Media outlets cave to threats as Trump's FCC launches new investigations

REUTERS/Marco Bello
Donald Trump gestures, as he attends a press conference on "Trump Will Fix It", at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., October 29, 2024.

Amy Goodman

Democracy Now!

February 11, 2025

We look at the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on press freedom, and how the media has responded with bended knee in some cases, with Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. The Trump administration has threatened journalists and media outlets for their coverage, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating PBS and NPR over its funding sources. Meanwhile, a number of major news organizations face accusations of surrendering to Trump’s threats. In December, ABC settled a defamation suit brought by Trump by making a $15 million donation to his future presidential library. CBS’s parent company Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle a multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Trump, who accused 60 Minutes of deceptively editing an interview with Kamala Harris. Trump initially sought $10 billion in the lawsuit and is now seeking $20 billion. “What I see here is media organizations that have the power to fight back against Trump but aren’t doing it. I think that’s a failure of courage,” says Jaffer. “Every time one of those media organizations settles a case, the next organization finds it more difficult to resist Trump.



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: As a constitutional crisis grows in Washington, we begin today’s show looking at the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on press freedom. Last week, the interim U.S. Attorney in Washington Edward Martin threatened to prosecute anyone, including journalists, who, quote, “target” or, quote, “impede” Elon Musk and DOGE — that’s the Department of Government Efficiency. Martin’s letter came a day after Musk claimed it was a crime to identify the young computer engineers who have helped him gain access to highly sensitive information at agencies across Washington.

Meanwhile, the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, has opened an investigation into San Francisco-based KCBS over the radio station’s reporting on recent immigration raids. The FCC has also opened a broader investigation of NPR and PBS and their practice of airing underwriting announcements.

On Friday, Donald Trump openly called for The Washington Post to fire longtime columnist Eugene Robinson after he accused Trump of trampling the Constitution.

Meanwhile, a number of major news organizations face accusations of already bending a knee to Trump. In December, ABC settled a defamation suit brought by Trump by making a $15 million donation to his future presidential library.

CBS’s parent company Paramount Global is reportedly in talks to settle a multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Trump, who accused 60 Minutes of deceptively editing an interview with Kamala Harris. Trump initially sought $10 billion in the lawsuit, but he’s upped it now to $20 billion. Last week, CBS took the unusual step of handing over its unedited tapes to the FCC. While the tapes showed no wrongdoing on CBS’s part, many believe Paramount might still settle the lawsuit. This all is happening as Paramount seeks federal approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media.

We’re joined right now by Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. His recent New York Times opinion piece is headlined “This Is Not a Moment to Settle with Trump.”

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Jameel.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Thanks, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: So, we just went through some of the cases, but if you can go through them in depth and explain what is happening here? Is the media obeying in advance?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, that’s how I see it. I see a kind of failure of courage among the largest and most powerful media organizations in the country. You know, you started with the ABC settlement. This is a case that arose out of George Stephanopoulos saying on TV that President Trump had been found liable for rape, when in fact the jury had found him liable for sexual assault. Trump sued, claiming that he had been defamed. I don’t think that there —


AMY GOODMAN: And let’s be clear: It was the judge who said, in common parlance, this would be rape.

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. That’s right. I don’t think that Trump had any chance of winning that lawsuit. If ABC had contested it, ABC would have been protected by the New York Times v. Sullivan rule. New York Times v. Sullivan is a 60-year-old case that gives citizens broad power to — or, broad latitude to criticize government officials, makes it very difficult for public officials to recover in defamation actions. I don’t think there’s any way that ABC would have lost that case. But they settled the case.

Second one is Meta’s settlement with Trump. This is over Meta’s decision or Facebook and Instagram’s decision to deplatform Trump after January 6th. Trump sued, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated. This, I think, is a totally frivolous case. There’s no way that Trump would have won that case against Meta, but Meta settled it, as well, for $25 million — again, all going to Trump’s presidential library.

And then, finally, this reported CBS settlement, or possible CBS settlement, with Trump over the action — over the case that involved the editing of this Kamala Harris interview. I don’t think that CBS edited that interview in any unusual way at all. The kind of editing they did is routine for journalism, for media organizations. Trump knows that. Again, no chance that Trump would have won that case, but CBS is reportedly thinking about settling it.


So, what I see here is media organizations that have the power to fight back against Trump but aren’t doing it. I think that’s a failure of courage, and it has implications for those particular media organizations, because I think it affects their credibility and their prestige. But it has larger press freedom implications, as well, because every time one of those media organizations settles a case, the next organization finds it more difficult to resist Trump. And this is a moment in which we need these organizations to hold the powerful to account, hold Trump to account, and this is exactly what they should not be doing.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jameel, what about this latest story this week about the FCC investigating a San Francisco —

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — radio station, KCBS, for its coverage of immigration enforcement in San Jose?


JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, here, too, I think you see the Trump administration trying to use its regulatory authorities in a way that chills press freedom, chills legitimate reporting. No question here that that radio station was within its rights to report what it did. And what Trump is trying to do or what the FCC is trying to do here is chill not just that radio station, but other radio stations and other media organizations, from engaging in reporting that is inconvenient to the administration.

I mean, I mentioned the CBS case. You know, another aspect of that case involves the FCC, with the FCC having demanded from CBS that it turn over unedited transcripts of its interview with Kamala Harris. And I don’t think in another —

AMY GOODMAN: And they released them.

JAMEEL JAFFER: And they released them. And they released them. I don’t think in another — in any other era a news organization would have just turned over those transcripts without at least trying to get a judge to narrow the request or look at the transcripts in camera before turning them over. But CBS just turned them over.

And, you know, I think that there’s a real risk here that, on paper, we’re going to have all the First Amendment rights in the world. The First Amendment is going to look great on paper. But the organizations that we need to assert their First Amendment rights, to defend press freedom, are increasingly just not doing it.

I mean, I’ve named a few of the settlements, but even before we got to the settlements, there were the L.A. Times and The Washington Post, which quashed editorials that would have been — that would have provoked Trump. This happened before the election. Then there were the Big Tech companies that all made million-dollar donations to Trump’s inaugural fund. You know, I think what we’re seeing is media organizations, including social media organizations, lining up to ingratiate themselves with President Trump. And that is an extremely troubling thing at this particular moment.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, it’s not just media organizations. Universities. Talk about the free speech rights that are endangered, increasingly endangered, at universities by the Trump administration, for instance, threatening to deport pro-Palestinian students.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, I mean, I think this is — it’s a larger issue across society. Many of the institutions that we need to serve as checks on government power at a moment like this are not doing their jobs.

