Posted Originally on Aug 31, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The United States has crossed $40 trillion in gross federal debt, and Washington will treat it as another unfortunate milestone before returning to the business of spending money it does not have. The more immediate problem is what it costs to carry that debt. Treasury’s figures show approximately $1.17 trillion in gross interest expense through July, just ten months into fiscal year 2026. That works out to roughly $117 billion a month, or $3.85 billion every single day over that period. These are interest costs, not repayments that reduce the principal. Washington incurs this expense while the debt itself continues climbing.
There are two different interest figures, and they should not be confused. Treasury’s gross interest expense includes interest credited to government accounts holding Treasury securities. The federal budget’s net interest measure excludes those internal payments and includes other offsets. The Congressional Budget Office’s February outlook placed net interest at approximately 3.3% of GDP in 2026, implying more than $1 trillion for the full fiscal year. Even on that narrower measure, Washington is devoting roughly one dollar in five of projected federal revenue to interest. The distinction matters for accounting, but neither number describes a government bringing its finances under control.
The issue was never simply that government had borrowed a large sum. It was that borrowing had become a permanent arrangement, with interest added to budgets already running deficits. Politicians take credit for the original spending, while the cost of financing it survives long after they leave office. Their successors inherit the bill and issue more debt rather than confront the promises that created it.
Consider what refinancing actually means. When a Treasury security matures, its holder must be repaid. If Washington finances that redemption by selling another security, the creditor has changed, but the government has not eliminated the obligation. It has renewed it at whatever rate the market will accept. Borrowing to refinance principal is separate from the interest bill, yet both require continued access to willing buyers. This is why a government can make every payment on time while its underlying financial position deteriorates.
The mathematics of higher rates becomes brutal at this scale. Every additional percentage point on $1 trillion of debt means another $10 billion in annual interest once that debt carries the higher rate. Apply that to successive waves of refinancing and the expense builds year after year. The entire $40 trillion does not reset overnight, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Existing fixed-rate securities retain their coupons until maturity. That delay, however, can conceal the developing burden and give politicians another excuse to postpone action.
There is no magic number at which a country automatically collapses. Confidence, borrowing costs, economic growth, and the ability to raise revenue all matter. The danger is that higher interest expenses require more borrowing, while concerns about that borrowing encourage investors to demand still higher yields. A deteriorating fiscal position can then begin reinforcing itself.
CBO projects net interest costs reaching $2.1 trillion in 2036, or 4.6% of GDP. That is a projection under its stated assumptions, not a guaranteed outcome, but it demonstrates that the problem does not disappear even in an orderly baseline. Washington is not merely struggling with a temporary expense left over from an emergency. It is carrying an interest burden expected to grow while elected officials continue making commitments against future revenue.
War makes this arithmetic harder. Military operations require resources today, while the interest on borrowing to finance them can remain for decades. If conflict also raises energy costs or disrupts production, it can complicate the Federal Reserve’s inflation problem. Higher rates may be necessary to restrain inflation, but they also increase the cost of new federal borrowing. Demanding that the Fed cut rates does not repair that conflict, especially when long-term investors remain free to demand compensation for inflation and fiscal risk.
Republicans cannot explain this away by blaming Democratic spending while defending every unfunded commitment of their own. Democrats cannot promise an expanding government without confronting the cost of financing it. Both parties have constituencies they refuse to disappoint and obligations they prefer to leave to the next administration. The interest bill does not recognize party affiliation, and the bond market does not have to accept a campaign promise as repayment.
The $40 trillion figure should therefore be understood through the income required to sustain it. America possesses enormous productive capacity, but that is not permission for Washington to claim an ever-larger portion of future revenue before the public receives any new service. More than a trillion dollars in annual net interest is already a substantial claim on that income. The question is how much further government intends to mortgage the future before admitting that borrowing has become its substitute for governing.
Posted Originally on Aug 31, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Netanyahu, I believe, is a sick individual. In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.” It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”
In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”
The harshness of the command in 1 Samuel has disturbed Jewish scholars for centuries, leading to various interpretations that move beyond a literal call for genocide. If Netanyahu believes that genocide is the command of God, that is NOT in the self-interest of the United States. He knows you cannot accomplish regime change from the air. This is the very first time when we are in a partnership with another country who is really calling the shots here where the interests of Netanyahu are by no means the same national interest of the United States.
