Charlie Kirk “Cancel Culture” Firings Just Got Bigger, Epstein Trump Panic, & Luigi Mangione Updates
PDS Published 09/25/2025
-
Republican leaders are apparently so scared of the Epstein Files getting out that they’re now threatening their colleagues, and this as Trump is afraid the files might implicate his friends.
That is the latest we are seeing on this story, and we will start with the bipartisan effort launched by Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna.
Right, they have been working to gather enough signatures on a discharge petition that would force the House to vote on a bill requiring the DOJ to release the files.
And now that a Democrat in Arizona just won a House seat in a special election this week, it seems they’ve secured enough support to get the ball rolling.
That Democrat, Adelita Grijalva (Add-uh-lee-tuh Gree-hall-vuh), has already committed to signing the petition once sworn in, and she will be the 218th person to back it, and 218 is the magic number here.
So you have Ro Khanna saying:
“We’re one step closer to releasing the full Epstein files and justice for the survivors.”
But two reports from yesterday suggest there are still efforts to stop this progress.
With Thomas Massie telling Semafor that leaders in the Republican party are trying to get some representatives to walk back their support.
Claiming that House Speaker Mike Johnson and “some of the powers that be in DC are in full panic right now.”
And also adding:
“They came back and tried to get the four of us to take our names off of the petition. They asked some of my colleagues who are co-signers. And they actually threatened them politically, not physically.”
And this is notable because Massie is one of four Republicans who signed the petition, alongside Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And yesterday, you had CNN reporting something similar, with sources telling the outlet that GOP members are “privately being pressured to withdraw” from the petition.
Though, the outlet did speak to Boebert, who said she has not faced pressure and will be keeping her name on board.
But still, if you go onto Twitter, you can see there are clear tensions and divisions in the party regarding bringing the Epstein files forward.
Just yesterday, you had Rep. Clay Higgins slamming Massie for his petition, arguing:
“It’s a shame, what my friend Thomas has done, attempting to injure the Republican Party and ignore privacy rights of hundreds of innocent Americans who may have their life turned upside down because of his weird petition.”[]
And this is part of a talking point Mike Johnson has been using too, right, claiming the legislation does not go far enough to protect the victims’ whose information could be in the files. []
But Massie has not only defended himself against that claim, but said that Republicans need to just essentially get over it and brace for a vote, saying:[]
“They’re going to have a vote. I think they’re coming to terms with that. I’m going to bet the speaker is probably going to hand out hall passes to some congressmen, because this is an 80/20 issue.”
And it is worth noting that none of this would force the Epstein files to be released overnight, right.
The petition won’t see any official forward motion until Congress reconvenes, and after it officially lands 218 signatures, they have to wait seven legislative days to actually vote on the matter. []
Then, you had the New York Times noting that Mike Johnson will likely have a few paths to take to put the vote off on his end,
Though, Massie has argued that if Johnson does try to evade the vote, “there’s enough notoriety on this issue that people will know that he’s sweeping this under the rug.”[]
So he argues that it would just be a bad look, but of course, there is also the question of what the Senate would do if the ball lands in their court.[]
And this all comes as the Wall Street Journal just did a piece about the White House’s efforts to reign in all the Epstein discourse.
With it basically explaining how the administration has tried to handle it from January until today, and TLDR: it sounds like no one at any point had ever been on the same page for even a minute.
And some standout moments of that article include the Journal saying that:
“Trump has told aides he was worried some of his friends might be mentioned in the files, and has complained that people should be talking about the administration’s wins, not about Epstein, according to people familiar with the comments. At other times, he worried aloud that the files might have been doctored to hurt him.”
And on top of that, sources also told that the Journal that Trump:
“told aides he couldn’t understand why people were so obsessed with the deceased financier and sex offender…People don’t understand that Palm Beach in the 90s was a different time, he groused.”
But as politicians are not giving up the Epstein fight, neither is the public.
Right, you may have seen that a statue of Trump and Epstein holding hands was put up in the National Mall this week.
With a little plaque saying the statue was in honor of friendship month, as Epstein previously said Trump was his “closest friend.”
But after being up for just around a day, it has been removed.
This even though, according to NPR, the National Park Service did issue a permit for the statue allowing it to be up until Sunday,
But a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior told the outlet the statue was taken down "because it was not compliant with the permit issued.”