Now, this question about, you know, in what circumstances can the government deport noncitizens for exercising their First Amendment rights, I think, is a hugely significant question. And I want people to understand that the First Amendment protects noncitizen students at American universities just like it protects everybody else. The government cannot constitutionally deport people simply because they have exercised their First Amendment rights, simply because they have criticized a war overseas or criticized our government or criticized another government. Those are not constitutionally permissible justifications for deporting somebody.

So, you know — and you don’t have to take my word for it, because a couple years ago, the Knight Institute, my institute, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Biden administration, and we were able to get two memos, two legal memos, in which the Trump administration had considered its authority to engage in these kinds of deportations based on First Amendment activity. And Trump administration lawyers wrote memos that acknowledged that noncitizens at universities in the United States are protected by the First Amendment and that deporting them on the basis of their speech would almost certainly be unconstitutional.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, Jameel Jaffer, talk about what happened Friday night with the casino magnate Steve Wynn asking the Supreme Court to revisit the Times v. Sullivan defamation rule, the Supreme Court decision, one of the two most important press freedom cases.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, so, I mentioned New York Times v. Sullivan already. This has been a campaign by some conservatives over the last few years to try to get the Supreme Court to narrow or overrule New York Times v. Sullivan, which would be a very big deal because it’s The New York Times v. Sullivan, more than any other case, that protects our ability to criticize government officials, which is core to our democracy. And this —

AMY GOODMAN: What was it established under, New York Times v. Sullivan? What case was that?

JAMEEL JAFFER: So, it’s called New York Times v. Sullivan. It’s a case involving — The New York Times was sued by a Southern police official who was concerned about civil rights activism in the South and complained, in particular, about an ad in The New York Times that he said — he said accurately — was inaccurate. The ad included some inaccuracies in it. And he said, because the ad included inaccuracies, The New York Times was liable. I think it was for $500,000, which at the time would have been crushing liability even for The New York Times. And if he had won that case, other news organizations reporting on the civil rights movement would have been crushed, as well. But the Supreme Court said, if you’re criticizing government officials, you have to have broad latitude, even to get things wrong. So, unless the public official can show what’s called actual malice, so unless the public official can show that the newspaper or the writer recklessly published false information or deliberately published false information, there’s no recovery possible. The First Amendment forecloses recovery.

So, now some conservatives are pushing to get the Supreme Court to overrule that decision. I think it’s a misguided campaign, even, you know, if you want the things that these conservatives want. I think this is going to backfire on them. But this cert petition that was filed on Friday night, this request that the Supreme Court hear the case, is another effort in this longer campaign to get the Supreme Court to either scale back or overrule New York Times v. Sullivan.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, thanks so much for being with us, director of the Knight —

JAMEEL JAFFER: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: — First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. We’ll link to your piece in The New York Times, “This Is Not a Moment to Settle with Trump.”

Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space

The Conversation
February 9, 2025 

Ligtning over Tucson (Shutterstock)

By Lauren Blum, University of Colorado Boulder

There are trillions of charged particles – protons and electrons, the basic building blocks of matter – whizzing around above your head at any given time. These high-energy particles, which can travel at close to the speed of light, typically remain thousands of kilometers away from Earth, trapped there by the shape of Earth’s magnetic field.

Occasionally, though, an event happens that can jostle them out of place, sending electrons raining down into Earth’s atmosphere. These high-energy particles in space make up what are known as the Van Allen radiation belts, and their discovery was one of the first of the space age. A new study from my research team has found that electromagnetic waves generated by lightning can trigger these electron showers.

A brief history lesson

At the start of the space race in the 1950s, professor James Van Allen and his research team at the University of Iowa were tasked with building an experiment to fly on the United States’ very first satellite, Explorer 1. They designed sensors to study cosmic radiation, which is caused by high-energy particles originating from the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, or beyond

.

James Van Allen, middle, poses with a model of the Explorer 1 satellite.NASA

After Explorer 1 launched, though, they noticed that their instrument was detecting significantly higher levels of radiation than expected. Rather than measuring a distant source of radiation beyond our solar system, they appeared to be measuring a local and extremely intense source.

This measurement led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, two doughnut-shaped regions of high-energy electrons and ions encircling the planet.

Scientists believe that the inner radiation belt, peaking about 621 miles (1000 kilometers) from Earth, is composed of electrons and high-energy protons and is relatively stable over time.

The outer radiation belt, about three times farther away, is made up of high-energy electrons. This belt can be highly dynamic. Its location, density and energy content may vary significantly by the hour in response to solar activity.


Charged particles, with their trajectories shown as blue and yellow lines here, exist in the radiation belts around Earth, depicted here as the yellow, green and blue regions.

The discovery of these high-radiation regions is not only an interesting story about the early days of the space race; it also serves as a reminder that many scientific discoveries have come about by happy accident.

It is a lesson for experimental scientists, myself included, to keep an open mind when analyzing and evaluating data. If the data doesn’t match our theories or expectations, those theories may need to be revisited.
Our curious observations

While I teach the history of the space race in a space policy course at the University of Colorado, Boulder, I rarely connect it to my own experience as a scientist researching Earth’s radiation belts. Or, at least, I didn’t until recently.

In a study led by Max Feinland, an undergraduate student in my research group, we stumbled upon some of our own unexpected observations of Earth’s radiation belts. Our findings have made us rethink our understanding of Earth’s inner radiation belt and the processes affecting it.

Originally, we set out to look for very rapid – sub-second – bursts of high-energy electrons entering the atmosphere from the outer radiation belt, where they are typically observed.

Many scientists believe that a type of electromagnetic wave known as “chorus” can knock these electrons out of position and send them toward the atmosphere. They’re called chorus waves due to their distinct chirping sound when listened to on a radio receiver.

Feinland developed an algorithm to search for these events in decades of measurements from the SAMPEX satellite. When he showed me a plot with the location of all the events he’d detected, we noticed a number of them were not where we expected. Some events mapped to the inner radiation belt rather than the outer belt.

This finding was curious for two reasons. For one, chorus waves aren’t prevalent in this region, so something else had to be shaking these electrons loose.

The other surprise was finding electrons this energetic in the inner radiation belt at all. Measurements from NASA’s Van Allen Probes mission prompted renewed interest in the inner radiation belt. Observations from the Van Allen Probes suggested that high-energy electrons are often not present in this inner radiation belt, at least not during the first few years of that mission, from 2012 to 2014.

Our observations now showed that, in fact, there are times that the inner belt contains high-energy electrons. How often this is true and under what conditions remain open questions to explore. These high-energy particles can damage spacecraft and harm humans in space, so researchers need to know when and where in space they are present to better design spacecraft.

Determining the culprit

One of the ways to disturb electrons in the inner radiation belt and kick them into Earth’s atmosphere actually begins in the atmosphere itself.

