The winners and losers in Trump’s NATO arms race
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Trump lashes out at transition as Biden pushes policies
Trump has railed against Biden, particularly after he issued executive orders to restrict offshore drilling on the East and West coasts. Trump claims such acts make the changeover hard because it gives him more work to undo. Biden, in a USA Today interview this week, said he asked Trump not to try to “settle scores” during their first meeting to start the presidential transition in November. The White House has maintained it was doing everything it could to make the transition as smoothly as possible, but Trump though doubled down on his criticism of Biden who appears to be getting under his skin with his eleventh-hour actions, a source close to the president-elect said. The incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said in an Axios interview that Biden’s chief of Staff Jeff Zients has been very helpful and even invited her over to his house for dinner. The clash represents each man holding their ground, a Republican source familiar with the transition said. “They are speaking about two different things — Trump is upset that Biden is issuing a raft of new policies on the way out the door that will make life more difficult for him,” the source said.
Trump has railed against Biden, particularly after he issued executive orders to restrict offshore drilling on the East and West coasts, with Trump claiming such acts make the changeover hard because it gives him more work to undo.
“Trump’s view is that we won and you should just lay down, surrender your arms,” a source close to Trump world said.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Biden, in a USA Today interview this week, said he asked Trump not to try to “settle scores” during their first meeting to start the presidential transition in November. And the president said Trump even praised him, especially on his work on the economy.
But after the president made moves to protect his legacy before leaving office, particularly when it comes to the environment, Trump began railing about his soon-to-be predecessor.
“Biden is doing everything possible to make the TRANSITION as difficult [as] possible, from Lawfare such as has never been seen before, to costly and ridiculous Executive Orders on the Green New Scam and other money wasting Hoaxes,” Trump said on Truth Social.
The source close to Trump world said the clash represents each man holding their ground.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
“The Bidens have decided that they’re not going to turn the keys over, meaning around power and authority to exercise their decision-making until the actual [transition] of power,” the source said.
“From Trump’s point of view, any continued regulatory activity, decision-making that Biden does is more complicated. But from the Biden perspective, they’re just doing what they get to do is because they are still president,” the source added.
Others in Trump’s world have taken a different view.
Incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said in an Axios interview this week that Biden’s chief of staff Jeff Zients has been very helpful and even invited her over to his house for dinner.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
The incoming chief told Axios that Zients “has made great suggestions, helped make sure we stay on time with required functions, helped us navigate the labyrinth that is the Executive Office of the President, and been very professional.”
A Republican source familiar with the transition said Trump and Wiles’s differing perspectives involve separate aspects of the transition.
“They are speaking about two different things — Trump is upset that Biden is issuing a raft of new policies on the way out the door that will make life more difficult for him. Wiles is talking solely about transition and transfer of power process,” the GOP source said.
The Biden order on Monday that set Trump off blocks new drilling off the entire East Coast, as well as California, Oregon and Washington state, and blocks some drilling off Alaska’s coast in portions of the Northern Bering Sea and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Trump, meanwhile, has promised to promote domestic energy production when he is sworn in and one of the signature lines of his campaign was “drill baby, drill!” Trump vowed to undo Biden’s recent executive order, though it’s unclear if he would be able to reverse it.
The source close to Trump world called Trump and Wiles’s narrative on the transition “a tale of two worlds,” saying Wiles’s perspective is that the transition is going well on the operational side while Trump thinks Biden should stop acting as president in the final weeks.
Meanwhile, Biden has suggested the transition process has been friendly — at least at the beginning of it.
Days after winning the 2024 election, Trump went to the White House for a meeting, which Wiles and Zients also joined. Biden and Trump appeared to be collegial after heavily railing against each other on the campaign trail when Biden was still running for reelection.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
The White House has maintained it was doing everything it could to make the transition go as smoothly as possible, but as of Tuesday, Trump though doubled down on his criticism of Biden, who appears to be getting under his skin with his eleventh-hour actions.
