Politics
Trump responds to U.S. citizen's deadly attack by railing against immigrants, 'open borders'
President-elect Donald Trump ushered in the new year in familiar fashion — using a news event in an attempt to build his case for tougher enforcement of the nation’s southern border, a change he said is crucial to stop violent criminals from flooding into the U.S.
After a pickup truck driver mowed down dozens of people in New Orleans, killing 14, in the first hours of New Year’s Day, Trump quickly issued a statement that implied the perpetrator had come into the country illegally.
He did not correct that assertion, and even escalated his rhetoric against the “open border” with Mexico, after it soon became clear that an initial news report that depicted the attacker as an immigrant was wrong.
The driver, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, has been identified as an American raised in Beaumont, Texas, who served in the U.S. Army and who authorities said acted alone when he drove into a crowd of revelers on Bourbon Street. The FBI said Jabbar was inspired by the Islamic State, a Sunni Muslim extremist group behind multiple terrorist acts over more than a decade.
Trump’s rhetoric and verbal salvos followed a familiar pattern, according to analysts who track his public pronouncements — combining hyperbole and false assertions to bolster his campaign against illegal immigration, a cause that he and his most ardent followers depict as crucial to America’s security.
“This is his way of previewing what he’s been running on since his first race in 2016 — that he’s going to take extreme measures to defend the border,” said Jennifer Mercieca, a professor of communication and journalism at Texas A&M University. “He’s giving himself a permission structure based on these threats, which he is suggesting are not just imaginary but have now come to pass. And he’s using that as a way of saying, ‘Things are about to become very extreme.’ “
Trump described recent immigrants as criminals “far worse” than those already living in America. That stance amounts to “rhetorical ammunition, to provide the grounds by which he makes a case for doing what he wants to do anyway,” said Mercieca, author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump.”
A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Two advisors to Trump’s presidential campaigns also did not respond.
Fox News initially reported Wednesday morning that the rental truck used in the New Orleans attack had crossed the border with Mexico just two days before the Bourbon Street carnage.
Minutes later, Trump issued his first statement on the attack. “When I said that the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country, that statement was constantly refuted by Democrats and the Fake News Media, but it turned out to be true,” the statement read, in part. “The crime rate in our country is at a level that nobody has ever seen before.”
Donald J. Trump Jr. quickly posted on the social media platform X: “Biden’s parting gift to America — migrant terrorists.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted: “Shut the border down!!!”
Not long afterward, Fox News joined other outlets in reporting that truck attack had been launched by an American citizen, Jabbar, not an immigrant. That correction did little to temper Trump’s fervent rhetoric.
“Our Country is a disaster, a laughing stock all over the World!” the incoming president wrote on X on Wednesday night. “This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS, with weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership.”
In what may have been one concession to the new information about Jabbar’s status as an American, not an immigrant, Trump went on to fault law enforcement for not not protecting Americans from “outside and inside violent SCUM.”
Statements by Trump and his followers in the aftermath of the attack focused on Jabbar’s “otherness” and added disdain for the media and others who noted that Jabbar was an American citizen, said Robert Rowland, a communications professor at the University of Kansas.
“In Trump’s mind, although that person is an American citizen, he seems to reject Christianity and to reject the military, and in turning away from those things that makes him un-American,” Rowland said.
Many of Trump’s core followers are working-class people who have expressed a pronounced unease with demographic shifts in the country, with newcomers perceived to be unlike those who arrived before them, said Rowland, author of “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy.”
“There is an extreme discomfort with the pace of social and cultural change,” Rowland said. “And the core group that has that sense is, broadly speaking, the working class and, specifically, the white working class.”
One X user sounded agitated when mainstream news outlets reported that Jabbar was an American citizen, suggesting the media recoiled from naming the true threats to the country. “Phew,” wrote the X critic, “because we all would hate to think a non-citizen, or an illegal immigrant, could ever harm innocent people.”
Trump and his team have not hesitated in the past to stoke fear about immigrants.
In his September debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump repeated a claim — thoroughly debunked by multiple individuals and government officials — that Haitian migrants were eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio.
The Republican presidential candidate never backtracked on that claim. And his vice presidential running mate, JD Vance, soon suggested that “first-hand accounts of my constituents” gave him reason enough to repeat the assertion.
Although the pet-eating stories had not been verified, Vance said they brought attention to the issue of U.S. communities being overwhelmed with migrants. (The Haitians around Springfield went there legally, authorities said.)