Lightning, the large electromagnetic discharges that light up the sky during thunderstorms, can actually generate electromagnetic waves known as lightning-generated whistlers.

Lightning strikes generate electromagnetic waves, which can travel into the radiation belts above the Earth’s atmosphere

.mdesigner125/iStock via Getty Images Plus

These waves can then travel through the atmosphere out into space, where they interact with electrons in the inner radiation belt – much as chorus waves interact with electrons in the outer radiation belt.

To test whether lightning was behind our inner radiation belt detections, we looked back at the electron bursts and compared them with thunderstorm data. Some lightning activity seemed correlated with our electron events, but much of it was not.

Specifically, only lightning that occurred right after so-called geomagnetic storms resulted in the bursts of electrons we detected.

Geomagnetic storms are disturbances in the near-Earth space environment often caused by large eruptions on the Sun’s surface. This solar activity, if directed toward Earth, can produce what researchers term space weather. Space weather can result in stunning auroras, but it can also disrupt satellite and power grid operations.

We discovered that a combination of weather on Earth and weather in space produces the unique electron signatures we observed in our study. The solar activity disturbs Earth’s radiation belts and populates the inner belt with very high-energy electrons, then the lightning interacts with these electrons and creates the rapid bursts that we observed.

These results provide a nice reminder of the interconnected nature of Earth and space. They were also a welcome reminder to me of the often nonlinear process of scientific discovery.

Lauren Blum, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

FASCIST BLAMES THE 'OTHER'

South Korea's Yoon blames 'malicious' opposition for martial law bid

Agence France-Presse
February 11, 2025 

Yoon plunged democratic South Korea into political turmoil when he declared martial law on December 3. (Lee Jin-man/AFP)

by Kang Jin-kyu

South Korea's suspended President Yoon Suk Yeol blamed the "malicious" opposition for his decision to declare martial law, telling a court on Tuesday that their refusal to applaud him or shake his hand exposed their plans to "destroy" his government.

The former prosecutor plunged democratic South Korea into political turmoil when he declared martial law on December 3, suspending civilian rule and sending soldiers to parliament.

The attempt only lasted six hours as the opposition-led parliament defied troops to vote it down, later impeaching him over the move.

Yoon was detained in mid-January on insurrection charges, becoming the first sitting South Korean head of state to be arrested.

He is regularly being transported from prison to hearings at the Constitutional Court, which will determine whether his impeachment is upheld.


At Tuesday's hearing -- likely the penultimate one -- Yoon complained that the South Korean opposition had failed to offer him due respect while he was in office.

"No matter how much they dislike me, it is the basic principle of dialogue and compromise to listen to me and give me a round of applause for my budget speech in parliament," the 64-year-old told the court.

But, he said, opposition lawmakers "didn't even enter the main hall, and I had to give a speech to a half-empty parliament".

Such a gesture, he claimed, was "deeply malicious" and exposed the "opposition's intent to destroy my government".

He then complained that opposition MPs attending another parliament address "turned their heads away... and refused to shake hands".

In his martial law declaration, Yoon labelled the opposition "anti-state elements" intent on insurrection, saying the decree was required "to safeguard constitutional order".

Thursday's hearing is widely expected to be the last one before the court rules whether to uphold Yoon's impeachment, a move that would trigger a fresh presidential election within 60 days.

- 'Stop the Steal' -

Several lawmakers were in attendance at the hearing, an AFP reporter in court saw.

Outside, Yoon's supporters held "Stop the Steal" signs. They have borrowed US President Donald Trump's rhetoric to support unproven claims that recent South Korean elections -- dominated by the opposition -- were manipulated by shadowy foreign forces.

One protester stood on top of a car, shouting into a microphone for Yoon's release.

Much of Yoon's impeachment trial has centered on the question of whether he violated the constitution by declaring martial law, which is reserved for national emergencies or times of war.

Yoon suggested last week that even if he had ordered the arrest of MPs to prevent them from voting down his decree, it would not legally matter because it had not been carried out.

He is also facing a criminal trial on insurrection charges, for which he faces a prison sentence or the death penalty.

© Agence France-Presse

Trump floats Ukraine 'may be Russian someday' ahead of Zelensky-Vance meeting

Agence France-Presse
February 11, 2025
by Victoria LUKOVENKO

U.S. President Donald Trump floated the idea that Ukraine "may be Russian someday", as his Vice President JD Vance gears up to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later this week.

Pushing for an end to the nearly three-year war with Russia, Trump discussed the conflict in an interview with broadcaster Fox News that aired Monday.

"They may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday," he said.

Trump also emphasised reaping a return on investment with US aid to Ukraine, suggesting a trade for Kyiv's natural resources, such as rare minerals.

"We are going to have all this money in there, and I say I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion worth of rare earth," Trump said. "And they have essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don't feel stupid."


Trump also confirmed Monday that he will soon dispatch to Ukraine his special envoy Keith Kellogg, who is tasked with drawing up a proposal to halt the fighting.

Trump is pressing for a swift end to the conflict, while Zelensky is calling for tough security guarantees from Washington as part of any deal with Russia.

Kyiv fears that any settlement that does not include hard military commitments -- such as NATO membership or the deployment of peacekeeping troops -- will just allow the Kremlin time to regroup and rearm for a fresh attack.

Zelensky's spokesman Sergiy Nikiforov told AFP the Ukrainian president will meet with Vance this Friday on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

A source in Zelensky's office said Kellogg would arrive in Ukraine on February 20, without detailing where in the country he would visit.

His trip would come just days before the three-year anniversary of Russia's invasion on February 24.


Zelensky called Monday for "real peace and effective security guarantees" for Ukraine.

"Security of people, security of our state, security of economic relations and, of course, our resource sustainability: not only for Ukraine, but for the entire free world," he said.

"All of this is being decided now," Zelensky added in a video address published on social media.

- Trump meetings -

Trump has said he wants to broker an end to the war but has not outlined a detailed proposal to bring the two sides to the negotiating table.

Both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin have previously ruled out direct talks with each other, and there appears to be little ground where the two could strike a deal.


Putin is demanding that Ukraine withdraw from swathes of its south and east that Kyiv still has control over, and considers closer ties between Ukraine and NATO inadmissible.

Zelensky has meanwhile rejected any territorial concessions to Moscow, though he has acknowledged that Ukraine might have to rely on diplomatic means to secure the return of some territory.

Russia says it has annexed five regions of Ukraine -- Crimea in 2014 and then Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporizhzhia in 2022 -- though it does not have full control over them.

