'Mad King' Donald Trump Torched Over 'Especially Jarring' Claim To U.S. Troops In Qatar
President Donald Trump stirred new controversy when, during his tour of the Middle East, he was accused of using U.S. troops stationed in Qatar as props to boost his false election claims.
Speaking at the Al Udeid Air Base southwest of Doha on Thursday, Trump again falsely asserted he won the 2020 election against now-former President Joe Biden. He also, yet again, floated the unconstitutional idea of extending his stay in the White House even longer.
'As you know, we won three elections, OK?' Trump told the assembled troops. 'And some people want us to do a fourth. I don't know, I'll have to think about that.'
Trump then referenced new campaign merchandise, saying: 'You saw the new, the new hat. The hottest hat is, it says, 'Trump 2028.' We're driving the left crazy.'
Watch here:
Trump also reportedly thanked the service members for their political support.
The troops appeared to remain largely silent throughout the president's address.
On social media, though, the criticism was loud:
Critics Shred 'Unbelievably Inhumanely Cruel' Entertainment Idea Pitched To DHS
OOPS! GOP Lawmaker Accidentally Says 'Quiet Part Out Loud' With Awkward 'Freudian Slip'
Cartel Family Members Entered U.S. In Deal With Trump Admin: Mexican Security Chief
Suspected Serial Killer Praises Trump In Final Words Before Execution
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive
As many as nine out of 10 retirees rely on their Social Security income to cover some portion of their expenses. Estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) are climbing, and President Trump's tariff and trade policy looks to be the culprit. Though an above-average COLA for a fifth-consecutive year would be welcome on paper, retirees continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to annual raises. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Last month, Social Security's retired-worker benefit made history, with the average payout topping $2,000 for the first time since the program's inception. Although this represents a modest monthly benefit, it's nevertheless proved vital to helping aging workers cover their expenses. In each of the prior 23 years, pollster Gallup surveyed retirees about their reliance on the Social Security income they're receiving. Between 80% and 90% of respondents noted it was a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, only around one in 10 retirees could, in theory, make do without their Social Security check. For an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing precisely how much they'll receive each month -- and that begins with the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is announced during the second week of October. This year's COLA announcement will be of particular interest, with President Donald Trump's tariff and trade policies expected to directly affect how much Social Security beneficiaries will receive per month in 2026. But before digging into the specifics of how President Trump's policies are expected to impact the pocketbooks of seniors, survivors, and workers with disabilities, it's important to understand the building blocks of what Social Security's COLA is and why it matters. The program's COLA is effectively the "raise" passed along on a near-annual basis that accounts for the impact of inflation (rising prices) on benefits. For example, if a large basket of goods and services increased in cost by 3% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would need to climb by a commensurate amount, or buying power for Social Security recipients would decrease. In the 35 years following the issuance of the first retired-worker check in January 1940, COLAs were assigned at random by special sessions of Congress. Only a total of 11 COLAs were passed along during this timeline, with no adjustments made in the 1940s. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was adopted as Social Security's inflationary measure that would allow for annual cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-W has over 200 spending categories, each of which has its own unique percentage weighting. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be expressed as a single figure each month, which leads to crisp month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons to see if prices are, collectively, rising (inflation) or declining (deflation). When calculating Social Security's COLA, only CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September) are taken into consideration. If the average CPI-W reading in the third quarter of the current year is higher than the comparable period of the previous year, inflation has occurred, and beneficiaries are due for a beefier payout. Following a decade of anemic raises in the 2010s -- three years during the decade (2010, 2011, and 2016) saw no COLA passed along due to deflation -- beneficiaries have enjoyed four consecutive years of above-average cost-of-living adjustments and are hoping for this streak to continue. A historic increase in U.S. money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic sent the prevailing rate of inflation soaring to a four-decade high. This resulted in COLAs of 5.9% in 2022, 8.7% in 2023, 3.2% in 2024, and 2.5% in 2025, respectively. For context, the average annual increase in benefits since 2010 is 2.3%. While estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment came in below this average shortly after President Donald Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, the script has now been flipped. Nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) was forecasting a 2.2% COLA for 2026 as recently as March. Meanwhile, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson, who retired from TSCL last year, was calling for a 2.2% increase in April following the release of the March inflation report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After the release of the May inflation report from the BLS, both TSCL and Johnson are now forecasting a 2026 COLA of 2.5%. A 2.5% COLA would increase the average retired-worker benefit by $50 per month next year, as well as lift monthly checks for the typical worker with disabilities and survivor beneficiary by $40 and $39, respectively. This 0.3% increase in both forecasts over the past couple of months is