This Iran War is Netanyahu’s war, not America’s. He is consumed with hatred and he will NEVER stop because he sees only total annihalation of Persia. This has been an ancient feud that goes back thousands of years. We should NOT be involved because Netanyahu will NEVER accept peace so this war will NEVER see a resolution while it is draining the resources of the USA leaving the country vulnerable on a grand scale. The US can be defeated conventionally because of Netanyahu.
Let me make this very clear. The US has bombed the hell out of Iran to the point that the stockpile of conventional weapons has been seriously depleted. I warned from the outset, if I was on the other side of the table, I woud use this war to drain the US as we have used Ukraine to weaken Russia. There is no way to win this war. Iran cannot be bombed into oblivion. Sources familiar with internal data state that the US has fired a vast number of its most advanced long-range missiles. Reports suggest that almost ALL of the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and the newer PrSM have been used during the campaign. These are costly, land-based missiles valued at well over $1 million each.
It would take boots on the ground to secure the Strait of Hormuz meaning you ust occupy 50 miles indland on each side of the Strait permanently. Anyone who is NOT biased can see Netanyahu has dragged us into his endless war trying to fulfill 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
The Persians captured Marcus Crassus, a member of the Triumvirate with Caesar and Pompey, at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. As the legend goes, he was famous as the wealthiest man of Rome, so the Persians poured molten gold down his throat to kill him. The symbolic message was “you thirsted for gold, now drink it.” Then in 260AD, they were the first to capture a Roman Emperor Valerian I in 260AD.
Even during the civil war that followed the assassination of Julius Caesar, Cassius sent Quintus Labienus to join with the Parthians during the civil war asking for their help against Octavian and Mark Antony. They did not arrive in time. Yet, this coin issued by Labienus showed a Persian horse on the reverse.
The Romans were NEVER able to conquer the Persians. They have always been a proud and formidable enemy. Sorry, but I warned that I did not see a change in the government until 2027. The risk here is that they have shifted the real power from the Ayatollah to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is an elite military and security force in Iran, established after the 1979 revolution. It was created by Ayatollah Khomeini to protect the new Islamic system from both internal and external threats, serving as a powerful ideological counterweight to Iran’s regular army.
Today, the IRGC is much more than just a military branch. It has evolved into one of the most powerful institutions in Iran, often described as a “state within a state” due to its immense influence over the country’s military, political, and economic spheres. To be part of that they must be the hardline believers. This is far more difficult to negotiate with than an Ayatollah assuming he is even alive. Of course, Netanyahu smiles and claims the Ayatollah is dead as if that is some victory.
Lucius Verus invaded Persia, claimed a victory after sacking two cities. As the Roman army withdrew from the East, it brought back more than just victory. The soldiers carried a lethal disease, which became known as the Antonine Plague. The plague had a catastrophic impact on the Roman Empire. It raged from 165 to 180AD and is estimated to have killed 5 million people, with mortality rates in the army and cities reaching as high as 15% in some areas. In Rome itself, the plague was so severe that it is reported to have caused up to 2,000 deaths per day at its peak. It Even Killed an Emperor: In 169 AD, Lucius Verus himself died from the plague, becoming one of its most high-profile victims.
For Iran to win, they merely have to survive.
But the US is now Vulnerable for the stockpile of conventional missiles has been seriously depleted for a war that cannot be won.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 30, 2026 | Sundance |
A very interesting outline as Promethean Action’s Mike Steger notes the current lack of USA street protests is directly connected to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tracking, tracing and targeting the dark money non-profits.
From Arabella Advisors and the Sixteen Thirty Fund to the Tides Foundation, Open Society Foundations, CAIR, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mike explains how donations can move through interconnected charities and political organizations without revealing the original donors. These networks, he argues, allow billionaire-backed operations to influence elections, protests, political movements, and American culture while retaining their tax-exempt status.
