Trump’s track record of disaster misinformation as he casts blame over California wildfires
LaLee Ibssa – January 11, 2025
As deadly wildfires burn through Southern California, President-elect Donald Trump has spent the week attacking Democratic officials and continuing a pattern of spreading misinformation about natural disasters.
“I think that Gavin is largely incompetent, and I think the mayor is largely incompetent, and probably both of them are just stone-cold incompetent,” Trump said of California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday night while hosting Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Since the fires broke out, Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and President Joe Biden have faced criticism over a lack of preparedness, budget cuts to the fire department and a lack of water to fight the fires. Trump has pointed fingers at all three, spreading false claims about California’s water policy and federal assistance.
For example, Trump blamed Biden as he falsely claimed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had “no money” to help California despite Congress recently passing a disaster relief supplemental totaling $29 billion.
The president-elect also pushed exaggerated claims as he accused Newsom of refusing to sign a “water restoration declaration,” saying he instead diverted water resources in order to protect the endangered Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s smelt fish.
“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!), but didn’t care about the people of California,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
While there are regulations that limit the amount of water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect the species, the governor’s office said there was no such declaration, calling the accusation “pure fiction.”
Newsom said he has not heard from Trump since the fires broke out, but the president-elect’s rhetoric isn’t helping.
“I don’t know what he’s referring to when he talks about the Delta smelt in reservoirs. The reservoirs are completely full, the state reservoirs here in Southern California,” he said. “That mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us,” Newsom said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Newsom said that Trump has not called him since the fires, or since the elections. When asked whether Newsom was worried that aid would be held back, Newsom said he was. He added that he hopes he can have the “same relationship and that same spirit” with Trump as he did with Biden.
“Well, I mean, he’s done it in Utah. He’s done it in Michigan, did it in Puerto Rico. He did it to California back before I was even governor in 2018, until he found out folks in Orange County voted for him and then he decided to give the money. So he’s been at this for years and years and years. It transcends the states, including, by the way, Georgia he threatened similarly. So that’s his style. And we take it seriously to the extent that in the past it’s taken a little bit more time,” Newsom said on NBC.
Biden and other emergency officials have also rejected Trump’s claims, maintaining the fire was caused by fierce winds and extremely dry conditions and that the initial water shortage occurred due to power being shut off in order to avoid sparking additional fires.
Still, Trump has long pushed these claims, suggesting while on the campaign trail that he’d withhold aid for California if Newsom didn’t reinstate Trump’s policies.
Trump’s administration in his first term signed a memorandum that redirected millions of gallons of water to farmers living in the Central Valley and Southern California, pumping it out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
“The water coming here is dead. And Gavin Newsom is going to sign those papers, and if he doesn’t sign those papers, we won’t give him money to put out all his fires, and we don’t give him the money to put out his fires. He’s got problems,” Trump said at a press conference at his Los Angeles golf course in September.
After a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans at the Capitol on Wednesday, Trump continued to criticize Newsom’s handling of the wildfires while ultimately asserting that the two would need to work together.
“So, what’s happened is a tragedy, and the governor has not done a good job,” Trump told ABC News’ Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott.
“With that being said, I got along well with him — when he was governor, we worked together very well, and we would work together,” Trump said. “I guess it looks like we’re going to be the one having to rebuild it.”
It isn’t the first time Trump has gone after emergency officials in the wake of disasters. When hurricanes caused devastation in parts of Georgia and North Carolina last year, Trump quickly pivoted his campaign schedule to focus on those areas.
During those visits, Trump repeatedly spread misinformation about FEMA’s response, incorrectly casting blame on federal officials in the Biden administration and falsely claiming that the administration had drained funds from FEMA to house illegal migrants.
“They got hit with a very bad hurricane, especially North Carolina and parts of Georgia. But North Carolina really got hit. I’ll tell you what, those people should never vote for a Democrat, because they held back aid,” Trump claimed in an October interview.
Local and federal officials warned Trump about how his politically motivated rhetoric could be causing harm as the areas hit attempted to rebuild; however, the president-elect often refused to backtrack.
While visiting Asheville, North Carolina, Trump refused to address threats of violence against FEMA workers, instead saying, “I think you have to let people know how they’re doing. If they were doing a great job, I think we should say that, too, because I think they should be rewarded. But if they’re not doing — does that mean that if they’re doing a poor job, we’re supposed to not say it?”
Even while in office, Trump received pushback at times for peddling misinformation.
In 2019, Trump claimed that Alabama was in the path of Hurricane Dorian, causing the National Weather Service to issue a public service announcement refuting Trump’s claims. Then, that same year, when senators first failed to pass disaster relief aid to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico, Trump blamed local leaders as he spread false claims, saying repeatedly that Puerto Rico had received “more money than has ever been gotten for a hurricane before.”
“The people of Puerto Rico are GREAT, but the politicians are incompetent or corrupt,” Trump posted at the time.
Republican governors came to Trump’s defense on Thursday night, touting his leadership skills as president during disasters.
“You could criticize the president-elect, but I think you also have to hold these other people accountable,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told reporters at Mar-a-Lago.
“I worked well with Biden during his time at natural disasters, but I work well with Donald Trump, so I’m very confident as a state that knows we face these that a Trump administration is going to be very strong and is going to be there for the people, regardless of party,” DeSantis added.