But now, the group who orchestrated the statue is accusing the Trump administration of yet again cracking down on free speech critical of the president, saying this is just another domino falling after the Jimmy Kimmel ordeal.
So as always with this story, we will have to wait to see where things go next, but I would love to know your thoughts on any of this here.
-
Elon Musk may be gone, but it looks like DOGE just may be coming back.
Because with a government shutdown looking more and more inevitable, the White House is threatening another round of mass layoffs at the executive branch. [B roll, 03:54]
Right, and for context, what usually happens during shutdowns is that many federal workers get furloughed, meaning they go on temporary unpaid leave and receive back pay when the shutdown ends.
But instead of doing that, the White House sent a memo to its agencies last night telling them to prepare to lay off workers permanently if a shutdown occurs. [Headline]
Leading many to ask, if you wouldn’t fire them without a shutdown, and you could just furlough them without pay if there is a shutdown, then why would you take the extra step of firing them completely?
And there’s a couple of possible answers to that.
The first being that Trump just doesn’t really care about these workers anyway, something the memo itself seemed to suggest by singling out positions it deems “not consistent” with the president’s political agenda. [Image and Quote]
In fact, it even states that government functions that Republicans like, such as defense and immigration enforcement, will continue uninterrupted because they’re funded by the Big Beautiful Bill. [Quote, find “uninterrupted”]
Thereby implying that stuff Democrats like, which covers, you know, most of the government, would be affected.
And then the second explanation for this memo is that Trump’s trying to force Democrats to pass a funding bill next week.
Or in less friendly language, holding a gun to the head of the federal workforce and threatening to pull the trigger if Democrats don’t hand over the cash.
Which is essentially how the president of the government workers’ union put it in their reaction to the news, writing:
“Federal employees are not bargaining chips. They are veterans, caregivers, law enforcement officers, and neighbors who serve their country and fellow Americans every day. They deserve stability and respect, not pink slips and political games.” [Quote]
But from the White House’s perspective, it’s the Democrats who are threatening a shutdown in the first place.
Because last week, Republicans put forth a short-term funding bill they called “clean,” meaning it didn’t contain any partisan policies; it just kept the status quo going. [Headline]
But Senate Democrats blocked it, proposing an alternative bill that contains more than a trillion dollars to reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programs and extend the Obamacare subsidies. [Quote, find “trillion”]
But Republicans blocked that too, leaving one more chance to break the deadlock.
With Trump supposed to have a meeting with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, but already over the weekend he seemed pessimistic. [Image]
[Clip, 00:57 - 01:08] Caption: “We’ll continue to talk to the Democrats, but I think you could very well end up with a closed country for a period of time.”
And then on Monday night, Republican leaders in Congress reportedly called Trump to urge him not to talk to Democrats, claiming their bill is too expensive and would fund healthcare for illegal immigrants. [Quote, find “wish list”]
So on Tuesday, Trump backed out of the meeting, explaining on Truth Social:
“After reviewing the details of the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats in return for their Votes to keep our thriving Country open, I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive.” [Post]
With him claiming they want to “essentially create Transgender operations for everybody,” and finishing, “I look forward to meeting with you when you become realistic about the things that our Country stands for.” [Post]
Then you had Schumer firing back on PBS:
[Clip, 01:22 - 01:36, 01:03 - 01:07] Caption: “To prevent the average American who was on ACA’s healthcare bill from going up $5,000 a year is not radical. To try to keep so many rural hospitals which are in danger of closing is not radical. … he is derelict in his duty as president. He should be sitting down with us.”
And now, even after the threat to fire workers on mass again, Schumer still won’t back down, with him writing:
“This is an attempt at intimidation. Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today.” [Quote]
And many are saying this is a big move for Schumer, who just six months ago angered much of his party by refusing to block a Republican funding bill and cause a shutdown.
But a lot has changed since then, with New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, who’s become a real thought leader for the Democrats this year, arguing the conditions that made the shutdown a bad idea in March no longer exist. [B roll, 00:00]
Saying first, shutting down the government might have shut down the courts, which at the time were blocking many of Trump’s most aggressive actions. [Image]
Second, shutting it down would have given Trump more authority to allocate the remaining funds, which could’ve empowered DOGE to fire more people faster. [B roll, 00:39]
And third, shutting it down could give Republicans a scapegoat for the economic crisis Trump was creating with his tariffs. [B roll, [B roll, 01:05]
But arguably all three of those don’t apply anymore.
