In an apparent awkward moment at the Oval Office on Thursday stateside, U.S. President Donald Trump referenced Pearl Harbor in his first meeting with Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi after her landslide electoral victory.
When asked by a Japanese reporter on why the U.S. did not inform allies such as Japan before carrying out the attacks against Iran on Feb. 28, the U.S. president said it was to maintain the element of surprise.
“Who knows better about surprise than Japan … Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”
Trump was referencing the surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1941, which saw the deaths of over 2,400 personnel and drew the U.S. into World War II.
“Who knows better about surprise than Japan … Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”
Donald Trump U.S. President
Trump said that the surprise attack on Iran had helped the U.S., adding that it “knocked out 50% of what we anticipated” in the country within the first two days.
During the meeting, Trump praised Japan for “stepping up” to assist in efforts to secure the Strait of Hormuz, “unlike NATO.“
Before the meeting, Japan, as well as Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands had released a joint statement expressing their readiness to “contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait.”
Trump had called on Japan and other countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, but Takaichi had reportedly said Monday that there were no plans to dispatch naval vessels to escort boats in the Middle East.
Her office also said in a post on X that there was “no specific request from the United States to Japan for the dispatch of vessels.”
Japan’s prime minister on Tuesday said that the government was considering what could be done within the framework of the country’s law. Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are governed by its pacifist constitution, that renounces war and the threat or use of force for settling international disputes.
Trump had taken aim at NATO allies earlier this week, saying that the alliance was “making a very foolish mistake” by not getting involved in the war.
In response, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius reportedly said on Monday that “This is not our war, we have not started it,” a stance that was also adopted by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Subsequently, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday that “we have declared that as long as the war continues, we will not participate in ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, for example, by military means,” according to Reuters.
Donald Trump’s top spy chief refused to say whether Iran had posed an imminent threat to the US as the president claimed at the outset of the war.
Director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard struggled to avoid contradicting Trump as she and other top national security officials testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday about the biggest security threats facing the country.
Pressed repeatedly on whether the intelligence community had assessed that Iran posed “an imminent nuclear threat” ahead of the start of the US-Israel attack on February 28 — one of the administration’s main justifications for the war — Gabbard said: “It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. That is up to the president.”
Gabbard’s testimony at the intelligence committee’s annual global threats hearing came a day after another top intelligence official resigned over what he claimed were the administration’s “unfounded” justifications for the war, further amplifying doubts about a conflict that has killed 13 American service members so far.
In prepared opening remarks submitted to the committee ahead of her appearance, Gabbard said that Iran’s nuclear programme had been “obliterated” by US and Israeli strikes against the country’s nuclear sites last June.
🌎 More Foreign Policy
“There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” she wrote in her statement.
But she veered from her prepared remarks when she addressed the Senate panel, saying that US intelligence believed that Iran had been “trying to recover” from the “severe damage” to its nuclear infrastructure before the renewed US-Israel strikes against the country.
When Mark Warner, the intelligence committee’s top Democrat, asked Gabbard why she had strayed from her written testimony, she responded that she had skipped the relevant section because her testimony “was running long”.
US officials have offered contradictory justifications for the war and the status of Iran’s nuclear programme, saying that Tehran was both “weeks” away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, and that its nuclear facilities had been “obliterated” by last year’s war.
At the start of her testimony Gabbard stressed she was presenting “the intelligence community’s assessment of the threats facing US citizens, our homeland and our interests” and not her personal views or opinions.
A combat veteran who has long opposed US military intervention overseas, Gabbard remained silent on the conflict until Tuesday when she posted a statement on X that repeated Trump’s justification for the war, but did not say whether she supported it.
Joe Kent, a close ally of Gabbard who was director of the National Counterterrorism Center, on Tuesday became the first senior US official to resign in protest at the war, saying that Tehran posed “no imminent threat to our nation”.
Kent’s resignation has raised questions about Gabbard’s future in the Trump administration and splits within his Maga movement which has long been opposed to US wars of regime change.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday she had no “knowledge” of whether Trump was considering firing Gabbard, but said it was “a question for him”.
Democrats expressed frustration during the hearing with the unwillingness of Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe to answer questions about the information presented to the president ahead of his decision to go to war. FBI director Kash Patel and the leaders of the US defence and signals intelligence agencies also testified.
Gabbard told the committee that US intelligence had “long” assessed that Iran would likely use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in the event of a crisis.
But both she and Ratcliffe declined to say whether they had given that assessment directly to the president ahead of the war. Gabbard did say that her agency assessed that Iran’s regime remained largely “intact” and would seek to reconstitute its military capabilities if they remained.
Trump said this week that his administration had been surprised by Iran’s retaliatory strikes against US allies in the Middle East. There appears to have been little preparation for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil flows.
“We’re trying to figure out if the president knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed, and I’m having a hard time finding out whether the White House asked, or whether there was a brief, whether the president knew,” said Democratic senator Mark Kelly.
American businesses and families are staring down the barrel of another self-inflicted energy crisis, this one entirely of President Donald Trump’s making. Just weeks into his second term, the former real-estate developer turned wartime president has plunged the United States into a costly military showdown with Iran — and the bill is already landing squarely at the gas pump, on airline tickets, and in the supply chains that keep corporate America humming.
The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline across the United States jumped 34 cents in the past week alone to $3.32 on Friday, according to AAA data. Diesel prices have climbed even faster. Industry analysts warn the upward spiral has only just begun. When oil first spiked after Trump ordered strikes on Iran last week, many on Wall Street assumed cooler heads — or at least economic reality — would prevail and force a swift diplomatic off-ramp. That assumption now looks painfully naïve.
Oil prices are climbing
Price per barrel of Brent Crude
Source: S&P Market Intelligence and Oilprice.com
DAVID DANYEL / THE NEW YORK BUDGETS
Instead, U.S. and Israeli strikes continue, Iranian drones are hitting energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hundreds of oil tankers sit idle in the Persian Gulf, too terrified to run the gauntlet of the Strait of Hormuz. The result? A textbook supply shock that is hammering businesses large and small.
Qatar’s energy minister, Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, delivered the latest gut punch in an interview with the Financial Times on Friday. He warned that without an immediate de-escalation, Persian Gulf producers will be forced to halt output “within days,” sending global oil prices toward $150 a barrel — more than double pre-war levels. That would push U.S. pump prices back to the $5-a-gallon peaks last seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If the Trump administration does not do something to restore confidence in ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, these prices are going to keep heading up,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. “I don’t wake up too many mornings and get the chills when I look at the morning oil price numbers. It’s starting to feel like 2022 all over again.”
The pain is already rippling far beyond the neighborhood Exxon station. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told investors at an industry conference Friday that jet-fuel costs are climbing so fast that airfares will have to follow — and quickly. Shipping rates are rising in tandem. Travis Maderia, co-founder of New York-based LobsterBoys, which exports live Maine lobsters to restaurants worldwide, put it bluntly: “Transportation is a big part of our business. When airline prices go up, the cost of sending lobsters overseas can be dramatically impacted.”
More Middle East Tensions
Oil derivatives are embedded in everything from plastic packaging and semiconductor chemicals to industrial gases. BloombergNEF natural resources research chief David Doherty notes that Iran’s cheap drone attacks have made defending scattered energy infrastructure far harder than in past Middle East conflicts. “It is harder to protect oil infrastructure,” he said. “Defending the same breadth of space has become much more difficult than it was in the past.”
Even Trump’s attempts to calm markets have fallen flat. On Truth Social he doubled down: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a 30-day waiver allowing India to keep buying Russian oil and floated “unsanctioning” more Russian barrels on Fox News. The president also offered political risk insurance to tanker companies and hinted at U.S. Navy escorts through the Strait.