Despite Trump’s harsh words, Los Angeles officials say they haven’t heard from the president-elect directly but have been in touch with members of his team and they expect Trump to visit the area after sending him an invitation on Saturday.
Gov. Gavin Newsom slams Trump’s disinformation about California wildfires
Alexandra Marquez – January 12, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted President-elect Donald Trump’s response to the California wildfires in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” recorded Saturday, saying, “Mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us.”
Newsom appeared to be referring to Trump’s posts on Truth Social blasting Newsom, President Joe Biden and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass since the fires broke out Tuesday.
In one post, the president-elect baselessly claimed Newsom had blocked a measure that would have allowed water to flow from Northern California to Southern California.
“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump wrote, using an insulting nickname for Newsom.Advertisement
In that post, Trump added that Newsom “wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!)” and “he is the blame for this.”
“Responding to Donald Trump’s insults, we would spend another month,” Newsom told NBC News’ Jacob Soboroff. “I’m very familiar with them. Every elected official that he disagrees with is very familiar with them.”
He added that Trump was “somehow connecting the delta smelt to this fire, which is inexcusable because it’s inaccurate. Also, incomprehensible to anyone that understands water policy in the state.”
In another post, Trump wrote, “NO WATER IN THE FIRE HYDRANTS, NO MONEY IN FEMA. THIS IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS LEAVING ME. THANKS JOE!” and appeared to falsely claim, as he did last year in the aftermath of several hurricanes, that money had been drained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.
At least 16 people have died in devastating wildfires across the greater Los Angeles area.
On Friday, Newsom wrote a letter to Trump inviting him to come to his state and tour the destruction.
“I invite you to come to California again — to meet with the Americans affected by these fires, see the devastation firsthand, and join me and others in thanking the heroic firefighters and first responders who are putting their lives on the line,” the governor wrote.
Newsom told Soboroff on Saturday that he had not received a response to the letter.
He added that he’s worried the president-elect may make good on his threats to withhold disaster aid from the state after his inauguration.
“He’s done it in Utah. He’s done it in Michigan, did it in Puerto Rico. He did it to California back before I was even governor, in 2018,” Newsom said.
“So he’s been at this for years and years and years. It transcends the states, including, by the way, Georgia he threatened similarly. So that’s his style. And we take it seriously to the extent that in the past it’s taken a little bit more time [to get federal aid],” the governor added.
Trump’s pick to lead EPA was paid tens of thousands to write op-eds criticizing climate policies and ESG
Bryan Metzger – January 12, 2025
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, made $186,000 from paid op-eds and speeches.
Some of those op-eds criticized climate policies and ESG.
The former NY congressman also made $45,475 from gambling at casinos.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President-elect Donald Trump’snominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, has made millions of dollars in recent years from consulting, speaking fees, and paid op-eds, according to a financial disclosure made public on Saturday.
That includes tens of thousands of dollars to write about environmental and climate change-related topics. In one instance, Zeldin was paid $25,000 for an op-ed in which he likened environmental, social, and governance investing, or ESG, to the practices of disgraced cryptocurrency entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried.
A staunchly pro-Trump Republican first elected to Congress in 2014, Zeldin left office after mounting an unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022. As retiring lawmakers in both parties often do, Zeldin cashed in, establishing a consulting firm to advise corporate clients while enmeshing himself in the well-funded world of conservative political advocacy.
It’s paid off. According to the disclosure document, which covers Zeldin’s major financial activities since the beginning of 2023, the ex-congressman has made a total of $775,000 in salary income and between $1 million and $5 million in dividends from his main firm, Zeldin Consulting.
He’s also received $144,999 from America First Works, a pro-Trump nonprofit where he has a board seat, along with $65,500 from paid speeches and $15,000 from an entity called “Plymouth Union Public Research.”
He also got lucky — literally — winning a combined $45,475 in the last two years from gambling at the Golden Nugget, Venetian, and Atlantis casinos.
“All nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies,” Trump-Vance Transition Spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement.
Zeldin did not respond to a request for comment.
$120,500 for writing op-eds
The ex-congressman’s disclosure reveals a variety of income streams, including substantial speaking fees from GOP organizations in Florida and California, a Long Island synagogue, and a Turning Point USA event in Michigan in June. In multiple instances, Zeldin was paid over $10,000 for a single appearance.
He also disclosed a combined $26,775 in payments from Fox News and Nexstar Media Group for “use of media studio.”
The document lists payments from several public relations firms for paid op-eds, listing the news outlet and the date of publication. The titles of those opinion pieces are not listed, but Business Insider identified several that matched the publication and date included in the disclosure.
Among the most notable were a series of paid op-eds on climate issues — Zeldin could soon lead the agency responsible for the federal government’s environmental policies.
In an op-ed for Real Clear Policy published in March 2023 entitled “How Congress Can Stop the Next FTX,” Zeldin called on Congress to investigate ESG practices and the nonprofit watchdog Better Markets, arguing that companies may use ESG to avoid regulatory scrutiny in the same manner that Bankman-Fried used political contributions to curry favor with Washington.