Right, first, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have given Trump much of what he wants. [Image]
Second, DOGE’s assault has simmered down, Elon Musk has left, and Trump’s appointees have taken over. [B roll]
And third, Trump’s already taken the political hit for his tariffs, and the markets have settled into this new normal.
Plus even with this week’s threat to fire more workers, many argue that Trump will do that anyway, with or without a shutdown.
And as evidence, they point to the fact that he’s gotten away with pretty much all his firings thus far, primarily thanks to the Supreme Court.
Right, earlier this month, for example, a federal judge ruled that the mass firings of probationary workers were illegal, but declined to order that they be reinstated. [Headline]
Saying that not only has too much time passed — right, the workers have already “moved on with their lives and found new jobs” — but also the Supreme Court would almost certainly just overrule his reinstatement order anyway. [Quote same link, find “overrule”]
And then yesterday, another federal judge ruled that the firings of eight inspectors general were “obviously” illegal, but also declined to order them reinstated. [Headline]
Saying it probably wouldn’t matter because Trump would just fire them again anyway, making sure to jump through a couple of procedural hoops that would make it legal. [Quote same link, find “not matter”]
So as of a couple weeks ago, Klein had already concluded: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 06:06 - 06:17, 06:36 - 06:53] Caption: “We are no longer in the muzzle velocity stage of this presidency, where Donald Trump is trying things and seeing what sticks. We are in the authoritarian consolidation stage. … You could still, under mafia rule, get the trash picked up, buy cement, but the point of those industries had become the preservation and expansion of the mafia’s power and wealth. This is what Donald Trump is doing to the government. This is what Democrats cannot fund.”
But that’s the political argument for a shutdown; many on the other side of this debate argue it’s a bad idea for economic reasons.
With the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics telling The New York Times:
“The economy is quite vulnerable. In a more resilient time, I think even a prolonged shutdown wouldn’t derail the economy. But in the current economy, it could very well be the thing that pushes us under.” [Quote]
And that because it could cut off loans to small businesses, depress consumer spending, and create general chaos and uncertainty.
Which is what we’ve seen historically; right, generally speaking, eevery week the government is shut down can shave off about one-tenth of a percentage point from GDP that quarter. [Quote same link, find “shave off”]
And the longer it continues, the worse things get, and the harder it is for the economy to recover. [Same quote]
And this time, many believe that if a shutdown happens, it could last especially long.
Right, because both sides are dug in, politics is more polarized than ever, and the president is someone who showed himself willing to endure the longest shutdown in American history during his first term.
But we’re gonna have to wait and see, because we’ve still got until midnight on September 30, and who knows, anything can happen.
-
Dozens of educators all over America have lost their jobs for comments they posted on social media after Charlie Kirk’s death — and now, many of them are suing for free speech violations.
And there are a TON of different examples we’ve seen cropping up recently.
Right, one of the most notable examples that we’ve seen in the headlines is Lauren Vaughn, a former teacher aide in Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
And she is currently suing the school district she worked at for firing her because she shared a quote Kirk himself said and then argued that all gun violence is a tragedy.
Right, and the quote she shared is one that’s been circulating a lot since his death, where he said that it was “worth it” to have a cost of “some gun deaths every single year” in order to have the Second Amendment rights.
Calling the exchange of lives for the right to bear arms “a prudent deal” that is “rational.”
With Vaughn sharing that quote and then writing “thoughts and prayers.”
And then later making it very clear in the comments that she wasn’t celebrating Kirk’s death, writing:
“[T]he WHOLE point here is that any time someone is killed fits [sic] a tragedy. Even someone I may not like. Even someone I disagree with. But instead of accepting it, why don’t we do something about it?”
Commenting that while she disagreed with Kirk, she was sorry he was shot, and adding: “No satisfaction here.Just heartbreak for anyone and everyone affected by gun violence.”
And while Vaughn ended up deleting her post later the same evening, the school allegedly fired her for violating their social media guidelines, which say that employees “must be respectful and professional in all communications.”
