Top World News

A fierce ally of Donald Trump Sunday sounded the alarm about what she sees as a detrimental alliance the president has made.Trump has previously enraged some parts of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base with his embrace of Qatar, a Middle Eastern nation that played a role in Israel-Hamas negotiations. Far-right Trump fans condemn Qatar for its links to nations that sponsor terrorism.Laura Loomer, a MAGA influencer who has been dubbed "The Trump Whisperer" due to her close ties to the president, is one such individual who doesn't like how close Trump has become with the Middle Eastern country.Early Sunday morning, she dropped a lengthy screed on the subject of Qatar."I really wish President Trump would come to terms with the fact that Qatar is not our ally," she wrote on X. "I would also really like to see the Emiratis and the Saudis pledge to triple their investment commitments into the US to wedge out Qatar under the condition that President Trump designates the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign Islamic terrorist organization when Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (MBS) visits the White House and meets with President Trump this month."She continued:"Obviously I don’t speak for President Trump, but why would we want or need to be handcuffed by Qatar, a global sponsor of Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian proxy terrorism? Why would we want Qatar to have any leverage or influence over the US simply because of money and a $400 million plane?"The influencer then added, "I’m sure there’s plenty of Money to replace the Qatari commitments.""The reality is, until the United States tells Qatar to go pound sand, we are not going to see an enforceable Trump admin initiated designation of the Muslim Brotherhood, because a designation of the Muslim Brotherhood would mean having to cut ties with Qatar since Qatar funds the Muslim Brotherhood and HAMAS," she wrote. "This would also mean that we would have to shut down the Qatari embassy in Washington DC that likely wishes they could bribe every single politician in DC to support Qatar and oppose designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign Islamic terrorist organization."

The Associated Press investigated the identities of those killed in President Donald Trump’s military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and found that many were not the hardened criminals Trump claimed."One was a fisherman struggling to eke out a living on $100 a month. Another was a career criminal. A third was a former military cadet. And a fourth was a down-on-his-luck bus driver," the report said. Senators were given a classified briefing on Thursday, where Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) expressed confidence that the intelligence being used to justify the bombings was legitimate. Nonetheless, the Pentagon’s secrecy has fueled concern and skepticism among the public, CNN reported. AP conducted dozens of interviews in Venezuelan coastal towns, finding families who dispute Trump’s portrayal of their loved ones as “narco-terrorists.” Most were “low-level” laborers taking dangerous jobs for $500 per trip. “They were laborers, a fisherman, a motorcycle taxi driver. Two were small-time criminals,” the report said. Only one was linked to a crime boss providing smuggling services.The boats weren’t carrying fentanyl or heading to Florida; they shipped cocaine to nearby Trinidad and other islands, and then to Europe. The bulk of Colombian cocaine for the U.S. typically leaves Colombia via the Pacific. The boats appeared to be carrying cocaine instead of the deadlier opioids, which kill tens of thousands in America each year.The families complain that their relatives should have been given "due process" rather than what Venezuela's ambassador to the U.N. called “extrajudicial executions.”As the AP explained, "In the past, their boats would have been interdicted by the U.S. authorities and the crewmen charged with federal crimes, affording them a day in court."Since September, at least 69 people have been killed by the strikes. Read the complete profiles of the men here.

Five-year-old Luz spent 72 days separated from her father, Julio Rodriguez, after they were detained at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018.Escaping extortion and violence in Guatemala, Julio was detained in Texas while Luz was sent to a shelter in New York. Eventually, they reunited in Atlanta and joined family in Massachusetts.Melanie Hernandez left Guatemala in the middle of the night in 2019 with her 14-year-old son, Lucas, fleeing an abusive husband. She left behind an adult daughter and five-year-old son with severe heart disease. Melanie spent several days away from Lucas when detainees were separated by gender at the U.S. border.The Rodriguez and Hernandez families are just two of 16 that experienced family separation under the first Trump administration, and who are now the subjects of a book by Gabrielle Oliveira, Now We Are Here: Family Migration, Children’s Education, and Dreams for a Better Life.The families from Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador all came to the U.S. with children, the youngest four months old. Some mothers were pregnant. The parents and children faced significant trauma that lingers though they are settled in the U.S., pursuing asylum cases, Oliveira writes.Oliveira observed the children in school as much as twice a month over two to three years. Gabrielle Oliveira (provided photo)She observed families at home and engaged in communities, from meetings with lawyers to trips to the grocery store and church, for more than 2,500 hours. She interviewed parents and some children twice a month. “I think if we have children as our North Star for policymaking, it would change everything,” Oliveira, a Harvard professor, told Raw Story.