More than three years after 11 U.S. cities were awarded the right to host games during next summer’s World Cup and just two months before the tournament draw, President Trump is threatening to move matches out of places he considers “a little bit dangerous.”
Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters Thursday in the Oval Office and the cities that appear to be in his crosshairs are Democratic ones such as Seattle and San Francisco, which have not supported the president’s immigration policies.
“They’re run by radical left lunatics who don’t know what they’re doing,” Trump said.
Seattle is scheduled to host six games, including a group-stage match featuring the U.S. Six matches will also be played at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, about 40 miles south of San Francisco. The tournament will kick off June 11 and end July 19 with the final in East Rutherford, N.J.
The president did not mention Inglewood, which will stage eight matches — including at least two U.S. games — at SoFi Stadium. The eight other U.S. host cities are Atlanta; Boston; Arlington, Texas; Houston; Kansas City, Mo., Miami; East Rutherford, N.J.; and Philadelphia. The 2026 World Cup will be the first to be shared by three countries with matches also scheduled to be played in Mexico and Canada.
“If any city we think is going to be even a little bit dangerous for the World Cup, or for the [2028] Olympics … but for the World Cup in particular, because they’re playing in so many cities, we won’t allow it,” Trump said.
“We’ll move it around a little bit. But I hope that’s not going to happen.”
Trump does not have the authority to relocate World Cup matches, which are overseen by FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. But FIFA leader Gianni Infantino, who Trump calls his “great friend,” has given in to the president before. Just last month, FIFA agreed to Trump’s unusual request to move the World Cup draw, which will set the matchups for the group stage, to the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C.
A FIFA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But another person heavily involved in World Cup preparations in multiple cities said Trump’s threat to move games is all bluster.
“As a practical matter, it would be impossible,” said the person, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), whose district abuts Inglewood, agreed.
“It’s so laughable, it’ll make you want to take a Tylenol,” she said.
“No one is taking this seriously,” she continued. “He has absolutely no power over that. The World Cup is not about Donald Trump. It’s also not about the United States. So another distraction and another example of ego and ignorance.
“My hope is that this president would be focusing on making sure that the U.S. host cities have the infrastructure that they need.”
According to the Athletic, FIFA’s contracts with host cities say the group “shall not have the right for ordinary termination” of the agreements. Most host cities have already spent millions of dollars to prepare for the World Cup and are anticipating a sizable economic boost from the tournament.
A study released last summer by Micronomics, a Long Beach-based economic research and consulting firm, found that the World Cup will have an economic impact of $594 million on Los Angeles County, including $343 million in direct spending from an estimated 180,000 out-of-town visitors.
Trump wouldn’t have to move games to make things difficult for cities he disfavors, however. In July, Congress allocated $625 million in federal funds for World Cup security. According to Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup task force chaired by Trump, cities will submit their expenditures with requests for reimbursement, but the task force will have wide latitude in deciding which bills to pay.
Trump has made crime and retribution a major theme of his administration, sending national guard troops — or threatening to send them — to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Chicago, all cities with Democratic mayors. Nine of the 11 World Cup host cities in the U.S. have Democratic mayors.
WASHINGTON — The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet on the planet, capable of waging electronic warfare, of dropping nuclear weapons, of evading the surveillance and missile defenses of America’s most fearsome enemies at supersonic speeds.
It is the latest example of the Trump administration using disproportionate military force to supplement, or substitute for, traditional law enforcement operations — first at home on the streets of U.S. cities and now overseas, where the president has labeled multiple drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and has vowed a “tough” response.
On Tuesday, that response began with an inaugural “kinetic strike” targeting a small vessel in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narcotics and 11 members of Tren de Aragua, one of the Venezuelan gangs President Trump has designated a terrorist group. Legally designating a gang or cartel as a terrorist entity ostensibly gives the president greater legal cover to conduct lethal strikes on targets.
