Trump endorses Irish reunification, breaking with decades of U.S. policy

Politics — 2026-09-12 15:25:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

Donald Trump Breaks U.S. Neutrality on Irish Reunification, Stirring Diplomatic Concerns

In a significant departure from longstanding U.S. policy, Donald Trump’s recent comments broke with the nation’s traditional neutrality on the question of reuniting the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—a highly sensitive issue in the United Kingdom. Trump’s remarks have drawn attention for their potential to disrupt a delicate balance that U.S. administrations have maintained for decades.

Trump’s Position on Irish Reunification

Trump’s comments, as reported, represent a clear shift from the established U.S. stance of not taking sides on the matter of Irish reunification. By expressing a position on this contentious issue, Trump has inserted himself into a debate that has deep historical and political implications for both Ireland and the U.K.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Departure from Tradition

Historically, the United States has avoided making public statements that could be interpreted as favoring one side in the debate over Northern Ireland’s status. This neutrality has been a cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy, especially since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which helped bring peace to the region. Trump’s willingness to break with this approach marks a notable change and has raised concerns among diplomats and policymakers.

Potential Impact and Diplomatic Fallout

By abandoning neutrality, Trump risks inflaming tensions between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, as well as within Northern Ireland itself. His comments could be seen as undermining the peace process and complicating U.S. relations with both countries. The sensitivity of the issue means that any perceived favoritism can have far-reaching consequences for stability and diplomatic relations.

Conclusion: A Risky Shift in U.S. Policy

Trump’s break with longstanding U.S. neutrality on Irish reunification is a significant and controversial move. By taking a public stance on this sensitive issue, he has challenged decades of careful diplomacy and raised questions about the future direction of U.S. involvement in the region. The full impact of his comments remains to be seen, but they have already sparked debate and concern among international observers.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/09/12/trump-dublin-says-he-would-love-see-irish-reunification/

Trump asks Smithsonian to install ‘Colossus statue’ of George Washington with exhibit | Donald Trump

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-09-12 14:32:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Pushes for Monumental Changes at Smithsonian, Attacks Museum’s Historical Focus

Donald Trump has called on the Smithsonian Institution to install a 30-foot “Colossus statue” of George Washington outside the National Museum of American History and to create a special exhibit honoring the nation’s first president. In a social media post late Friday, Trump requested that the exhibit run through February 2032, marking the 300th anniversary of Washington’s birth. “He is easily America’s Greatest Hero. Without him, our Country and our Freedoms wouldn’t exist,” Trump posted on Truth Social while en route to his golf course in Ireland.

Trump’s Demands and Attacks on the Smithsonian

Trump’s proposal would replace the existing Infinity sculpture by New York artist José de Rivera, a federally commissioned piece that has stood since 1967. This latest demand highlights Trump’s ongoing efforts to reshape the nation’s cultural institutions according to his vision. His administration issued a 162-page report in March 2025, accusing the Smithsonian of focusing excessively on themes of oppression, social justice, and division, rather than celebrating shared national achievements.

In July, Trump ordered the Interior Department to display signs in front of the National Museum of American History, accusing the institution of inaccuracy and directing that exhibits be renovated in line with the administration’s report. Those signs have not yet appeared.

False Claims and Distortions

In his Friday post, Trump complained that the Smithsonian does not mention Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River during the Revolutionary War, which he described as “one of the greatest moments and turning points of the Revolution.” He also claimed that Washington’s victory at Trenton is not mentioned, insisting that “stories of the Americans who fought and died for our Independence, deserve far more attention.” However, the museum does include references to these events in its exhibits and educational materials, contradicting Trump’s assertion.

Trump further criticized the museum’s recently ended Center for Restorative History, which highlighted stories previously excluded from the national narrative. He called for its replacement with a “Center for American Heroes,” reflecting his continued push to recast the nation’s historical memory.

