From Kuala Lumpur to Gyeongju, President Trump is casting himself as a deal-maker and peace negotiator.
As he travels through the region, he aims to promote tariff relief and establish steadier ties amid a wary environment.
Leaders and citizens alike are watching closely to see how his diplomatic efforts might impact the future of international relations in this part of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/25/world/asia/trump-japan-korea-china.html
President Trump abruptly halted trade negotiations with Canada on Thursday night, citing a television ad airing in the United States that he claims amounts to foreign interference in a pending Supreme Court case over his administration’s “reciprocal” tariff policy.
His decision followed the Canadian province of Ontario purchasing airtime on U.S. television to run a commercial featuring a speech from President Ronald Reagan, in which Reagan spoke out against tariffs.
“The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about tariffs,” Mr. Trump said on Truth Social. He was referring to the Supreme Court’s November 5 scheduled oral arguments regarding legal challenges to a major portion of his tariff policies, which include country-specific rates.
“They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts,” he added.
The ad, which aired during an American League Championship Series game between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Seattle Mariners, begins with Reagan saying, “When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while it works, but only for a short time.”
“But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer,” Reagan continues in the ad, which was also posted on X by Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford.
“Using every tool we have, we’ll never stop making the case against American tariffs on Canada. The way to prosperity is by working together,” Mr. Ford wrote in his post.
In response, the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute announced it was “reviewing its legal options” regarding the use of Reagan’s remarks. The foundation stated that “the ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address, and the Government of Ontario did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks.”
This is not the first time Mr. Trump has ended trade negotiations with Canada. In June, he declared he was “terminating ALL discussions on trade with Canada,” citing concerns about how American tech companies and dairy farmers were being treated.
The Canadian government responded by imposing quotas on steel products.
Prime Minister Carney made a trip to the White House in early October, and relations between the two nations appeared to have improved. During an Oval Office appearance with Mr. Carney, President Trump discussed the “mutual love” between the United States and Canada.
However, tensions remain. “We want Canada to do great,” he said. “But you know, there’s a point at which we also want the same business.”
https://www.nysun.com/article/trump-ends-canada-trade-talks-over-television-ad-using-reagan-speech-against-tariff-policy
Last month, President Trump announced that he would use revenue generated by tariffs to bail out American soybean farmers affected by the ongoing trade war with China.
Farmers were expecting around $13 billion in assistance to help offset their losses. However, the administration is only offering a quarter of that amount, leaving many growers concerned about their financial future.
As Lana Zak reports, these farmers are now facing growing financial strain amid the unresolved trade tensions.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/soybean-farmer-says-aid-announced-by-trump-falls-short-as-losses-mount-from-trade-war/
Stephen Miller Rants on Sean Hannity’s Show After Robert De Niro Calls Him a “Nazi”
Stephen Miller, known as President Donald Trump’s top aide, went on an unhinged rant during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s show this Wednesday. The outburst came in response to actor Robert De Niro labeling Miller a “Nazi” during a heated exchange on MSNBC over the weekend.
Here’s what set Miller off: While appearing on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” on Sunday, the Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro, 82, launched into a sweeping critique of the Trump administration. At one point, De Niro singled out Miller, comparing him to Joseph Goebbels—the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party.
De Niro stated, “We see it, we see it, we see it… all the time he will not want to leave. He set it up with… I guess he’s the Goebbels of the cabinet, Stephen Miller. He’s a Nazi.”
The “Goodfellas” star didn’t stop there. He added, “Yes, he is and [Miller’s] Jewish, and he should be ashamed of himself.”
When Sean Hannity invited Miller to respond to De Niro’s comments, Miller eagerly launched into a fierce attack. Notably, Miller completely ignored the Goebbels comparison and instead directed his ire at those he described as tracking what he called “their ICE Gestapo.”
The exchange highlights the ongoing tensions and heated rhetoric surrounding key figures in the Trump administration, with Miller defending his role amid increasingly personal attacks from public figures like De Niro.
https://crooksandliars.com/2025/10/peewee-goebbels-very-unhappy-robert-de
Washington has announced new sanctions against Russia’s two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in an effort to pressure Moscow to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine. This marks the first time the current Trump administration has imposed direct sanctions on Russia.