Zelensky said Monday a meeting with Trump was being arranged though a date had not yet been fixed, while Trump had said last week he would "probably" meet Zelensky in the coming days, but ruled out personally travelling to Kyiv.

The New York Post reported Saturday that Trump told the publication he had spoken on the phone to Putin to discuss bringing an end to the conflict in Ukraine, saying the Russian leader had told him he "wants to see people stop dying".

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to confirm or deny the call.

Organisers of the closely followed Munich Security Conference had confirmed earlier Monday that Zelensky would attend the Feb 14-16 summit.

The US delegation is set to include US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as Kellogg and Vance, MSC chair Christoph Heusgen told a Berlin press conference.

There will be no representatives of the Russian government present, Heusgen said.

The meeting comes with Russia advancing across Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region, where it has captured several settlements -- mostly completely flattened by months of Russian bombardments -- over the past year.

Moscow has also pursued a months-long bombing campaign against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, claiming the attacks targeted facilities that aid Kyiv's military.

On Tuesday, the Ukrainian energy minister said the energy sector "continues to be under attack", and Kyiv is "urgently apply emergency power supply restrictions" to "minimise possible consequences".

© Agence France-Presse

'Ridiculous and lame': South Africans mock Trump proposals

Agence France-Presse
February 11, 2025 

President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa will not be 'intimidated' by Donald Trump (Ting Shen/AFP)

by Hillary ORINDE

'On the streets of Johannesburg's student district, U.S. President Donald Trump's offer to accept white Afrikaners as refugees landed as both "ridiculous" and "lame", among South Africans of all races.

On Friday, Trump cut off aid to South Africa and claimed, without evidence, that the Pretoria government is seizing white-owned land and persecuting Afrikaners, descendants of European settlers.

South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Trump's right-hand man, has in the past echoed far-right conspiracy theories about a "white genocide" in the country.

"Trump doesn't know anything about this. I feel like Elon Musk is pushing him behind and saying: 'There's something there. Go look at it,'" said Lulusuku Mahlangu.

"Its greed," the electrical engineering student said.

"When you have too much power, you think you can control everyone."

Many have expressed indignation and bemusement that whites could be assigned victim status in South Africa.

The white-supremacist apartheid government, headed by an Afrikaner nationalist party, ruled the country until 1994.

Whites still own two-thirds of farmland and on average earn three times as much as black South Africans.

"I find it funny because I live here and I don't see that sort of persecution in any way," said Lwandle Yende, 34.

- 'Borderline lame' -

"It's ridiculous, funny and weird," said Yende, a telecommunications specialist with neat black and brown dreadlocks and a chin-curtain beard.

"I think we've been quite accommodating with everything that has happened in our past," said Yende, adding: "There is no such thing like apartheid 2.0."Trump's criticism centers on a new law that allows the South African government, in certain particular circumstances, to seize property without payment if this is ruled to be in the public interest.

The law mainly clarifies an existing legal framework. Legal experts have stressed it does not give new powers to the government.

Trump's offer to accept Afrikaners as refugees caught many off guard, including right-wing white lobby groups.

The suggestion "has some racist undertones," said Reabetswe Mosue, 22.

"It is uninformed and borderline lame."

Trump's executive order pulls the plug on all US funding to South Africa, including a major contribution to the country's HIV program.

"America has betrayed us by bringing him back," 56-year-old pastor Israel Ntshangase said of Trump.

"He messed up with Africa and he is doing it again," he said, warning that Trump's policies "will haunt him".

- Life in America 'not cheap' -

The South Africa government has sought to allay fears about the fallout from Trump's resettlement proposal, saying it was "ironic" that it came from a nation embarking on a deportation program.

"Who wants to leave this beautiful country?" posed Yende as he adjusted his designer shades, adding that his white friends found the proposal laughable.

Trump's scheme appears to offer much to Afrikaners but may ultimately deliver little, said Matthew Butler, a 62-year-old tax and insurance specialist.
"America is not cheap," the white man with a calm demeanor told AFP. "Are you going to have work? How are you going to make a living?"

Nonetheless, the South African Chamber of Commerce in the United States reported a surge in inquiries about resettlement, estimating that 50,000 people may consider leaving South Africa.

None of them should be stopped from leaving, opined University of the Witwatersrand lecturer Hannah Maja, on her way from shopping for a staff party.

"Let them do whatever they want to do in order for them to get the fresh air that they need and want," the 28-year-old said sardonically.


"I think there's something interesting when white people get together and decide to fight. Because at the end of the day, black people still suffer," she said.

It was a call that did not resonate with film student Clayton Ndlovu, however.

"We do need those Afrikaans. As much as we don't get along, we actually do need them," said the 22-year-old.


"Trump is just trying to scare people."

© Agence France-Presse

'It's a no-no': Fox News reefer madness segment warns of 'lazy' potheads

David Edwards
February 9, 2025 

RAW STORY


Fox News/screen grab

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy warned of "lazy" potheads during a segment on smoking marijuana.

During a Sunday Fox & Friends discussion about a Canadian study that linked marijuana use to schizophrenia, Duffy and Fox News medical contributor Dr. Nicole Saphier decried the "dangers of smoking."

The segment echoed sentiments of the 1936 "Reefer Madness" film.

"Please don't legalize," Duffy said. "Please don't allow, you know, your party to get behind legalization because it's a gateway drug to other drugs."

"I have also, like you have, been very cautious about legalization of marijuana because there are known risks with it," Saphier agreed. "So it is very concerning when it comes to people using this a lot more and you're seeing rising levels of THC over the years in marijuana that people are using."

"Well, let me tell you, not everything that is natural is good for you," she continued. "Other herbs that I like that are natural that can help with relaxation and some of those are like lavender, chamomile, low-dose kava kava."

"I have been a lot concerned about its normalization, and you and I know, I mean, let's just be honest, we're moms," Duffy agreed. "We knew those potheads in high school. They're lazy. Why would we want to normalize this when we see the effects on that."

"Plus we know that it can it can really just disrupt your your motivation for life and get you hooked on something instead of motivated to have a better life."

Saphier acknowledged "conflicting research as to whether this leads to hardcore drug use in the future."

"I mean it's a no-no," the doctor argued. "And I certainly don't recommend this unless it is very specific medical conditions that are proven to benefit from it."

"I miss the just say no days," Duffy opined. "I really do."

Watch the video below from Fox News or at the link..

Democratic 'leadership' has disappeared as pock-faced Orcs are unleashed on our government

D. Earl Stephens
February 8, 2025

RAW STORY

REUTERS/David Swanson/File Photo

The sell-by date is officially up for Americans telling me they just can't pay attention to what is happening in this country right now, because it is all just too much to take; or because they are tired; or because there’s nothing we can do about it; or because it’s time for somebody else to care for awhile …

Admit it, you know these people. I run into ‘em all the time, and I am officially done being polite and sympathetic.