Limits to Presidential Authority

Despite Trump’s directives, it is not clear that he has the power to order such changes. The Smithsonian operates independently of the executive branch, overseen by a board of regents that includes figures such as JD Vance, Chief Justice John Roberts, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers and citizens. Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch, who recently announced his departure, emphasized the institution’s independence in the face of political pressure.

Expanding Influence Over Arts and Culture

Trump’s administration has also sought to expand its reach into other cultural institutions. For Constitution Day, he asked the Smithsonian to display another statue of Washington featured at a recent IndyCar race. The Kennedy Center, whose board is largely composed of Trump appointees, recently removed a sculpture by the late Joel Shapiro without public notice or consultation.

Trump’s focus on statues is consistent with his previous proposals, such as the “Garden of Heroes” along the Potomac River and the installation of a Washington statue in the White House Rose Garden. The administration has also targeted art it deems “woke,” with the State Department considering the sale of a Kehinde Wiley painting removed from the U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest demands and public attacks on the Smithsonian reflect a broader campaign to reshape how American history is presented in the nation’s most prominent museums. His repeated false claims about the museum’s content and disparagement of its focus on social justice are part of a pattern of attempting to control the national narrative. While the Smithsonian’s independence is being challenged, its leadership has vowed to resist political interference and uphold its mission to present a comprehensive and accurate account of American history.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/12/trump-smithsonian-george-washington-statue-exhibit

Saudi Arabia has few options as it faces mounting threats from Iran and its allies

Donald Trump — 2026-09-12 12:28:00 — www.politico.com

President Trump Reluctant to Expand U.S. Role in Mideast Conflict as Houthi Threats Escalate

President Donald Trump appears hesitant to broaden America’s involvement in the ongoing Middle East conflict, even as Houthi rebels threaten a vital Red Sea shipping route. This stance comes at a time when the war’s unpopularity continues to grow both domestically and internationally.

Trump’s reluctance to widen the conflict is a notable position, especially given the strategic importance of the Red Sea for global trade and security. The president’s approach signals a desire to avoid deeper military entanglement, despite mounting pressure as the situation with the Houthi rebels intensifies.

While the excerpt does not cite any specific false claims or disparagements made by Trump regarding this issue, it clearly attributes to him a cautious posture toward escalating U.S. military involvement. This position stands in contrast to previous moments in his presidency when Trump has taken a more aggressive stance in the region.

In summary, President Trump’s expressed reluctance to expand the U.S. role in the Middle East reflects both the complexities of the conflict and the political risks associated with further military action. As the situation develops, Trump’s approach will remain a focal point for policymakers and the public alike, highlighting the ongoing debate over America’s role in the region.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/12/saudi-arabia-has-few-options-as-it-faces-mounting-threats-from-iran-and-its-allies-01073550

Republicans fear they have a North Carolina problem

Politics — 2026-09-12 13:00:00 — www.politico.com

President Trump Acknowledges GOP Struggles in North Carolina Senate Race

President Donald Trump has publicly recognized the uphill battle facing Republicans in North Carolina’s Senate contest, a race that could prove pivotal in determining control of the Senate. Speaking at the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas, Trump addressed the challenges head-on, stating, “Now in North Carolina, you have a little more difficult case, because people don’t quite get it, but they’re going to find out,” while reaffirming his support for Michael Whatley, the Republican nominee and Trump’s former handpicked Republican National Committee chair.

Trump’s remarks come as public polling consistently shows Democrat Roy Cooper leading Whatley by double digits among likely voters. The president’s acknowledgment reflects growing anxiety within Republican ranks, as party strategists and operatives question whether even a substantial influx of campaign cash can reverse the current trajectory.

The White House has announced that Trump will travel to Gastonia, North Carolina, for a campaign rally with Whatley in an effort to energize the Republican base. Allies of Whatley’s campaign hope the president’s visit will motivate right-leaning voters who tend to engage late in the election cycle.

Despite significant spending commitments from Republican super PACs, including $71 million pledged by the Senate Leadership Fund and additional millions from groups aligned with Trump’s MAGA Inc., the state’s expensive media markets and Cooper’s polling advantage present ongoing hurdles.

