American approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration has dropped sharply as a crackdown by immigration enforcement agencies ignites a wave of nationwide protests.
According to a Reuters report on January 27, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that only 39% of Americans support President Donald Trump’s immigration policies—down from 41% earlier this month—while 53% express disapproval. This represents the lowest support level since Mr. Trump’s return to the White House.
The poll was conducted nationwide from January 23 to January 25, amid public outrage following the fatal shooting of a second American citizen this month by federal agents in Minneapolis. A majority of participants believe the administration’s immigration crackdown has exceeded necessary boundaries.
Specifically, 58% of respondents felt that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have acted excessively, while 26% believe the current approach is appropriate and 12% rate it as not strong enough. The “gone too far” sentiment clearly prevails among Democratic and independent voters, and has also appeared significantly within the Republican Party.
Along with immigration policy, President Trump’s overall approval rating has also fallen to 38%, tying the lowest level of his current term. Despite this, immigration is still viewed as an area where Mr. Trump holds an advantage over his predecessor, Joe Biden, as many Americans continue to trust the Republican Party more in its approach to this issue.
Protests against ICE continue to spread across major cities such as Minneapolis, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, increasing political pressure on the federal government. The Minneapolis incident is currently seen as a new flashpoint of controversy regarding the limits of federal power in U.S. immigration enforcement operations.
Trump’s second term: ‘Reality has overtaken satire’
Marc Lamont Hill sits down with The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel to unpack the first year of Trump’s second term.
One year into his second term, United States President Donald Trump is testing the outer limits of executive power. From the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to threats towards Iran and efforts to secure control of Greenland, the administration has plunged the US into turbulent territory.
Domestically, the Trump administration is enforcing hardline immigration policies. Documented reports of expanded anti-immigration operations – along with allegations of racial profiling and detentions affecting even US citizens and legal residents – have many communities on edge.
Adding to this, a shaky economy has many in the US questioning Trump’s policies as his approval ratings plummet before November’s midterm elections.
This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation magazine, about Trump testing the limits of his executive power and what this could mean for the rest of his presidency.
Europe is finally waking up to the Trump threat
Across the political spectrum, politicians are uniting in the face of an ally’s betrayal
Donald Trump avoided conscription during the Vietnam war and never served in the military. When four US soldiers died during a training exercise in Lithuania last year, he skipped the ceremony for the repatriation of their coffins at Dover Air Force base, spending the day at his golf club in Mar-a-Lago.
His contempt for European troops who fought alongside US forces for 20 years in Afghanistan but, according to him, “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines”, should have come as no surprise.
Yet this comment last week proved to be the last straw for European leaders.
After a tumultuous week in Davos loaded with more claims of “ownership” of Greenland and new threats of tariffs, some of them decided that they’d had enough.
And then something happened: they protested. Publicly. Insulting the memory of more than 1,000 troops who would still be alive if, indeed, they had stayed “a little back”, touched a raw nerve.
This episode not only reveals the depths to which the transatlantic relationship has fallen, it also explains why Europeans are finally pushing back. Caught between the Russian threat to the east, the Maga threat to the west and China lurking in the background, Europe sees those challenges differently.
By waging war on Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatens Europe’s security; confronting this risk costs money and political capital, but the situation is not unfamiliar.
The threat from the Trump administration is more unsettling; it is an assault on Europe’s identity, coming from its own ally.
This is unprecedented. To make things worse, by weakening the alliance, Trump heightens the security risk posed by Russia and increases China’s appetite.
Modern European identity was built on the ruins of a continent devastated by war and totalitarianism.
The US played a major role in this endeavour — militarily, politically and economically. It became the backbone of a military alliance, Nato, and supported the emergence of the very European Union it is now targeting. Trust was central to this system ruled by a benign hegemon.
When European governments sent their troops to Afghanistan to support their American ally in the wake of 9/11, they did so because they trusted the system. It was the first time that Article 5 of the Nato charter was activated to ensure collective defence.
Most likely, it will also be the last. When Trump decides to seize a “piece of ice” which happens to be part of Europe’s territory, when he denies that Europeans helped American troops, he attacks the foundations of European identity: international law, territorial integrity, liberal values.
