quinta-feira, 21 de maio de 2026
More European nations turn against Israel after the Flotilla Row?
.jpeg)
More European
nations turn against Israel after the Flotilla Row?
Yes, multiple European nations have sharply turned against Israel in the wake of the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla row. European governments expressed widespread outrage after Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir released a video showing detained activists bound and kneeling on the floor.
The
diplomatic fallout and shifts in European relations include:
- Summoning Diplomats: France, Italy, the Netherlands,
Spain, and Portugal all summoned their respective Israeli ambassadors to
formally express indignation and demand explanations.
- Severe Condemnation: European leaders and top
officials, including EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, lambasted the
treatment of the detainees as "degrading," "inhumane,"
and a "violation of human dignity".
- Broader Diplomatic Strains: This event compounds a
pre-existing decline in relations. Long-standing allies like Italy and
Spain have downgraded defense ties, and several nations are increasingly
pressing to review or suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement due to humanitarian
concerns.
CMV: Israel is by far the largest contributor to growing antisemitism worldwide
.jpeg)
CMV:
Israel is by far the largest contributor to growing antisemitism worldwide
I believe
that not only Israel’s most recent conduct with the Gaza genocide, but Israel’s
historical treatment and systemic dehumanization of the Palestinian people is
by far the biggest driver of rapidly growing antisemitism.
To be
clear, I fundamentally disagree with attributing blame for the state of
Israel’s conduct to the Jewish people as a whole. My point is not in support of
antisemitism, but an observation that the conduct and arguably nature of an
ethno supremicist state cloaked under a facade of democracy has fostered an
environment for people to condemn Jews as a whole rather than the individuals
and policies responsible.
Interestingly
enough, due to the backlash in response to the Gaza genocide, there has been a
massive and organized Zionist move to purchase media outlets in order to regain
narrative control. People largely acquire their information from social media,
so TikTok is at the top of the list to be acquired/controlled by Zionist
interests. There is a lot to dig into in regard to the narrative war and how
Israel is waging it, but that’s for another time. Importantly, many zionists
are intentionally attempting to blur the lines between Jew and Israel, thus
insulating the political entity at the expense of the people.
As the
facade of democracy falls away and the curtain is pulled back, people not only
see a handful of individuals to blame, but they see the foundation is rotten,
and increasing numbers of people wrongfully believe that foundation to be Jews
as a whole, rather then the political structure and extremists who lead the
charge for the most radical and despicable behavior. The part that concerns me
is that the pattern of wrongful attribution isn’t new, but it’s gaining
momentum in a concerning way.
Israel’s
policy towards Palestinians has strongly articulated some nasty fundamental
underlying realities of the state, but because normal people feel useless and
ineffective in addressing and changing the states policy from a political
perspective, many direct frustration and hatred towards Jews as a people
because it’s the easy option that’s within their realm of expression and
impact. I suspect it’s largely a “I can fight and actually do something in this
way” type of mentality.
We know
that Jews as a people are distinct and separate from the political entity of
Israel, but there has been a lot of Zionist effort to blur those lines in a
nationalistic push to maintain unity and momentum along with protection of the
state. Unchecked criminal behavior such as war crimes, land theft, apartheid,
and unmitigated settler violence against the Palestinian people having
continuously occurred over the last 60 years has disillusioned many people to
Israel, but they are taking it out on Jews, and I fear it’s only going to get
worse.
Flotilla Row Explodes: Italy Summons Israel Envoy As Shocking ‘Thrashing Activists’ Visuals Emerge / PM issues rare rebuke, says conduct doesn't reflect Israeli values
PM issues
rare rebuke, says conduct doesn't reflect Israeli values
Ben Gvir
posts video of himself taunting bound and detained Gaza flotilla activists,
sparks global outcry
Clip
shows minister waving Israeli flag as activists forced to kneel on ground and
national anthem blasts over loudspeaker; Italy, France summon Israeli envoys
over treatment of their citizens
By ToI
Staff, Agencies and Nava Freiberg Follow
20 May
2026, 5:24 pmUpdated: Today, 3:20 am
National
Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir posted a video on Wednesday in which he is
seen taunting activists from a Gaza flotilla intercepted by Israel, immediately
sparking an international outcry.
Dozens of
activists can be seen in the clip forced to kneel on the ground, with their
hands tied, at an Ashdod port facility where they were being processed ahead of
their likely deportation.
Those
aboard the flotilla intercepted by Israel earlier this week included Italian
and Spanish nationals, whose governments said they would summon the respective
Israeli ambassadors in their countries for a reprimand over Ben Gvir’s
behavior. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a rare rebuke of the
far-right cabinet member he appointed, insisting that the national security
minister’s conduct was not in line with Israel’s values.