Trump’s direct acknowledgment of the “difficult case” in North Carolina signals a rare moment of candor about Republican vulnerabilities in a state that has historically leaned red at the presidential level. As the campaign enters its final stretch, the outcome in North Carolina remains uncertain, with both parties bracing for a potentially close and hard-fought race.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/12/gop-anxiety-grows-north-carolina-senate-race-01073311

Taxes wouldn’t fund $5,000 Trump ‘dividend’ if Republicans win midterms, says commerce secretary | Trump administration

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-09-12 09:38:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Touts $5,000 “Dividend” for Americans, Faces Scrutiny Over Funding Claims

Donald Trump has promised a $5,000 “dividend” payment to every US adult if Republicans maintain control of Congress in November’s elections, asserting that the money would not come from US tax revenues. Speaking at a Republican midterm convention rally in Dallas, Trump said he would issue the dividends “because of our tremendous strength and success economically,” and compared the proposal to a previous one-time, tax-free $1,776 “Warrior Dividend” for military service members.

Trump suggested the $1 trillion plan could be funded in part by tariff revenue, telling the crowd, “If the Republicans win, you win with us, and you get $5,000,” and branding the payment “the Trump dividend.” However, the proposal has drawn widespread criticism, especially as the US national debt recently surpassed $40 trillion, nearly quadrupling since 2008.

Dubious Funding Sources and Fact-Check Concerns

Administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have echoed Trump’s claim that the payments would not be sourced from taxpayers or the deficit. Lutnick floated the idea of raising funds by charging wealthy visitors up to $5 million to extend their visas, estimating this could generate $500 billion. He also pointed to the government’s investment in chipmaker Intel, which has appreciated significantly in market value.

Despite these assertions, the feasibility of Trump’s funding plan is highly questionable. The Supreme Court has ruled that revenue from Trump’s “liberation day” 2025 import tariffs must be returned, and a previous proposal to return $2,000 to taxpayers from tariff receipts exceeded the actual revenue raised, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. This casts doubt on Trump’s repeated suggestion that tariffs could cover the cost of the $5,000 dividend.

Public Skepticism and Economic Realities

Trump’s proposal comes as public approval of his handling of the economy has declined, with a recent Associated Press poll showing only 32% of US adults expressing support, down from 40% at the start of his second term. Critics argue that the plan is not only fiscally unrealistic but also misleading, given the immense scale of the national debt and the lack of viable, non-taxpayer funding sources.

Conclusion

While Trump continues to promote the $5,000 “Trump dividend” as a reward for Republican electoral success, fact-checks and legal rulings challenge the credibility of his funding claims. The proposal highlights ongoing concerns about the accuracy of Trump’s economic promises and the potential consequences for the nation’s fiscal health. As the debate continues, Americans are left to weigh campaign rhetoric against economic realities.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/12/trump-midterm-dividend-funding

Americans remember the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks 25 years ago

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-09-11 17:55:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Links Iran War Support to 9/11 Memory at 25th Anniversary Ceremony

At a Pentagon memorial marking the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, President Donald Trump praised the sacrifice of the U.S. military and invoked the memory of 9/11 to justify ongoing conflict. Trump stated, “In 25 years, a generation has passed since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Yet time has not dimmed the honor of that day when our country came face-to-face with true evil.” He further declared, “We will never, ever forget. That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice. There can only be victory. We fight hard. We fight to win.”

Trump’s remarks notably tied support for the Iran war to the memory of 9/11, a move that stands out from the more somber and apolitical tone of previous anniversary ceremonies. His comments come as families, survivors, and dignitaries gathered at sites in New York, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to honor the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the attacks.

The ceremonies also included calls for greater transparency regarding Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks, with some victims’ relatives accusing the government of withholding information. Despite these calls for accountability and unity, Trump’s speech emphasized a narrative of ongoing conflict, using the memory of 9/11 to justify military action.

