.N. official to describe the new system.) Humanitarian and famine experts say that the program can’t possibly feed everyone in the territory and that it also ‘humiliates and undermines’ the population. In other words, the GHF is perfectly designed to allow Israel to say it’s doing something for Gaza while winnowing down the population.
Even with 16 sites instead of four and longer periods of service, the aid distribution sites would still be a far cry from the U.N. infrastructure that was already in place and already working. The Trump administration is not addressing the fundamental problem of scrapping the neutral administration of humanitarian aid. Instead, it is doubling down on investing in a militarized humanitarian operation, one backed by a country that has used the cutting off of food, water, medicine and other vital supplies as a weapon of war since the beginning of its operation.
The ostensible pretext for Israel to pivot from U.N. distribution to the GHF were claims that Hamas was stealing aid. But The New York Times, citing two senior Israeli military officials and two other Israelis involved in the matter, reported in July that “the Israeli military never found proof that the Palestinian militant group had systematically stolen aid from the United Nations” and that the U.N. aid system was “largely effective.” (Israel’s government officially maintains that Hamas stole substantial amounts of aid.)
Reuters also recently reported that an internal U.S. government study conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development “found no evidence of systematic theft” of goods by Hamas. (A White House spokesperson claimed no State Department official had seen the study and said it “was likely produced by a deep state operative.”) What we do know is that a surge in starvation-related deaths in Gaza came after Israel paused aid and instituted the GHF.
There’s reason to fear even incremental improvement of the GHF will be poorly executed. Last week, Huckabee visited the Gaza Strip alongside Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and called GHF’s operations an “incredible feat.” Ellie Burgos, an American critical care nurse volunteering at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, told NBC News, “It was a PR stunt, a controlled visit supervised and dictated by the Israeli military.” (NBC News also reported that “on the day of the visit, at least 92 people were killed on Friday across Gaza, including 51 people who were seeking aid.”) The Trump administration is clearly willing to airbrush and downplay the harsh realities on the ground, which should give us reason to doubt that it’ll hold a high bar when trying to allow more food into the enclave.
Ultimately, the core problem is Israel’s endless military operation in Gaza, which it resumed in March after it unilaterally withdrew from a ceasefire deal with Hamas. If the Trump administration were serious about helping Gaza, then it would pressure Israel to end a war that hundreds of ex-Israeli security officials have said no longer serves any military purpose against Hamas and call for an end to a blockade that treats civilians as targets of war. But there is no evidence that the Trump administration desires a serious solution.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.
The Dictatorship
Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.
The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.
Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”
“NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Jackson said in a statement.
PBS, with programming ranging from “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to Ken Burns’ documentaries, has been operating for more than half a century. NPR has news programming from “All Things Considered” and cultural shows like the “Tiny Desk” concerts. For decades, the fates of both systems have been part of a philosophical debate over whether government should help fund their operations.
Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision
The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.
“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.
Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.
“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.
NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.
“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.
PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”
Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.
A victory, though incremental, for press freedom
Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”
“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”
The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.
“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”
NPR and three public radio stations sued administration officials last May. While Trump was named as a defendant, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.
Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.
___
AP Media Writer David Bauder and AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile
More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”
The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:
Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that.’
‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon now.
The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.
If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.
But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.
A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.
Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.
Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.
And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.
Mission accomplished, I guess?
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
Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal
Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.
Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.
“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.
Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.
Lawmakers were back to square one.
But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.
Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.
Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.
“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.
Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.
Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.
“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”
“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’