The operation follows Trump’s deployment of U.S. forces to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., for operations with dubious justifications, as well as threats of similar actions in San Francisco, Chicago and New Orleans, moves that a federal judge said last week amount to Trump “creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
Trump has referred to both problems — urban crime and drug trafficking — as interlinked and out of control. But U.S. service members have no training in local law or drug enforcement. And experts question a strategy that has been tried before, both by the United States and regional governments, of launching a war against drugs only to drive leaders in the trade to militarize themselves.
U.S. drug policy “has always been semi-militarized,” said Jeremy Adelman, director of the Global History Lab at Princeton University. Trump’s latest actions simply make more explicit the erasure of a line “that separates law enforcement from warfare.”
“One side effect of all this is that other countries are watching,” Adelman said. “By turning law enforcement over to the military — as the White House is also doing domestically — what’s to stop other countries from doing the same in international waters?
“Fishermen in the South China Sea should be worried,” he added.
The Trump administration has not provided further details on the 11 people killed in the boat strike. But officials said the departure of a drug vessel from Venezuela makes Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s dictatorial president labeled by the White House as a top drug kingpin, indirectly responsible.
“Let there be no doubt, Nicolás Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker in the United States, and he’s a fugitive of American justice,” Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State and national security advisor, said on a tour of the region Thursday, citing a grand jury indictment in the Southern District of New York.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a news conference Wednesday in Mexico City.
(Hector Vivas / Getty Images)
The president’s war on drug cartels will continue, Rubio said, adding that regional governments “will help us find these people and blow them up.”
Maduro has warned the strike indicates that Washington seeks regime change in Caracas. The Venezuelan military flew two aircraft near a U.S. vessel in international waters Thursday night, prompting an angry response from Pentagon officials and Trump to direct his Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to “do what you want to do” in response.
“Despite how dangerous this performance could be, because of its political consequences, it can’t be taken seriously as a drug policy,” said Lina Britto, an expert on Latin America and the Caribbean at Northwestern University with a focus on the history of the drug trade. “It lacks rigorousness in the analysis of how drug trafficking operates in the hemisphere.”
Most drugs entering the U.S. homeland from South America arrive in shipping containers, submarines and more efficient modes of transportation than speedboats — and primarily come through the Pacific, not the Caribbean, Britto said.
Trump has flirted with military strikes on drug cartels since the start of his second term, working with Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, to coordinate drone strikes over Mexican territory for surveillance of cartel activity.
But Sheinbaum has ruled out the use of force against cartels, or the deployment of U.S. forces within Mexico to combat them, warning that U.S. military action would violate Mexican sovereignty and upend collaboration between the two close-knit trade and security partners.
In comparison, Venezuela offers Trump a cleaner opportunity to test the use of force against drug cartels, with diplomatic ties between the two governments at a nadir. But a war with Maduro over drugs could create unexpected problems for the Trump administration, setting off a rare military conflict in a placid region and fueling further instability in a country that, over the last decade, already set off the world’s largest refugee crisis.
Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program and head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Trump’s use of foreign terrorist designations changes the rules of engagement in ways that allow for action “where law enforcement solutions failed in the past.”
“What we are witnessing is a paradigm shift in real time,” Berg said. “Many of Latin America’s most significant criminal organizations are now designated foreign terrorist organizations. The administration is demonstrating that this is not only rhetorical.”
But Paul Gootenberg, a professor at Stony Brook University and author of “Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug,” characterized Trump’s military operation as a “simplistic” approach to complex social problems.
“This is more a performative attack on the Venezuelan regime than a serious attempt at drug policy,” Gootenberg said.
“Militarized drug policy is nothing new — it was tried and intensified in various ways from the mid-1980s through 2000s, oftentimes under U.S. Southern Command,” he added. “The whole range and levels of ‘war on drugs’ was a long, unmitigated policy failure, according to the vast, vast majority of drug experts.”
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
Trump’s pledge to move World Cup matches unlikely to succeed
More than three years after 11 U.S. cities were awarded the right to host games during next summer’s World Cup and just two months before the tournament draw, President Trump is threatening to move matches out of places he considers “a little bit dangerous.”
Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters Thursday in the Oval Office and the cities that appear to be in his crosshairs are Democratic ones such as Seattle and San Francisco, which have not supported the president’s immigration policies.
“They’re run by radical left lunatics who don’t know what they’re doing,” Trump said.
Seattle is scheduled to host six games, including a group-stage match featuring the U.S. Six matches will also be played at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, about 40 miles south of San Francisco. The tournament will kick off June 11 and end July 19 with the final in East Rutherford, N.J.
The president did not mention Inglewood, which will stage eight matches — including at least two U.S. games — at SoFi Stadium. The eight other U.S. host cities are Atlanta; Boston; Arlington, Texas; Houston; Kansas City, Mo., Miami; East Rutherford, N.J.; and Philadelphia. The 2026 World Cup will be the first to be shared by three countries with matches also scheduled to be played in Mexico and Canada.
“If any city we think is going to be even a little bit dangerous for the World Cup, or for the [2028] Olympics … but for the World Cup in particular, because they’re playing in so many cities, we won’t allow it,” Trump said.
“We’ll move it around a little bit. But I hope that’s not going to happen.”
Trump does not have the authority to relocate World Cup matches, which are overseen by FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. But FIFA leader Gianni Infantino, who Trump calls his “great friend,” has given in to the president before. Just last month, FIFA agreed to Trump’s unusual request to move the World Cup draw, which will set the matchups for the group stage, to the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C.
A FIFA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But another person heavily involved in World Cup preparations in multiple cities said Trump’s threat to move games is all bluster.
“As a practical matter, it would be impossible,” said the person, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), whose district abuts Inglewood, agreed.
“It’s so laughable, it’ll make you want to take a Tylenol,” she said.
“No one is taking this seriously,” she continued. “He has absolutely no power over that. The World Cup is not about Donald Trump. It’s also not about the United States. So another distraction and another example of ego and ignorance.
“My hope is that this president would be focusing on making sure that the U.S. host cities have the infrastructure that they need.”
According to the Athletic, FIFA’s contracts with host cities say the group “shall not have the right for ordinary termination” of the agreements. Most host cities have already spent millions of dollars to prepare for the World Cup and are anticipating a sizable economic boost from the tournament.
A study released last summer by Micronomics, a Long Beach-based economic research and consulting firm, found that the World Cup will have an economic impact of $594 million on Los Angeles County, including $343 million in direct spending from an estimated 180,000 out-of-town visitors.
Trump wouldn’t have to move games to make things difficult for cities he disfavors, however. In July, Congress allocated $625 million in federal funds for World Cup security. According to Andrew Giuliani, head of the White House World Cup task force chaired by Trump, cities will submit their expenditures with requests for reimbursement, but the task force will have wide latitude in deciding which bills to pay.
Trump has made crime and retribution a major theme of his administration, sending national guard troops — or threatening to send them — to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis and Chicago, all cities with Democratic mayors. Nine of the 11 World Cup host cities in the U.S. have Democratic mayors.
Source link
After militarizing U.S. streets, Trump turns guns on the drug trade
WASHINGTON — The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet on the planet, capable of waging electronic warfare, of dropping nuclear weapons, of evading the surveillance and missile defenses of America’s most fearsome enemies at supersonic speeds.
Ten of them are being deployed by a newly branded War Department to Puerto Rico to combat drug traffickers in dinghies.
It is the latest example of the Trump administration using disproportionate military force to supplement, or substitute for, traditional law enforcement operations — first at home on the streets of U.S. cities and now overseas, where the president has labeled multiple drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and has vowed a “tough” response.
On Tuesday, that response began with an inaugural “kinetic strike” targeting a small vessel in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narcotics and 11 members of Tren de Aragua, one of the Venezuelan gangs President Trump has designated a terrorist group. Legally designating a gang or cartel as a terrorist entity ostensibly gives the president greater legal cover to conduct lethal strikes on targets.