Speaking alongside Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump said he hoped the sanctions would not need to be in place for long, but expressed growing frustration with stalled truce negotiations.
“Every time I speak to Vladimir [Putin], I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere,” Trump said, shortly after a planned in-person meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Budapest was cancelled.
Trump’s move is designed to cut off vital oil revenues that help fund Russia’s ongoing war efforts. Earlier on Wednesday, Russia unleashed a new bombardment on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, killing at least seven people, including children.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the new sanctions were necessary because of “Putin’s refusal to end this senseless war.” He added that Rosneft and Lukoil fund the Kremlin’s “war machine.”
### How Have Rosneft and Lukoil Been Sanctioned?
The new measures will freeze assets owned by Rosneft and Lukoil in the US and bar US entities from engaging in business with them. Additionally, thirty subsidiaries owned by Rosneft and Lukoil have also been sanctioned.
Rosneft, which is controlled by the Kremlin, is Russia’s second-largest company in terms of revenue, behind natural gas giant Gazprom. Lukoil is Russia’s third-largest company and its biggest non-state enterprise.
Together, the two companies export 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, accounting for 70 percent of Russia’s overseas crude oil sales. Rosneft alone is responsible for nearly half of Russia’s oil production, which makes up 6 percent of global output.
In recent years, both companies have been hit by ongoing European sanctions and reduced oil prices. In September, Rosneft reported a 68 percent year-on-year drop in net income for the first half of 2025. Lukoil posted an almost 27 percent fall in profits for 2024.
Meanwhile, last week the United Kingdom unveiled sanctions on the two oil majors. Elsewhere, the European Union is set to announce its 19th package of penalties on Moscow later today, including a ban on imports of Russian liquefied natural gas.
### How Much Impact Will These Sanctions Have?
In 2022, Russian oil groups, including Rosneft and Lukoil, were able to offset some of the effects of earlier sanctions by pivoting exports from Europe to Asia, and by using a “shadow fleet” of hard-to-detect tankers with no ties to Western financial or insurance groups.
China and India quickly replaced the EU as Russia’s biggest oil consumers. Last year, China imported a record 109 million tonnes of Russian crude, representing almost 20 percent of its total energy imports. India imported 88 million tonnes of Russian oil in 2024.
These figures represent a significant increase compared to pre-2022 levels, when Western countries started tightening sanctions on Russia. At the end of 2021, China imported roughly 79.6 million tonnes of Russian crude, while India imported just 0.42 million tonnes.
Trump has repeatedly urged Beijing and New Delhi to halt Russian energy purchases. In August, he levied an additional 25 percent trade tariff on India because of its continued purchase of discounted Russian oil. He has so far refrained from a similar move against China.
However, Trump’s new sanctions are likely to place pressure on foreign financial groups that do business with Rosneft and Lukoil, including banking intermediaries facilitating sales of Russian oil in China and India.
“Engaging in certain transactions involving the persons designated today may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions on participating foreign financial institutions,” the US Treasury Department’s press release on Wednesday’s sanctions states.
As a result, the new restrictions may force buyers to shift to alternative suppliers or pay higher prices. Though India and China may not be the direct targets of these latest restrictions, their oil supply chains and trading costs are likely to come under increased pressure.
“The big thing here is the secondary sanctions,” Felipe Pohlmann Gonzaga, a Switzerland-based commodity trader, told Al Jazeera. “Any bank that facilitates Russian oil sales and with exposure to the US financial system could be subject.”
However, he added, “I don’t think this will be the driver in ending the war, as Russia will continue selling oil. There are always people out there willing to take the risk to beat sanctions. These latest restrictions will make Chinese and Indian players more reluctant to buy Russian oil; many won’t want to lose access to the American financial system. But it won’t stop it completely.”
According to Bloomberg, several senior refinery executives in India, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, said the restrictions would make it impossible for oil purchases to continue.
On Wednesday, Trump said he would raise concerns about China’s continued purchases of Russian oil during his talk with President Xi Jinping at the 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea next week.
### Have Oil Prices Been Affected?
Oil prices rallied after Trump announced the US sanctions. Brent, the international crude oil benchmark, rose nearly 4 percent to $65 a barrel on Thursday.
The US benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), jumped more than 5 percent to nearly $60 per barrel.