The video
begins with a female activist shouting “Free Palestine,” before being grabbed
by the head and shoved to the ground by officers who drag her out of Ben Gvir’s
way, as he tours the facility.
The
treatment of the detainees appeared akin to security forces’ handling of the
most severe terrorists in the prisons overseen by Ben Gvir’s office, which has
also prompted allegations of abuse.
With
dozens of bound activists kneeling on the ground, Ben Gvir is seen waving a
large Israeli flag and shouting in Hebrew, “Welcome to Israel! We are in charge
here!”
Another
shot pans through the kneeling activists, as Israel’s national anthem is
blasted over a loudspeaker. Ben Gvir is subsequently seen shouting “Am Yisrael
Chai” (the nation of Israel lives) at a bound detainee trying to argue with
him.
Ben Gvir
is also heard urging guards at the facility “not [to] be bothered by their
screams,” as a woman can be heard crying out in the background.
International
furor
Italian
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the clip “unacceptable,” taking issue with
the treatment of activists that violated their human dignity. Italy’s foreign
ministry said a member of the country’s parliament and a journalist were among
those detained.
Meloni
wrote on X that her government was taking immediate steps at the highest levels
to secure the release of all Italian citizens who were detained.
“Italy
further demands an apology for the treatment of these demonstrators and for the
utter contempt shown toward the explicit requests of the Italian government,”
she said, adding that Israel’s ambassador in Rome would also be summoned.
French
Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot tweeted that he too had summoned Israel’s
ambassador in Paris over the mistreatment of the French nationals aboard the
flotilla.
“Whatever
one thinks of this flotilla — and we have indicated on several occasions our
disapproval of this initiative — our compatriots who are participating in it
must be treated with respect and released as quickly as possible,” he wrote.
Citizens
of South Korea were also among those detained by Israeli naval forces,
President Lee Jae Myung said on Wednesday, calling Israel’s actions “way out of
line.”
Spain and
Ireland also issued statements, calling out Ben Gvir’s “monstrous” and
“appalling” behavior.
Even US
President Donald Trump’s administration issued a rare critique, branding Ben
Gvir’s actions “despicable.
“Flotilla
was stupid stunt, but Ben Gvir betrayed dignity of his nation,” wrote US
Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on X.
PM, FM
criticism
As the
international outcry quickly mounted, Netanyahu issued a rare statement
criticizing one of his own ministers.
“Israel
has every right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terrorist supporters
from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza. However, the way that
Minister Ben Gvir dealt with the flotilla activists is not in line with
Israel’s values and norms,” Netanyahu said.
“I have
instructed the relevant authorities to deport the provocateurs as soon as
possible,” the premier added.
Foreign
Minister Gideon Sa’ar posted a sharper reprimand of Ben Gvir in English from
his personal X account, which was also shared by the Foreign Ministry’s
official feed.
“You
deliberately caused damage to the state with this disgraceful performance, and
not for the first time,” Sa’ar wrote, addressing Ben Gvir. “You squandered
enormous, professional, and successful efforts made by many, many people—from
IDF soldiers to Ministry of Foreign Affairs employees and many other fine
individuals.”
“No, you
are not the face of Israel,” Sa’ar wrote.
According
to the Kan public broadcaster, Israel Prisons Service Commissioner Kobi Yaakobi
— who is considered a close ally of Ben Gvir — gave the go ahead for the
minister to tour the facility where the activists were held, as well as them
being restrained, forced to kneel on the ground and having him parade around
with an Israeli flag and blasting Hebrew music.
The
prisons service insisted in a statement to Haaretz that the detention of the
activists was “carried out in accordance with procedure and professional
considerations,” as media outlets suggested the prison officials present in the
clip were acting against political and military policies.
Ben Gvir,
who is in charge of the police force and prison service, proudly touts his
hard-handed policies. In February, he posted a video of himself touring the
Ofer Prison as guards could be seen roughly manhandling Palestinian security
prisoners.
The
activists were detained at the Ashdod port after the Foreign Ministry said a
day earlier that the latest flotilla aiming to break the naval blockade of Gaza
had “come to an end.”
The
sister of Ireland’s President Catherine Connolly was also among the over 400
activists who were on board the flotilla that set sail from Turkey last week.
Israel
has dismissed the flotilla as “a PR stunt at the service of Hamas.”
Organizers
said they aimed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza by delivering humanitarian
assistance, something aid bodies say is still in short supply, despite a
US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in place since October 2025 that
includes guarantees of increased aid. Israel has said that the flotillas
generally carry only symbolic quantities of aid, and that they refuse to hand
it over for overland transfer into Gaza.
Israeli
rights group Adalah said in a statement that the activists had been “detained
at Ashdod port” and “taken into Israel against their will as Adalah attorneys
entered for legal consultations.”
