This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has held back nothing in his criticism of Mexican drug cartels, which he has declared to be terror organizations and responsible for the deaths of Americans daily, through their drug and human trafficking.
But now there's a new option being considered to take them on: Drones.
A report at NBC explains the Trump administration is thinking about targeting the cartels with drone strikes as part of its effort to battle criminal gangs.
The report said that confirmation came from "six current and former U.S. military, law enforcement and intelligence officials with knowledge of the matter."
While discussions are at "an early stage," under consideration are drone strikes against cartel leaders as well as their support networks, a plan that would be aided by the Mexican government, the sources told the network.
Even covert action, unilateral moves that wouldn't have the express consent of the Mexican government, has not been ruled out, the report said.
"If Mexico and the United States proceed together with drone strikes or other action, it would not be the first time they have launched a joint effort to take on the cartels, nor would it be the first time that American military and intelligence worked in concert with Mexico's law enforcement and army," NBC reported.
But it said what would be unprecedented would be the number of law enforcement officers involved, as well as the use of drones to "bomb cartel personnel and assets."
The report also noted the intelligence gathering about the cartels, by the U.S. military and others, has stepped up dramatically recently.
One of the report's sources said the targets could be cartel operatives, vehicles, warehouses, and any other location that makes up the network for the gangs.
Mexico's president later asserted she would reject "any form of intervention or interference," explaining that Mexico will coordinate and collaborate, but not give up its authority.
Previously, the network said, Ronald Johnson, the president's nominee to be ambassador to Mexico, declined to rule out unilateral U.S. action, even in Mexico.
The Trump administration's hope continues to be, the sources reported, that the U.S. will be able to coordinate with Mexico's military and law enforcement against the cartels.
The six sources explained that the fact the U.S. has not ruled out unilateral action could be seen as pressuring Mexico to accept joint operations that it otherwise might have discouraged.
Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, already has tried to step up police work against the cartels, including allowing CIA surveillance flights. And she's sent 10,000 troops to the border where they are searching vehicles for drugs.
Two ex-Major League Baseball players are among the more than 120 who lost their lives when a roof collapsed at a nightclub in the Dominican Republic on Tuesday, Fox News reported. Local authorities pulled bodies from the rubble as the cause remained unknown.
Among the revelers in the ill-fated Jet Set nightclub was 43-year-old Tony Blanco, a Dominican baseball player who spent one season with the Washington Nationals. Also at the club was World Series champion pitcher Octavio Dotel, 51, who played for 13 teams in his career.
"Dotel was taken to one of the designated hospitals. On the way there, his condition worsened, and he died," police spokesman Diego Pesqueira said. The harrowing footage was shared on news outlets across X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday.
At least 66 people killed, and 155 injured when a roof collapsed at a nightclub in the Dominican Republic. Among the deceased is former MLB pitcher Octavio Dotel. @VictorOquendo the latest. https://t.co/en3KfSGmX7 pic.twitter.com/kKbWHUhNci
— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) April 9, 2025
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred released a statement honoring the two fallen players. Also among the dead was Nelsy Cruz, the governor of the province of Montecristi and sister of former Texas Ranger and MLB All-Star Nelson Cruz.
"Major League Baseball is deeply saddened by the passings of Octavio Dotel, Tony Blanco, Nelsy Cruz and all the victims of last night's tragedy in Santo Domingo. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of all those who have been affected and to our colleague Nelson and his entire family," Manfred wrote.
"The connection between baseball and the Dominican Republic runs deep, and we are thinking of all the Dominican players and fans across the game today," he added. The Houston Astros, where Dotel spent five seasons as the "top reliever," also shared the sad news.
Beverly Hills Sports Council President Dan Horwits, who was Dotel's agent, called him a "one of a kind" in a statement to Fox Digital News. "The BHSC Family is saddened to learn of the tragic passing of Octavio Dotel. OD was one of a kind. One of the true joys to be around both on and off the field," Horwits said.
"His energy, positivity and zest for life were infectious to all who had the pleasure of knowing him. During his Major League career, he set the MLB record for playing with the most organizations (13). He was genuinely proud of holding that record and would always crack a joke to anyone who asked. It was an honor to represent OD," the statement said, along with offering "condolences" to loved ones.
The Washington Post reported that the death toll climbed to 124 by Wednesday evening. Rescue crews continued to work and involved at least 300 emergency service personnel from the Dominican Republic, a dozen from Puerto Rico, and another nine from Israel.
"If we find people alive, we will communicate it immediately. We won’t ever lose hope," Center for Emergency Operations Director Juan Manuel Méndez said as rescuers continued to sift through the rubble.
