Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump suggested Saturday that either the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean could be renamed the “Trump Ocean” or “Ocean of the Americas,” telling supporters at a campaign rally in Tennessee that he would like to see an ocean and a major American river receive new names before his presidency ends in 2028.

The president made the remarks during a wide-ranging appearance at the F&M Bank Arena in Clarksville, where he was campaigning for Republican candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. His comments, delivered in a joking manner and greeted with laughter and applause, followed his administration’s earlier decisions to rename the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario.

“We’ve got the gulf. We’ve got a beautiful lake,” Trump told the crowd, referring to the Gulf of America and Lake America, the names adopted by his administration.

He then suggested that his geographical renaming efforts could extend considerably further, including to one of the world’s largest oceans.

“So we need a river and we need an ocean. So I was thinking either the Atlantic or the Pacific. We call it Trump Ocean, or Ocean of the Americas. Something like that,” Trump said.

The president indicated that he would like to accomplish another major renaming before leaving the White House, although he offered no indication that a formal proposal was being prepared.

“Before I get out, I think we should have an ocean. And we need a great river,” he added.

Trump also made clear that two prominent American rivers would be excluded from consideration.

The Hudson River, which flows through his home state of New York, would retain its name because of the president’s admiration for the English explorer Henry Hudson, after whom the waterway was named.

“I don’t want to change the name of the Hudson River. Henry Hudson, he did a good job sailing up that sucker a long time ago,” Trump remarked.

He similarly ruled out renaming the Mississippi River, explaining that he has considerable affection for Mississippi because of the overwhelming support he received from voters there during his presidential campaigns.

“I’m not changing the name of the Mississippi. I love Mississippi. We won that state by so much,” he said.

The remarks represent the latest installment in Trump’s campaign to place a distinctly American identity on prominent geographical landmarks.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump ordered the federal government to recognize the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The change generated international attention and diplomatic objections from Mexico, which continued using the longstanding name.

The decision also produced a dispute between the White House and the Associated Press, which declined to adopt the new designation in all its reporting. The disagreement escalated into a legal battle concerning the news organization’s access to presidential events.

In August, Trump extended his renaming efforts to Lake Ontario, the massive body of water shared by New York and Canada, announcing that it would be known as Lake America. The move came amid heightened tensions between Washington and Ottawa over trade policies and tariffs.

Major digital mapping services subsequently incorporated the administration’s preferred geographical names, although the changes did not require other countries to abandon their established terminology.

Trump has also recently floated the possibility of changing the name of New Mexico to New America, an idea he raised while endorsing a Republican congressional candidate in the state.

Unlike the renaming of certain federally recognized geographical features, changing the name of a state would require additional governmental action. Trump has acknowledged that such a decision would ultimately depend on New Mexico residents and Congress.

Saturday’s remarks about the oceans came during an almost two-hour rally that combined campaign appeals, economic announcements, foreign policy commentary and the president’s trademark improvisational humor.

Musician Kid Rock opened the event, offering a humorous introduction that praised Trump’s leadership while taking a swipe at the news media.

“Literally, President Trump could walk across the Cumberland River, and tomorrow the headline would say President Trump refuses to swim,” the performer joked.

Trump appeared in Tennessee to support Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty and gubernatorial candidate Marsha Blackburn, repeatedly emphasizing the importance of Republican turnout in the upcoming midterm elections.

The president also highlighted major manufacturing investments in Tennessee, including a multibillion-dollar critical-minerals project involving Korea Zinc and a previously announced $275 million General Motors investment in its Spring Hill facility.

He promoted his administration’s efforts to reduce crime in Memphis and discussed the conflict involving Iran, asserting that American military operations had severely weakened Tehran’s naval and air-defense capabilities.

During his discussion of Iran and the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, Trump even floated another possible geographical change, suggesting that the waterway could someday be called the “Trump Strait.”

Despite the various names mentioned during the rally, the president did not announce any executive action concerning the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean or a major American river.