Market research firm Macquarie told clients the same day that those promises look hollow: escort vessels are “often unavailable due to other military priorities such as missile intercepts or striking Iran.” The firm warned of “an extremely large oil price move” within weeks if the Hormuz chokepoint stays blocked.
Restarting shuttered Gulf production won’t be simple either. Vidya Mani, visiting supply-chain scholar at Cornell University’s SC Johnson College of Business, explained: “It is not as simple as flipping a switch back on. You have to get drilling operations going again. You have to get workers back in.
When there is a conflict like this, workers leave and the number that come back in may not be as many as you need.” She and other analysts now see $150 oil as a realistic near-term scenario — levels last touched in July 2008.
Alex Jacquez, policy chief at the progressive-leaning but economically focused Groundwork Collaborative (and a former Biden White House energy adviser), captured the growing frustration on Wall Street: “The markets are starting to realize there may be no off-ramp here. There was this thinking that if oil prices start to soar that Trump would back down in Iran. But that is not the way things are aligning. The president has shown no appetite for changing course.”
For an administration that campaigned on “lower prices” and “pro-business” policies, the optics are disastrous. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll last month found most Americans already view health care, cars, and housing as unaffordable.
Republicans made lowering the cost of living the centerpiece of their midterm strategy. Now Trump’s foreign policy gamble is delivering the opposite — and doing so at the worst possible moment for corporate balance sheets and consumer wallets.
The irony is thick. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy markets were disrupted by an external aggressor. This time, as Jacquez noted, “we didn’t choose to do this ourselves” — yet the economic damage looks disturbingly familiar.
A classified assessment produced by the National Intelligence Council has concluded that even a large-scale U.S. military assault on Iran would be unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic’s deeply entrenched clerical and military establishment, according to three people familiar with the document’s contents.
The sobering intelligence analysis, completed roughly one week before the United States and Israel launched their joint military operation on Feb. 28, directly undercuts the Trump administration’s increasingly vocal ambitions to “clean out” Iran’s leadership and install a new ruler acceptable to Washington.
The report examined succession scenarios under both a narrowly targeted campaign against senior Iranian figures and a broader offensive against leadership compounds and government institutions. In both cases, U.S. spy agencies determined that Iran’s clerical and military apparatus would swiftly follow long-established protocols to ensure continuity of power — even after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the war’s opening day.
More Middle East Tensions
The prospect of Iran’s fragmented opposition groups seizing control of the country was judged “unlikely,” the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the highly sensitive findings. The National Intelligence Council, whose analysts represent the collective judgment of all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, produced the document as a forward-looking assessment of potential outcomes.
The CIA referred questions about the report to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which declined to comment. The White House would not confirm whether President Donald Trump was briefed on the assessment before green-lighting the operation, which has rapidly expanded to include submarine warfare in the Indian Ocean and counter-missile operations near NATO member Turkey.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly pushed back sharply, saying in a statement: “President Trump and the administration have clearly outlined their goals with regard to Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and production capacity, demolish their navy, end their ability to arm proxies, and prevent them from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime is being absolutely crushed.”
Doubts about the Iranian opposition’s ability to take power have surfaced in recent reporting by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, but the NIC’s specific analysis of both limited and expansive military scenarios — and its conclusion that the regime’s institutions would endure — has not been previously disclosed.
People demonstrating in support of the government in Tehran on Saturday. (The New York Times)
Suzanne Maloney, a veteran Iran scholar and vice president at the Brookings Institution, said the assessment reflects deep institutional knowledge of how power works inside the Islamic Republic. “It sounds like a deeply informed assessment of the Iranian system and the institutions and processes that have been established for many years,” Maloney told The Washington Post.
The report does not appear to have modeled more extreme scenarios, such as the insertion of U.S. ground troops or the arming of Iranian Kurdish groups to spark a wider rebellion. It also remains unclear whether the “large-scale” campaign analyzed in the document precisely matches the scope of current U.S.-Israeli operations.
Inside Iran, the succession process anticipated by the NIC is already unfolding under intense pressure from the ongoing bombing campaign. The replacement of the supreme leader is formally the responsibility of the Assembly of Experts, a powerful clerical body, though senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other security figures wield significant influence.
Intense speculation has centered on whether the assembly will choose Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei. The IRGC has been actively promoting his candidacy, but it has encountered resistance from other power centers, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, according to a Western security official.
As the conflict enters its second week, Trump has continued to escalate his rhetoric. In a Truth Social post he demanded Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” and has repeatedly suggested he should play a direct role in selecting Tehran’s next leader. Speaking to journalists, Trump dismissed Mojtaba Khamenei as “incompetent” and a “lightweight,” adding that Washington wants leaders who will not simply rebuild Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. “We want them to have a good leader,” he told NBC News. “We have some people who I think would do a good job.”
Iran’s Parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, rejected any foreign role in the process. In a post on X, he declared: “The fate of dear Iran, which is more precious than life, will be determined solely by the proud Iranian nation, not by [Jeffrey] Epstein’s gang” — a pointed reference to the late sex offender who was once a social acquaintance of Trump.
Current and former U.S. officials say there are few visible signs of a mass popular uprising or significant cracks within Iran’s government or security forces. Iranian security services killed thousands of demonstrators during nationwide protests in January driven by economic collapse. Trump has publicly advised the Iranian people to “shelter in place” until the U.S.-Israeli campaign concludes.
People attend Friday prayer in Tehran. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA/via REUTERS)
Experts say the NIC’s conclusions severely limit Trump’s leverage to dictate political outcomes. “Bending the knee to Trump would go against everything they stand for,” said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The upper echelons of the clerical establishment are ideological, and so their modus operandi is to resist American imperialism.”
Maloney of Brookings echoed that view: “There’s no other force within Iran that can confront the remaining power that the regime has. Even if they’re not able to project that power very effectively against their neighbors, they can certainly dominate inside the country.”
The intelligence community’s assessment arrives at a moment when the Trump administration has raised the possibility of a prolonged campaign. Senior officials have privately described the operation as one that has “only just begun,” even as public messaging continues to emphasize rapid, decisive gains. The classified report’s warning — that neither short nor extended military action is likely to produce the kind of clean regime change the president has repeatedly telegraphed — adds a layer of internal skepticism to an already volatile conflict.
President Donald Trump has plunged the United States into yet another Middle East quagmire, launching joint military strikes with Israel against Iran early Saturday morning. This brazen act of aggression, cloaked in the rhetoric of “major combat operations,” follows the collapse of half-hearted diplomatic talks and threatens to ignite a catastrophic regional war—all while serving the interests of hawkish Republicans, Mossad operatives, and Zionist hardliners who have long pushed for confrontation with Tehran.
Trump’s video announcement on Truth Social, urging Iranians to overthrow their government amid a hail of bombs, exposes the dangerous folly of an administration driven by ego, oil greed, and unwavering loyalty to Israeli expansionism, with subtle undertones of influence from elite lobbying networks that prioritize Tel Aviv over global peace.
The strikes, involving dozens of Tomahawk missiles from U.S. warships and American fighter jets, targeted Iranian missile sites, naval assets, and reportedly high-level political officials. A U.S. official, speaking anonymously, indicated the campaign could last “days not hours,” signaling a sustained assault rather than a limited operation.
Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a figure synonymous with Zionist militarism—confirmed its participation, framing the attacks as necessary to neutralize an “existential threat.” Netanyahu’s video echoed Trump’s, calling for the Iranian people to rise up, a cynical ploy that ignores the human cost of such interventions and recalls the disastrous regime-change fantasies of neocons like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War.