“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes,” Vance said in an interview with CNN. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
Statements about dangerous immigrants are all part of a “very crass political calculation” designed to turn them into “hate objects so they can then be attacked and ostracized,” Mercieca said. She acknowledged that “other people might have a more charitable read” on the Republicans’ intentions.
Republicans did not hesitate to amplify Trump’s words and to say they justified an immigration crackdown. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) went on Fox News on New Year’s Day to protest the “wide-open border,” and “the idea that dangerous people were coming here in droves and setting up potential terrorist cells around the country.”
Johnson, reelected speaker Friday, suggested that the House might try to again raise a bill similar to the one it approved in 2023. That legislation — killed by the Democratic-controlled Senate — would have extended the wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, reimposed a policy of keeping migrant asylum-seekers either in Mexico or in detention facilities in that country and sped up deportation of unaccompanied children.
A day after the attack, Trump refocused his social media attack on “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” saying that it and “other forms of violent crime, will become so bad in America that it will become hard to even imagine or believe. That time has come, only worse than ever imagined.”
He suggested during his campaign that he would resurrect a controversial travel ban on five Muslim-majority nations. The plan was modified after facing legal challenges. But Trump defended it on national security grounds and said he would now use it to ban refugees from the war in Gaza.
“Many of us were hoping he would act as president, rather than continue to exploit a tragedy to divide Americans and advance his anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant agenda,” said Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ office of Greater Los Angeles.
“He is fueling bigotry, fueling anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant sentiment,” said Ayloush, “which we have seen again and again, lead to violent attacks on people presumed as Muslim and immigrant.”
Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior advisor, promoted the idea that the act was connected to migration.
“Islamist terrorism is an import. It is not ‘homegrown.’ ” Miller posted on X after the attack. “It did not exist here before migration brought it here.”
Politics
U.S. Steel and Nippon Sue Biden Over Decision to Block Deal
U.S. Steel and Japan’s Nippon Steel sued the United States government on Monday in a last-ditch attempt to revive their attempted merger after President Biden blocked it last week on the basis that the transaction posed a threat to national security.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington, accused Mr. Biden and other senior administration officials of corrupting the review process for political gain and of harming steel workers and the American steel industry by blocking the deal under false national security pretenses.
Mr. Biden moved to block the merger after a government panel charged with reviewing foreign investments failed to reach a decision about whether the deal should proceed. In a statement on Friday, Mr. Biden said that he was acting to ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry. The president had previously vowed to ensure that U.S. Steel remained American-owned.
The companies are asking for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a new review of the deal.
The companies also filed a separate lawsuit against Cleveland-Cliffs, an American steel company that previously tried to buy U.S. Steel but was rebuffed, along with Lourenco Goncalves, chief executive of Cleveland-Cliffs, and David McCall, international president of the powerful union United Steelworkers. The lawsuit alleged that Cleveland-Cliffs and the head of the union illegally colluded to undermine the proposed deal between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel.
The legal actions represented a long-shot maneuver by the companies to preserve a deal that was ensnared in election year politics. Presidents have broad authority to determine what constitutes a national security threat, and no transaction blocked under those powers has ever been overturned by the courts.
However, Mr. Biden’s move to terminate Nippon’s $14 billion bid for U.S. Steel raised questions about whether those powers were being abused, given that Japan is a close ally of the United States. In the rare cases where deals have been blocked, they usually involved companies with ties to U.S. adversaries such as China.
“Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are disappointed to see such a clear and improper exploitation of the country’s national security apparatus in an effort to help win an election and repay political favors,” the companies said in a statement on Monday. “Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are entitled to a fair process and have been left with no choice but to challenge the decision and the process leading to it in court.”
David Burritt, the chief executive of U.S. Steel, assailed Mr. Biden on Monday, suggesting that the president blocked the deal because he “owed the union boss a favor in exchange for an endorsement.”
“The government failed us,” Mr. Burritt said in an interview on the Fox Business Network on Monday. “They failed because they didn’t follow the process, and we are going to right that wrong.”
The White House defended Mr. Biden’s decision on Monday, pointing to the threats to the U.S. steel industry that the committee highlighted.
“A committee of national security and trade experts determined this acquisition would create risk for American national security,” said Robyn Patterson, a White House spokeswoman. “President Biden will never hesitate to protect the security of this nation, its infrastructure, and the resilience of its supply chains.”
The lawsuit against the Biden administration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The suit also names Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and Merrick Garland, the attorney general.