As the nation reflects on the legacy of September 11, Trump’s remarks highlight the continued politicization of the tragedy and the ways in which its memory is invoked in support of current policy decisions. The anniversary serves as a reminder of the enduring impact of 9/11 on American society and politics.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/americans-remember-the-lives-lost-in-the-9-11-attacks-25-years-ago

Trump Says Irish Unification Would Be ‘Fantastic,’ Breaking With Precedent

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-09-12 08:40:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Breaks U.S. Neutrality, Calls for Irish Unification and Attacks Political Rivals in Dublin Remarks

Shortly after arriving in Dublin, President Trump openly called for the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a stance that breaks with decades of U.S. neutrality on a deeply sensitive issue. “I’d love to see it unified,” Trump said while standing alongside Ireland’s prime minister, Micheál Martin, adding, “It’s going to happen eventually.” He further described the prospect as “fantastic” and “a cool thing,” even as he acknowledged the political controversy his comments would likely provoke.

Contradicting Longstanding U.S. Policy

The United States has historically supported the 1998 Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland and established that the region would remain part of the United Kingdom unless a majority voted otherwise in a referendum. Trump’s remarks, which suggest support for unification outside of that process, represent a significant departure from this established policy.

Earlier in the year, Trump had also floated the idea of a “merger” between Northern Ireland and Ireland, a comment that was later dismissed as a joke by Northern Ireland’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. On this occasion, Trump appeared to recognize the sensitivity of the issue, joking to a room of embassy employees and business leaders that “no matter how well you say it, there’s no good answer.”

Political Fallout and Criticism

Trump’s comments came just days after British Prime Minister Andy Burnham stated there was not enough public support for a referendum on Northern Ireland’s status, reiterating that no vote would occur without such support. Trump himself admitted that the British government would likely “have something to say about” his remarks.

The reaction was swift. Gavin Robinson, leader of Northern Ireland’s main pro-union party, criticized Trump on social media, emphasizing that “Northern Ireland’s constitutional future will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland, not by commentary in London, Dublin or Washington.”

Attacks on Political Opponents

In another break from presidential norms, Trump used his Dublin speech to repeatedly attack Democrats, including disparaging former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has cancer, as physically infirm. Such attacks on domestic rivals while abroad are highly unconventional for an American president.

Conclusion

President Trump’s remarks in Dublin have drawn sharp criticism for both breaking with longstanding U.S. policy on Northern Ireland and for using an overseas platform to attack political opponents. His statements have reignited debate over the future of Northern Ireland and highlighted his willingness to depart from diplomatic norms, both at home and on the world stage.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/12/world/europe/trump-ireland-unification-remarks.html

Trump pledges $5K checks if Republicans do well in the midterms. Can he legally do that?

Administration News — 2026-09-12 05:00:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Promises $5,000 to Every U.S. Adult if Republicans Win Midterms, Drawing Legal Scrutiny

President Trump has pledged to give $5,000 to every U.S. adult if Republicans maintain control of both chambers of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. The announcement, made on the first night of the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas, has quickly raised questions about the legality of such a promise.

The so-called “Trump dividends” proposal has sparked widespread debate, with critics and legal experts questioning whether the plan could cross legal lines. The offer of direct cash payments to voters, tied explicitly to the outcome of an election, is highly unusual and may raise concerns about vote-buying or improper inducements under federal law.

Fact-Checking the Pledge

President Trump’s pledge stands out as an extraordinary campaign promise, with no precedent for a sitting president offering such a large, direct financial incentive to American adults based on election results. The legality and feasibility of distributing $5,000 to every adult in the country remain unclear, and the announcement has not been accompanied by details on how the payments would be funded or administered.