Trump’s eight-minute diatribe painted Iran as a reborn nuclear menace, claiming the regime was rebuilding its program and developing missiles capable of reaching Europe, U.S. troops, and even the American homeland. This follows last June’s U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, which Trump boasted had “obliterated” the infrastructure—a claim now conveniently revised to justify further violence. “We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” Trump declared, adding threats to “annihilate” Iran’s navy and cripple its regional proxies.
He bizarrely advised Iranians to “stay sheltered” and “take over your government” once the bombing subsides, as if U.S. airstrikes could magically birth democracy from rubble. To Iranian forces, he offered “complete immunity” for surrender or “certain death”—a mafia-style ultimatum that underscores the thuggish diplomacy of a president more attuned to reality TV than international law.
Iranians try to clear a street in Tehran after the strikes began. (Sohrab/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
Iran’s response was swift and defiant. Missiles launched toward Israel were intercepted, according to the Israeli military, but Tehran’s foreign ministry condemned the “U.S.-Israeli attacks” on defensive and civilian sites, vowing “firm and decisive” retaliation. The ministry highlighted ongoing diplomatic efforts, urging the United Nations to intervene against what it called an unprovoked assault.
This narrative rings true: Negotiations had been underway, with Iran insisting on its right to peaceful uranium enrichment for energy and medical purposes—a stance met with skepticism from U.S. officials blinded by Zionist propaganda. Trump demanded Iran renounce nuclear weapons entirely, while refusing to address Tehran’s concerns over its ballistic missiles or regional alliances—issues Iran views as vital for deterrence against Israeli aggression and U.S. imperialism.
The buildup to this catastrophe has been months in the making, with Trump amassing a formidable military presence around Iran: two aircraft carriers, F-35s, F-16s, F-22s, and surveillance aircraft deployed across the Middle East and UK. This echoes the prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion, a neocon-engineered disaster that cost trillions, killed hundreds of thousands, and birthed ISIS—all without congressional approval. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a rare voice of reason in his party, decried the strikes as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress,” highlighting the GOP’s hypocrisy in rubber-stamping Trump’s warmongering while claiming fiscal conservatism. Democrats like Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) echoed the sentiment, supporting Iran’s democracy movement without endorsing U.S. troop deaths in another endless conflict.
Critics point to Mossad’s shadowy role in stoking this fire, with Israeli intelligence long accused of fabricating threats to justify preemptive strikes and maintain Zionist dominance in the region. Netanyahu’s involvement is no surprise; his government has faced international condemnation for its policies in Gaza and the West Bank, often backed by influential Jewish-American donors who funnel millions into Republican coffers. Trump’s unwavering support for Israel—evident in his recognition of Jerusalem as its capital and the Golan Heights annexation—smacks of a quid pro quo, prioritizing Zionist settler colonialism over American lives and taxpayer dollars. Subtly, this dynamic raises questions about the disproportionate influence of certain Jewish elite networks in U.S. foreign policy, though it’s the Zionist ideology, not Judaism itself, that’s the true culprit in perpetuating endless wars.
Jewish people pray as they take shelter in Tel Aviv, Israel on Feb. 28. (Ilia Yefimovich/AFP via Getty Images)
The timing couldn’t be more cynical: With midterm elections looming, Trump is betting on a “rally ’round the flag” effect, much like his January capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro—a stunt that boosted his poll numbers but solved nothing. Iran, however, is no Venezuela. Its 85 million people, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are hardened by decades of sanctions and isolation.
Popular protests against economic hardship have simmered, but U.S. bombs are more likely to unify the nation against foreign invaders than spark a revolution. Trump’s warning of potential U.S. casualties—”that often happens in war”—dismisses the human toll with chilling nonchalance, evoking memories of Republican-led debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq.
U.S. embassies in Qatar, the UAE, and Bahrain issued shelter-in-place alerts, bracing for Iranian retaliation that could target American bases housing thousands of troops. Regional allies fear a wider war engulfing proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, potentially disrupting global oil supplies and triggering a refugee crisis. Trump’s “muscular” foreign policy, cheered by neocons in the GOP like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, ignores these risks, prioritizing short-term bravado over long-term stability.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a swath of President Trump’s tariffs, paving the way for businesses to try to reclaim billions of dollars.
The decision was a major blow for the Trump administration, which had said the money could be used to help pay down federal debt, fund rebate checks to Americans and bail out farmers hurt by tariffs. Trump even claimed that tariff revenues would be large enough to replace the need for income taxes.
On Friday, Trump panned the decision and said he would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under a different authority, “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
Source: Treasury Department
Through mid-December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had brought in about $133.5 billion worth of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law that was struck down. Such tariffs accounted for about 67% of the tariffs collected in the 2025 fiscal year, which runs through September, and 57% of the tariffs collected between the end of September and Dec 14.
Altogether, including a host of miscellaneous duties not related to trade measures by the president, customs collected fees of about $202 billion in the 2025 fiscal year, about 2.4 times the total amount collected the previous year.
The Supreme Court didn’t provide guidance on whether, or how, tariffs would be refunded, likely leaving those issues to lower courts. Still, trade lawyers say that hundreds of firms have already filed lawsuits to increase their chances of clawing back money.
The president declared 10% across-the-board tariffs on all imports back in April, and imposed even higher rates on a slew of nations. His team branded these “reciprocal” tariffs, saying they were intended to ensure fair treatment for American companies and goods.
Trump walked back or delayed some of the threatened reciprocal tariffs. But the government was still able to collect significant sums from major trading partners using different tariffs also imposed under IEEPA. In regard to China, the president at one point slapped the nation with 125% “reciprocal” duties and added another 20% for the country’s alleged role in the fentanyl trade. The two tariffs were each lowered to 10% under a trade agreement later.
As the midterm elections draw closer, Republican strategists and candidates are growing increasingly frustrated with what they see as a lack of clear direction from President Donald Trump and his administration. With polls showing a darkening outlook for Republican prospects in November, many in the party are privately expressing concern about the mixed signals coming from the White House and what they perceive as a failure to deliver on core “America First” promises.
According to sources close to the White House, Trump’s approach to the midterms has been inconsistent at best. “Some days the president seems not to care,” one official told The Washington Post. “Republicans looking to the White House to lead in the face of the party’s dimming prospects for November’s midterms are facing a crucial hang-up: the president.”
This uncertainty comes at a critical time, with Republicans defending a narrow House majority and facing competitive Senate races in multiple states. The Cook Political Report rates 14 Republican-held House seats as toss-ups, while Democrats are defending only four. In January, Cook shifted 18 seats in the Democrats’ favor.
Broken Promises on Core Conservative Priorities
Beyond the strategic confusion, many grassroots conservatives are expressing disappointment with the Trump administration’s failure to deliver on key campaign promises that formed the foundation of the “America First” movement.
Immigration enforcement remains a major point of contention. Despite promises of “mass deportations,” ICE operations have focused primarily on what officials describe as the “worst of the worst” criminal aliens. This narrow approach has drawn criticism from conservative commentators who argue that illegal immigration is principally a crisis of quantity rather than quality.
“Systems buckle under the weight of accumulated foreign populations long before any immigrant commits a headline-grabbing felony,” notes an analysis in The American Conservative. “At mass levels, illegal immigration suppresses wages for American workers, especially those without college degrees, overwhelms schools and hospitals, and expands welfare systems quietly and permanently.”
The administration has also failed to address concerns about H1B visa programs, which critics argue displace American workers in high-tech fields. Despite campaign rhetoric about putting American workers first, the Trump administration has maintained and in some cases expanded these programs, drawing criticism from conservative immigration restrictionists.