—
*Recommended Stories*
– Trump hits Russia’s oil giants with sanctions, EU bans Russian LNG
– EU poised to agree on using frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine in war
– Why planned Trump-Putin talks collapsed, and what it means for Ukraine
– EU moves to ban Russian energy imports by 2028
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/23/will-trumps-sanctions-against-russian-oil-giants-hurt-putin?traffic_source=rss
The government has asked the court to approve a “filter protocol” to allow a neutral team to review seized communications between James Comey and several lawyers, including Michael Fitzgerald, to determine whether the material is privileged or evidence of misconduct.
“Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information,” prosecutors wrote.
### A Case Rooted in 2017 Memo Leaks
Comey, 64, was indicted on September 25 for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. He pleaded not guilty earlier this month, insisting he never authorized leaks to the press and accusing the Justice Department of mounting a vindictive prosecution encouraged by former President Trump.
According to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from August 2019, Comey leaked copies of his personal memos—documenting conversations he had with Trump—to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Michael Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. He later tapped all three as his personal lawyers. These memos contained detailed accounts of Oval Office meetings and one-on-one calls in which Trump allegedly urged leniency for then-national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Prosecutors now argue that Comey is repeating the pattern that started with that arrangement. Because Fitzgerald is now representing Comey in the criminal case stemming in part from those very disclosures, the government says Fitzgerald’s presence on the defense team “raises a question of conflict and disqualification.”
### Classified Information and the Breach
The FBI later concluded that some of the memos shared with the trio contained information classified at the “confidential” level and moved to delete them from the attorneys’ computers in early 2018, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.
“Before litigating any issue of conflict or disqualification, the parties should have access to all relevant and non-privileged information,” prosecutors wrote in their Sunday night filing. “The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court.”
### OIG Found Comey ‘Set a Dangerous Example’
Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report described Comey’s actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he “set a dangerous example” for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for “a personally desired outcome.” The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so.
Although the Horowitz report found no evidence that Comey or his lawyers shared classified information with the media, it concluded that his handling of official records violated FBI policy and DOJ regulations. Prosecutors at the time declined to bring charges, citing a lack of proof that Comey intentionally mishandled classified material.
One of the leaked memos described Comey’s February 2017 Oval Office meeting with Trump, in which the president allegedly said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go.” The contents of that memo, leaked through Richman to The New York Times, helped trigger the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
Prosecutors have since charged Comey with lying to Congress about leaking, although the details of the DOJ’s case remain unclear.
### How the Leaks Were Shared
The inspector general reported that Comey emailed four memos from a personal account to Fitzgerald within days of his May 2017 firing. Fitzgerald then forwarded the messages to Kelley and Richman, both of whom were advising Comey at the time. Separately, Comey sent Richman a photograph of the Flynn memo from his cellphone.
Copies of the memos later released to Congress showed that four were classified as either “secret” or “confidential” following an FBI review led by counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap. Comey disputed the secret designation for one of them, though investigators found he never sought classification guidance from the bureau before sharing the material.
In a 2019 FBI interview, Richman said Comey had not authorized him to discuss the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation with reporters but acknowledged Comey knew he sometimes engaged with the press.
### First Pretrial Standoff Comes to the Forefront
Comey’s same 2017 relationships with close confidants are now at the heart of the government’s latest inquiry into whether Comey can keep his current lead counsel. Fitzgerald’s own involvement in transmitting Comey’s memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client.
### Jack Smith’s Former Right-Hand Man Joins Comey’s Defense Team
The government’s disqualification effort comes on the heels of Comey’s move last Friday to hire an additional attorney, Mueller counselor Michael Dreeben, who also assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his case against Trump last year over alleged election interference.
Dreeben’s involvement could present another unique conflict, though the government has yet to raise a specific issue with him being on the case.
Comey’s team has also accused the DOJ of mishandling privileged materials and is preparing to argue that the prosecution itself was politically motivated in additional filings expected Monday afternoon.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3857132/comey-hired-possible-witness-as-lawyer-patrick-fitzgerald-doj-says/
**President Trump Considers Importing Argentinian Beef to Lower U.S. Prices**
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Donald Trump announced Sunday that the United States could purchase beef from Argentina as a strategy to reduce beef prices for American consumers.
