IT'S ABOUT TO GET WORSE! Trump Charlotte Subway Stabbing Fallout, Chicago War Threats, & Bad Polling
PDS Published 09/08/2025
-
A Ukrainian refugee was stabbed to death on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina.
And while that actually happened last month, a video showing the moments before the fatal attack has just been released.
And the whole tragedy has now become fuel for those in the MAGA world who claim there’s rampant crime in this country, that it’s being enabled by Democratic politicians and liberal judges, and that white people are the biggest victims.
But before we get into all that, let’s break down what exactly we know about what happened.
Starting with the victim’s name, which was Iryna Zarutska (ee-REE-nah zah-ROOT-skah).
Right ,she reportedly fled Kyiv in 2022.
On August 22nd, a little before 10pm, she boarded the Charlotte Area Transit System’s blue line.
And she sat down right in front of the man who would end up taking her life (BROLL: 2:13-2:20)
With a detective explaining in an affidavit what happened next, writing:
“The train travels for approximately four and half minutes before the suspect pulls knife from his pocket, unfolds the knife, pauses, then stands up, and strikes at the victim three times.” (BROLL: 2:34-2:37) []
“Blood visibly drips on the floor as the defendant walks away from the victim. The victim goes unresponsive shortly after the attack…There appears to be no interaction between the victim and defendant.” (BROLL: 2:32-2:44)[]
And with that,the killer? He’s 34-years-old.
And notably, according to local outlet WCNC, he has 14 previous court cases in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
In 2015, for example, he was sentenced to six years in prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering and larceny. []
With the suspect’s mother reportedly telling reporters that he had changed when he got home from prison, saying:
“He started saying weird things.”
“He started saying that he wasn’t in his body.” []
And with that, she said he became aggressive, and that she was able to get an involuntary commitment order from the courts.
She said he then underwent psychiatric monitoring for two weeks and was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
But he was ultimately released and became so aggressive that she had no choice but to kick him out – leaving him homeless. []
With him most recently being arrested for misusing 911.
Right, according to a January arrest record, he told responding officers that he believed someone gave him “man-made” material that was inside his body, controlling when he ate, walked, and talked. []
However, he was reportedly never hospitalized or jailed following that call.
And his mother has actually blamed the court for allowing her son to be out in the community knowing his previous arrests and mental health issues, saying Zah-ROOT-skah’s death could have been prevented. []
But with that said, the suspect has been charged with first-degree murder.
And his lawyer said he will file a motion for an evaluation of his competency to stand trial because of his “long history” of mental health issues. []
And in the meantime, he’s being held without bond, and his next court appearance is reportedly scheduled for the 19th of September.
And while we wait to see how this case progresses – including if the suspect is deemed fit to stand trial – we gotta talk about how this case has been covered, or not covered, and how that’s part of the backlash we're seeing.
Right, according to Ground News, as of recording, the killing has been covered far more by right-wing media outlets.
And you have some influential social media accounts specifically accusing major national news outlets of not covering it because of the racial dynamics of the whole thing – with some contrasting it to the case of Daniel Penny.
Right, Penny? He is white, and he choked to death a homeless Black man who was threatening passengers on a subway car in Manhattan in 2023.
And that ended up being a super high-profile case in which a jury ultimately found him not guilty.
And so now, with a Black man killing a white woman, you’ve had accounts sharing lists of news networks who had not yet covered the Charlotte killing, with one adding:
“Every single one of them wrote stories on Daniel Penny…do you get it yet?”
You also had Benny Johnson – who was previously revealed to have been paid indirectly by Russia as part of a secret political influence operation – and who has supported Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda – writing:
“She ran from war in Ukraine. She came here for safety. And America FAILED her.”
With him then adding:
‘“This wasn’t random. This was preventable. There is a war on White people. Her blood is on the hands of a system that lets violent criminals roam while innocent people pay the price.
If [she] were Black and her killer White, the media would be rioting nonstop. But because she’s White, they stay silent.
This is evil. And it’s deliberate.”
