Trump praised President Lula during his UN speech, highlighting shared goals of strengthening economic ties and ensuring affordable food supplies for American consumers. The engagement comes after months of negotiations over tariffs, including previous U.S. measures on Brazilian meat and poultry products, which had affected pricing and supply chains.

Brazilian companies, including JBS and its subsidiary Pilgrim’s Pride, have actively sought ways to maintain strong bilateral trade, contributing to U.S. food security while fostering investment opportunities. Discussions focused on reducing trade barriers, supporting supply chain stability, and enhancing market access, demonstrating the benefits of international collaboration.

The renewed dialogue underscores the importance of public-private partnerships in global trade, where governments and business leaders work together to address challenges and seize opportunities. It also reflects the U.S. administration’s willingness to engage constructively with international partners to ensure fair trade, economic growth, and the availability of essential goods.

Brazilian leaders and companies continue to emphasize compliance and transparency in all dealings, adhering to ethical standards while supporting national economic priorities. Meanwhile, broader trade discussions have extended to sectors such as aerospace, with Embraer receiving favorable consideration for its U.S. market products.

This development signals a promising path toward stronger U.S.-Brazil economic ties, ensuring continued collaboration in agriculture, food production, and other strategic industries while promoting global economic stability and consumer benefits.

In an interview with Fox News aired on Sunday, Trump outlined a potential shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, emphasizing that sanctions relief could enable Tehran to rebuild its economy, particularly in the aftermath of its conflict with Israel.

“If Iran behaves itself, I would consider waiving sanctions so they can sell oil and engage in normal economic activities,” Trump stated. He clarified, however, that any decision to ease restrictions would hinge on Iran proving it is not pursuing harmful actions.

“If they show they’re not going to do any more harm, I would take the sanctions off,” he added.

Trump’s remarks come amid mixed signals from his camp. On June 24, he announced on Truth Social that China could resume purchasing Iranian oil, suggesting a softening of sanctions.

The following day, he clarified that he was not seeking to cut off Iran’s oil revenues, citing the country’s need for funds to recover from its war with Israel. However, on Friday, Trump abruptly paused efforts to lift sanctions, citing inflammatory remarks from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whom he described as expressing “anger, hatred, and disgust.”

Addressing accusations that his administration had permitted China to buy sanctioned Iranian oil, Trump firmly denied the claims during the Sunday interview, insisting that sanctions remain in place. He emphasized that any future relief would be contingent on Iran’s willingness to adopt a peaceful stance.

Trump also linked the prospect of sanctions relief to broader Middle East peace efforts, particularly the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. He described Iran as a historical obstacle to regional peace but suggested it could have joined the accords under different circumstances.

“Iran was the primary problem,” Trump said. “I thought there was a moment when they might have joined the Abraham Accords, but they’re worse off now.”

He hinted that new, unnamed countries have expressed interest in joining the accords following Iran’s recent setbacks, signaling potential momentum for expanded regional cooperation.

The comments reflect Trump’s broader approach to balancing economic pressure with diplomatic openings, a strategy that could reshape U.S.-Iran relations and influence Middle East dynamics if implemented.

The visit, marked by high-level meetings and landmark policy shifts, has been described by Mohammed Alhamed, Founder and President of the Saudi Elite Group, as a reaffirmation of the Kingdom’s position as the “Capital of Global Peace.”

“This visit rebuilds a true commitment between these two allies,” Alhamed said, highlighting the potential for renewed cooperation in defense, security, and economic development. “It continues the joint mission of making the world a safer place,” he added.

Among the most significant outcomes of the visit is the reported removal of U.S. sanctions on Syria, a move made following a special request by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. If confirmed, this would signal a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy in the region, reflecting Riyadh’s increasing influence in shaping regional stability.

The visit also reaffirmed the Kingdom’s ambitious investment strategy, with $600 billion earmarked for American products and industries, spanning defense, healthcare, energy, technology, infrastructure, and even sports. These investments are expected to generate thousands of jobs on both sides and deepen economic interdependence between the two nations.