Foreign policy continues to prioritize Israel over American interests. Trump’s approach to the Middle East has drawn particular criticism from conservatives who argue that his policies represent a continuation of the “Israel First” approach of previous administrations rather than the “America First” approach he promised.
The United States continues to provide billions in military aid to Israel annually, with Congress recently approving another $3.3 billion installment as part of the current ten-year, $38 billion Memorandum of Agreement. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Israel is by far the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in history, having received some $300 billion since its founding.
“It not only siphons off aid from much needed renewal at home, but forces Washington to aid and abet another country’s foreign policy, which is increasingly counterproductive and contrary to our own politics and values,” argues The American Conservative. “The region is not safer, and moreover, it has not allowed for the United States to reduce its military footprint as guarantor of security there.”
Even some Republican lawmakers have begun to speak out against this arrangement. “Nothing can justify the number of civilian casualties (tens of thousands of women and children) inflicted by Israel in Gaza in the last two years. We should end all U.S. military aid to Israel now,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) last year.
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
War with Iran looms on the horizon despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about avoiding “dumb wars,” his administration appears to be moving toward another military confrontation in the Middle East, this time with Iran. The president has reportedly given Iranian authorities an ultimatum that includes not only ending their nuclear program but also stopping production of missiles that can reach Israel and ending support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
“Trump faces a clear choice: Launch another war for Israel or make peace for America,” argues The American Conservative. “His choice is a test case for commentators trying to make sense of this administration: Does Trump’s Iran policy serve America or a foreign nation?”
Critics point out that these demands are essentially impossible for Iran to accept. “What good is a missile deterrent if it has to be short of the range that can hit the country that’s threatening you?” asked antiwar commentator Scott Horton in an interview with The American Conservative. “And it’s just such an unreasonable demand on its face.”
Demographic Concerns Mount
Beyond specific policy disappointments, many conservatives are expressing alarm about ongoing demographic changes that they believe threaten the future of America as a majority-white, Christian nation.
New census projections confirm that the United States will become “minority white” in 2045, with whites comprising just 49.7 percent of the population compared to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations.
The shift is already evident among younger Americans. “For youth under 18—the post-millennial population—minorities will outnumber whites in 2020,” notes a Brookings Institution analysis. “For those age 18-29—members of the younger labor force and voting age populations—the tipping point will occur in 2027.”
These demographic changes are not occurring evenly across the country. According to the latest Census Bureau data, nine states saw declines in their white populations: Alaska, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Vermont.
“The major implication is the major change that is taking place in the U.S. population with respect to its race and ethnic structure,” Rogelio Saenz, a professor in the department of sociology and demography at the University of Texas in San Antonio, told Newsweek. “The Census Bureau has projected that in 2044 the nation would be majority minority, or more non-white than white in the in the population, and I think that that these patterns are well afoot. We’re getting closer to that reality.”
Economic Discontent Grows
Compounding these concerns is growing dissatisfaction with the state of the U.S. economy. Despite Trump’s promises to “supercharge” the economy and “make life more affordable for all Americans,” many working and middle-class families continue to struggle with stagnant wages, rising inflation, and an increasingly unaffordable housing market.
The housing market, in particular, has become a source of frustration for many Americans. Home prices have continued to rise faster than incomes, putting homeownership out of reach for an increasing number of families. At the same time, rental costs have skyrocketed in many markets, consuming an ever-larger portion of household incomes.
These economic pressures come at a time when many Americans are already feeling financially insecure due to the ongoing pandemic and its economic aftermath. Despite promises of a “V-shaped recovery,” many sectors of the economy continue to struggle, and millions of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed.
Trump’s Midterm Strategy Remains Unclear
Against this backdrop of policy disappointments and growing discontent, Trump’s approach to the midterm elections remains unclear. The president has reportedly amassed a war chest of more than $300 million through his main super PAC, MAGA Inc., but has not approved a spending plan for how those funds will be deployed.
“People who have spoken with Trump about these obstacles said he at times can sound detached and noncommittal about his plans for spending and endorsements,” reports The Washington Post. “One person close to the White House said some days the president seems not to care.”
This uncertainty has created particular problems in key Senate races. In Texas, for example, Trump has yet to endorse incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, creating a costly primary battle against state Attorney General Ken Paxton. National Republican strategists view Paxton as weaker in the general election, with one memo estimating that holding the seat with Paxton as the nominee would cost an additional $100 million.
“Texas cannot be taken for granted,” the memo warned, presenting internal polling that puts Cornyn ahead of Democratic candidates and Paxton behind them.
Similar situations are playing out in other states, including Georgia, where multiple Republican candidates are challenging Democrat Jon Ossoff, and Louisiana, where Trump has endorsed a challenger to incumbent Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy.
“Senate Republicans including [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune have been frustrated by Trump’s treatment of Senate incumbents,” reports The Washington Post. “Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina declined to run for reelection in the battleground state after feuding with Trump over Medicaid cuts in the president’s 2025 tax cuts and spending package.”
White House Promises Increased Engagement
White House officials insist that Trump is preparing to become more involved in the midterm campaign. “A White House official said Trump is excited to get more engaged in midterm strategy and looking forward to increasing his travel this month, including a campaign-style event outside of Washington this week,” according to The Washington Post.
The president’s political team, led by White House adviser James Blair, campaign strategist Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio, recently met in Palm Beach, Florida, to review research from every competitive race and develop estimates for what Republicans will have to spend to win. The team also briefed a retreat of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.
“An Oval Office meeting to go over a handful of House endorsements Wednesday night turned into a five-hour gabfest on the midterms, according to two people present,” reports The Washington Post. “Trump said he wants to defy the tendency of the president’s party losing seats in Congress in the midterms, one of the people said. ‘We’ll spend whatever it takes,’ the person recalled Trump saying. ‘Go get it done.’”
The White House has also encouraged Cabinet secretaries to minimize foreign trips
President Donald Trump is exercising his prerogative as chief executive by limiting a traditionally bipartisan White House governors‘ meeting to Republican leaders, a decision that underscores his commitment to advancing an America First agenda without the obstructionism that has defined much of the Democratic opposition. The National Governors Association (NGA) confirmed Friday that the upcoming February 19-21 summit in Washington will no longer include a joint session with the president for all governors, as the White House opted to host only GOP chief executives.
Additionally, at least two prominent Democratic governors—Maryland’s Wes Moore (NGA vice chair) and Colorado’s Jared Polis—had invitations revoked for a separate White House governors’ dinner, a long-standing tradition intended to foster goodwill. The White House has not issued a detailed explanation, but a spokesperson emphasized that “these are White House events and the president can invite whomever he wants.” This move, while drawing predictable outrage from the left, reflects a conservative principle: rewarding cooperation and sidelining those who have actively undermined the president’s policies.
Moore, the nation’s only Black governor, issued a pointed statement expressing disappointment. “This week, I learned that I was uninvited to this year’s National Governors Association dinner — a decades-long annual tradition meant to bring governors from both parties together to build bonds and celebrate a shared service to our citizens with the President of the United States,” he said. He described it as “another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership.” Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Moore noted recent bipartisan engagements, including leading a group of governors at Trump’s energy cost memorandum signing, but lamented the exclusion, adding that “it’s not lost” on him that he is the only Black governor.
Polis’s office called the decision “disappointing,” with spokesperson Eric Maruyama stating the governor remains willing to work across the aisle on key issues. However, some Democrats are still invited to the dinner, indicating the White House is not imposing a blanket ban but making targeted choices.
NGA interim CEO Brandon Tatum expressed disappointment: “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration.” The association has removed the White House meeting from its official schedule.
