All posts tagged "mexico"

Trump gets 'terse warning' from another country after raid: 'Not mincing his words!'

President Donald Trump just got a "terse warning" on Monday from a South American leader following the military intervention in Venezuela and capture of President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has said that Colombia is run "by a sick man" and has signaled an interest in attacking and invading the country, along with Cuba, Greenland and Mexico. Trump has claimed that Colombia is not doing enough to combat narcotics.

In response, Colombia's president Gustavo Petro didn't hold back.

"Gustavo Petro, really not mincing his words today in a lengthy and quite fiery post on X, essentially warning President Trump off of even contemplating the idea of some kind of U.S. military intervention here in Colombia," said Clarissa Ward, chief international correspondent, told CNN anchor Kasie Hunt.

"He talked about the fact that despite his renouncing of weapons as part of his past, he was a former guerrilla, that he would be willing to pick up arms again to defend his homeland. And he warned President Trump that if there was some kind of U.S. military intervention, that you would see a large and fiery response on the streets throughout Colombia from ordinary people, writing, 'if you arrest a president who a good part of my people want and respect, you will unleash a popular jaguar.' So a very strong and frankly terse warning to President Trump."

Colombia has increased its military presence along the Venezuelan border and has added 30,000 more troops.

"But I would say, Kasie, we've been also talking to people in the presidential office, and CNN has also spoken to the defense minister, Pedro Sanchez, who are really trying to tamp down the rhetoric here, who are saying that the cooperation in terms of law enforcement continues between the U.S. and Colombia," Ward added. "Colombia continues to be the U.S.'s most important strategic ally in terms of its counter-narcotics strategy. For the past four decades, and that cooperation is continuing. We heard a sort of similar tone from Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who pretty much seemed to brush off President Trump's warning that Mexico should, 'get its act together,' saying, 'listen, that's just the way he talks.'"

Whether Trump is serious about further military action or not, Colombia has prepared to heighten its security and vehemently opposes U.S. interference.

"But nonetheless, there is clearly very real concern throughout this region, because what we saw take place over the course of the last few days was very shocking to many," Ward said. "And U.S. meddling and military intervention is anathema to so many countries in this region because of the history of the last few decades. So we also heard there was another post that I thought was interesting from President Petro, where he said, 'Don't just think Latin America is a nest of criminals poisoning your people. Respect us and read your history again.'"

This brutal and incoherent Trump action bodes ill for the whole world

The story of what’s happening in Venezuela is unfolding quickly and big questions are mounting. The immediate danger in Venezuela (and potentially in Colombia and Cuba) is chaos.

Asked who’s in charge of Venezuela, Trump answered: “We’re in charge.”

What the hell does this bluster really mean?

U.S. troops are not prepared to occupy Venezuela. Trying to do so would be a disaster.

Maduro’s system of oppression is still entrenched there. It includes the national guard, the army, the national police, the intelligence service, and the Colombian guerrilla group ELN. All remain intact.

Maduro’s top lieutenants also remain, including several who were involved in his alleged crimes. Not to mention his thugs and narco-traffickers who have been controlling Venezuela through violent repression and stolen elections.

Venezuela has roughly 28 million people. There’s no way to determine the emerging balance of power between pro- and anti-Maduro camps, but it’s a safe bet that any power void is likely to be filled with violence.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke of “coercing” the Venezuelan government to make policy changes over its oil reserves, rather than “running” the country: American forces will prevent oil tankers from entering and leaving Venezuela until the government opens up the state-controlled oil industry to foreign investment — presumably giving priority to American companies.

But since August, America has had an arsenal of warships, jet fighters, and some 15,000 troops on Venezuela’s doorstep, which hasn’t stopped oil shipments. How big must the arsenal be to do the job? How long will it remain there? At what cost? Will we bomb Russian or Chinese tankers coming into or out of Venezuela?

Rubio emphasized that “the national interest of the United States … is No. 1.” But what exactly is the “national interest” of the United States here? Big Oil? Chevron has been in Venezuela for years. Do we declare victory when Exxon-Mobil is there, too? Do we insist that Venezuela not charge America oil companies any extraction fees? How profitable must Big Oil’s extractions of oil from Venezuela become before Trump is satisfied?

Rubio says Trump hasn’t ruled out troops on the ground. But does anyone remember what happened in Iraq after the U.S. invasion there? Libya? Syria? Hello? How many failed states do we need to create before we understand their danger to the stability of an entire region of the globe?

Meanwhile, the Trump regime is fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, both in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America.