The
flotilla’s organizers said in a statement that the activists would be taken to
Ketziot prison in Israel’s southern Negev desert. It said that Adalah lawyers
would not be able to meet them until they get to Ketziot.
The
flotilla was led by Turkish aid organization IHH, designated in Israel as a
terror organization, which organized the deadly 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla to
Gaza.
A live
feed on the Global Sumud Flotilla’s website showed Israeli commandos boarding
the vessels on Tuesday as activists in life vests put their hands up. The
troops then destroyed cameras mounted on the ships.
In a post
on X, the Foreign Ministry said 430 activists would be able to meet with their
consular representatives.
“Israel
will continue to act in full accordance with international law and will not
permit any breach of the lawful naval blockade on Gaza,” the statement added.
The
Israel Defense Forces began stopping the flotilla around 167 miles (268
kilometers) from the Gaza coastline, according to the flotilla’s website. The
vessels departed last week from Marmaris, Turkey, which, along with Gaza-ruling
Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, called the interdictions an act of “piracy.”
The $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" announced by the Justice Department on May 18, 2026, has been characterized by Democratic critics and in legal filings as a "slush fund" intended to finance a "private militia" of loyalists.
The $1.776
billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" announced by the Justice
Department on May 18, 2026, has been characterized by Democratic critics and in
legal filings as a "slush fund" intended to finance a "private
militia" of loyalists. While the Trump administration maintains the fund
is a legal settlement to compensate victims of "lawfare" and
government weaponization, opponents argue its true purpose is to reward and
mobilize groups involved in political violence.
Key
Details of the Controversy
- The "Militia"
Accusation:
Representative Jamie Raskin and other Democratic lawmakers have explicitly
accused the president of using taxpayer money to fund a private militia of "insurrectionists, rioters, and
white supremacists" who committed violence in his name.
- Legal Challenges: Two police officers who
defended the Capitol on January 6—Daniel Hodges and Harry Dunn—filed a lawsuit on May 20, 2026, claiming the fund will be
used to "finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that
commit violence in his name".
- Fund Origin: The fund stems from a
settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS regarding the
leak of his tax returns; critics call this a "collusive"
agreement because Trump’s own DOJ is settling with him.
- Payout Eligibility: Acting Attorney General Todd
Blanche has not ruled out payouts for individuals convicted in connection
with the January 6 Capitol riot.
- Oversight Concerns: The fund is managed by a
five-member commission appointed by the Attorney General, with members
whom the president can dismiss at will, leading to claims of zero
congressional or judicial oversight.
Broader
Context
- Coup Concerns: Political analysts and critics
have suggested that the empowerment of these groups, combined with plans
to use federal forces in domestic cities, constitutes
"coup-proofing" or the groundwork for an autocratic takeover.
- Congressional Opposition: Over 90 House Democrats have
joined efforts to block the fund, calling it an "illegal cash
grab" that violates the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on spending
federal funds to repay participants in an insurrection.
Trump’s Government Moves to Spare an Unhappy Taxpayer Named Trump
News
Analysis
Trump’s
Government Moves to Spare an Unhappy Taxpayer Named Trump
No
president has ever used the federal government to advance his own personal
interests and those of his family and allies as expansively and openly as Mr.
Trump has.
Peter
Baker
By Peter
Baker
Peter
Baker, the chief White House correspondent, is covering his sixth
administration and has written multiple books on the modern presidency.
May 20,
2026
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/trump-fund-presidents-self-dealing.html
It is
hard to imagine that any previous president would have thought he could engage
in such an audacious act of self-dealing.
Sue the
government he runs, then settle the lawsuit with himself by barring the
Internal Revenue Service from auditing his past returns. And as part of that
deal, hand over $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to his allies.
President
Trump has used the federal government to advance his own personal interests and
those of his family and allies more expansively and openly than any past
occupant of the White House. Any review of history would suggest that it is not
even close.
But as
Mr. Trump, the only convicted felon ever elected president, heads deeper into
his second term, he seems even less inhibited by the rules, written or
unwritten, that governed his predecessors. While deeply unpopular with the
general public, he has demonstrated as recently as this week that he remains
the undisputed master of his own party, and therefore appears to feel that he
can do as he likes without fear of Congress standing in his way.
His
self-granted writ of immunity from I.R.S. audits amounts to a
get-out-of-audits-free card, essentially the equivalent of pardoning himself
for any past offenses and forgiving any tax debt or penalties. While the status
of any now-short-circuited audits is not publicly known, his action could
theoretically save him from paying $100 million or more, based on past
estimates of what his liability might have been under an unfavorable I.R.S.
decision.