The operation follows Trump’s deployment of U.S. forces to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., for operations with dubious justifications, as well as threats of similar actions in San Francisco, Chicago and New Orleans, moves that a federal judge said last week amount to Trump “creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”
Trump has referred to both problems — urban crime and drug trafficking — as interlinked and out of control. But U.S. service members have no training in local law or drug enforcement. And experts question a strategy that has been tried before, both by the United States and regional governments, of launching a war against drugs only to drive leaders in the trade to militarize themselves.
U.S. drug policy “has always been semi-militarized,” said Jeremy Adelman, director of the Global History Lab at Princeton University. Trump’s latest actions simply make more explicit the erasure of a line “that separates law enforcement from warfare.”
“One side effect of all this is that other countries are watching,” Adelman said. “By turning law enforcement over to the military — as the White House is also doing domestically — what’s to stop other countries from doing the same in international waters?
“Fishermen in the South China Sea should be worried,” he added.
The Trump administration has not provided further details on the 11 people killed in the boat strike. But officials said the departure of a drug vessel from Venezuela makes Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s dictatorial president labeled by the White House as a top drug kingpin, indirectly responsible.
“Let there be no doubt, Nicolás Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker in the United States, and he’s a fugitive of American justice,” Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State and national security advisor, said on a tour of the region Thursday, citing a grand jury indictment in the Southern District of New York.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a news conference Wednesday in Mexico City.
(Hector Vivas / Getty Images)
The president’s war on drug cartels will continue, Rubio said, adding that regional governments “will help us find these people and blow them up.”
Maduro has warned the strike indicates that Washington seeks regime change in Caracas. The Venezuelan military flew two aircraft near a U.S. vessel in international waters Thursday night, prompting an angry response from Pentagon officials and Trump to direct his Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to “do what you want to do” in response.
“Despite how dangerous this performance could be, because of its political consequences, it can’t be taken seriously as a drug policy,” said Lina Britto, an expert on Latin America and the Caribbean at Northwestern University with a focus on the history of the drug trade. “It lacks rigorousness in the analysis of how drug trafficking operates in the hemisphere.”
Most drugs entering the U.S. homeland from South America arrive in shipping containers, submarines and more efficient modes of transportation than speedboats — and primarily come through the Pacific, not the Caribbean, Britto said.
Trump has flirted with military strikes on drug cartels since the start of his second term, working with Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, to coordinate drone strikes over Mexican territory for surveillance of cartel activity.
But Sheinbaum has ruled out the use of force against cartels, or the deployment of U.S. forces within Mexico to combat them, warning that U.S. military action would violate Mexican sovereignty and upend collaboration between the two close-knit trade and security partners.
In comparison, Venezuela offers Trump a cleaner opportunity to test the use of force against drug cartels, with diplomatic ties between the two governments at a nadir. But a war with Maduro over drugs could create unexpected problems for the Trump administration, setting off a rare military conflict in a placid region and fueling further instability in a country that, over the last decade, already set off the world’s largest refugee crisis.
Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program and head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Trump’s use of foreign terrorist designations changes the rules of engagement in ways that allow for action “where law enforcement solutions failed in the past.”
“What we are witnessing is a paradigm shift in real time,” Berg said. “Many of Latin America’s most significant criminal organizations are now designated foreign terrorist organizations. The administration is demonstrating that this is not only rhetorical.”
But Paul Gootenberg, a professor at Stony Brook University and author of “Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug,” characterized Trump’s military operation as a “simplistic” approach to complex social problems.
“This is more a performative attack on the Venezuelan regime than a serious attempt at drug policy,” Gootenberg said.
“Militarized drug policy is nothing new — it was tried and intensified in various ways from the mid-1980s through 2000s, oftentimes under U.S. Southern Command,” he added. “The whole range and levels of ‘war on drugs’ was a long, unmitigated policy failure, according to the vast, vast majority of drug experts.”
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
Source link