And who knows, you might even be one yourself. Not likely, though, if you are still wading into this place, where fire-breathing is a practiced art of relaxation.

Point is, it’s time for everybody to sharpen those elbows, pick themselves up and get to work. It’s been almost three months since the soul-sucking November election, and nobody has time to sit around moping and feeling sorry for themselves anymore.

If you are mad, I get that emotion. If you are sad, I get that one, too. If you are angry, well, that’s the ticket ...

Look, our economy is in a free-fall, and an unelected racist, South African billionaire has turned loose his rancid little 22-year-old pock-faced Orcs on our government computer systems where they are mining our data, to do God knows what nefarious things with.

And why hasn’t Elon Musk been arrested for this? That’s a serious question, that could use answering, corporate media.

Maybe instead of bombing us with all your damn alerts that are telling us what Trump is doing to batter us by the hour, explain to your audiences WHY he is doing these things. What value is it to HIM to have access to OUR social security numbers?

Why just last week, 1,000 of workers at the EPA are being threatened with firing if they continue to protect us from the ravages of climate change and their work to keep our air and water clean. Who benefits from THAT? There’s a meaty story for the enterprising journalist out there …


IGs have gotten whacked with no explanation in the middle of the night, our FBI is under siege, raiders are infiltrating government offices stealing Americans’ personal information, and compromised politicians are doing NOTHING.

Sometimes you don't pick the fight, good people, the fight picks you. So get up, and start hitting back, dammit.

When you are done reading this blast, I’d be appreciative if you’d call your representatives in Congress. It takes but a minute and the emotional return and satisfaction is worth the time. Here’s the national number: (202) 224-3121.


And if you are saying, “Well, shoot, my rep is a MAGA, so …” I am telling you that you need to be calling more than anybody. Because if that SOB hears from enough unhappy people in his/her district they might do the most natural thing in the world for a politician and do whatever is necessary to save their own a--.

If you are lucky enough to get a live person on the line, be polite but unload on them just the same, because as hard as I am being on my friends who are tired right now, it’s the damn politicians who I really have in my sights.

This might be the most feeble, weak response to the end of America as we know it, that I could have ever imagined.


Democratic “leadership” has neutered itself, and put a gun to their own damn heads. Worse, they have forgotten they work of US. So call them, dammit. Again, be polite, but let them have it: (202) 224-3121.

Say this to them:
"A NAZI-LOVING BILLIONAIRE DOES NOT BELONG INSIDE OUR GOVERNMENT OR ANYWHERE NEAR OUR MONEY OR PERSONAL INFORMATION. JUST WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS?"

If they don’t have an answer, then tell them that you are done answering their relentless fundraising messages and calls.

And, say, have you been getting these? While they are busy doing nothing, they apparently have all the time in the world to send out fundraising blasts. I am in the process of stopping every one of these damn messages that comes at me right now. Turns out, I was into a helluva lot of them.

Well, not anymore.

I’ve come back to the realization that this time, it is all going to be on us to stop this madness. We are under attack, and our representatives can either do their f------ jobs, or get the hell out of the way.

(But don’t stop calling them, because, again, if nothing else it will make you feel better: (202) 224-3121)

Over the course of the weekend, I started to see a decided uptick in the anger and energy toward doing something — anything — to fight back. There is word of work stoppages, general strikes and marches.

As long as there is a will there is a way, and I am starting to see our will return.

But if this is STILL sounding too big and hurried for your tastes, and I am wearing out my welcome here, please do this: Pick a local cause that is near and dear to you and get involved, because if everybody would deal with the problems in their own backyards, the whole neighborhood would be better for it.

Listen to me: I am not unsympathetic to what you are going through. I truly do understand it if some of you aren’t feeling it after reading this plea. We all have our different levels of pain tolerance, and there has been a lot of pain being dealt to us right now from a racist convicted felon, who has managed to rig the game.

I am admittedly a hard-headed dude, and have the scars to prove it. But I’m right about this one, friends, we need to punch back NOW.

There are far more people with a helluva lot more to lose than many of you, who have been on the frontlines fighting their tails off for decades. I’m looking at you, Black women. You have consistently been right on target with your vote more than any group in our nation’s history.

Time and time again you show up, show out, and illustrate what real patriots look like. Whenever I slide toward feeling sorry myself, I think of you, and get right but quick.

Whatever kind of motivation it takes for you, dear reader,to get up and fight back, find it now.

But if time is still what you need, then take all you want, but don’t you dare complain when everything else is gone.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.

Greenlight for tyranny as impotent Dems' lack of resistance opens the floodgates

Thom Hartmann,

 AlterNet
February 9, 2025 

Donald Trump (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)

Is Trump’s, Musk’s, and Putin’s coup against democracy complete?

Under the guise of a 44-year campaign to reverse the middle-class advances of the New Deal and Great Society, rightwing billionaires and the Republicans they own have pushed a fundamentally fascist agenda that is now openly at war with America. They are engaging in a coup, finishing the work Trump started on January 6, 2021.

Trump is nakedly breaking the law right in front of the entire country, just as progressive Democrats have been predicting. Not a single elected Republican has had the courage to try to stop him or even speak out against his lawlessness, and only a handful of Democrats have found that fearlessness. That has to change.

— Trump is illegally firing career Civil Service prosecutors in the DOJ and agents in the FBI. The principal message he is conveying is, “Donald Trump, his family, and his friends are above the law. Investigate them and you will lose your job.”

— He’s illegally fired Inspectors General who search out and prosecute corruption within their own agencies.

— He’s illegally impounded money appropriated by Congress.

— He’s illegally imposing tariffs against Mexico and Canada, turning our friends against us, just like Putin has dreamed for years.

— USAID, created by President Kennedy, is our single most effective tool for keeping poor countries on America’s side instead of joining Russia or China. Musk has declared war on this Agency, and the only beneficiaries will be those two dictatorships.

— And now this South African billionaire has apparently downloaded all of your and my private information from the federal agencies responsible for making six trillion dollars’ worth of payments every year, with the explicit permission of Treasury Secretary and billionaire Scott Bessent — who was put into his job with the votes of 15 compliant Democratic senators.

As Senator Patty Murray (who voted against Bessent) noted on Bluesky yesterday:
“All of your most sensitive data and our country’s checkbook are in the hands of an unelected billionaire. This is the most corrupt administration in history and it’s putting our economy & government in serious jeopardy.

“It’s time to speak out and fight back. www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/u...”

Hell, it’s way past time to speak out and fight back.

