Film director Oliver Stone sharply criticizes Donald Trump’s foreign policy, saying he has betrayed his promise of peace.In a post on X, he expresses frustration with Trump’s bombing of Yemen and deplores the aggressive line now being taken against Iran.
Oliver Stone, known for films such as Platoon (1986), Born on the Fourth of July (1989) and JFK (1991), attacks Donald Trump’s foreign policy and expresses deep disappointment with the President’s actions in a post on X.
Stone points in particular to the US bombing in Yemen, in response to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. He questions why Trump does not seek diplomatic solutions with Iran, which supports the Houthi rebels, instead of escalating the conflict.
– What the hell is going on? Trump has turned into Biden? Mercilessly, relentlessly bombing Yemen and aggressively seeking a new war with Iran. Why doesn’t Trump at least meet with the Iranian leaders, as he did North Korea’s?
What the hell is going on? Trump has turned into Biden? Mercilessly, relentlessly bombing Yemen and aggressively seeking a new war with Iran. Why doesn’t Trump at least meet with the Iranian leaders, as he did North Korea’s? Why doesn’t he educate himself a little and learn about… https://t.co/v4u6kI6I5Q
Stone also highlights Iran’s historical resilience and refers to the Parthian Empire, which never gave in to Rome. He warns that a military strategy against Iran risks failure and urges Donald Trump to learn more about the region’s cultures.
The criticism also reflects a broader disappointment among some of Trump’s voters, who expected a more peace-oriented policy after his election victory, and Stone also refers to another (John M. Macgregor’s) analysis of the discontent. Macgregor, in turn, lists several promises that Trump did not fulfill, such as ending the Russia-Ukraine war and reducing US involvement in Middle East conflicts.
US attacks in Yemen are justified by the Trump administration as protecting international shipping lanes. At the same time, Donald Trump has warned Iran of consequences if it continues its support for the Houthi rebels, which has increased tensions in the region.
While some see Donald Trump’s actions as a necessary response to security threats, critics such as Oliver Stone and former colonel Douglas Macgregor argue that it goes against his previous promises to put “America first” by avoiding foreign conflicts.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Donald Trump wants to review the possibility of deporting the country’s worst violent criminals to El Salvador – even if they are US citizens.
“We also have homegrown criminals that are absolute monsters”, the President said during a press conference, stressing that the law must be reviewed.
It was during a White House meeting with El Salvador’s outspoken president, Nayib Bukele, that Trump declared that he wanted to deport not only foreign criminals to the country – but also American criminals.
– We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking, that are absolute monsters, he explained.
– I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country, but you’ll have to be looking at the laws on that, the President continued.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to use unorthodox methods and get tough on the widespread violent crime in the country – but the move has nevertheless led to strong reactions and a lot of criticism.
TRUMP: I’D LIKE TO DEPORT OUR HOMEGROWN CRIMINALS AS WELL—IF IT’S LEGAL
“We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking that are… https://t.co/kzyUzjdSLapic.twitter.com/l8wLGvemnj
Many critics point out that, as a rule, US citizens cannot be deported and that there are only a few exceptions to this rule. These include people born in other countries who have been granted citizenship but lied during their application process or committed terrorist crimes or treason.
– There is no provision under US law that would allow the government to kick citizens out of the country, Erin Corcoran, an immigration law expert at the University of Notre Dame, told the AP news agency.
The civil rights organization ACLU is also highly critical and believes that deportation of American citizens would be a direct attack on the US Constitution.
Sent to mega prison
However, Trump has emphasized that his proposal will only be implemented if it is deemed compatible with the country’s laws. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt later explained that the move should be seen as a proposal that has been “raised” – but not yet decided. According to analysts, the Constitution must first be revised if deportations of US citizens are to become a reality.
The background to the president’s statement is that Nayib Bukele during a previous meeting opened up to receive American prisoners – an idea that Trump praised and said he “loved”.
Already today, the United States is sending hundreds of migrants with suspected criminal links to El Salvador’s controversial mega prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center, under a contract in which the US pays the country $6 million for their detention.
According to four current and former federal officials with direct insight into the planning, the Trump administration aims to deport at least one million migrants in the first year of the president’s return to the White House.
This would be the largest deportation program in US history, surpassing the previous record set during Barack Obama’s presidency when around 400,000 migrants were deported annually at its peak.
According to the officials, who spoke to the Washington Post on condition of anonymity, White House adviser Stephen Miller is working closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies on a daily basis to achieve the goal.
However, the sources say there is still much uncertainty about how the mass deportations will be realized – not least because the agencies that will carry them out are suffering from staff shortages and budget constraints. Lengthy legal processes are also highlighted as a problem, as most migrants currently have the right to have their cases heard in court before they are deported.
