Trump orders reopening of Alcatraz prison to house violent offenders
Alcatraz Island is seen in San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, California, U.S., October 5, 2017. PHOTO:REUTERS
Listen to article
US President Donald Trump has announced plans to reopen and expand the infamous Alcatraz prison in San Francisco Bay to detain the country's most violent and repeat criminal offenders.
Posting on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump said, 'REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!'
He directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security to oversee the reconstruction.
The president said the move would serve as a "symbol of law, order, and justice" in response to rising crime.
Originally closed in 1963 due to high operating costs, Alcatraz — a federal prison once home to notorious criminals like Al Capone — has since become a major tourist attraction.
The island location, strong currents, and cold waters made it nearly escape-proof, with no confirmed successful breakouts.
Trump told reporters the idea came to him recently. 'It's a symbol of law and order,' he reiterated as he returned to the White House from Florida.
Critics quickly dismissed the proposal. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, called it unserious.
'Alcatraz closed as a federal penitentiary more than sixty years ago. It is now a national park and popular tourist destination,' she posted on X.
The proposal comes amid Trump's broader push for harsher penalties against violent offenders.
Earlier this year, he controversially transferred alleged gang members to a prison in El Salvador and floated similar ideas for domestic criminals.
Alcatraz's operational costs were historically triple those of mainland prisons due to its isolated location.
Despite the challenges, Trump's move signals a renewed push for high-profile criminal justice policies as the 2024 election season intensifies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
15 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Japan's Ishiba heads to G7 to press Trump to drop auto tariffs
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba heads to Canada on Sunday for trade talks with US President Donald Trump, hoping to persuade him to drop trade tariffs that have imperilled Japan's auto companies and threaten to undermine his fragile government. The two are expected to meet on the sidelines of a summit of the Group of Seven nations in Kananaskis, Alberta, for their second in-person encounter. It follows a sixth round of high-level trade talks in Washington on Friday. Japan's top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, said he explored the possibility of an deal in detailed meetings with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The trick for Ishiba, who spoke with Trump by phone on Friday, will be to get the president to drop the 25% tariff he imposed on Japanese cars, as well as a paused 24% across-the-board levy that Trump calls a reciprocal tariff, without making concessions that could hurt the prime minister's public support at home. Returning to Tokyo with no deal would be better politically than conceding too much, analysts say. 'If it goes badly, it could even be seen as a positive for Ishiba, standing up to Trump and standing up for his country when he's under assault,' said Michael Cucek, a political science professor at Temple University in Tokyo. Ishiba and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party face an upper house election next month that comes after a lower house loss in November that left him reliant on the support of other parties to stay in power. Another poor electoral result could bring down his government and would force Trump to reset trade talks with a new Japanese administration. South Korea President Lee, Japan PM Ishiba agree to strengthen ties 'The most important thing is that Ishiba does not cave in for a bad (auto) deal,' said Joseph Kraft, a financial political analyst at Rorschach Advisory in Tokyo. 'I expect there will be some kind of deal, although it could be haphazard. Trump needs some good news and I don't think he has much interest in G7 activities.' Failing to reach an agreement in Canada might not have an immediate economic impact on Japan, but tariffs that stay in place will eventually drag down growth, said Asuka Tatebayashi, senior analyst at Mizuho Bank. 'If you look at the data for car exports to the US for April, it was quite striking. The volume in dollars was down by nearly 5%, but the number of cars has increased a lot,' she said. 'It means either they are only selling cheap cars or the manufacturers are absorbing the cost. I think the latter is the case and this is not very sustainable.' Tariffs could shave 0.9% off Japan's gross domestic product, Mizuho Research & Technologies estimated in a report in April.
Business Recorder
20 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Donald Trump says Iran would face US might ‘at levels never seen before' if it attacks US
President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that if Iran attacks the United States in any way, it would face the might of the US military 'at levels never seen before.' Yemen's Houthis say they targeted Israel with ballistic missiles in coordination with Iran Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform that the US had nothing to do with an attack on Iran overnight and that 'we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!'