Mike then examines the Trump administration’s response, including Treasury’s Form 990 Transparency Initiative, investigations into nonprofit financial networks, and efforts to hold tax-exempt organizations accountable for where their money goes. He also considers how Bessent’s campaign against Iran’s financial infrastructure offers a model for dismantling domestic networks accused of financing political violence.
But this system did not begin with a recent election. Mike traces its legal foundation to 1913, when the Rockefeller Foundation received a permanent charter and the Revenue Act created broad tax exemptions for charitable, religious, scientific, and educational organizations.WATCH:
Chapters
:00:00 Bessent Targets the Dark Money Machine 01:50 Political Terrorism and Nonprofit Funding 02:35 Inside the Arabella Dark Money Network 04:30 Treasury Begins to Act 05:38 Trump’s Presidential Memorandum 06:12 Operation Economic Outcast 07:28 The Foundation System Created in 1913 09:23 How the Foundation Racket Works 10:12 Wright Patman’s Warning 11:53 The Nonprofit Industrial Complex 12:29 How Foundations Move Political Money 13:24 How Dark Money Flipped Colorado 14:10 The Globalist Foundation System 15:19 Citizens vs. Anonymous Entities 16:35 The Creative Soul of Man
Posted originally on the CTH onAugust 30, 2026 | Sundance
The drone in question was a limited distance quadcopter that needed to be remotely operated from a visible location. Everything about the Leipzig airport drone attack story was sketchy {BACKGROUND}. Germany said they were investigating the failed “attack” and now reports are surfacing that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is likely to pin the blame on Russia. Because of course he is.
Together with the U.K and France, Germany is one of the key NATO partners in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’. German bases are currently being used by NATO allies to stage their Ukraine military support and logistics.
The German economy is in a severe state of contraction, opposition political parties are gaining momentum and Merz, like Macron, needs a distraction.
BERLIN, Aug 30 (Reuters) – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Sunday Berlin was preparing a response to the suspected drone attack on a Ukrainian cargo plane in Leipzig this month in coordination with its European and NATO partners.
“We are in the process of concluding the investigation. There is broad consensus within the Federal Government on how we should respond, and we will make this clear in the coming days; it won’t be long now,” he said in an interview on ARD public television.
Germany has so far not said officially who it believes was behind the suspected attack attempt at Leipzig/Halle airport on August 4, when an explosives-laden drone was discovered near a Ukrainian Antonov cargo aircraft used for military supplies.
On Saturday, the daily Die Welt reported that in the next few days, the government would blame Russia for the attack and announce measures that would include sanctions coordinated with European Union partners.
Merz made no comment on who Berlin believed was responsible but said its response was being coordinated with its partners.
“It has been agreed upon, and final agreement is due to be reached in the next few days with the European Union and our NATO partners,” he said. (more)
Again, more datapoints for last week’s trip by CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Moscow, shortly before Russia began having extraordinary success locating and hitting Ukraine ammunition warehouses. Is the Trump administration trying to head-off a NATO effort to expand the conflict? Time will tell.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 30, 2026 | Sundance |
When the South Carolina congressman travelled to Wisconsin in 2024 to visit with poll workers and not candidates, no one seemed curious about the intent. When South Carolina had the opportunity to redistrict that same congressman, the professional republicans in the palmetto state protected him.
Now the organizer of the AME Church network of poll workers appears on NBC to say at the first available opportunity the Democrats should pack the court with another four leftist judges to ensure all of the constitutional restraints are removed from the judiciary. Yep, that’s James Clyburn.
Clyburn begins his remarks in this segment by decrying Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for not adhering to the manipulative racial expectations of his position. Clyburn then advocates for adding as many justices as needed in order to advance his agenda. WATCH:
[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. Congressman Clyburn, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN: Well, thank you very much for having me back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, thank you so much for being here. I do want to start with what we just heard from Senator Cruz. We were talking about, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, you actually testified in favor of Clarence Thomas’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. I want to play a little bit of that video.
