Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Daily Caller

‘He’s Willing To Hit Them Hard’: American Adversaries Pull Out The Stops To Derail Trump’s White House Bid

Published

11 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Jake Smith

Former President Donald Trump dealt with some American adversaries harshly during his first term, threatening them with military action and choking their economies. Now that Trump is on the verge of being reelected, those adversaries are panicking — and trying to prevent Trump from entering the White House.

Trump is in a dead-heat race against Vice President Kamala Harris in next Tuesday’s presidential elections. Nations making up the so-called “Axis of Evil” — especially Iran and China — have made it clear they do not want Trump to win. That’s borne in part out of anger against Trump for his actions during his first term and fear of what he will do in his second, according to a review of multiple reports.

It’s an open secret that Iran and China have attempted to interfere in elections in the past, as they are this year. Both countries have utilized a variety of methods to interfere with Trump’s bid for the White House. That’s particularly true for Iran, which has attempted to kill Trump and waged cyberwarfare operations against his campaign.

“While the Islamic Republic continues to mean what it says when it calls for ‘death to America,’ there is only one current presidential contender whom the regime and its terrorist network are trying to kill. That is Donald Trump,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a scholar on Iranian affairs at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “That is born of a clear understanding in the regime’s mind that he is the candidate of real pressure.”

Trump’s approach to Iran — the largest state sponsor of terrorism and an accomplice in the killing of scores of U.S. troops over recent years — was described by his administration as a “maximum pressure” campaign. Trump withdrew from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal in 2018, arguing that it allowed Tehran to rake in billions of dollars under eased sanctions while failing to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon. He replaced the deal with harsh sanctions that cut off many of the country’s revenue streams.

“Trump demonstrated he’s willing to hit them hard. This isn’t the same approach we’re seeing from the current administration, which is why Iran’s focus remains on Trump,” former senior Pentagon official and Strauss Center fellow Simone Ledeen told the DCNF.

Iran’s network of terrorist groups suffered from a lack of funding as a result of Trump’s approach, but remained incredibly hostile to the U.S., launching multiple attacks on American forces in the Middle East in the following year. As attacks escalated, Trump made the decision to launch a drone strike and assassinate top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani while he was visiting Iraq in 2020.

Soleimani was a pivotal figure in the Iranian military, and his death greatly angered Tehran.

“The Soleimani strike… exposed some of Iran’s vulnerabilities,” Ledeen told the DCNF.

Iran has since staged multiple unsuccessful assassination attempts against Trump through various actors. The reports on the matter have seemed to escalate in recent months as the election draws close; U.S. intelligence officials briefed the Trump campaign in September on a previous assassination operation, which failed.

Iran has also carried out various cyberwarfare campaigns against Trump ahead of the election, some of which have been successful. Iranian-backed hackers gained access to internal Trump campaign documents — specifically regarding research about Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance — and leaked it to various media outlets and reporters in August and September, only some of whom published the material.

Iranian hackers also accessed and leaked a number of internal Trump campaign emails, which made their way into public reporting. The U.S. charged three Iranian operatives for the action in late September.

“If Trump is back, I’d expect Iran to ramp up its threats,” Ledeen told the DCNF. “Another Trump term would bring renewed pressure, and Iran’s leaders know that. They’ll likely grow more desperate and aggressive as they try to hold onto control in the region, but they’re not in the position they once were.”

If Trump wins, he’ll need to be ready to face down Tehran a second time — while making it clear his contention is not with the Iranian people, who have suffered under the authoritarian Islamic regime, Taleblu told the DCNF.

“While one of the strengths of former President Trump was his ability to keep the adversary guessing, I think it’s quite clear at a minimum a future Trump administration would return to a policy of maximum pressure, and begin to put meaningful and sustained pressure on oil and petrochemical exports and financial flows,” Taleblu told the DCNF.

“What a prospective Trump administration will need to be prepared for is how Tehran might be inclined to respond to pressure with pressure of its own,” Taleblu said. “And that’s why to offset escalation by the regime, as well as to do the moral and politically astute thing, Trump will need to pair maximum pressure against the regime with a real policy of maximum support for the Iranian people.”

The Trump campaign told the DCNF that Iran is “terrified” of a second Trump presidency.

“The terror regime in Iran loves the weakness and stupidity of Kamala Harris,” spokesman Steven Cheung said.

China has also been incredibly wary of a second Trump term, according to multiple reports. Chinese officials are reportedly fearful of Trump because he appears more unpredictable than Harris.

Publicly, Beijing refuses to say who it would rather deal with. But privately, officials were previously hoping that President Joe Biden would beat out Trump in the elections because they felt Biden was less of a threat, according to officials who spoke to The Wall Street Journal earlier in October .

When Biden dropped out of the race in July, officials shifted their preference to Harris, even though neither candidate is likely that favorable to Beijing, according to the WSJ. China has expressed ire to Republican and Democratic administrations over the years and has launched cyberattack operations against both parties.

But Trump’s strict policies in particular caused headaches for officials, and they may be expecting similar policies if he wins again.

“They know a lot about what Donald Trump’s approach to government, diplomacy, trade negotiations might be, and they know a lot about what he said through the entirety of the campaign,” Steve Yates, senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute, told the DCNF. “That is a challenge to them.”