Trump’s reception in Riyadh, complete with ceremonial grandeur and strategic substance, mirrors the significance Saudi Arabia places on its relationship with the United States. It also reflects the Kingdom’s broader vision of regional diplomacy—one that emphasizes economic partnership, peace-building, and pragmatic diplomacy.

For Washington, the renewed engagement signals a return to trusted allies in the Gulf, while for Riyadh, it’s a clear sign of global recognition of its central role in international affairs.

As Alhamed noted, this visit doesn’t just signal the strengthening of bilateral ties—it may well mark the beginning of a new era of strategic equilibrium in the Middle East.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

World leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image

Nearly two million Turks have gathered in Istanbul to protest President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decision to arrest his main political rival, Ekrem İmamoğlu, on what critics call fabricated corruption and terrorism charges. The move has ignited widespread outrage across Turkey, with demonstrators denouncing Erdoğan’s authoritarian grip on power and calling for his immediate resignation.

The arrest of İmamoğlu, who served as Istanbul’s mayor and was seen as Erdoğan’s strongest challenger in upcoming elections, has fueled speculation that the Turkish president is attempting to eliminate political competition ahead of a crucial vote. Protesters have taken to the streets chanting, “Enough is enough!” and “Turkey will not be silenced!” as security forces struggle to contain the surging crowds.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Middle East expert, has been vocal about the situation. “Turks are not stupid; they see through Erdoğan’s cynicism and comment on its ironies,” Rubin stated. “Erdoğan accuses İmamoğlu of corruption, but Erdoğan not only has pending corruption cases dating to his own tenure as mayor, but he has since accumulated billions of dollars in unexplained wealth. He accuses İmamoğlu of supporting terror, but Turkish journalists photographed Erdoğan’s intelligence service transporting weaponry to an Al Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.”

The controversy deepened when Erdoğan’s government reportedly annulled İmamoğlu’s university degree, a requirement for presidential candidates. Rubin pointed out the hypocrisy in this move, noting, “Not only was Erdoğan’s own degree fraudulent, but the grounds for dismissing İmamoğlu’s degree were the illegitimacy of the university he attended in occupied northern Cyprus. As with its universities, so too is it with its entire regime.”

The international community is closely watching the unfolding crisis, with speculation growing about how world leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image. “Trump sees himself as a winner and despises losers,” Rubin said. “Whereas he may once have seen Erdoğan as a strongman, it is now clear that the would-be sultan wears no clothes. Trump and his team are correct: Turkey is important, but Turkey and Erdoğan are not synonymous. Simply put, Trump should dump Erdoğan.”

The massive protests, among the largest in Turkey’s modern history, highlight a growing sense of urgency among citizens determined to reclaim their democracy. The Turkish military and law enforcement agencies now face a crucial test of allegiance. “Turkey’s elite soldiers swear allegiance to the state and the people of Turkey, not one man who holds the constitution and rule of law with disdain,” Rubin emphasized.

With tensions reaching a boiling point, many analysts fear that Turkey is approaching a breaking point. Some protesters argue that peaceful demonstrations may not be enough to bring about real change in a system they see as rigged in Erdoğan’s favor.

Rubin did not mince words when outlining what may be necessary for political transformation: “The Turkish protestors now fight for the soul of their nation. Every protestor on the streets of Istanbul is as consequential for the future of modern Turkey as was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Protests might matter in democracies; however, Turkey is not a democracy. To succeed, they must march on Turkey’s palaces and prisons. If Erdoğan does not helicopter to the airport and flee the country, they should detain him, pending trial, even if passions are such that those who reach him first might simply hang him and release political prisoners, ranging from İmamoğlu to detained Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş and philanthropist Osman Kavala.”

Rubin also hinted at the possibility of internal betrayal within Erdoğan’s own ranks. “Erdoğan, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, may be tempted to hang on. While the United States will never say directly, the White House likely would not look askance at regional states that would offer reward to any Erdoğan bodyguard who turns their guns on the would-be despot to arrest him or, if he resists, to kill him.”