The companies argue that because Mr. Biden publicly said last March that he did not want the deal to happen, the national security review conducted by the panel, known as CFIUS, was tainted by politics and “designed to reach a predetermined result.” They also claimed that the panel had failed to engage with the companies when they proposed measures to mitigate any national security concerns.
After a yearlong review process, the interagency committee — ultimately divided on the risks posed by the transaction — left the decision to Mr. Biden, who had said that U.S. Steel should remain American-owned and -operated.
“It is my solemn responsibility as president to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad,” Mr. Biden said in a statement last Friday morning. “And it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company.”
The committee was created in the 1970s to screen international mergers and acquisitions for national security concerns. Over the years the definition of national security has broadened, and in many cases the work of the panel has been consumed by political considerations, often with a focus on keeping Chinese investments out of America.
Since 1990, eight other foreign transactions have been blocked by presidents, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The companies are hopeful that a 2012 case involving a Chinese-owned company that tried to buy American wind-farm projects could provide an opening for more scrutiny of how CFIUS handled the steel deal. The Obama administration blocked that deal, but after the company filed a lawsuit an appeals court agreed that the company, Ralls Corporation, had a right to see and rebut certain evidence that was used to block the transaction.
The Obama administration and the company ultimately settled the lawsuit.
The legal challenge by U.S. Steel and Nippon is on different grounds than that case. If successful, this suit would herald sweeping changes to the authority of the U.S. government to vet foreign transactions.
While the Biden administration’s move won praise from the steelworkers union, it drew scorn from many economists and legal experts who warned that the president’s decision would deter foreign investment.
“What’s infuriating is that Biden claimed to stand for the rule of law and for our international alliances,” said John Kabealo, a Washington-based lawyer who specializes in cross-border transactions. “He told voters ad nauseam that Trump was xenophobic and self-dealing, and now he slaps one of our most important allies in the face on the thinnest of pretenses.”
Although President-elect Donald J. Trump has previously said that he would block the Nippon bid, the companies have remained hopeful that he might reconsider that position if given the opportunity to help broker a satisfactory deal.
But on Monday, Mr. Trump made clear that he still does not want U.S. Steel to be sold.
“Why would they want to sell U.S. Steel now when Tariffs will make it a much more profitable and valuable company? Mr. Trump wrote on social media. “Wouldn’t it be nice to have U.S. Steel, once the greatest company in the World, lead the charge toward greatness again?”
Politics
Trump presses GOP to swiftly send 'one powerful Bill' for his signature ASAP
President-elect Donald Trump is urging congressional Republicans to send him “one powerful Bill” as swiftly as possible once he takes office later this month.
Republicans hold the majority in both chambers of Congress and later this month will regain the White House when Trump is sworn in on Jan. 20.
“Members of Congress are getting to work on one powerful Bill that will bring our Country back, and make it greater than ever before. We must Secure our Border, Unleash American Energy, and Renew the Trump Tax Cuts, which were the largest in History, but we will make it even better – NO TAX ON TIPS,” Trump declared in a post on Truth Social.
SPEAKER JOHNSON REVEALS HOW TRUMP WANTS CONGRESS TO HANDLE BUSINESS DURING THE FIRST HUNDRED DAYS
“IT WILL ALL BE MADE UP WITH TARIFFS, AND MUCH MORE, FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE U.S. FOR YEARS. Republicans must unite, and quickly deliver these Historic Victories for the American People. Get smart, tough, and send the Bill to my desk to sign as soon as possible,” Trump urged.
House Speaker Mike Johnson had noted during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he thinks Trump will “prefer, as he likes to say, one big, beautiful bill.”
Johnson, who described it as “One big up or down vote which can save the country,” noted that he thinks the measure, which will tackle various issues, will also address the debt ceiling.
MIKE JOHNSON RE-ELECTED HOUSE SPEAKER AS GOP MUTINY THREAT DISSOLVES
He indicated that lawmakers are aiming to hold the House vote during the first week of April — the lawmaker said it could potentially clear the chamber as soon as April 3, then head to the Senate, and eventually arrive on Trump’s desk by the end of April, or by Memorial Day in a “worst case scenario.”
Johnson retained the speaker’s gavel last week after Trump backed him. House Republicans, with the exception of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted for Johnson to remain in the role he has occupied since late October 2023. Two Republicans who initially did not vote for Johnson, ultimately switched their votes to Johnson, handing him the win.