From a conservative standpoint, this is less about partisanship and more about accountability. Trump has clashed repeatedly with Moore and Polis over substantive policy differences. Moore has criticized Trump’s threats to deploy the National Guard to address crime in Baltimore and push back on federal funding for the collapsed Key Bridge replacement, while Trump has highlighted Baltimore’s persistent challenges despite recent homicide rate improvements. Polis has defied the White House by refusing to transfer convicted election denier Tina Peters (involved in a 2020 voting system breach) to federal prison, defending her state conviction. Trump has publicly called Polis a “scumbag” who should “rot in Hell” over the matter.
These are not minor disagreements; they involve core issues like border security, election integrity, crime, and energy policy—areas where Trump has delivered results for working Americans. Conservatives argue that endless meetings with governors who obstruct or criticize these efforts waste time and dilute focus. The president is prioritizing productive partnerships with leaders aligned on reducing energy costs, securing borders, and cutting waste—principles that resonate with the Republican base and independent voters tired of gridlock.
Moore’s invocation of race adds an unnecessary layer of identity politics to what is fundamentally a policy dispute. Conservatives value merit and results over such framing; Moore’s leadership should be judged on governance, not as a “social experiment.” His recent bipartisan work with Trump on energy shows collaboration is possible when agendas align, but repeated opposition on other fronts has consequences.
This decision aligns with Trump’s track record of favoring competence and loyalty to American interests over forced “bipartisanship” that often means one-sided concessions. Past presidents of both parties hosted inclusive events, but Trump faces unique challenges from Democratic officials who have resisted his agenda at every turn—from sanctuary policies to resistance on election security. Excluding vocal opponents from ceremonial or working sessions is a logical step to streamline governance and send a message: work with the administration, or work separately.
The NGA summit will proceed with Republican governors engaging directly with Trump on priorities like economic growth and national security. With Republicans controlling the White House and pushing bold reforms, this approach could prove more efficient than traditional formats bogged down by partisan sniping.
As America moves forward under Trump’s leadership, expect continued focus on deliverables over dinners. True bipartisanship requires mutual respect and shared commitment to the nation’s strength—not obstruction disguised as partnership.
In a Oval Office encounter that caught even hardened White House reporters off guard, President Donald J. Trump extended an olive branch Friday to New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani—the self-styled “democratic socialist” he’d once branded a “100% Communist Lunatic” and threatened to deport—signaling a pragmatic thaw amid mounting economic pressures. The 90-minute sit-down, billed by skeptics as a potential fireworks display, unfolded with unexpected cordiality: Trump lavished praise on Mamdani’s “surprising” potential to “surprise some conservative people,” while the 34-year-old Queens assemblyman nodded along, emphasizing shared “goals to help” Trump’s hometown. “Great meeting,” Trump beamed to reporters, flanked by a beaming Mamdani. “We’re going to be helping him… to make everybody’s dream come true, having a strong and very safe New York.”
This detente arrives at a pivotal juncture for both men. Trump, nine months into his second term, faces headwinds from a record 37-day government shutdown and voter angst over inflation—issues Mamdani weaponized to victory in the November 4 mayoral race, flipping NYC’s helm with 50.4% amid record turnout. The president, who’d endorsed Mamdani’s foe Andrew Cuomo and vowed to “yank federal funds” from the “commie” stronghold, now pivots to affordability optics, admitting, “Some of his ideas are really the same ideas that I have.” For Mamdani, the invite burnishes his nascent national profile, transforming a campaign-trail gadfly into a statesman ready to “stand up” to Trump—minus the barbs. Yet, beneath the handshakes, fault lines simmer: Mamdani’s Gaza genocide accusations drew Trump’s awkward silence, and MAGA hardliners like Elise Stefanik seethe at the “jihadist” label’s dilution.
From a center-right lens, this isn’t capitulation—it’s statesmanship. Trump’s track record of deal-making (Abraham Accords, USMCA) shines here: Turning adversaries into assets, much like his Zelenskyy thaw post-February spat. Mamdani, DSA-affiliated and unapologetically left, enters as the “worst nightmare” he self-proclaimed; Trump’s embrace disarms that narrative, forcing the socialist to govern amid fiscal realities. As one GOP strategist quipped anonymously to Fox: “Let him promise free buses—reality’s the best teacher.” With midterms looming, Trump’s masterstroke neutralizes a Democratic bogeyman, while spotlighting shared inflation fights—groceries up 25% since 2021, per BLS.
From Fireworks to Handshakes: A Timeline of Thaw
The buildup was pure Trumpian theater: Mamdani’s campaign branded the president a “despot” and “fascist,” vowing Netanyahu’s arrest on NYC soil and decrying “authoritarian” raids. Trump fired back, questioning the Uganda-born naturalized citizen’s loyalty (“total nut job”) and predicting “ZERO chance of success” for socialist rule. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dubbed the invite “volumes” on Dem “communism”; VP JD Vance joked a “stomach bug” exemption; Sen. Rick Scott foresaw a “schooling.”
Reality? A love-in. Trump interjected protectively—”I’ll stick up for you”—as reporters probed Mamdani’s “fascist” barbs: “I’ve been called much worse… You can just say yes.” On fossil fuels, Trump shielded: “That’s OK.” Discussions zeroed on affordability—housing, groceries, utilities—where Mamdani’s rent-freeze crusade mirrored Trump’s 2024 playbook. “We agree on a lot more than I would have thought,” Trump mused, praising Mamdani’s crime-reduction nods (retaining NYPD’s Jessica Tisch). Mamdani reciprocated: “What I really appreciate… is focusing on shared purpose in serving New Yorkers.”
Post-meeting, Mamdani’s chief of staff Elle Bisgaard-Church told NY1: “We share a mutual goal of a safe city.” Trump, eyeing NYC’s $7.4 billion federal lifeline, softened threats: “We don’t want that to happen… I don’t think that’s going to happen.” Aides whisper strategy: With polls showing 6 in 10 voters “angry” over costs (AP), Trump’s outreach spotlights “pragmatic” Mamdani, undercutting Dem “extremist” attacks.
The chumminess blindsided the base. Stefanik blasted Mamdani as a “jihadist” Friday morn (“walks like, talks like”), only for Trump to contradict: “We’ll have to agree to disagree.” Greene’s resignation bombshell—clashing with Trump over Epstein files and Israel—amplifies schisms; Vance’s quip now looks tone-deaf. Fox’s Sean Hannity grumbled: “Is this the art of the deal or the deal with the devil?” Yet, insiders hail genius: By humanizing Mamdani, Trump mutes his bogeyman utility, forcing Dems to own socialist governance amid NYC’s fiscal crunch (Hochul vetoing tax hikes).
Mamdani sidestepped Gaza landmines, reiterating “genocide” complicity—”our government funding it”—drawing Trump’s mute nod. “I shared… tax dollars… for New Yorkers’ basic dignity,” he pivoted, nodding to human rights sans specifics. Global echoes: Copenhagen’s Social Democrats watch warily, their migration model (slashing claims 80%) clashing with Mamdani’s open-tent ethos.
Mamdani’s ascent—defeating Cuomo’s machine with TikTok flair and DSA grassroots—netted historic firsts: youngest since 1892, first Muslim/South Asian mayor. His transition team (five women, including Lina Khan) signals competence; promises (free childcare, city groceries) test DSA mettle. Trump’s aid tease—on housing, safety—could unlock billions, but strings attach: Immigration cooperation? Mamdani’s “worst nightmare” vow lingers.