One possible strategy to achieve the goal is to focus on deporting some of the 1.4 million migrants who already have final deportation orders but have not yet been sent home because their home countries refuse to accept them.
The administration is reportedly currently negotiating with up to 30 countries to accept deportees who are not their citizens, including Mexico, Costa Rica and Panama. A legal document mentions that it hopes to send “thousands” of migrants to such third countries.
“Efficient mass deportation of terrorist and illegal aliens”
White House spokesman Kush Desai declined to answer questions about the administration’s goals, but wrote in an email to the newspaper that the Trump administration has a mandate from voters to repair the Biden administration’s handling of border security and illegal migration.
“The entire Trump administration is aligned on delivering on this mandate, not on arbitrary goals, with a full-of-government approach to ensure the efficient mass deportation of terrorist and criminal illegal aliens”.
During his election campaign, Trump promised to deport “millions” of migrants when he came to power – and the Vice President, JD Vance, mentioned last year that a million could be deported first. However, according to the administration’s own figures, the process is complex – as immigration court proceedings can take years at worst.
The Trump administration has already sent hundreds of migrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador and to the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba – but these represent only a fraction of the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
“Not just a switch you can turn on”
Finding the 1.4 million aliens with deportation orders who are in the US in the first place is also considered a very complicated project – despite a coordinated effort involving the FBI, DEA and ATF.
Therefore, the Trump administration has requested that Congress authorize additional funding to expand the effort and deploy additional personnel – although this is also expected to take time.
– The deportation process is time-consuming.That is not just a switch you can turn on, said former migration commissioner Doris Meissner.
Currently, an estimated 11 million illegal migrants are in the US.
Open cooperation represents the trend of history and mutual benefit is what the people want, writes WAN Degang, Charge d'Affairs of the Chinese Embassy in Sweden.
Published 11 April 2025
Photo: iStock/tawatchaiprakobkit
Aerial view of cargo ship carrying container running for export import near cargo yard port concept freight shipping.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.
Recently, the United States has imposed tariffs arbitrarily on all its trading partners under various pretexts. This severely infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of all countries, violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, undermines the rules-based multilateral trading system, and disrupts the global economic order. People from many countries have pointed out that the U.S. overlooks the well-being of of its own citizens and the interests of other countries, which could ultimately lead to internal and external difficulties, resulting in losses for all parties involved.
First, the U.S. tariffs are widely criticized by international community.
The U.S. side claimed that it is being ripped off in international trade, and increased tariffs on all its trading partners under the pretext of reciprocity. This is in complete disregard of the balance of interests achieved through years of trade negotiations. It also neglects the fact that the U.S. has gained huge interests from international trade over the years. Such action is widely criticized and opposed by the international community. The European Commission, the European Central Bank, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and other institutions and countries have stated that the U.S. tariffs negatively impact the global economy, disrupt the trading system that has fostered great progress for humanity and undermine the global free trade order. Faced with such unilateral and bullying action, the only way to stop the U.S. from harvesting the world is for all countries to strengthen their solidarity and cooperation to jointly resist and oppose such action.
Second, the U.S. tariffs hurt the U.S. itself as well as other countries.
The U.S. unilateral policy of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” is bound to result in a “lose-lose” situation in practice, inflicting direct harm to the global economy and the interests of its trading partners, while negatively impacting its own economy, businesses and consumers. The day after the U.S. announced its tariffs plan, the S&P 500 index plummeted 4.8%, wiping out over $4 trillion in market value in a short span. Experts at JP Morgan estimated that the tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.3% for the year, down from the previous forecast of 1.3% growth. Meanwhile, the U.S. inflation level remains high. The Core Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) Price Index, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 2.8% year-on-year in February. Relevant U.S. agencies predicted that the new tariffs will cost Americans an additional $660 billion annually in taxes, with average local car prices expected to rise by $3,000 to $5,000. The impact won’t stop at the automotive sector; industries such as food, electronics, household appliances, construction materials and agricultural equipment will also be affected, leading to significantly higher expenditures for American households.
Third, the U.S. tariffs hinder global sustainable development.
The U.S. abuse of tariffs deprives countries, especially those in the Global South, of their right to development. The U.S. imposes tariffs on more than 180 countries and regions worldwide, including some economies classified by the United Nations as least developed. According to WTO data, given the disparities in economic development and strength, U.S. tariffs could further widen the global wealth gap, with less developed countries suffering a heavier blow. The Spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General warned that the trade war will adversely affect implementation of Sustainable Development Goals, and the concern right now is with the most vulnerable countries, which are the least equipped to deal with the current situation. The WTO noted that the U.S. tariffs could lead to an overall contraction of around 1% in global merchandise trade volumes this year, disrupting global trade and economic growth prospects.
Open cooperation represents the trend of history and mutual benefit is what the people want. Development is a universal right of all countries, not an exclusive privilege of a few. Countries need to uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefit, and remain committed to true multilateralism. They should practice true multilateralism, jointly oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism, and defend the U.N.-centered international system and the WTO-centered multilateral trading system. We are confident that the vast majority of countries, committed to fairness and justice, will stand on the right side of history and act in their best interests.
WAN Degang, Charge d’Affairs of the Chinese Embassy in Sweden
In a wide-ranging interview with The Duran , economist Jeffrey Sachs critiques Donald Trump’s tariff policies, calling the administration’s understanding of trade deficits “completely flakey” and warning of severe economic and geopolitical consequences.
Sachs, a Columbia University professor and former UN advisor, emphasizes that tariffs will not address the root causes of US trade imbalances and instead risk fragmented trade, rising consumer costs, and global instability.
Sachs begins by rejecting the core argument for Trump’s tariffs: the claim that US trade deficits result from “unfair” foreign trade practices.
– The trade deficits have nothing to do – I will say nothing to do – with the trade policies of the rest of the world. They have no indication whatsoever that anybody is ripping off anybody, especially that the rest of the world is ripping off the United States.
He defines a trade deficit as a macroeconomic imbalance, not a trade policy failure.
– What a trade deficit means – pure and simple – is that a country is spending more than it is earning. That’s all.
Sachs dismisses the Trump administration’s diagnosis as “completely flakey”, comparing it to a shopper blaming stores for overspending.
– Trump calls that a ripoff. It’s a little strange… It’s like a person who goes on a shopping binge, runs a current account deficit against all those stores they visited, and then blames the shops for those imbalances.
– The diagnosis is completely flakey. I taught international monetary economics for 22 years at Harvard. In the second day of the undergraduate course, I explained that a current account deficit was an imbalance of spending and production, essentially – not a measure of trade policy.
The twin-deficit problem
Sachs warns that tariffs will harm US households and industries, raising prices for goods like automobiles and disrupting supply chains.
– If you say, ‘We’re not going to have trade’… that pushes workers into the labor-intensive, low-skilled sectors in this value chain. That lowers living standards.
He highlights the risks of stock market instability, referencing a $10 trillion loss in global markets during tariff disputes.
– This is losing what we call the gains from trade.
Sachs draws a direct comparison to the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which exacerbated the Great Depression.
– The protectionism of 1930 in the United States was an accelerant [of the Depression].
Sachs ties trade deficits to US fiscal policy, emphasizing the “twin deficits” problem.
– We call this the twin deficits problem: You have a large budget deficit that shows up as a large trade deficit, so it’s a twin deficit. This is kind of a chronic characteristic of the US.
He critiques the weaponization of the dollar, noting that US sanctions incentivize countries to abandon the dollar.
– The weaponization of the dollar in confiscating Russian reserves, Venezuelan reserves, Iranian reserves … means that if you have some trade dispute or foreign policy dispute with the US, you’re likely to get your money confiscated.
Geopolitical risks: Taiwan as the next Ukraine
Sachs warns of broader geopolitical fallout, referencing a 2015 Council on Foreign Relations paper titled Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China by Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis and highlights its argument for containing China’s rise.
– The argument [in the paper] is China’s rise is no longer in America’s interest. It must be stopped. A shocking idea: we must do damage to another side not because they threaten us, but because they are too big and therefore they undermine US hegemony – that’s literally the argument in the paper. Not a list of nefarious actions by China.
– The grand strategy of the United States, since it’s inception – in essence – is primacy: The United States must be number one. And so, we must prevent any challenge [to dominance] … And this is the motivation for much of what’s happening from 2015: The attempt to form, in crazy ways, new trade groups in Asia that don’t include China, the export bans on technology, the attempt to destroy companies like Huawei and ZTE and rumours and machinations of all sorts of imagined dangers.
Sachs warns that this confrontational approach risks catastrophic escalation over Taiwan, fueled by tariffs and military posturing.
– The unilateral tariffs Trump imposed – not on the world in his first term, but specifically on China – and now the very punitive tariffs on China … are deeply enmeshed in military buildups and military alliances in East Asia, in saber-rattling every day about Taiwan with the real risk that Taiwan turns itself into the next Ukraine by making the same kind of bets on US protection that Ukraine made, that ended up destroying so much of Ukraine, the same thing could happen in Taiwan.
– If it does, the war is going to be even more dangerous for the world, potentially even catastrophic, and with the instability of US economic and political leadership combined with the deep-state animus toward China, it’s pretty risky.