“They say we’re going to have a smooth transition. All they do is talk. It’s all talk. Everything they do is talk, ‘we’re going to have a smooth transition.’ And then they take 625 million acres, and they essentially landmark it, so you can’t ever drill there again,” the president-elect said.
To be sure, Biden is expected to leave the White House with little fanfare. He hasn’t spoken much to the media in recent months, other than the USA Today interview, and isn’t expected to give a wide-ranging press conference to wrap up his term.
But any last-minute executive orders or actions are sure to irk Trump, despite the fact that last-minute moves by an outgoing president are typical.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
In January 2021, when he was moving out of the White House after losing the 2020 race, Trump signed 14 executive orders, according to the Federal Register.
Trump issued executive orders to ensure Americans have notice of punishment for violations of regulations, to ensure the security of Unmanned Aircraft Systems operated by the federal government and to lift a five-year lobbying ban for members of his administration just hours before he left office, among others.
“The last few days of an administration often see a flurry of executive orders. The Trump administration is no exception, and former President Donald Trump is making the most of this tradition,” the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote at the time, hailing Trump’s last-minute policies.
Republicans too are bashing Biden for final actions, including Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who said this week that moves to ban offshore drilling, grant clemency to hundreds of Americans convicted of crimes, and reportedly to negotiate a prisoner exchange with the Taliban are a “slap in the face” to Trump voters.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Biden last month commuted the sentence of nearly every prisoner on death row. Trump, meanwhile, issued a flurry of pardons for former top campaign and White House officials on his way out in 2021.
The president is expected to make more last-minute decisions before he leaves Washington.
“After inheriting an economy in freefall and skyrocketing violent crime, President Biden is proud to leave his successor the best-performing economy on earth, the lowest violent crime rates in over 50 years, and the lowest border crossings in over four years,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
It’s Time for Europe to Do the Unthinkable
The first way to see the state of the first-and-one-year-old “One’s one-way-one ‘one-“one-world-wide’ ’one-vehicle-one’m-wide ’“I’ve been one way to think the first way is to consider three way to the second way to be more than one way to look like the first ‘one way’ or “one way-to-be-one “way’ of the “1-1-2’ ““’1-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-9 or ‘9-3’ is the ”’9-4’3-9’5-9, “9-5’7-7” or � 9-6’4-8’8-11-10-9 is the number of � ‹1-9/9-10/11-12-11, 9-7
Desperate times call for desperate measures. And as my geopolitical gurus taught me, one must always think the unthinkable, as Europe must do now.
It’s too early to tell who the real winners and losers from the second Trump administration will be. Things could change. Yet, there’s no doubt that Europe’s geopolitical standing has diminished considerably. U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to not even consult with or forewarn European leaders before speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin shows how irrelevant Europe has become, even when its geopolitical interests are at stake. The only way to restore Europe’s geopolitical standing is to consider three unthinkable options.
First, Europe should announce its willingness to quit NATO. A Europe that is forced to spend 5 percent on defense is a Europe that doesn’t need the United States. Five percent of the combined EU/U.K. GDP in 2024 amounts to $1.1 trillion, comparable to U.S. defense spending of $824 billion in 2024 (In 2024, the EU and U.K. combined spent around $410 billion on defense.). Eventually, Europe need not quit. But only a credible threat to leave would wake up Trump (and Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) and force him to treat Europe with respect. By contrast, the insistence of the Europeans on staying in NATO after Trump’s provocative actions gives the impression to the world that they are licking the boots that are kicking them in the face.
What shocks many in the world is that Europeans didn’t anticipate the quagmire they’re in. One of the first rules of geopolitics is that we must always plan against worst-case scenarios. After the Ukraine war broke out, all European strategic thinking was based on the best-case scenario of the United States being a totally reliable ally, despite having experienced Trump’s first term and his threats to pull out of the world’s biggest military alliance. For a continent that has produced strategic minds like Metternich, Talleyrand, and Kissinger, there has been almost infantile strategic thinking on Ukraine and its long-term consequences.