The coming days will be critical for Turkey’s political future. Will the protests succeed in toppling Erdoğan’s rule, or will the regime resort to even harsher crackdowns to suppress dissent? What is clear, however, is that Turkey is at an inflection point. As Rubin put it, “The age of Erdoğan must end. Turks can either take the next step, or they will have no one but themselves to blame for Turkey’s descent into dictatorship, state failure, and eventual civil war.”

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, disclosed that he had inadvertently been added to a Signal chat involving senior Trump administration officials discussing a planned military strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The disclosure raised significant concerns over national security, the handling of classified information, and potential violations of the Espionage Act. Here are five key takeaways from this unfolding controversy:

1. The Group Chat and Its Unintended Guest

Goldberg revealed that he was unexpectedly invited to a Signal chat by someone identified as Michael Waltz, believed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor and former Florida congressman. On March 13, he was added to a conversation about U.S. military operations in Yemen.

The chat reportedly included top Trump administration officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Additionally, key Trump allies, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and senior adviser Stephen Miller, were also present.

Goldberg did not announce his presence nor attempt to conceal it, appearing as “JG” in the chat, similar to other participants who used initials. He initially suspected a hoax but later confirmed the authenticity of the messages.

2. Security Implications and Legal Concerns

Goldberg stated that he was privy to operational details of the attack, including specific targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of strikes—two hours before they took place on March 15.

He refrained from publishing those details but warned that if adversaries had gained access, American military personnel and intelligence operations could have been put at risk.

The use of Signal for discussing a military strike may have violated the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of national defense information. Additionally, the setting of messages to auto-delete raises questions about whether official records laws were breached.

3. Internal Divisions and European Policy Debates

The chat messages also revealed Vice President Vance’s concerns about the U.S. intervening in Yemen. Vance reportedly expressed doubts about the necessity of the strike, noting that Europe had more at stake in protecting trade routes like the Suez Canal.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance reportedly wrote, referencing Trump’s long-standing demand that European nations take greater responsibility for their own security.

Secretary Hegseth responded, agreeing with Vance’s frustration over European “free-loading,” but insisted that the U.S. had no alternative but to act.

4. Political Fallout and Reactions

Democratic leaders swiftly condemned the episode. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticized Hegseth for “texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.” Senator Elizabeth Warren labeled the breach “blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief.”

Republicans were left scrambling. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for a review, stating, “We’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there.” Senator John Cornyn described the situation as “a huge screwup.”

5. Trump Defends Waltz Amid Controversy

Despite the scandal, President Trump expressed continued confidence in Waltz. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The President has the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

However, whether the administration’s response will be sufficient to quell bipartisan concerns remains uncertain as scrutiny intensifies over how national security information was handled in this extraordinary breach.

These individuals have been instructed to leave the country before their permits and deportation protections are terminated on April 24, as per a federal notice.

The affected migrants were admitted under a Biden-era sponsorship initiative known as CHNV, which aimed to provide legal pathways for migration. However, Trump suspended the program upon assuming office.

It remains uncertain how many of these migrants have secured alternative legal status that would allow them to stay in the U.S.

Background of the CHNV Program

Initiated in 2022 under Democratic President Joe Biden, the CHNV program initially focused on Venezuelans before expanding to include additional nationalities. The initiative allowed eligible migrants and their immediate family members to enter the U.S. with American sponsors and remain for two years under a temporary immigration status called parole.

The Biden administration had advocated that CHNV would reduce illegal border crossings while ensuring thorough vetting of entrants. However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) criticized the program, stating it had not met its intended goals.

In a statement, DHS officials accused the previous administration of using the program to facilitate job competition between migrants and American workers, compelling civil servants to support the initiative despite evidence of fraud, and blaming congressional Republicans for subsequent border issues.