The
I.R.S. audit immunity for himself, along with the taxpayer payout to his
supporters — potentially including those who attacked the Capitol and beat
police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to overturn an election that Mr.
Trump lost — stand out in their brazenness, yet not in what they say about his
underlying approach to governance in his sixth year in office.
Mr. Trump
has so blurred the lines between his financial interests and his public office
that it is hard to define where the lines lie anymore, or if they still exist.
He, his family and his friends have made a fortune in the 16 months since he
returned to power in ways that once would have been seen as conflicts of
interest and possibly generated investigations.
“Presidents
have had corrupt, even criminal, family members,” said Barbara A. Perry, a
presidential scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, citing,
among others, Hunter Biden. “But none of them succeeded to the extent of the
Trump family in the level of graft achieved.”
She
added: “They have won the presidency twice, emasculated Congress, created a
supportive high court, and reshaped the law and institutions to absolve them of
any wrongdoing, while making billions of ill-gotten dollars.”
Anna
Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, rejected the assertion.
“This is
the same tired narrative that Democrats have pushed against President Trump,
his family and his administration for a decade,” she said. “President Trump
only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they
overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false
accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media. There are
no conflicts of interest.”
Just last
week, a disclosure form indicated that Mr. Trump’s investment portfolio
executed more than 3,600 trades in the first three months of this year alone,
many involving companies that he has favored with access or policies. His
portfolio bought stock in companies run by 15 of the 17 chief executives he
brought with him to China last week. The timing of some purchases has raised
questions about whether they were related to statements he made or to policies
he embraced.
The Trump
Organization, his family-owned business, said that the trades were made by
outside brokerage firms, and that he, his family and his firm did not have any
role in deciding what stocks to buy or sell. But unlike most modern presidents,
Mr. Trump has not put his investments in a genuine blind trust, since, as the
disclosure form made clear, it is no secret to him what companies he has shares
in as he goes about making policy decisions.
His
family has profited enormously off his new cryptocurrency business at the same
time the president has rolled back regulation of the industry. Mr. Trump
pardoned the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, which was involved
in helping the Trump family build its crypto start-up. Jeff Bezos, whose
businesses receive federal contracts and depend on U.S. Postal Service rates,
approved paying an estimated $28 million to Melania Trump, the first lady, for
a self-promotional film streamed on Amazon.
Mr.
Trump’s sons and son-in-law are involved in multibillion-dollar business
ventures in the Gulf Arab states at the same time the president is making those
nations favorites of his foreign policy. An investment firm tied to the United
Arab Emirates made a $500 million investment in the Trump crypto firm just days
before his inauguration. The Trump administration later approved the export of
advanced chips to the U.A.E. Altogether, Bloomberg has estimated that the
family’s crypto investments have increased its net worth by more than $1
billion, at least on paper.
Polls
show that most of the public has concluded that Mr. Trump is leveraging the
presidency for his own benefit. A poll by YouGov in March found that 54 percent
of Americans believed the term “corrupt” applied “a lot” to the president, up
from 46 percent a year earlier.
Democrats
lashed out after the announcement of the $1.8 billion fund for Mr. Trump’s
allies and the I.R.S. immunity. “A stunning act of corruption,” said Senator
Ron Wyden of Oregon. “A scam,” wrote Representatives Richard Neal of
Massachusetts and Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “This one is just eye-popping
unbelievable,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Even some
Republicans indicated unease with the arrangement. Senator John Thune of South
Dakota, the majority leader, said he was “not a big fan” of the taxpayer fund
for Mr. Trump’s supporters. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
went so far as to say that “we’re going to try to kill it.”
But the
Republican congressional majorities, which eagerly pursued corruption
allegations against President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family, have until
now shown little interest in scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s blending of personal and
public interests. And Mr. Trump demonstrated once again on Tuesday with the
defeat of Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky in a Republican primary that
he still wields unrivaled power to punish those who cross him.
Speaking
with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Trump defended his lawsuit against the I.R.S.
over a contractor illegally providing his tax forms to reporters. The
contractor has since been convicted by the Biden Justice Department and
sentenced to prison, but Mr. Trump argued the agency itself should still be
held responsible.
He still
acted as if he had nothing to do with the eventual deal negotiated by lawyers
who work for him, including the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who was
his personal defense attorney in criminal cases before the 2024 election.
“I guess
they made a settlement of some kind,” Mr. Trump said. “I wasn’t involved in the
settlement. I could have been involved. But I didn’t choose to be.” He did not
explain why the release of his tax forms, even if the government is held
liable, should preclude him from being audited for his past returns.