GOP REBELS SWITCH VOTE TO JOHNSON AFTER TRUMP’S 11TH HOUR CALLS, PUSHING HIM OVER THE FINISH LINE
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, has warned that the U.S. “Senate will be one of the biggest barriers to cutting spending and shrinking government,” and “will need public pressure.”
He added the hashtag “#DOGE,” referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an outside of government effort to advocate for decreased government spending, which is being spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Politics
Column: Biden's legacy, like Jimmy Carter's, is complex — and it's in Donald Trump's hands now
WASHINGTON — By the standard President Biden set himself, the core purpose he proclaimed when he ran in 2020, it is impossible to assess his one-term presidency as anything but a failure.
“We are in a battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said as he began his campaign in 2019. “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation. And I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”
Now Trump has a chance to do precisely what Biden wanted to prevent — to complete eight years in the White House and put his stamp on American politics for decades to come. And there will be little Biden can do beyond stand by and watch.
Biden’s insistence on running for a second term at the age of 81 despite voters’ doubts that he was up to the job, and his disastrous debate performance in June, threw his party into a three-week-long crisis. By the time he dropped out of the race in July, it was too late to stage an orderly competition among potential successors; his vice president, Kamala Harris, had only 103 days to campaign.
But there was far more to Biden’s four years in office than his physical decline and his monumental blunder in trying to run.
The death of former President Carter serves as a reminder that presidents who look like failures on the way out the door are often reassessed more generously a decade or four down the road.
Carter left office in 1981 after a single term as the popular archetype of presidential failure thanks to a stagnant economy, foreign policy crises and a landslide defeat to Ronald Reagan.
Over time, though, historians began to focus on the underappreciated accomplishments of Carter’s tenure: new standards for ethics in government, a focus on human rights in foreign policy, and the first steps toward reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
So it may also be with the president who leaves office this month.
During his first two years in office, bolstered by Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Biden achieved an impressive record of economic legislation: a $1.9-trillion stimulus bill to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill, the $280-billion CHIPS act to promote high-technology manufacturing, and the $2.2-trillion Inflation Reduction Act to promote clean energy.
After a spike of post-pandemic inflation that left grocery and gasoline prices stubbornly high, Biden’s virtuoso acts of congressional deal-making didn’t help his standing with voters as much as he hoped.
But as he noted ruefully in a valedictory speech last month, Americans may recognize the full benefits of those laws only once he’s out of office.
“I know it’s been hard for many Americans to see, and I understand it,” the president said. “They’re just trying to figure out how to put three squares on the table. But I believe it was the right thing to do … [to] set America on a stronger course for the future.”
“In the space of one term, he did a lot,” said historian Julian E. Zelizer of Princeton University, who has already begun work on a book about the Biden presidency. “Those are bills that will reap dividends for years to come.
“At the same time, politics matters,” Zelizer added. “One-term presidents who don’t succeed politically often give way to a successor who moves the country in a very different direction — and that’s part of their legacy, too. … Both things — the successes and failures — can be true at the same time.”
The tragedy of Biden’s presidency is that he once suggested an alternative path — that he might decide to serve only one term as a transitional president.
“I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said during his 2020 campaign. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”
But once he was in office, aides said, he never seriously considered passing up a second term.
He saw himself as the only candidate who had proved that he could defeat Trump. And when Democrats did relatively well in the 2022 congressional election, he viewed the result as confirmation that his approach was working.
His 80th birthday came 12 days later — and his age, despite his denials, was beginning to show. By the middle of 2023, 77% of voters said they thought Biden was too old to serve another term, including a stunning 69% of Democrats.
“His decision to run was an act with massive consequences,” Zelizer said. “A younger candidate might have been able to change the course of the election.”
The irony now is that Biden’s legacy now rests in Trump’s hands.
If Trump manages to dismantle most or all of the programs Biden put in place and remakes the political landscape as Reagan did in the 1980s, Biden’s achievements will prove to have been short-lived.
But if Trump fails — if his administration proves chaotic, if Democrats take control of Congress in 2026, and if a next-generation Democrat retakes the White House in 2028 — the Biden legacy may get a second life.
Neither of those scenarios, of course, is one Biden ever sought. But now he is left, as he once feared, to merely stand and watch what happens.
-
Health1 week ago
New Year life lessons from country star: 'Never forget where you came from'
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta’s ‘software update issue’ has been breaking Quest headsets for weeks
-
Business5 days ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture5 days ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports5 days ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics4 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics3 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics2 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?