Alec Baldwin slams Trump's 'insane' DC takeover, warns he may target other cities and sports leagues next
The staunchly anti-Trump celebrity asserted that he "doesn't need [the] D.C. police to be taken over," and suggested that the president would not stop with D.C. and would pursue any means necessary to "deflect from his inadequacy."
"What's gonna happen next? Is Trump gonna federalize the New York City Police Department? What's after that? Chicago, L.A., Miami, Boston, and on and on?" he questioned. "What's after that? The NFL? The NBA? Is he gonna federalize them to take them over?"
Trump announced Monday that he was federalizing the local police department under section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to assume emergency control of the capital's police force for 30 days.
Baldwin expressed his frustration with Trump focusing his attention on crime in D.C. and suggested that the president focus on other pressing issues facing the nation.
"The takeover of D.C. police. It's not what I need. I don't need [the] D.C. police to be taken over. I don't," he stated. "They need to get the tariffs over with. They need to get the war over with. They need to get the Gaza thing over with. And after that, we have something else we have to get over with."
In July 2020, the "30 Rock" star suggested that Trump would use the nation's armed forces to somehow stop the general election in November.
Those comments from Baldwin came on the heels of a situation in Portland, Ore., that year in which federal agents were deployed to the area amid protests sparked by the May 25 death of George Floyd while in police custody.
"The 'police' activity in Portland, and lack of outrage over/resistance to it tells us how Trump could stop the election in November," the actor posted to Twitter, now named X. "It's his only hope."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
a minute ago
- CNBC
Not in the cards: Why some suspect stable trade may not follow Trump's tariff deals
The White House has signed a number of notable trade deals in the months since President Donald Trump slapped sharply higher tariffs on imports in early April. But some on Wall Street are cautioning that turmoil surrounding relations between the U.S. and its major trading partners is far from over. "Our views have been at odds with the investor consensus all year – and they still are," Andy Laperriere, head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler, wrote in a report this summer. "The emerging narrative is that even though tariffs are high, we now have deals that will provide stability in trade policy. Therefore, economic actors can adjust to the new reality and move on," he said. In his firm's opinion, however, "trade stability is not in the cards." Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs went into effect on Aug. 7. The president had announced the sweeping levies back on April 2, and their initial size sent stocks reeling before a series of walk-backs from the White House eased investors' concerns. Stocks have since recovered these losses and gone on to score record highs. Lately, investors have been betting that Trump won't implement the most draconian of his trade plans, in what has come to be known as the TACO trade, short for "Trump Always Chickens Out." But the duties that Trump announced in early April have in large part taken hold. An exception is Vietnam, as shown by Piper Sandler data. Though still high, the rate on imports from Vietnam is less than half the level Trump threatened on April 2, Laperriere said. "One of the things that I think is interesting, that I think is underappreciated is that 'liberation day' mostly arrived," Laperriere said during a webinar earlier this month. "When you look at our major trading partners, most of what was put on the board on April 2 is on the board now." Catalysts for instability Trump's tariffs have faced significant legal challenges, with a federal appeals court judge seeming skeptical in late July of the president's claim that he has the authority to impose new tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a law that grants the president authority to regulate international commerce in response to a national emergency. Trump later warned U.S. courts against blocking his tariff policy. With the ongoing litigation and unsettled backdrop, uncertainty around the future of tariffs and trade persists. "If the courts find he is overstepping his authority to impose tariffs, which is highly likely, then the deals are null and void," Laperriere wrote in his report. "The Supreme Court is likely to rule against Trump's use of IEEPA within the next 10 months." One reason countries continue to negotiate is the assumption that Trump could pivot to use another authority if his IEEPA claim is struck down, said Ed Mills, managing director and Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. For example, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — the original Smoot-Hawley protectionist legislation — allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 50% on imported goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Trump "has a history of taking the entire legal process to run out the clock," Mills told CNBC. "Tariffs are here to stay." Another driver of instability is the lack of details about the trade agreements that have so far been reached. For instance, Trump announced trade deals with Indonesia and the Philippines , but the specifics have yet to be confirmed. Additionally, officials from other countries including Japan and South Korea have disagreed with Trump on the terms of their agreements, signaling they have not yet been finalized. Unsettled "Foreign officials describe the few details differently than Trump and his top advisors, so even some of the high-level features have not been ironed out," Laperriere wrote. "These deals aren't settled and are built in part on phony promises. They could easily fall apart." On top of that, some trading partners, such as the European Union, are unlikely to live by their deals for very long, he claimed. Last month, Trump said that he reached a deal with the bloc , one that involves a 15% tariff on most European goods coming into the U.S. But European leaders and analysts criticized the deal shortly thereafter, calling it "unbalanced." Meanwhile, no final agreements have been reached between the U.S. and key partners such as Canada, Mexico and China . In fact, Trump last Monday delayed imposing additional tariffs on Chinese goods for another 90 days. The president could meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping "around the [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] summit" in the fall, though "what happens at that meeting is a big wild card," Mills said. "There are going to be some countries where they're able to get to a final agreement and other countries where they fall apart," Mills said to CNBC. "I think that the larger the trading partner is, the more likely they are going to find a way to get to yes." 'Priced out' risk Even with some of Trump's tariffs going into effect, the stock market has soared to all-time highs this summer, underscoring optimism that the U.S. economy can withstand threats of high tariffs at home and abroad. Yet, Laperriere believes Wall Street isn't properly accounting for the potential impacts of the duties on the economy. For now, JPMorgan projects that tariffs could result in about a 1% hit to gross domestic product. Prediction markets have been pricing out recession risk, with the likelihood down to 10% over the weekend from about 70% in May. That suggests markets were either pricing in a recession scenario that was "too high in early May or it's too low now," Laperriere said. "The broader tariff risk is arguably completely priced out of markets, though individual companies and sectors that would be adversely impacted by them have generally underperformed," he wrote in a report in early August. Ultimately, perhaps, the biggest unknown remains the quixotic "Trump factor," which can't be quantified, Brian Gardner, Stifel's chief Washington policy strategist, said in an interview. "He can change his mind at any given time, and has, as some of these deals have progressed," he said. "There's nothing to prevent him from changing his mind again down the road."