The disclosure indicates that Zeldin was paid $25,000 to write that op-ed. He also appears to have made an additional $10,000 for another Newsday op-ed in August about ESG and $3,000 for a Fox News op-ed in July that criticized New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s climate policies and called on her to lift the state’s fracking ban.
Zeldin was also paid to write about other topics, including $10,000 for a New York Post op-ed criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris’ housing policy proposals, $10,000 for a Washington Times op-ed calling on regulators to crack down on China-linked financial platforms, and $15,000 for a Washington Examiner op-ed accusing the Biden administration of targeting Republican-run states via Medicaid regulations.
In some cases, Zeldin was paid even when the articles never saw the light of day. His disclosures list two op-eds that were never published, for which he received $10,000 and $30,000.
In total, Zeldin reported $120,500 in op-ed payments. The original clients who made those payments are unclear, and Zeldin and the Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a question about the original sources.
As with other nominees, Zeldin has agreed to divest himself from his consulting business if he’s confirmed as the next EPA administrator, according to his ethics agreement. His confirmation hearing is set for Thursday, January 16.
Taken during the Jan. 6insurrection, the photo shows a solitary White man, his head pressed in prayer against a massive wooden cross, facing the domed US Capitol building. An American flag stands like a sentinel on a flagpole beside the Capitol under an ominously gray sky.
The photograph depicts a foot soldier in an insurgent religious movement trying to storm the halls of American power. What’s unsettling about the photo four years later is that much of the religious zeal that fed the insurrection is no longer outside the gates of power. Many of that movement’s followers are now on the inside, because theirChosen One, Donald Trump, returns this month to the Oval Office.
This is the scenario Americans could face in Trump’s second term. Under Trump, Christian nationalists will have unprecedentedaccess to the power of the federal government. Trump’s GOP has unified control of Congress. And a conservative supermajority, which has already blurred the line between separation of church and state in a series of decisions favoring Christian interests, controls the US Supreme Court.
Trump has not been shy about what comes next. He ran a presidential campaign that was infused with White Christian Nationalist imagery and rhetoric. He vowed in an October campaign speech to set up a task force to root out “anti-Christian bias” and restore preachers’ power in America while giving access to a group he calls “my beautiful Christians.”
“If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before,” Trump told an annual gathering of National Religious Broadcasters in Tennessee during a campaign stop earlier this year.
Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey.
Scholars have called White Christian nationalism an “ImposterChristianity” whose adherents use religious language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in a quest to create a White Christian America.
So what might life look like over the next four years for Americans who don’t subscribe to this movement?
CNN asked that question of Kristin Kobes Du Mez, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on Christian nationalism. Du Mez is a historian and the author of the New York Times bestseller, “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Her book has become a go-to source for understanding Christian nationalism. It explains how the movement’s tentacles reach deep into American history and pop culture.
To many people, declaring America a Christian nation may seem harmless. And it’s important to distinguish Christian nationalists from patriotic Christians who have a more inclusive view of what America should be. But Du Mez says Christian nationalism is ultimately incompatible with American democracy.
“This is not a pluralist vision for all of American coming together or a vision for compromise,” says Du Mez, a history professor at Calvin University in Michigan and a fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion. “It is a vision for seizing power and using that power to usher in a ‘Christian America.’”
CNN recently spoke to Du Mez about this movement and what Americans might expect during Trump’s second term. Her comments were edited for brevity and clarity.
What will Trump’s victory do for the White Christian nationalist movement?
It will embolden and empower the White Christian nationalist movement. In all likelihood, it will institutionalize White Christian nationalism. It will transform our government, with the goal of transforming our society. It will likely place White Christian nationalists in positions of enormous political power. It could be transformative.
How would that institutionalization of White Christian nationalism look in ordinary people’s lives?
We can expect this Christian nationalist agenda to transform the public school system. One of the proposals with Christian nationalists is to eliminate the Department of Education, to look to the privatization of schooling, but also to transform the curriculum throughout public schools. The anti-CRT (critical race theory) and anti-woke agenda that we have seen played out on a smaller scale in certain states — that is what we should expect to see on a national scale.
Project 2025 (a conservative blueprint for the next Republican president, although Trump tried to distance himself from it during the 2024 campaign) is explicit about cracking down on woke ideology, eliminating certain terms from laws and federal regulations, terms like “gender equality” and “reproductive rights.” This anti-woke agenda is a key point of unity between White Christian nationalists and the broader MAGA movement.
Is there any potential for book bans?
Any book that could be perceived as pro-LGBTQ, for example, or to contain a harmful political agenda — those are the books likely to be targeted, and certainly removed from school curriculums and school libraries. But in terms of everyday lives, part of the agenda of Christian nationalists is a redefinition of human rights and of civil rights according to their understanding of God’s laws or natural law.
And in this respect, there is no right to same-sex marriage, there is no right to abortion, or broader LGBTQ rights. Those don’t exist within their understanding of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. They read the Constitution through this Christian nationalist framework: God founded the nation, our founding documents reflect that and therefore they must be interpreted in light of God’s law, which in a sense, erases how we would normally understand constitutional rights and replaces them with essentially a Christian nationalist agenda.
Why are some Christian nationalists hostile to the Department of Education?