‘More tragedy’From being mugged to paying bribes, the families encountered numerous dangers on their way to the U.S., Oliveira writes.One family traveled in a windowless truck with 50 other people, including babies, pregnant women and elderly folks.Julio Rodriguez paid a smuggler $7,000 to help him and Luz get to the U.S., traveling for 12 days from Guatemala to Ciudad Juárez in Mexico.Diana López, from Guatemala, recalled crossing the Rio Grande with her two-year-old in her arms. When her daughter fell into the river, Lopez grabbed her from underwater.López told Oliveira: “When I was leaving the water with Belén in my arms I was relieved that we survived the river … But when I looked up what I saw were these electric pistols … the next thing I know I felt it in my arm, stinging, and I fell to the ground.” "Now We Are Here" book coverWhile the parents were often fleeing unsafe situations, the ultimate motivation in risking all to cross the border came down to seeking better education for their children, Oliveira writes.Melissa Santos, a mother from Brazil, told Oliveira: “It’s one of those things: do you stay and let your children not have a chance, become drug addicts, and get shot by a stray bullet, or do you travel north and risk being arrested, shot, and deported. It’s more the same … more tragedy.” ‘Did I make a mistake?’Oliveira learned that many parents questioned whether the trek was worth it, then found themselves separated and exposed to inhumane treatment after reaching U.S. soil.The families encountered another hurdle: COVID-19, which stopped children attending school in person. Julio told Oliveira how he would comfort Luz, who was missing her mom and home: “I used to tell her about the good life we would have and that she would not believe the schools … I was just trying to have her not be sad all the time … But I kept thinking about the mistakes I made … Did I make a mistake bringing her?”Oliveira, who immigrated to the U.S. herself, from Brazil, said parents saw children having nightmares, seeming detached, or struggling in school. Some parents were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder but had to keep moving forward."That's why the title is Now We Are Here,” Oliveira said. “The counter mantra to the ‘What if, what if, what if, what if’ is ‘Now we're here,’ so this is the shot that we have. That kind of stabilized the doubts of being worthy or not.” ‘They're going to grow up with this trauma’President Donald Trump was in the White House for his first term when the 16 families came to the U.S. With the second Trump administration employing even harsher immigration enforcement tactics, Oliveira imagines families such as those she writes about now being unable to reach the U.S.“So many of them were escaping life-and-death moments, so not being able to ask for asylum, not being able to do that, I think it would be extremely, even more dangerous than what it was a few years ago, just because of how the border is right now,” Oliveira said.With the Trump administration aggressively detaining and deporting immigrants — and encouraging unaccompanied children to self-deport — Oliveira said another form of family separation is happening. “It's going to be forever with them. They're going to grow up with this trauma, and it's not an easy one to address,” she said. Oliveira has stayed in touch with those she interviewed. Some, she said, have been afraid to leave their homes for doctor’s appointments, psychological treatment or speech therapy, due to the wave of deportations and detentions.“It was a real chilling effect,” Oliveira said. Still, the children she followed remained in school, with six teens having graduated high school. Oliveira has mixed feelings about her book being published at this moment.“I'm happy that at least there are these stories in this moment right now, and they're needed,” she said. “Let's think about the well-being of children. We can come together on this one.“It also makes me nervous … that it could be misplaced or misused, or in any of these ways that it wasn’t intended … the moment that we're living, it's a delicate one to tell stories."

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was ridiculed over the weekend after a statement in which he announced closer cooperation with China and declared, "God bless both China and the USA!"Hegseth on Saturday took to social media to disclose the new stance toward a nation previously treated as an adversary by the administration."I just spoke to President Trump, and we agree — the relationship between the United States and China has never been better. Following President Trump’s historic meeting with Chairman Xi in South Korea, I had an equally positive meeting with my counterpart, China’s Minister of National Defense Admiral Dong Jun in Malaysia. And we spoke again last night. The Admiral and I agree that peace, stability, and good relations are the best path for our two great and strong countries," Hegseth wrote. "As President Trump said, his historic 'G2 meeting' set the tone for everlasting peace and success for the U.S. and China."Hegseth added, "The Department of War will do the same — peace through strength, mutual respect, and positive relations. Admiral Dong and I also agreed that we should set up military-to-military channels to deconflict and deescalate any problems that arise. We have more meetings on that coming soon. God bless both China and the USA!"That comment led to some outrage from critics and observers who support the administration.Conservative ex-GOP lawmaker Adam Kinzinger replied with this quote, “Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia," along with a meme of a man wearing a MAGA hat and the words "fell for it again.""God bless both China……. wtf???? Dude" he added.Trump-supporting I Love America News wrote "Meanwhile in China," along with the Chinese leader appearing to read "The Art of the Deal" by Trump. Several other accounts shared similar memes.Gary P. Nabhan, a user who frequently shares and supports comments made by Hegseth, asked him, "How will you deconflict when China invades Taiwan? Or have you already signaled China that you won’t oppose the invasion?"Michael D. Swaine of the Quincy Institute said, "Golly Gee, that's just great Petey. All problems and bad blood gone, poof. We are now bosom buddies, so all those past defense documents, presidential statements, Congressional bills, etc. that spoke of China seeking to overturn the global order, displace the US from Asia, suppress other countries etc., etc., were silly goofs. A couple of meetings and all is well. Boy is Trump a genius or what?! Why do we even need diplomacy or the military for that matter. (except to attack Americans and murder people Donnie doesn't like, of course). Who knew that international relations was so easy?!!"Podcaster Spencer Hakimian chimed in, "Hegseth TACO’ing on China. Wow."