If Metternich or Talleyrand (or Charles de Gaulle) were alive today, they would recommend unthinkable option 2: Work out a new grand strategic bargain with Russia, with each side accommodating the other’s core interests. Many influential European strategic minds would balk at these suggestions, because they are convinced that Russia represents a real security threat to the EU countries. Really? Which is Russia’s most fundamental strategic rival, the EU or China? With whom does it have the longest border? And with whom has its relative power changed so much? The Russians are geopolitical realists of the highest order. They know that neither Napoleon’s troops nor Hitler’s tanks are going to advance to Moscow again. The Europeans don’t see the obvious contradiction between exulting in Russia’s inability to defeat Ukraine (a country of 38 million people and a GDP of about $189 billion in 2024) and then declaring that Russia is the real threat to Europe (which has 744 million people and a GDP of $27 trillion in 2024). The Russians would likely be happy to work out a fair compromise with the EU, respecting current borders between Russia and the EU and a realistic compromise on Ukraine that doesn’t threaten either side’s core interests.
In the long run, after some strategic trust has redeveloped between Russia and a new strategically autonomous Europe, Ukraine could gradually serve as a bridge between the EU and Russia rather than as a bone of contention. Brussels should consider itself fortunate that, in relative terms, Russia is a declining power, not a rising power. If the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a relatively weaker regional organization, can work out a long-term relationship of trust with a rising power like China, surely the EU can do better with Russia.
And this leads to unthinkable option 3: Work out a new strategic compact with China. Again, in the realm of the ABCs of foreign policy, there’s an important reason why geopolitics is a combination of two words: geography and politics. The geography of the United States, which faces China across the Pacific Ocean, combined with Washington’s urge for primacy, explains the hostile relationship between the United States and China. What geopolitical pressures have caused the downturn in EU-China relations? The Europeans foolishly believed that a slavish loyalty to American geopolitical priorities would lead to rich geopolitical dividends for them. Instead, they have been kicked in the face.
The remarkable thing here is that China can help the EU deal with its real long-term geopolitical nightmare: the demographic explosion in Africa. In 1950, Europe’s population was double that of Africa. Today, Africa’s population is twice as large as Europe’s. By 2100, it will be 6 times larger. Unless Africa develops its economies, there will be a surge of African migrants into Europe. If Europeans believe that Europe will never produce leaders like Trump, they are clearly being delusional. Elon Musk isn’t the only billionaire supporting far-right parties in Europe.
To preserve a Europe run by centrist parties, Europeans should welcome any foreign investment in Africa that creates jobs and keeps Africans at home. Instead, the Europeans are shooting themselves in the foot by criticizing and opposing China’s investment in Africa. Just this one act demonstrates how naive long-term European strategic thinking has become. Brussels is sacrificing its own strategic interests to serve American interests in the hope that geopolitical subservience would lead to rewards.
Clearly, it hasn’t. Two thousand years of geopolitics has taught us a simple and obvious lesson: All great powers will put their own interests first and, if necessary, sacrifice the interests of their allies. Trump is behaving like a rational geopolitical actor in putting what he perceives to be his country’s interests first. Europe shouldn’t just criticize Trump—instead, it should emulate him. It should carry out the currently unthinkable option: Declare that henceforth it will be a strategically autonomous actor on the world stage that will put its own interests first. Trump may finally show some respect for Europe if it does that.
Trump Pisses Off MAGA Fans With Sudden Reversal on Jimmy Carter
President-elect Donald Trump offered his condolences to the family of former President Jimmy Carter, who passed away Sunday. Some of his MAGA fans took offense to the statement, saying that Carter was a “terrible president” and that he had “damaged” the U.S. by pardoning draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. Trump has also disparaged Carter in the past, calling him “the happiest guy around” during a debate with Vice President Joe Biden in June. The former president was in hospice at the time of the debate, and his family has confirmed that he died on Sunday.
“I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday.
“The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude,” Trump wrote. “Melania and I are thinking warmly of the Carter Family and their loved ones during this difficult time. We urge everyone to keep them in their hearts and prayers.”