He destroys the trust which cements an alliance and therefore makes the prospect of a just peace in Ukraine even more precarious.
On Afghanistan, he reopens another wound: when the US decided that it was time to leave, it did so without serious consultation with its allies who, presented with a fait accompli, had to deal with a catastrophic withdrawal and an abysmal failure.
Reminder: it was President Trump who, at the end of his first term, decided to negotiate the withdrawal with the Taliban. Needless to say, the Europeans were not at the table.
Chickening out on Greenland or backtracking on Afghanistan with a halfhearted tribute on Truth Social to the “very brave soldiers of the United Kingdom”, without a word for the others, has not helped. The damage is done. Trump has antagonised even far right leaders in Europe and managed to unify France’s fragmented political spectrum against him.
Gradually and then suddenly last week, the transatlantic alliance seemed to founder in the worst crisis of its existence. Around dinner tables on this side of the ocean, people hold surreal conversations about what form of fascism America is descending into and wonder whether Europe, having been down this road before, can be immune to the contagion.
In Davos, Christine Lagarde, the usually placid head of the European Central Bank, stormed out of a dinner when Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, launched another all-out Maga attack against supposed European sins. After so many wake-up calls over the past decade, Europeans seem to be finally doing it.
The benign hegemon is now a bully, but they can make him back down. It took a non-European leader to remind them of “the power of the powerless” dear to Václav Havel, the Czech dissident turned president. Europe is not powerless but it has for too long been power-adverse and complacent. Now is the time to de-risk, be brave and find new friends.
Donald Trump Wants This Chaos. It Means More Power in His Hands.
To you and me, Renee Good and Alex Pretti are tragic victims of authoritarian overreach. To the Trump regime, they’re exhibits in building the case for martial law.
Can anyone doubt now that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller want chaos in American streets? I submit to you that at this point, there is no other conclusion that may reasonably be drawn. Consider: It was less than three weeks ago that their thuggish agents executed a woman, a U.S. citizen, in cold blood. If for no other reason than the fact that it sparked international controversy, a normal democratically elected government that felt the normal degree of humility toward public and world opinion would have sent out a memo telling their armed agents to go easy for a little while until things cool down. The elected leader would issue the usual calls for calm.
Yet 17 days after the execution of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent, border patrol officers carried out another execution of an American citizen a mere two miles away. Trumpers can carry on all they want about Alex Pretti’s gun—which he was allowed to carry legally because the state’s Republicans decided back in 2003 that passing such a law was a grand idea—but the different videos make it obvious that at the time of his death, Pretti was on the ground, had been disarmed, and posed no mortal threat to anyone. That’s when they put 10 holes in him. With Good, I noted at the time, we could, maybe, bend over backward and grant a smidgen of ambiguity around the first bullet. But there was nothing ambiguous about the second and third ones, fired from point-blank range through an open car window. Likewise, about 10 shots, there is nothing ambiguous. This too was an execution.
These people are very clearly under orders, of at least the nudge and wink variety, to shoot first and ask questions later. Besides, when they watch their leaders smear the people they just executed with their itchy fingers, what lesson do we suppose they take away? Good, said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, before her body was cold, committed an act of “domestic terrorism.” Pretti, Noem announced on Saturday, literally within minutes of his execution, “attacked” agents. If you’re wearing a badge and a mask and carrying a gun, you hear that clearly as a green light to do it again. And just in case you didn’t, Noem added: “We will continue to let this process go forward and not allow people like Governor Walz and Mayor Frey … to lie about what actually unfolded on that street.”
There will be more executions, of citizens and noncitizens alike. Every victim will be smeared by the state. Protests will mount. Rage on the left will grow. Eventually, at some point, someone on the anti-MAGA side of this argument will cross a line. An ICE officer will be shot.
Then what? Well, first of all, they’ll make a martyr of this modern-day Horst Wessel. Maybe Kid Rock will write a song about him, as the Nazis did about old Horst. And then will come the real business, the day Miller probably anticipates with an almost sexual excitement: Martial law will be declared. I’m not sure it will even require the shooting of an ICE agent—just more ICE shootings leading to a degree of unrest that reaches critical mass. For these people, that would be excuse enough.
What would martial law mean exactly? It’s hard to say, but the other-than-reassuring basic answer is: whatever Donald Trump wants it to mean. Suspension of certain rights—like, say, the right of an arrestee to know the charges on which he was being detained. That’s protected by the Sixth Amendment. If I’d written a column during the campaign calling Trump a threat to the Sixth Amendment, polite, mainstream, non-MAGA opinion would have said: Oh, there goes Tomasky. I ask you how far-fetched it seems today.
Curfews, checkpoints, restricted travel? Not for the good people of Red America, of course. They voted the right way. But in blue states? What law or convention will exist to hold Trump and Miller back?
The military, interestingly, might be a problem, from Trump’s point of view. When JD Vance said last week that the Insurrection Act was not needed at this point, it struck me: Of course! The military has rules of engagement—and unlike ICE, a culture of professionalism. Its soldiers wouldn’t execute Renee Good and Alex Pretti. And even if they did, it would be in direct contravention of orders, and they’d face consequences. So, no—Trump doesn’t want the military involved. They’re a bunch of woke creampuffs!
So let’s start to sum up. Over the summer, ICE will grow and grow. Remember—the budget was tripled last year. They can’t spend the money as fast as Congress is sending it to them. They doubled the size of their force in the second half of 2025, and in the next few months, they’re going to double it again. ICE will be wherever Trump and Miller want it to be.
That mostly means places where ICE isn’t wanted. That means protests and confrontations. That means shootings and executions. That means an excuse for martial law. And that, finally, brings us to the matter of November’s elections.
Don’t worry—presidents can’t unilaterally stop elections from happening. Under the Constitution, elections are run by the states. So blue states, at least, will have them. But red states? It will depend on what Dear Leader commands at the moment. And even in blue states, there are red regions, and Republicans who represent them. And there are Republicans sitting on elections commissions. There’s no question that schemes are being cooked up in those boiler rooms that you and I couldn’t even imagine.
Twice within a week, Trump is forced to tone down big second-term power grabs
Even President Donald Trump’s push for total, unchecked power may struggle to overcome the potent combination of political reality and moral outrage.
Public fury over another horrific killing of a protester by federal agents in Minnesota on Monday prompted the White House to soften the tone of its federal immigration crackdown. It’s too early to say whether the blue state apparently chosen as a Petri dish for Trump’s strongman project will see changes to underlying deportation policies.
This course-correction on Trump’s signature domestic policy issue came less than a week after the failure of a brazen attempt to demonstrate his untamable authority abroad by wrestling Greenland away from Europe.
And it happened the day after Delcy Rodríguez, the leader of Venezuela’s rump regime after President Nicolás Maduro’s ouster, said she’d had “enough” of Trump’s imperialist bid to run her country from the Oval Office.
Another leader also just stood up to Trump. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called his claim that NATO troops “stayed off the frontlines” during the Afghan War “frankly appalling.” The next day, Trump posted a social media tribute to 457 British war dead in a rare tacit admission of wrongdoing.
The first month of 2026 has unfolded in a bewildering rush of Trump’s attempts to impose his will — via a force of belligerent federal agents in Minneapolis, and by the threatened and actual punch of the US military abroad.
His power plays prompted widespread warnings that he was becoming an unchained autocrat; that he’d crushed remaining checks and balances on presidential power; and that the US democracy was being eroded.
“Sometimes you need a dictator” he said last week in Davos, Switzerland, days after suggesting to Reuters that “we shouldn’t even have an election” ahead of November’s midterms. After his aggressive first year back in office, such supposed jokes don’t seem that funny.
But the frenetic first weeks of the new year have also demonstrated that Trump will not have everything his own way. His domestic adversaries and foreign powers get a say — especially if they band together in coalitions. The normal counter-reactions set off when presidents splash their political capital still apply.
If a trickle of pushback becomes a torrent, then Trump will end up being far less feared.
Trump shifts Minnesota optics — but will hardline policies change?
On Monday, the White House belatedly seemed to realize that it has an optics problem in Minnesota.
► The president sent his border czar Tom Homan to the state in an implicit sign of lost confidence in two bombastic subordinates, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and top Border Patrol official Greg Bovino. Each official callously misrepresented the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, despite contrary video evidence every American could see.
► Trump also spoke with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and claimed progress in ending a bitter showdown.
► A coalition of Minnesota business leaders — the kind of people to whom Trump often listens — called for a deescalation of tensions.
► Two court hearings related to the federal surge of agents into Minnesota on Monday, meanwhile, represented the latest example of Trump opponents using the legal system to slow his executive power grabs.
Trump’s change of tack is unlikely to have happened without a crescendo of public fury, resistance by local officials and growing concern among Republicans and some administration officials.
“We don’t want to see any Americans getting killed in the streets,” Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, who faces a tough reelection fight in New York, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on Monday.
Sen. Ted Cruz warned on his podcast that the administration must do better on “tone” after incidents like Pretti’s killing. “They come out guns blazing … that we took out a violent terrorist,” the Texas Republican said.
And GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana on Saturday warned the credibility of ICE and DHS was at stake, writing on X, “We can trust the American people with the truth.”
Trump’s critics have long expressed rightful concern about his frequent attempts to stretch the limits of his office.
But the showdown in Minnesota also showed that the Constitution remains a vibrant playbook Americans can use to challenge his perceived abuses and to formulate effective positions of resistance.
► The First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to protest has been a frequent theme following the apparent denial of that protection by the agents who shoot Good and Pretti.
► The Trump administration is facing intense pushback from the firearms lobby, which objected to comments by FBI Director Kash Patel and other officials suggesting Pretti shouldn’t have taken a gun to a protest, ignoring the Second Amendment.
► And the Fourth Amendment is increasingly being invoked as a platform for legal challenges over unreasonable ICE searches of the homes of suspected undocumented migrants, which in some cases have wrongly targeted US citizens.
Footage of federal government officials descending on a state in masks while imposing the writ of a distant ruler also runs counter to a deep tradition of decentralized power embedded in America’s political psyche.
The behavior of administration officials also clearly backfired on Trump. But the idea that he’s been let down by loose-lipped officials would be misleading. Noem and Bovino often seemed to be appealing directly to the performative tastes of the man who appointed them. Trump’s second-term Cabinet was picked specifically to exclude the kind of moderating voices that tempered his wild instincts in his first term.
And Trump has set the tone for draconian immigration enforcement ever since jumping into politics in 2016. He personally maligned Good and Pretti after they were killed. On January 13, he lashed out on Truth Social at Minnesota Democrats, warning, “The day of reckoning and retribution is coming.”
Trump’s conduct may also have turned immigration — an issue key to his reelection — into a liability ahead of November’s midterm elections. Americans were deeply frustrated with the Biden administration’s failure to secure the southern US border. But the public doesn’t seem ready for military-style deportations of the majority of undocumented migrants who do not have criminal convictions.
Global pushback
Nobody died because of Trump’s attempt to grab Greenland last week, but his wildness could have serious geopolitical implications. Trust in the US among fellow NATO members — who’d had to confront the since withdrawn possibility of an American invasion of Greenland, took a serious blow.
But a president chasing a legacy was thwarted in his quest by rare and unified resistance from NATO allies who’d previously adopted a policy of genuflection. A panicked reaction by the stock market to his territorial ambitions and their implications also seemed to act as a restraint on Trump — not for the first time.
One immediate consequence is that once-friendly allies have started to look elsewhere for partnerships in a way that could backfire for the president. Canada, for instance, is considering an electric vehicles pact with US arch-foe China, which would be a great loss for the US auto industry.
The full context of Venezuelan leader Rodríguez’s comments about Trump is also yet to play out. But his claim that he’ll rule Venezuela as well as the United States is already being exposed to harsh reality.
US oil firms have already expressed skepticism about Trump’s plan to use them to revive Venezuela’s decrepit oil production facilities, given the astronomical costs involved. The US may seek to exert influence from beefed-up diplomatic and intelligence operations in Caracas, although attempts to dictate the paths of Latin American nations have a long and mixed history.