There’s a long history of opposition to the Department of Education within the Christian right, going back several decades. Schools are seen as a primary site of formation of children, and within this conservative Christian ideology there’s a very strong emphasis on the rights of the parent to shape the values and ideals of one’s children. When government steps in and takes on that role, they believe that it infringes on a parent’s God-given rights. They are extremely upset when these, quote unquote, government schools educate their children and teach them things that they do not believe in or that they would find harmful.
You could also trace this hostility back historically, and not coincidentally, to the kind of resistance to government schools that really welled up in the context of the civil rights movement and desegregation efforts. This was seen as the government intrusion into families and into communities.
With his victory, is Trump even more reveredin White Christian nationalist movement circles?
Absolutely. In every way, there is celebration in Christian nationalist spaces. The idea is widespread that Trump’s victory demonstrates a divine mandate that resonates with the framework that they have been using to explain and promote Trump dating back to 2016. He is somehow God’s anointed one. He is God’s chosen leader for this particularly fraught, historical political moment.
You saw that early on in 2016 with these prophecies that were coming from charismatic circles that no, he was not necessarily a Christian, but he was still God’s chosen one to save Christian America. The sense of his divine role certainly wasn’t dampened by the assassination attempt and his survival, which seemed miraculous to some. Trump leaned into that and said God had saved him because God had a divine purpose for him.
You once said that Christian nationalism and militant patriarchy go hand in hand. What does that mean?
Christian nationalism is the idea that America is a distinctly Christian nation. But there’s a whole set of descriptors that go along with this that we see over and over again. There’s this idea that we need to restore Christian America. What does that look like? It looks like privileging the quote unquote, traditional family, the patriarchal family structure. They believe that the way that God has designed human flourishing is to have a male patriarch, and then to have a submissive wife, one who submits to her husband’s authority, and one whose primary role is a mother and a homemaker. Any family structure that does not look like that is seen as undermining society.
You’ll hear the rhetoric that we need strong Godly men to step up to defend faith, family and nation. And so when you get inside Christian nationalist spaces, there is all kinds of militant rhetoric about manly strength, about Christian men who need to step up and take power, and assert their leadership because that is their God-ordained role.
Given that description, was there even a remote chance that White Christian nationalists would support Kamala Harris?
No. No White Christian nationalist would vote for Kamala Harris.
No matter what she did?
No. Just an absolute nonstarter. I mean, how many strikes does she have against her? She’s a woman, and a woman of color. Her gender would probably be disqualifying for most. But no — because she’s a woman of color, and frankly a Democrat.
Christian nationalism thrives on this us-versus-them mentality. This militancy is linked to always needing an enemy. And in Christian nationalism today, the enemies are internal. Historically the enemies of Christian America were secular humanists, feminists and then more recently Democrats and the woke. This language of an enemy within that caught some attention in the last week of the campaign, when Trump said those words that resonate deeply with Christian nationalists. That fuels the sense that we need warriors to fight to save your family and Christianity. And to save America, you’re going have to fight fellow Americans who are threatening those values.
In some ways, is Trump just as much of a transformational figure for White evangelicals as Billy Graham?
I think we can say yes. The reason I pause is because I don’t think people fully understand the significance and legacy of Billy Graham. But yes, Trump is transformational but only because of the kind of deep roots of Christian nationalism. If you go back to the 1960s and 1970s and listen to the rhetoric of evangelical and fundamentalist pastors, and listened to how they talked about race, and their mission to save Christian America — that goes back a half of a century.
Given that resonance, yes, he has been transformational with that promise to give Christians power. And there he means, of course, power to conservative, White evangelical types of Christians. That (promise) has excited his base and emboldened that faction. A few years ago, it might have been frowned upon in many Christian spaces to support somebody like Trump. Now, the tables have really turned. Now there’s no shame in embracing Trump. There has been a transformative effect. I see much unapologetically crude and belligerent language inside these spaces. This kind of militancy is no longer beneath the surface, and it is aimed at fellow Americans and at fellow Christians who do not toe the line.
What happens though to those White Christian evangelicals who don’t subscribe to Christian nationalism. Where do they go?
There are a lot of pressures to get on board with this Christian nationalist agenda. It doesn’t need to be overtly supported, but there’s enormous pressure not to object. A person who works in an evangelical media organization explained it to me this way. The memo is: You don’t have to support Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda — you just can’t speak against it, so you can keep your job. When I heard those words, I thought that exactly describes what I’m hearing from people and what I’m observing. So you can quietly hold onto your beliefs, but if you try to object to something that is part of this agenda, if you try to say, fellow Christians, should we be supporting a man like Trump? — that will get you into trouble.
If this movement gets everything it wants, what will this country look like?
There will be no meaningful religious liberty. There will be essentially a two-tier society between the quote unquote, real Americans—those who buy into this, or pretend to — and then the rest of Americans. If you’re a person of no faith or a Muslim or anybody deemed not a true Christian, you will have a place, but you will not have a voice. The laws will be rewritten across the board. Rights as we understand them will cease to exist and instead, we’ll have the framework of biblical law.
The idea will be that true freedom comes from following God’s laws. So freedom will be redefined. You are free to follow the laws that we set out for you as a woman, or someone who is same-sex attracted. True freedom comes from submitting to God’s law, and we will help you do that, and it will ultimately be good for you. In our education system, our American history will be made up. It will be ideological.
