Billionaire Elon Musk has been a highly controversial figure for quite a while, but the former DOGE chief is finding new ways to draw attention to himself. The Daily Beast reported:

President Donald Trump’s once and future First Buddy has endorsed a social media post calling for white people — especially men — to defend their political power against other races and ethnicities.

‘If White men become a minority, we will be slaughtered,’ a user going by the name Jerr wrote on X. ‘Remember, if non-Whites openly hate White men while White men hold a collective majority, then they will be 1000x times more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over Whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive.’

To be sure, Musk didn’t write that missive, but just days after dining with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, the billionaire used the social media platform he owns to amplify and endorse the explicitly white supremacist message......

The trouble is, Musk (who’s made similar vows in the recent past before reversing course) has already indicated he’s ready to boost Republicans again ahead of Election Day 2026.

Axios reported a few weeks ago:

Elon Musk has begun funding the GOP’s House and Senate campaigns for the 2026 midterms — an indication his relationship with President Trump has thawed since their messy breakup earlier this year.

Musk — who threatened to launch a third party and support challengers to Republican incumbents during his dispute with Trump — is now firmly back in the GOP’s camp. The tech billionaire recently cut big checks to help Republicans win congressional races next year and indicated he’d give more throughout the 2026 cycle, two sources with knowledge of the situation tell Axios.

.....Will Republican beneficiaries of the billionaire’s generosity face questions about the propriety of accepting money from someone who amplifies white supremacist messages? Watch this space

As Donald Trump considers a maximalist foreign policy vision rooted in his whims and “psychological” needs, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which the rest of the world has taken note of the president’s erratic radicalism. Consider some of the developments from the past week:

The leaders of France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark issued a joint declaration this week that warned the United States that they would “not stop defending” the values of sovereignty and territorial integrity following Trump’s threats related to Greenland.

The U.S. faced a rare rebuke at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council this week, where even our allies said Trump’s military offensive in Venezuela violated the U.N. charter and “chips away at the very foundation of international order.”

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has a largely ceremonial role, warned of a major global realignment this week, insisting that there had been a “breakdown of values by our most important partner, the USA, which helped build this world order.”

The Netherlands announced this week that it’s scaling back its participation in U.S.-led missions to counter drug trafficking in the Caribbean because of its opposition to the Trump administration’s deadly military operations against civilian boats. That came on the heels of a related announcement from Great Britain, which said it would stop intelligence sharing with the U.S. about boats in the Caribbean for the same reason.

If we look back just a few weeks earlier, Denmark’s military intelligence service for the first time also described the U.S. as a potential security risk.

In isolation, each of these stories was and is important, but taken together, the emerging picture is one in which much of the world is not only afraid of what’s become of the United States, but is also forging new partnerships and alliances that leave us behind......

But it’s not only foreign citizens who’ve lost respect for the Trump-led U.S. — it’s also foreign officials, who are increasingly looking at what’s become of us with a combination of fear, disappointment, contempt and confusion.

Russia and China have spent years trying to disrupt U.S. alliances. In 2026, the incumbent American president is doing their job for them.

The Norwegian Nobel Institute said that a Nobel Peace Prize cannot be transferred or shared with another person, responding to comments by Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who said she wanted to "share" her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize with U.S. President Donald Trump.

"A Nobel Prize cannot be revoked nor transferred to others. Once the laureate or laureates are announced, the decision is final," said Erik Aasheim, a spokesperson for the Norwegian Nobel Institute, which serves as the secretariat for the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Aasheim added that while the prize itself is not transferable, laureates are free to dispose of the prize money as they see fit.

The statement followed remarks by Machado during a Fox News interview on Monday, in which she praised Trump's actions that led to the capture of Venezuela's former president, Nicolás Maduro, and said that "because this is the prize of the Venezuelan people, certainly we want to give it to him and share it with him." Machado said she had not spoken directly with Trump since October, when she dedicated the award to him after it was announced.

"For Renee Nicole Good Killed by I.C.E. on January 7, 2026."
by Amanda Gorman

They say she is no more,
That there her absence roars,
Blood-blown like a rose.
Iced wheels flinched & froze.
Now, bare riot of candles,
Dark fury of flowers,
Pure howling of hymns.
If for us she arose,
Somewhere, in the pitched deep of our grief,
Crouches our power,
The howl where we begin,
Straining upon the edge of the crooked crater
Of the worst of what we’ve been.
Change is only possible,
& all the greater,
When the labour
& bitter anger of our neighbors
Is moved by the love
& better angels of our nature.
What they call death & void,
We know is breath & voice;
In the end, gorgeously,
Endures our enormity.
You could believe departed to be the dawn
When the blank night has so long stood.
But our bright-fled angels will never be fully gone,
When they forever are so fiercely Good.