Trump concluded his campaign appeals by urging supporters to approach the November elections as though he were personally on the ballot.

“In this election, I’m asking you to do me a favor. Pretend. Just pretend that I’m running,” Trump told the crowd.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump is considering launching American military strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist organization following a devastating attack on Saudi Arabia’s main international airport that killed 12 people, including an American citizen, and wounded more than 300 others.

The president’s warning came as the Houthis threatened additional attacks on civilian aviation facilities, prompting growing concern that the escalating confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Yemen-based terrorist group could draw the United States into a wider regional conflict.

Speaking with reporters, Trump indicated that Washington was weighing whether to participate in Saudi Arabia’s planned military retaliation following the attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

“We may. We’re going to look at it,” Trump told reporters when asked about joining the attacks against the Houthis.

“We just found out about the recent attack, so we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly,” he said.

Trump separately condemned the airport attack and suggested that the administration was maintaining contact with the Houthis while considering its next steps.

“I think it’s terrible,” Trump added at another point. “The Saudis are good fighters, but I think the attack was a terrible thing. We have communication with the Houthis, and we’ll see what happens. But what they did was very bad.”

The attack was among the deadliest incidents in the latest escalation between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia, striking a major civilian transportation hub and causing extensive casualties.

Among the 12 people killed were nationals of the United States, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Sudan and Bangladesh. More than 300 additional people were reported injured.

The airport attack has intensified fears about the vulnerability of civilian aviation facilities as the Houthis increasingly threaten targets beyond Yemen’s borders.

Rather than retreating following the international condemnation, a Houthi spokesman issued an additional warning over the weekend, declaring that airports had become “a theatre of operations for our forces” and urging “everyone to take our warnings seriously.”

The spokesman also accused Saudi Arabia of bearing “responsibility for any failed interceptions,” apparently seeking to blame Riyadh for casualties resulting from attempts to intercept incoming Houthi projectiles.

The threats have heightened concerns that additional airports and civilian facilities in Saudi Arabia could become targets if the fighting continues.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a forceful condemnation of the attack, emphasizing American support for Saudi Arabia and demanding that the Houthis cease their attacks.

“The United States strongly condemns the recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the terrorist Houthis,” Rubio said.

“These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now,” Rubio added. “We stand with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and extend our condolences to the victims and their families.”

The possibility of American intervention would mark a significant change in Washington’s approach to the Houthis following a ceasefire arrangement reached in May.

Under that understanding, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking vessels in the Red Sea, and the Trump administration subsequently refrained from renewed military operations against the organization.

Trump had appeared reluctant to become entangled in another prolonged Middle Eastern confrontation, particularly as the region continued grappling with the consequences of the war involving Iran and its network of allied terrorist organizations.

The Houthis’ apparent adherence to the maritime ceasefire had been a major consideration in Washington’s decision to avoid direct involvement in the renewed Saudi-Houthi fighting.

However, the killing of an American citizen at Riyadh’s airport, together with the Houthis’ threats of further attacks against civilian targets, has increased pressure on the administration to reconsider that position.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly urged Trump to authorize American military action against the Houthis, seeking assistance similar to the strikes carried out by U.S. forces between March and May.

Saudi Arabia has already begun responding militarily to the airport attack.

According to the Houthis, Saudi aircraft conducted two strikes against Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, which has been under Houthi control for more than a decade.

The Houthi-controlled Health Ministry has also claimed that approximately 91 people have been killed and 168 wounded in Saudi-led coalition attacks over the preceding five weeks. Those figures have not been independently verified.

The repercussions have extended beyond the airport itself. Saudi authorities suspended operations at King Khalid International Airport following the strike, forcing airlines to cancel or divert flights and leaving travelers facing widespread disruption.

The closure was extended Sunday as officials assessed the damage and continued examining the security situation. Saudi aviation authorities reported damage to airport facilities, including passenger terminals and communications equipment.

In a further development Sunday, the Saudi-led coalition reported that another projectile struck a passenger terminal at the Riyadh airport, underscoring the continuing danger despite the suspension of regular flight operations.

The United States has also warned Americans about the deteriorating security situation. The State Department issued an updated travel advisory Saturday urging Americans to reconsider travel to Saudi Arabia because of missile and drone threats, armed conflict and terrorism.

The latest violence follows several weeks of escalating hostilities between the Houthis and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen. Saudi Arabia reportedly intercepted a Houthi drone near Mecca last month, an incident that further inflamed tensions.

The Houthis, who receive backing from Iran, seized control of Sanaa in 2014, forcing Yemen’s internationally recognized government from the capital.

Saudi Arabia intervened militarily the following year, leading a coalition intended to restore the Yemeni government. The conflict subsequently developed into a prolonged war, with periods of intense fighting interrupted by fragile ceasefires and negotiations.

Although a United Nations-brokered truce in 2022 reduced large-scale hostilities for a time, the underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The latest confrontation has intensified as the Houthis have expanded their presence along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline and around the strategically important Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which significant international shipping traffic passes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has fired back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a sharply worded letter ridiculing her understanding of financial markets and concluding with a handwritten greeting referencing her past claims of Native American ancestry.

The response, sent yesterday and obtained by FOX Business, followed Warren’s latest demand for information about rising Treasury yields and borrowing costs. Bessent used the exchange to criticize the Massachusetts Democrat’s economic record, accuse her of political grandstanding, and suggest that she needed remedial instruction in finance.

At the bottom of the letter, Bessent added a handwritten message: “Happy Indigenous People’s Day in advance to you and your family,” an unmistakable reference to the controversy surrounding Warren’s previous identification as Native American.

The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly personal dispute between the Treasury secretary and Warren, who has repeatedly questioned the Trump administration’s economic policies and demanded detailed explanations from the department.

According to the report, Warren has sent Treasury officials more than 100 letters seeking information over the past 21 months. Bessent portrayed the latest correspondence as part of a sustained campaign against the administration rather than a serious attempt to understand developments in the bond market.

“Rather than take my suggestion of studying introductory economics, you have continued your letter-writing crusade and participation in tabloid fodder about the Treasury Department,” he wrote.

The confrontation began with an October 7 letter in which Warren questioned the administration’s response to the rising yield on 10-year Treasury securities, a benchmark that influences borrowing costs throughout the American economy, including mortgage rates and other forms of credit.

Warren sought details about the steps Treasury officials were taking to make borrowing more affordable for ordinary Americans and requested written answers by October 21.

In her correspondence, the senator blamed the administration’s policies for contributing to higher interest rates and argued that the recent increase in government bond yields was the result of avoidable economic decisions.

“The surge in Treasury yields is self-inflicted and follows the Fed’s decision to raise the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point, driven by concerns about inflation.”

Bessent disputed Warren’s account of the economic situation and questioned why she had not expressed similar concerns about government spending and inflation during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“It is difficult to treat your concern as sincere,” Bessent wrote, before accusing Warren of supporting policies that contributed to the inflation and interest-rate increases experienced during the previous administration.

“As the federal funds rate climbed from near zero to its highest level in 22 years, with inflation hitting a 40-year high, you were a cheerleader for the Biden Administration’s reckless spending.”

He further accused Warren of directing criticism toward the Federal Reserve when interest rates rose under Biden, rather than acknowledging what he described as the consequences of “your own irresponsible fiscal policies.”

The Treasury secretary also defended President Trump’s tax legislation, contrasting the administration’s approach with Warren’s support for higher taxes.

“While you voted for a $5 trillion tax hike on every day Americans, the Working Families Tax Cuts continue to deliver for families and workers across the country,” he wrote.

Warren, however, argued that the tax provisions in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill would substantially increase federal borrowing while disproportionately benefiting wealthy Americans and large corporations.

According to her letter, the legislation is projected to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, with benefits flowing primarily to the “ultra-wealthy and large corporations — while cutting health care and food assistance for families. Meanwhile, the Iran war has cost taxpayers an estimated $43.6 billion to date, according to the Pentagon.”

The competing claims reflect a broader disagreement over the effects of the administration’s tax and spending policies. Warren maintains that the legislation will deepen federal deficits and increase financial pressure on working families, while Bessent argues that its tax provisions are supporting workers and economic growth.

Bessent’s response became particularly pointed near its conclusion, when he offered to provide Warren with educational materials on subjects he suggested she had failed to master.

He proposed “a Foreign Exchange for Dummies tutorial,” followed by another lesson if the senator successfully completed the first.

“if you receive a passing grade to the Yale metric, not the Harvard curve, I would be happy to also include a Fixed Income for Dummies.”

The reference to the two Ivy League institutions carried an additional personal element. Warren previously taught law at Harvard University, while Bessent served as an instructor in economic history at Yale.

The Treasury secretary’s closing greeting about Indigenous Peoples’ Day revived a controversy that followed Warren for years, particularly during her presidential campaign.

Warren faced sustained criticism over her earlier claims of Native American heritage, which she said were based on stories passed down through her family. Before entering the Senate, she had identified herself as an “American Indian” or a minority in certain professional records.

President Trump repeatedly mocked those claims, referring to Warren as “Pocahontas,” a nickname that became a recurring feature of his political attacks against her.

In 2018, Warren released the results of a DNA test intended to demonstrate that she had distant Indigenous ancestry. The move prompted objections from tribal representatives, who emphasized that genetic testing does not establish membership in a Native American tribe or determine tribal identity.

Warren subsequently apologized to several tribes for taking the test and acknowledged their objections to her approach.

The dispute over Treasury yields comes amid growing concern about the cost of borrowing in the United States. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield recently climbed above 5.2 percent, reaching levels not seen in more than two decades and contributing to higher financing costs for homeowners, businesses and the federal government.

Warren has also challenged the Treasury Department’s expanded bond-buyback operations, arguing that the administration’s purchases of older government securities have failed to prevent yields from rising. In her October 7 letter, she cited multibillion-dollar buybacks conducted in September and October and questioned whether additional intervention was being considered.

Bessent responded that the buyback program began in May 2024, during the Biden administration, and defended it as a mechanism for improving liquidity in the Treasury market rather than an effort to dictate interest rates. He maintained that the program had received a favorable response from market participants.

The secretary also highlighted tax benefits claimed by millions of Americans under the administration’s legislation, including provisions affecting overtime income, tips, senior citizens and families with children.

The latest confrontation follows earlier public exchanges between Bessent and Warren over the Treasury Department’s handling of foreign exchange markets and the broader direction of economic policy. In August, Bessent had already offered Warren a tutorial on currency markets, an invitation he revived in yesterday’s letter.

Warren has separately promoted a Trumpflation Tracker intended to measure the cumulative effect of rising prices on American households. Bessent challenged the methodology yesterday, accusing the senator of selectively presenting inflation and wage figures to portray the administration’s economic record unfavorably.

The two remain sharply divided over the causes of rising borrowing costs, the effectiveness of Treasury’s market operations and the impact of Trump’s tax policies. Warren has requested a formal response to her latest questions by October 21.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to immediately halt attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure, marking a potentially significant development in the war just two days after his administration unveiled a controversial agreement to purchase large quantities of Russian diesel fuel.

The announcement follows mounting concern in Washington over soaring American diesel prices, which have become a major political issue ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, as well as criticism from Ukrainian officials and members of both American political parties over Trump’s decision to resume fuel purchases from Moscow.

“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Both parties have agreed. Do not break it! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The president did not immediately provide details about the agreement’s duration, enforcement mechanisms or whether it would apply to all energy-related facilities in both countries. Independent confirmation of the terms from Moscow and Kyiv was not included in the initial announcement.