So far, another 155 have been hurt after concrete and equipment fell onto the dance floor during a musical performance. Sadly, beloved Dominican singer Rubby Pérez, who was performing when the collapse occurred, also perished.
The 69-year-old, who was known for having "the highest voice in merengue," was initially thought to have been pulled from the debris and brought to an area hospital. However, Pérez's daughter Paulin said that was incorrect and that her father had died.
This was a tragic event that cut too many lives too short. Unfortunately, the death toll may climb if those trapped underneath are not rescued and those in the hospital succumb to their injuries.
A new book pulled back the curtain on former President Joe Biden's mental decline that led Democrats to lose the 2024 presidential election, Fox News reported. In one excerpt, ABC News host George Stephanopoulos recounted how it was "heartbreaking up close" to interview the then-president after his disastrous campaign-ending debate.
The book, "Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History" by Chris Whipple, was released this week. It paints a picture of the Democratic Party's frenzied maneuvering to try to hide how poor Biden's mental acuity was.
Biden's June 27 debate performance against then-candidate Donald Trump made it impossible to continue on as if nothing happened. The author noted that Stephanopoulos was given the task of interviewing Biden on This Week on July 5, which all but sealed the deal for him.
Whipple recounted that the interview with Stephanopoulos was meant to "staunch the bleeding" of Democrats who wanted Biden out. The author noted that Biden was "hoarse and semi-coherent" throughout the interview, which bothered the host.
Rather than smoothing things over, the appearance cemented the notion that Biden was finished. "Stephanopoulos questioned the president gently, like a grandson," Whipple noted.
"Afterward, when I asked the ABC anchor by email for his impressions, he replied: ‘Heartbreaking up close,'" Whipple wrote. Stephanopoulos would later say when asked about it that he didn't think Biden could "serve four more years."
This was after Biden tried to assert his competence during the softball sitdown with Stephanopoulos. "Look, I have a cognitive test every single day," Biden told the host.
"Every day, I’ve had tests. Everything I do. You know, not only am I campaigning, I’m running the world. And that’s not — it sounds like hyperbole, but we are the central nation of the world."
Biden insisted that he was in top campaign shape, but Whipple said the truth behind the scenes was far different. "He was absolutely exhausted," Whipple wrote, according to NPR.
"He was unable really to follow what was happening in the campaign. He was tuned out. Early on, he walked out of a [debate preparation] session in the Aspen Lodge, the president's cabin, went over to the pool, sank into a lounge chair, and just fell sound asleep," Whipple wrote.
It was less than a month before he would turn his campaign over to then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the White House in a crushing defeat. Whipple blames those around Biden for not getting him out sooner.
"I think that it's unquestionable that there was just an abdication of leadership starting within that inner circle. The inability of any of those [staffers] to sit the president down and say, 'Look, you need to look at this clear eyed and realize that you're going to be 86 years old and you're not up to this and everybody knows it.' That never happened," Whipple wrote.
It was crystal clear that Biden was suffering from cognitive impairment, but his campaign tried to cover it up. In the end, they couldn't even fool their allies in the leftist media, let alone the voting public.
For the second time in two days, a higher court has put on hold a decision that would have employed thousands of government workers who were fired en mass at the recommendation of the Department of Government Efficiency.
The legal effect of this ruling is that thousands of probationary workers are once again at risk of being out of a job due to government downsizing, as Fox News reported.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals briefly overturned a Maryland judge's order that agencies in 19 states and the District of Columbia had to hire back their workers. The vote was 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration.
The majority thought it was likely that the government would be able to show that the Maryland district court did not have the power to hear the states' claims that federal agencies had engaged in an illegal Reduction in Force (RIF).
The decision comes just the day after the Supreme Court issued a different stay that had a similar effect on a California court's decision that forced some agencies to bring back probationary workers who had been fired.
On Tuesday, the high court put the preliminary stay on hold while claims of illegal firing go through the appeals process. The order was not signed, but it was made public, impacting the government's response.
In the Maryland case, however, Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin said she would have let the preliminary order stay in place, which was keeping the affected probationary workers from being fired.
“The states clearly have standing to challenge the process by which the government has engaged in mass firings,” she wrote in a dissent. “I see no reason to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending its appeal.”
Although court orders barring agencies from large-scale probationary worker terminations are on pause, this week's verdicts are not the end of the Maryland or California cases.
In the Maryland case, which alleges the government engaged in RIFs without the required notice to the states, the Fourth Circuit is rushing to hear full arguments on whether the preliminary injunction was legal.
