Trump vs O'Donnell
As reported by DW, following the post over the weekend, experts were quick to point out that the threat is unconstitutional and cited the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, which established that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
"The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born US citizen," University of Virginia School of Law professor Amanda Frost told the US news agency, the Associated Press. "In short, we are a nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people."
US citizens can voluntarily renounce their citizenship, but the process is strictly regulated. It involves two separate interviews and requires taking an "oath of renunciation of US nationality," as outlined by the State Department.
'New levels' of denaturalisation
The US president has similarly threatened to strip away citizenship from naturalised citizens, notably that of his former ally, billionaire Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa. He also questioned the citizenship status of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic politician was born in Uganda, and moved to New York City at age 7, becoming a US citizen in 2018.
A Supreme Court ruling from 1967 determined that the US government can't usually strip citizenship without a person's consent, but this can still happen in cases where fraud was involved in the citizenship process.
"Denaturalisation is no longer so rare," Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor at Case Western Reserve University's law school, told news site Axios.
The increase began during former President Barack Obama's administration, she noted, as new digital tools allowed authorities to track down potential naturalisation fraud cases.
"But the Trump administration, with its overall immigration crackdown, is taking denaturalisation to new levels," Robertson added.
The Trump administration is also seeking to end birthright citizenship. On July 10, a US federal judge issued a new nationwide ruling blocking Trump's executive order, but the constitutionality of the order is still unresolved.
Why Trump hates O'Donnell
The feud between Trump and O'Donnell spans nearly two decades. The talk show host first publicly commented on Trump's lack of moral standards in 2006 amid a Miss USA Pageant controversy. That prompted a vicious reaction from the then-host of reality TV show The Apprentice.
The grudge only deepened when Trump became president in 2016, as the comedian kept criticising his policies.
At the beginning of 2025, O'Donnell left the US in reaction to Trump's reelection: "It's been heartbreaking to see what's happening politically and hard for me personally as well," she said on TikTok in March, as she revealed having moved to Ireland with her child. She is reported to be in the process of securing Irish citizenship through descent.
She has since pursued her criticism of Trump's policies from abroad.
Most recently, in a TikTok that some observers believe could have prompted Trump to react with his threat on Truth Social, she criticised his administration's response to the Texas floods, claiming the president gutted "all of the early warning systems and the weathering?forecast abilities of the government."
Following Trump's headline-grabbing Truth Social post, O'Donnell fired back on Sunday with an Instagram post featuring a photo of Trump with his arm over the shoulder of child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In the post, O'Donnell dares Trump: "You want to revoke my citizenship? Go ahead and try, King Joffrey with a tangerine spray," she wrote, referring to a much loathed, sadistic, authoritarian character from Game of Thrones.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
The strait of no return
When US intelligence revealed that Iran had loaded sea mines near the Strait of Hormuz on July 1, it sent an unmistakable message to the West: Tehran is not backing down after US and Israeli airstrikes devastated its nuclear facilities. Although the Strait remains open, the mere threat of closure is enough to send ripples across global markets. The conflict might appear as yet another Middle Eastern flashpoint, but the trickle-down effects are going to be much worse. Asia's largest economies – China, India, Japan, and South Korea – stand dangerously exposed. Around 80% of their Middle Eastern oil passes through the Strait, an artery vital to global trade. Even a short disruption would send economic shockwaves beyond Tehran, Washington, or Tel Aviv. Vice President JD Vance recently pronounced the 'Trump Doctrine' in Ohio, redefining American foreign policy. The new doctrine prioritizes aggressive diplomacy and, if necessary, deploying overwhelming military force followed by a swift withdrawal. Iran's recent defiance near the Strait of Hormuz is already putting the Trump Doctrine on trial, testing how far Washington will go to enforce its red lines. Earlier, Trump demonstrated a tough stance, ordering airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, offering the first glimpse of how this doctrine might unfold. Yet, despite US escalation, CIA analyses indicate the Iranian nuclear programme was set back only a few months; not years, as Trump had claimed. The Pentagon, however, has shown prudence. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's optimism, whereas General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, noted cautiously that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' though he stopped short of confirming the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Tehran retaliated by expelling UN nuclear inspectors, heightening fears of a renewed nuclear drive. Trump's foreign policy does not operate in isolation however. His aggressive stance abroad corresponds closely with domestic priorities articulated in the new 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a fiscal package designed to operationalize his doctrine by reinforcing energy independence and bolstering defense production, at the expense of domestic welfare. After overcoming resistance from Republican hardliners, the bill also includes $4.5 trillion tax cut, substantial hikes in defense spending, and dramatic increases in border security funding, offset by over $1 