Asked tonight whether the United States would conduct an operation against Colombia, Trump said, “it sounds good to me.” He also suggested Mexico could be another target, saying the Mexican cartels are “very strong,” drugs are “pouring” through the country, and “we’re gonna have to do something.” As to Cuba, it “looks like it is ready to fall.”

He didn’t even stop with Latin America. Trump made clear he also wants to take control of Greenland. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and the European Union needs us to have it and they know that,” he told reporters on Air Force One.

This is nuts. Trump is already on his way to destroying the rule of law in America. Now he’s destroying the rules-based system of international law and diplomacy that the United States created in the wake of the horrors of World War II.

“America is respected again,” he gloated in his address to the nation on Dec. 9. For Trump, “respect” means the power to bully, regardless of law. “Our nation is strong, and America is BACK.”

Wrong. What’s back is lawless gunboat diplomacy.

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

'International incident': 'Terrifying standoff' as US troops mistakenly invade Mexico

American troops "pulled up on a Mexican beach" and created a "terrifying standoff," according to a new report.

According to at least one news report, "American troops pulled up on a Mexican beach in a dramatic escalation of tensions after Donald Trump threatened to bomb the country."

"US 'contractors' arrived by boat on Monday at Playa Bagdad, driving signs into the sand near where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico," the Thursday report states. "Alarmed witnesses quickly alerted officials and heavily armed Mexican security personnel rushed to the scene on trucks mounted with machine guns in a terrifying standoff."

The report continues:

"The Pentagon, in a deeply embarrassing statement, admitted that its troops were mistaken when they landed on the beach. The Mexican personnel watched as the Americans drove six signs into the ground, which said: 'Warning: restricted area.' Written in English and Spanish, they claimed that the beach was the property of the US Department of Defense and had been declared restricted by 'the commander.' They also said unauthorized access or photography was not allowed in that area and that 'if you are found here, you may be detained and searched.' Mexico's foreign affairs ministry said its navy removed the signs from the sand, which it believed were on Mexican territory."

Ex-prosecutor Ron Filipkowski chimed in on social media on Thursday:

"Apparently dips--- Hegseth’s 'lethal warfighters' landed inside the Mexican border by mistake and created an international incident."

Furious Brit hammers Trump for threats that could give World Cup a 'tournament low'

Donald Trump and "his FIFA soulmate" Gianni Infantino got slammed Tuesday by a European analyst who claimed America's president is destroying the world's leading sporting event.

In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Marina Hyde criticized how Trump and Infantino, "the Forrest Gump of Trump’s administration," are bringing politics to the World Cup — a tournament watched by a worldwide audience on billions.

"On Monday, the worst man in world sport was – yet again – to be found in the Oval Office, this time nodding along to Trump’s declaration that games could be moved from host cities for next summer’s World Cup if the US president deems there’s 'a problem' with security or that the cities are non-compliant in some other way," Hyde writes. The 2026 competition is set to be played at cities across the US, as well as Canada and Mexico.

Trump insinuated that he would move the location of matches if they are happening in cities run by "a Democrat/'communist,'" the writer explained — a clear reference to New York City's mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Though games are scheduled to be played at MetLife Stadium — the home of the New York Giants — that venue is actually in New Jersey.

Other cities hosting matches are Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, the San Francisco and Seattle

"Amazing that the FIFA president will gladly allow his tournaments to be held in any old violent autocracy but, for the purposes of the White House cameras at least, might need to draw the line at Boston," the writer added.

Trump's threat to remove a game from a host city has not once happened in the 95 years of the tournament's history and "should perhaps confirm the increasing global impression that the US might just be a uniquely backward country. Football fans considering buying expensive tickets and making even more expensive travel arrangements should consider that they are journeying somewhere so apparently volatile that even its own president talks its safety down."

It's a bad pattern for the organization, she wrote, pointing to previous entanglements between FIFA and governments.

"It used to be host governments that got co-opted into FIFA’s supra-national edicts – I remember South Africa being forced to set up highly dubious “FIFA World Cup Courts” for errant fans during the 2010 tournament. But now FIFA is a wholly owned tool of whoever will have it. Like all parasites, it relies on its host organisms," Hyde writes.

In May, Infantino reportedly attended Trump's Middle East peace summit, "causing him to be so late for Fifa’s own congress that even Uefa accused him of prioritising 'private political interests' and staged a delegate walk-out. Last month, Gianni was back on the political trail at Trump’s Gaza peace talks in Egypt, and earlier this month instituted some preposterous Fifa peace prize that he’s going to inaugurate at the final draw for the 2026 World Cup in Washington next month, quite possibly so that the orange organ grinder can be the first winner of it."