[BEGIN TAPE]
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend, Clarence Thomas. I have known Clarence for ten years and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you stand by your decision to make the case for Clarence Thomas’s confirmation?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Absolutely not. You know, I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made. And I will own up to that mistake. The fact of the matter is I had faith and confidence in the fact that his background and experiences would instruct him in his professionalism, especially sitting on the bench. We had worked together when he was chair of the Equal Opportunity Commission. And of course, I was running the state agency here in South Carolina. We had differences over how that agency should run. But I also thought that he believed in precedents of the law. And I felt sure that he would be there upholding those precedents set down in 1954 in the Broad v. Board of Education decision. I thought that he would follow those court decisions that upheld the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences. He was raised by his grandfather and he has shown very little sensitivity to the environment his grandfather grew up, down in Pin Point, Georgia, just south of where I now sit. And so yes, that was a mistake on my part and I own up to it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, well, since we are on the topic of the court, let’s speak more broadly about it. Former Vice President Kamala Harris shares some of your criticisms, clearly. She’s called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. Do you support adding four more seats to the Supreme Court, Congressman?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand — and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course, and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney, that said that no Black man has any rights that the white man must respect. That was the Supreme Court that made that decision. I had hoped that Clarence Thomas would follow the mordant underpinnings of that constitution of ours, but he has not done so. In fact, he’s decided to go all the way from an angry leftist to a very angry rightist.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk about the midterms and let’s talk about your state of South Carolina. Senator Darline Graham, as you know, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, did win her primary. She’s going to be facing off against Dr. Annie Andrews, the Democrat running in that Senate race. Do you believe Dr. Andrews can win given that no Democrat has won that Senate seat since the 1990s, Congressman?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
I do believe Dr. Andrews can win, and I do believe that she will win. The only thing that would stop her from winning this race is for us to not do our part to turn out the vote. I have said before, and people seem to misrepresent this: we have to do a better job of turning our base voters out. When the other side is turning out 71% and we are turning out 59%, we need to take stock of why that is happening. But that did happen in the last election. I take some responsibility for that. I’ve been working on that very vigilantly. I spent yesterday and the day before, and I’ll be spending time this afternoon working on the turn out the vote effort –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Alright.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
– that I think will update what we’ve been doing in the last few years, and make for a much better turnout. And if that were to happen, I think that Dr. Andrews will do well in this election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Congressman Clyburn, I had the opportunity to interview Leader Hakeem Jeffries and he has not ruled out impeaching President Trump should Democrats take back control of the House. But some Democrats have said to me privately that that would just be a distraction, to impeach President Trump for a third time. Do you believe Democrats should impeach President Trump if they take back the House?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
If the Democrats were to take back the House, and I feel confident that we will, our first order of business ought to be developing an accessible and affordable campaign effort that will yield what I will call making this country, its greatness, accessible and affordable for all of its citizens –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you rule out impeachment?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
I don’t want to forget about the American people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you rule out supporting impeachment?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
I don’t rule it out, but I don’t rule it in. No, I don’t. But I don’t think that should be our priority if we get into office. Our priority ought to be making housing, education, energy, healthcare affordable and accessible for all of our citizens. Impeaching the president will not do that. We need to focus on what is necessary to make education available for our children, making healthcare affordable for our children, making housing affordable, making energy affordable. That’s where the focus ought to be.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Congress —
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
And we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and maybe do both.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. A few more questions for you, and we’re almost out of time. I have to ask you about what’s happening in Michigan, the Senate race there. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed has apologized to Jewish Democrats for comments he made after the attack on a synagogue in March when he said, quote, “Hurt people hurt people.” That comes as he’s also faced scrutiny over his association with Hasan Piker, who some Democrats this week denounced for what they called antisemitic remarks from Piker. Do you believe that this divide within the Democratic Party over Israel and antisemitism is becoming a political liability that could hurt Democrats in November?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
I don’t think will hurt Democrats at all. Some Democrats who get painted with that brush will have to defend the things that they’ve said. I have spoken with the good doctor. He’s our nominee. I support his election. I take him at his word. He has apologized. He says he’s — he will not campaign with Piker anymore. I think that it’s worth taking him at his word. All of us deserve second chances.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, Rob Sand, the Democratic candidate for governor in Iowa, says former Vice President Kamala Harris should not run again in 2028. When you look to 2028, Congressman, do you think Kamala Harris should run for President again?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
Now, that’s up to Kamala Harris. I supported her when she ran the last time. I would consider her among all the others if she were to run again. But whether or not she should run is a very personal family decision that I will leave up to her and her family.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN:
And when they make that decision, whatever it is, I will then make determinations as to what my actions would be going forward.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Congressman Jim Clyburn, thank you so very much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 30, 2026 | Sundance |
In one of President Trump’s best speeches he asked made the following statement: “This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of Democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system. This is not just conspiracy but reality, you know it and I know it.”