trillion in cuts from Medicaid and reductions in food assistance for low-income Americans. This strategy seems politically calculated: reassuring Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) base amid sliding poll numbers by projecting decisiveness abroad and economic insulation at home. Yet, such insulation remains a luxury Asia cannot afford. The implications extend far beyond Iran. Trump's new doctrine has alarmed other countries, especially those non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, despite being an NPT signatory, braved intense punishment, prompting justified caution in countries like Pakistan, a declared nuclear power outside the NPT framework. Recently questioned about potential threats against Pakistan's nuclear facilities, Pakistan's military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry firmly dismissed the possibility, stating unequivocally, 'There is absolutely no concern whatsoever in the military that Pakistan can become the next target.' He further warned that any attempt against nuclear-armed Pakistan would have 'horrific consequences.' Islamabad's cautious yet active diplomacy stems from strategic necessity, heightened by recent events. Only in January 2024, Pakistan and Iran exchanged missile fire across their shared 905-kilometer border, each accusing the other of harboring militant groups. But geopolitical tides shift swiftly; the sudden eruption of simultaneous regional crises, including Pakistan's conflict with India in May and the recent Israel-Iran hostilities, has unexpectedly brought Tehran and Islamabad closer than ever. Following the devastating Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, Pakistan swiftly condemned the aggression, calling it a violation of Iran's sovereignty and urging the UN to intervene. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar publicly signaled Islamabad's willingness to facilitate negotiations, conveying Iran's openness to dialogue should Israeli hostilities cease. Although past mistrust, especially concerning border security and separatist sanctuaries, hasn't vanished overnight, the current environment of heightened tensions has created strategic congruence between these uneasy neighbors. Despite these tensions, it is pertinent to note that Pakistan's imports from Iran grew by 18% last fiscal year, indicating resilient economic ties between the two nations. According to Pakistan's Ministry of Commerce, imports from Iran reached $66 million in June 2025 alone, maintaining steady trade through geopolitical disruptions. Critical land routes, especially the Taftan border crossing, remain operational, essential for sustaining these imports. Total imports from Iran reached $1.222 billion from July 2024 to June 2025, reflecting growing demand for energy supplies, fertilizers, construction materials, and agricultural staples sourced from Iran. Experts highlight that energy imports, mainly refined petroleum and natural gas, account for over 40% of this trade. If Trump, under his renewed doctrine, deals with a heavy hand towards Iran, the resulting regional crisis can jeopardize not just Pakistan's energy security, but the stability of other Asian countries too. For China, a Hormuz closure would pose an immediate economic threat; around 90% of Iran's oil exports, over five million barrels a day, transit via Hormuz. Senator Marco Rubio, sensing the potential fallout in June, urged Beijing to persuade Tehran directly against closure, highlighting severe consequences for China's economy. Such vulnerability emerges at a moment when China's economic recovery remains fragile and Beijing is increasingly wary of Trump's unpredictable military assertiveness, especially following recent US actions in Iran and implicit warnings towards Taiwan. India also walks a tightrope. Despite diversifying energy sources from the US, Russia, and elsewhere, India still relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil, with approximately 35% passing through Hormuz. As energy analyst Vibhuti Garg notes, India remains critically tethered to fossil fuels. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran in retaliation could trigger inflation precisely when India's economy is recovering from recent shocks. Japan and South Korea import over 80% of their energy from abroad; they face even greater risks. Nearly 75% of Japan's oil and 70% of South Korea's crude transit Hormuz, according to France 24. South Korea's renewable energy share remains low at 9%, significantly behind the OECD's 33% average, leaving it especially vulnerable. Any disruption in Hormuz could rapidly choke manufacturing output and escalate consumer prices, dealing severe blows to these two major Asian economies. Trump's latest bill appears to reinvigorate his electoral base, although it would come at substantial political and geopolitical costs. Days after the strikes, Trump's approval ratings dropped to 44%, reflecting Americans' skepticism over US involvement in another Middle Eastern conflict. The administration's tough stance on Iran – backed by record defense spending – caters to voters who are hungry for strength abroad but wary of another endless war. While Tehran has historically issued threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, recent parliamentary support to block the strait have posed a real risk, albeit symbolic. Experts like Edward L. Morse of Hartree Partners suggest the threat is overstated given Iran's own economic dependence on open shipping lanes. Nevertheless, even symbolic actions dramatically raise the risk of miscalculation. Ultimately, Trump's muscular approach risks triggering instability he claims to prevent, potentially forcing nuclear-armed non-NPT states like Pakistan into defensive postures, further complicating global security. The Trump Doctrine favors swift strikes and rapid withdrawals, but the Strait of Hormuz cannot be so easily attacked without mitigating the consequences. Asia, heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil, now faces potential economic turmoil; collateral damage from a geopolitical gamble that has, even before full escalation, already gone too far. (The writer is an educationist and an economist) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US lawmakers warn Pakistan over ‘repression', hint at possible sanctions
KARACHI: The US Congress may soon urge President Donald Trump's administration to consider imposing sanctions on countries that suppress religious freedom and violate human rights, Republican Congressman Christopher H Smith suggested during a congressional hearing on Pakistan on Tuesday. 'One of the biggest disappointments — regardless of who is in the White House or at the State Department — is the absence of sanctions,' said Smith, who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC). Smith recalled that the only individual ever sanctioned under US religious freedom laws was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, following the 2002 Gujarat riots. 'We are going to call on the Irfa office to consider imposing (sanctions) — especially in light of the terrible acts committed against people of various faiths,' he said. The Irfa office, based at the State Department, enforces the International Religious Freedom Act, which authorises the US government to designate and penalise countries that engage in or tolerate severe religious persecution. 'That's it. We've got 18 sanctions here, and we are going to impose them on you,' Smith declared during the hearing on Pakistan's current political and human rights situation. Amnesty International's advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, Ben Linden; PTI leader Zulfi Bukhari; law firm Perseus Strategies' Managing Director Jared Genser; and Afghanistan Impact Network founder Sadiq Amini provided their testimonies during the hearing. Although the TLHRC does not directly recommend sanctions, Smith's remarks were widely seen as a signal that such measures may be under consideration if current trends persist. His Democratic counterpart, Congressman James McGovern, echoed the concern. 'A vibrant Pakistani community in Massachusetts engages me all the time, and quite frankly, they are worried about the signals coming from our government right now,' he said. The hearing also addressed last week's White House meeting between Trump and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. Bukhari, a former close aide to Imran, told the panel: 'President Trump wanted to meet someone who is calling the shots. That's why he met the army chief.' Bukhari claimed nearly 200 politically motivated cases had been filed against Imran and his wife, Bushra Bibi. He alleged that 'fundamental rights had been suspended' in Pakistan, the media silenced, and judicial independence undermined through 'coercive' amendments. He also questioned the legality of the February 2024 elections, which PTI has repeatedly alleged were rigged, and criticised the military trials of civilians that he said led to the conviction of dozens of party members and supporters. 'This is a purge,' he said. 'It's not justice.' Toward the end of Bukhari's statement, Smith urged the US administration to sit up and take notice of the situation in Pakistan. He also urged the Trump administration to 'redouble its commitment to democracy and human rights' in the South Asian country. Speaking about the political climate in Pakistan, McGovern added: 'They need to know that people are watching. They need to know we don't like what we are hearing.' The bipartisan hearing focused on civil liberties and political freedoms in Pakistan, highlighting reports of repression, persecution of minorities, and efforts to silence dissidents abroad. Amnesty's Ben Linden opened his testimony by raising concerns over the situation in Balochistan. 'Dr Mahrang and other Baloch detainees should be freed,' he said, referring to the rights activist who has been in prison for more than three months over cases on allegedly 'attacking' the Quetta Civil Hospital and 'inciting people to violence'. Linden warned that recent crackdowns on PTI supporters should be seen in the context of a broader assault on fundamental rights. In 2024 alone, over 300 new blasphemy cases were registered — most against Muslims. 'Several of the accused were killed extra-judicially,' Linden said, calling the trend 'a tragedy'. He also condemned the recent blocking of US-based YouTube channels critical of Pakistan's military, describing the move as 'totally unacceptable'. However, Jared Genser of Perseus Strategies stressed that Washington could not afford to disengage entirely. 'We don't act that way with any regime. We have to engage. The key is for President Trump and Secretary (of State) Marco Rubio to say very clearly: we want a strong relationship with Pakistan, but this is what needs to be done to get there. And that includes releasing (ex-prime minister) Imran Khan and other political prisoners,' Genser said. He noted: 'We need to talk about the tragedy that Pakistan is today in terms of human rights. The Pakistani diaspora is a ray of hope.' McGovern concurred: 'We need to talk. We need to engage. And we need to be talking about political prisoners, the future of Imran Khan … but also how you do it.' In earlier remarks, TLHRC Co-chair Smith warned that the US 'cannot stand by' while military influence allegedly subverts civilian rule in Pakistan. Earlier on Tuesday, US lawmakers also heard disturbing accounts of harassment faced by Pakistani dissidents in the US. Multiple speakers alleged that within 48 hours of a protest outside the Pakistani Embassy in Washington on June 14, 'family members of critics were abducted in Pakistan.' Lawmakers, including Democratic representatives Jimmy Panetta, Suhas Subramanyam and Greg Casar, expressed support for safeguarding the civil liberties of Pakistani Americans. During the commission's hearing, speakers also urged Congress to oversee foreign surveillance operations on US soil and to press technology companies to resist censorship demands from foreign military courts. Established in 2008 and named after Holocaust survivor and former House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Lantos, the TLHRC holds bipartisan hearings to guide US human rights policy. Tuesday's session underscored longstanding concerns about Pakistan's democratic trajectory and signalled growing interest in potential policy responses — including targeted sanctions. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
The ‘TACO' trade's expiry date?
