Trump administration – Vote Democrat

Health Safety Workers

America’s 153–1 Vote Against Humanitarian Protection and What It Signals for Democracy

On December 10, 2025, the United States cast the only vote against a UN resolution protecting humanitarian workers—while Russia, North Korea, and 151 other nations voted yes or abstained. The vote came during the deadliest year on record for aid workers, with 383 killed in 2024 and 265 more by August 2025. The Trump administration justified its opposition by citing “radical gender ideology” in the text, reframing humanitarian protection as a culture war issue. This vote crystallizes a broader foreign policy realignment that isolates America from traditional allies while accommodating adversarial powers. As the National Security Strategy abandons great-power competition rhetoric and characterizes European allies in adversarial terms, analysts warn of structural vulnerabilities to foreign influence and the dismantling of oversight mechanisms. The transformation raises urgent questions about whether “America First” policies serve American interests—or something else entirely.

Promises Made on Money Not Yet Collected How Trump Tariff Revenue Has Been Pledged Multiple Times Over

Economy Hypocrisy Taxes

Trump’s Tariff Revenue Has Been Pledged Multiple Times Over on Money Not Yet Collected

Vote Democrat 10 December 2025 agricultural policy appropriations budget analysis budget deficits campaign promises child care policy Congressional Budget Office constitutional law consumer costs debt reduction deficit spending economic analysis economic impact economic policy farmer bailouts federal budget federal spending fiscal policy fiscal responsibility household costs IEEPA import taxes international trade investigative journalism national debt political promises regressive taxation stimulus checks Supreme Court tariff revenue tariffs tax cuts tax policy trade policy Treasury Department Trump administration

President Donald Trump has promised to use tariff revenue to fund at least five major initiatives: a $12 billion farmer bailout, $2,000 direct payments to Americans, expanded child care assistance, $3 trillion in tax cut offsets, and paying down the $37 trillion national debt. The problem is mathematical impossibility. Even the most optimistic projections show tariffs will generate $2.3 trillion over ten years—far short of the $10+ trillion in cumulative promises. This investigation reveals how the same revenue stream has been pledged multiple times over, while Trump’s repeated claims that “foreign nations” pay tariffs contradicts economic evidence showing American consumers and businesses bear the costs through higher prices. Budget experts describe it as an “over-allocation problem” where every dollar has been promised three or four times, making it arithmetically impossible for any of the commitments to be fully kept.

Corruption Hypocrisy Morals Safety

What Trump’s Removal of Senior Military and Intelligence Leaders Could Mean for U.S. National Security

Vote Democrat 23 November 2025 Afghan government collapse Afghanistan Biden administration conflict studies counterterrorism Doha Agreement foreign policy continuity geopolitical strategy international relations national security Taliban agreement troop withdrawal Trump administration U.S. foreign policy U.S. military policy

The Trump administration’s approach to the Afghanistan withdrawal created structural conditions that shaped—and in some ways constrained—the decisions made by the administration that followed. By negotiating directly with the Taliban while excluding the Afghan government, sharply reducing U.S. troop levels before the final evacuation, and issuing a firm withdrawal deadline with few enforcement mechanisms, the U.S. signaled a sweeping shift in leverage that reverberated throughout the country’s political and military institutions. When the Biden administration assumed office, it inherited an agreement that had already weakened the Afghan state and empowered its adversaries, narrowing its available policy options. While the chaos of the final withdrawal raised urgent questions about operational preparedness and accountability, the precursor decisions cast a long shadow. The episode illustrates how foreign policy handoffs—especially those involving active conflict—carry consequences that can transcend administrations, redefine regional dynamics, and reshape U.S. credibility abroad.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28