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Apparently, that relatively simple statement was too much for some in the MAGA crowd, according to RawStory.
“Lol, I know you’re being nice. But you’re tripping,” replied an account called Theodore Winters. “Carter was a terrible president and damaged The United States Of America to such an extent that we are STILL dealing with his horribly policy decisions and his inflation repercussions in 2024.”
“I get it. He just passed. And we have to be respectful and nice. But let’s still keep it real,” Winters added.
An account called Commieskillpuppies noted that the president-elect’s words wouldn’t have any political value. “I appreciate your graciousness toward him but it won’t win you any points from the leftists,” the user wrote. “They’re soulless.”
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
One user, John55, who identified himself as an “America First” veteran on his profile, complained that Carter had pardoned draft dodgers during the Vietnam War—with no recognition that Trump himself dodged the Vietnam War draft.
“Jimmy Carter pardoned all the Vietnam draft dodgers that forced other men to take their place! Many of these men did not come home,” the user wrote. “Personally, I think Carter lived a long life to suffer for the pardons to the draft dodgers he pardoned.”
It’s possible that these reactions were just adjusting to the shock of the president-elect’s standard condolence statement, especially seeing how Trump has disparaged Carter in the past.
After Joe Biden’s disastrous presidential debate performance in June, Trump claimed that Carter was the “happiest guy around” because he now “looked like a genius” compared to Biden. The thirty-ninth president was in hospice at the time.
‘Willing to take that risk’: Republicans want Trump to have vast control over government spending
A group of Republicans recently introduced a bill to repeal the Impoundment Control Act. It would hand Trump more control over government spending — he could even unilaterally cut it off. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say it’s their best hope of enacting spending cuts and reducing the national debt. Trump has argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and should be done away with, either via congressional repeal or via the courts.”I think the spending is just out of control, and I think Congress is gutless,” Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Business Insider. “I just don’t think we’re capable of making changes without some other interference, whether it be the executive branch or the voters,” another Republican said. “If it’s something that further weakens Congress’ ability to do its job, then I’m going to look at that very carefully,” Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters. “That’s what the American people demanded literally in this election,” said Rep. Mark Amodei.
It would hand Trump more control over government spending — he could even unilaterally cut it off.
Several Republicans who backed the bill told BI they’re fine with giving up congressional power.
Ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are ready to do something unusual: Relinquish some of their own power over federal spending.
More than 20 Republicans cosponsored a bill this month that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, or ICA, a Watergate-era law that requires the president to spend all of the money that Congress approves. In the absence of that law and subsequent court rulings, the president would have the power to spend less money than what Congress decides — or refuse to spend money on certain programs altogether.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
That would bring a massive power shift from the legislative to the executive branch, upending a balance between the two that’s existed for 50 years. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say it’s their best hope of enacting spending cuts and reducing the national debt, given Congress’s history of inaction and what they view as their colleagues’ unwillingness to reduce spending.
“I think the spending is just out of control, and I think Congress is gutless,” Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Business Insider. “I just don’t think we’re capable of making changes without some other interference, whether it be the executive branch or the voters.”
“If the power is reducing expenditures, then I’m all for it,” Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri told BI. “Something has to be done.”
“You look at where we are in this country, why not give him that power?” Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told BI, referring to the country’s fiscal situation. “At this point, I’m willing to take that risk. Anything can be abused. I can drink too much water, and suffer from it.”
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
The Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a request for comment.
‘We can simply choke off the money’
Trump is no stranger to impoundment — his first impeachment was triggered by his refusal to deliver aid to Ukraine. As he’s mounted his third presidential bid, Trump has argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and should be done away with, either via congressional repeal or via the courts.
“With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “I alone can get that done.”
As Trump has staffed up his administration, he’s appointed staunch proponents of impoundment to key positions. That includes Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta, who have been nominated to their previously held roles of director and general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, respectively.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
The president-elect’s allies have argued that impoundment is a constitutional power that all presidents hold, owing to the president’s duty under Article II of the US Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Rep. Andrew Clyde, the lead sponsor of the ICA repeal bill. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call
They also point out that for roughly 200 years before 1974 — when Congress passed the ICA as President Richard Nixon refused to spend money on programs he disagreed with — presidents of all stripes have used impoundment for a variety of reasons, including policy disagreements.