The FIFA leader was also seen "grinning along while Trump announced things such as the possible ordering of 'strikes' on one of the US’s 2026 World Cup co-host nations, Mexico. Perhaps the writing was on the wall when Gianni kicked off the year of ceaselessly grim politicking by attending Trump’s inauguration, where he was filmed giggling appreciatively during the bit where the US president announced he’d be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America."

Hyde also expects that the peace prize Infantino has floated will go to Trump, and possibly more than once.

"As for that peace prize, please don’t limit yourself to thinking it will be annual," Hyde writes. "The last time Gianni invented a prize – Fifa’s The Best Awards – he held them twice inside nine months. So there is every chance Trump could win it again before next summer’s World Cup kicks off. It’s all thanks to the least political man in world sport – or certainly, the least sporting man in world politics.

MAGA senator slams illegal immigrants as 'criminals' — then steps in to free ICE detainee

MAGA Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who has been a fervent supporter of Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to deport undocumented migrants, reversed course when it came to one of his constituents, according to The New York Times.

Kennedy told Fox News on July 17, “If you’re in our country illegally, you’re a criminal. Illegal immigration is illegal, duh.”

And yet, the senator's office recently asked the Department of Homeland Security to release 25-year-old Paola Clouatre after two months in a Louisiana detention center, the report said.

Clouatre is a Mexican citizen and mother of two young children who is married to a U.S. Marine Corps veteran.

"In an email on Tuesday morning, Christy Tate, the constituent services representative in Mr. Kennedy’s office, wrote to Mr. Clouatre to confirm that his wife had been released from ICE custody after her office had made a formal request to the federal agency," the report said.

The email read in part, “I am so happy for you and your family. We will continue to keep you, your family and others that are experiencing the same issues in our prayers.”

Reporter Pooja Salhotra wrote that Clouatre came to the United States as a teenager "to seek asylum with her mother and brother." After her mother failed to show up for a court hearing in California in 2018, a judge issued a deportation order against the teen.

Now estranged from her mother, Clouatre said she didn't learn of the deportation order until earlier this year "when she was already in the process of applying for a green card," the report said.

She was detained by ICE agents on May 27 shortly after giving birth, and while attending a "routine appointment in New Orleans related to her application for a green card and permanent resident status," according to the report.

During her incarceration, Clouatre's husband brought the couple's 9-week-old baby to the jail so she could breastfeed. She is currently wearing an ankle monitor and awaiting a court date for her immigration proceedings.

Read The New York Times report here.

Triggered by Mexican flags at ICE protests? Chances are you're white

Edward D. Vargas, Associate Professor, School of Transborder Studies, Arizona State University; Jason L. Morín, Professor of Political Science, California State University, Northridge; Loren Collingwood, Associate Professor of political science, University of New Mexico.

Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted a series of raids throughout Los Angeles and southern California in early June, sparking protests in downtown LA and other cities, including New York, Chicago and Austin.

Some demonstrators expressed growing frustration with ICE by showcasing the Mexican flag, which has become the defining symbol of the protests in LA.

The use of the flag has also become the subject of intense debate in the media.

Some outlets have depicted the flag as symbolizing ethnic pride, solidarity with immigrants and opposition to the Trump administration.

Others have called it the “perfect propaganda” tool for Republicans and conservatives, some of whom have referred to the Mexican flag as the “confederate banner of the L.A. riots.” They point to its use as evidence of anarchy and a city taken over by immigrants.

But what do Americans think about protesters waving the Mexican flag, and why?

Much of our knowledge surrounding this question is based on the 2006 immigrant rights protests across the United States, which occurred in a much less politically polarized era. Additionally, a vast majority of protesters then brought U.S. flags compared with other national flags, including the Mexican flag.

Research published in 2010 found that even though the public was more likely to be bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag than the U.S. flag, that difference was largely absent once you divided the public into subgroups, including white people, Latinos and immigrants.

To reexamine public attitudes toward protesters waving the Mexican flag, we conducted an online survey experiment among 10,145 U.S. adults in 2016.

As political scientists who specialize in Latino politics and immigration-related issues, we tested how exposure to the Mexican flag versus the American flag shaped opinion about protests during Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016.

We found that even though much of the public continued to be less bothered by the American flag than the Mexican flag, there were also important and perhaps surprising differences in protest attitudes between white Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.