One thing Trump has in his favor is that constitutional and legal checks on US presidents are often retrospective. In his early months back in power, he was able to race ahead — as with his effort to gut US government agencies like USAID — before courts could delay him.
In many areas, Trump can flex the authority of the executive branch, and there’s not much that opponents can do. But elsewhere, he could encounter real resistance — for instance, in a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling on the legality of his tariff policies.
The ambitions of a president who tried to steal an election in 2020 to stay in power should never be underestimated. Dangerous disruption and societal conflict almost certainly lie ahead.
But a turbulent first month of 2026 shows that the narrative of Trump as an untouchable strongman leader impervious to all restraint is not yet baked in.
President Trump’s First Year Back in the White House and the Reversal of America’s Global Role
After one year of President Trump’s return to power, U.S. foreign policy has captured global attention through its unpredictability—a blend of threats and deal-making that has left both allies and adversaries uneasy.
According to the Anadolu news agency (Turkey), one year after President Donald Trump returned to the White House, the U.S. is once again the focal point of global attention due to a volatile combination of threats, deals, and unpredictability that has reshaped Washington’s relationships with both allies and rivals.
“Over the past year, Trump has brought America back into the global spotlight through his rhetorical statements, harsh language, and policy decisions, including the imposition of aggressive tariffs,” stated Professor Inderjeet Parmar of City University of London in an interview with Anadolu.
However, analysts suggest that this attention does not carry a positive meaning. “Trump has certainly garnered more attention for the U.S., even compared to already high levels of attention. However, I think much of this attention is negative, making the U.S. look indifferent to international law and unreliable as an ally,” remarked Professor Roseanne McManus of Penn State University.
While the White House describes President Trump’s approach as “peace through strength,” critics argue it has destabilized allies, undermined trust in U.S. commitments, and strained the rules-based international order.
A “Carrot and Stick” Strategy
Experts describe Trump’s foreign policy as a classic “carrot and stick” approach, rapidly combining threats with incentives. “This is a classic ‘carrot and stick’ strategy in negotiations with countries like Ukraine, Russia, China, and most recently Colombia, combining threats and friendly offers,” Professor Parmar said.
Last year, Trump repeatedly spoke positively about Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling reporters they have a “very good relationship,” and also hosted Putin at a summit in Alaska. But at the same time, he also warned of “severe consequences” and additional sanctions if Russia blocks a peace deal for Ukraine.
In Latin America, Trump has applied a similar approach. Amid tensions with Colombia over migration and drug trafficking, he threatened to close the border and apply economic pressure, while simultaneously offering incentives for cooperation and investment.
Professor McManus stated that President Trump’s negotiating ability remains a core element of his strategy. “He (President Trump) craves anything he can frame as a victory. This has led to sudden shifts from threats to cooperation with several countries, including Russia, China, and Colombia during this term, and North Korea during his first term,” expert McManus noted.
Deliberate Unpredictability
Analysts argue that President Trump’s unpredictability is not limited to words but is also evident in his policy agenda, which frequently changes abruptly and without warning.
Professor McManus pointed to U.S. missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last summer, carried out after President Trump publicly suggested he would take more time to consider military action. “In negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, he has shifted positions, at times supporting one side, then the other,” Professor McManus added.
For his part, Professor David Andersen of Durham University believes President Trump’s unpredictability is intentional. “He approaches politics in an unconventional way; that is what defines him. He focuses on results and is not bound by other factors, plans, or norms of behavior. He simply decides what he wants and demands it. You can never predict what he will want next, or what he will do to achieve it,” Professor Andersen said.
Professor Parmar also suggested that unpredictability could be seen as a deliberate tactic rather than mere chaos. “Trump’s sudden shifts keep adversaries constantly guessing.”
As President Trump enters the second year of his second term, analysts predict his foreign policy will remain confrontational and transactional.
“He will likely prioritize deals over alliances: renegotiating trade with China through tariffs, pressuring NATO on spending, and pursuing quick wins in Ukraine by mediating a peace,” Professor Parmar said.
Professor McManus emphasized that President Trump appears more confident in his second term compared to his first. “This may be because he is increasingly confident due to experience or because he is surrounded by advisors with the same ideology who are less likely to restrain him. I think the smooth execution of the campaign in Venezuela further boosted his confidence, perhaps leading directly to recent threats against Greenland and Iran,” Professor McManus observed.
