Donald Trump makes huge World War I blunder in fiery speech as LA riots rage
Donald Trump made a huge blunder about World War I in a fiery speech at Fort Bragg, as the U.S. continues to be rocked by riots over the President's mass deportation order
US President Donald Trump delivered a speech at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, as unrest continued in Los Angeles between protesters and ICE officials over his far-reaching deportation order.
Fort Bragg, situated near Fayetteville, North Carolina, is home to the military's Special Operations Command, which includes elite units such as the Green Berets and Rangers.
During his address, Trump made a significant historical blunder, claiming that many countries had recently commemorated the end of World War I, while the US did not participate in the celebrations, despite asserting "we're the ones who won the war."
"Without us," Trump said, "You'd all be speaking German right now."
"Maybe a little Japanese thrown in. But we won the war," he added. "We're gonna celebrate on Saturday."
However, Trump's claim that citizens would have been speaking Japanese is inaccurate, as Japan was an ally of the US, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy against the Axis powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, reports the Mirror US.
It appears the President was actually referencing WW2, which was commemorated recently during VE celebrations. The end of WW1 is traditionally commemorated on "Armistice Day" on November 11 each year.
The event at Fort Bragg was also attended by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and included both active service members and their families. The speech comes ahead of the 250th anniversary of the army and coincidentally, Trump's 79th birthday, which will be marked with a parade in Washington, D.C.
The city is bracing for a massive turnout at the parade this Saturday, with officials already setting up 18 miles of "anti-scale fencing" and deploying drones, despite the usual no-fly zone rules.
City representatives have told The Associated Press they're expecting an "preparing for an enormous turnout."
Secret Service's Matt McCool from the Washington Field Office is preparing for "hundreds of thousands" to line the streets, while military sources estimate around 200,000 will join the celebrations.
"We have a ton of magnetometers," McCool said. "If a million people show up, then we're going to have some lines."
To manage the expected crowds, 175 magnetometers will be in place at security checkpoints throughout the day and for the evening parade.
Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith has warned of "major impacts to traffic" and advises attendees to consider using the Metro instead of driving. "This is a significant event with a large footprint," she stressed.
"We're relying on the public to be an extra set of ears and eyes for us."
The event has hit the headlines as a National Special Security Event, with security measures on par with presidential inaugurations or state funerals.
This elite status is reserved for high-profile functions drawing sizeable gatherings and the likelihood of significant protests, triggering an increased security collaboration between local officials, the FBI, Capitol Police, and the National Guard, all led by the watchful Secret Service.
Officials are also on high alert for possible immigration-related protests, mirroring those in Los Angeles, potentially hitting D. C.
's streets. "We're paying attention, obviously, to what is happening there. We'll be ready," affirmed McCool, underlining the extensive preparations in place to manage any civil unrest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Grand Coalition between SNP and Labour may become inevitable
'Brandmauer' though, I can tell you, is German for 'firewall', and in political terms it is shorthand for the Grand Coalition between the centre-left SPD and the centre-right CDU/CSU. We have seen this Grand Coalition between Germany's main parties three times now – twice under Angela Merkel, and now again under new Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The purpose of the Brandmauer is to lock out a force considered by the mainstream parties to be so undesirable that the political nuclear button must be pressed. In 2005, under Ms Merkel, the imperative was to neuter the PDS – the successor to the Communist rulers of East Germany. Now, two decades on, the Brandmauer protects against Alice Weidel's AFD. The Grand Coalition under Angela Merkel continued under new Chancellor Friedrich Merz The Grand Coalition is now so normal in Germany that it has its own portmanteau – the Groko (Große Koalition). Before it happened, though, it would generally have been considered unthinkable. Not worth writing about, talking about or thinking about. Closer to home, we have seen a similar situation in Ireland. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael may be ideologically similar, but as the parties on opposite sides of the Irish Civil War, the antipathy from that island's troubled history runs deep. The very notion of a Grand Coalition was ridiculous until a force so ostensibly menacing, in the form of Sinn Féin, became so strong that a momentous response was required. The 2020 and 2024 general elections, both three horse races, resulted in an Irish firewall to lock out Sinn Féin. This is the new normal in Ireland. Here in Scotland, don't bother asking a politician from our two established mainstream parties – the SNP and Labour – about a Grand Coalition. At least, not in public, where you'll be laughed out of court. But discuss it with some of them in private, as I have on several occasions over the last six-or-so months, and they will offer a much more open and thoughtful retort. They can read opinion polls just like anyone else. For much of the time since Labour's Westminster election victory, as its support has plummeted, the party looked so weak, and the SNP looked so comparatively strong, that the latter would not require the former, finding an adequate partner instead in the Liberal Democrats or its ex-spouse, the Greens. Read more from Andy Maciver Last week's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, though, has shone a different light on the range of possible outcomes after May 2026's election. Labour, after its victory, is understandably buoyant. Much as Labour types will tell you that they knew they would win and it was the result of a master strategy unbeknownst to anyone, the reality is that this was a wafer-thin win in a genuine three-way fight. We should not underplay it; Labour significantly outperformed its national poll rating and clearly ran an impressive ground campaign. However, nor should we overplay it, since the party lost two per cent of its vote share from the previous election, in 2021. This point was made by our national polling guru, Sir John Curtice, as he simultaneously dampened Labour's spirits and rubbed salt in the SNP's wounds (the nationalists shipped a whopping 17 per cent of its 2021 vote share, and underperformed its already diminished national polling share). In Sir John's view, clearly, Labour won the battle but Reform may justifiably feel it is winning the war. Illustrating the point, Sir John crunched some