But of course, to be very clear with all that, police have so far only said the attack appeared random – and they’ve not given any evidence to suggest it was racially motivated.
Though, that said, not all of the backlash has been about race.
Right, a lot of focus has been on the fact that the killer had been arrested so many times, reportedly had a known mental illness, and was still out on the street.
With people like Elon Musk calling on his followers to “ name and shame the DAs and judges who enable murder, rape and robbery. But especially shame those who funded the campaigns of the DAs and judges."
And then Congressman Randy Fine taking it even further, saying has said he plans to introduce legislation "to hold judges accountable" if they release violent offenders who go on to later reoffend, adding:
“Those 12+ judges that released Decarlos Brown Jr. should have their day in court too."
And then, finally, you had some really explicitly making this an attack on the Democratic Party – including White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who already recently called The Democratic Party is a 'domestic, extremist organization'
With him now writing:
“The Democrat Party at every level — judges, politicians, academics, nonprofits — is organized around the defense and protection of the criminal, the monstrous and the depraved.”
You also had the Republican representing the area blaming what happened on "decades of Democrat [D.A.s] and Sheriffs putting their woke agendas above public safety” – adding:
"Violent criminals commit crimes with impunity, while families live in fear."
And finally, North Carolina Senate candidate Michael Whatley used the case to accuse his Democratic opponent Roy Cooper of being soft on crime – pointing to an executive order Cooper signed in 2020 when he was governor.
Notably, however, that executive order established a "racial profiling task force" and sought to reduce "systemic" racism, but it didn't call for the early release of suspects. []
But of course, all that said, it’s not like there’s nothing to talk about here.
There’s no doubt that this tragedy has raised real questions about Charlotte’s judicial system and mechanisms in place for addressing mental health.
Right, even this guy’s mom said he shouldn’t have been out on the street, and maybe there are others.
Last month, in fact, Charlotte police got into a shootout with a man described as "acting erratically."
And notably, the family had tried to get an involuntary commitment for the man the day before, but a magistrate denied the request, according to police. []
But also, just like nationwide, violent crime rates in Charlotte have been decreasing – at least as of July, when violent crime had decreased 25% compared to last year, according to police. []
And of course as far as blaming Democrats?
Well, both sides can play the blame game.
Right, Republican states have some of the highest crime rates, and the most violent cities are in them.
That said, those cities are often run by Democrats – with an Axios analysis recently finding that homicide rates are actually highest in blue cities in red states, and noting there that city officials are often at odds with state officials.
And ultimately, you have many experts saying there is no real evidence linking crime trends to leadership by either political party.
But of course, none of that means we can’t expect this incident to be used by Trump as he tries to “clean up” the streets across the country - potentially using the military.
Right, we haven’t seen him say much about the stabbing yet except that he needed to learn more, but you did have an advisor telling Axios:
"This is exactly what he's talking about, and it's going to be an issue he's going to highlight. This is not just about North Carolina. Other campaigns will deal with this." []
With him also saying:
"Crime is not a data thing — it's a feeling thing.”
"It's not about whether you're a victim. It's about whether you feel you're a victim or not." []
Right, maybe facts don’t care about your feelings, but if you don’t care about facts that does it matter.
That’s something Trump’s team understands very well.
-
Trump is now walking back threats of war against the city of Chicago!
But before we get into that, you’re going to need a little background.
Right, over the weekend, Trump issued an executive order demanding the Department of Defense be called the Department of War.
Saying this new name, quote,
“... demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend.” []
Now, this is not a brand new name that Trump came up with all by his lonesome - it’s actually what the Department of Defense used to be called until after World War II, when the name was officially changed by Congress.
And he said that since that name change, the US has, quote, “never fought to win” a war. []
Which is essentially what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a recent interview with Fox, signaling this change was coming.
Adding at the time,
["As the president has said, we're not just defense, we're offense. We've reestablished at the Department the warrior ethos. We want warriors, folks that understand how to exact lethality on the enemy. We don't want endless contingencies and just playing defense. We think words and names and titles matter.” 0:13-0:33]
Unlike back in the 40s, however, this “name restoration” doesn’t have congressional approval which means that it isn’t official.