“We would buy some beef from Argentina,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight from Florida to Washington. “If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”
Trump made this statement amid efforts to tackle inflation, promising earlier in the week that he would address the issue of high beef prices. U.S. beef costs have remained stubbornly high due to several factors, including drought conditions and a reduction in imports from Mexico. The decline in Mexican beef imports is partly attributable to a flesh-eating pest affecting cattle herds there.
In addition to these measures, President Trump has been working to support Argentina’s struggling currency. This includes facilitating a $20 billion credit swap line and securing additional financing from sovereign funds and the private sector. These efforts come ahead of midterm elections for his close ally, Argentine President Javier Milei.
https://whdh.com/news/trump-suggests-us-will-buy-argentinian-beef-to-bring-down-prices-for-american-consumers/
As usual, another Democrat has been spotted hoping that nobody remembers what happened before January 20th, including all the Left’s lawfare efforts—up to and including attempts to throw Donald Trump in prison so he couldn’t be elected to a second term. These are the same Democrats who had the audacity to accuse Trump of election interference.
Illinois Governor JB “Mr. Vegas” Pritzker joined in with his projection during another lefty-to-lefty therapy session on MSNBC, this time with Jen Psaki. In retribution for Trump holding people accountable and showing Democrats what “no one is above the law” looks like, Pritzker called him an authoritarian who prosecutes political enemies.
Pritzker went further, promising that if the Democrats ever return to power, they’ll—you guessed it—prosecute their political enemies again.
Even more ironically, Pritzker and the Democrats want everyone to believe that if the Trump DOJ stops holding people accountable, the Left won’t go full lawfare the next time they’re in control (which, hopefully, is never).
This week, Karoline Leavitt correctly stated that protecting illegal aliens is among the Democrats’ top priorities, and the Left lost their minds. Then the Democrats spent the rest of their time proving her right.
*****
**Editor’s Note:** The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown over healthcare for illegal immigrants. They own this.
https://twitchy.com/dougp/2025/10/17/jb-pritzker-names-officials-dems-will-prosecute-for-authoritarian-trump-prosecuting-political-enemies-n2420481
**U.S. Drug War Under Trump Echoes Post-9/11 War on Terror Legal Framework**
**WASHINGTON (AP)** — Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. drug war is increasingly mirroring the war on terror. To support military strikes against Latin American gangs and drug cartels, the Trump administration is relying on a legal argument that gained prominence after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This framework allowed U.S. authorities to use lethal force against al-Qaida combatants responsible for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
However, the criminal groups currently targeted by U.S. strikes represent a very different adversary. These groups, such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, were spawned in prisons and are fueled not by anti-Western ideology but by drug trafficking and other illicit enterprises. Legal scholars warn that Trump’s use of overwhelming military force and authorization of covert action inside Venezuela—possibly aimed at ousting President Nicolás Maduro—push the limits of international law.
This shift comes as Trump expands the military’s domestic role by deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities and expressing openness to invoking the nearly 150-year-old Insurrection Act, which permits military deployment in only exceptional civil unrest cases.
—
### Lethal Strikes Without Formal War Declaration
So far, U.S. military strikes have killed at least 27 people in five separate incidents targeting vessels alleged to be carrying drugs. The most recent strike occurred on Tuesday, killing six people. These actions have taken place without any legal investigation or a formal war declaration from Congress.
Such circumstances raise questions about the legal justification for these strikes and their potential impact on diplomatic relations, especially with Latin American countries that recall the U.S.’s contentious Cold War-era military interventions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. intelligence community disputes Trump’s central claim that Maduro’s government collaborates with the Tren de Aragua gang to orchestrate drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.
—
### “You Can’t Just Call Something War”
Trump’s assertion that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels hinges on the same legal authority the Bush administration used to declare a war on terror after 9/11. This authority permits the capture and detention of combatants and the use of lethal force against their leaders.
However, the United Nations Charter expressly forbids the use of force except in self-defense. Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “You just can’t call something war to give yourself war powers. … It makes a mockery of international law to suggest we are in a noninternational armed conflict with cartels.”