As for
the $1.8 billion fund, it is to go to those people who were supposedly
mistreated by the Justice Department under Mr. Biden, which could include the
Jan. 6 attackers, who were already pardoned by Mr. Trump. “People were
destroyed,” he said. “They went to jail. Their families were ruined. They
committed suicide.” He made no mention of the police officers who were
assaulted or later died.
Mr. Trump
is an unabashed tax avoider who has repeatedly come under scrutiny. The Trump
Organization, wholly owned by his family, was convicted in criminal court in
2022 of 17 counts of tax fraud, a scheme to defraud, conspiracy and falsifying
business records for doling out off-the-books perks to some of its top
executives. The company was given the maximum fine of $1.6 million. His chief
financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty to 15 counts and spent
several months in jail.
For
years, Mr. Trump fought to keep his tax returns hidden from the public, unlike
every other modern president who voluntarily released them. Tax documents
obtained by The Times in 2020 showed that he paid only $750 in federal income
taxes in 2016, when he originally ran for president on the basis of being a
billionaire businessman, and only $750 in 2017, his first year in office.
In 10 of
the previous 15 years, Mr. Trump paid no income taxes to the federal government
whatsoever, by reporting large losses. A yearlong audit battle with the I.R.S.
could have cost him $100 million absent this week’s arrangement, according to a
Times analysis of his returns in 2020, a sum that could be significantly higher
with six more years of interest.
Other
presidents did whatever they could to avoid looking like they were skimping on
taxes, trading the markets, making money off policy decisions or using taxpayer
funds to reward political allies. While many modern presidents have cashed in
after leaving office, none have made the kind of money that Mr. Trump and his
family have during their time in the White House.
Even the
most notorious presidential financial scandals in history — Credit Mobilier
during Ulysses S. Grant’s administration, Teapot Dome during Warren G.
Harding’s presidency and Watergate during Richard M. Nixon’s tenure — did not
come close to the money swirling around the Trump family during his second
term.
“Not only
do the three most infamous previous presidency financial-political scandals
seem minor compared to Trump’s,” said Ms. Perry, the presidential scholar, “but
none of the three presidents — Grant, Harding, Nixon — padded their own bank
accounts.” People around Grant and Harding traded public policy for money, but
there was no evidence that the presidents themselves profited. And the money
raised by Nixon’s team went to his campaign dirty tricks slush fund and hush
money for the Watergate burglars, rather into the president’s pocket.
As of
Wednesday, Forbes magazine estimated Mr. Trump’s net worth at $6.1 billion, up
from $5.1 billion last year and $2.3 billion in 2024.
Mr. Trump
has insisted that he does not make policy decisions based on his own interests,
and has accused those who have investigated him over the years of political
persecution. But as he grows more settled in office, he appears less concerned
about the way his actions look. He told The Times in January that he saw no
benefit in following the presidential traditions of blind trusts, divestment of
assets or avoiding business deals.
“I
prohibited them from doing business in my first term,” he said of his family,
“and I got absolutely no credit for it. I didn’t have to do that. And it’s
really unfair to them.” Critics would argue that he in fact did not fully
distance himself from business in his first term. But he noted that it did not
make a difference: “I found out that nobody cared, I’m allowed to.”
Peter
Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He is covering his
sixth presidency and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents
and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework.
Opinion
Guest
Essay
Trump
Just Pardoned Himself and His Family Forever
May 20,
2026
Jeffrey
Toobin
By
Jeffrey Toobin
Mr.
Toobin is a contributing Opinion writer and the author of “The Pardon: The
Politics of Presidential Mercy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/opinion/trump-doj-pardon.html
For
decades there have been disagreements among constitutional scholars about
whether a president can pardon himself. But Todd Blanche, the acting attorney
general, just gave President Trump something even better: pre-emptive
exoneration from all potential criminal liability for certain financial crimes.
He also guaranteed that the federal government would not be able to pursue tax
claims against the president (or his family or his businesses).
Mr.
Blanche wrote a new chapter in the history of the presidency, elevating the
office to a point where Mr. Trump and his family are declared exempt from the
rules that apply to his fellow citizens.
The
details of this gift were posted on the Department of Justice website on
Tuesday. The document is only a single page, and the language is (perhaps
intentionally) convoluted, but the meaning turns out to be clear.
The
United States agrees that it is “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting
or pursuing” President Trump, his eldest sons or any of their businesses. The
agreement covers matters “whether presently known or unknown” and cases that
“have been or could have been asserted” by the government.
This
means that the longstanding Internal Revenue Service audit of Mr. Trump, which
dates back to his days as a television star and real estate developer, will
most likely end on terms favorable to him. An adverse ruling in that case could
have cost him more than $100 million.
But
that’s just the beginning. The document places off limits the investigation of
any tax disputes (or tax crimes) regarding returns that were filed before this
week.