They want to erase the teaching of actual history to prop up a mythical understanding of what this country was founded to be to justify their radical transformation of the country. There will be no abortion rights, and there will be limited, if any, access to contraception. There will be harsh anti-immigration laws with exceptions for people who subscribe to this Christian nationalist vision or who are seen to fit within it, religiously, politically and perhaps ethnically.
There are potential mitigating factors: infighting or incompetence within Christian nationalist and MAGA circles, the role of the courts, resistance within government agencies and at the local and state levels. And of course, the extent to which various aspects of the Christian nationalist agenda align with Trump’s own priorities and with those of members of his inner circle, like Elon Musk.
What do you say to people who say you’re being alarmist and playing into doomsday scenarios? I mean, this isn’t “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
I would love to be wrong about this. The reason I’m saying these things is because I have been listening to what they (in this movement) have been saying and I have been reading what they have been writing for years. They have been writing these things and saying these things for decades. For a long time, they were a powerful strand in the broader evangelical world and within the Republican Party. But they were offset by a more secular and pro-business conservatism.
What we’ve seen now is that they’ve moved into a dominant position within the Republican Party. The MAGA brand is the Republican Party. These ideas are not new. What is new is that for the first time, they are really in a position to carry out these plans.
Do you think White Christian nationalists will someday regret this alliance with Trump?
No. It’s hard for me to envision why they would regret it, because what they most want is power — the power to achieve their ends. And he appears to be granting them that power. I suppose then there could be some regret, but that just seems so far-fetched at this point. They have seen their movement go mainstream, and now they have incredible access to power.
Russia is feeling the full impact of sanctions and the strain could force an end to the war this year, think tank says
Jennifer Sor – January 9, 2025
Russia’s economic pain will intensify this year, according to the Atlantic Council.
The think tank said Russia is feeling the full effects of sanctions after nearly three years of war.
Continued strain could cause Moscow to end the war in Ukraine this year, a note from the group said.
After almost three years of waging war in Ukraine, Russia is feeling the full impact of its economic punishment from the West — and it could prompt the Kremlin to end the war in Ukraine as soon as this year, a note from the Atlantic Council said this week.
The think tank pointed to the pressures building on Russia’s economy, primarily those stemming from Western sanctions. The sanctions packages over the last several years have included measures like cutting Russia off from SWIFT, the international financial communication system, as well as trade restrictions on several of Russia’s key exports, like oil and gas.
According to Mark Temnycky, a fellow at the think tank, those measures have had a definite impact on Russia’s economy, even after the Kremlin seemed to shrug off the initial volley of restrictions.
“Three years later, the picture looks different. The Russian economy is now beginning to see the full effects of international sanctions. If these trends continue, then the full impact of these financial punishments, combined with strong Ukrainian resistance to Russian forces, could at last put enough pressure on the Kremlin to end its war,” Temnycky said.
He pointed to various signs of economic strain in Russia, which suggested that the nation may not be able to continue its war effort for much longer.
Russia’s ruble, for one, has plunged more than 50% in value against the dollar and the euro — partly due to sanctions pressure on Russian institutions, according to an analysis from the Kyiv School of Economics. The ruble traded at around 102 against the dollar on Thursday, close to the lowest level since Russia first began its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russia’s energy business also appears to be struggling after years of trade restrictions and dwindling oil prices. Russia’s total energy revenue tumbled by nearly a quarter in 2023, and the government expects oil and gas revenue to keep shrinking until 2027, according to a draft budget viewed by Bloomberg.
Russian inflation is also soaring, with consumer prices rising 9.5% year-over-year in the last week of December, according to the nation’s central bank.
Even Putin has acknowledged that Russia’s inflation rate was “alarming,” a rare admission from the Russian leader of the problems facing the country.
“Putin’s points on inflation were telling. The Russian leader seldom discusses problems pertaining to Russian society. Thus, the fact that he felt the need to acknowledge inflation as a serious issue suggests that something greater is afoot,” Temnycky said, adding that Russia appears to be on track to enter a recession in 2025.
Other economists have warned of more pain headed for Russia’s economy in the coming year. The nation could see a “significant strain” on its budget in 2025, with the economy at risk of falling into a period of Soviet-style stagnation, economic experts previously told BI.
“Putin and the Kremlin will have to determine how to try to address these financial woes,” Temycky added. “This suggests that 2025 will be a difficult year for Russians and the economy. Time will tell how significant these events will be.”
Elon Musk Sets His Sights on Toppling Another World Leader
Malcolm Ferguson – January 9, 2025
Elon has zeroed in on his next political target: U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The world’s richest man has been consulting with his right-wing allies to devise a strategy to oust the Labour Party’s Starmer before the next election, according to a report from the Financial Times Thursday.
Musk has been antagonizing Starmer on X for some time, but according to people familiar with the matter, he is now focused on finding a way to destabilize the Labour government and bolster other alternatives.
“His view is that Western civilisation itself is threatened,” one source told FT.
Musk has been rallying to free far-right, Islamaphobic hooligan Tommy Robinson from prison since the new year and thinks that all-out civil war is “inevitable” in the nation. He’s also been calling for a national investigation into the grooming and exploitation cases in the Midlands region of England. Musk blames Starmer, who was a director of public prosecutions at the time, for his oversight on the issue.