Ever since Reagan’s Revolution on behalf of the billionaire class, many of us have been shouting from the rooftops about the inevitability of this day. I’ve published multiple books and hundreds of articles (see * below), as have many of my colleagues, warning of this exact scenario.

This is the tail-end of the battle, not the beginning:

— When Republicans claimed that corporations were “persons” with rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights (including the right to fund political campaigns), Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, Bill Clinton encouraged corporate contributions to his “New Democrats.”

— When Republicans said billionaires and corporations bribing politicians was legal (and could even be considered “tips”), Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead the “Problem Solvers” and many others simply put their hands out.

— When Republicans gutted union protections, borrowed $34 trillion to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and ended support for college tuition, Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, many “moved to the center.”

— When Republicans fought voting rights and purged over 50 million voters from the rolls over the past decade (giving Trump the White House last year), Democrats could have raised hell, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they abandoned Red states, often not even bothering to run candidates.

— When Republicans denied climate change and went to the mat to protect the hundreds of billions in subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets every year, Democrats could have stopped them, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they complained about “disruptive” groups protesting pipelines.

— When Republicans raised an entire Astroturf Tea Party movement to fight progressive efforts to put into place a national healthcare system that would include a buy-in option for Medicare at all ages, Democrats could have fought for their constituents, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they offered a privatized Obamacare and weak “negotiation” with drug companies to lower prices on 10 drugs while ignoring the creeping privatization of Medicare with the Medicare Advantage scam.

In each case, progressive Democrats were ahead of the curve and corporate Democrats either ignored or even obstructed needed reforms.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been steamrolling ahead with their plan — first laid out by Lewis Powell in 1971 — to turn our country into an oligarchy that’s no longer accountable to its people.

And now they’re just months away from finishing off our democratic republic, silencing all voices of dissent, and guaranteeing — like Trump promised — that we may never be able to even vote again in a meaningful election with candidates who aren’t pre-vetted by billionaires.

The greatest danger America is facing today — because Democratic messaging and outrage have been so weak for so long — is that average people won’t realize what’s happening until it’s too late.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Democratic Party — Hakeem Jefferies in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate — are both saying that they’re not going to challenge Trump on every crime he commits, and Democratic senators voted unanimously for Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, who’s now in Panama threatening that sovereign government.

Trump is working as hard as possible to make his fascist vision of America a reality by attacking, threatening, and suing reporters and media outlets while his billionaire buddies and AIPAC threaten to fund primary challenges against any politician — Democrat or Republican — who dares to challenge them.


And the threats are working:

— The media is walking on pins and needles, trying to avoid pissing off Trump or Musk.

— The FCC just launched an investigation that could lead to the end of NPR and PBS.


— Major networks are paying off Trump to settle frivolous lawsuits.

— Democrats are treating Vichy Republicans as if they were good faith colleagues during normal times, many even voting for Trump’s cabinet nominees.

But these are not normal times: Our democracy is hanging by a thread. The simple reality is that the MAGA takeover of the GOP has turned it into, essentially, an agent of Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China. And an immigrant billionaire is deconstructing our government like a toddler busting up a Lego set.


Democrats — who campaigned on the allegation that Trump was a fascist — must now behave like their claim was true and fight back, before Trump and Musk finalize Orbán’s and Putin’s neofascist governance model, making such a response impossible.

— Shut down the House and the Senate.

— Challenge Johnson’s speakership.

— Fight every unanimous consent vote.

— Use quorum calls to bring floor business to a standstill.

— Put holds on every Trump nominee, even for things like naming Post Offices or noncontroversial positions.

— Hold a major press conference every day and coordinate with Democrats across the nation to amplify that day’s message across local and national media.

— Organize political guerilla theater and mass protest events.

Average people can reach out to their elected officials — the phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121 — and raise absolute holy hell. Blow up social media with protest and outrage posts. Share your concerns with friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors.

As Bernie Sanders — who’s been fighting this fight his entire life and was on my radio/TV show every Friday for 11 years — shared yesterday with people subscribed to his newsletter:
“We must fight back — effectively. This is not a time for wallowing in despair and hiding under the covers. The stakes are too high. We’re not just fighting for ourselves. We’re fighting for our kids and for future generations. We’re fighting for the future of this planet.
“Further, we must not become overwhelmed and think that Trump has some kind of extraordinary mandate and an inevitable glide path into the future. That’s what the right-wing mouthpieces want you to believe, but it’s not true. Trump won the election because Kamala Harris and a very weak and out-of-touch Democratic Party received 5 million votes LESS than Biden did in 2020, not because Donald Trump or his agenda were popular. His agenda can be defeated. …
“We cannot just play defense. We have got to be on offense. Please, never forget, the agenda that we are fighting for is widely supported by working families all across this country. And we must continue to fight for that agenda.”

It only took Hitler 53 days to use legal means to turn Germany from a functioning democracy into a dictatorship. We’ve officially gone way too far down that same road, and if Trump and Project 2025 aren’t stopped now it may well be too late by as soon as this Spring.

*Many of us have been raising the alarm for years:

Three decades ago (1995), I wrote a bestselling book about climate change, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, which is now in its third complete rewrite/edition and available in 17 languages. It’s been made into or inspired several feature-length movies, including a short, shocking video that Leonardo DiCaprio and I put together a decade ago. Today’s Republicans, owned outright by fossil fuel billionaires since the 1980s, continue to deny the clear link between their products and the deaths and property damage extreme weather are causing.

Just a few years later (1999), I broke the story in my book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rightsthat corporate personhood had not, in fact, been ratified by the Supreme Court in 1886, but was a scam promulgated by the wealthy Republican Clerk of the Court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, on behalf of the railroad oligarchs.

When George W. Bush doubled down on Reaganomics with his massive trillion-dollar 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for billionaires and a Labor Department hostile to workers’ rights, I wrote Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class, detailing how Republican policies are devastating working class people, students, and people living on Social Security. Things have only gotten worse in the years since it was first published.

When Bush and Cheney lied us into two illegal wars to seize oil and save Halliburton, I wrote We The People: A Call to Take Back America. The back cover copy says:
“America faces its greatest threat since the Civil War. The worst fears of the Founders are being realized, as powerful corporate interests have taken over our culture and representative government. We the People now face a fundamental choice: take back our country ... or do nothing, and become victims of tyranny and empire.”

Those were followed by a book on the rightwing’s war on American culture (Threshold: The Progressive Plan to Pull America Back from the Brink), political messaging (Cracking the Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision), and two histories of America’s founding and what it means for today (What Would Jefferson Do?and The American Revolution of 1800with Dan Sisson).