Please like and share!

Donald Trump apparently doesn’t like being referred to as a “dictator.” As recently as Tuesday, the president was whining to House Republicans, “They always call me a dictator.”

It’s an odd thing for him to complain about, especially because, as a candidate in 2024, Trump more than once talked about creating a temporary American “dictatorship” that he wanted to lead. Nevertheless, one day after making the complaint, the president sounded quite dictatorial in his beliefs about the scope of his powers in a lengthy interview with The New York Times. The newspaper reported:

President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.

Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: ‘Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’

As part of the same exchange, the Republican said he doesn’t “need” international law. Pressed on whether he believes his administration must abide by international law, Trump said, “I do,” before adding, “It depends what your definition of international law is.”.....

Around the time of the “No Kings” protests, the president and his team didn’t merely smear American protesters, they also questioned the underlying premise of the protests. It’s one thing to disagree with Trump, they suggested, but it was preposterous hyperbole to suggest he was acting like some kind of authoritarian monarch.

Except that the Republican periodically abandons all subtlety and subtext and chooses instead to admit (in not so many words) that his critics are correct. He promotes images of himself in a crown. He makes Napoleonic declarations such as “he who saves his country violates no law.” He talks about “terminating” parts of the Constitution that stand in the way of his ambitions — and he freely admits that he believes (what remains of) his alleged conscience is “the only thing that can stop me.”

The next time Republicans express outrage that Trump’s detractors are calling him an “authoritarian,” keep this in mind.

Yet another top federal prosecutor installed by the Trump administration is unlawfully serving in their role, this time in the Northern District of New York, a judge has found. That finding follows similar rulings against Lindsey Halligan’s tenure in the Eastern District of Virginia and against other purported top prosecutors in Nevada, New Jersey and California.

The latest ruling came Thursday against John Sarcone III, whom the administration sought to install as the acting U.S. attorney for the Albany-based Northern District. He had requested that subpoenas be issued to the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, apparently in connection with a federal investigation into civil cases she brought against Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.

James moved to quash the subpoenas, leading to the ruling that Sarcone was unlawfully serving.

“Mr. Sarcone’s service was and is unlawful because it bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. Attorney,” U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield wrote.

The Obama-appointed judge noted that U.S. attorneys must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. She said that while federal law provides limited alternatives to temporarily fill vacancies, none of them authorized Sarcone to serve as acting U.S. attorney when he sought the subpoenas in question......

James, of course, figures in the Virginia appointment litigation as well, because she was one of Halligan’s targets for prosecution. Finding in November that Halligan was unlawfully appointed, a judge dismissed the indictments she secured against James and former FBI Director James Comey. The administration is appealing that ruling. If it revives the cases, either with a successful appeal or a lawful prosecutor, the government would still face significant pretrial litigation, including the defense claims that their prosecutions are unlawfully vindictive, underscoring the retaliatory nature of the administration’s efforts in both Virginia and New York.

In the meantime, the rulings against the installation of these prosecutors have served as a check of sorts, however mild, on the Trump administration’s vengeful ambitions.

Since Charlie Kirk’s killing in September, employers across the country have taken action against employees who have spoken about the conservative activist in ways the employers don’t like. To the extent that Kirk has been eulogized as a free-speech advocate, it’s an ill-fitting legacy.

The latest lawsuit seeking to counter that suppression and retaliation comes from the Texas American Federation of Teachers. The union is suing the Texas Education Agency and its commissioner, Mike Morath, over alleged First Amendment violations.

The suit centers on a letter from Morath to school superintendents after Kirk’s death. In it, the education official lamented “reprehensible and inappropriate content on social media” posted by “some” educators in the state’s public schools. He said that he would refer educators who have “proliferated such vile content” for investigation within the agency.

According to the union’s complaint, filed Tuesday in Texas federal court, the state action “quickly unleashed a wave of retaliation and disciplinary actions against teachers based on their First Amendment protected speech.”

The complaint said that based on public reporting, more than 350 teachers have been reported to the Texas Education Agency, which oversees primary and secondary public education in the state, for investigation.....