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Three Republican-Led States Pledge More National Guard Troops for D.C.
Scores of demonstrators took to the streets of Washington on an oppressively hot and humid Saturday to protest the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops. Hundreds gathered at Dupont Circle for a march through Washington to protest the deployment, which the Trump administration has claimed was meant to clamp down on crime and homelessness in the city. Many of the demonstrators dismissed that pretext and said the National Guard deployment was an abuse of power. An activist group called Refuse Fascism led the demonstrators as they marched down Connecticut Avenue to the National Mall, filling the road and blocking traffic. Many were wearing bright orange bandannas and holding signs with slogans, including 'Trump Must Go Now' and 'No ICE! No National Guard!' Metropolitan Police officers on bicycles looked on from afar as the group marched in what was a largely peaceful, upbeat protest. Marchers sang, danced and blew brightly colored whistles. One blasted music — by D.C.-based artists only — from a portable speaker. The crowd chanted and cheered at drivers who honked in support. Many marchers were residents of Washington and its suburbs, and they said they showed up to to defend of the region they call home. Robin Galbraith, 61, said she hoped the current moment would underscore the need for statehood in the District of Columbia. She said that, too often, federal lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have used the district as a pawn 'for their own agenda.' 'Trump is attacking my city to distract from everything that's going bad in his administration,' said Ms. Galbraith, a retired schoolteacher who has lived in the area all her life. Sam Luban, 29, who has lived in the nation's capital for almost six years, said she had embraced the city as her own and thought it was sometimes unfairly maligned by those who don't understand its beauty. She said this week had been a tense time in the district, whose residents were overwhelmingly liberal. 'It's a city that hates the current administration, but it has to survive under it,' Ms. Luban said. 'It's being attacked right now.' As Ms. Luban marched down Connecticut Avenue, she carried over her head a painted cardboard sign that read, 'I did it. I threw the sandwich,' quoting Sean C. Dunn, a Justice Department employee who hurled a 'sub-style' sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer last weekend. Mr. Dunn, who was fired from his job and charged with assaulting a federal officer, has become something of a folk hero for some residents, Ms. Luban said. 'He's become like a local legend, and that's what D.C.'s all about,' she said. Sandwiches appeared to be a motif of sort in the protest. Some demonstrators, like Ms. Luban, drew them on signs. Others opted for the real deal: At least two marchers held aloft actual sandwiches, much to the amusement of some and befuddlement of at least one passerby who wondered aloud why someone would bring a baguette to a protest. As demonstrators passed between the White House and the Washington Monument, the mood briefly turned tense as some berated National Guard troops standing in front of a military vehicle. Some marchers shouted expletives and yelled 'traitor' at the Guard members. Police officers who had been following the protest intervened, forming a barrier between the crowd and the troops with bicycles. The tension dissipated, and the protest moved on, joining forces with a handful of demonstrators who had been at the White House. Among them was Robin Matthewman, a 68-year-old retired foreign service officer who carried a sign declaring that she was 'proud to protest a police state.' At least one person was detained by the U.S. Park Police and U.S. Secret Service officers outside the White House. It was not clear what may have caused the arrest. Saturday's march was one of several over the past week in the city organized by liberal groups like the Free D.C. Project. There were more protests by Democrats on Saturday elsewhere in the country, including Austin, Texas, New York and Chicago. They rallied against a redistricting proposal in Texas designed to deliver Republicans five extra congressional seats. Eric Lee and Anushka Patil contributed reporting from Washington.
Washington Post
a minute ago
- Washington Post
Fatal explosion at U.S. Steel's plant raises questions about its future, despite heavy investment
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The fatal explosion last week at U.S. Steel's Pittsburgh-area coal-processing plant has revived debate about its future just as the iconic American company was emerging from a long period of uncertainty. The fortunes of steelmaking in the U.S. — along with profits, share prices and steel prices — have been buoyed by years of friendly administrations in Washington that slapped tariffs on foreign imports and bolstered the industry's anti-competitive trade cases against China.