Part of the fear among Chinese officials is that Trump will launch a second trade war if reelected. During his first term, Trump imposed heavy tariffs on China, significantly raising the tax on some incoming Chinese imports and deterring Americans from buying Chinese-made goods. Trump’s goal was to balance out the U.S.-China trade relationship and compel China to buy more American goods.

Trump has already publicly mused the idea of imposing 60% tariffs on Chinese goods if he wins back the White House, something Beijing is eager to avoid.

U.S. officials have said they’ve seen evidence of China trying to interfere in this year’s elections. It was reported last week that Chinese-backed hackers targeted data on Trump’s and Vance’s phones. It wasn’t clear what, if any, information was stolen, but it could be beneficial to Beijing if anything was taken. Members of Harris’ staff were also reportedly targeted.

A spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy in the U.S. claimed that Beijing was unaware of the hacking operation.

“We cannot comment [on] it… China firmly opposes and combats cyber attacks and cyber theft in all forms,” the spokesperson said. “We hope that the U.S. side will not make accusations against China in the election.”

A number of “bot” social media accounts linked to China have also been targeting Republican congressional candidates, according to a report released last week by Microsoft’s Threat Analysis Center.

“While not always resulting in high levels of engagement, these efforts demonstrate China’s sustained attempts [to] influence U.S. politics across the board,” Clint Watts, general manager of the tech company’s agency, wrote in a post regarding the report.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper  attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that  “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Opinion: Trump Making ‘Sex’ Great Again On Day One Of Presidency

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Megan Brock

One day into his presidency, Trump has taken significant executive action to preserve the integrity of the sexes and root out gender ideology from the federal government.

Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to affirm the unique distinctions of the two sexes, male and female, and reverse the spread of gender ideology that was pushed during the Biden administration. Trump kept that promise Monday by signing an executive order (EO) titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government,” which defends the integrity of the sexes by mandating the federal government apply “clear and accurate language” that includes requiring the use of the term “sex” over “gender.”

“My Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” the EO states.

“When administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, every agency and all Federal employees acting in an official capacity on behalf of their agency shall use the term ‘sex’ and not ‘gender’ in all applicable Federal policies and documents.”

Trump’s order defines male and female as “immutable biological” classifications, noting that “sex” is not synonymous with the term “gender identity.”

“‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity’,” the EO states.

“Gender Identity” is a term used by transgender activists to describe an individual’s imagined sex. Transgender activists believe a person’s imagined sex is as real as their physical sex, and should hold equal weight in society and law.

For example, in April 2024 the Biden administration expanded Title IX regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, to include “gender identity,” giving men claiming to have a female “gender identity” full legal access to women’s sports and private spaces. A federal judge recently struck down the expanded Title IX regulations in a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration by six states, including Tennessee.

Jordanne Kemper, campaign director for Independent Women, praised Trump for protecting women by correctly defining the terms “gender identity” and “sex.”
“Words must have meaning. The radical view that ‘gender identity’ means the same things as ‘sex’ proved that when words aren’t defined, women pay the price,” said Kemper.
“President Trump’s executive order recognizes the erosion of women’s rights and denounces the conflation of ‘gender identity’ and ‘sex’. Now the government and our courts can’t misconstrue laws intended for women and girls. The American people asked for this clarity and President Trump delivered,” Kemper added.

Transgender activists often use the terms “gender” and “gender identity” interchangeably.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) described how these terms are used synonymously in their gender medical guidance, called the Standards of Care version 8 (SOC 8), which is routinely used by medical associations, governments, and insurance companies in the U.S. and abroad to create policy driven by gender ideology.

“Depending on the context, gender may reference gender identity, gender expression, and/or social gender role, including understandings and expectations culturally tied to people who were assigned male or female at birth,” the SOC 8 states.

“Gender identities other than those of men and women (who can be either cisgender or transgender) include transgender, nonbinary, genderqueer, gender neutral, agender, gender fluid, and “third” gender, among others; many other genders are recognized around the world.”

This muddying of language is found throughout medical institutions including The National Institutes of Health who define gender as “A multidimensional construct that encompasses gender identity and expression, as well as social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior as they are associated with certain sex traits.”

The Trump administration acknowledged how the corruption of language by transgender activists has had an “corrosive impact” on American society, stating: “The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system,” in the EO. “Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.”

The term “gender identity” was popularized in the 1960s by controversial sexologist John Money, whose most high-profile experiment involved advising parents of a boy whose penis was damaged in a botched circumcision to cut the rest of it off and raise him as a girl. At age 15, the boy — who was raised as “Brenda” — discovered the truth and rejected further hormone treatments. He eventually committed suicide at age 38.

Gender ideology believes a person’s sex can differ from their “gender identity,” rejecting the long-established scientific understanding of biology that there are only two sexes based on the fact there are only two types of reproductive cells — sperm and ova.

The very concept of “gender identity” creates the possibility of changing one’s sex — a biological impossibility — through medical interventions, therefore creating a demand for medical sex reassignment interventions.

WPATH defines “gender identity” in the SOC 8 as “a person’s deeply felt, internal, intrinsic sense of their own gender,” whereas the Trump administration defines it as “A fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality.”

The EO further explains that because “gender identity” is wholly subjective to the individual, it cannot be used to replace the objective reality of sex.

“‘Gender identity’ reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex,” Trump’s EO states.

Continue Reading

Trending

X