Radical ICE watch groups in Minnesota are recruiting “white folks” to break black arrestees out of cop cars as violence against federal immigration agents continues to surge. One of the groups, “ICE out of Twin Ports,” posted a guide on Instagram Tuesday on “de-arresting” and “preventing cops from making an arrest by swarming and physically thwarting them” that advocates for direct confrontation with law enforcement. The anti-ICE group asked white protesters to gather in groups of “comrades” to break black detainees out of zip tie handcuffs, out of cop cars, and to hit officers trying to hold them. “White folks need to put their bodies in the way and first do everything they can to make sure black folks are not subject to police violence,” the group wrote in its Instagram post. “Keep up the struggle y’all – Minnesotans been melting ICE with triple the amount of kidnappers that Chicago had in 1/3 of the area and they are still threatening more – we must keep showing up for our neighbors, it’s working – know your rights – stay alert & warm – mask up,” the post read. Anti-ICE groups have organized throughout the city to expose ICE’s whereabouts and impede arrests. Renee Good, the 37-year-old woman who was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis earlier this month, was reportedly part of one such group. On a recent ride-along with ICE in Minneapolis, The Daily Wire observed dozens of ICE watch protesters tracking federal agents’ every move and showing up to alert illegal immigrants in neighborhoods across the Twin Cities. Assaults on ICE officers have surged more than 1,000% since President Donald Trump returned to office, and death threats have increased by a whopping 8,000%. If individuals attempt to impede arrests, ICE has the authority to arrest the protesters, Samuel Olsen, the director of the agency’s St. Paul office, told The Daily Wire. Radical ICE Watch groups in Minnesota are now openly instructing “white folks” to break detainees out of cop cars pic.twitter.com/z5QZvQZKVq — Jennie Taer (@JennieSTaer) January 21, 2026 Before, “it was very rare … now, we’re making arrests of agitators daily,” Olsen said. “When we have to arrest a U.S. citizen, it really takes us away from our other mission.” “ICE out of Twin Ports” advertised plans to hold protests in Duluth, Minnesota, on Thursday and Friday as they call out both the local police department and ICE for working together to carry out “state terror.” Friday’s protest is expected to be a “sit-in” at the Duluth City Hall. The police chief in Duluth, Mike Ceynowa, however, maintains that the department doesn’t collaborate with ICE on immigration-related enforcement, but may respond to a scene involving such an arrest to keep things at bay. Ceynowa also said that local officers regularly work with Homeland Security Investigations agents on drug and child sex crimes cases. “We have a policy regarding immigration enforcement… We do not do immigration enforcement. It is not something that we are a part of. It also says though, that should the need arise, we may be called upon to peacekeep or de-escalate a situation regarding immigration. We are not going to ask somebody for their papers,” Ceynowa recently told WDIO News.

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) — Conservative and liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism on Wednesday toward President Donald Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a case with the central bank’s independence at stake. During about two hours of arguments in the case, the justices indicated they were unlikely to grant the Trump administration’s request to lift a judge’s decision barring ​the Republican president from immediately firing Cook while her legal challenge continues to play out. Some of the justices pressed D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general arguing for Trump’s administration, about why Cook was not given a chance to formally respond to the unproven mortgage fraud allegations — which she has denied — that the president cited as justification to oust Cook. They also raised concerns about the effect on the economy of such a first-ever presidential firing from the central bank and the implications for the Fed’s cherished independence from political influence. The case represents the latest dispute to come to the top U.S. judicial body involving Trump’s expansive view of presidential powers since returning to office 12 months ago. When the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, agreed in October to hear the case, they left Cook in her job for the time being. “This case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure,” Cook, who attended the arguments, said in a statement afterward. “For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people,” Cook added. ‘DECEIT OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE’ Sauer told the justices that the allegations against Cook impugn her “conduct, fitness, ability or competence to serve as a governor of the Federal Reserve.” “The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was, at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said. “Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal,” Sauer added, arguing that the allegations require immediate removal. Cook has called the allegations against her a pretext to fire her over monetary policy differences as Trump heaps pressure on the central bank to cut interest rates and lashes out at Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not doing so more quickly. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sauer to explain whether his argument that Cook should be immediately removed applies if the basis of the mortgage allegations — that she cited two different properties as a principal residence — is an “inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record.” Sauer responded that, even if Cook made a mistake on mortgage paper, “it is quite a big mistake.” Roberts seemed skeptical, telling Sauer “we can debate that.” Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing for Cook, told the justices that the allegations against Cook arise from “at most an inadvertent mistake” on a mortgage application concerning a vacation property. Trump’s move against Cook is seen as the most consequential challenge to the Fed’s independence since it was formed in 1913. Until now, no president had sought to oust a Fed official. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June. ‘A MILLION HARD QUESTIONS’ Conservative Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern that the administration had handled the case “in a very cursory manner.” Though the case involves Trump’s asserted cause to fire Cook, Alito said, “No court has ever explored those facts. 