So now, she is accusing the district of violating her rights to free speech.
Asking that the court declare that both her termination and the social media guidelines are illegal under the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions.
And requesting to be reinstated, paid, or given other compensatory payments.
Another case that’s gotten a lot of attention is that of Matthew Kargol, a high school teacher in Iowa who claims he was fired for protected speech after he posted “1 Nazi down” on his personal Facebook account following Kirk’s death.
Arguing that his post “did not threaten any person, did not incite imminent unlawful action and was not directed at any member of the school community.”
And claiming that the termination was politically motivated;
But the school alleges that the post was disruptive, noting that they received over 1,000 calls about it and that the day after Kargol made the post, just under 10% of students were absent.
Though, notably, that was also the day after Kirk’s death… so that could also explain the absences.
But, beyond that, we’ve also seen a number of lawsuits coming from educators who were fired at the university level.
This including Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota, who was fired for a Facebook post where he wrote:
“Where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And capital police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading nazi. A shrug, maybe.”
And while he deleted the post a few hours later and apologized, you had top Republican leaders in the state — including the governor and the State House Speaker — criticizing Hook and applauding his termination.
But, very notably here, just yesterday, a federal court temporarily reinstated Hook while his case alleging free speech violations plays out.
And he wasn’t the only university employee who is now suing after being fired amid backlash from high-ranking state officials.
We also saw the ACLU of Indiana filing a lawsuit on behalf of the former director of health promotion and advocacy at Ball State University.
Alleging that the school violated her First Amendment rights by firing her for a post where she wrote that she couldn’t be friends with people who thought that Kirk was a “wonderful person” but added:[]
“His death is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for his wife and children.”
Saying that she will “pray for his soul” and continuing: “Charlie Kirk's death is a reflection of the violence, fear and hatred he sowed. It does not excuse his death, AND it's a sad truth.”
And like the other cases we’ve seen, the university claims she was fired for causing a disruption.
But, notably, the ACLU argues that it was actually the people who politicized her message online who amplified the disruption — including the state’s Attorney General, who shared the post.
Right, and those are just some of the main examples we’ve been seeing news coverage of — there are likely already other educators who have filed lawsuits, and there will almost certainly be more in the future.
I mean, it seems like every day there are new stories coming out about teachers and administrators being fired for comments they made about Kirk.
And meanwhile, Republican politicians and public figures have continually been pressuring schools to fire employees who post anything negative about Kirk and openly praising those who follow through.
Hell, we’ve even seen a conservative PAC launching a campaign to expose teachers who have made posts “celebrating” Kirk’s death online, encouraging people to report them through an online portal.
So, as a result, experts say these first suits that we’re talking about — they’re going to be key test cases in what will certainly be a much bigger and longer battle.
But, of course, this isn’t just limited to education — right, as we’ve talked about before, there’s also been a concerted push by top GOP leaders for companies to fire employees who have made negative posts about Kirk.
But legal experts say it’s different in the public education sector because they are public employees, so their employers have to meet a higher bar to fire them for speech than someone who works at a private company.
Right, they have to show that the staff members’ posts created a disruption — like interfering with classes or the operation of a school.
But, according to Adam Goldstein, the vice president of strategic initiatives at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, generating controversy or complaints is usually not enough to warrant a firing.
Arguing that, in many of these cases, the teachers’ punishment is not proportionate to their alleged offense — especially because there are other disciplinary actions that can be taken without going as far as full-blown termination — with him explaining:
“It’s very weird to live in a world where Charlie’s wife can forgive the shooter, but we can’t forgive a teacher who quoted him.”
Right, but, of course, we’re talking about a wide range of posts here — some go a lot further than others.
And on that note, I want to end this one by asking what you think about all this — is there a line in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed? What kind of content do you think goes too far? Do you think educators should be fired for expressing their beliefs in a non-violent manner?
Go to ProprDental, use code DEFRANCO to treat your gums to 20% off today!
-
Trump’s Justice Department has made it impossible for Luigi Mangione to have a fair trial.
At least, that’s what his lawyers argue – and now a federal judge is demanding an explanation.
I’ll explain.
Right, back in April, US District Judge Margaret Garnett explicitly warned DOJ officials to avoid speaking publicly about the case in order to ensure a fair trial.