Musk’s attempted toppling of Starmer is another installment in his efforts to exert the same political influence he has in the United States in Europe. The billionaire has been singing the praises of Germany’s far-right, nativist Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Party. He published an op-ed in a German newspaper in which he wrote, “Portraying the AfD as far-right is clearly false, considering that Alice Weidel, the party’s leader, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Come on!” He has since been accused of election interference by the German government but has shown no signs of stopping. He is also scheduled to host AfD leader Alice Weidel live on X sometime before the German elections in February.
Meanwhile, Musk is also closing in on a massive telecommunications deal with Italy’s far-right government, entrenching himself in the Eurozone.
A tale of two presidents: How L.A. fires show the difference between Biden and Trump
Taryn Luna, Liam Dillon, Alex Wigglesworth – January 8, 2025
As communities across Los Angeles County burned Wednesday in a spate of wildfires, the crisis highlighted the stark difference between the incoming and outgoing presidents and their relationships with California.
President Biden stood next to Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, at a fire station in Santa Monica and pledged to provide full federal support to the state.
“We’re prepared to do anything and everything for as long as it takes to contain these fires,” Biden said.
Hours earlier, Republican President-elect Donald Trump, just days away from being sworn in on Jan. 20, blamed “Newscum and his Los Angeles crew” for the unfolding calamity.
In a post on his social media site, Truth Social, Trump said the Democratic governor “refused to sign a water restoration declaration,” which he alleged would have allowed millions of gallons of rain and snowmelt to flow south to the areas on fire.
“Now the ultimate price is being paid,” Trump wrote. “I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA!”
The morning missive from the president-elect, as communities burned and thousands of people fled their homes, echoed his prior threats to withhold wildfire funding if Newsom declined to go along with Trump’s water policy for California. Water experts have said, however, that Trump’s water proposals probably will encounter substantial obstacles, and that his claims attempting to link water deliveries to the firefighting response were inaccurate.
Though Newsom praised Trump during his first term for approving federal disaster funding for wildfires, the governor has since said he had to “kiss the ring” to convince Trump to help.
Newsom has commended Biden for not playing political games during disasters.
“It’s impossible for me to express the level of appreciation and cooperation we’ve received from the White House and this administration,” Newsom said in Santa Monica on Wednesday.
Presidents have wide discretion when it comes to disaster aid, which could be in jeopardy in the future if Trump follows through with his threats after his inauguration.
California and other states receive most federal wildfire aid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including direct payments and services to homeowners and renters whose properties were damaged, and public assistance for things such as search-and-rescue teams, debris removal and infrastructure repair.
States need to show that an incident is of such a severity and magnitude that a response is beyond the state’s capability in order to qualify. The governor must request, and the president must declare, a major disaster and then approve any aid the governor requests.
FEMA decides whether a federal disaster declaration is warranted and issues a recommendation to the president. In the past, presidents have followed that recommendation, but there’s nothing in the law that requires them to do so.
Trump initially refused to approve federal aid to California for wildfires in 2018 until a National Security Council staffer showed him that Orange County had a dense concentration of voters who supported him, according to Politico.
State Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat who lives and grew up in Santa Monica, attended Wednesday’s briefing with the president and governor. Allen said it was obvious from Newsom’s remarks since the fires began that the governor was worried about federal support for disasters under the Trump administration. Allen said Biden’s response was remarkably quick and thorough. But he said he couldn’t imagine that Trump would ignore Californians in any time of need.
“I have every expectation that the new administration will assist fellow Americans in moments of vulnerability,” Allen said. “That’s what every White House has done, whether Democrat or Republican, throughout history. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t continue to provide the same level of assistance and service that previous presidents have.”
Despite Trump’s feisty rhetoric, he did travel to California as president to survey fire damage and meet with Newsom. Trump toured Paradise in 2018 in the aftermath of the state’s deadliest wildfire. And he met with Newsom in Sacramento after a spate of wildfires in 2020.
Newsom and Trump traded blows on social media, in the news media and in the courts during the president-elect’s first term, but remained cordial in texts, calls and even in person. But that relationship appears to have soured during Biden’s presidency.
Newsom has said Trump did not return a call he made in November to congratulate the incoming president on winning the election. An aide to Newsom said the two men have still not spoken.
The president-elect continued to blame Newsom on Truth Social for the blazes on Wednesday: “As of this moment, Gavin Newscum and his Los Angeles crew have contained exactly ZERO percent of the fire. It is burning at levels that even surpass last night. This is not government.”
Trump also took shots at Biden.
“NO WATER IN THE FIRE HYDRANTS, NO MONEY IN FEMA,” he posted. “THIS IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS LEAVING ME. THANKS JOE!”
Peter Gleick, a hydroclimatologist and senior fellow of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said Trump’s comments attempting to link California water policy with the water-supply problems facing firefighters in Southern California were “blatantly false, irresponsible and politically self-serving.”
“There is no water shortage in Southern California — the state’s reservoirs are all at, or above, levels normally expected for this time of year. The problem with water supply for the fires is entirely the result of the massive immediate demands for firefighting water, broken or damaged pipes and pumps, and homeowners leaving hoses and sprinklers running in hopes of saving property.”
Staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.