And Trump’s executive order even acknowledges that - saying that the new name will be used as a “secondary title” to the current one.
Now, as you can imagine, this prompted a wave of reactions - both positive and negative - but maybe some of the most important ones were from those within the Department itself.
With former and current Pentagon officials telling Politico that this rebrand will cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they call a cosmetic change that isn’t going to do much to address the big issues the military is dealing with right now.
Like countering an aggressive alliance of authoritarian nations.
With one former defense official saying,
“This is purely for domestic political audiences. Not only will this cost millions of dollars, it will have absolutely zero impact on Chinese or Russian calculations. Worse, it will be used by our enemies to portray the United States as warmongering and a threat to international stability.”
We’re starting to see some changes already - like rebranding on the Department's social media, the website was changed from defense.gov to war.gov, and the word “Defense” being scraped from the walls within the Pentagon.
And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s title was changed to War Secretary - with several photos and videos of new signage outside his office gaining traction online.
But that’s just the beginning - officials told Politico that they are expecting a long-term headache with all of this.
Right, the details of the order are still vague but there’s a chance that the Department will have to change Defense Department seals on more than 700,000 facilities in 40 countries and all 50 states.
Which will include everything from letterhead for six military branches and dozens more agencies down to embossed napkins in feast halls, embroidered jackets for Senate-confirmed officials, and even knick-knacks at the Pentagon gift shop.
And that isn’t going to come cheap - which has prompted its own backlash, even from supporters of the US military.
Like Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who told the Washington Post,
“Perhaps the significant amount of money spent making new signs, office placards and letterhead would be better used ensuring our warfighters have the training and weapons they need to accomplish the missions they are given and to return home to their families.” []
It’s also worth noting that this move and Trump’s justification for it are directly contradictory to the promises he made of peace and ending all wars.
Right, on the campaign trail, Trump presented himself as the anti-war option and the White House branded him as the “President of Peace” just last month.
Hell, the dude is actively campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize.
So changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Department?
It’s raising some eyebrows.
With Pete Buttigieg calling this, quote, “an odd move from the president who worked so hard to convince his base that he was anti-war.”
Before adding,
“... but no doubt he'd rather have folks puzzling over this than thinking about his deep bond with Jeffrey Epstein.” []
And further belying that “President of Peace” branding, one of Trump’s first actions after the name change was threatening to bring his Department of War down on Chicago.
Right, on Saturday, Trump shared a post on Truth Social that included yet another AI-generated image of his face on someone else’s body.
This time, however, it’s a reference to the 1979 film “Apocalypse Now” - except the title read “Chipocalypse Now.”
With Trump’s caption adding,
“‘I love the smell of deportations in the morning...’ Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”
As you can imagine, that wasn’t received well by officials within Illinois - including Governor JB Pritzker.
“The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city. This is not a joke. This is not normal. Donald Trump isn’t a strongman, he’s a scared man. Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.”
And that sentiment was echoed by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson as well as Illinois senator Dick Durbin.
It’s also made worse because this threat follows weeks of comments from Team Trump about sending troops into cities led by Democrats across the country - similar to what he’s done in DC.
And that’s also as immigration enforcement operations are set to ramp up within the city.
Which led to thousands of protestors gathering in the streets of Chicago on Saturday - a couple hundred even blocked an ICE processing center at one point.
Though Illinois officials have asked demonstrators to make sure that everything stays peaceful, pointedly saying that any violent confrontations during this protest may give Trump just the opportunity he needs to send troops into the city. []
But that brings us to yesterday when, for whatever reason, Trump walked back his threat of war in Chicago.
