Trump Takes 'Revenge' For LA Riot, Revokes California's Landmark Electric Vehicle Mandate
Last Updated: Crux Videos
President Donald Trump signed a trio of congressional resolutions ending California's restrictive rules for diesel engines and mandates on elective vehicle sales, with Trump celebrating that his signature "will kill the California mandates forever." The move comes as the President has been trading barbs over the state's Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom over anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Trump ordered the National Guard and Marines to be deployed in LA - a move that Newsom has called "an abuse of power". n18oc_world n18oc_crux
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump sparks outrage with rambling Russia remarks, critics say he's showing signs of cognitive decline
Donald Trump's mental health is questioned again after he gave a confusing defense of Russia. Trump appeared to wrongly say that Vladimir Putin fought for Russia in World War II, even though Putin was born 7 years after the war ended. People accuse Trump of " cognitive collapse " because of his strange remarks about Russia and Putin's role in WWII, as per reports. Trump said he talked with French President Emmanuel Macron about WWII commemorations before making his confusing speech about Putin. Trump said, "I happened to speak to President Putin at the time. Now in all fairness to him, he lost 51 million people and he did fight." Trump made a historical mistake because Putin was born in 1952, and World War II ended in 1945, so he couldn't have fought in it. Trump said, "It's kind of interesting, he fought with us in WWII and everyone hates him, but Germany and Japan are fine. One day someone will explain that. I like Germany and Japan too," as reported by the Irish Star. Trump and wrong facts Trump said Putin doesn't understand why people dislike Russia, even though they were allies in WWII and lost many lives. But reports say Trump didn't seem to know it was the Soviet Union, not just Russia, that fought in the war. The Soviet Union had 15 countries, like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The modern Russian Federation was created only in 1991 after the Soviet Union broke up. Trump also gave wrong numbers. Live Events According to the Irish Star, the National WWII Museum says the Soviet Union lost around 24 million people in WWII, not 51 million as Trump claimed. Many people online made fun of Trump's comments. One person wrote, "Someone should tell him that Russia now attacks democracies, while Germany and Japan are peaceful friends." Another said, "There was no Russia during WW2." A third questioned, "Putin fought WWII? How old is he then?" Someone else said Trump's brain 'didn't develop normally' and called him 'very ignorant,' as reported by the Irish Star. Another person even said Trump should be arrested for treason, writing, 'Putin was born in 1952... Being friendly with a war criminal isn't foreign policy, it's betrayal.' Critics said Trump's remarks showed signs of "cognitive collapse" and questioned his ability to lead, "Age limits for the presidency FFS. One user wrote, "This old clown mumbling about WW2 is not good." Another said, "Dementia Donnie is rambling again." Someone else called the comments "delusional" and said the room went completely silent, according to the report by Irish Star. FAQs Q1. What's the buzz about Trump and Putin in WWII? Because Trump wrongly said Putin fought in World War II, even though he was born after the war ended. Q2. What is the "cognitive collapse" people mention about Trump? It means people think Trump's thinking and memory may be getting worse due to his confusing comments.
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump: ‘Today is day 61', says Iran failed to act, hints at what comes next
United States President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military sites and said the 60-day deadline for a new nuclear agreement had elapsed. In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump wrote: 'Iran must make a deal before there is nothing left… Just do it, before it is too late.' His remarks come as tensions escalate in the Middle East, with the United States shifting military resources and evacuating nonessential staff from the region. Though US officials say Washington was not directly involved in Israel's operation, Trump confirmed his administration was informed in advance and suggested there could be 'more to come' if Iran does not return to negotiations. The Israeli offensive, code-named Rising Lion, began on Friday morning and was described by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an operation that would 'go on for as many days as it takes.' The developments put renewed pressure on Trump's long-standing campaign pledge to avoid foreign wars and focus on an 'America First' agenda. The 60-day deadline refers to a time limit set by President Trump for Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement. Trump first mentioned the deadline in a private letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this year. Talks between US and Iranian officials began on April 12, marking the start of the countdown. According to Trump, the 60-day mark passed on Thursday, June 11. Speaking to CNN's Dana Bash, Trump said: 'Iran should have listened to me when I said—I gave them a 60-day warning, and today is day 61.' US officials had been aware that pressure was mounting as the deadline approached. While some still hoped negotiations would continue beyond the 60 days, Friday's Israeli strikes have left the future of the talks unclear. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US was not involved in the operation and its main concern was protecting American forces, Trump gave the Israeli action his full support. 'They got hit hard, very hard. They got hit about as hard as you're going to get hit,' Trump told ABC News. 'There's more to come. A lot more.' On Truth Social, Trump claimed Iran had been given 'chance after chance' to make a deal and blamed Iranian hardliners for choosing confrontation. 'They didn't know what was about to happen. They are all dead now, and it will only get worse,' he wrote. In response to possible Iranian retaliation, the Pentagon has moved two Navy destroyers closer to the Eastern Mediterranean. The USS Thomas Hudner was among the ships repositioned, officials told the Associated Press(AP). There are currently around 30,000 American troops in the Middle East. That number had increased to over 40,000 last year amid repeated attacks on ships in the Red Sea by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. US personnel and dependents at military bases in the region have also been authorised to leave as a precaution. Despite Trump's hardline message, some officials have not given up on diplomacy. US special envoy Steve Witkoff still plans to travel to Oman this weekend to discuss Iran's nuclear programme. However, it remains unclear whether Iranian representatives will attend after the latest escalation. For now, President Trump has made clear that he sees this moment as a turning point. 'There has already been great death and destruction,' he posted. 'But there is still time to stop it.'