“When Congress passes a spending bill, we pass a ceiling,” Rep. Andrew Clyde, the Georgia Republican who introduced the ICA repeal bill, told BI. “It’s not a floor and ceiling put together at one number.”
More recently, impoundment has been embraced by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, whose “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative aims to enact trillions of dollars in cuts to federal spending. The duo have publicly agreed with Trump’s argument that the ICA is unconstitutional, and the topic arose when they visited Capitol Hill to speak with Republicans earlier this month.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
“I look at it as a tool of saving money, and being more efficient,” Clyde said. “That’s what the American people literally demanded in this election.”
‘Maybe this is too broad’
There are plenty of opponents of impoundment on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the incoming GOP chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has told reporters that she’s opposed to repealing the ICA. And it’s not just Trump skeptics who are uneasy with it.
“If it’s something that further weakens Congress’ ability to do its job the way they should be, then I’m going to look at that real carefully,” Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada told BI in November.
Key Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed opposition to Trump’s impoundment plans. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a fact sheet making a case against impoundment.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
“The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous,” Boyle said in a statement. “Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people’s elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk.”
Republican skepticism, along with Democrats’ likely opposition to any effort to give Trump more spending power, could make repealing the law via Congress an uphill battle.
The president-elect said in the 2023 video that he “will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court,” queueing up what would be a high-stakes legal fight early in his second term.
What remains unclear is exactly how expansively Trump would try to use impoundment. For some of the Republicans who support the effort, it’s merely about spending less than what’s necessary. Others warn that Trump could use that power in a retributive way, denying federal funding to states and localities over policy disagreements.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
Even those who’ve cosponsored the ICA repeal bill expressed some ambivalence about its potential implications.
“Maybe this is too broad. I don’t know,” Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona told BI. “But I can tell you this: if you have a president who says ‘I don’t need 10 billion, I need 2 billion,’ then I would like them not to spend that 8 billion. That’s really kind of what the objective is, I think.”
Read the original article on Business Insider
Judge pauses sexual abuse lawsuit against Trump pick for Education secretary
A Maryland judge has paused a sexual abuse lawsuit against President-elect Trump’s Education secretary nominee, Linda McMahon. A federal judge concluded another case before the Maryland Supreme Court that deals with the constitutionality of a state law that took away the statute of limitations for bringing civil lawsuits against sexual abuse cases. The case, brought by plaintiffs who were in their early teens back in the 1980s, says the boys were sexually abuse by announcer Melvin Phillips Jr., who died in 2012.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
A Maryland judge has paused a sexual abuse lawsuit against President-elect Trump’s Education secretary nominee, Linda McMahon, as another case in the state could affect its outcome.
A federal judge concluded another case before the Maryland Supreme Court that deals with the constitutionality of a state law that took away the statute of limitations for bringing civil lawsuits against sexual abuse cases could determine the outcome of the lawsuit against McMahon.
McMahon, the former head of World Wrestling Entertainment, was named in a lawsuit in October accusing her of not doing enough to prevent credible allegations of sexual abuse of ring boys from one of her wrestling announcers. Also named were her husband, Vince McMahon, WWE and its parent company, TKO Group Holdings.
The case, brought by plaintiffs who were in their early teens back in the 1980s, says the boys were sexually abuse by announcer Melvin Phillips Jr., who died in 2012.
Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement Advertisement
The individuals, who were not named, contend Linda McMahon knew about the abuse and did little to stop it.
Her attorney said in a statement to CNN the lawsuit “is filled with scurrilous lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations regarding Linda McMahon.”
Linda McMahon stayed with WWE until 2009 before she went into politics, including a failed Senate bid. In Trump’s first term, she served as the head of the Small Business Administration.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.