logo
Trump and Pete Hegseth inspiring Islamic State recruitment propaganda

Trump and Pete Hegseth inspiring Islamic State recruitment propaganda

Yahoo26-05-2025
Donald Trump has a long and colorful history with the Islamic State. He incorrectly blamed the founding of IS on his predecessor, said its infamous leader 'died like a dog' while announcing his assassination, and rallied an international coalition that successfully ended its so-called caliphate.
So far, in his second presidency, his administration has much less to do with IS. But the terror group has still benefited from him.
Experts tell the Guardian that IS is capitalizing on Trump's dismantling of the international order, his affinity for Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Israel, and most of all – his most controversial cabinet appointment – in its recruitment propaganda.
In the US, IS supporters consuming that online messaging have become bona fide security threats in recent months, with a string of incidents dating back to before the presidential election.
On New Year's Day in New Orleans, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, a 13-year veteran of the US army, used a truck to kill fourteen partygoers in the name of IS. Earlier in May, Ammar Abdulmajid-Mohamed Said, 19, an ex-national guardsman, was arrested and charged with plotting a mass shooting at a military base near Detroit, on behalf of the group.
'The January 1 New Orleans attack and subsequent IS-linked arrests in the country demonstrate the continued influence the organization can project into the US,' said Lucas Webber, a senior threat intelligence analyst at Tech Against Terrorism, who has tracked the terrorist group for several years.
'These incidents also highlight how IS leverages the online space through social media and messaging applications to spread its ideology and inspire supporters to plot attacks.'
Part of that, as Webber explained, was persistently defining the US as a 'crusader' state – the name jihadists have long used for all western countries.
But secretary of defense Pete Hegseth's tattoos, referential to those pan-European medieval invaders, have fueled IS propaganda dispersed on Rocket.Chat – a recruitment platform the terror group uses to communicate with its followers and recruits.
An April IS-article, titled Clear Evidence in Ink, zeroed in on Hegseth's ink, which features crosses associated with crusaders and another on his arm that reads 'infidel' or 'non-believer' in Arabic.
The term also became better known among war on terror soldiers, who, like Hegseth, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a pejorative for themselves.
'This takes us back to the media stir just days ago when the American 'crusader' secretary of defense published photos of himself with the word 'kafir' written on his arm in Arabic, alongside other explicit phrases glorifying the crusades!' said the IS propaganda, amid a backdrop of Hegseth's tattooed chest and arms.
'Events like these, orchestrated by Allah's wisdom, serve as warnings and clear evidence of the true nature of the war waged by Jews and Christians against us – it is a deeply rooted religious war.'
On Rocket.Chat, pro-IS users fervently responded.
'What more do you want as proof that they want to wipe us all together?' wrote one user underneath an image of Hegseth's tattoos.
Other fodder tapped for its digital propaganda, is Trump's associations with Netanyahu and the IDF's continued flattening of Gaza, which several experts and governments have called a modern-day genocide.
IS images and articles call for 'revenge for the Muslims in Gaza' and the war, which has become one of its most valuable recruitment topics.
IS also sees the stream of international tariffs unleashed by the Trump administration as a sign the west and its power structures are unravelling. As another IS article described how 'the reckless Trump has repeatedly claimed victory over jihad, yet now he is preoccupied with fighting German cars and Chinese goods' and stoking 'commercial wars' that would lead to the demise of 'kafir nations'.
Combinations of these topics are mainstay recruitment hooks that IS and its predecessor organization, al-Qaida, have used for years attracting men into its ranks. IS is in a rebuilding stage as Syria – once a base for its most successful era – has vowed to banish the group and other jihadist elements from operating within its borders, as the nascent government seeks rapprochement with the US.
But other IS chapters have shown they are attracting Americans, foreigners, and locals to their cause, by peddling anti-US messaging.
'Trump and the US have been monitored by [IS-Khorasan] Pashto, Urdu and Farsi channels specifically referring to developments in Syria and Afghanistan,' said Riccardo Valle, the director of research at the Islamabad-based publication the Khorasan Diary and an expert on the group's Afghan wing.
'[IS-K] continue to foster the idea that there is no difference between Afghanistan and Syria trajectories and that both are puppets in the hands of the US, Russia, and China.'
The IS-K branch has shown its reach inside the US, too. An Afghan national and a co-conspirator were arrested in October, after the FBI disrupted an IS-K sponsored plot to attack a mass gathering on election day.
The justice department also described in 2024 court documents that IS-Somalia, an upstart branch which has become the intense focus of Pentagon airstrikes, had attracted an American foreign fighter who was in contact with their recruiters.
'IS-Somalia is becoming more internationally ambitious in its recruitment, associated online propaganda, and incitement efforts,' Webber said. 'Pro-IS Somalia outlets are creating media content focused on US policy in the region and support for governments in the area.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight

By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a "win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people" and said the men would "be in South Sudan" by Friday. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to be given a chance to tell officials that they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The justices on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that their June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. "The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs. "Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan," Realmuto said. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from Thursday's decision. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the decision on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The judge's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. 'CLEAR REBUKE' Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. "Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration. This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach," White House David Warrington said on Thursday. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." The Justice Department said in a filing that the United States has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the migrants at issue will not be subject to torture. The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.