numbers based on what pollsters term 'uniform swing' – in other words, if all the parties had risen and fallen across the country by the same proportion as they did in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, what would the outcome be? The answer? A composition of seats in the Scottish Parliament which would constitute the most explosive and chaotic result in the history of Holyrood. The SNP would win the election handsomely, but only after the loss of a quarter of its MSPs, returning 48. Reform would come a clear second, with 32 seats. In third would be Labour, down from its current 24 to 18, based on the loss of vote share despite its by-election triumph. The Tories would be next on 16, with the Greens on 10 and the Liberal Democrats on five. In order to function in an orderly way with a Parliamentary majority, a government needs at least 65 seats – 17 seats more than the SNP would have. Many might consider the Greens to be First Minister John Swinney's most natural ally, but with 10 seats they would remain well short. Even adding five from the Lib Dems, another party with whom Mr Swinney has a productive and comfortable relationship, would be insufficient. On the other side of the Parliamentary chamber sit two parties with whom the SNP would not, under any circumstances, be prepared to enter an agreement, formal or informal. With 48 seats between them, the Conservatives and Reform UK would be considered 'uncoalitionable'. Read more from Andy Maciver: That leaves Labour. With its 18 seats, together with the SNP's 48, a 66-seat government carries a majority of one in the Holyrood chamber. There is much water to flow under the bridge, and too many caveats to mention. This was a by-election, and therefore a poor predictor of behaviour at a general election. We are still nearly a year from the election, and much can, and probably will, change during that time. Moreover, the Scottish territory is, if anything, more complex than those which existed in Germany and Ireland, because of the lingering independence debate, on either side of which sit the SNP and the Labour Party. However, the most important similarity is the one which may be present; the perceived need to place a firewall around a political party considered to be beyond the pale. In a parliament composed similarly to the one we have today, a grand coalition is unthinkable. In one which includes a relatively small number of Reform MSPs it is improbable. But in a parliament of the sort extrapolated by Sir John last week, a grand coalition is neither unthinkable nor improbable. It is inevitable. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Albanese still awaiting crucial meeting with Donald Trump
Anthony Albanese is jetting off abroad to meet other world leaders, yet has been criticised for failing to secure an official meeting with Donald Trump as the US administration applies pressure on Australia's defence spending. The Prime Minister will leave Canberra on Friday to meet his 'dear friend', the Prime minister of Fiji, Sitiveni Rabuka, before then travelling on to Seattle for a meeting of world business leaders. His next stop will be the G7 summit in the mountainous Canadian town of Kananaskis where Albanese will cross paths with the US President, just days after the Pentagon announced it was launching a review into the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal. 'I look forward to working productively with world leaders to discuss how we tackle some of the most challenging issues facing Australia, our region, and the world,' Albanese said. But the Opposition has been critical of his inability to lock in a meeting with Trump, at time when the AUKUS deal hangs in the balance and Australia has not been able to get an exemption to US trade tariffs. It also comes at a time when the US President has put pressure on Australia to increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP - up from the current rate of around 2.3 per cent. Albanese has spoken over the phone twice to President Trump since he was re-elected in November last year but the pair are yet to meet face-to-face. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said on Friday morning she was 'concerned' about the US review into the AUKUS deal by Defence Under Secretary for Policy, Elbridge Colby, who she claimed was a 'a sceptic of AUKUS'. Under the $368 billion submarine program, Australia is set to acquire at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class boats from the US in the early 2030s before a new fleet is built for delivery from the 2040s. The pact between Australia, the US, and the UK is aimed at countering China's expanding presence in the Indo-Pacific. But the Pentagon review will assess whether the deal meets Trump's 'America First' objectives. Ley acknowledged that it was 'really hard' to secure a meeting with the US President, but she insisted Albanese had failed where others had succeeded. 'Lots of other world leaders have had that meeting. We haven't,' Ley told KIIS FM. However, Trump is yet to lock in any meetings with other world leaders at the summit, The Australian reported. The G7 brings together seven of the world's largest advanced economies – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – and the European Union. Climate and security are expected to dominate the diplomatic talks between leaders. Australia is not a member of the G7, but Canadian prime minister Mark Carney extended an invitation to Albanese. He is expected to meet with the US president on the sidelines of the conference, where he could try to carve out a tariff exemption. Australia is facing 10 per cent tariffs on goods exported to the US and - like every US trading partner except the UK - has been hit with 50 per cent tariffs on aluminium and steel sent to America.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' to make wealthy even richer and punish poor
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will hand thousands of dollars to the rich and leave poorer Americans worse off, a US spending watchdog has warned. The top 10pc of households will get a windfall of $12,000 (£8,800) per year from the Bill's tax cuts, while the bottom 10pc will see a net loss of $1,600 per year because of benefits cuts, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This means the richest people in America will get a cash boost worth 2.3pc of income while the poorest households will see losses worth 3.9pc. Mr Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act', as the legislation is known, was narrowly passed by House Republicans last month and is currently under scrutiny by the Senate. The president has set a July 4 deadline for a final version of the Bill. The Bill has come under heavy fire for driving up America's debt burden just as economists are sounding alarm bells over the sustainability of the US debt pile. Earlier this month, Mr Trump's former 'first buddy' Elon Musk slammed the Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' that he said would saddle America with 'crushing' debt. The US lost its last triple-A credit rating in May after a downgrade from influential credit agency Moody's. According to the CBO, the measures outlined in the Bill will add $2.4 trillion to the US deficit over the next decade.