Markets have spent months assuming Trump would never go through with his tariff threats. That's the trade: 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' But when that bet becomes the rally's only pillar, it starts to look less like a strategy and more like a liability. Doesn't it? The second Trump presidency hasn't even settled in fully, yet the S&P 500 has already notched fresh record highs. The Nasdaq, riding another AI-fuelled wave, is in uncharted territory. European markets, despite being squarely in the crosshairs of the new tariff regime, have so far dipped only modestly. Canadian equities are touching peaks. And Mexican markets are barely bruised. All this even as the US president threatens to slap 30pc tariffs on EU and Mexican imports, 50pc on Brazilian goods, and 35pc on Canadian products not covered under USMCA. That's quite a disconnect. A market that shrugs off the potential for retaliatory tariffs, disrupted supply chains, and impaired corporate margins isn't just complacent; it's inviting mispricing. And in doing so, it risks triggering the very outcome it's discounting. For now, investors appear convinced that Trump is simply posturing to extract concessions. They point to April's Liberation Day tariffs – harsh in tone but ultimately watered down – as evidence that headline risks will fade just like they did the first time. But the danger is that this resilience, which Wall Street likes to see as strength, could instead embolden Tariff Trump. If equity markets refuse to flinch, why wouldn't the administration escalate? That's the so-called doom loop that the international financial press has only just started wondering about. Markets bet on moderation. The administration sees no market pushback and leans harder into protectionism. Retaliation follows. Growth forecasts fall. Asset prices catch up to reality. And just like that, a rally built on faith, not fundamentals, loses its anchor. Already, cracks are beginning to show. Brazilian equities are down 5pc in recent days. European and Mexican indexes have softened. But US stocks remain euphoric. The S&P's recovery from its April low was the second-fastest in 75 years. And forward earnings multiples are now well above long-term averages. The AI boom may justify some of this optimism. But not all of it. Not in the face of a global trade reconfiguration. The US trade deficit with the European Union alone was $235.9 billion last year, second only to China. But the bilateral trade volume was larger – $975 billion with the EU versus $582 billion with China. Yet market participants still seem more worried about China than Europe. That's a miscalculation. Trump's rhetoric about Europe 'ripping off' America has been consistent. The EU is not a sideshow – it's the main event. And if Washington makes good on its 30pc tariff threat, there is little doubt Brussels will respond. In that case, the April rally will not hold. Most analysts featured on Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, remain overweight US equities, for now. But even they concede that uncertainty around who ultimately bears the tariff costs – corporates, consumers, or governments – could lead to sharp dispersion in returns. That's another way of saying the index-level calm could be masking sector-level chaos. And it's not just about tariffs anymore. There's a broader budgetary calculus at play. Trump's new spending proposals, especially in defence and infrastructure, have widened the fiscal gap. Tariffs offer a convenient revenue patch; politically defensible and populist in tone. But they're also economically disruptive and globally destabilising. If markets continue to reward this behaviour, expecting it to be dialled down at the eleventh hour, they may soon find themselves with fewer places to hide. Volatility will return. Pricing models will adjust. And the TACO trade – already on borrowed time – will face its reckoning. This isn't to say protectionism is guaranteed. Trump, like any politician, has limits. Barclays analysts still believe his tolerance for financial market stress is 'limited.' But that's not a reliable brake. It's reactive, not proactive. By the time the stress shows up, the damage may already be done. The real risk here is behavioural. Markets are conditioning the administration into thinking they can absorb shock. That's dangerous. Because it means when the shock finally lands, it will do so without a cushion. So far, the market's optimism has come cheap. But if Europe retaliates in kind, and tariff averages climb well above the 10-15pc threshold markets are quietly baking in, growth assumptions will need to be slashed. And with them, forward earnings, risk appetite, and portfolio allocations. In short, this isn't 2018 redux. The economic landscape is more fragile, the geopolitical stakes higher, and investor positioning more crowded. This time, if Trump doesn't chicken out, Wall Street might. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