Potential Exceptions and Further Policy Changes

While the Federal Register’s 35-page notice confirmed the program’s termination, it suggested that some CHNV recipients might be permitted to stay on a case-by-case basis.

Trump is also reportedly reviewing the temporary legal status of approximately 240,000 Ukrainians who sought refuge in the U.S. during Russia’s invasion.

The CHNV program had allowed:

213,000 Haitians to enter the U.S. amid worsening conditions in their homeland.

120,700 Venezuelans, 110,900 Cubans, and over 93,000 Nicaraguans to seek refuge before Trump ended the initiative.

Termination of Other Immigration Protections

Last month, DHS announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 500,000 Haitians as of August 2025. TPS, a designation for nationals from countries facing extreme conditions such as armed conflict or natural disasters, had also been revoked for Venezuelans, though this decision is currently facing legal challenges.

Since taking office in January, Trump’s immigration policies have encountered several legal obstacles, raising questions about the long-term future of these measures and their broader impact on affected migrant communities.

While the gold card initiative could attract substantial foreign capital, some investors have reservations.

US President Donald Trump has unveiled a high-priced residency program that’s already turning heads among wealthy Arab investors. Dubbed the “gold card” visa, this $5 million initiative aims to offer economic stability, US market access, and a prestigious residency status—all while helping to reduce the national deficit.

With Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia successfully running their own golden visa schemes, this move positions the US as a top contender for high-net-worth individuals looking for a new home for their wealth and business ventures.

A Gateway for Arab Investors

Salman Al-Ansari, a geopolitical analyst and former investor in the US, sees this as an opportunity to strengthen economic ties between the US and the Arab world—especially Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi investors have always been eager to expand into the US market, particularly in technology, real estate, and energy sectors,” Al-Ansari told Arab News. “A more accessible visa process could encourage even greater collaboration and economic integration.”

Trump’s program is set to replace the EB-5 visa, which since 1990 has granted green cards to investors who put in around $1 million into US businesses that create or sustain at least 10 full-time American jobs. The new initiative, Trump argues, will not only bring in revenue but also generate jobs as wealthy individuals set up businesses and expand existing ventures in the US.

“A lot of people are going to want to be in this country,” Trump said in an Oval Office announcement. “And they’ll be able to work, provide jobs, and build companies. It’ll be people with money.”

What Makes the US Offer Unique?

Despite increasing competition from other countries with similar golden visa programs, the US remains a highly attractive destination. Julien Hawari, CEO of UAE-based Million, believes the American market offers unparalleled advantages.

“The speed, depth, and range of opportunities in the US are exceptional,” Hawari noted. “Under a Trump administration, the country could become even more attractive, with key decision-makers coming from the private sector—people like Elon Musk, for example.”

Trump described the initiative as a “green card-plus,” highlighting its potential as a path to citizenship. The plan is expected to launch within weeks, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick calling it a direct replacement for the “fraud-ridden” EB-5 program.

America First—But With a Luxury Twist

For many observers, the gold card visa represents a shift in US immigration policy, focusing more on financial investment rather than traditional employment-based or family-sponsored immigration.

Al-Ansari views this as an extension of Trump’s “America First” philosophy. “This initiative prioritizes quality over quantity,” he said. “The US has always been a magnet for immigrants, and this policy ensures that those entering contribute meaningfully to the economy.”

Countries like Portugal, Canada, and Australia offer similar programs, but the US scheme’s hefty price tag positions it as an elite option for the ultra-wealthy. Hawari sees lessons in the success of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) golden visas, suggesting the US program could have a comparable impact.

“Look at the GCC—their programs have transformed economies,” he explained. “The influx of ultra-high-net-worth individuals has driven real estate, investment, and economic growth. The US program could have a similar effect.”

Will the High Cost Deter Investors?

While the gold card initiative could attract substantial foreign capital, some investors have reservations.

Al-Ansari pointed out a key concern: taxation. “I’m not sure investors, including myself, would want permanent residency, as it comes with global tax obligations under FATCA,” he said. “It would be more attractive if the golden visa were a standalone option rather than bundled with a green card.”