Are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case?” “There’s a million hard questions in this case,” Alito said. In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions meant to insulate the central bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only “for cause,” though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. Clement told the justices that Trump’s position would transform tenure protections for Fed governors into “at-will employment.” “That makes no sense,” Clement said. “There’s no rational reason to go through all the trouble of creating this unique, quasi-private entity that is exempt from everything from the (congressional) appropriations process to the civil service laws, just to give it a removal restriction that is as toothless as the president imagines.” Roberts expressed doubts about Sauer’s arguments that the president’s assertion of a cause is not reviewable, or that judges cannot reinstate a fired officer. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed doubts about the real-world effects of the administration’s arguments. “Your position,” Kavanaugh told Sauer, “that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines — I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.” Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioned why the Trump administration has denied Cook a hearing to defend herself, saying that it “would not have been that big of a deal” for Trump to sit down with Cook and lay out the alleged evidence against her. Barrett also asked Sauer about the practical implications of allowing Trump’s firing of a Fed governor. “We have amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is (fired), that would trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?” Barrett asked, adding: “If there is a risk (at this preliminary stage of the case) doesn’t that counsel caution on our part?” Sauer said that Cook was notified in August of her termination, and that has not affected the markets. Sauer urged the justices to weigh the predictions of doom for the U.S. economy by economists in briefs submitted in the case supportive of Cook with a “jaundiced eye.” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in September ruled that Trump’s attempt to remove Cook without notice or a hearing likely violated her right to due process under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Cobb also found that the mortgage fraud allegations likely were not a legally sufficient cause to remove a Fed governor under the law, noting that the alleged conduct occurred before she served in the Fed post. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined Trump’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold. ‘YOU’RE FIRED’ Conservative and liberal justices alike posed sharp questions to Sauer on his contention that Cook was not entitled to formal notice and a hearing before removal by the president. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Sauer what such a hearing would look like and whether Cook would have a right to legal counsel. Sauer responded that the court in the past has been very reluctant to “dictate procedures to the president” and that it would be up for Trump to decide. “Calling Ms. Cook into the (White House) Roosevelt Room, sitting across a conference table, listening for, I don’t know how long, how much evidence is a lawyer required, and then making a decision? Could that suffice?” Gorsuch asked, adding: “Just a meeting across a conference table finished with, ‘You’re fired’?” Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer on what basis should the justices conclude that the Fed is “an executive branch agency and hence that the president does have a removal authority.” “There’s an academic dispute about whether or not the Federal Reserve’s Open Market operations constitute executive power or something else, essentially private conduct. However, Congress has over the years kind of packed on traditional executive powers on the Federal Reserve,” Sauer replied. As a Fed governor, Cook helps set U.S. monetary policy with the rest of the central bank’s seven-member board and the heads of the 12 regional Fed banks. Her term in the job runs to 2038. Cook was appointed in 2022 by Democratic former President Joe Biden as the first Black woman to serve in the post. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer to reconcile two seemingly conflicting positions: his claim the president has broad discretion to remove a Fed governor and his recognition that Congress included tenure protections for Fed governors to shield the Fed’s independence from White House interference. “How does that further the aims of the statute?” Jackson asked. Alito voiced skepticism toward Clement’s argument that a Fed governor’s conduct before taking office cannot provide a basis for removal by the president, asking Cook’s attorney to address a series of increasingly egregious hypothetical scenarios. “How about if, after the person assumes office, videos are disclosed in which the office holder is expressing deep admiration for Hitler or for the Klan?” Alito asked. AGENCY INDEPENDENCE In prior cases, the Supreme Court chipped away at the independence of various federal agencies from presidential control, and could soon overrule a key precedent that has shielded the heads of independent agencies from removal since 1935. But the court last year signaled it may view the central bank as an exception, noting in a May ruling that let Trump remove two Democratic members of federal labor boards that the Fed possesses a unique structure and historical tradition. The Supreme Court has backed Trump in a series of emergency rulings since he returned to the presidency on immigration, mass federal layoffs, cutting foreign aid, dismantling the Education Department and other matters. The president sought to fire Cook on August 25 by posting a termination letter on social media citing the mortgage fraud allegations disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee. The administration ‍this month opened a criminal investigation into Powell over remarks he made to Congress last year about a Fed building project, a move he similarly called a pretext aimed at gaining influence over monetary policy. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe, John Kruzel and David Lawder in Washington and Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Editing by Will Dunham)

The European Union, one of America’s largest trading partners, voted on Wednesday to pause a trade deal with the United States that was initially agreed upon last summer. The finalization of the major trade deal is now uncertain over the bloc’s opposition to President Donald Trump’s efforts to acquire Greenland. European Parliament member Bernd Lange said that Trump’s plans to impose a 10% tariff on European countries that oppose his Greenland push go against the framework of the U.S.-E.U. trade deal, CNBC reported. Lange pointed to Trump’s remarks at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, when the president said that he would continue to push for control of Greenland and called for “immediate negotiations.” “I guess he didn’t revise his position,” Lange said. “He wants to have Greenland as part of the United States as quick as possible.” Lange, the chair of Parliament’s International Trade Committee, added in a statement that the European Union will pause its work on the trade deal “until the US decides to re-engage on a path of cooperation rather than confrontation,” Fox Business reported. While the United States and the European Union agreed to the trade deal’s framework last year, it can’t go into effect until the European Parliament gives final approval. During his speech, Trump said he would not use military force to take over Greenland, which Lange called a positive development, but the European Parliament member added that until Trump takes the additional tariff threat off the table, “There will be no possibility of compromise.” Lange called Trump’s tariff threats “an attack against the economic and territorial sovereignty of the European Union.” Trump imposed tariffs on European countries shortly after being sworn in last year as part of his massive “Liberation Day” tariff agenda, and the European Union responded with tariffs on U.S. goods. The White House announced a trade agreement with the European Union last August, saying that the bloc “intends to eliminate tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and to provide preferential market access for a wide range of U.S. seafood and agricultural goods.” As part of the deal’s framework, the Trump administration agreed to drop the tariff rate on the European Union to 15%. European countries have roundly criticized Trump over his plan to take over Greenland, but the president continues to argue that the United States needs the territory for national security. Greenland controls its own internal affairs, but Denmark oversees the territory and guarantees its security. While speaking in front of world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Trump said the United States needs Greenland to stop the “bad guys.” Trump has repeatedly claimed that China and Russia have their eyes set on conquering Greenland, which would threaten U.S. and global security. “All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we’ve already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others in World War II,” Trump said. “We gave it back to them.” “So we want a piece of ice for world protection,” Trump added. “And they won’t give it. … They have a choice: you can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no. And, we will remember.”

