Daily Caller
‘He’s Willing To Hit Them Hard’: American Adversaries Pull Out The Stops To Derail Trump’s White House Bid
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.
Daily Caller
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.
A few conclusions are fairly clear:
First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.
Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.
Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”
Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.
The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.
How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?
In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.
So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.
However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.
And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”
Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”
The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.
The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either
The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?
Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.
Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?
These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.
The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.
“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.
Daily Caller
Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.
The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”
“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.
“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.
“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.
WATCH:
“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.
“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.
Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”
The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”
“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”
“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.
“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
-
Daily Caller24 hours agoDemocrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump
-
Uncategorized2 days agoCost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts
-
Addictions2 days agoActivists Claim Dealers Can Fix Canada’s Drug Problem
-
Alberta2 days agoEdmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
-
Agriculture2 days agoFederal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Daily Caller23 hours agoALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’