Trump’s pick for defense secretary bodes ill for military sexual assaults
Christopher Kilmartin and Ronald Levant – January 8, 2025
When it comes to preventing and responding to military sexual assaults, leadership matters a great deal. Thus, we are very concerned about the safety of our service women and men under President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.
Both men have sexual assault allegations against them, and in both cases, there is reliable evidence that corroborates these reports. Trump seems to be an especially egregious offender who is named in more than 20 reports. This is not a case of he said, she said; it is a case of he said, they said.
The U.S. military publishes reliable estimates of sexual assaults every two years based on those both officially reported and recorded by survey. And this is not a problem only for women in the ranks — many of the assault victims are men.
Tracking the numbers tells us about the possible role that the president, as commander-in-chief, has in the increase or decrease in incidents in which a soldier experiences intentional harm from someone who wears the same uniform and took the same vow to serve and protect.
In 2006, the military estimated that there were about 34,000 assaults. That number dropped steadily the next 10 years by more than half (14,900), and the reporting rate nearly tripled between 2012 and 2016, from 11% to 32%. Although nearly 15,000 assaults are still 15,000 too many, we were going in the right direction: fewer assaults, more reports.
Experts believe that victim advocacy is the main factor in the rise of reporting rates. And several things happened to prevent the problem in the first place: more vigorous enforcement and removal of offenders from the ranks, leadership training, both for senior officers and on down the chain of command, bystander intervention training for all members, and environmental interventions.
But then in 2020, the number increased by more than a third to 20,600. (Reporting rates held fairly steady at 30%.) And then came the worst news of all: the 2022 number was 36,000, with the reporting rate dropping to 23.6%.
While the military changed how it collected data for the 2022 report, it still showed a shocking number of assaults and several steps back in progress.
The sharp increases in 2020 and 2022 were data collected during the first Trump administration.
The 2024 number, the first under President Joe Biden and the latest data available, once again indicated progress: 29,061 estimated assaults, more than 6,000 fewer than in 2022, though still higher than it had been 14 years earlier. We know Biden prioritized reducing this number: At his direction, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered an independent commission to develop solutions to the crisis, including changes to the military justice system.
But now, we have a man found liable for sexual abuse at the head of the armed services again, and he has made matters even worse by nominating another man accused of sexual assault as second in command.
A story about how much leadership matters: I (Kilmartin) was invited to San Antonio, Texas, in 2011 to do a training for Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month on three military bases.
At the first base, the general showed he was serious and passionate about reducing on-base violence by engaging in the training. At the second base, the “mandatory” training for 300 people resulted in only about 60 attendees. And at the third base, where attendance was voluntary, I presented to seven people.
Since leadership is so important, having a commander-in-chief from 2017-2021 who has been reported for sexual assault by more than 20 women could have been a critical factor in the 2022 increases. We fully expect that the 2024 numbers, the last under Biden, who has a long record of working to end gender-based violence, will again show a decrease.
The important lesson from the 2006-2016 progress is that we know what works, and so the task for the military is to redouble their efforts. Having two leaders with such callous disregard for others’ rights will surely make this work even more challenging than ever. Congressional pressure on Trump to nominate a defense secretary with a strong record on this critical issue would be a step in the right direction.
Christopher Kilmartin is a Fredericksburg, Virginia, author, trainer and activist in preventing violence in schools, the military, and the workplace internationally. His latest book is “The Fictions that Shape Men’s Lives” from Routledge.
Ronald Levant is a former president of the American Psychological Association and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron. His latest book is “The Problem with Men: Insights on Overcoming a Traumatic Childhood from a World-Renowned Psychologist” from Koehler Books Publishing.
Adam Kinzinger Says 1 Trump Nominee Is The Most Concerning: ‘A Huge Problem’
Marco Margaritoff – January 7, 2025
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) shared some unvarnished thoughts Monday on the people President-elect Donald Trump has announced he plans to nominate to key positions in his upcoming administration — and said one of them in particular is most concerning for U.S. democracy.
Trump’s picks include MAGA loyalist Kash Patel to run the FBI, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) — a former Democrat who joined the Republican Party in 2024 — as leader of national intelligence.
When asked on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” whom he has the strongest opinion on, Kinzinger stated bluntly: “I mean, for the country, Kash Patel, because I think once you weaponize Justice or the FBI, that’s a huge problem. … There’s really no oversight.”
Patel served in the first Trump administration and, in his 2023 book “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy,” ominously ranked Trump’s “deep state” enemies — and vowed at the time to “come after” them.
Kinzinger told Colbert that Hegseth is the second-most-troubling pick, as the Defense Department “is the largest corporation in the world.” Hegseth, a military veteran turned television pundit, defended the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol on Fox News at the time.
“There’s people that put their lives on the line,” Kinzinger said Monday about the Defense Department, “and Pete served honorably in the military, but by the way, anywhere in D.C. there’s probably 50,000 people as or better qualified than Pete Hegseth to run the DOD.”
Kinzinger, a frequent Trump critic and one of only 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, shared similar thoughts on Gabbard — who previously criticized Trump as “corrupt” but has since joined the fold.
“I knew her,” Kinzinger told Colbert. “And I was friends with her up until the day she visited [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad who, thank God, is out of power now, and did his dirty work.”