“President Trump is rewriting the way America operates and its priorities. We truly have very little ability to predict what will happen next,” Professor Andersen concluded.
Donald Trump triggers a gold rush as investors flee the United States.
What is that old line from the New York Yankees star Yogi Berra?
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
It has certainly been a tough time for financial forecasters this year, and we are less than a month into 2026.
Gold prices, we were told late last year, could rise as high as $US5,000 ($7,222) an ounce before the year was out.
Even after the torrid pace of price gains throughout 2025, it seemed a brave call. But the barrier was breached within three weeks.
Silver has been on even more of a tear, particularly in the past few weeks. Its price has quadrupled over the course of the past year, with many concerned that a speculative bubble is forming in commodities traditionally viewed as a store of wealth and prized for the lack of volatility.
While the surging gold price has been a surprise, the driving forces behind it are not.
Investors are losing faith in the United States and its role as the standard-bearer for global capitalism.
“The global order is shifting, and trust is gone,” Swissquote senior analyst Ipek Ozkardeskaya says.
“Restoring it will take time.”
US President Donald Trump’s rambling and meandering speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, threatening an escalation in his trade war and the use of military force against America’s NATO allies, marked a turning point.
Even after the president walked back the threats, the damage had been done.
Donald Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos has spooked some investors. (Reuters: Denis Balibouse)
US dollar under pressure amid Davos fallout
The fallout from Davos has been spectacular.
The US dollar has dropped more than 2 per cent, sending the Australian dollar soaring, while interest rates on US money markets remain elevated as cash flows out of the US.
While the turmoil has been in full swing since April 2 last year, when Mr Trump unveiled his “liberation day” tariffs, the search for new safe havens began almost a decade ago.
That is when China began selling down its holdings in US government debt — essentially IOUs — which had long been considered the safest place to park your cash.
China’s huge trade surpluses were mostly invested in US debt, elevating it into America’s global bank.
But by 2017, as concerns mounted about its relationship with the US, it began offloading those IOUs and diversifying its foreign holdings, primarily focusing on gold. Russia had also been loading up on gold, and then India followed suit.
Central banks globally then began diversifying away from US dollar-denominated debt and into gold. While that created solid demand for the precious metal, prices remained relatively stable.
Prices began trending higher as the US election campaign moved into full swing during 2024, as investment funds and, more recently, retail investors piled into gold.
That trend has gone into overdrive as Mr Trump’s constant trade threats, the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the highly personal attacks against US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell have rattled investors.
Escalating that into a threat to forcefully take control of a NATO territory added a new dimension to the uncertainty.
Debt and deficits add to precious metals’ lustre
Where will it all end?
That is the $US38 trillion — the level at which US government debt now stands — question.
RBC Capital Markets commodity strategist Christopher Louney expects the price gains to continue.
“Uncertainty and macro, especially dollar weakness, have driven the gold-positive backdrop year-to-date, and in many ways, a lot of the key drivers for gold from last year exist in some capacity — especially uncertainty,” he says.
“Between trade, politics, geopolitical instability, Fed independence concerns, there are plenty of drivers to look at.
“Likewise, based on all our conversations in the first few weeks of the year, we do not think investor or central bank demand will fall away.”
That search for safety has focused on hard assets. Paper, especially promises to repay debt from increasingly cash-stretched borrowers like the US and Japan, no longer holds the appeal for investors that it once did.
Metals, particularly anything to do with the rollout of renewables, such as copper or lithium, have been in hot demand.
And then there is silver. While it has widespread industrial uses, particularly in terms of energy, industrial demand alone cannot explain the galloping price.
As a policy, “America First” appears to be having the opposite effect. Global investors are putting the US way down the priority list.
Mr Trump promised Americans a new golden age. Nobody envisaged it would quite work out like this.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(1135x842:1137x844)/Minnesota-Shooting-012426-05-ec3dbff32cae4e7f89a85f645abb6249.jpg?w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1 "Federal agent shoots and kills man in Minneapolis, officials say")