If
something comes to light in the future about misconduct or malfeasance relating
to the Trump family’s tax filings, as long as it took place before the
agreement took effect, it cannot be the basis for a prosecution. Reinforcing
the same point, the agreement states that the government is barred from
pursuing “any matters that were raised or could have been raised” in the
Trumps’ dispute with the I.R.S.
There
will be no cases against the Trumps before the I.R.S. “or other agencies or
departments.” Could Mr. Trump’s immunity extend beyond taxes? The Justice
Department, which brings federal criminal cases, may, as I interpret it, also
be barred from charging the Trumps with other crimes.
By
issuing a prohibition on federal investigations that might threaten Mr. Trump’s
finances, the department has placed the president and his family in a new
category of citizenship, where the tax rules that apply to every other American
do not apply to him or his family. By my reading, the document explicitly
forbids the government from challenging the legality of any trusts, which can
survive in perpetuity. In this way, Mr. Blanche’s memo is a gift to subsequent
generations of the Trump family.
Mr.
Blanche’s largess appeared in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit
against the I.R.S., which he and his two eldest sons filed in January to demand
compensation for the leaking of his tax returns. Since Mr. Trump was both the
plaintiff and in control of the defendant agency, the case from the beginning
was fatally compromised by a conflict of interest. For that reason, it’s hard
to describe its conclusion as a settlement, which implies the end of a lawsuit
that involves actually opposing parties.
Another
part of the resolution of the case was the creation Monday of a $1.776 billion
federal “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate supposed victims of unfair
federal investigations. Decisions about who receives payment, and how much, are
to be left to a five-member panel, whose members the attorney general will
appoint and the president can remove at will.
The
likely main claimants on these dollars are the nearly 1,600 rioters at the
Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, whom Trump pardoned on the first day of his second
term. As Mr. Blanche testified Tuesday, all of the rioters are welcome to
apply, including those who were convicted of assaulting police officers and
others who have subsequently committed further crimes.
The
creation of the fund set a theme of presidential exception that extended to Mr.
Blanche’s document the next day relieving Mr. Trump of significant financial
liability. The fund’s panel, which Mr. Trump will effectively control, will be
able to dispense millions of dollars to his allies, unconstrained by checks and
balances, especially those that direct that Congress, not the president, holds
the power of the federal purse.
The
Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States already foreclosed
investigation or prosecution of the president for any “official” actions taken
while in office. But the Blanche document excuses him from federal inquiry for
civil enforcement like tax audits and lawsuits to recover back taxes.
It’s this
civil immunity that makes Mr. Blanche’s offering better than a presidential
pardon, which can only offer protection from criminal charges.
What can
be done to overrule this action by the acting attorney general? Lawsuits will
surely be fruitless; no plaintiff has standing to sue because it’s hard to
imagine that anyone could assert having been injured by the Blanche document. A
new Congress could attempt somehow to overrule Mr. Blanche’s decision, but the
courts would very likely find that the acting attorney general’s determination
was within his discretion as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
A future
Justice Department could try to investigate or charge Mr. Trump in spite of the
Blanche document, on the grounds that it was somehow corrupt and unenforceable.
But such an action, years in the future, sounds like a law school hypothetical.
By
establishing this precedent, the Blanche document could echo into the future,
creating an expectation among future presidents that they and their families,
like the Trumps, deserve to be elevated to this new caste.
Mr.
Blanche has demonstrated his fealty to his boss and, he presumably hopes, won
Mr. Trump’s agreement to nominate him to be the confirmed attorney general. The
Blanche document shelters the president and his family from significant legal
liability, once more adapting the law to the man.
Opinion
The Editorial Board
There Has
Never Been an Example of Presidential Corruption Like This
May 20,
2026
By The
Editorial Board
The
editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate
from the newsroom.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/opinion/trump-doj-slush-fund-criminals-corruption.html
Has there
ever been an episode of presidential corruption so blatant and threatening to
constitutional order? Certainly not in modern times. President Trump’s Justice
Department is using taxpayer money to create a $1.8 billion political slush
fund. Ostensibly set up to compensate those who the department claims have
“suffered weaponization and lawfare,” it will in fact reward loyalists willing
to defy the law and commit violence on behalf of the president.
The fund
manages to combine three of Mr. Trump’s most alarming behaviors. One, it is an
obvious form of corruption, coming from a president who has used his office to
enrich himself, his family and his allies. Two, the fund continues his pattern
of using the Justice Department as an enforcer to punish his perceived
opponents and protect his friends and allies. Three, the fund is his latest
attempt to rewrite history about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack
on Congress.
