Connect with us

America

US used pro-Israel Canary Mission website for deportation efforts, records show

Published

on

The US government has reportedly used the pro-Israel Canary Mission website in its deportation activities.

It has been revealed that the US administration relied heavily on a pro-Israel website named Canary Mission to identify pro-Palestinian academics for deportation.

According to records, to support Donald Trump’s deportation initiative, the Department of Homeland Security established a “tiger team” of intelligence analysts who compiled files on approximately 100 foreign students and academics involved in pro-Palestinian activities.

Deposition records released this week in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s targeting of pro-Palestinian academics show that more than 75 of these individuals were identified by Canary Mission, a mysterious website.

The federal judge currently overseeing the case has publicly released the deposition transcripts, which contain hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from administration officials regarding the efforts to deport individuals from campuses.

Some details from the transcripts emerged in open court on Wednesday as administration officials began to be called to the witness stand.

In response to a query from POLITICO, Canary Mission claimed it has had “no contact with this administration or the previous one.”

Immigration lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists had already suspected that immigration officials were taking names of academics from the Canary Mission site and attempting to revoke their visas with very little independent investigation. However, the deposition transcripts reveal for the first time the extensive degree to which Trump officials relied on this site. Peter Hatch, a Department of Homeland Security official who testified in court on Wednesday, acknowledged the site’s importance to the Trump administration’s efforts but stated that all information taken from the site was independently verified.

Canary Mission states that its purpose is to expose “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments” on university campuses. It publishes photos and social media profiles of pro-Palestinian academics and documents their protest activities.

Critics allege that the group employs McCarthy-like tactics by labeling pro-Palestinian activists as anti-Semitic based on weak or irrelevant evidence. Canary Mission does not disclose its funders or details about who manages it.

The group stated, “We document individuals and groups that promote hatred of the US, Israel, and Jews. We investigate hate crimes across the entire political spectrum, including far-right, far-left, and anti-Israel activists.”

The released court records also reveal for the first time the deep involvement of the Trump administration, particularly Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller, in efforts to cancel the visas of pro-Palestinian academics studying and teaching at American universities.

John Armstrong, the acting head of the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that he had “at least a dozen” meetings with White House officials about the student deportation campaign and that Miller participated in inter-agency conference calls on the subject “at least once a week.”

According to Armstrong, the conference calls with Miller lasted between approximately 15 minutes and an hour and included other officials from the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The extent to which the White House was involved in selecting specific students remains unclear, as the White House has invoked executive privilege to conceal the details of Miller’s conversations with agency officials.

Detailed testimonies regarding the administration’s attempt to deport pro-Palestinian academics emerged in over 1,000 pages of documents and deposition transcripts released to the public this week as a lawsuit against this policy began in a Boston federal court.

US District Judge William Young is presiding over the case and will decide whether the Trump administration violated the First Amendment of the Constitution by targeting academics for their speech and political views.

The foreign academics were legally living and studying at American universities on student visas or green cards. However, the administration sought to revoke their legal status and force them to leave the country. Courts have so far intervened to prevent the immediate deportation of Khalil, Ozturk, and others.

Hatch provided new information regarding the role of external groups in targeting academics.

Called as a witness in the ongoing trial on Wednesday, Hatch confirmed that Canary Mission played a key role in intelligence work related to deportations.

Hatch said, “Most, if not almost all, of the names came from that website, but we were also getting names and tips from many different websites. We received information about the same protesters from many sources, but Canary Mission provided the most comprehensive information. The lists were coming from all directions.”

Hatch added that he believed his team was told to review the Canary Mission website and was verbally informed that it contained reports on more than 5,000 people.

The Department of Homeland Security official claimed, “This shows why we needed a tiger team. A normal unit, department, or group of analysts working within a regular organizational structure could not handle this workload.”

Hatch said that analysts assigned to the “counter-terrorism intelligence” unit, among others, were reassigned to the “tiger team.”

Hatch also emphasized that all information his analysts obtained from the Canary Mission site had to be verified before being included in official reports.

The official claimed, “Canary Mission is not part of the US government. This is not information that we would consider a reliable source. We do not work with the people who created this website. I do not know who created the website.”

In his testimony, Hatch stated that he believed “more than 75%” of the names in the reports prepared by the “tiger team” came from Canary Mission, and the others came from a group called Betar US, which uses the slogan “Jews stand up” and publishes profiles of pro-Palestinian activists on its website.

In February, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) added Betar to its list of extremist groups, alleging that the organization “openly embraces Islamophobia and harasses Muslims online and in person.”

Betar did not respond to a request for comment. However, a few days after Trump’s return to the White House in January, Betar announced in comments on X and to news organizations that it had provided a “deportation list” to Trump administration officials.

Administration officials called to give sworn testimony before the trial struggled to provide precise definitions of what type of advocacy or activism would be considered antisemitism or support for Hamas, which the US designates as a terrorist organization.

Both justifications were primary reasons for the deportation campaign and the efforts to deny visas to foreigners wishing to study or continue their education in the US.

In his testimony, Armstrong said that the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” frequently chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies, could lead to the denial of a US visa because it calls for the destruction of Israel.

The State Department official said, “I think it could, because by definition, that means the elimination of Israel and the Israeli people.”

Armstrong added that calls for corporate divestment from Israel, an arms embargo on Israel, or an end to military aid to Israel could also be problematic, and that describing the country as an “apartheid state” would “probably” be considered anti-Israel activity.

On the other hand, Armstrong said that calling for a ceasefire in Gaza would not be considered a negative factor in a visa application.

“The President has called for a ceasefire. So no,” said Armstrong, who is scheduled to testify in court on Friday.

When asked what types of “anti-Americanisms” could lead to a visa denial under Trump’s new policy, Armstrong replied, “It would be a general condemnation: All Americans are fat and evil. It wouldn’t be saying, ‘I hate hot dogs.'”

America

US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates

Published

on

The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.

The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.

Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.

Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:

“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”

The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.

In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.

As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.

This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.

The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.

Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.

Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.

Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.

However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.

Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.

The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.

Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.

Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.

Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.

Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:

“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”

Continue Reading

America

Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela

Published

on

Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.

According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.

One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.

The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.

However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.

According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.

The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.

The source added:

“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”

David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.

“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.

However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.

“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.

Continue Reading

America

US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs

Published

on

Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.

According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.

Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.

A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.

However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.

The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.

De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.

The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.

Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”

However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.

“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.

Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.

While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.

Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.

That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.

A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.

Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.

Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.

The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.

Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.

Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey