Trump vs. WSJ
What has President Trump said this week?
〰️
What has President Trump said this week? 〰️
1. U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO
President Trump has announced that the United States will withdraw from UNESCO, marking the third such decision in recent decades. According to a State Department spokesperson, the move is based on concerns about UNESCO’s focus on certain cultural and social initiatives, perceived bias in its policies, and differences in approach to international cooperation under the current U.S. foreign policy framework (Reuters, 2025; Político, 2025). The withdrawal is set to take effect on December 31, 2026, continuing a trend of reduced U.S. participation in multilateral organizations during Trump’s administration (Washington Post, 2025).
U.S. heritage sites will remain listed under UNESCO’s World Heritage program, but the withdrawal could reduce U.S. involvement in setting international standards for education, science, and cultural preservation—potentially creating space for other countries, such as China, to play a larger role (Time, 2025). Domestically, the decision may allow for a reallocation of diplomatic resources, although UNESCO may face budgetary and operational impacts due to the absence of U.S. funding.
Supporters view the move as consistent with a foreign policy focused on national interests, while critics argue it could limit U.S. influence on global cultural and scientific initiatives. The decision may also affect collaborative projects and tourism strategies related to UNESCO sites in the United States (Time, 2025).
2. Trump Sues The Wall Street Journal
President Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit in Florida federal court against The Wall Street Journal, its parent company Rupert Murdoch, and several of the newspaper’s reporters, seeking at least $10 billion in damages. The complaint centers on a July 2025 article that alleged Trump sent a lewd birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 (Reuters, 2025; Washington Post, 2025). The lawsuit claims the story was published without adequate verification and damaged Trump’s reputation. As a public figure, Trump will need to demonstrate “actual malice” to succeed, meaning he must prove the defendants knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Legal experts have pointed to procedural questions, including Florida’s five-day notice requirement for defamation claims, and the high bar set by U.S. Supreme Court rulings for libel cases involving public figures (Reuters, 2025). The size of the damages sought—$10 billion—also exceeds typical defamation awards, which could influence how the case proceeds or is evaluated in potential settlement discussions.
The lawsuit comes amid heightened tensions between Trump and the media. Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal was excluded from a press pool during Trump’s visit to Scotland (Washington Post, 2025). While the legal outcome remains uncertain, the case may carry implications for press coverage of high-profile political figures and the legal risks associated with reporting on them.
3. Federal Support Revoked for California Rail Project
The Trump administration, through Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, has rescinded roughly $4 billion in federal funding for California’s high-speed rail project, citing concerns over costs, delays, and feasibility (Reuters, 2025). A compliance review by the Federal Railroad Administration pointed to missed deadlines, multibillion-dollar budget gaps, and questionable ridership forecasts as grounds for the decision (Reuters, 2025; The Guardian, 2025).
California officials quickly condemned the move as unlawful and politically driven. Governor Gavin Newsom vowed immediate legal action to halt the funding clawback, calling the revocation “arbitrary and capricious.” The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) defended the project, highlighting ongoing construction, completed infrastructure, and over 15,000 jobs created to date (Reuters, 2025).
The dispute underscores broader tensions over federal authority in infrastructure spending and the limits of executive discretion in revoking previously granted funds. The legal outcome will depend on interpretations of administrative law and grant agreements, particularly whether the FRA acted within its rights under existing contracts. The loss of funding poses a significant threat to the $128 billion project linking San Francisco and Los Angeles, with potential long-term implications for the future of high-speed rail in the United States.