Ten years later and there is more evidence of the illusion of democracy than a free nation. The latest example comes in the form of CNN’s Dana Bash defending the right of illegal aliens to destroy our nation. Video and Transcript Below:
[Transcript] – Dana Bash: Here with me now is White House border czar Tom Homan.
Thank you so much for being here this morning, sir. I want to start with the case of Milo Yiannopoulos. There is a lot we don’t know here. What kind of visa was he under? And did he apply to extend that visa?
TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: Look, it’s my understanding, looking at the Department of Homeland Security press release, that he overstayed his visa. I believe it was a visitor visa, but I’m not sure.
But he overstayed the visa. He was ordered to appear in immigration court. He didn’t show up. The judge ordered him deported. So, once ICE gets an order of deportation from a federal judge, their job is to execute that order, and that’s what they did. He had his due process, ordered removed by a federal judge, and ICE removed him. It’s that simple.
BASH: Homeland Security said he was arrested Thursday. We understand he was deported the next day. That seems like a pretty quick turnaround. Was he given preferential treatment to leave, instead of remaining in an ICE detention facility longer?
HOMAN: No, we have been working steadily the last few months on getting people out quicker, that way to save the taxpayers money in detention space.
The quicker we — once a judge orders them out, rather than being in detention, waiting for travel documents and flight arrangements, we — ICE, along with the CBP and Department of Homeland Security, working really good on the efficiencies of the removal process.
Get them out quick, open those beds up for more detainees to be held.
BASH: So that’s standard now, or that’s the goal? HOMAN: We track the average length of stay, and we want to get the average length of stay, average length of stay in detention down. We want to execute those orders as soon as we can get them.
BASH: Laura Loomer, who is a Trump ally, far right political activist, said she tipped ICE off to his illegal status. Is that true?
HOMAN: Well, several — a lot of people tipped ICE off. There are a lot of people who’s calling ICE, and she says she’s one of them. She probably was.
But bottom line is, it doesn’t matter. He was ordered removed by an immigration judge, and ICE’s job it to execute that order.
BASH: This is someone who had publicly praised immigration crackdowns, and yet Homeland Security chose to publicly publicize his arrest, rather — put a rather unflattering mug shot out there, and wrote that, “He chose to overstay his welcome in violation of our nation’s laws,” and warned other immigrants to take control of their departure by self-deporting.
Did the Trump administration choose to make an example out of him to send a message?
HOMAN: We don’t deport people based on political affiliation.
Again, as soon as we get an order removal, our goal is remove them as quick as possible, regardless of who they are.
BASH: Right. I’m not talking about the deportation. I’m talking about the publicizing of it, the way that it was put out there. You don’t put public — press releases out about everybody you deport.
HOMAN: Well, I think the press release is in response to press inquiries.
Again, I don’t work at the Department of Homeland Security, but I saw the press release. I think it was based on press inquiries.
BASH: OK, let me turn to a “New York Times” story out this morning, an account of 10 deportees who said they experienced or witnessed abusive or violent treatment by ICE officers.
When some resisted deboarding a plane in Liberia, a country they had no ties to, they said they were — quote — “forced onto the tarmac by ICE officers, who yanked and twisted their handcuffs, pinned them to the ground and pressed their knees directly onto their necks.” Another said: “They treated us like we were wild animals, like beasts.”
Are you comfortable with this treatment?