In California, the court is considering issuing a new preliminary injunction to fight the Supreme Court's order from Tuesday.
The justices found that outside organizations harmed by the mass firings lacked standing to sue, but left open the possibility that other plaintiffs, including federal unions, could win an injunction.
On Wednesday, Judge William Alsup of the San Francisco Superior Court heard arguments concerning the standing of the unions to sue and obtain a second injunction.
He delayed a ruling until attorneys in the case provided more information, including data on how many employees were affected by the mass terminations, what their relationships are with the union plaintiffs, and possible evidence that the agencies' firing decisions were made at the Office of Personnel Management's request.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal district judges across the nation, at the behest of leftists who oppose President Donald Trump and go judge-shopping for the best ruling they can get, have been extremely liberal in their use of nationwide injunctions to try to stop the president's plans.
But the Supreme Court's decision that James Boasberg's decision from his Washington court bench that Trump was not allowed to deport criminal illegal aliens was simply irrelevant is being considered a slapdown to federal judges and their overreach agenda.
Just the News reports the Trump administration has endured a record number of temporary restraining orders against its policies, with low-level federal judges imposing their own political ideas with vast orders and restrictions.
"The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges' authority to interfere in executive branch operations," the report said. And in fact some justices on the high court have said the issue needs to be addressed.
This week's 5-4 decision by the justices opted to overturn Boasberg's order halting Trump's enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and it went much further, declaring Washington was an inappropriate venue for the case even to be heard.
That's because the gang members' detentions are in Texas.
The court did say that the gang members need to be given timely notification and be allowed to challenge their removals.
They wrote, "For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today's order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement."
The report noted Texas is in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, one of the most conservative courts across the country, and those courts are expected to be receptive to Trump's plan to secure America by removing criminal illegal aliens.
The provision for due process, however, likely will slow down the process.
Chief Justice John Roberts also blocked another order from Boasberg, who demanded that Trump bring back to America an illegal alien who was deported.
The ruling regarding deportations explained Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., "provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan federal district court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump's efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants."
He called for the Supreme Court to do "far more" to put a leash on radical liberal judges who are presuming to take over portions of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the American government.
Added Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, "[I]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints."
The report said the ruling was one of the first actions to "chastise" district judges for their overreach, and the forum shopping done by leftist groups bringing cases. The cases have covered handing out taxpayer cash to wildly inappropriate causes, dismissing federal workers, realigning agency responsibilities, securing America's borders, and much, much more.
The Trump administration has called out those courts for issuing "more universal injunctions and TROs" in one month than the total issued during the first three years of the administration of Joe Biden.
"That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this court's emergency docket," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained.
The report said the latest rulings could indicate how the justices may address some other appeals.
The Supreme Court already has acknowledged the scheme of leftists hunting down leftist judges for favorable rulings.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito, on a ruling from a lower court that demanded Trump continue handing out taxpayer cash through USAID programs, said, "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."
Boasberg, meanwhile, has canceled a planned hearing he was going to hold in the case of the illegal aliens deported under the federal AEA law. He said, after the Supreme Court ruling, that the appropriate venue is Texas, where the suspects are held.
The United States Department of Justice is seeking the help of the Supreme Court to overturn a district court’s order compelling it to return an illegal migrant, who allegedly belongs to the MS-13 gang, back to U.S. soil from El Salvador, Breitbart reports.
The Justice Department's request stems from concerns over judicial intervention in deportation decisions, especially involving individuals tied to gangs.
The situation began when Federal District Court Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland mandated that the Department of Justice bring back Abrego Garcia, a deported migrant, no later than April 7, 2025. This decision became contentious as Garcia was suspected of being a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.
The Justice Department acknowledged that Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was a bureaucratic error. However, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued against the district court's decision, suggesting it interfered with the U.S.'s diplomatic engagements. Sauer voiced concerns that such precedents might lead district courts to excessively influence international relations by requiring the United States to renegotiate deportations worldwide.
The legal battle took a political turn when some Democratic leaders and media organizations sided with Judge Xinis's judgment. They defended her stance, despite its potential political consequences, highlighting issues of due process and human rights in deportation cases.
Judge Xinis based her order on a lack of reliable evidence regarding Garcia’s alleged gang membership. Sauer, however, emphasized that Garcia "is no ordinary individual, but rather a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization, MS-13." Sauer argued that the implications of the district court's ruling extend far beyond the present case, warning that other courts might intervene in similar deportation scenarios.
