Who is Laura Loomer? Donald Trump's ‘ally' who would love to find ‘excuse to block' foreign students
After saying "Joe Biden could die in the next two months", Laura Loomer is grabbing the headlines once again as she wrote about her "dream job " of "vetting social media accounts of foreign students".
As US President Donald Trump's administration moved to block enrollment of foreign students at Harvard University, reports suggested that it is now expanding social media vetting of foreign students.
'The Trump administration is weighing requiring all foreign students applying to study in the United States to undergo social media vetting,' Politico reported earlier.
Meanwhile, US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said, "...we use every tool in our tool chest to vet anyone coming in who wants to come into this country..."
Amid such claims, Laura Loomer said that 'vetting on the social media accounts of foreign students...Sounds like a dream job for me.'
She wrote on X, 'The White House is considering doing vetting on the social media accounts of foreign students. Sounds like a dream job for me. I would love to research foreign students all day and find an excuse to block them from coming into our country based on their radicalism. Sign me up.'
Laura Loomer is a right-wing extremist and political influencer known for her controversial views and "incendiary" social media presence.
Loomer, in her early 30s, is a Florida activist and unsuccesfull political candidate who once described herself as a 'proud Islamophobe'. The Guardian described her as "the white nationalist conspiracy theorist."
As per the report, Loomer had spread conspiracy theories about mass shootings, including the Parkland school shooting in Florida. She is known for claiming the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
Loomer was also banned on some social media networks because of anti-Muslim and other remarks. According to reports, she has dubbed herself a 'proud Islamophobe".
Earlier, she had said the 'White House would smell like curry' if Kamala Harris, who is of Indian heritage, were elected as the US President.
Loomer sparred online with top Trump adviser Elon Musk over skilled workforce visas, the Associated Press reported. She has repeatedly argued that the administration's hires are being improperly vetted.
Loomer also has a podcast called Loomer Unleashed on Rumble. It's a platform known for streaming far-right figures.
Loomer has said it's her job to keep Trump on track. She has flitted in and out of the president's inner circle and claimed to be responsible for the firings of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and other aides, the Associated Press reported.
She twice unsuccessfully ran for Congress, in 2020 and 2022.
Trump had endorsed Loomer in 2020, when she had unsuccessfully ran for the House in 2020, winning a Republican primary but losing the general election that year to Democrat Lois Frankel. Later, in 2022, she switched districts, narrowly losing another primary.
In 2023, Trump praised Loomer, saying, 'You are a very opinionated lady, I have to tell you. And in my opinion, I like that.' Trump once also called her a 'strong person' and a 'free spirit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