HOMAN: No, and I don’t — I don’t — yes, I don’t think that treatment occurred. It will be investigated, but we get allegations a lot. Every law
enforcement agency in this country gets allegation of mistreatment. But, look, we know that threats against ICE officers are up over 9000 percent. Actual attacks are up for 1400 percent.
So, ICE officers are trying to protect themselves while enforcing the law. A lot of people just don’t want to comply with law enforcement. They want to fight. So I don’t know these specific instances, but if they filed a complaint, it will be investigated by internal affairs.
BASH: So, just to be clear, the — what I just described, and there’s a lot more in this “New York Times” really harrowing account, you’re saying this is not standard operating procedure?
HOMAN: No, we use a minimum force required to make an arrestee comply.
So, if someone acted out of line, it will be investigated by internal affairs, but the policy is minimum force necessary to make an arrest or to get compliance of an arrestee.
BASH: So there will be an investigation in internal affairs, and if found that this is accurate, there will be consequences?
HOMAN: I’m sure there will be. I mean, that’s the policy.
I leave that question to the Department of Homeland Security, since they work for the Department of Homeland Security, but that is the policy, yes.
BASH: The Department of Homeland Security sent two deportation flights to Haiti over the past two weeks. Haiti is a country that a Trump administration official this week said is in a dire state, saying that, for months, terrorist gangs have murdered civilians, terrorized communities, burned homes, and destroyed families.
Why is the Trump administration knowingly sending Haitians, including many who’ve lived in the U.S. legally under Temporary Protected Status, into the danger that they describe?
HOMAN: Again, we’re returning deportees to their home country. Many times, if the home countries don’t accept them, we send them to a third country.
I’m not in the loop on this specific incident, but, again, that’s a question for the Department of Homeland Security. But when people are ordered deported, they can’t stay here. They’re going to go home.
BASH: I understand. You are the border czar, and this is happening because of a policy the Supreme Court held up, but a policy by this administration to end Temporary Protected Status for these Haitians.
And now this administration is sending them back to a country that the administration describes as overrun with gangs and not safe to be.
HOMAN: Well, look, the Temporary Protected Status is supposed to be temporary.
And, as long as I have been around, for over 40 years, it seems like it’s never temporary. It gets extended and extended and extended, even if the conditions in the home country have changed. So this is an order of the court. They were ordered removed, and ICE is removing them.
They’re going home. And if we send them to a third country, we — people would be complaining about that. So ICE did their job. I’m not — again, not involved in the specifics of this, but they lost their DPS status. They’re ordered removed. They have got to go home. They have no status here anymore. They can’t stay here.
BASH: Just you, as the border czar and as a human, do you feel comfortable sending them back to a country, a country of origin perhaps, that your administration is describing as so dire?
HOMAN: Look, bottom line is, they have been ordered removed. And I don’t know the conditions in Haiti. I have never been in Haiti. I don’t know if you have.
[09:10:05]
But, look, the judges made a decision they must go home. And they need to go home. I mean, I — I’m not familiar with the country conditions in Haiti. I have never been there, but we’re just enforcing the law. And we’re doing it in a way that the American people voted for.
President Trump’s the president of the United States because he promised to enforce immigration law, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re sending a message to the whole world. The border is no longer open. You can’t come here for a free pass and expect to stay forever if you’re here illegally.
There are millions of people standing in line wanting to be a part of the greatest nation on Earth. They’re sitting in the back seat because millions of people came across the border illegally under Joe Biden under fraudulent pretenses.
That’s why the Trump administration is taking action. If you’re in the country illegally, we’re looking for you, and we find you, we’re going to remove you.
BASH: Yes, I hear what you’re saying about Haiti. You haven’t been there, I haven’t been there. And I’m just quoting your own ambassador, Jennifer Locetta, who is a representative for special political affairs at the U.N. Those were her quotes.
I want to turn to what’s being reported in Connecticut. Senator Chris Murphy said ICE officers targeted parents at school bus stops this week. He said — quote — “In Danbury, they are just targeting parents sitting at school bus stops just to terrorize little kids.”
Are ICE officers detaining parents at school bus stops?
HOMAN: ICE isn’t in the business of terrorizing children. That’s — that’s just — that’s just political fire.