The core of Judge Xinis's argument rested on the potential risks Garcia could face upon return to El Salvador. She argued the deportation could inadvertently put him at risk of violence due to the presence of rival gangs.
While the district court seemed resolute, a three-judge panel on the appellate court backed Judge Xinis’s directive, reinforcing the obligation of the Justice Department to comply with her order. In her articulation, Judge Xinis dismissed the allegations against Garcia, citing flimsy evidence, "The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie."
The Justice Department's request for Supreme Court intervention isn't just about one incident or one man's deportation; it represents deeper concerns about the roles and limits of federal agency authority versus judicial powers. Sauer's plea to the Supreme Court underscored the urgency, noting that such injunctions demand expedited compliance, often on unreasonable deadlines.
The case, officially registered as J.G.G. vs Trump, Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB), in the federal District Court of the District of Columbia, raises questions about the broader intersection between U.S. immigration policies, its judiciary, and foreign relations.
For those involved, the stakes extend beyond legalities. In arguing against the district court’s mandate, Sauer articulated his unease about the possible ripple effects of this precedent, "If this precedent stands, other district courts could order the United States to successfully negotiate the return of other removed aliens anywhere in the world." This scenario, he suggests, could grant district courts excessive extraterritorial jurisdiction over the nation's diplomatic affairs.
While the controversy over Abrego Garcia’s deportation continues, it highlights the delicate balance between judicial oversight and executive action in matters where national security and immigration laws intersect. The Justice Department remains unwavering in its pursuit of reversing the district court's order, but it awaits to see if the Supreme Court will agree to hear their plea.
As the nation watches, the outcome of this legal struggle may influence future deportation policies and the degree to which courts can intervene in international deportation matters. The case not only tests the boundaries of judicial power but also debates the country’s approach to immigration enforcement amidst concerns about human rights and safety.
In the unfolding saga, the United States navigates its complex immigration landscape, balancing between legal frameworks and the realities of international diplomacy.
The Supreme Court paused a judge's order commanding the Trump administration to bring an alleged MS-13 gang member back to the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts lifted the midnight deadline from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, an Obama appointee, hours after the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal.
The Trump administration has conceded that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who entered the U.S. illegally, was deported to his native El Salvador in error.
But officials maintain that he is an MS-13 gang member, and they say Judge Xinis has no authority to compel his return.
Abrego Garcia has widely been depicted in the media as an innocent father victimized by an arbitrary deportation. In 2019, an immigration judge blocked Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador over his fear of persecution by the 18th Street gang, which is the rival of MS-13.
He is being held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, a famous prison built by the country's government in its crackdown on gangs like MS-13.
The Trump administration has said that it is impossible to effectuate his return now that he is being held in a foreign country, and they have blasted Xinis' edict as an unconstitutional attempt by the judiciary to interfere with foreign affairs.
"The district court’s injunction—which requires Abrego Garcia’s release from the custody of a foreign sovereign and return to the United States by midnight on Monday—is patently unlawful,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
The Supreme Court's intervention came just hours before the midnight deadline, on the same day that an appeals court upheld Xinis' order.
The administration has been locked in a multi-front legal battle against judges who, Trump says, are improperly stepping on the powers of the presidency.
Xinis' order is similar to the infamous ruling from a different Obama appointee, James Boasberg, ordering Trump to turn back deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members.
The Supreme Court chastened Boasberg on Monday by upholding Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law, to facilitate rapid deportations.
The liberal justices, joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Hunter Biden lobbied the Obama administration for help with his infamous Burisma deal, according to a bombshell letter.
Biden's letter to the Italian embassy, reported by the New York Times, is tangible evidence of how the son of former vice president Joe Biden - who pardoned Hunter late last year - leveraged his political influence to promote his and his partners' business interests.
Hunter Biden infamously received an $80,000 per month salary for dubious "work" on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.
In his 2016 letter, addressed to U.S. ambassador to Italy John Phillips, Biden asked for a meeting with a regional honcho in Tuscany to smooth out regulatory hurdles for a Burisma subsidiary. Biden added in the letter, "It was great seeing you in Rome recently.”
Hunter received a warm response from Phillips promising to assist and "see where our interests may overlap."
"Dear Hunter, It seems like yesterday that you were in Rome. I hope this finds you well. Thank you for your letter. I know Enrico Rossi well and have a good working relationship with him,” the ambassador wrote in a response printed by the New York Times.
Former vice president Joe Biden stayed at the ambassador's residence in Rome for three days in 2015, Phillips told the Times. Hunter accompanied his father on the trip.