During President Donald Trump’s first term, his musings about acquiring Greenland were widely dismissed as a joke, serving as fodder for memes and late-night punchlines. In his second term, however, Trump has pressed the idea more seriously, raising it face-to-face with world leaders on Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his remarks, Trump described Greenland as ‘part of North America’ and argued that it is essential to both his proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system and the broader protection of U.S. national security. “No nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States,” Trump said, arguing that Denmark, which owns the autonomous territory, had failed to meet its NATO obligations to defend it. In recent weeks, Trump has argued that both China and Russia pose a threat to the world’s largest island in the strategic Arctic. Biggest moment: Trump rules out force to take Greenland. “I don’t have to use force, I don’t want to use force, I won’t use force.” pic.twitter.com/PzOLorkjrR — Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) January 21, 2026 While Trump left open the possibility of military action as he set the stage for negotiations, he reassured the Davos audience that force would not be used, to the great relief of European countries. “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable,” Trump said, before quickly adding, “But I won’t do that… I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.” Trump leaned heavily on World War II history, recounting how American forces moved into Greenland after Denmark fell to Nazi Germany in 1940, establishing bases to prevent enemy powers from gaining a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. He called the move to return Greenland to Denmark after the war foolish.  “How stupid were we to do that? But we did it,” he said, adding that the island was “much more necessary now” than it had been decades earlier. Trump on the U.S. controlling Greenland in WWII: “When Denmark fell to Germany after just six hours of fighting and was totally unable to defend either itself or Greenland. So the United States was then compelled—we did it, we felt an obligation to do it—to send our own forces… pic.twitter.com/PnRdu0ISHn — Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) January 21, 2026 Trump rejected claims that he wants the island for its rare minerals, saying instead that Greenland’s value is a matter of national security, given its “key strategic location between the United States, Russia, and China.” He said that if there were to be a large war, “missiles would be flying right over the center of that piece of ice.” He also noted that past presidents tried to buy the island—likely referring to President Harry Truman, who in 1946 offered $100 million in gold along with rights to a tract of Alaskan oil. “But there’s so much rare earth, and to get to this rare earth, you’ve got to go through hundreds of feet of ice,” he said. “That’s not the reason we need it. We need it for strategic national security and international security.” He added that Greenland is “on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere.” “That’s our territory,” he said. Trump criticized Greenland’s defenses, claiming that Denmark failed to follow through with its pledge to invest $200 million to strengthen its security. “No sign of Denmark there,” Trump said, leaving out the joke he has made in recent weeks that Greenland is defended by dog sleds. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us,” he said. “And that’s the reason I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States.” The president repeatedly criticized NATO during his speech, saying the United States does far more to defend Europe than it receives in return and therefore should be granted Greenland. Trump makes the case that NATO owes Greenland to the United States: “What we have gotten out of NATO is nothing except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and now Russia. We pay for NATO. And all we’re asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title, and ownership,… pic.twitter.com/rfUCu0UUWh — Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) January 21, 2026 “What we have gotten out of NATO is nothing except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and now Russia,” he said. “We pay for NATO and all we’re asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title, and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it.” During a question-and-answer session with World Economic Forum President Børge Brende after his speech, Trump said Denmark is a “small country” spending “hundreds of millions to run it.” “It’s a very big piece of ice. It’s very important that we use that for national and international security. That can create a power that will make it impossible for the bad guys to do anything against the perceived good ones.”

As a survivor of Saddam Hussein’s attempted genocide of the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, Sarkawt Shamsulddin knows what American resolve can mean for persecuted people. He and his family were spared thanks to an American-imposed “No Fly Zone”. So when he sent us the article below warning of rising persecution in Syria — accelerated by the release of thousands of ISIS fighters from prison — we took notice. Sarkawt knows the region’s tribes, sects, and power dynamics. He also knows the local Kurds, Christians, Druze, and Yazidis now face renewed danger. He’s not asking for American boots on the ground or nation-building. But he is asking for American leverage in Syria. — Joel Kneedler * * * The United States has long been the world’s most generous defender of persecuted peoples. After the Holocaust, America said “never again” and meant it. From the Balkans to Africa to the mountains of Kurdistan, when minorities faced extermination, America intervened. I am alive today because of that commitment. In the 1991, Saddam Hussein was slaughtering Kurds. The United States led a global coalition to establish a No-Fly Zone over the Kurdistan Region of Iraq that saved millions of lives — including mine. Today, Kurdistan is a multicultural, religiously tolerant region where no American soldier or civilian