For Trump, it’s vintage: From Zelenskyy dimming to Ramaphosa video, he turns foes to footnotes. As midterms near, this “productive” parley spotlights wins—manufacturing renaissance, tariff truces—over shutdown scars. Mamdani? A blank slate nationally (46% “not closely” followed, CBS); Trump’s glow-up buys time, but stumbles (crime spikes?) will echo.
In a polarized era, Friday’s detente whispers hope: Adversaries as allies, barbs as banter. Yet, as Trump quipped, “I’ve been called much worse”—reminding, in politics, today’s chum is tomorrow’s chum bait.
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.) told Senate Republicans Thursday that they should expect to vote on a new proposal Friday aiming to end the government shutdown, according to people familiar with the plan, in an attempt by GOP leaders to build momentum toward a deal.
Democrats, however, indicated they weren’t sold on the emerging package, with some saying they would need their core demand of extending Affordable Care Act subsidies to be part of any legislation.
The plan to vote on a revised proposal comes as the impact of the shutdown continues to grow. Government workers have gone without pay for weeks, and low-income families are seeing cuts in food aid and other assistance programs. On Thursday, airlines scrambled to review flight plans after federal officials said they would reduce commercial air traffic starting Friday in response to the government shutdown.
The proposal would combine a short-term spending measure with a package of three full-year funding bills, covering the legislative branch, agriculture, and military construction and veterans affairs. It was unclear whether the interim measure would aim to keep the government open through mid-December or January.
How ACA subsidies, a central concern of Democrats, would figure into the revised approach also remained in flux, and some Democrats warned they wouldn’t be satisfied by a pledge of future action.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said the subsidies needed to be included in any stopgap bill. “Settling for some kind of vague promise about a vote in the future on some indeterminate bill, without any definite inclusion in the law, I think is a mistake.”
Thune acknowledged the uphill fight. Democrats “seem to be walking back or slow-walking this,” he told reporters. “This is what they asked for.”
To draw Democratic support, one element under discussion includes a proposal to stop or even roll back the firings that the White House initiated at the start of the shutdown. Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) has for weeks made plain that he could support an interim spending bill if he had a guarantee against more so-called reductions in force—an important addition to the bloc of Democrats who have already voted to fund the government.
Some Democrats, particularly in the progressive wing, have insisted on a guarantee that enhanced Affordable Care Act healthcare subsidies, which flow to 22 million people, would be extended past the end of this year, but Republican leaders declined to make that promise. Instead, Thune has offered a vote on extending ACA subsidies, but no guarantee it will pass.
“We’ve got a dilemma,” said Sen. Peter Welch (D., Vt.). “There’s no other institution that can protect folks from the hammer blow of these explosive premium increases,” he said, “and the dilemma of a shutdown that does cause harm to people.”
The House, which would also need to approve any deal, adds a complication. GOP lawmakers pushed through their own stopgap spending deal in mid-September that would have kept the government funded until Nov. 21. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) has insisted the Senate approve that bill before any talks could take place and has kept the chamber out of session for more than a month.
On Thursday, Johnson said he wasn’t part of the talks and wouldn’t make any guarantees.
“The House did its job on Sept. 19,” he said. “I’m not promising anybody anything.”
Since September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has demanded talks to extend the expiring enhanced ACA subsidies before Democrats will provide the votes for a GOP bill to reopen the government. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority, and so far, only three senators who caucus with Democrats have crossed the aisle in more than a dozen failed votes. Democrats felt that favorable election results Tuesday bolstered their negotiating hand.
President Trump has declined to engage in talks with Democrats since the shutdown began, insisting that they vote to reopen the government first. In recent days, he has pressed Senate Republicans to bypass Democrats by eliminating the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. GOP senators have largely pushed back against Trump’s demand but have grown frustrated by the lack of progress.
“This thing, I’ve told you before, this is a total goat rodeo,” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, as he departed the meeting with Senate Republicans. “I can’t tell you what it’s going to be. I don’t think they know what it’s going to be.”
Senate Democrats spent hours behind closed doors on Thursday in the hopes of finding a breakthrough but were tight-lipped on details.
“It was a caucus in which we were trying to organically come to a conclusion and I think that process is still happening,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.). “I just think we had a real desire in that meeting and previous meetings today to try to find a way to get together and we’re closer.”
Senate Republicans have been urging their Democratic colleagues to back the revised approach, which would provide full-year funding for three of 12 annual appropriations bills and aim to create time to complete the rest. Passing annual appropriations laws—rather than so-called continuing resolutions—would limit the executive branch’s discretion to withhold congressionally approved funds, and members of both parties have bristled at the budget cuts and firings Trump’s budget director has initiated this year.
“The argument I’m making is we’ve got to get going on these [appropriations] bills or we’re going to end up with a yearlong” continuing resolution, Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.) said.
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to move ahead for now with a policy requiring that Americans’ passports reflect the holders’ sex at birth.
In an emergency order, the court said the requirement is akin to displaying a person’s country at birth. “The government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” it said in a short unsigned order.
The justices’ action pauses a lower-court order that blocked the policy, which prevents transgender and nonbinary people from selecting their preferred sex on their passports, while litigation against it is ongoing.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent, joined by two other members of the court’s liberal wing, that the court had “once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.”
President Trump issued an executive order on Inauguration Day declaring the U.S. only recognizes two sexes, male and female, prompting the State Department to change its passport policy.
The federal government has issued passports with either the “M” or “F” sex marker since 1976. Since 2010, Americans have been able to change the gender markers on their passport with a doctor’s certificate. In 2021, the Biden administration issued a new policy that allowed people to choose “X” as a third option if they don’t identify as male or female.
A group of transgender, nonbinary and intersex people filed a class action challenging Trump’s new policy, arguing it unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and was motivated by an animus toward transgender and nonbinary Americans.
The new policy was quickly blocked by a district-court judge in Massachusetts. An appeals court declined to put the lower-court order on hold, and the Trump administration asked the justices to intervene.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the policy doesn’t discriminate based on sex because “every passport, for every individual, must reflect immutable biological characteristics, not purported gender identity.” He cited the court’s recent decision to allow states to restrict hormone therapies and other care for transgender minors. In that case, the court held that a law doesn’t discriminate as long as it applies equally to members of both sexes, he said.
“It was entirely rational for the President to reject ‘gender identity’ as a ‘basis for identification’ in favor of a ‘biological’ definition of sex—one grounded in facts that are ‘immutable,’” Sauer said.
The challengers disagreed. “The government permitted self-selection and X sex markers for years before the Passport Policy, and there is no indication that ever impacted foreign affairs,” they said in a brief to the court. “The government also accepts passports with X markers from the many countries that permit them.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a social-media post Thursday that the Trump administration would now be able to advance its efforts to draw clear gender lines. “There are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth,” she said.
Jon Davidson, a lawyer for the ACLU, said: “This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights.”
In a move that lays bare the Trump administration’s assault on independent journalism and national security norms, far-right provocateur Laura Loomer—known for her inflammatory rants, conspiracy-mongering, and self-proclaimed “Loomering” of disloyal officials—has been handed official press credentials to cover the Pentagon. The 32-year-old activist, who once handcuffed herself to Twitter’s doors in protest of her ban and has repeatedly branded immigrants as “invaders,” now joins a motley crew of right-wing echo-chamber outlets in the Defense Department‘s newly revamped press corps—a direct result of a draconian policy that drove mainstream media out en masse last month.
This credentialing isn’t just a badge; it’s a license for chaos. Loomer, a failed congressional candidate in Florida and Trump’s unofficial whisperer-in-chief, has already used her Oval Office access to fuel a purge of perceived “disloyal” defense leaders, from NSA Director Gen. Timothy Haugh to Army Secretary Dan Driscoll’s appointees. Her presence in the Pentagon briefing room signals the deepening fusion of White House vendettas and military oversight, raising alarms among Democrats, press freedom advocates, and even some within the administration who view her as a loose cannon threatening U.S. readiness. “This isn’t journalism—it’s infiltration,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former Intelligence Committee chair. “Loomer’s track record of harassment and disinformation makes her a national security risk in a secure facility.”
A Policy Born of Paranoia: Mainstream Media Ejected, MAGA Media Installed
The backdrop is as Orwellian as it gets. In October, the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—Trump’s Fox News alum pick—unveiled a policy barring reporters from seeking information outside official channels, effectively muzzling independent inquiry. Outraged, dozens of outlets—including The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, and even Fox News—staged a walkout, refusing to sign what they decried as a “threat to press freedom.” Only One America News (OAN), the pro-Trump cable network notorious for election lies, inked the deal initially.
Enter the new corps: A roster dominated by far-right darlings like The Gateway Pundit (debunked for Sandy Hook hoaxes), The Post Millennial (a Daily Wire offshoot peddling anti-LGBTQ+ screeds), LindellTV (MyPillow mogul Mike Lindell’s election-denial streaming service), and now Loomer herself. These aren’t seasoned Pentagon beat reporters; they’re online influencers with audiences built on outrage, not oversight. The policy, critics argue, is a deliberate purge to install a compliant cadre that amplifies Trump’s narrative while silencing scrutiny of military missteps—from unchecked defense spending to Hegseth’s Qatar deals.
Loomer announced her credentialing triumph on X (formerly Twitter), where she boasts 1.2 million followers, framing it as vindication against “Big Media elites.” But her glee masks a darker reality: She’s signing onto a gag order that prohibits basic journalism, all while flaunting her role in ousting officials she deems insufficiently MAGA. In an August X post viewed over 2 million times, Loomer railed against Hegseth’s plan to host Qatari air force training at an Idaho base, calling it a gift to “terror financing Muslims” and vowing to sit out midterms in protest. Such outbursts have Pentagon staffers scrambling, sources say, fearing her next viral broadside could trigger another firing spree.
Loomer’s influence isn’t hype—it’s havoc. Since Trump’s inauguration, her Oval Office sit-downs have correlated with a revolving door of dismissals, which she gleefully brands “Loomered.” In April, she targeted NSA Director Gen. Timothy Haugh and deputy Wendy Noble as “disloyal,” tweeting: “That is why they have been fired.” Haugh was ousted days later, replaced by a Trump loyalist. She claimed credit for national security adviser Michael Waltz’s April firing and staff purge, tying it to her “report” on their inadequacies—Waltz later landed as U.N. ambassador, a cushy consolation.
Her Pentagon hit list is bipartisan in bigotry. In April, Loomer savaged Col. Earl G. Matthews—nominated for general counsel—for allegedly “subverting” Hegseth, echoing her anti-“deep state” crusade. More egregiously, in August, she attacked Army Secretary Dan Driscoll for honoring Medal of Honor recipient Florent Groberg—a French-born immigrant who lost a leg shielding soldiers from a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. Why? Groberg’s 60-second DNC speech on “service and sacrifice.” Loomer dubbed him an “anti-Trump leftist.” Groberg, undeterred, responded: “I’ve served under presidents from both parties and will always honor my oath to this country.” Driscoll swiftly revoked Jen Easterly’s West Point faculty appointment after Loomer’s pile-on—Easterly, Biden’s CISA director, was targeted for her cybersecurity work exposing foreign election meddling.
These aren’t isolated; they’re a pattern. Loomer, who styles herself an “investigative journalist, activist, and truth-teller” via her Loomered website and opposition research firm, has a history of stunts: Banned from Uber/Lyft for anti-Muslim tirades, booted from CPAC for disrupting speeches, and deplatformed across social media for hate speech. Yet Trump calls her “a very nice person… a patriot,” crediting her “excitement” for the country. Her rare Trump critiques—like his Qatari jet “gift from jihadists”—end in apologies, underscoring her as a one-woman loyalty litmus test.
Broader Peril: Press Freedom Under Siege, National Security in Jeopardy
Loomer’s Pentagon perch exacerbates a chilling trend: The Trump White House’s war on the fourth estate. Her stalled White House credentials—despite smaller right-wing influencers gaining access—highlight selective favoritism. The new policy, which Loomer eagerly embraces, ensures coverage that’s less watchdog, more water carrier—ideal for burying scandals like Hegseth’s Qatar ties or the administration’s military purges.
Democrats and watchdogs are mobilizing. The ACLU warned of “Orwellian control,” while Rep. Schiff demanded hearings: “Loomer in the briefing room is a fox guarding the henhouse.” As one anonymous Pentagon official told The Hill, her access “frustrates” staff, who dread her next “Loomering” tweet sparking chaos.
In an era of rising authoritarianism, Loomer’s elevation isn’t quirky—it’s a symptom. Trump’s “truth-teller” is peddling division in the halls of power, where decisions affect global stability. If unchecked, this could erode the Pentagon’s integrity from within, turning defense briefings into MAGA rallies. America deserves better: A free press, not a far-right filter.
John Bolton, the hawkish former national security adviser whose betrayal of President Donald Trump fueled one of the most damaging tell-all exposés in modern political history, pleaded not guilty Friday to 18 felony charges under the Espionage Act for the reckless transmission and retention of top-secret documents. The 76-year-old Bolton, whose infamous mustache has long symbolized interventionist folly abroad, now stands accused of endangering American lives by sharing over 1,000 pages of classified “diary-like entries” with family members lacking clearances—material so sensitive it detailed foreign missile threats, covert U.S. operations, and intelligence sources that could have been catnip for adversaries like Iran. In a swift courtroom appearance before Chief Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan in Greenbelt, Maryland, Bolton entered his plea through attorney Abbe Lowell, who decried the case as recycled “diaries” from a storied career—not crimes, but cherished records shared only with loved ones.
From a conservative lens, this isn’t the weaponization of justice; it’s the long-delayed reckoning for a self-serving bureaucrat who prioritized book royalties and personal grudges over national security oaths. Bolton’s indictment—the third in as many weeks against Trump’s most vocal critics—signals the dawn of a DOJ unafraid to apply the law equally, a stark contrast to the selective blindness that plagued the Biden years. As FBI Director Kash Patel thundered on X, “Weaponization of justice will not be tolerated, and this FBI will stop at nothing to bring to justice anyone who threatens our national security.” With Attorney General Pam Bondi affirming “one tier of justice for all Americans,” the message is clear: No more free passes for deep-state leakers who undermine the America First agenda.
The 26-page federal indictment, unsealed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, lays bare a pattern of abuse from April 2018—mere weeks after Bolton assumed the national security role—to at least August 2025, long after his acrimonious 2019 firing. Prosecutors allege Bolton, despite access to a home Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) for secure handling, routinely fired off “diary-like entries” via unclassified personal channels—AOL, Gmail, and messaging apps—to two relatives (identified by MSNBC as his wife and daughter), neither cleared for such intel.
These weren’t innocuous jottings; they brimmed with TOP SECRET/SCI details that could shatter alliances and embolden foes. One entry revealed “intelligence that a foreign adversary was planning a missile launch in the future; a covert action in a foreign country… sensitive sources and methods used to collect human intelligence.” Another exposed “sources and collection used to obtain statements of a foreign adversary; covert action conducted by the U.S. Government.” Eight counts target unlawful transmission of national defense information; 10 more his retention of such materials in his Bethesda home, where FBI agents recovered classified docs during an August 22 raid—including references to weapons of mass destruction.
