Trump says he won't ‘waste time' calling Minnesota governor after slayings
United States President Donald Trump has said he will not call Minnesota Governor Tim Walz in the wake of weekend shootings that killed a Democratic state lawmaker and injured another.
Trump denounced the shootings as an act of 'horrific violence' in a statement over the weekend. But on Tuesday, he confirmed to reporters that he would not reach out to Walz, who served as the running mate to his rival in the 2024 presidential election, Democrat Kamala Harris.
'I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out. I'm not calling him. Why would I call him?' Trump told reporters on Air Force One. 'The guy doesn't have a clue. He's a mess. So I could be nice and call him, but why waste time?'
Walz, for his part, said he was not surprised by Trump's lack of interest in calling him. He did, however, point out that he had spoken with Vice President JD Vance.
'I'm always open to, you know, people expressing gratitude. Vice President Vance assured us, and he delivered, that the FBI would be there as partners with us to get it done,' Walz said. 'That was what needed to be done.'
The suspect in the shootings is 57-year-old Vance Boelter, a father of five who was arrested on Sunday night.
He has since been charged with federal counts of murder and stalking in connection with the shootings early on Saturday, which resulted in the killings of Melissa Hortman, a top Democrat in the Minnesota House of Representatives, and her husband, Mark Hortman.
Boelter is also accused of shooting Democratic state Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, both of whom survived.
Prosecutors said that Boelter visited the lawmakers' homes wearing a face mask and body armour to impersonate a police officer. He allegedly knocked on the Hoffmans' door, identifying himself as police.
Prosecutors said on Monday that Boelter sent a message to his family after the shootings, which read: 'Dad went to war last night.'
Law enforcement officials have said they are still investigating a potential motive in the attack. But investigators have recovered notebooks from the suspect with the names of Democratic lawmakers and abortion rights advocates.
'Political assassinations are rare,' Joseph Thompson, Minnesota's acting US attorney, said at a news conference. 'They strike at the very core of our democracy.'
He added that authorities are searching through Boelter's notebooks but have not found a 'manifesto' clearly laying out his motivations. Boelter's friends, meanwhile, have told reporters that the suspect was a supporter of Trump and an opponent of abortion rights.
The slayings have spurred increased concerns about political violence in the US. In the past year alone, Trump has faced an assassination attempt, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has seen his governor's mansion targeted in an act of suspected arson.
Between January 6, 2021, and October 2024, the news agency Reuters said it had tallied upwards of 300 cases of political violence in the US.
In the aftermath of last weekend's shootings, conspiracy theories claiming that the alleged shooter was a leftist ideologue began to circulate, with support from some Republican lawmakers.
Boelter had previously served with other community members on a state workforce development board under two Democratic governors, including Walz, a fact that helped to fuel the rumours.
He had also worked as the director of security patrols at a security services company whose website said he had been 'involved with security situations in Eastern Europe, Africa, North America and the Middle East, including the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip'.
Boelter appeared briefly in court on Monday but did not enter a plea. He is due to appear in court again on June 27.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Can divided European powers help end Israel's war on Iran?
The three largest European nations by population, Germany, France and the UK, held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, in an effort to avert a protracted war in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump, who has said he will decide within two weeks whether to join the assault on Tehran, denounced the talks with European leaders as a failure. 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one,' he told reporters. Araghchi had said Iran was not attending the talks in Geneva to negotiate anyway, only to listen. However, he added, 'There is no room for negotiations with the US [either] until the Israeli aggression stops,' as Iran and Israel traded salvoes of missiles and drones. The US has been Israel's chief ally and supporter in all its wars, and is the only country with major military assets deployed in the region, which might be able to alter the course of the war. Why are the Europeans getting involved? Germany, France and the UK – referred to as the E3 in the context of Iran talks – helped negotiate a 2015 treaty with Iran. The 2015 treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran agree to develop only peaceful nuclear programmes and to submit to independent monitoring. Russia, China and the United States also helped negotiate it, as did the UN. But Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in May 2018, during his first term as president. The E3 tried to keep the treaty alive but failed. Iran abandoned it a year after the US did. On Saturday, the EU high commissioner for external action, Kaja Kallas, who also attended the talks on Friday, issued a statement