It is
worth pausing to put the fund into the larger context of Mr. Trump’s political
project: He is destroying pillars of American democracy to empower himself. He
claims elections are legitimate only if he wins. He uses federal law
enforcement to investigate and prosecute his perceived enemies. He purges his
party of officials who defy him. He describes members of the other party and
civil society as traitors and enemies. He incentivizes his supporters to break
the law on his behalf and rewards them when they do. He directs his allies to
change election rules to keep his party in power.
Mr.
Trump’s project has not yet succeeded, at least not fully. Many Americans — in
the judicial system, in Congress, in state governments and elsewhere — continue
to stand up for democracy and oppose his autocratic ambitions. By now, though,
nobody should have illusions about what he is attempting to do.
The
fund’s existence is a story of political self-dealing. It is nominally the
product of a flimsy personal lawsuit that Mr. Trump filed this year against the
Internal Revenue Service, which he oversees, over the leaking of his tax
returns during his first term. That lawsuit led to an absurd negotiation, in
which the lawyers on one side worked for Mr. Trump the citizen and those on the
other side worked for Mr. Trump the president.
Adding to
absurdity, the government lawyers reported to Todd Blanche, the acting attorney
general, who previously worked as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. A federal judge
in Miami helping to oversee the case, Kathleen Williams, pointed out that the
two sides were not adversaries, which called into question the process. Even
Mr. Trump acknowledged the situation shortly after filing the suit by saying,
“I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.”
Yet the
talks proceeded because Mr. Trump’s Justice Department was in charge.
Unsurprisingly, they led to a deal that was extremely favorable to him.
In
exchange for the president’s dropping the suit against the I.R.S., both he and
his supporters will receive government handouts. For Mr. Trump, the handout
comes in the form of permission to have cheated on his taxes. The government
has granted him and his family immunity from ongoing audits of his tax
payments. He has a long history of using questionable accounting maneuvers, and
the audits could have cost him more than $100 million, experts have said. Now
they will cost him nothing.
For his
supporters, the handouts will come from the slush fund. The Justice Department
will tap a permanent stream of revenue that Congress created in 1956, known as
the Judgment Fund, to settle lawsuits against the federal government. As Paul
Figley, a former Justice Department official, noted, the new fund appears to be
both legal and at odds with Congress’s intent. “It’s horrible policy,” Mr.
Figley told The Times.
The
department has allocated $1.8 billion for what it calls, in an Orwellian
flourish, an Anti-Weaponization Fund and invited applications from people who
have been targeted for “political, personal or ideological reasons.” Mr.
Blanche — who holds his position as acting attorney general largely because of
his willingness to use federal power in service of Mr. Trump’s personal whims —
will appoint a five-member board, with congressional leaders given input on one
of the five. Mr. Trump can fire any of the members at any time.
To
understand who is likely to receive payments, look at who has previously
received settlements from the Justice Department. Michael Flynn, who was
briefly Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in 2017, received $1.25 million,
even though he pleaded guilty to lying to F.B.I. agents. The family of Ashli
Babbitt, who participated in the Jan. 6 riot, and whom federal agents shot as
she and others approached the House floor, received nearly $5 million, even
though investigators cleared the shooters of wrongdoing. The Trump
administration is paying off people who committed violence and crimes, as long
as they are Trump allies.
The
fund’s timeline is the giveaway of how Mr. Trump plans to use it. The Justice
Department said the fund would stop processing claims on Dec. 15, 2028, weeks
before the president is to leave office, ensuring the money is distributed
while he still holds the power to fire anyone who objects. The window is
precisely the window of Mr. Trump’s authority.
Even some
of Mr. Trump’s usual defenders are unhappy. Senator John Thune, Republican of
South Dakota and the majority leader, meekly said that he was “not a big fan”
of the fund. Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s general counsel,
resigned within hours of the announcement, seven months after the Senate had
confirmed him.
Providing
payoffs is only part of the point. Another, according to Mr. Blanche, is
“ensuring this never happens again.” What, exactly, is “this”? The evenhanded
enforcement of the law.
The Trump
administration has already fired federal agents who did their duties by
investigating the president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Trump
has issued blanket clemency to more than 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom may
soon receive payments. His Justice Department secured an indictment of James
Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on dubious charges as retribution for his
role in the investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign’s Russia ties. The fund
continues the effort to turn law enforcement into a tool of raw political
power.
The fund
also encourages future lawlessness on Mr. Trump’s behalf. It sends the message
that he will use his power not only to shield people who break the law from
accountability but also to shower benefits on them. Just as punishment is a
deterrent, rewards are an incentive.
After
President Richard Nixon’s abuses in the Watergate scandal, Congress and the
executive branch built rules and traditions to ensure that federal agencies,
especially the Justice Department, operated in the public interest, rather than
that of the president. Mr. Trump has tried to break this system. Once he is
gone, it will need to be rebuilt, and better than before. He has exposed and
exploited its flaws and gaps. Unless they are filled, Mr. Trump’s corruption
and perversion of justice risk becoming the norm.