Conclusion

President Trump’s announcement of “Trump dividends” has injected controversy into the midterm election campaign, raising significant legal and ethical questions. As scrutiny intensifies, the proposal highlights ongoing concerns about the boundaries of campaign promises and the potential for misleading or legally questionable statements from political leaders.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6085556-trump-midterm-dividend-legal-questions/

Federal court rejects Trump administration order keeping Michigan coal plant open

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-09-11 18:02:00 — www.pbs.org

President Trump Cited “National Energy Emergency” to Justify Keeping Aging Coal Plants Open, Court Finds No Real Emergency

A federal court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration’s energy policy, ruling that the Department of Energy (DOE) overstepped its authority when it forced a Michigan coal-fired power plant to remain open past its planned retirement. President Donald Trump had declared a national energy emergency in January 2025, citing increased electricity demand from artificial intelligence and data center growth as justification for emergency orders that kept multiple aging coal plants operating across the country.

Court Rejects Trump’s Emergency Justification

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously found that there was “no real emergency under the law” to justify the DOE’s actions. The court emphasized that the relevant section of the Federal Power Act is intended as a “narrow, last-resort backstop,” only to be used when immediate, last-resort action is required and when states cannot address the situation themselves.

The court described the reversal of the Campbell plant’s “long and carefully planned retirement” as “disruptive,” directly contradicting the Trump administration’s claims of urgent necessity.

Critics Call Trump’s Move a “Political Stunt”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and other critics labeled the administration’s emergency orders as an “unlawful political stunt,” arguing that Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency was a manufactured crisis. Nessel stated, “this administration does not get to invent fake emergencies to bypass the rule of law against the best interests of Michigan residents.”

Financial and Environmental Costs

The court’s decision comes after the Trump administration’s orders kept not only the Michigan plant but also coal plants in Indiana, Colorado, Florida, and Washington state running, despite their scheduled closures. Critics say these orders have raised utility bills and increased air and water pollution that could have been avoided. Keeping the Michigan plant open past its May 2025 retirement has already cost about $259 million, a burden likely to fall on families and businesses in the Midwest.

Environmental groups argue that the administration’s actions forced “unreliable, aging coal plants that are bleeding money and polluting communities to stay online,” and that these plants are “incredibly expensive, dangerous to our health and break down frequently.”

Conclusion

President Trump’s use of emergency powers to keep coal plants operating has been sharply rebuked by the federal courts, which found no legal basis for the claimed emergency. The ruling highlights the administration’s pattern of exaggerating threats to justify controversial policy decisions, resulting in higher costs and increased pollution for American communities. As legal challenges continue, the court’s decision sends a clear message about the limits of executive authority and the importance of adhering to the rule of law.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-court-rejects-trump-administration-order-keeping-michigan-coal-plant-open

Federal Judge Poised to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Library

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-09-11 20:16:00 — www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump Outlines Ambitious Plans for Miami Presidential Library Amid Legal Scrutiny

Donald Trump has said that his proposed presidential library in downtown Miami would feature not only traditional exhibits but also businesses such as a hotel and retail stores. The development, which could include a golden escalator reminiscent of his 2015 campaign launch and a gilded statue of Trump raising a fist, is estimated to cost $1 billion and would be funded entirely by private individuals, corporations, and organizations. Trump has also stated that the library could house the $400 million Boeing 747 that Qatar gave him as a replacement for the older Air Force One.

The project has drawn legal challenges after the state of Florida donated a valuable downtown parcel, once used as a parking lot for Miami-Dade College and now estimated to be worth as much as $300 million, to Trump’s library foundation. The foundation counts Trump’s son Eric among its trustees. Nearby residents and a corporation led by historian Marvin Dunn filed a lawsuit, arguing that Trump, his foundation, and Florida officials violated the Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting money or gifts from states.

Trump’s stated plans for the library, including the addition of commercial businesses and the use of a high-value state-donated property, have intensified debate over the intersection of private gain and public office. The legal challenge is further complicated by recent court rulings affirming broad presidential immunity, which may prevent the lawsuit from moving forward.

As the court considers whether to dismiss the case without the usual fact-finding process, Trump’s vision for his library—and the controversy surrounding it—remains at the center of a national conversation about presidential legacy, ethics, and accountability.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/11/us/politics/trump-library-legal-action.html