With a reporter asking him about his post outside the White House -
[“Reporter: Are you trying to go to war with Chicago? Trump: It’s just fake news when you say that, darling. That’s fake news. Reporter: Why use the Department of Defense? Trump: Listen, listen. Be quiet. Listen. You don’t listen, you never listen. That’s why you’re second-rate. We’re not going to war. We’re going to clean up our cities. We’re going to clean them up so they don’t kill 5 people every weekend. That’s not war - that’s common sense.” 0:00-0:21]
Though there hasn’t been any further explanation about why he’s talking about using the Department of Defense or War or whatever in Chicago.
Now, this is obviously a situation we’re going to have to keep our eyes on.
But I would love to know your thoughts about this whole thing.
The DoD name change, the way it contradicts Trump's former messaging, his threat against Chicago, the way he walked it back, anything else.
Especially if you’re from Chicago - please let me know what you’re thinking in those comments down below.
You’re 30 seconds away from being debt free with PDS Debt. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at PDS Debt
-
Russia just hit Ukraine with its largest aerial attack of the war – hitting the main government building in Kyiv and reportedly killing at least five people across the country, including a mother and her infant child (BROLL: 0:22-0:32)
And Trump might, maybe, possibly consider doing something to ramp up the pressure on Putin.
Right, because Trump? He has seemingly grown more and more frustrated with the Russian leader.
Last week, he even accused Putin as well as Chinese president Xi Jinping of joining with North Korea to “conspire against” the United States.
But for all that, his threats to punish Russia have so far been empty.
And more than one deadline he’s set for Putin have come and gone without consequence.
With his most aggressive measure so far actually being directed against India – slapping imports from there with 50% tariffs in response to the country’s continued purchase of Russian oil.
And though all of this Putin has only acted like he’s getting ready for this war to last a lot longer.
Right, he has reportedly opened new drone factories in at least two cities over the past year.
And according to Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, Russia now produces 2,700 Iranian-designed Shahed (Shah-hed) drones every month. []
And with that, Russia has been setting new records nearly every month for the number of weapons launched – including, of course, yesterday.
With Zelensky writing on X that the attack involved more than 800 drones and 13 missiles – and adding:
“Such killings now, when real diplomacy could have already begun long ago, are a deliberate crime and a prolongation of the war. It has been repeatedly said in Washington that sanctions will follow a refusal to talk.”
With him then adding: “We must implement everything that was agreed in Paris.”
And there, he’s talking about this meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing” last week.
Where you had With French President Emmanuel Macron announcing that 26 nations “formally committed…to be present on the ground, in the sea, or in the air” as a "reassurance force” in Ukraine “the day after a cease-fire or peace.”
Also claiming that some of the remaining coalition members had “not yet taken a position.”
And with that, major countries like Poland, Germany and Italy, along with the US, of course, are among those that have already declared that they won’t put troops on the ground in Ukraine, even if a deal is reached.
On the flip side, only France, the UK, and the tiny Baltic states of Estonia and Lithuania have suggested they might actually deploy troops in a postwar Ukraine.
Although, with that, Macron later clarified that some of those countries involved in providing security guarantees would do so while “remaining in NATO member countries” or by “making their bases available.”
But still, from some reporting we’ve seen so far, the overall number of troops on the ground in Ukraine would reportedly be more than 10,000 – and they’d be split into two main groups.
One would provide training and assistance to the Ukrainian military.
The second would act as a separate “reassurance force” meant to discourage a future Russian invasion.
Zelensky, of course, has praised the plan, saying:
“I think that today, for the first time in a long time, this is the first such serious concrete step.” []
But notably, we’re also still waiting for a clear statement from Trump on whether the plan has his support, and what – if any – kind of backup can be expected from the US military.
Right, because Trump? He has seemingly warmed to the idea of the U.S. providing some form of security guarantees to Ukraine – not with boots on the ground – but possibly in the form of air power.
And U.S. officials have also reportedly told their European counterparts that the US could help with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
But also, they say it’s ultimately going to be up to Trump – and we haven’t heard anything solid from him.
In fact, also last week, you had the US ending support for programs that were all about helping other armies in Eastern Europe prepare for a potential Russian offensive.