reaffirming 'commitment to Israel's security' and 'longstanding concerns about Iran's expansion of its nuclear programme, which has no credible civilian purpose, in violation of almost all the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provisions'. But Israel's war in Gaza has divided the E3 over their approach to Israel, weakening European foreign policy unity further, although all want to avoid another war on Europe's doorstep. How are the E3 divided in their approach towards Israel? The E3 positions on Israel have diverged since Israel's war in Gaza began in October 2023. Germany has remained the most ardently pro-Israel, refusing to criticise Israel for indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza and halting its funding to UNWRA, the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees, which Israel accuses of aiding Hamas. Originally pro-Israel, the UK somewhat changed its stance after Labour's election victory last year. Earlier this month, the UK joined four other countries in formally sanctioning Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for 'incitement of violence' against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israel called the decision 'outrageous' and 'unacceptable'. France is even more sceptical towards Israel. It was one of four EU members that started calling for a Gaza ceasefire in April last year. A year later, on April 9, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would formally recognise the state of Palestine within months, partly because 'at some point, it will be right', and partly to encourage Arab states to recognise Israel. France was reported to be lobbying other European nations to follow suit. Spain, Norway and Ireland all formally recognised Palestine the following month. What leverage do the E3 have with Iran or Israel? They are the three biggest economies in Europe, with a collective gross domestic product (GDP) of about $11 trillion. Two of them, France and the UK, possess aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces that have deployed to the Middle East and North Africa regions. They are also nuclear powers. Ultimately, though, none of these things is enough to sway either Iran or Israel on matters of national security. The true value of the E3 lies in their 'acceptability' to both Iran and Israel as good-faith mediators and their ability to work towards common goals with the US. 'Germany, France and the UK have attempted to mediate for more than 20 years, and their approach has been milder than that of the US,' George Tzogopoulos, a lecturer in international relations at the European Institute in Nice, told Al Jazeera. 'The same is happening now. We have a war crisis, and these three prioritise diplomacy for the conflict to stop if possible and for negotiations to restart.' Could the E3 broker a deal between Iran and Israel? It would be difficult, given their failure to resuscitate the JCPOA without the US. 'The main reason [the E3 failed with the JCPOA] is the conclusion, made by both the Trump administration, President Trump himself, and the Israeli government that diplomacy cannot work in the case of Iran and, therefore, the role of the three was sidelined,' said Tzogopoulos. But it is also difficult for them to coordinate with the US. Trump has now sidelined his own intelligence community to adopt the Israeli view that Iran is developing a bomb. On Friday, Trump told reporters that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. 'If Israel has evidence that Iran was dashing for a bomb, I think it needs to come out more publicly and share that, because nobody else is confirming that assessment,' said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, a nongovernmental organisation based in the US. 'If there is some coordination between the US and the E3, we might be more optimistic, but for Europe, for the E3 to act autonomously, I wouldn't bet my money on their potential success,' he said. 'The Europeans have very low chances,' agreed Angelos Syrigos, a professor of international law at Panteion University in Athens. 'The only people who can intervene seriously are the Americans. But I don't know if the Iranians are open to that. To have final peace, you usually need a decisive defeat,' he said, referring to the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt of 1973, which led to the Camp David agreement six years later, and US intervention in the Yugoslav War, which led to the Dayton Accord in 1995. 'One party has to understand there is no military solution.' Could the United Nations Security Council find a diplomatic solution? No, say experts, because China, Russia and the US disagree on Israel and Iran. 'The Security Council won't find a solution to this,' said Syrigos. 'Either the US or Russia or China will veto it. The difference is mainly between the US and China. The Chinese have invested a lot in Iran in recent years. That's where they buy most of their oil; they send [Iran] materials for nuclear weapons. It's China that is mostly connected to Iran.' Russia has called on the US not to attack Iran, because of the risk of destabilising the region. But Russia also does not have the power to come to Iran's aid, said Syrigos. 'Right now, Russia is going along with the US. It doesn't want to get involved. It hasn't the power. So, it's turning a necessity into a voluntary act,' he said. 'The logic of war will guide diplomatic efforts at this point, and we cannot know how the war will go, or the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear programme,' said Tzogopoulos.