But especially in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, we’ve seen the Trump administration testing that order – pointing to Mangione allegedly killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson as just one example of radical left violence threatening America.
Except…they’ve had a tendency to forget about that word “allegedly.”
Right, last week, Trump said on Fox News that Mangione “shot someone in the back as clear as you’re looking at me.” (BYTE: 0:03-0:08, 0:09-0:11, 0:36-0:51)
You then had a White House-related account posting that clip.
The deputy director of the DOJ's public affairs then shared that post and added: “@POTUS is absolutely right.”
And the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general then shared that post. []
Also, on Monday, you had White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referring to Mangione as a “left-wing assassin”.
And the next day, you had deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller saying that Thompson was “”was brutally gunned down by another self-described so-called anti-fascist."
And so with all that, you’ve had Mangione’s lawyers arguing that the administration had “indelibly prejudiced Mr. Mangione by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events, and left-wing extremist groups, despite there being no connection or affiliation” – and adding: []
“The attempts to connect Mr. Mangione with these incidents and paint him as a ‘left wing’ violent extremist are false, prejudicial, and part of a greater political narrative that has no place in any criminal case, especially one where the death penalty is at stake.” []
And in response, you had Judge Margaret Garnett agreeing that it at least “appeared” the administration violated her earlier warning.
And she ordered the government to submit a sworn declaration by the end of next week explaining “how these violations occurred” and what steps were being taken to ensure none occur in the future. []
With her further warning that any additional violations could result in sanctions including financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or what she called “relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.” []
And notably, with that, she was just talking about those justice department officials reposting Trump.
She said would consider Trump himself – as well as the comments made by Leavitt and Miller – when she considered a motion filed over the weekend challenging the DOJ’s decision to seek the death penalty.
Right, with that, you had Mangione’s lawyers arguing that the DOJ violated his constitutional rights and prejudiced the case against him –
Including by turning his arrest into a spectacle with that highly choreographed “perp walk” that his lawyers argue “was done solely to prejudice him and without the slightest legitimate law enforcement objective.”
And so we’ll have to see what happens there, although, notably, this is all fresh off the heels of one legal victory for Mangione.
Right, you had a New York state judge dismissing terrorism charges against him earlier this month – of course, leaving the murder charges in place.
And that’s as it’s the separate federal case where he’s potentially facing the death penalty.
But we’ll have to see how all this legal wrangling plays out and then see what happens when we get to an actual trial.
-
The Gaza aid mission with Greta Thunberg onboard has said it’s under attack by Israeli drones – and now Italy and Spain are deploying naval vessels to keep them safe.
But to back up, the Global Sumud (Suh-mud - LISTEN) Flotilla, or the GSF? It’s trying to get aid into Gaza via ships setting sail from ports across the Mediterranean.
It’s reportedly the fourth and the largest challenge to Israel’s naval blockade – a blockade that, notably, has been in place since long before the current war in Gaza.
With Israel having argued it’s needed to keep Hamas from importing arms while critics have called it a form of collective punishment that helped turn Gaza into an open-air prison.
But in any case, the GSF? It’s reportedly made up of over 50 small vessels from 44 countries, with over 500 crew, including Greta Thunberg.
Right, she was also part of the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” – which was intercepted by Israeli forces in July.
Although, notably, that was after activists onboard said they had been targeted by an Israeli drone in international waters off the coast of Malta.
And there, the IDF didn’t deny involvement – and an Israeli Air Force cargo plane was picked up on flight trackers circling the waters near Malta for an extended period of time before the attack. []
And now, in the case of the GSF, activists have reported several attacks since they set sail at the start of September.
The latest came this week with GSF in a press release reporting that at least 13 explosions were heard – and claiming these attacks were part of a sustained Israeli campaign of intimidation.
That said, you had the Italian Defense Minister only condemning what it called an attack carried out by “currently unidentified perpetrators.”
You also had the prime minister speaking of her “total condemnation” of the drone strike on Tuesday night, adding that Italy is “conducting [its] own investigation to determine who is responsible.”
Though, notably, you also had her criticizing the flotilla as “dangerous and irresponsible” and arguing it was aimed at “creating problems” for her government.