And so ultimately you have people like the head of the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund saying:
“The questions we had before remain the same,”
“We still don’t know whether the United States is ready to provide a backstop that many of the contributors expect.” []
And as of now, the situation is similar when it comes to talk about sanctions.
Right, after the attack this weekend, you had US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent saying that the US is prepared to “increase pressure” on Russia but that “we need our European partners to follow us” – adding:
“We are in a race now between how long can the Ukrainian military hold up versus how long can the Russian economy hold up”
“And if the U.S. and the EU can come in, do more sanctions, secondary tariffs on the countries that buy Russian oil, the Russian economy will be in full collapse, and that will bring President Putin to the table.” (BYTE: 13:03-13:27)
And with that, you also had Trump saying yesterday he was ready to move to “the second phase” of sanctions targeting Russia.
But he stopped short of saying what exactly he meant by that – though, notably, the EU’s most senior sanctions envoy reportedly met with the Trump administration today.
So we’ll have to see what comes from that, especially as you’ve also had Trump saying he would speak with Putin in the next couple of days.
And the last time that happened, in Alaska, he walked away talking about Ukraine giving up massive chunks of its territory.
With Zelensky saying in an ABC News interview that aired yesterday that he thinks Trump “gave Putin what he wanted” – essentially a photo op with the president of the United States.
And with all that, Putin still hasn’t show any sign of being intimated.
With him responding to the idea of foreign troops in Ukraine to provide security guarantees by claiming that if this happened “especially now, during military operations” – they would be “legitimate targets for destruction” – adding: []
“If decisions are reached that lead to long-term peace, then I simply see no reason for their presence on Ukrainian territory.”
“Because if such agreements are reached, let no one doubt that Russia will fully implement them.” (BROLL) []
Though, notably there, you had the NATO Secretary-General clapping back, saying it wasn’t up to Putin, asking:
"Why are we interested in what Russia thinks about troops in Ukraine? It's a sovereign country. It's not for them to decide."
And with that, you had him pointing to European military and intelligence officials who have warned of Russian plans to strike other European countries, and adding:
“...we have to make sure that our deterrence is such that they will never try, knowing that our reaction will be devastating.” []
But ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see where this all goes from here and if an end to the fighting can actually come anytime soon.
-
We gotta talk about how Navy Seals shot up a boat full of North Korean civilians back in 2019 and we’re just learning about it now.
At least, that’s according to this crazy investigation from The New York Times.
Which is reportedly based on interviews with two dozen people, including civilian government officials, members of the first Trump administration, and current and former military personnel with knowledge of the mission. []
With the Times reporting also that it withheld some sensitive information about the mission that could affect future Special Operations and intelligence-gathering missions. []
And with all that, we’re actually gonna start the story back in 2018.
At the time, the whole North Korea situation? It sort of seemed to be improving.
Right, Kim Jong-un suspended all nuclear and missile tests, and he had started negotiating with the US and South Korea – with the North even saying at one point it was “open to ending” its nuclear program.
But for all that, the US? It doubted Kim Jong-un’s true intentions.
And so – according to this investigation – it was around this time that American intelligence agencies revealed to the White House that they had a way to find out: a newly developed electronic device that could intercept Kim Jong-un’s communications. []
Except there was one big catch – someone had to sneak in to NORTH KOREA and plant the device.
And most importantly, they had to do it without being detected.
Right, because at best, discovery would mean the collapse of peace talks.
Worse, it would mean having a hostage situation on our hands.
And worst, it could mean the start of a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed power.
And in fact, during Trump’s first term, top leaders in the Pentagon reportedly believed that even minor military action against North Korea could spiral into the “worst kind of fighting” – possibly involving the 28,000 American troops stationed in South Korea.
But I guess, the opportunity? It was just too tempting.
And so the military picked none other than SEAL Team 6’s Red Squadron to do the job — the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden.
And notably, part of the reason they thought they could pull it off? Because they had done something like it before.