If structured correctly, the initiative could spur an influx of high-net-worth individuals moving their businesses and assets to the US, benefiting key industries such as tourism, manufacturing, and services.

Hawari agreed, predicting that sectors like real estate, technology, hospitality, and finance would likely see the biggest gains. “Almost every industry in the GCC benefited from their programs. I expect the same in the US, especially in high-growth sectors.”

GCC’s Success Stories in Golden Residency

Saudi Arabia launched its permanent residency program—commonly known as the Saudi Green Card—in 2019 as part of its Vision 2030 plan. For SR800,000 ($213,000), investors can gain permanent residency, while an annually renewable option is available for SR100,000. The program has successfully attracted skilled expatriates and investors, driving economic diversification.

Similarly, the UAE’s Golden Visa, launched in 2019, offers renewable 5- to 10-year residency permits for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals in key fields. Qatar has also opened up its property market, granting foreign investors expanded ownership rights through its Investment Residence Program.

These initiatives have boosted real estate, hospitality, and other key sectors in the region—an impact the US hopes to replicate with its gold card program.

What’s Next?

As more details emerge, Trump’s new visa initiative is expected to attract global attention. The coming weeks will determine whether this program will be a game-changer for wealthy investors—or just another luxury option in an already competitive market. Either way, America’s golden visa era is about to begin.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump, 78, who has long accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the DOJ to bring federal charges against him, asserted that these firings would help restore public confidence in the justice system.

“Over the past four years, the Department of Justice has been politicized like never before,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, I have instructed the termination of ALL remaining ‘Biden Era’ U.S. Attorneys. We must ‘clean house’ IMMEDIATELY, and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System – THAT BEGINS TODAY!”

While it is customary for U.S. attorneys to resign after a new president takes office, current and former Justice Department lawyers pointed out that the typical practice involves the incoming administration requesting resignations rather than issuing abrupt termination letters, according to Reuters.

Additionally, the Justice Department had already removed several officials involved in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump. Smith, 55, had brought two criminal cases against the former president related to his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and to retain classified documents after leaving office.

The case concerning classified documents was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida last July, and the election interference case was dismissed shortly thereafter by a Washington, D.C., federal judge. Trump’s legal team continues to maintain that these cases were part of a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Notably, just a month after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president, his administration removed dozens of federal prosecutors who had been directly involved in prosecuting over 1,500 individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. At least 15 career officials were reassigned to roles with less influence, including one who had pushed for the FBI raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Jack Smith’s legal actions against him, calling them emblematic of the Biden administration’s efforts to “weaponize” the Justice Department. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him by Smith, who resigned shortly before Trump’s second inauguration.

To replace the dismissed attorneys, Trump has already nominated several individuals for key DOJ positions. Among them is Judge Jason Reding, who was tapped as the new U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Nassau County Judge Joseph Nocella Jr. was chosen to lead the Eastern District of New York, while Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton was nominated as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Additionally, Trump nominated Edward Martin, a key figure in dismissing pending cases involving January 6 rioters, to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the terminations, stating, “There are a number of bureaucrats who are resistant to the democratic process and mandate delivered by the American people.” She added, “President Trump is only interested in the best and most qualified people who are also willing to implement his America First Agenda on behalf of the American people. It’s not for everyone, and that’s okay.”

The sweeping dismissals are part of Trump’s broader strategy to reshape federal institutions to align with his political agenda, as the nation braces for a contentious presidential term ahead.

USAID has been accused of funding organizations and individuals that are vocal critics of Modi’s administration, furthering an agenda that weakens India’s independent policy-making.

In a bombshell revelation, reports have surfaced suggesting that USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, has been more than just a development agency in India—it has allegedly been working to undermine Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Operating under the shadowy influence of the Deep State, USAID is accused of pushing a left-leaning agenda, funding Modi’s critics, and subtly shaping public sentiment to serve American geopolitical interests.

USAID’s Heavy-Handed Political Interference

BJP politician Savio Rodrigues has blown the whistle on what he describes as blatant political interference. Speaking to Sputnik India, Rodrigues revealed how USAID’s initiatives, supposedly aimed at increasing voter participation, were actually an attempt to influence Indian elections.

“DOGE’s findings expose USAID’s attempt to influence Indian voters by masquerading as an initiative to boost voter turnout,” Rodrigues stated. The implication is alarming—foreign agencies meddling in India’s democratic process under the convenient guise of development assistance.

Deep State’s Left-Wing Agenda in India

The term “Deep State” refers to an intricate network of bureaucrats, intelligence officers, and corporate lobbyists who manipulate global events to align with their ideological and economic objectives. India, under Modi’s leadership, has proven to be a thorn in their plans.

With a government that champions nationalism and self-reliance, India is seen as a disruption to the traditional Western grip on global politics. USAID, allegedly influenced by these hidden power structures, has been accused of funding organizations and individuals that are vocal critics of Modi’s administration, furthering an agenda that weakens India’s independent policy-making.

For decades, the U.S. has used foreign aid agencies to exert influence over developing nations, and India is no exception. What appears to be assistance often comes with strings attached—ensuring that opposition voices are emboldened and narratives against nationalist leaders like Modi gain traction in both domestic and international forums.

India: The Deep State’s Political and Economic Laboratory

With its vast population and growing economic influence, India has been turned into a testing ground for external manipulation. Intelligence experts argue that USAID and affiliated entities have used research, social media influence, and targeted funding to sway public opinion in ways that benefit U.S. corporate and political interests.

Many believe that social media discourse, think-tank reports, and activism have been subtly guided by USAID-linked organizations. While these efforts are often disguised as democracy-building or advocacy for human rights, they serve a larger goal—keeping India aligned with Western influence and corporate profiteering.

U.S. Corporations: The Biggest Beneficiaries

John Perkins, bestselling author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, has extensively exposed how institutions like USAID ultimately work in favor of American businesses. Speaking to Sputnik India, Perkins explained how foreign aid, rather than being an altruistic endeavor, primarily serves U.S. corporate giants.

“Foreign aid funds and loans intended for developing nations, channeled through U.S. agencies, are ultimately designed to benefit American corporations,” Perkins noted.

By ensuring that aid money is spent on projects where American contractors and multinational firms dominate, these agencies create long-term economic dependence. India, with its booming economy, has been a prime target for such predatory tactics, further strengthening foreign control over its financial landscape.

Economic Hitmen Are in India

John Perkins, who once worked as an “economic hitman,” has detailed the methods used to keep developing nations indebted and subservient to Western economic policies.

“I can’t imagine economic hitmen, like I once was, not operating in countries like India and Bangladesh,” Perkins admitted, underscoring the likelihood that India remains a battleground for covert financial coercion.

The strategy is clear—trap countries in debt through high-interest loans, tie infrastructure projects to American firms, and use policy advisory roles to ensure that economic decisions favor U.S. interests. These tactics have long been used in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and India appears to be no exception.

India’s Counteroffensive and the Path Forward

Under Modi’s leadership, India has aggressively pushed back against foreign interference. The government has tightened regulations on foreign-funded NGOs, scrutinized international grants, and restricted organizations that appear to serve external interests over India’s own development goals.

While these steps have helped in reclaiming India’s sovereignty, revelations about USAID’s alleged activities prove that the challenge is far from over. The country must remain vigilant against external forces that attempt to shape its political narrative and economic policies to their advantage.

The accusations against USAID paint a troubling picture of how international aid organizations can be weaponized to serve hidden agendas. What is often presented as benevolence or humanitarian work is, in reality, a sophisticated strategy of influence and control.

As India rises as a global power, it must fortify itself against such covert interventions. The battle is not just about development aid—it’s about safeguarding national sovereignty, ensuring fair democratic processes, and keeping the country’s economic destiny firmly in Indian hands.