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US intelligence community is ‘wrong' on Iran
Trump says US intelligence community is 'wrong' on Iran NewsFeed US President Donald Trump says he doesn't care if his claims that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon contradict US intelligence assessments, which the president characterised as 'wrong.' Video Duration 00 minutes 40 seconds 00:40 Video Duration 01 minutes 42 seconds 01:42 Video Duration 00 minutes 42 seconds 00:42 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 33 seconds 00:33 Video Duration 01 minutes 32 seconds 01:32 Video Duration 00 minutes 22 seconds 00:22
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Zohran Mamdani's mayoral bid is bigger than New York
Sitting in northern Europe, I shouldn't care about the New York mayoral race. Yet, despite all that is happening in the world, the contentious Democratic primary for the 2025 New York City mayoral election has found its way into conversations around me – and onto my social media feed. This attention isn't just another example of the New York-centric worldview famously skewered in Saul Steinberg's 1976 New Yorker cover, View of the World from 9th Avenue. A genuine political struggle is under way, one that has the potential to reverberate far beyond the Hudson River. At its centre is the increasingly polarised contest between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani. The name Cuomo may ring a bell. He resigned as New York's governor in 2021 following multiple allegations of sexual harassment. While he expressed remorse at the time, his political comeback has been marked by defiance – suing one of his accusers and the state attorney general who found the accusations credible. He claims the scandal was a 'political hit job'. Cuomo's record in office was far from unblemished. He diverted millions of dollars from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), jeopardising the financial health of New York's essential public transit system. He formed the Moreland Commission to root out corruption but disbanded it abruptly when it began probing entities linked to his own campaign. During the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration was accused of undercounting nursing home deaths, allegedly to deflect criticism of policies that returned COVID-positive patients to those facilities. Given that legacy, one might imagine Cuomo's chances of becoming mayor would be slim. Yet, he currently leads in the polls. Close behind him is Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and state assemblyman from Queens. When he entered the race in March, Cuomo led by 40 points. A recent poll now puts Mamdani within 8 points. Born in Kampala and raised in New York, Mamdani is the first Muslim candidate to run for mayor of the city. But his significance extends beyond his identity. What distinguishes Mamdani is his unapologetically progressive platform – and his refusal to dilute it in the name of 'electability'. His appeal rests on substance, charisma, sharp messaging, and a mass volunteer-led canvassing operation. At the heart of Mamdani's campaign is a vision of a city that works for working-class New Yorkers. He proposes freezing rents for all rent-stabilised apartments, building 200,000 affordable homes, creating publicly-owned grocery stores 'focused on keeping prices low, not making profit', and making buses free. He supports free childcare for children under five, better wages for childcare workers, and 'baby baskets' containing essentials for new parents. To fund these initiatives, Mamdani proposes increasing the corporate tax rate from 7.25 percent to 11.5 percent, and imposing a 2 percent income tax on New York City residents earning more than $1m annually. He also wants to raise the minimum wage, regulate gig economy giants like DoorDash, and protect delivery workers. His plan to establish a Department of Community Safety would shift resources away from traditional policing towards mental health and violence prevention. He further promises to 'Trump-proof' New York by enhancing the city's sanctuary status, removing ICE's influence, expanding legal support for migrants, defending LGBTQ+ rights and protecting reproductive healthcare access. But championing such bold policies – as a brown, Muslim candidate – has made Mamdani a lightning rod for hate. Recently, in a rare show of emotion, Mamdani teared up while recounting threats he has received: 'I get messages that say the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. I get threats on my life … on the people that I love.' The NYPD is investigating two voicemails from an unidentified caller, who labelled Mamdani a 'terrorist', threatened to bomb his car, and ominously warned: 'Watch your back every second until you get the f..k out of America.' Cuomo's campaign has also played into Islamophobic tropes. A mailer targeting Jewish voters from a Cuomo-aligned super PAC doctored Mamdani's photo – darkening and lengthening his beard – and declared that he 'rejects NYPD, rejects Israel, rejects capitalism and rejects Jewish rights'. Much of this centres on Mamdani's outspoken support for Palestinian rights. He has been criticised for refusing to affirm Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and for defending the slogan 'globalise the intifada', which he describes as 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights'. He also noted that the Arabic term intifada has been used by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to describe the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Despite the attacks, Mamdani's movement is surging. He has received endorsements from Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, Attorney General Letitia James, the New York Working Families Party, United Auto Workers Region 9A, and Jewish Voice for Peace Action. In contrast, Cuomo is backed by major real estate donors wary of Mamdani's housing agenda. His campaign has received $1m from DoorDash, presumably in response to Mamdani's proposed labour protections. Other prominent donors include Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone and hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman – both known for supporting Donald Trump. Still, Mamdani's grassroots campaign has continued to gain ground. Whether or not he wins the nomination, his candidacy has already achieved something vital: it has offered proof that an anti-corporate, anti-Trump, community-powered campaign – one rooted in progressive values and refusal to compromise – can resonate with American voters. But the stakes extend far beyond New York. Across Europe, South America, South Asia and Africa, right-wing populists are gaining ground by exploiting economic precarity, stoking culture wars and vilifying minorities. Mamdani's campaign offers a clear counter-narrative: one that marries economic justice with moral clarity, mobilises diverse communities and challenges the politics of fear. For progressives around the world, it is a rare and instructive blueprint – not just for resistance, but for rebuilding. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