has ever been killed or harmed while the rest of Iraq became a death trap for Americans. American protection made that possible. Now, Syria’s minorities face a similar threat. And once again, America has the power to save them — without a single additional boot on the ground. A New Syria, Same Old Problems President Trump has chosen to give Syria’s new leader, Ahmed Al-Sharaa — a former jihadi turned politician — a chance. Congress aligned with the President and lifted sanctions. The administration pushed for an integration agreement between Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), America’s partners who liberated Syria from ISIS. I support giving peace a chance. But let us be clear-eyed about what is happening. The new Syrian government has no popular legitimacy. There have been no elections. No constitution has been drafted with input from Syria’s diverse communities. The country is ruled by presidential decrees with no accountability. Those who seized Damascus from Assad are rewriting Syria’s future alone — without Kurds, Christians, Druze, Yazidis, or any other minority at the table. This is not democracy. This is conquest by another name. Broken Promises, Rising Violence On January 16, 2026 the United States brokered a deal asking the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to withdraw from Arab-majority cities like Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in exchange for integration and unity and giving Kurdish dominated areas special status. The SDF complied in good faith — they withdrew. Damascus, however, did not honor its side of the deal. Mohammad Daher/NurPhoto via Getty Images Instead, militias aligned with Turkey — wearing Syrian government uniforms — incited tribal rebellions, advanced into vacated territories, and emptied ISIS prisons. Thousands of ISIS fighters are now free, blending into communities under Damascus control. The very enemy our American partners defeated is being unleashed again. These militias have already committed multiple war crimes, including massacres against Kurds and other minorities. Now they are advancing on Kobani — the city that became a global symbol of resistance against ISIS — and Hasakah province, which houses hundreds of thousands of displaced minorities who fled violence elsewhere. A leaked document from Syria’s Ministry of Endowments frames this conflict as Futuhat — Islamic Conquest — justifying violence against communities as religiously sanctioned. This is not integration. This is ethnic and religious cleansing with official blessing. America Has Done This Before President Trump recently threatened the Iranian regime with overthrow if they continued mass executions of protesters. Iran stopped — at least for now. American leverage, when applied, works. The United States is currently the guarantor of Syria’s new government. Washington lifted sanctions. Washington brokered deals. Washington gave Damascus legitimacy. That means Washington has leverage — enormous leverage — to demand that minorities be protected. Last year, Syrian forces attacked Sweida province and were on their way to wipe out the Druze community until Israel intervened and stopped the advance. The Druze survived because a foreign power drew a red line. Syria’s Kurds, Christians, and Yazidis need America to draw that same line. What Congress Can Do The SDF has significant military capability to defend itself. But military power alone cannot guarantee long-term stability for minorities in Syria. What these communities need is official American recognition and protection within a unified Syrian state — not division, but local autonomy that prevents Damascus-aligned militias from committing massacres. Congress should pass a resolution recognizing the special status of minority communities in northeastern Syria and calling on the administration to condition continued engagement with Damascus on verifiable protections for these populations. This is not nation-building. This is not regime change. This is America saying: if you want our support, you cannot slaughter the people who fought alongside us. No additional troops required. Just recognition. Just leverage. Just the moral clarity that has defined American foreign policy at its best. The Cost of Inaction The communities now facing annihilation in Syria are the same ones who bled alongside American soldiers to destroy the ISIS caliphate. They liberated territory far beyond their own homelands because America asked them to. They guarded tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners because the world had nowhere else to put them. If America abandons them now — if we allow Damascus and its militia allies to conduct ethnic cleansing while we look away — we will not just betray our partners. We will prove to every future ally that American promises mean nothing. And we will watch ISIS rise again from the chaos, just as it did before. President Trump wants to give Syria’s new government a chance. So do I. But that chance must come with conditions. Protection for minorities is not optional — it is the minimum price of American legitimacy. Congress has the power to act. The President has the leverage to enforce it. The only question is whether America will once again stand for the persecuted — or stand aside while they are destroyed. History is watching. So are Syria’s minorities. * * * Sarkawt Shamsulddin is a a former member of the Iraqi Parliament, non-resident fellow at Atlantic Council (2022-2025), founder and CEO of US Iraq Advisory Group The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Beneath the glittering facade of a $400 million ballroom project, President Trump is demolishing and rebuilding the White House’s nuclear bunker, a classified operation that officials argue is so critical to national security that construction cannot pause even for standard oversight. Dismantling History for Nuclear Preparedness The Presidential Emergency Operations Center once sheltered Vice President Cheney during the September 11 attacks and served as the secure planning site for Biden’s 2023 Ukraine trip. Now it exists only in memory. White House sources confirm with high confidence that demolition crews have eliminated all subterranean structures from the 