Trump Tells German Chancellor D-Day Was 'Not A Pleasant Day For You'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that D-Day—the day Allied forces invaded Normandy, France, during World War II—was "not a great day" for Germany.
What To Know
Trump made his comments while he and Merz spoke to reporters during Merz's White House visit on Thursday.
Merz pointed out that the anniversary of D-Day is on Friday, saying it was when "the Americans ... ended the war in Europe."
"That was not a pleasant day for you," Trump responded.
"No, that was not a pleasant—well—" Merz began before Trump interjected.
"This was not a great day," Trump said.
Merz cut in: "In the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship."
"That's true," Trump said.
Merz went on to say that "we know what we owe you," adding that the U.S. can play a similarly crucial role in bringing an end to Russia's war against Ukraine.
"America is, again, in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war, so let's talk about what we can do jointly," the German chancellor said. "We are ready to do what we can and you know that we gave support to Ukraine and that we are looking for more pressure on Russia ... we should talk about that."
MERZ: Tomorrow is the D Day anniversary, when the Americans ended a war in Europe
TRUMP: That was not a pleasant day for you? This is not a great day
MERZ: This was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship pic.twitter.com/rcEDGopjVy — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2025
President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump, right, meets Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington.
Evan Vucci/AP
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin officials blast LA Mayor Karen Bass' response to ICE raids — as cops clash with violent protesters
Several Trump administration officials fired back at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Friday after she pledged to oppose federal efforts to nab illegal immigrants — as cops in her city had to use flash bangs to disperse the violent mob of protesters who descended on the arrest sites. 'We will not stand for this,' Bass said in a statement released after federal immigration authorities arrested 44 people in raids across Los Angeles. 'I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' the Democrat mayor fumed, noting that her office 'is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations.' Advertisement 4 Bass slammed the Los Angeles immigration enforcement raids in a social media post. AFP via Getty Images White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller quickly dismissed Bass' declaration. 'You have no say in this at all,' Miller shot back on social media. Advertisement 'Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced,' he noted on X. Miller was one of several Trump administration officials that took issue with Bass' statements. 'They're Illegals. Not 'immigrants.' One just tried to burn Americans alive in Boulder,' White House adviser Sebastian Gorka wrote on X, referring to Colorado terror suspect Mohamed Soliman. The Egyptian national overstayed his tourist visa before allegedly firebombing a peaceful march for Israeli hostages still held by Hamas on Sunday in a heinous antisemitic attack. Advertisement 'If you're aiding and abetting them you're a criminal too,' Gorka said in response to the LA mayor's comments. 'Are you ready to be treated as a criminal? 'Because we are ready to treat you as one if you commit a crime,' he warned. 4 Miller noted that Bass has 'no say' in federal immigration enforcement. Chris Kleponis – CNP / MEGA 4 Miller was one of several Trump administration officials who reacted strongly to Bass' statement on the ICE raids. Stephen Miller, /X Advertisement Justice Department official Harmeet K. Dhillon was stunned by Bass' understanding of the law. 'It's amazing the number of elected officials who don't grasp the basics of federalism, or federal sovereignty over immigration issues, or the First Amendment,' Dhillon tweeted. The Los Angeles immigration raids sparked protests at the arrest sites, and at least one person was taken into custody for allegedly obstructing federal law enforcement. 'Federal agents were executing a lawful judicial warrant at a LA worksite this morning when David Huerta deliberately obstructed their access by blocking their vehicle,' US Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement. 'He was arrested for interfering with federal officers and will face arraignment in federal court on Monday.' 'Let me be clear: I don't care who you are — if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted.' Huerta is president of the California branch of the influential Service Employees International Union. 4 The raids sparked protests in Los Angeles. AP Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin decried the city's response to protesters' clashes with federal agents – which escalated hours after the raids. Advertisement 'Assaulting ICE enforcement officers, slashing tires, defacing buildings. 800 protestors have surrounded and breached the first layer of a federal law enforcement building in LA,' McLaughlin wrote on X. '@LAPD has not responded.' 'This violence against @ICEgov must stop.' Richard Grenell, President Trump's envoy for special missions, blamed Bass for the unrest. 'Karen Bass whipped all of this up. She attacked the rule of law. She undermined democracy,' Grenell wrote on X, sharing images of protesters attempting to block federal law enforcement vehicles. Advertisement 'The @MayorOfLA is creating chaos in LA,' he fumed. With Post wires
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs , deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations , Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act , to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort , forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