ICE is out there enforcing law that was enacted by Congress. Then we arrest illegal aliens? Are some parents? I’m sure many are. But we’re not out there to terrorize children. We’re out there to look for illegal aliens with final orders of removal, those who overstayed, those that are criminals, and we’re out there looking for them and arresting them.
ICE has no intention of terrorizing children. That is just a political statement made to enrage the American people. In the last two years, I constantly hear the attacks on ICE and what ICE is doing. They think it’s a winning message to know to vilify ICE.
And I have said for a long time all these hateful words against ICE and what ICE does, that’s a reason assaults against ICE officers are up over 9000 percent, the threats. It — and no other law enforcement agency in the world has that percentage of increase in threats.
And I say most of it is based on hateful writer and mischaracterization what ICE does, just like the Delaney Hall, right? Delaney Hall was a big story. Everybody’s protesting up in Newark on Delaney Hall, said there was a hunger strike.
I went there. There was never a hunger strike. People weren’t eating at the cafeteria, but they’re eating in the commissary. And there — no one was missing medication. They said one person, one father was arrested while buying diapers. No, he was arrested at a jail, and he was there for domestic violence charges.
But all these false stories come out, and people buy off on them.
BASH: Well…
HOMAN: But you notice, when we prove those stories are fake, no one ever covers that. No one ever says, OK, we were wrong. There actually wasn’t a hunger strike. There wasn’t actually mistreatment at that facility.
BASH: Yes, well, that’s literally why we have you on, and we appreciate you coming on. Three detainees did die at that facility.
But I want to stick to bus stops, because I — my question is, even more broadly beyond Connecticut, are bus school stops fair game for a place where parents can be arrested?
HOMAN: Look, we — the ICE policy is — it used to be what we call a sensitive location policy. We don’t have that policy anymore.
But I have pointed out, for the last two years, you — no one can point to one single incidence we arrested anybody in an elementary school. We haven’t arrested anybody in a hospital. We haven’t arrested anybody in the church. ICE is real good at their job.
Now, did they — somebody arrest somebody at a bus stop? I’m not aware of that. But ICE is out there to enforce law those that have been ordered removed by a federal judge. And if the — especially if they’re a criminal or if they’re a national security threat, there’s no safe harbor for them in this country. We will go where we need to go.
But to this day, ICE has not made arrests in one of those three sensitive locations I’m aware of. But you read a lot of stories they have, but no one’s giving me one instance…
BASH: Yes.
HOMAN: … one name, one date where somebody’s arrested at one of those three instances. As far as the school bus, I’m not aware of that incident at all.
(CROSSTALK)
BASH: Will you look into this incident in Connecticut? Because it’s not just the senator. It’s the mayor, it’s the governor who are saying it happened there.
HOMAN: I will — I will make an inquiry to the Department of Homeland Security, yes.
BASH: OK.
Last question. You are a big proponent of body cameras. You said in July that ICE was going to require body cameras and that — and ICE actually subsequently said that every field officer would have one by the end of August. We are at the end of August now. Has that happened?
HOMAN: I don’t know. I know ICE is — the camera purchase was held up when the government was shut down. I mean, there’s millions of dollars to buy those cameras. I’m a big proponent of cameras…
BASH: I know.
HOMAN: … because the cameras — I want the American people to see what the officer sees when he makes a decision.
Whether it’s a hands-on decision or a shooting incident, I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took that action. I’m a big proponent. I know they have got the cameras purchased. The last I knew, before I was on the road a few weeks ago, the trainer happened.
That’s where they send trainers to each field office to train somebody on the use of body camera, how to turn them off, when to turn them on, what did we do with the film and keeping the record someplace. That has happened. I know they’re being deployed. Are they 100 percent deployed today? I’m not sure.
But I know the plan was to get them deployed by the end of August, but I do not know if that has been completed yet or not.
BASH: OK. Well, if you find out, get back to us. I appreciate it, and really, I’m grateful to you for joining us this morning, Tom Homan.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 30, 2026 | Sundance |
Posted originally on the CTH on
I think we have finally figured out President Trump’s long-term strategy here. Essentially, we have been flummoxed over why President Trump has not yet triggered the 6-month USMCA (CUSMA) termination notice yet. However, he appears to be intentionally drawing this out.