In the
meantime, Americans should be cleareyed about what the president is doing. He
is taking their money and showering it on criminals.
quarta-feira, 20 de maio de 2026
The problem of radical Left Palestina actions invanding the Climate Movement
The
problem of radical Left Palestina actions invanding the Climate Movement
The
intersection of radical Left Palestinian solidarity and the climate movement is
driven by a belief in "intersectionality"—the argument that the
systems driving climate change are identical to those responsible for
colonialism and systemic oppression. This ideological alignment has actively
reshaped climate protests, though it has also caused significant internal
fractures within the broader environmental movement.
The
integration of these causes manifests in several specific, localized, and
global ways:
1.
Intersectional Theory
Radical
climate groups argue that climate justice is impossible without human rights.
They posit that resource extraction, military-industrial complexes, border
militarization, and the policing of indigenous lands are deeply interconnected.
Consequently, prominent climate organizations like the Climate
Justice Alliance treat Palestinian liberation as an intrinsic
component of the global environmental agenda.
2. Direct
Action and Divestment
Tactics
originally honed for climate defense have been cross-applied to Palestine.
Coalitions of climate and Palestinian solidarity activists frequently engage in
joint civil disobedience, blockades, and economic disruption. Organizations
such as Palestine Action—often working alongside climate groups—have
targeted, occupied, and vandalized weapons manufacturing facilities, logistics
hubs, and financial institutions (like Barclays Bank) to demand divestment from
both the fossil fuel and arms industries.
3. Focus
on Ecocide and Emissions
Environmentalists
have increasingly centered the long-term ecological impacts of Middle Eastern
conflicts in their activism. Activists highlight the carbon footprint of modern
warfare and the destruction of agricultural spaces, water supplies, and ecosystems.
They point to cases where conflicts cause toxic heavy metal contamination in
soils and the collapse of sewage and water treatment infrastructure.
4.
Movement Fractures
While many
progressive left-wing climate groups embrace this unified front, it has also
divided the environmental movement globally. Many activists strongly argue that
merging the Palestinian cause with climate actions dilutes the focus on
strictly environmental goals. For example, prominent figures like Greta
Thunberg have faced public backlash at climate rallies for turning the focus
toward Palestinian solidarity. Regional differences are also stark; chapters in
countries like the UK often organize unified protests, while branches in places
like Germany have famously splintered over the issue, with mainstream groups
doubling down on their support for Israel
The Climate Movement represents a Universal message that transcends Politics.
The Climate Movement represents a Universal
message that transcends Politics.
Any Identification with Political Movements will
destroy the essence of the Message.
This development will alienate lots of People
I will never participate in een mixed Packet of
Ideologies
Prince Charles, now the King, has been able to
separate all these themes.
The Climate Movement Must Transcend Left and Right
and represent his position as Universal.
OVOODOCORVO
Is Palestine global intifada infiltrating in the climate Movement?
Is Palestine global
intifada infiltrating in the climate Movement?
While these
alliances have successfully broadened the scope of the climate movement, they
have also sparked internal debates. Some observers and movement members caution
that adopting overtly geopolitical and polarizing stances risks alienating
parts of the broader public whose primary focus remains strictly on
environmental and sustainability issues.
Rather than
"infiltrating," pro-Palestinian and anti-war advocacy has merged with
the global climate movement through a framework known as "climate
justice". Prominent activists and organizations argue that the systemic
forces driving global militarism, colonialism, and resource extraction are the
same ones driving environmental degradation.
This
intersectionality is most visible in the following ways:
- Movement Merging: Major climate
organizations and high-profile activists, such as Greta Thunberg, have
actively participated in demonstrations calling for a ceasefire and
Palestinian liberation. They frame the situation in Gaza as both a
humanitarian crisis and a localized environmental catastrophe.
- Ideological Linkage: Activists argue that
"no climate justice is possible without peace". They assert that
the same political, economic, and geopolitical structures that lead to the
exploitation of Global South communities, deforestation, and fossil fuel
wars are also responsible for the occupation and militarization in
Palestine.
- Specific Campaigns: Groups are campaigning
against what they term "green colonialism" and
"ecocide," pointing to the environmental impacts of military
operations, the destruction of agricultural lands, and resource control
(such as limitations on Palestinian water and gas exploration
rights).
While these
alliances have successfully broadened the scope of the climate movement, they
have also sparked internal debates. Some observers and movement members caution
that adopting overtly geopolitical and polarizing stances risks alienating
parts of the broader public whose primary focus remains strictly on
environmental and sustainability issues.