estimated to boost the average Social Security payout (for all beneficiaries) by approximately $5.57 per month in 2026. This "Trump bump" is the result of the president's tariff and trade policies having a very modest inflationary impact on domestic prices. Charging a global import duty on all countries while imposing higher "reciprocal tariff rates" on dozens of countries that have historically run adverse trade imbalances with the U.S. can result in these higher costs being passed along to consumers. Though a lot can change with Trump's tariff and trade policy in the coming weeks and months, its current design points to a modest bump in the 2026 COLA. On paper, a fifth consecutive year where COLAs are above average (compared to the previous 16 years) probably sounds great. With the average retired-worker payout cresting $2,000 per month, an added $50 per month would be welcome in 2026. But the fact of the matter is that a 0.3% bump in COLA estimates since Trump introduced his tariff and trade policy doesn't remotely move the needle when it comes to what retirees have been shortchanged for more than a decade. Though the CPI-W is designed to be an all-encompassing measure of inflation, it has an inherent flaw that can be seen in its full name. Specifically, it tracks the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers," who, in many instances, are working-age Americans not currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Urban wage earners and clerical workers spend their money very differently than seniors. Whereas the former has a higher percentage of their monthly budgets devoted to things like education, apparel, and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage on shelter and medical care services. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the CPI-W doesn't factor in this added importance of shelter and medical care services inflation. The end result for retirees has been a persistent decline in the buying power of a Social Security dollar. According to a study conducted by TSCL, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. A very modest "Trump bump" isn't going to offset this. What's more, the aforementioned two costs that matter most to retirees -- shelter and medical care services -- have had higher trailing-12-month (TTM) inflation rates than the annually issued Social Security COLA. The BLS inflation report for May showed TTM increases of 3.9% for shelter and 3% for medical care services, respectively. As long as the program's cost-of-living adjustment trails the annual inflation rate for these two key expenses, retirees will continue getting the short end of the stick. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive was originally published by The Motley Fool
43 minutes ago
How Trump has targeted Harvard's international students — and what the latest court ruling means
President Donald Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University's enrollment of international students, part of the White House's effort to secure policy changes at the private, Ivy League college. Targeting foreign students has become the administration's cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation's oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard's students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard's identity. Courts have stopped some of the government's actions, at least for now — but not all. In the latest court order, a federal judge on Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard's international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remain in limbo. Here are all the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard's foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands. In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security's authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States. Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government's own regulations for withdrawing a school's certification. Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration's ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security's move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer. The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campus. However, it's usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to 'operate as a bona fide institution of learning.' Other colleges are removed when they close. Notably, Burroughs' order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs' emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical 'Notice of Intent to Withdraw' Harvard's participation in the international student visa program. 'Today's order does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. 'Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University's certification.' Earlier this month, Trump himself moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority. Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump's legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing him to block a 'class of aliens' deemed detrimental to the nation's interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn't qualify as a 'class of aliens,' Harvard said in its filing. Harvard's lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard's request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard told international students Friday. At the center of Trump's pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration's demands for further changes. In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to 'public.' In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public. Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools. Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government's recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States. Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the U.S. But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master's program in comparative law are international students. The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government's demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university. ____
43 minutes ago
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement. Stein's vetoes help 'ensure North Carolina remains a safe state for everyone, including immigrants, who deserve equal treatment under the law," the group El Pueblo said in a news release.