Still, the government has reportedly dispatched two naval vessels to assist Italian citizens on board.
And you also had the Spanish prime minister saying it’s sending a ship to assist the flotilla “in the event of any difficulties” and for a potential rescue operation.
As for Israel, it hasn’t really addressed the drone attack allegations, instead arguing the flotilla is “organized by Hamas” and “is intended to serve Hamas.”
Though, with that, it has said that it’d be willing to transfer the aid from the flotilla to Gaza through a port in Israel.
But the flotilla reportedly refused, and so you had the foreign ministry responding by accusing the organizers of “pursuing a violent course of action” – adding:
“If the flotilla continues to reject Israel’s peaceful proposal, Israel will take the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the combat zone and to stop any violation of a lawful naval blockade, while making every possible effort to ensure the safety of its passengers.”
So we’ll have to see where this ends up – but hopefully not with anyone getting hurt.
Although, of course, that is not the case inside of Gaza, where the Israeli military has ramped up its ground offensive into Gaza City – reportedly killing nearly 100 people throughout the territory yesterday – including 55 people in Gaza City alone.
And that’s as last week an independent United Nations inquiry concluded for the first time that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
-
Donald Trump is ready to offer Argentina a multi-billion dollar bailout to help his friend Javier Milei stay in power.
At least, that’s what you have many people saying right now – and not for no reason.
But to start, let’s talk about how we got here.
Right, Argentina’s economy has been facing crises for decades.
And when Javier Milei inherited that economy, he started implementing radical pro-market reforms and harsh austerity measures that have reduced inflation, for example, but have also entailed major cuts to wages, pensions, education, culture, and public infrastructure.
And with that, his policies have sparked mass protests – and lawmakers have recently voted to overturn his vetoes to restore funding for public health and education.
All while his popularity also hasn’t been helped by the fact that his administration has been racked by corruption scandals.
And so what we ended up seeing is Milei’s party losing a key provincial election by a landslide earlier this month.
With this then spurring investors pulling their money out of the country worried that he’ll no longer have the support he needs to keep up his business-friendly agenda .
But despite all that, Milei– who campaigned on Making Argentina Great Again and has lavished praise on Donald Trump – has one good thing going for him: Trump loves him.
And when you had the pair meeting at the UN this week, you had Trump announcing that Milei had his “complete and total endorsement for re-election as president.”
And that election isn’t for a couple years but congressional elections are happening next month.
And what we’ve seen is that the White House is serious about helping Milei. .
Right, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent writing on X that his department is ready to purchase Argentina’s USD bonds and will do so as conditions warrant”;
Is “prepared to deliver significant stand-by credit via the Exchange Stabilization Fund”
And is “currently in negotiations with Argentine officials for a $20 billion swap line with the Central Bank.”
With him also noting that the U.S. “stands ready to purchase secondary or primary government debt.”
And as far as what all that exactly means? It’s all technical and it’s kind of besides the point.
What’s really notable here is that you’ve had Bessent making it clear that this is aimed at helping Milei ahead of next month’s election – describing the aid as a “bridge to the election.”
With one expert telling CNN this “doesn’t make any sense from a realist, strategic perspective.”
“This kind of stuff only really makes sense within an ideological framework.” []
And so you’ve actually had the likes of Elizabeth Warren arguing that this is a far cry from Trump’s promise to put “America First”– writing on X:
“Donald Trump wants to lend $20 billion of our money to bail out a political ally and his global investors before an election.”
“Oh, and Argentina just struck a major deal with China that crushes American soybean farmers already suffering from Trump's tariffs.”
And with that, you actually have had the American Soybean Association criticizing the Trump administration for the very reason Warren said.
But beyond that, you’ve had experts saying this whole situation is just yet another example of Trump’s approach to foreign policy being largely based on whether he likes the person in power.
With a former senior U.S. State Department official and expert on Latin America explaining:
“You see a stark contrast between how the U.S. treats leaders who are perceived as friendly versus those it perceives as unfriendly. The definition of friendly is what has changed,”
“It is not as much a state-to-state relationship as we might have seen in the past. It is more about personalities and individuals.” []
But with that, we’ll have to wait and see what comes of this, what kind of deal we actually end up with, and if it ends up affecting elections in Argentina next month.