Trump administration torpedoes SCOTUS with emergency requests and sees surprising success
Trump administration torpedoes SCOTUS with emergency requests and sees surprising success

Fox News

time30 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump administration torpedoes SCOTUS with emergency requests and sees surprising success

The Supreme Court ended its term last week, but the justices aren't done yet, partly due to a legal blitz President Donald Trump has strategically deployed in his second term, one that's proven surprisingly effective in advancing his sweeping agenda. Lawyers for the Trump administration filed their 20th emergency application to the Supreme Court Thursday in just a 23-week period. The dizzying pace of applications comes as the administration looks to advance some of Trump's sweeping policy actions. And, in many cases, the court's 6-3 majority has given the administration the green light to proceed. The high court has ruled in Trump's favor in the majority of emergency applications, allowing the administration to proceed with its ban on transgender service members in the military, its termination of millions of dollars in Education Department grants and its firing of probationary employees across the federal government, among many other actions. Like most emergency orders, the rulings are often unsigned, giving little indication what the justices might be thinking. Emergency applications — and the Supreme Court's responses — aren't meant to offer lasting relief. But Trump has found success using a "move fast and break things" strategy to push key requests through the court's so-called "shadow" docket. For context, Trump has filed more emergency applications in five months than his predecessors did in years. Former President Joe Biden submitted just 19 over his entire term, while presidents Obama and George W. Bush filed only eight combined during their time in office. In the interim, the strategy has allowed him to enforce many of the sweeping executive orders he signed upon taking office. These orders were met with hundreds of lawsuits across the country and blocked by many lower courts, prompting the administration to appeal them, again and again, through the federal judiciary. For now, those near-term wins have energized Trump allies, allowing them to press forward with a blitz of executive actions and claim "victory," however temporary. The approach allows Trump to advance major policy priorities without relying on a slow-moving Congress.

What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers
What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers

USA Today

time30 minutes ago

  • USA Today

What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers

The federal electric vehicle tax credit of $7,500 is in the crosshairs of President Trump's reconciliation bill. President Donald Trump's One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act is officially moving to the House after making it past the Senate following some alterations. The bill is a proposed budget reconciliation aimed at increasing spending in areas such as defense and border security. It is targeting health care and nutrition programs like Medicaid and SNAP. The clean energy sector could also face extreme ramifications if the bill is passed, including job loss and the termination of federal new and used electric vehicle tax incentives. The Senate altered provisions in the bill, accelerating the termination of new and used EV tax incentives from December 2025 to September 2025. While this tax credit may not seem integral to the future of the automotive industry, its extinction could have more of an impact than you may think. What the death of the EV tax credit means for American car buyers The federal EV tax credit allows Americans to claim up to $7,500 for qualifying new electric vehicle purchases. This incentive drastically reduces the true cost of applicable new EVs, making them much more feasible purchases for the average American car buyer. Take the Tesla Model Y as an example. It's the best-selling electric vehicle nameplate of 2025 so far, according to a Q1 sales report from automotive research company Cox Automotive. Tesla sold 64,051 Model Y units in the first quarter of 2025. The 2026 Model Y currently starts at $44,990 without the incentive. When drivers claim the tax credit, its true cost is closer to $37,490, making it a much more affordable small electric SUV. If the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" is passed, the new EV tax credit and used electric vehicle tax credit ($4,000) could be completely phased out in the future. This means buying electric vehicles will ultimately be more expensive for car buyers and less appealing due to high prices. Electric vehicles aren't a necessity, but automakers have already invested billions into new electric vehicle production, according to J.P. Morgan. So, if the incentive making several best-selling EVs more affordable suddenly disappears, automakers could experience disastrous losses on significant investments. How the loss of the EV tax credit could affect the auto industry The elimination of the federal electric vehicle tax incentive could have several negative affects on the auto industry. Here are the potential outcomes: CarMax, Carvana, and other key automotive stakeholders have urged the United State senate to slowly roll back the incentive rather than swiftly eliminating it. Americans could lose "hundreds of thousands of jobs and companies will lose billions of dollars in investments" according to EV non-profit Plug In America. Many automakers dove head first into EV production due to the Biden administrations push to electrify a large percentage of portfolios by 2030. There's no telling how the loss of the tax incentive could impact future sales numbers. What vehicles qualify for the federal EV tax credit in 2025? The Environmental Protection Agency released a list of EVs that are eligible for the EV tax credit. The list includes 19 electric vehicles from popular brands like Tesla, Acura, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Genesis, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, and Jeep. Some of the best-selling models listed include the Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Chevrolet Equinox EV, and Honda Prologue. While all automakers that produce EVs could stand to lose big profits from the elimination of the tax incentive, Tesla is especially exposed to potential impact as the current market leader in the U.S. EV space. A loss of the tax credit could level the playing field, leaving room for rivals from Hyundai Motor Company and General Motors' portfolio of brands to grab market share.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store