Forces for the recently deposed president were accused of using sarin gas to kill 1,400 people in 2013. Gabbard — who shared “Russian talking points” in support of Assad, Kinzinger noted — previously urged Congress not to endorse potential U.S. regime change operations in the country, alleging the U.S. was covertly “supporting” as much.
Kinzinger had only one word to share about former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), whom Trump had announced as his attorney general pick despite a federal investigation and a congressional ethics probe into allegations he had sexual relations with a minor. Gaetz immediately resigned from his congressional seat in anticipation of the role but later withdrew himself from consideration for the position when it appeared he would not have the support needed for confirmation.
When Colbert noted there was applause in the House chamber Friday as the acting House clerk announced Gaetz wouldn’t be taking his seat in the new Congress, Kinzinger said simply: “Fantastic.”
Democrats dial up pressure on Hegseth as confirmation battle nears
Missy Ryan and Abigail Hauslohner – January 7, 2025
The record of Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon, should disqualify him for such a pivotal national security role, a Democratic senator told the former Fox News personality in an expansive letter that illustrates the party’s breadth of concern with one of the president-elect’s most controversial Cabinet picks ahead of his confirmation hearing next week.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, outlined 10 areas of concern in her letter, posing more than 70 questions for Hegseth in what appears to be a preview of Democrats’ approach when they interrogate his qualifications, past conduct and beliefs. The letter highlights allegations of heavy drinking and sexual misconduct, remarks suggesting female military personnel should play a more limited role, his past skepticism about the need for U.S. troops to comply with laws of war, and accusations of financial mismanagement arising from the veterans’ organizations he once led.
Hegseth has vehemently denied claims of wrongdoing.
“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” Warren said in the letter. “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of service members who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”
The Trump transition team declined to comment on Warren’s letter. Hegseth is due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 14.
Spanning 33 pages, the missive resurfaces statements and alleged incidents reported by the news media in the weeks following Trump’s selection of the 44-year-old – a former Army National Guard member, Princeton University graduate and longtime Fox News host – to lead the Pentagon. Several news outlets have published reports scrutinizing Hegseth’s background, including revelations that he made derisive comments about Muslims and current military leaders, and an incident in which he was investigated, but not charged, in an alleged sexual assault.
Warren’s letter also coincides with growing concern among Democrats about the incoming Trump administration’s decision to spurn steps traditionally involved in the selection, vetting and approval process for high-level government officials.
Hegseth’s confirmation hearing will provide an early test of how congressional Republicans, in particular, intend to size up their preferences against those of their president. While Hegseth’s record has stirred doubts among some in the GOP, Trump has lobbied forcefully for his confirmation.
And while some Republicans have praised Hegseth – who wasn’t widely seen as a contender for high office until Trump announced his pick days after the election – others, including Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), have not publicly declared how they will vote, though both said they had productive meetings with Hegseth last month. Ernst is a member of the Armed Services Committee and a sexual assault survivor. Collins is a prominent moderate within the GOP.
To proceed for a vote on the Senate floor, Hegseth must secure the support of a majority of the Republican-led Armed Services Committee. Committee Democrats are widely expected to oppose him.
If confirmed, Hegseth, who as a Fox News host successfully lobbied Trump for lenient treatment of service members convicted of war crimes, is expected to focus on cultural and personnel issues at the Pentagon, which he has said is insufficiently focused on combat and is dominated by “woke” generals.
In her letter, Warren told Hegseth to be ready to respond to questions, and she asked that he first reply in writing by Jan. 10. Separately, a group of Democratic senators, including Warren, Tim Kaine (Virginia), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), sent a letter to Trump’s designated chief of staff last month focused on Hegseth’s record on women.
Critics have assailed Trump for tapping Hegseth before he completed key aspects of the vetting process, which for Senate-confirmed positions usually includes an FBI background check. While the FBI typically delivers the results of a nominee’s classified background check to the relevant oversight committee about a week ahead of a confirmation hearing, that hadn’t happened in Hegseth’s case as of Tuesday, said a Senate aide familiar with the process, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the vetting process.
Upon receiving the results of an FBI background check, the committee chair and ranking minority-party member – in this case, Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) and Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) – have the discretion to share it with other lawmakers, aides said. Senators in both parties, including some like Collins who do not sit on the committee, have expressed interest in seeing the FBI’s findings. It is unclear if Wicker and Reed will make the FBI report more widely available.
Senate aides also said Hegseth had declined to hold meetings with committee Democrats in the lead-up to next week’s hearing, a development they called a disturbing break with tradition. Reed, the committee’s top Democrat, is expected to meet with Hegseth later this week.
The aides said Hegseth, through intermediaries, offered Democrats opportunities to meet with him only after his confirmation hearing.
“It’s obviously really concerning, and very unusual to not be taking those meetings,” one Senate aide said. “It’s disrespectful to the process.”
A Trump transition official disputed that claim, saying Hegseth and his team reached out to nearly all Democratic committee members well before the end-of-year holidays but received no agreements to meet in December. The aide identified one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pennsylvania), who had met with Hegseth but is not a member of the Armed Services Committee.
“Despite a poor response rate and multiple communications attacking the nominee before these Senators have even met with him (and going outside standard hearing procedures to make these requests), Mr. Hegseth is doing his level best to meet with as many Democrat Senators as he can before and after his hearing,” the Trump transition official said via email.