For the deniers, I simply request you to think about it in very simple and logical terms. Do you really foresee any possibility of President Trump or USTR Jamieson Greer renegotiating a USMCA agreement amid the divide Canada is creating? There’s no way terms will ever be discussed.
Therefore, with an all-in perspective on termination, the moves President Trump is making now are all just to prolong economic pain and block investment while retaining the termination notice as the hidden ace. [VIA TRUTH SOCIAL]
Well, right now American communists and those with TPS status changes are fleeing to Canada; a human sedimentation tank.
Bring back the corporations who set up shop in Canada and swap them for outbound, dependent leftists.
Alberta will never secede from Canada because Premier Danielle Smith is a gaslighting fibber and structurally in alignment with Mark Carney. Additionally, if you look up “battered conservative syndrome” in the geopolitical library you will note that Alberta is the birthplace of the mindset, and Pierre Poilievre is their mascot. Alberta will never leave Canada.
Those who understand the pretense of the UniParty in the United States, likely understand that in Canada the pretending is exponentially more entrenched.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 30, 2026 | Sundance |
CTH strongly emphasizes two key policy sectors, Maganomics and Immigration enforcement; they go together. We cannot achieve the economic results we want for the American people unless strong and powerful immigration enforcement is in place.
While the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) navigates the deportation and removal process (painfully slow in my opinion), Secretary of State Marco has revoked, blocked and restricted visa entry processes. The State Dept effort is strong, but continually encounters resistance from the Lawfare communists who are trying to destroy U.S. nationalism.
NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies) is an Indian non-governmental trade association and advocacy group that primarily serves the Indian technology industry. Founded in 1988, NASSCOM operates as a nonprofit organization and serves as a key entity within the Indian technology sector. NASSCOM is the primary advocacy group for manipulating the U.S. visa entry system.
When we discuss the politics in countries who accept bribes and payments for influence in political decisions, we call that bribery and corruption. However, when the exact same activity takes place in Washington DC, we call it Lobbying. NASSCOM is now spending money to purchase U.S. politicians and look specifically about how they frame the discussion. (emphasis mine):
[…] Ameet Nivsarkar, VP in Nasscom, said the association was working on various strategies to limit the adverse impact of the immigration bill. “We are engaging with coalitions and consortiums in the US like the US India Business Council, an independent think-tank. It’s also important for our members and non-members to be a part of the advocacy through multiple engagements that requires having local representatives in the US or even talking to their customers to raise the issue on their behalf,” he said.
The immigration bill seeks to make work visas like H-1B more expensive and difficult to obtain for companies that already have a high proportion of their US staff on such visas. Infosys, for instance, is said to have almost 90% of their 15,000 employees in the US on such visas.If these visas become difficult to obtain, it will compel Indian IT companies to significantly alter their business models. They would either have to hire many more local Americans, which would be expensive, or find ways to do more of the work offshore, which would be difficult. Any such changes would put Indian IT companies at a disadvantage against their global competitors who have a strong local American presence. {SOURCE}
As noted by Amanda Louise on X: “[NASSCOM’s] concern wasn’t that jobs would go unfilled because America lacked skilled workers. It was that companies like Infosys would have to “hire many more local Americans, which would be expensive.”
“Americans weren’t described as unavailable. Americans were described as the more expensive alternative.
And they acknowledged the other half of the problem.. companies with a “strong local American presence” would have a competitive advantage if visa-dependent companies lost easy access to that labor.
That tells Americans exactly what this business model does. Use visa labor to lower costs. Compete against companies that hire more Americans. Win their contracts. And now those American-employing companies have fewer jobs to offer too.
The American worker loses twice. So why are we still debating what these visa programs are being used for? Their statements tell us the incentive. The immigration filings show us the scale. The layoffs show us who pays the price.
How much more evidence does Congress need before it answers why U.S. immigration policy gives companies a competitive advantage for hiring visa workers instead of Americans?”
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 