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blasted the Trump administration Sunday for its ongoing military strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, labeling them as “extrajudicial killings” that he argued were similar to how the Iranian or Chinese governments operate.“The drug or the crime war has typically been something we do through law enforcement, and so far they have alleged that these people are drug dealers,” Paul said, appearing on Fox News Sunday. “No one's said their name, no one's said what evidence, no one's said whether they're armed, and we've had no evidence presented. So at this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, to what Iran does with drug dealers, they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public, so it's wrong.”President Donald Trump has authorized at least ten strikes on suspected drug-carrying sea vessels since September, killing at least 43 people that his administration has labeled as “narco-terrorists.” The strikes have received widespread bi-partisan condemnation for potentially being a violation of international law, with the most-recent strike occurring late Thursday night into Friday morning, killing six.Trump’s authority to authorize the strikes has also been questioned by critics, who point to Congress’ sole authority to approve declarations of war. Congress has not approved the strikes, and, according to Paul, have not even been briefed on the operations, or the evidence – should any exist – that those targeted were actually engaged in drug trafficking.“We haven't had a briefing; to be clear, we've gotten no information, I've been invited to no briefing, but a briefing is not enough to overcome the Constitution,” Paul said. “The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it, and during a war, there's a lower rules for engagement, and people do sometimes get killed without due process.”Rand Paul on Trump's strikes on boats: "I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, what Iran does with drug dealers -- they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/NPCIt9kzgT— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 26, 2025

Donald Trump has ordered more deadly bombings of small fishing boats, killing everyone onboard, including an incident off the coast of Colombia. That was the ninth US attack against alleged drug dealers in international waters, just since September.Another strike was announced on Friday, bringing the number of people Trump calls “narco-terrorists” to have perished in these attacks up to 43. Trump previously told Fox News, “We take them out,” and later joked about how people, most of them desperately poor, are now afraid to fish along certain coastlines.Without releasing credible evidence, Trump claims the victims’ vessels were “stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly fentanyl and other drugs, too.” Trump says they were “smuggling a deadly weapon poisoning Americans,” on behalf of various “terrorist organizations.” Trump is calling the victims terrorists so that he can treat them as enemy combatants in a war that does not exist, just as he is doing at home. Domestically, we know Trump calls groups who oppose him politically “domestic terrorists.” We know he fabricated a domestic terrorist organization he calls “Antifa” to sell his plan for violence. We also know his administration is lying about peaceful protestors threatening ICE agents in order to justify ICE brutality, and that ICE refuses to wear body cams without a court order. Trump’s firehose of lies about domestic ‘terrorists’ won’t help his claims about ‘terrorists’ on the high seas.Is Trump confusing South America with China and Mexico?Colombian President Gustavo Petro has credibly accused Trump of murder. In response, instead of offering legal justification, Trump said he was cutting off foreign aid to Colombia, seemingly confusing that nation with Democratic-run states from whom he is also illegally withholding funds.Bragging about the killings, Trump falsely claimed that every exploded shipping vessel “saves 25,000 American lives.” In the factual world, about 100,000 Americans die each year from drug overdoses, mostly by fentanyl, which does not come from Venezuela, Colombia or any South American country. The fentanyl killing Americans comes from labs in Mexico and China. Given his difficulty with geography, Trump may not know the difference. At any rate, South America produces marijuana and cocaine, not fentanyl. Most of the killing fentanyl is smuggled into the country by US citizens, over land.Legal arguments don’t hold waterThe White House claims the strikes are a matter of self-defense. To get there, Trump “determined” that drug cartels like Tren de Aragua are “terrorists.” But officials say Tren de Aragua is not operating in the shipping routes under attack, and that the route Trump and Hegseth are targeting carries cocaine and marijuana to Europe and Africa, not the US.Legal experts on the use of armed force say Trump’s campaign is illegal because the military is not permitted to target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities. Key legal instruments prohibiting extrajudicial killings and murder include the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and customary international humanitarian law. The Trump administration has not publicly offered a legal theory that comports with any of these laws. Instead, the White House has argued that the attacks fall under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), which limits methods of warfare and sets out legally required protections for noncombatants and civilians during conflict. The US is in no such conflict; we are not under attack in the US or anywhere else, and Congress has declared no war.Designating drug cartels as “terrorist organizations” is also factually suspect. Drug