"Break Up Bangladesh...": Tripura Ex-Royal On "Extension Of China" Remark

04/02/25 6:40 AM

Bangladesh leader Mohd Yunus' comments about the northeastern states - which he called "an extension of the Chinese economy" and which he seemed to urge Beijing to take over - have triggered fierce reactions, including one to "break up Bangladesh".

'Bit of a mess': NY Times finds many of Trump's executive orders make no sense

04/01/25 7:30 PM

President Donald Trump has signed more than 300 executive orders since coming into office — and a New York Times reporter thinks he knows why.According to opinion writer Carlos Lozada, Trump "favors the flourish of the order over the hassle of lawmaking." After all, "Why bother assembling legislative coalitions when you can just write, 'By the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered' and then tack on whatever you like?" he asked.Lozada has read through every single Trump orders so far, and found that they laid bare "the assumptions, obsessions and contradictions of the man signing them." Lozada described Trump's orders as "a bit of a mess."ALSO READ: 'The Hard Reset': Here's how the U.S. is exporting terrorism around the worldHe continued, "Some of the orders are so generic as to be meaningless. One of the shortest declares that U.S. foreign policy must always 'put America and American citizens first.'" Another order "requires that taxpayer money should be spent 'only on making America great.' It’s hard to know how to execute such orders, other than to proclaim them."Lozada wrote that although some orders are "specific in their instructions," still "others list no precise actions but only instruct some new task force or council to think of things to do."For example, Lozada wrote, "An agency or program may receive new responsibilities in one executive order only to find itself dismantled in another. Orders sometimes echo Trump’s standard slogans, whether putting America first or making America great, without adding much meaning to them. And stylistically, they veer from formal policy pronouncement to campaign speech to social media diatribe, sometimes all within the same text."Lozada wrote that "despite the muddle — or perhaps because of it — the new administration’s orders fulfill one essential service: They affirm and expand Trump’s vision of the presidency, of politics, of our Nation...they "illuminate the president’s interpretation of America’s values — what kind of people belong herebelong here, how the nation’s history should be taught, which principles are worth upholding and defending."The trouble with executive actions, which Trump may find out one day, "do not carry the same legitimacy or endurance of laws passed by Congress and can be revoked by future presidents."Read The New York Times opinion piece here.

'Circular firing squad': Signal chat members pick scapegoats to save their jobs

03/28/25 9:13 PM

A new article in Politico claims that "what started as a group chat has turned into a circular firing squad," in the ongoing saga of the leaked war plans that no one in the Trump administration will acknowledged contained classified information.Of the 19 people who were on the Signal chat, national security adviser Mike Waltz has stepped up to take some sort of responsibility for inadvertently adding The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the list of recipients. Goldberg thought it was a joke at first but knew he needed to leave the chat once bombs actually started falling on Houthi rebels in Yemen. In his subsequent article in The Atlantic, Goldberg said he would not reveal anything that would risk national security. However, the classified information denials at House and Senate hearings convinced him to publish the entire chat the next day, which included time, location, and weapons to be used in the strike that killed a Houthi commander and possibly his girlfriend.Although the public fallout hasn't yet seen anyone losing their jobs for putting U.S. service members at risk, behind the scenes is a different story.ALSO READ: 'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs"Trump administration officials who participated in the now infamous leaked Signal chat are scrambling to minimize the political stain on themselves," wrote reporters Eric Bazail-Eimil and Amy Mackinnon. "Many are blaming the media, or Democrats, for making such a big deal about it. Some are subtly pointing fingers at each other. Others are finding ways to reframe the conversation so they become minor players, otherwise deflecting, or staying silent and hoping the storm passes over."But the lack of admission and accountability is ensuring the storm will not blow over anytime soon."While President Donald Trump has so far stood behind the officials in the group chat (in public at least), the scandal could balloon big enough that someone loses their job," wrote Bazail-Eimil and Mackinnon.On the firing line could be Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who may have perjured themselves before the congressional hearings.While some play the blame game, other Signal group chat members have remained mum on the whole affair. According to Politico, they include National Security Adviser Alex Wong, State Department chief of staff and counselor Michael Needham, National Security Council senior director Walker Barrett, National Security Council Chief of Staff Brian McCormick, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Treasury Secretary, and Dan Katz, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Read the Politico article here.