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Trump-Musk feud exposes new realities of US politics
On the political stage of Donald Trump's ever-expanding theatre, the Elon Musk affair began like a swaggering bromance destined for longevity — two outsider moguls, both mythmakers in their own right, momentarily aligned in ambition and spectacle. But as with so many Trumpian plots, it ended not with grace or even drama, but with the pettiness of a playground spat. What began in mutual admiration curdled into a bitter, adolescent feud — one whose theatrics have told us far more about the state of American power than either man intended. But not too long ago, when Musk stepped into the national limelight alongside Donald Trump — a MAGA cap perched atop his famously unruly hair — it felt like the opening scene of a grand political union. Then Musk's high‑profile appointment as co‑head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) positioned him, at least symbolically, as the next chapter in the disruption of Washington. His presence on the cabinet stage, dressed in casual gear and flanked by pizza‑fuelled staff, sent a clear message — here was the billionaire outsider, ready to 'cut a trillion dollars' from the federal budget. But the very theatricality that made the pairing so arresting proved to be its undoing. At its height, the alliance was a spectacle of spectacle-makers – Trump, the reality-TV president with a flair for soundbites and theatrics, and Musk, the tech-pop star whose every move was pre-scripted for social media audiences. Together, they promised a new era of anti-establishment governance. The combination was irresistible to journalists, political strategists, and television cameras alike — yet it was always designed for the spotlight, not for sober policy implementation. The unravelling began with Trump's signature legislative project — the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Conceived as a sweeping, populist package, it was a Republican policy masterpiece — only it came with a sting in its tail. The bill slashed clean‑energy subsidies and EV incentives, cut taxes, and expanded deficit spending — a move that triggered Musk's ire. Speaking on CBS, he called it 'a disgusting abomination' and a betrayal of the efficiency agenda he had been installed to advance. But his public rebuke was more than a policy critique — it was episode four of the Trump‑Musk reality show. The tension had been building; now it burst into public view. Trump responded in kind. On Truth Social, he accused Musk of 'ingratitude' and threatened to yank federal contracts and subsidies tied to Tesla and SpaceX — threats with real economic force behind them. Suddenly, this was no orchestrated photo op — it was a headline‑grabbing feud deserving of its own prime‑time billing. Overnight, Tesla stock plunged 15 per cent — one of its worst-days ever — and Musk's fortune took a $90 billion hit. SpaceX's vital NASA and Pentagon contracts fell under immediate review — not by sleepy bureaucrats, but by White House fingers ready to pull strings. For anyone paying attention, it was raw theatre, complete with streaming platforms (X vs. Truth Social), soundbites, dramatic reversals, and fiscal consequences. But for all the entertainment, serious governance, if any, was taking a hit. Analysts warned that politically motivated interference in critical space and defence infrastructure carried national-security risks. The spectacle masked its stakes behind the shimmer, but the scoreboard was bloodied. What fuelled this sudden collapse was not just policy difference — it was a power grab between two large egos. Trump, the master negotiator, thrives on loyalty and control. Musk, by contrast, is a self-styled disruptor, menacing timelines and bureaucracies with layoffs and dismissals, as he had done at Twitter. Their clash, experts argue, was not merely about policy, but symbolic – part of a broader trend in the 'mafia‑state' dynamics of loyalty and authoritarian imprinting within Trump's inner circle. As the drama played out, media and public alike were gripped. Cable channels looped clips — pundits called it 'popcorn politics' (MSNBC's Nicole Wallace advised, 'Buckle up and pop some popcorn'). This was not analysis – it was entertainment — by design and by outcome. Washington became Wembley Arena, and global coverage spun imagery faster than facts. Musk, for his part, added to the plotline. After his critique, he reportedly floated a new 'America Party,' polling X followers on whether he should launch one. It was a plot twist worthy of any reality-franchise season — his move away from MAGA signalling yet another potential storyline — billionaire insurgent becomes ideological kingmaker. Trump seized on this. On Truth Social, he explicitly warned Musk: support Democrats, and he'd face 'very serious consequences'. It was a resurfacing of the personal stakes of their public feud. When the dust began to settle, Musk issued a mea culpa — 'I regret some of my posts' — though signs were clear that the bromance had left the building. Sources close to Trump described interactions as 'pure avoidance' and warned 'Trump doesn't forget'. The alliance had evaporated, leaving behind a collapsed set piece, disrupted constituencies, rattled markets — and a cratering of public trust. To frame this as merely a feud is to mischaracterise what took place. This was politics as entertainment, parody as praxis. The ingredients were familiar – billionaire ego meets political celebrity, stitched together by social media platforms that thrive on outrage. But the consequences were real — agencies destroyed overnight, market valuations shifted by billions, and vital contracts placed in jeopardy — all for the sake of headlines and media attention. But this spectacle reflects a decade-long evolution in American political culture. Trump's first term was built on theatre, from flashy announcements that never materialised to summit photo‑ops with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. As analysis from Foreign Affairs noted, his style has been a perpetual cliffhanger — teasers without resolutions. Musk, with his half-truths, meme‑stoned publicity, and controversial layoffs, fit naturally into this mould. They are both public performers on global stages. In this, the Trump‑Musk debacle captures not just a broken friendship but also a political turning point. It lay bare how deeply entertainment-driven impulses have invaded the halls of power. Gone are the days when legislation was debated – now amendments are broadcast as monologues. Governance in America is reduced to co-starring roles. The deeper risk, as one expert cautioned, is not that Trump and Musk lost interest in one another — but that their ideology remains embedded in the system despite the spectacle's end. Under the veneer, despoliation continues — budget cuts, contract swaps, regulatory rollbacks. Watching two titans fight may feel like watching gladiators — but the bloodshed is institutional, not just personal. All that said, we're left asking – what now? Musk, bruised, may retreat or launch his America Party — but he remains too tethered to the infrastructure of American life. He still holds significant sway – Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, X. Government contracts, investor confidence, public goodwill — these are his fragile assets. Trump, meanwhile, proved that loyalty is conditional, and criticism of him invites retaliation. Lots of CEOs got that memo — a chilling one for anyone tempted to cross him. What's at stake is bigger than their feud. It is the normalisation of spectacle in every corner of governance. It is a democracy saturated with drama, where policy outcomes are overshadowed by sound and fury. Real governance demands debate, deliberation, accountability — but this was all bargain-basement theatre designed to go viral, even at the expense of substance. And yet, public appetite remains insatiable. Newsrooms and channels peddle reactions – social feeds fawn over every twist — Republican and Democratic operatives spin furiously. The attention economy thrives on this. But the currency of democracy doesn't – it depends on informed citizenship. In the end, the Trump‑Musk showdown will pass. Contracts will be restored — or not. Tesla may rebound. DOGE may vanish from the collective memory. But the season finale won't stop the next appropriation of spectacle. Someone else will before long step into the lead role — seeking screens, scores, and public influence. A new billionaire, a new platform, a new headline. So what remains? A cautionary tale – when governance is capitalised as content, citizens become the audience. Democracy is not served by ratings. Facts, institutions, ideas — they become afterthoughts to spectacle. For now, the Trump-Musk show is over. Critics will analyse, journalists will fact-check, markets will stabilise. And somewhere behind the lights, the next episode is already in production. The question we face is not how stage-ready leaders can be, but whether we — viewers — can reclaim the authorial seat.
