A woman has stated that her animosity toward the Trump administration and its supporters has extended to the American flag, leading both her and her husband to dislike the national symbol.
Tag: Trump administration
-

North Korean Hackers Move Tens of Millions on Hyperliquid as Trump Pushes to Bring Crypto Platform Onshore
Kraken said compliance is central to its operations and that it uses blockchain analytics partnerships to monitor onchain activity and block assets linked to sanctioned wallets before they reach the exchange. A representative for Kraken told CoinDesk that “compliance is foundational to how we operate. Kraken maintains a best-in-class compliance program, including partnerships with leading blockchain analytics providers that continuously monitor onchain activity. These controls are designed to identify and block any assets associated with sanctioned wallets before they enter our platform.”
LBank said it has consistently relied on industry-standard compliance tools for ongoing monitoring. However, the exchange acknowledged that the crypto industry is “inherently cross-platform, cross-chain, and cross-jurisdictional.”
“As a result,” the spokesperson added, “relevant risks are often not generated by, or capable of being independently identified and addressed by, any single platform, but instead represent an ongoing challenge faced by the industry as a whole.”
KuCoin said it could not verify or comment on the sanctioned-wallet activity without reviewing the underlying data. CoinDesk declined to provide that data before publication.
“We would also note that public onchain data reflects the movement of assets but does not necessarily provide a complete picture of compliance actions taken by a centralized platform after assets reach the platform. Measures such as account restrictions, regulatory reporting, or other risk-control actions may occur at the account or platform level and may not be visible from public blockchain data alone,” the representative said, adding that the exchange “maintains sanctions compliance policies and procedures designed to meet applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”
Lazarus Group’s Hyperliquid activity
The Lazarus Group’s use of Hyperliquid could expose the platform to scrutiny from authorities if it violates U.S. sanctions laws. The activity comes as the Trump administration considers how Hyperliquid could be integrated into the regulated U.S. financial system.
-

Trump’s Plan to Sell Part of Yosemite Shows What Oligarchy Looks Like | Rebecca Solnit
Do people still say a car was “sold for parts”? The United States is being sold for parts—or simply handed over to oligarchs. It is a fire sale and a bankruptcy auction: a planned dismantling of everything from the military and higher education to scientific research and public lands.
The threat to sell part of Yosemite National Park involves a parcel roughly a quarter-mile wide along the park’s edge. But Yosemite is a crown jewel of the national park system and, arguably, the world’s first national park. Selling any part of it to benefit a corporation’s proposed development along the park’s western border would undermine the protection of national parks and sacrifice the public good for private profit. This is part of the Trump administration’s ongoing agenda.
Why Yosemite’s public land matters
Public lands belong to everyone. They are a gift from the past, protected by people who worked to preserve forests, mountains and canyons, and a trust for the future because the public includes everyone living in the country today and everyone yet to come.
The Trump administration’s efforts to transfer public lands for mining, logging and fossil fuel extraction—while dismantling the Forest Service and National Park Service—prioritize short-term profit for an elite over the long-term well-being of people and the natural world.
These lands have many forms of value. Trees and grasslands sequester carbon and help moderate the climate. Mountains serve as watersheds, while many natural areas now support rural tourism and outdoor recreation economies.
White settlers first entered Yosemite Valley in the early 1850s during a military campaign aimed at punishing, displacing or exterminating Indigenous people who were obstructing another era of environmental destruction: the Gold Rush. Miners hunted game, cut down trees, polluted rivers and massacred the region’s original inhabitants.
Some early visitors recognized Yosemite’s extraordinary scenic beauty, including its oak grasslands, towering canyon walls and waterfalls. By the 1860s, photographers such as Carleton Watkins and Eadweard Muybridge had produced images of Yosemite that were displayed internationally. The valley became iconic before many white Americans had ever seen it.
In spring 1864, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill establishing that “Yosemite Valley’s premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time.” California initially managed the land because the federal government had little presence in the West and was occupied with the Civil War.
Yellowstone National Park, by contrast, was established eight years later as a federally managed preserve. Wyoming and Montana were not yet states, and Yellowstone is generally recognized as the first national park.
The document signed by Ulysses S. Grant stated that the land was to be “reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”
National parks and Indigenous homelands
The creation of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Death Valley, the Grand Canyon and many other national parks was rooted in a fundamental injustice: these places were Indigenous peoples’ ancestral homelands long before Columbus sailed west or Lewis and Clark traveled across North America.
In Yosemite, some of those wrongs have been addressed over the past 30 years through changes to signage and historical interpretation, as well as the restoration of traditional use and ceremonial practices for descendants of the original inhabitants. The flawed premise of the national parks matters, but so does the fact that the system protected these places from privatization, development and destruction.
National Park Service funding under pressure
That protection is now being undermined across the Park Service. The Trump administration has been directing Park Service money intended for projects nationwide toward favored projects at the White House and in Washington, DC, including gilded statues and an inept $16 million painting of the reflecting pool.
Michael Scherer reports in The Atlantic that a fast-track approval process allows Trump projects to receive Park Service funding while the national park system is starved of resources. He notes “a decrease of $854m, or 68%, in spending on projects in park regions outside the Washington area in the first eight and a half months of fiscal year 2026, compared with the full prior fiscal year. During that same period, spending around Washington increased by about $100 million.”
The administration has also proposed further cuts to the number of Park Service employees, whose ranks had already been reduced by 24% in 2025.
Giving away a piece of parkland is one form of harm. Removing the workers who protect endangered species and waterways, prevent fires and provide public services—from search and rescue to education and clean restrooms—is another.
Opening the ancient sacred site of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico to fracking would represent another form of destruction under the Trump administration. The same is true of the proposed 90% reduction of protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.
As the Associated Press reported earlier this month, the radical reduction reverses “protections established by his Democratic predecessors on public lands that are sacred among many Native Americans. Trump administration officials and congressional Republicans have sought to expand drilling, mining and logging on public lands, while removing protections for imperiled species and rolling back rules for conservation.”
Yosemite was first protected during one civil war. Another struggle is now underway over whether the federal government exists to serve the many or the profiteering of the few. A small parcel in Yosemite is therefore a major indicator of who this country belongs to—and whose rights and interests matter.
Source: www.theguardian.com
-