More or less bothered

In the study, we randomly divided respondents into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Respondents in the treatment group were shown an image of protesters waving a Mexican flag. Respondents in the control group were shown an image of protesters waving the U.S. flag. After viewing the image, respondents were then asked about the extent to which they supported or were bothered by the protests.

Overall, 41 percent of the respondents said they were bothered by protesters waving the Mexican flag, and 28 percent said protesters waving the U.S. flag bothered them.

Our results show important differences in opinion between racial and ethnic groups.

White respondents were more likely than any other racial and ethnic group to say they were bothered by protesters waving Mexican flags. Sixty-nine percent of white respondents said they were bothered, 31 percentage points more than the average of nonwhite respondents.

However, 51 percent of white respondents were also bothered by the image of protesters waving U.S. flags. By contrast, just 20 percent of Latinos, 33 percent of Black Americans and 34 percent of Asian Americans said they were bothered by protesters waving U.S. flags.

Put differently, large majorities of nonwhite respondents were supportive of showing U.S. flags at protests despite their more positive views toward Mexican flags.

What explains racial differences?

When taking a deeper look at what causes Americans to feel bothered about protesters waving Mexican flags, some clear patterns emerge.

On average, older Americans were more likely to be bothered relative to younger Americans. This was particularly true for Americans over 40 years of age compared with millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Gen Z respondents, born between 1997 and 2012.

However, there are some nuances when examining age groups and whether they had attended a protest, march or rally in the previous year.

Our findings suggest that older Americans who had not engaged in protests were most likely to be bothered when they saw images of protesters waving Mexican flags. Millennials and Gen Z respondents who participated in a protest were least likely to be bothered.

Given that this issue intersects nationality, race, ethnicity, gender and citizenship status, it’s logical that these factors explained why Americans supported or opposed the use of Mexican flags at immigration protests.

For example, racial minorities who have a stronger sense of ethnic or racial identity were more likely to be supportive of protesters waving Mexican and U.S. flags. In other words, group identity is a strong predictor of support for protests in general, regardless of what flag is being flown.

However, minorities who lack a sense of ethnic pride and identity were most likely to be upset when they saw others expressing their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The reality is that recent immigration protests across the country are the first time many of the Latino youth who are citizens have participated in these types of protests. Anyone under age 22 would not have memory of, or been alive during, the last large pro-immigrant protests in 2006.

The Mexican flag represents more than nationalistic pride. It represents their parents’ heritage, hard work and their binational experience as Americans engaged in politics.

'An adversary to mobilize against': Trump's bullying seen as boon to liberal world leaders

World leaders who are speaking out against U.S. President Donald Trump and his bullying ways are garnering massive support in their home countries, according to a new piece in "The Morning" newsletter from The New York Times.

"It’s a phenomenon known in political science as the "rally ’round the flag effect," according to the article. "When a country faces a crisis, public support for the leader or the current governing party often rises."

That's because, according to Editor Lauren Jackson, "People don’t like to ditch their leaders in a crisis, research shows. The rallying phenomenon can shift the balance of power both within and between countries."

ALSO READ: 'The Hard Reset': Here's how the U.S. is exporting terrorism around the world

Trump's insistence on enormous punitive tariffs, his expansionist threats, and his constant insults, "have infuriated voters in Britain, Mexico, Ukraine and elsewhere," the article read, and have caused citizens to gather round leaders "who take a stand against him."

Jackson described the enormous amount of international outcry Trump has fomented over his nearly two months back in office.

"Trump imposed global tariffs on metal and announced a 25 percent levy on all goods from Mexico and Canada. He fought with Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Soon after, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, welcomed Zelensky in London with a hug. Mr. Starmer has continued to back Ukraine," Jackson wrote. "In each of these cases, the leaders and parties who stood up to Trump saw a lift in their domestic approval ratings."

Jackson explained that "the world is dealing on Trump's terms now," since they're forced to react as the U.S. president forces his agenda.

"Opposing Trump is a delicate art. Still, liberal leaders who do it well are finding success," she wrote adding, "That may not last: The rally effect is sometimes temporary."

Read "The Morning" newsletter via The New York Times here.

'You are making that assumption!' GOP lawmaker put on the spot over Trump's change of tune

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) wasn't buying CNN anchor Pamela Brown's assertion Friday that Donald Trump "changed his tune" on tariffs once the stock market started to tank.

Over the past weeks, Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, then granted temporary reprieves, announced an exemption for car manufacturers, activated the tariffs, then announced Thursday that he was pausing tariffs on Mexico for one month "as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum."