And specifically, in 2005, you have the Times reporting that SEALs used a mini-sub to go ashore in North Korea and leave unnoticed – saying this operation had also never before been reported publicly. []
And of course, this type of operation? It’s so sensitive that it requires the approval of one man: the president.
And in 2018, Donald Trump gave approval to Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees Team 6, to at least start preparing. []
And so the SEALs practiced for months in U.S. waters all the way into the first weeks of 2019.
That February, Trump announced that he would meet Kim Jong-un in Vietnam at the end of the month.
And the mission? It finally went ahead.
And the plan reportedly called for the Navy to sneak a nuclear-powered submarine into the shores of North Korea.
And from there, deploy a small team of SEALs in two mini-subs, each about the size of a killer whale, that would bring them about 100 yards from shore, and from there they would swim. []
And these mini-subs were what’s known as wet subs, meaning the SEALs had to spend the two hours getting there immersed in 40-degree ocean water, using scuba gear and heated suits to survive.
And notably, they’d be going in pretty much blind – and their communications were limited.
Right, because a drone flying overhead, or even an intercepted encrypted transmission could give the whole mission away.
They did have satellites and high-altitude spy planes and those were reportedly used to surveil the mission area months ahead of the operation to try and pick a time when there wouldn’t be anyone else around. []
But of course, there was.
Right, there ended up being a small boat.
The SEALS reached shore thinking they were alone but eventually looked back, saw it, thought they had been discovered, and opened fire.
And when they went back to the boat to make sure everyone was dead, they found the bodies of two or three people who appeared to be civilians diving for shellfish. []
The SEALS then pulled the bodies into the water to hide them from the North Korean authorities, with one source telling the Times that they punctured the boat crew’s lungs with knives to make sure their bodies would sink.[]
And of course, they abandoned the mission, and got the hell out of there.
Immediately afterward, though, U.S. spy satellites reportedly picked up on a surge of North Korean military activity in the area.
But North Korea didn’t make any public statements about the deaths, and it was reportedly never clear whether they ever pieced together what had happened and who was responsible. []
But the nuclear summit in Vietnam went ahead as planned and ended without a deal (BROLL: 0:30-0:35)
By May, North Korea had resumed missile tests.
And in the months that followed, North Korea fired more missiles than in any previous year, including some capable of reaching the United States.
In fact, the U.S. government now reportedly estimates that North Korea has around 50 nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the West Coast. []
And Kim Jong-un has pledged to keep expanding his nuclear program “exponentially” to deter what he calls U.S. provocations.
The US military reportedly determined that the killing of civilians was justified under the rules of engagement. []
And the Trump administration never told leaders of the committees in Congress overseeing military and intelligence activities about the operation or the findings.
Which, notably, may have violated federal law. []
But beyond that, what we’re learning now is also raising questions about all the stuff the military is doing that we’re not seeing.
Right, because the SEALS have had some huge and high-profile successes.
But they’ve also had a lot of missions go badly.
And this actually led Obama to cut back spec ops missions late in his second term and increase oversight, reserving complex SEAL-style raids for special situations like hostage rescues. []
But the first Trump administration got rid of many of those restrictions and reduced the amount of high-level deliberation for sensitive missions.
In fact, a few days after taking office in 2017, Trump reportedly skipped over much of the normal decisionmaking process to authorize a Seal Team Six raid on a village in Yemen.
And that mission left 30 villagers and a SEAL dead and destroyed a $75 million stealth aircraft. []
And of course, now we’ve seen Trump openly take military action in his effort to take on drug cartels.
Right, last week, the US military killed 11 people in international waters his administration claimed without evidence were drug smugglers.
Though, to be clear, even with evidence, even if it’s international waters, you can’t just go around killing people – at least according to how most experts understand the law.
With one law professor who previously worked at the Pentagon, for example, saying about the strike
“It’s difficult to imagine how any lawyers inside the Pentagon could have arrived at a conclusion that this was legal rather than the very definition of murder under international law rules that the Defense Department has long accepted.” []
But with that, I gotta turn this over to you. Thoughts, reactions, opinions – I’d love to hear them in those comments down below.
