In the first place, I doubt that will happen.
But if it does, I hope that stuff is properly labeled. No doubt that would be some low quality shitbeef.
So, Trump Steaks Redux?
Or perhaps Reflux
We are already importing record levels of beef. From the Farm Bureau:
U.S. beef imports are already running at historically elevated levels. During the first quarter of 2026, the U.S. imported 562,000 metric tons of beef and beef products valued at nearly $4.5 billion, up 18% from last year and 122% higher than five years ago.
And, from the same article:
Expanding import access during a period of herd contraction discourages U.S. cattle producers from making a long-term investment in rebuilding domestic cattle supplies.
So, Trump is poised to fuck up the US cattle industry for a decade. Great.
Some of Trump’s fuckups are reversible; His name can be removed from stuff. Other fuckups are going to be with us for a very, very long time.
This appears to be yet another of Trump’s ‘tell them I’m going to do something Wonderful, fail to do it, and then count on them remembering my SAYING I’d do it as actually having done it’ tricks.
They’ve worked often enough in the past to make it reasonable for him to attempt it again.
Fair enough (and also the point that the base wasn’t in the Gulf of Oman but instead further north, in the Persian Gulf).
The article could have been respectable if they had pointed out:
- When Hegseth and his spokespeople were asked WHY the Lincoln hadn’t been resupplied, they failed to mention the bombing of that base (which is true), and
- Hegseth and his staff should have started making arrangements to supply the Lincoln and other ships from an alternative source as soon as the base was bombed (which they apparently didn’t).
Those would have been fair criticisms of Hegseth’s DOD. I agree that the article’s take (that the base’s damage had been kept secret) was, er, off-base (and I should have caught that).
Oh yeah, they totally fucked up and should be held accountable (and hopefully this will still be on people’s minds in a couple of months while voting). Just not in all the ways the article suggested.
New Berlin, WI Mayor “has reportedly shared or reposted anti-Muslim, anti-Black and sexist Ai content on his social media platforms.”
For example
America needs to shut down all Mosques and ban Islam. Bet you won’t repost this.
and
Far-right is the label they give anyone who refuses to watch their country become an Islamic state. Change my mind.
and
If you have more wives than teeth, you may be a Muslim
and
If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have other uses, other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.
His response was basically ‘I said that on my personal page not my official page, besides, you guys are the assholes for reading too much into it’:
"I have been made aware of comments that have been expressed regarding posts on my private Facebook page. Let me begin by saying that what is on my personal Facebook page does not represent the official position of the City of New Berlin.
"It has never been my intention to disparage or offend any individual or group including the Muslim Community. My intention was simply to share information on matters of public concern. I regret that it has been construed otherwise. I further want to make it clear that I support the ability of all faith traditions to practice their faith.
Another article, with some of the actual posts. Including one where he praises white people for ending slavery…I..I don’t even know.
But what law was broken?
>Federal law prohibits anyone from “willfully or maliciously” injuring, tearing down or destroying a letter box or other receptacle used to deliver or receive mail, according to U.S. Code Section 1705.
Did he damage the mailbox or just open it to peek at the contents?
I’m not saying what he did shouldn’t be illegal, but it doesn’t seem to violate the law cited unless there was something else that happened that wasn’t reported in the article.
If opening a mailbox and going through its content is considered damaging the mailbox, then I violate the law multiple times a week when getting my mail.
(My WAG is that the reporter wanted to cite some random law to “spice things up” and, not being a legal expert, just included something that sounded vaguely applicable.)
I’d be shocked if going through someone else’s mail wasn’t a crime, but I don’t know what the crime would be called, or what the exact statute is.
IANAL but given that the mail in your mailbox is intended for you, it’s not illegal to go through it. And I doubt it’s illegal even if some piece of mail is addressed to your neighbor.
I was being snarky. Obviously, going through mail isn’t “injuring, tearing down or destroying a letter box”. It’s like citing a vandalism statute when someone trespasses.
Here are a couple that I found.
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein
[…snip…]
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In either case, you have to actually take (and not return), open, or destroy the mail for it to be a crime. I don’t think it’s a specific crime to open someone else’s mailbox and see what’s in it, partially because in some places that is done by accident all the time. It also could complicate matters when mail is delivered to the wrong mailbox, as happens to me on occasion; I’m technically receiving mail I’m not supposed to (although the postal delivery person is obviously at fault).
From what brief research I did, it doesn’t seem to be a crime to just look in an unlocked mailbox, and even to look at the mail in it. (Though I’m neither a postal employee or a legal expert.)
I don’t know that what the Representative did was technically illegal, but it’s definitely skeezy as fuck. It might rather be a general violation of privacy than an actual mail crime. Clearly, it wasn’t an accident, and there was no legitimate reason for him to be doing it.
I don’t know, that sure looks like “taking any letter out of… any authorized depository for mail matter… before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to… pry into the business or secrets of another”. And I’m not seeing that putting it back after taking it actually changes that.
There seems to be an “and” there; that you have to “obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same.” Just looking at a sealed envelope doesn’t seem to do that, but then IANAL.
It’s an or, not an and. And the politician could, at trial, try to argue that prying into the business or secrets of another wasn’t his purpose in looking through the mail, but good luck with that argument.
I was quoting 18 U.S. Code § 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence and it sure reads like an and, though the phrasing makes it hard to read.
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In particular, the bit about “prying into the business or secrets of another” might be relevant.
The word used is literally “or”. I’m not sure what you’re “reading like an and”. The word “and” doesn’t appear in that whole paragraph.
I was reading “and” in “with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another.”
A flyer from the local gun shop or bill from an abortion clinic or a thank you card for donating to a political group doesn’t need to be opened to pry into the addressee’s business.
These are the kind of things I was thinking of when I said they could be especially problematic for a politician to see. It’s one thing if a random neighbor flips through your mail and thinks you had an abortion because of something they saw. It’s another thing entirely if a pro-life politician thinks that.