In November, Reuters published a report finding that more than 600 Americans were fired, suspended, investigated or disciplined by employers over comments about Kirk, who was fatally shot in September while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. State prosecutors said they’re seeking the death penalty against Tyler Robinson, who’s charged with murder. He has yet to stand trial but is presumed innocent unless and until he’s convicted or pleads guilty.

Expectations heading into this week showed projections of about 73,000 new jobs being created in the United States in December. As it turns out, according to the new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the totals fell short of those expectations. CNBC News reported:

The U.S. labor market ended 2025 on a soft note, with job creation in December less than expected, according to a report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Nonfarm payrolls rose a seasonally adjusted 50,000 for the month, lower than the downwardly revised 56,000 in November and short of the Dow Jones estimate for 73,000. At the same time, the unemployment rate fell to 4.4%, compared to the forecast for 4.5%.

The improved jobless rate offers a small silver lining to an otherwise discouraging report, but even this data point needs context: When Donald Trump took office in January, the unemployment rate was 3.7%. In December, it was 4.4%.

Adding to the discouraging news, the manufacturing sector lost 8,000 jobs in December, extending a downturn that lasted much of the year.

As for the larger context, the latest report shows that the U.S. job market added 584,000 jobs in 2025, which might sound like a decent number until you compare it to recent history. In 2024, for example, a year in the Biden administration during which the incumbent president said the economy was terrible, the economy created more than 2 million jobs. A year earlier, the total was almost 2.6 million......

This obviously isn’t the greatest economy in American history; expecting Americans to be grateful for failure is preposterous; and a year ago, the job market was generating far more jobs with a lower unemployment rate.

The question for the president and his White House team is simple: If Trump has created “the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country,” why has American job growth slowed to a 16-year low?

As this week got underway, Donald Trump whined online that the “Fake News Media refuses to talk about” the $600 billion in revenue generated by his trade tariffs. Later, the president, who’s earned a reputation for making up numbers that make him happy, told House Republicans the administration has “taken in $650 billion.”....

Complicating matters, the Republican continues to make new plans to spend money he doesn’t have. The president published this message to his social media platform on Wednesday afternoon:

After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars. This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.

He added that this massive increase in military spending is possible “because of Tariffs, and the tremendous Income that they bring.”

Trump concluded his message by boasting that under his vision he could boost the Pentagon’s budget by an additional $500 billion while simultaneously paying down the national debt.

At this point, we could talk about the fact that the “long and difficult negotiations” Trump referred to didn’t happen in reality. We could also talk about the fact that the Pentagon does not need, and did not ask for, $1.5 trillion. We could note that the national debt has climbed by roughly $2 trillion since Trump returned to power. The idea that he can lower that total while cutting taxes for the wealthy and vastly increasing military spending is plainly bonkers......

In recent months, the president has even gone so far as to suggest more than once that tariff revenue will be so robust, he might eventually be able to use the money to eliminate federal income taxes altogether.

Now, the president intends to also use this same pile of money to increase military spending by $500 billion.

There’s an old accounting joke that “you can’t spend the same dollar twice.” Under Trump, it’s tempting to revise the line to “you can’t spend the same dollar six times, especially when you don’t have that dollar.”

Late Tuesday, Donald Trump announced his intention to sell Venezuelan oil to create a massive pool of money that he can distribute at his own discretion. On Wednesday morning, the pushback began in earnest. The New York Times reported:

President Trump’s declaration that he would personally control the proceeds from oil produced in Venezuela drew instant condemnation on Wednesday from Democrats in Congress who noted that the president had no constitutional authority for such an undertaking.

‘The president cannot grab Venezuela’s oil for his own slush fund. Period,’ Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the Appropriations Committee, said on Wednesday.

As constitutional debates go, this one’s easy. The sitting American president announced a plan in which Venezuela would “turn over” roughly $3 billion in oil to the United States. The Republican administration would then sell the foreign country’s resources and, according to Trump’s written statement, the resulting money would be “controlled by” him.

In the U.S., the president can’t create his own pile of money that Congress never approved and then start allocating those funds as he pleases. The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution gives lawmakers what’s known as the power of the purse. When Trump effectively responds, “I’m going to have my own purse,” there’s a problem.....

In other words, the American president is seizing control of a foreign country’s resources, selling those resources and generating a pool of money. Now he’s planning to give the foreign country (of which he claims to be in charge) some undetermined amount of the proceeds, to be spent on American products.

It sounds less like a “deal” and more like a “shakedown.”