1940s era, clearing ground for what officials describe as mission-critical upgrades. The original PEOC, commissioned in 1941 as America’s first presidential bomb shelter, evolved into a sophisticated command facility with secure communications, living quarters, and supplies designed for extended occupancy during nuclear emergencies. Eight decades of technological advancement rendered its infrastructure obsolete. The removal was no minor renovation. Everything went, from reinforced walls to communication systems, replaced by construction that White House Director of Management and Administration Joshua Fisher characterizes as addressing future needs through capabilities of a top-secret nature. The timing coincides with Trump’s second-term East Wing reconstruction project, announced as a venue for state dinners and public events funded entirely through private donations. What appeared initially as architectural vanity reveals dual purposes when excavation reaches below ground level. National Security Overrides Transparency Fisher’s December 2025 appearance before the National Capital Planning Commission offered rare public acknowledgment of what remains deliberately obscured. He referenced top-secret elements justifying why demolition proceeded before standard approvals, a deviation from typical regulatory sequences that govern federal construction in the nation’s capital. The commission, responsible for planning compliance oversight, effectively deferred to executive authority when classifications entered discussion. Court filings submitted last week make the administration’s position explicit: stopping underground work would compromise both national security and the public interest, language that insulates decisions from external scrutiny. The strategic bundling of surface and subsurface projects creates political cover while complicating accountability. Private donors fund the ballroom’s aesthetic grandeur while taxpayers finance bunker specifications that remain undisclosed. No cost estimates for the classified portions have entered public record, nor have architectural plans beyond generalities about nuclear resistance and enhanced functionality. This opacity follows precedent—previous PEOC upgrades occurred without detailed disclosure—but the scale of complete demolition and rebuilding marks new territory. The American public funds protection for leadership continuity yet learns details only through leaked fragments and carefully parsed official statements. Operational Realities During Construction White House operations continue despite the underground transformation, though not without disruption. Staff relocations accompanied the October 2025 demolition start, and contingency evacuation protocols account for the bunker’s temporary absence. Sources familiar with security planning note that alternative secure facilities exist within the broader Washington area, ensuring presidential protection remains uncompromised during the construction window. The classified nature of these arrangements prevents specific disclosure, but the administration’s willingness to demolish existing shelter implies confidence in interim solutions and timeline management. The project’s convergence with Trump’s second term raises questions about priorities and legacy. Combining personal architectural ambitions with infrastructure modernization demonstrates pragmatic resource leveraging, yet the secrecy surrounding costs and capabilities fuels speculation about preparedness motivations. Global tensions and nuclear threat assessments presumably inform timing, though officials offer no public analysis connecting current geopolitical conditions to construction urgency. The bunker will serve presidents beyond Trump’s tenure, making the investment a long-term national security asset rather than individual benefit, assuming completion meets promised nuclear survivability standards. Implications for Governance and Preparedness This reconstruction entrenches a troubling norm: using classification to shield executive actions from oversight while accessing taxpayer resources for undisclosed purposes. National security justifications carry weight, particularly regarding continuity-of-government facilities designed for worst-case scenarios, but the principle of informed consent suffers when costs and specifications remain hidden behind top-secret designations. The National Capital Planning Commission’s deferral illustrates how security claims override regulatory checks, concentrating decision-making authority without corresponding accountability mechanisms. Short-term operational disruptions fade, but precedents for opacity persist. Long-term, a modernized bunker enhances America’s capacity to maintain leadership functionality during nuclear or catastrophic events, a capability that justifies significant investment given existential stakes. The 1940s infrastructure that served eight decades required replacement, and delaying upgrades until crisis conditions emerge would constitute negligence. Whether the current approach balances legitimate security needs with appropriate transparency remains contested. Defense contractors specializing in hardened facilities likely benefit from related classified work, though specific contracts and technologies remain beyond public view. What persists is certainty that beneath Washington’s ceremonial architecture, preparations for unthinkable scenarios advance regardless of who occupies the offices above. Sources: https://economictimes.com/news/international/us/is-trump-building-a-secret-white-house-bunker-reports-fuel-nuclear-shelter-speculation/articleshow/126851563.cms https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-makeover-underground-bunker-b2904108.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Emergency_Operations_Center

'Aren't pursuing an ideological agenda'

Trump likes immigrants.

Several days after the CES show floor, it becomes clear to the attendees which products are still searching for a purpose and which ones already know what they are. Rokid Ai Glasses Style fell into the latter category. Trying the newest Style model at Rokid’s booth, the glasses were light, comfortable, and unassuming enough to […]

Immoral or stupid or wrong