The reported agreement comes after months of increasingly destructive attacks against energy installations on both sides of the conflict.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries and other petroleum facilities in an effort to weaken Moscow’s ability to finance and sustain its military operations. Those attacks have disrupted refining capacity and placed additional pressure on Russia’s energy industry.

Russia, meanwhile, has continued striking Ukraine’s electricity generation facilities, power distribution networks and other critical infrastructure, causing widespread damage and creating serious difficulties for Ukrainian civilians.

The Trump administration has argued that Ukrainian strikes against Russian refineries have contributed to tightening global diesel supplies, pushing prices higher even in countries that no longer purchase Russian petroleum products directly.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has maintained that disruptions to Russia’s refining industry can affect international fuel markets and ultimately raise costs for American consumers, regardless of existing restrictions on Russian imports.

According to figures cited by the American Automobile Association, the national average price of diesel has climbed to approximately $6.28 per gallon, placing additional pressure on trucking companies, agricultural businesses and other industries that depend heavily on diesel fuel.

Higher transportation costs can also affect consumer prices because diesel-powered trucks are responsible for moving substantial quantities of food, merchandise and other goods throughout the United States.

With the midterm elections approaching, the administration has faced increasing pressure to demonstrate that it is taking action to address fuel costs and their broader economic consequences.

The ceasefire announcement also follows Trump’s agreement Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to resume large-scale diesel supplies to the American and international markets, a decision that drew immediate objections from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Following a telephone conversation with Putin, Trump said Russia would supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and an additional 1 million tons afterward. He also outlined plans for a further 3 million tons to be delivered subsequently, depending on the condition of Russia’s refining facilities.

The Treasury Department subsequently authorized a temporary relaxation of restrictions on Russian diesel transactions, allowing certain imports through April 2027.

The decision represented a significant change in American policy toward Russian energy exports, which have been subject to restrictions since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Zelensky sharply condemned the arrangement, describing it as a “betrayal” and warning that increased Russian energy revenues could provide Moscow with additional resources to continue its military campaign.

The Ukrainian president has maintained that pressure on Russia’s energy industry is an important component of Kyiv’s strategy for weakening Moscow’s ability to sustain the war.

The agreement also provoked questions in Washington about its legality under the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act of 2022, which prohibited imports of Russian petroleum products into the United States.

Critics have argued that the administration may lack the authority to resume purchases without congressional approval, while the Treasury Department has relied on temporary licensing arrangements to facilitate the transactions.

According to reporting on the negotiations, Trump had repeatedly urged Ukraine to suspend attacks on Russian refineries before reaching the diesel arrangement with Putin. A senior American official said Zelensky had disregarded several such requests, contributing to the administration’s decision to pursue an alternative approach.

The diplomatic dispute unfolded as American representatives continued discussions with Ukrainian and European officials in Miami about possible steps toward ending the war.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have also been considering additional meetings in Moscow and Kyiv as part of the administration’s efforts to revive negotiations.

The president previously announced a mutual halt to attacks on energy infrastructure in September, but strikes continued afterward, highlighting the difficulty of translating diplomatic commitments into a lasting cessation of hostilities.

Sunday’s announcement therefore raises immediate questions about whether the latest agreement will succeed where earlier efforts failed.

The distinction between an energy ceasefire and a broader military truce is also significant. Trump’s statement addressed attacks on energy targets and did not announce an end to ground combat, missile strikes against other facilities or military operations along the front lines.

Fighting elsewhere in Ukraine continued over the weekend, including Russian attacks that struck residential areas and caused civilian casualties.

It was not immediately clear whether either side had issued new operational instructions to its military forces following Trump’s announcement, or how alleged violations of the arrangement would be investigated.

For the Trump administration, the agreement offers a potential means of reducing attacks on energy infrastructure while addressing the fuel-price pressures that have become increasingly prominent in American domestic politics.

Whether the ceasefire will hold, however, will depend on the actions of Moscow and Kyiv and on the details of an arrangement that neither government had publicly confirmed when Trump made his announcement.

{Matzav.com}