Since then I’ve published the Hidden History series of 10 short books alerting Americans to our gun crisis, the GOP’s war on voting, the Supreme Court’s betrayal of America, the rise of American monopolies (foreword by Ralph Nader), the dangers of rising oligarchy, our corrupt healthcare system, how tech billionaires are this generation’s Big Brother, how neoliberalism took over both political parties and then America, the history of our democracy and its Native American inspiration, and what’s happened to the American Dream and how to recover it.

Many of us have been fighting this predicted rise of fascism — kicked off in 1981 by Ronald Reagan — for years, even decades. Please join us and share the message as far and wide as you can!

Trump takes aim at low-flow toilets in latest round of orders

Travis Gettys
February 11, 2025 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks, after signing an executive order, while Howard Lutnick stands in the background, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 10, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Donald Trump is rolling back another environmental regulation by his predecessor after signing an executive order ending efforts to phase out single-use plastic straws.

The president signed an executive order shortly after taking office last month pledging to relax efficiency standards for household appliances and fixtures, and he announced Tuesday morning on Truth Social that he was instructing his new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator to enforce those rules.

"I am hereby instructing Secretary Lee Zeldin to immediately go back to my Environmental Orders," Trump posted, "which were terminated by Crooked Joe Biden, on Water Standards and Flow pertaining to SINKS, SHOWERS, TOILETS, WASHING MACHINES, DISHWASHERS, etc., and to likewise go back to the common sense standards on LIGHTBULBS, that were put in place by the Trump Administration, but terminated by Crooked Joe. I look forward to signing these Orders. THANK YOU!!!"

Low-flow toilets and other household appliances have been a frequent Trump target for ire at his rallies and during meetings, where he complains that consumers are forced to flush “10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once” and experience difficulty washing their hands in water-efficient sinks.

“We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on – and in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don’t get any water,” Trump told business leaders at a meeting in 2019, during his first term.

Republican suggests that Trump’s lying about N.J. drone invasion: 'Are you kidding me?'

Matt Laslo
February 10, 2025 
RAW STORY


REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump promised unparalleled transparency to allay fears over the New Jersey ‘drone invasion.’ Instead, his administration’s response has only sparked confusion across the Garden State, along with eye-rolls and frustration on Capitol Hill.

In spite of attempts to blame his predecessor and gloss over the persistent incursions that have threatened sensitive U.S. military and nuclear sites for years now, Trump’s promise just may be coming true.

With few policymakers — at least those whose classified questions remain unanswered by the Pentagon, FBI and FAA — believing his administration’s claim the FAA “authorized” these unknown craft, lawmakers are now dishing the goods and recounting tantalizing, previously unreported details to Raw Story about the government’s losing battle to secure U.S. airspace.

“Reasonable minds would say, ‘We think there’s something very serious here,’” Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) told Raw Story at the Capitol. “I kept saying, ‘Shoot one down.’”

Smith is far from alone. There’s a growing, bipartisan chorus on Capitol Hill calling on the Pentagon to use its taxpayer-funded arsenal to blow these unknown craft out of the sky.

Raw Story has exclusively learned previously unreported details about how little federal agencies know about the mysterious craft buzzing the nation, including that the Pentagon reportedly retrieved at least one of the drones responsible for shuttering Virginia’s Langley Air Force Base for 17 days in 2023.

“One went down, we’re told”

The Trump White House claim that the FAA knew all along what was going on is laughable to many lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol, especially those on the House Homeland Security Committee.

At the end of last year — with the public and media in full freak out mode — the DHS committee dragged in officials from the FBI, Department of Justice and Customs and Border Protection to get answers.

Answers were few and far between, though.

“You’re telling me you don’t know what the hell these drones in New Jersey are?” an animated Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) asked during the “Safeguarding the Homeland from Unmanned Aerial Systems” hearing on Dec. 10, 2024.

“That’s right,” FBI Assistant Director of the Critical Incident Response Group Robert W. Wheeler Jr. testified before admitting the premier law enforcement agency in the nation allocates less than $500,000 of its annual budget to technologies to combat Unmanned Aerial Systems (or UAS).


“This isn’t new. Drones are 100 years old. This isn't state of the art,” Gonzales lectured. “The fact that we don't know what's flying in our airspace is only the tip of the iceberg on what's to come. We have to fix this…and if we don’t, I suspect not good things will happen.”

In spite of team Trump claiming problem solved, Gonzales proved prophetic, as ‘not good things’ is exactly what happened.

At the end of last year, the drones — or whatever lawmakers and federal officials are calling unidentified flying objects these days — reportedly honed in on sensitive sites across New Jersey, including the Picatinny Arsenal (a research and manufacturing facility), Naval Weapons Station Earle (a munitions depot) and President Trump’s own Bedminster country club (“They're over Bedminster a lot,” Trump complained last month).

While the president is now trying to move on, lawmakers in his own party still have pressing questions. Top of the list is, what are these flying objects that perpetually evade the most powerful Department of Defense — or DOD — on the planet?

“At [Naval Weapons Station] Earle, we had two! Right over the perimeter! One landed. They rushed over and it had already taken off again,” Smith told Raw Story of a previously unreported incident through a disbelieving laugh. “It’s like, are you kidding me? It’s a munitions depot!”

While Smith hasn’t witnessed the drone incursions that many of his New Jersey neighbors have, he’s been flooded with stories that don’t mesh with the new White House narrative, including from service members left dizzied and unsettled after being followed by waves of drones.

At that Homeland Security Committee hearing, Smith shared the alarming story of a commanding officer in the New Jersey Coast Guard who reported his 47-foot-long vessel being tracked by “between 12 and 30 of these drones.”

There’s a puzzling disparity between seeing 12 or 30 drones, which is exactly Smith’s point: Whosever tech this is, they’re literally flying circles around America’s best, brightest and the world’s beefiest military. But what’s Pentagon hardware of old against a fleet of flying objects that even trained sailors can’t track, let alone hack into or shoot down?

“I think hearings are really needed — DOD and Homeland Security,” Smith said.


ALSO READ: Elon Musk's DOGE boys think this is a video game as Trump plots his 2nd coup

“FAA?” Raw Story asked of the agency Trump claims has — and always had — the situation under control. “Or are they not even needed?”

“Well, sure. But I don’t know if FAA…,” Smith trailed off. “Where’s the military? Homeland — this is U.S. airspace. It’s not just over the installations.”

At the Capitol, lawmakers have been debating whether the military has the authority to shoot these craft down over U.S. soil. The Pentagon has told lawmakers it’s resisted that because of murky rules of engagement domestically, even as lawmakers like Smith argue there’s no question they already have that authority over their own bases.


So a few different lawmakers in both parties are now sponsoring measures that would clarify the quandary and give the military an explicit green light to shoot these intruders down, specifically over military bases, at the very least.