Trump Administration Moves to Open 45 Million Acres of National Forests to Logging and Road Construction
The Trump administration has formally moved to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a 2001 regulation that has barred road construction and commercial timber harvesting across nearly 45 million acres of U.S. national forest land for a quarter-century. The proposed repeal, filed in the Federal Register this week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, frames the restriction as a "one-size-fits-all" barrier that has prevented local forest managers from conducting hazardous-fuel reduction work needed to lower wildfire risk. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins argued that overgrown stands, insect outbreaks, and disease have turned healthy landscapes into tinderboxes, while Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz noted that more than 40 percent of inventoried roadless areas—primarily in the West—carry high or very high wildfire hazard potential, yet only 5 percent have received fuel-reduction treatments since 2014. Read also: Trump Administration Opens 45M Acres of National Forests …. Read also: Trump Floats Renaming Lake Ontario to 'Lake America' as Trade War With Canada Intensifies.
Environmental groups and legal scholars have pushed back sharply. The Sierra Club called the Roadless Rule "the only thing preventing much of our wildest remaining national forests from industrial development," and Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law warned that opening these areas to new roads and commercial forestry would represent a loss for the American public and a blow to global climate efforts. Critics also emphasize that national forests and national parks operate under different management mandates; the Roadless Rule applies specifically to Forest Service lands, not the National Park System, though the two are often conflated in public debate.
The policy shift arrives against a backdrop of intensifying wildfire seasons across the American West. In Nevada, the Hawk Fire recently scorched 23 square miles near Reno, destroying at least 32 homes, injuring seven people, and forcing tens of thousands to evacuate. Nevada's governor declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard to support aerial firefighting and neighborhood security. Officials attributed the blaze to human activity, marking the third major wildfire north of Reno in two weeks. While the Reno fire burned primarily on private and state lands, the episode underscores the broader fuels-management challenges that the administration cites as justification for its rule change.
If finalized, the repeal would not automatically authorize specific logging or road projects; rather, it would devolve decision-making to local forest managers who "know the land best," according to the Forest Service. The proposal now enters a public comment period and environmental review, and legal challenges are widely expected. The outcome will shape the future of some of the country's most ecologically intact forest landscapes and test the balance between active management, conservation, and climate resilience in federal land policy.