Of course, the Times has faced criticism over its belated interest in covering the Biden family's business dealings. To many, it appears the curiosity of the liberal media has been awakened only because Joe Biden is no longer in power.
For years, any intimation of wrongdoing by Hunter or his father was dismissed by the media as a Republican smear - even as evidence piled up showing that Biden was in contact with his son's business associates.
Democrats and their media allies dismissed House Republicans' impeachment inquiry into former President Biden by pointing to the absence of specific policy favors - an objection that appears weaker than ever in light of the Times' reporting on Hunter's cozy contacts with the State Department.
The Bidens' shield of media protection started to unravel last year when Joe Biden showed his own party that he was not up to the task of winning re-election against Donald Trump.
One of Joe Biden's last ignominious acts before leaving office was to pardon Hunter for any crimes he may have committed in a 10-year period, extending to the year he began working at Burisma.
President Trump has fired a top NATO admiral accused of spreading leftist ideology.
The Pentagon confirmed that Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield was let go over the weekend, as President Trump continues a purge of "woke" officials.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said Chatfield was removed "due to a loss of confidence in her ability to lead.”
“The Defense Department is grateful for her many years of military service,” Parnell added.
Chatfield's name was on a list of "woke" military officials prepared by the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative group.
The Navy helicopter pilot's critics pointed to her past remarks touting "diversity", including a speech she gave at the Naval War College in 2019 when she became its president.
“I want to see members of this team offer each other respect for differences, for diversity, for the dialogue from which ideas and collaboration emerge,” she said.
In 2015, Chatfield used the popular leftist slogan "diversity is our strength" in a speech about women's empowerment.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has led a reckoning against "DEI" initiatives that many say have turned the military away from its core mission. Hegseth has criticized the focus on diversity as divisive and contrary to the spirit of solidarity that is needed for the armed forces to succeed.
Trump has fired a number of top military officers who advocates "woke" ideas, including former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. C.Q. Brown.
Brown, who is black, pushed to lower the number of white officers in the Air Force.
Trump's firing of Chatfield may have been inspired by her advocacy of diversity, but it also highlights his longstanding ambivalence towards NATO. The president has long criticized the trans-Atlantic alliance, calling out European member states for not contributing more to their defense.
Chatfield sat on NATO's military committee. Congressional Democrats condemned her firing as dangerous to national security, with Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) saying he's "deeply disturbed."
“Trump’s relentless attacks on our alliances and his careless dismissal of decorated military officials make us less safe and weaken our position across the world."
Jack Reed (D-Ri.), ranking member of the Seate Armed Services Committee, called the firing "disgraceful."
"I will continue to call out this unconscionable behavior and sound the alarm about the dangers of firing military officers as a political loyalty test. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in demanding an explanation from President Trump and Secretary Hegseth," Reed said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Popular journalist Tucker Carlson is now issuing a stark warning against any U.S. military strike on Iran, calling it "suicidal" and claiming "we'd lose the war that follows."
"Whatever you think of tariffs, it's clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran," Carlson posted on X Monday.
"Thousands of Americans would die. We'd lose the war that follows.
"Nothing would be more destructive to our country. And yet we're closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons.
"This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy."
Carlson's comments come in the wake of heated rhetoric from the White House against Iran, which has been backing Houthi terror attacks against American ships in the Mideast, as well as ongoing military action against Israel.
President Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House Monday and said he would be talking with Iran on Saturday.
"If the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran's gonna be in great danger," Trump said. "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all there is."
"If the talks aren't successful, I actually think it'll be a very bad day for Iran if that's the case."
"The Iran-backed Houthi Terrorists have been decimated by the relentless strikes over the past two weeks," Trump said on Truth Social March 31.
"Many of their Fighters and Leaders are no longer with us. We hit them every day and night – Harder and harder. Their capabilities that threaten Shipping and the Region are rapidly being destroyed.
"Our attacks will continue until they are no longer a threat to Freedom of Navigation. The choice for the Houthis is clear: Stop shooting at U.S. ships, and we will stop shooting at you.
"Otherwise, we have only just begun, and the real pain is yet to come, for both the Houthis and their sponsors in Iran."
Also raising the flag about U.S. military action against Iran is Ron Paul, a former U.S. congressman and Republican presidential candidate.
"That didn't take long," Paul said on March 31.
"A candidate elected to end current wars and avoid new ones, Donald Trump as president has significantly escalated the war on Yemen and is now threatening to attack Iran.
"He is also threatening Russia (again) with punitive tariffs.
"What is it about the White House that turns every resident into a warmonger?"