Unlike al-Qaida, which was actively plotting attacks designed to kill civilians after 9/11, the cartels’ primary goal is drug trafficking. Geoffrey Corn, a Texas Tech law professor and former senior Army adviser on law-of-war issues, described the government’s position as politically motivated: “Even if we assume there’s an armed conflict with Tren de Aragua, how do we know everyone in that boat was an enemy fighter? I think Congress needs to know that.”
—
### Trump Defends Military Strikes and Signals Possible Escalation
When asked at the White House why the U.S. does not use the Coast Guard to intercept Venezuelan vessels and seize drugs, Trump responded, “We have been doing that for 30 years and it has been totally ineffective.”
He also suggested that the U.S. might strike targets inside Venezuela, a move that would markedly escalate tensions and legal concerns. So far, the strikes have occurred in international waters outside any single country’s jurisdiction.
Trump said, “We’ve almost totally stopped it by sea. Now we’ll stop it by land.”
Regarding a New York Times report that he authorized a covert CIA operation in Venezuela, Trump declined to confirm whether he had given the CIA authority to take out Maduro, calling it “ridiculous” to answer.
—
### Legal and Historical Context of Covert Operations
Numerous U.S. laws and executive orders since the 1970s prohibit the assassination of foreign officials. Yet, by declaring Venezuelan criminals “unlawful combatants,” Trump may be attempting to circumvent these restrictions, possibly reviving a historical pattern of covert regime-change operations akin to those in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran.
Finkelstein noted, “If you pose a threat, and are making war on the U.S., you’re not a protected person.”
During Trump’s first term, Maduro was indicted on federal drug-related charges, including narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. This year, the Justice Department doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, labeling him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”
—
### Drug Trade Realities and Geographic Focus
Despite the intense focus on Venezuela, the bulk of American overdose deaths stem from fentanyl, primarily transported by land from Mexico. While Venezuela is a significant drug transit zone, about 75% of the cocaine produced in Colombia—the world’s largest producer—is smuggled through the eastern Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.
—
### Congressional and International Oversight Lacking
Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Yet no indications suggest congressional pushback against Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential authority to target drug cartels blamed for tens of thousands of American overdose deaths annually.
The GOP-controlled Senate recently voted down a war powers resolution sponsored by Democrats, which would have required the president to seek congressional authorization for further military strikes.
Even amid calls from some Republicans for more transparency, the Trump administration has yet to provide compelling evidence to lawmakers that the targeted vessels were carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
Senator Angus King (I-Maine) revealed that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were denied access in a classified briefing to the Pentagon’s legal opinion on whether the strikes complied with U.S. law.
—
### Legal Challenges and International Court Prospects
Legal opposition is unlikely to deter the White House. A 1973 Supreme Court ruling, stemming from a lawsuit aimed at halting the Vietnam War’s spread to Laos and Cambodia, set a high legal threshold for challenging military orders.
Families of those killed in the boat strikes also confront legal hurdles after several high court decisions have limited the ability of foreign citizens to sue in U.S. courts.
The strikes occurred in international waters, which could open the door for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, similar to its probes into alleged war crimes in Russia and Israel—both countries, like the U.S., do not recognize the ICC’s authority.
However, the ICC’s work is currently hampered by a sexual misconduct investigation that led to its chief prosecutor stepping aside. Additionally, U.S. sanctions related to the ICC’s indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have complicated the court’s operations.
—
### Conclusion
President Trump’s approach to the drug war, invoking a war-on-terror legal framework to justify lethal strikes on Latin American criminal groups, challenges established international and constitutional norms. As this policy unfolds, it raises critical questions about legality, transparency, and long-term geopolitical impacts in the region.
https://ktar.com/national-news/a-war-on-drugs-or-a-war-on-terror-trumps-military-pressure-on-venezuela-blurs-the-lines/5762491/
The Canadian government is considering pursuing a restart of the Keystone Pipeline as part of a grand bargain to ease some of President Trump’s tariffs on products such as steel and aluminum.
Canada’s Energy Minister, Tim Hodgson, shared insights into this potential move, highlighting ongoing discussions aimed at improving trade relations between the two countries.
The proposed strategy could serve as a critical step toward resolving tariff disputes and fostering stronger cross-border cooperation in the energy sector.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4505036-us-canada-consider-reopening-keystone-xl-pipeline-in-trade-talks—ft?utm_source=feed_news_all&utm_medium=referral&feed_item_type=news