But has the federal government been able to shoot even one of these down?

“As far as we know, zero,” Smith — who’s sponsoring a bill to empower local law enforcement to do what the Pentagon’s failed to do and combat these unknown hovering craft — said.


Then Smith let a secret slip.

“One went down, we’re told, over Langley — near Langley,” Smith told Raw Story of a previously unreported incident. “But it crashed so badly they — it’s like, c’mon, we don’t have the capability to nab one these things? I think we do.”

Langley’s the incident that freaks folks — military, suburbanites and lawmakers alike — out most, because it showed how America’s mighty military melts in the face of these new unknown flying foes.


“Neither the FAA nor the military has given us a sufficient answer”

The Langley Air Force Base — formally Joint Base Langley-Eustis, these days — is some 180 miles and a smidge under 4 hrs. from Washington, D.C., By car, that is.

At a cruising speed of roughly 500 mph, an F-22 Raptor — the military’s fifth-generation fighter jet — can make it from home base in coastal southern Virginia to the nation’s capital in some 30 mins. That puts it on presidential protection detail, if stuff really hits the proverbial fan in Washington.

Stuff hit the fan in December 2023 — only at Langley itself, as waves of drone swarms incapacitated the strategic base for 17 days, grounding the world’s most elite stealth fighter fleet.

At roughly $350 million per F-22 and with an estimated 36 jets in the Langley fighter wing, that means when the Pentagon got spooked by the unknown air invasion, the Air Force relocated roughly $12.6 billion of U.S. taxpayer-funded hardware. If foreign actors used over-the-counter commercial drones, as some lawmakers claim, to best billions of dollars worth of top secret stealth technology, then the military — let alone the rest of us — has a serious problem on its hands.

The commonwealth’s U.S. senators aren’t buying Trump’s FAA argument, because in the 12+ months since the historic incapacitation of Langley, the FAA, Pentagon and other federal agencies have failed to answer any of their most basic questions, starting with ‘who?’ and ‘what?’

“Neither the FAA nor the military has given us a sufficient answer. And I don't think they have an answer that they're not giving us, I just don't think they have one,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) — a member of the Armed Services Committee — told Raw Story. “I don’t know about Jersey. That’s definitely not the case with respect to the Virginia situation at Langley.”

Just this December, Kaine and Virginia’s other senator, Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-chair Mark Warner, received a classified briefing on the December 2023 drone swarms that cripled Langley.

Warner’s no dove, but he’s also not one of the Senate’s many war hawks. Still, the Langley incident has him wanting to pop off missiles himself.

“Disappointing. We’re a year in and we still don’t know where they came from, who's behind it,” Warner told Raw Story shortly after their latest briefing. “You gotta have the ability to take them down.”

It’s not just Langley. American military bases in the UK and Germany have also been surveilled by unidentified drones in recent months. Britain even deployed 60 members of the Royal Air Force — or RAF — to help Pentagon officials investigate these incursions of sensitive military airspace.

“It's not satisfactory to me. It just raises more concerns."

Other senators are alarmed too. They’ve been raising their concerns for more than a year now, because this isn’t new.

And no, we’re not talking about U.S. airspace being invaded by that Chinese spy balloon that floated from Alaska to the waters off South Carolina before the Air Force finally downed it with a roughly $400,000 Sidewinder missile before recovering a trove of spy gadgets last January.

A few months before that incident dominated a handful of cable news cycles, in the fall of 2023, just outside of Las Vegas, five drones were reported hovering over the Energy Department’s Nevada National Security Site — where more than 900 nuclear tests were conducted until America stopped that practice in 1994 — over a three-day period.

And last fall — before New Jersey videos mesmerized the nation — in California, the FAA was forced to step in and place temporary flight restrictions around the Air Force’s Plant 42 — a top secret aerospace facility — after “multiple” waves of drones were spotted surveilling its grounds a few months in a row.

Just last spring, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pressed the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on drone incursions that flummoxed officers at Arizona’s Luke Air Force Base — home to the Barry Goldwater Range — after a fighter jet collided with a drone in 2023.

‘Air Force jets dodging drones over Arizona desert,’ reads the headline from the local Phoenix CBS station last February. “This is just one of 22 incidents between October 2022 and June 2023 where Air Force fighter pilots reported seeing or colliding with drones in mid-flight.”

Still, the problem has persisted.

“constantly around our military sites”

Since returning from a classified tour of a Nevada Air Force base — as well as stops at Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman facilities that work on classified programs — last February, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has been fighting for better sensors for the military.

She’s one of only a handful of senators who sits on both the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. She complains America’s military simply doesn’t have the technology necessary to combat these unknown invaders or UAPs — Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena — which is the government’s new term for ‘UFOs.’

“I’m very concerned about UAPs, particularly drone technology, aircraft technology that is constantly around our military sites, and it’s a form of ubiquitous surveillance that causes great concern for me,” Gillibrand told Raw Story after her trip last year.

Like Virginia’s senators, Gillibrand says Pentagon officials still haven’t gotten to the bottom of these “constant” incursions over sensitive nuclear and military sites from coast to coast.

She says it’s a major national security vulnerability.

“We need to know, is it Russia, China, Iran or other? Because it’s highly relevant that we can function at military bases,” Gillibrand said. “But, also, it’s important that we can protect secrets and it’s important that we have air superiority and domain awareness.”

The serious debates that have engulfed Congress over air superiority are in stark contrast to the simple — even simplistic — line Trump’s team is peddling.

“After research and study, the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters recently.

Instead of the promised clarity, confusion’s been left in the wake of this White House.

“It made it sound like there was, like, some research project that they're — like, as far as I know, none of that exists,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) told Raw Story.

The New Jersey congressional delegation has been briefed by FBI and DHS officials on the unknown drone incursions into Garden State airspace, including one from former DHS Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas himself at the height of the panic.

In the wake of those very serious briefings, Kim — a former national security adviser before serving three terms in the House who’s now a freshman senator — says he’s only been left scratching his head since hearing team Trump’s claims.

“It's not satisfactory to me. It just raises more concerns — in that kind of vein — and, you know, doesn't at all kind of address some of the concerns that even President Trump raised before,” Kim told Raw Story. “I don't see how the answer we heard is any different than what we've heard from the previous administration.”

And no one in Congress was happy with those crickets, even if many say the silence from the Biden administration was better than the lies being peddled by the Trump administration.

Matt Laslo has covered Congress since 2006, bringing Raw Story readers the personalities behind the politics and policy straight from Capitol Hill. Based in Washington, D.C., Matt has been a long-time contributor to NPR, WIRED, VICE News, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and Playboy. More about Matt Laslo.