cartels exist for profit; all purveyors of illicit drugs are in the business to make money. In contrast, “terrorists” by definition are motivated by ideological goals often involving politics or religion—not profit. Even if they were terrorists, international law would only allow the executive branch to respond through legal methods like freezing assets, trials and imprisonment. Hegseth and others will face court martial Trump and Hegseth’s legal arguments have been universally rejected by military legal experts including former lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who have condemned the attacks as unlawful under both domestic and international law. Nevertheless, Hegseth has stated enthusiastically that the military will continue these executions.In February, Hegseth fired the JAGs whose job was to assess the legality of military actions. He may have deliberately done so to engage in illegal conduct and later claim a “mistake of law” defense, but that maneuver won’t save him. In US Servicemembers’ Exposure to Criminal Liability for Lethal Strikes on Narcoterrorists, Just Security lays it out under the Manual for Courts-Martial, and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), concluding in the Venezuela strikes that:Despite the clear absence of an “imminent threat of death or serious injury” or “grave threat to life,” the U.S. Coast Guard did not interdict the alleged criminal narcotrafficking in the way this conduct has been historically (and recently) approached. These suspected criminals were not arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced through a regular course of criminal procedure and neutral adjudication in a court. They were killed extrajudicially for conduct that could not be plausibly labeled a military attack, use of force, or even threat of imminent harm to anyone in the United States or any other nation, and despite the opportunity and ability to use less-than-lethal force to stop the boats. An extrajudicial killing, premeditated and without justification or excuse and without the legal authority tied to an armed conflict, is properly called “murder.” And murder is still a crime for those in uniform who executed the strike even if their targets are dangerous criminals, and even if servicemembers were commanded to do so by their superiors, including the President of the United States.Under this analysis, “every officer in the chain of command who … directed downward the initial order from the President or Secretary of Defense” would likely fall within the meaning of traditional accomplice liability, and could be charged for murder under Article 118. Even if a corrupt Supreme Court gave Trump criminal immunity for murder (an unsettled question), someone should let Hegseth know that immunity does not extend to him, or to other service members piloting the drones or firing the missiles under orders that are obviously illegal.Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Donald Trump Saturday announced higher tariff rates on Canada, specifically because of an anti-tariff ad using Ronald Reagan's own words, and spurred outrage from observers.The president has for days raged about the ad, which plays the words of Reagan talking about the dangers of imposing too many barriers to trade on other countries. Then, Trump imposed real consequences over the weekend."Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs," Trump claimed. "The Reagan Foundation said that they, 'created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan. The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address,' and 'did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter.' The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their 'rescue' on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States."He then announced the 10% boost to tariffs for Canada.That didn't sit well with onlookers, including White House correspondent Andrew Feinberg, who said, "Let’s be clear about what this is. Canada isn’t paying a godd---- thing.""He’s increasing taxes on Americans by executive fiat because he didn’t like an advertisement that quoted Reagan’s (accurate) views on tariffs," he then added. "You (and I) are paying these taxes — not Canada."MeidasTouch chimed in with, "Trump says he’s increasing tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by 10% because Ontario’s commercial that accurately used Ronald Reagan’s words about tariffs made him sad."Economist Justin Wolfers said, "It just got 10% dumber.""Not a joke: Trump just imposed an additional 10 percent tariff on Canada because he still doesn't understand that Reagan was a vehement free trader," he then added.Tax analyst Erica York said, "The President should not have the power to arbitrarily impose tariffs.""Is the new 10% tariff on imports from Canada related to the fentanyl emergency or the reciprocal trade emergency or are hurt feelings also now a national emergency?" she further added.

Donald Trump on Saturday announced a new, higher tariff rate on Canada after the airing of an advertisement that used Ronald Reagan's words against the current president.The president has for days raged about the ad, which plays the words of Reagan talking about the dangers of imposing too many tariffs on other countries.Now, he is imposing real consequences."Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs," Trump claimed. "The Reagan Foundation said that they, 'created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan. The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address,' and 'did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is reviewing its legal options in this matter.' The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their 'rescue' on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States."Trump then added, "Now the United States is able to defend itself against high and overbearing Canadian Tariffs (and those from the rest of the World as well!).""Ronald Reagan LOVED Tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy, but Canada said he didn’t! Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD," he further claimed. "Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"Read the post here.