All of the chaos and uncertainty has made investors nervous, causing stock indices to fluctuate wildly, reported The New York Times.

"Tariffs are an effective short term negotiating tool, and I think the president delaying on auto manufacturers is not an issue if it's covered under the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal, that's fine," Lawler said.

ALSO READ: 'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump removed from office after fight

Brown interjected, "I also want to make sure that I'm able to respond to to what you said with the facts, you know, because in terms of the Mexico and Canada tariffs, the only thing that changed was the stock markets went down. There was clearly a big reaction to that. Donald Trump saw that and changed his tune...Businesses don't like this uncertainty. They don't like the back and forth. And that's kind of what we're seeing play out in the in the economy right now."

"Look, the stock market is going to fluctuate day to day. If we're making decisions based on, you know, a one-day analysis of the stock market, that's certainly not a way to to govern," Brown said.

"So, should he have not done what he did? Because it seemed to be in reaction to the stock market."

"You're surmising — no, you're making that assumption. Did you speak to him directly? Did he tell you that's why he did that? I don't think so," Lawler asserted.

"Certainly, we have reporting that that certainly factored into the decision making," Brown said.

Watch the clip below via CNN or click the link.

'Freaked out' Trump backed off tariff plan after seeing markets tank: MSNBC analyst

President Donald Trump is less concerned about how the American people are faring from his back-and-forth on tariffs than he is on how the stock market is reacting, according to an MSNBC political analyst.

During a Thursday broadcast that aired shortly after Trump reversed course on Mexico tariffs, anchor Chris Jansing asked, "Is there any consideration at all for the people whose lives, livelihoods, jobs, depend on all of this?"

"That seems to be less a consideration than what the markets are doing," answered analyst Elise Jordan, who worked in the George W. Bush White House. "And you had heard so many of Donald Trump's associates and business leaders say that when the markets start to go down, Donald Trump is going to get freaked out and he's going to reverse course. And we're seeing that happen a bit."

Trump announced on social media Thursday morning that he was pausing tariffs on Mexico for one month "as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum."

ALSO READ: 'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump removed from office after fight

According to The New York Times, "Uncertainty stemming from the Trump administration’s mixed messages on tariffs on the country’s biggest trading partners is weighing on Wall Street," with stock indices continuing to plummet even after Trump's announcement on Mexico.

Jordan claimed Trump's chaotic method of imposing then rescinding tariffs "is just a disgusting exercise in power at the end of the day, to keep everyone around the world on the edge of their seats and living in this uncertainty."

She continued, "It's about more than just, you know, the stock market dropping. It's about people who are living paycheck to paycheck and wondering if they're going to still have a job to pay their rent, and if they're going to have food for their children. And, so, when someone like Donald Trump has ultimate power, we have seen he likes to have this cat and mouse, bait and switch."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'No, it's not a fact': GOP's Donalds cut off by CNN host after rant about Trump tariffs

During a contentious CNN interview with Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on a variety of issues, including his run for Florida's governor, news broke that President Donald Trump would be reversing course again, and suspending "most new tariffs on Mexico."

"I want to ask you about this breaking news just coming in to CNN that Trump just announced that Mexico will not be required to pay tariffs on any products that fall under the USMCA agreement," anchor Pamela Brown began. "He did this, quote, 'Out of respect for the Mexican president.' Was Trump's back-and-forth tariff decision the right call, especially given the volatility of markets?"

Donalds answered, "Well, look, I'm going to repeat myself a little bit here. It is important that we stabilize not just our economic relationships around the globe, but also the fact that we got to secure our border and we got to stop the flow of fentanyl. Give Donald Trump the opportunity to actually negotiate with the Mexican president and with Canada and with China. You got to give him that opportunity, because when prices were rising in the United States, I didn't hear CNN talking about that much. As a matter of fact, you ignored most of it while it was hurting the American people."

ALSO READ: 'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump removed from office after fight

"Well, we did," Brown countered.

Donalds continued, "So, let the president negotiate on tariff policy. That is what he's doing, and it's going to work out to the better."

"We did cover, we did cover that," Brown repeated.

"You didn't cover it the way it needed to be covered. Let's just be perfectly honest," Donalds shot back.

"OK, well, that's a matter of opinion."

Donalds carried on, "You let the last administration get away with it but the American people suffered as a result."

"That is your opinion, but we did," Brown maintained.

"Oh, no, that's not my opinion. That's a fact."

"OK, no it's not a fact," Brown concluded before moving on.

Watch the clip below via CNN or click the link.