The plot thickens with a 2021 Iranian-linked hack of Bolton’s personal email, which prosecutors say snared the classified cache he’d carelessly stored there. A blackmail email taunted: “This could be the biggest scandal since Hillary’s emails were leaked, but this time on the G.O.P. side!”—yet Bolton’s team notified the FBI of the breach without flagging the sensitive contents, per the filing. Each count carries up to 10 years in prison, though guidelines might temper sentences; conviction, however, could revoke Bolton’s security clearance and exile him from policy circles forever.
Lowell, in a fiery AP statement, insisted the materials were “unclassified” career mementos known to the FBI since 2021, probed and cleared under Biden—no charges then, only now under Trump’s “retribution.” Bolton himself invoked Stalin’s secret police in his retort: “You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” framing the case as payback for his 2020 memoir The Room Where It Happened, which Trump tried (and failed) to block over similar clearance lapses. “Dissent and disagreement are foundational to America’s constitutional system,” Bolton proclaimed, vowing to “expose his abuse of power.” Conservatives scoff: This is no Stalin; it’s statute enforcement. Bolton’s book, after all, was ruled “likely” criminal by a Reagan-appointed judge in 2020 for evading pre-publication review—yet the Biden DOJ let it slide.
Bolton’s White House tenure was a whirlwind of clashes: Appointed in 2018 for his Iran hawkishness, he clashed with Trump over Ukraine aid and Taliban negotiations, earning a September 2019 boot. “I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions,” Trump tweeted then. Bolton’s revenge? A memoir that turbocharged Trump’s first impeachment, portraying the president as erratic and himself as the unsung hero—leaks that conservatives still view as the blueprint for the deep state’s sabotage playbook.
The probe predates Trump’s return, gaining steam under Biden with a 2021 FBI review that fizzled by 2022 amid political optics. But August’s dual raids on Bolton’s home and D.C. office unearthed the diaries, prompting the Maryland grand jury’s swift action. Trump, ambushed by reporters Thursday, feigned surprise: “You’re telling me for the first time, but I think he’s a bad person… a bad guy. It’s too bad. But that’s the way it goes.” On X, glee erupted: “Don’t drop the soap,” quipped one user, while podcasters hailed it as “Insurrection Act ONE DAY CLOSER!” PBS noted Bolton’s silent courthouse march, but the right sees silence as guilt.
The 20-minute arraignment drew no detention; Bolton walked free, his case assigned to Obama appointee Judge Theodore Chuang for a jury trial. Motions challenging “vindictiveness” are inevitable, but as one X post crowed, “Indict, try, convict, go to DC Gulag.”
This is no coincidence—it’s culmination. Weeks ago, Virginia grand juries indicted ex-FBI Director James Comey on false statements and obstruction for lying about leaks in 2020 testimony, his January trial looming like a storm cloud. New York AG Letitia James faces wire fraud for donor deceptions in her Trump asset suits. All three followed Trump’s public entreaties, but Bolton’s case—bolstered by career FBI “meticulous work” under Patel—stands strongest, mirroring (and eclipsing) the Mar-a-Lago farce the left pinned on Trump. Where Trump cooperated fully, Bolton hoarded and hacked into; where Biden’s garage went unscathed, Bolton’s SCIF was scorned.
Democrats wail “authoritarianism,” but this is accountability: The Espionage Act, wielded against Trump by politicized prosecutors, now bites back at the elite enablers who greenlit Clinton’s emails and ignored Hunter’s laptop. As one X meme blasted, “JOHN BOLTON HAS BEEN INDICTED”—complete with a grim reaper graphic signaling swamp drain progress.
Wall Street barely blinked, the Dow nudging up 0.4% Friday on tariff optimism, undeterred by Bolton’s drama—investors betting Trump’s purges signal regulatory relief and foreign policy steel. PredictIt odds for GOP congressional sweeps climbed to 72%, fueled by base fervor: Posts like “Kash & President Trump Say More People Are Involved” hint at a widening net, boosting confidence in a DOJ that protects rather than persecutes patriots.
Bolton’s fall isn’t about mustache envy—it’s about oaths broken. For 40 years, he preached national security; now, his “diaries” dangle like Damocles’ sword over U.S. assets. Trump’s DOJ isn’t Stalinist—it’s surgical, excising tumors the left romanticized as “dissent.” As Bolton fights (and likely flails) in court, conservatives celebrate: A foreign policy unpoisoned by profiteers, an FBI reforged for threats real, not rivalrous. The mustache twitches, but the rule of law endures—and America, uncompromised, thrives.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a courtroom moment that underscores President Donald Trump’s unyielding commitment to holding the deep state accountable, former FBI Director James Comey entered a not guilty plea Wednesday to federal charges of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The 64-year-old Comey, once a symbol of bureaucratic overreach in the eyes of conservatives, now faces a January trial that could finally deliver the justice many on the right have demanded since his role in the Russia hoax unraveled America’s trust in its premier law enforcement agency.
Comey’s arraignment before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in federal court here marked the first high-profile reckoning in what Trump has vowed will be a broader purge of Washington insiders who weaponized government against him. Towering at 6-foot-8, Comey stood stoically beside his legal team, nodding along as his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, formally entered the plea. The hearing, devoid of cameras per court rules, lasted mere minutes, but its implications ripple far beyond the marble halls of Alexandria—potentially restoring faith in a Justice Department long hijacked by partisan actors.
Trump, fresh off his triumphant 2024 victory, has made no secret of his pursuit of Comey. In a fiery Truth Social post last month, the president labeled the ex-director a “dirty cop” and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite charges against “perceived adversaries” like Comey before the statute of limitations expired. “These were corrupt, radical Left Democrats… They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they’ve done is terrible,” Trump declared in a video shared by his campaign’s War Room account, framing the indictment as a necessary corrective to years of abuse. For conservatives, this isn’t retribution—it’s restitution, a long-overdue dismantling of the swamp that targeted Trump from day one.
The two-count indictment, unsealed last month, stems from Comey’s September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he was grilled by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over alleged leaks tied to the FBI’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails and potential Russian ties to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Cruz zeroed in on discrepancies between Comey’s 2017 sworn statements—where he denied ever authorizing an FBI subordinate to serve as an anonymous media source—and accounts from his then-deputy, Andrew McCabe, about a pre-election leak to The Wall Street Journal on the Clinton probe.
“One or the other is false. Who’s telling the truth?” Cruz pressed, to which Comey replied, “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized.” Prosecutors now allege this was a bald-faced lie: Comey “then and there knew” he had greenlit an unidentified “Person 3″—widely reported to be Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman—to anonymously brief reporters on sensitive FBI matters, including a memo detailing Comey’s interactions with then-President-elect Trump.
Richman, who has confirmed receiving such a memo from Comey in 2017, was subpoenaed earlier this year, but leaks from the prosecution reveal mounting cracks in the case. ABC News reported that Richman told investigators Comey explicitly instructed him not to speak to the media on multiple occasions, potentially rendering the star witness “problematic” for the government. A prior probe found “insufficient evidence” of wrongdoing, yet charges proceeded under intense White House pressure—just days before the five-year statute ran out.
Each felony carries up to five years in prison, a stark reminder that no one is above the law—not even the man who once wielded the FBI like a political cudgel. Comey’s history speaks volumes: His last-minute Clinton email disclosure arguably handed Trump the 2016 win, only for him to pivot to the debunked Russia collusion narrative, leaking memos to trigger Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. Trump fired him in May 2017, calling him a “real nut job,” and Comey has since morphed into a shrill Trump critic, penning books and posting cryptic social media barbs—like the infamous “86 47” tweet Republicans decried as a veiled assassination call, for which he later apologized.
The hearing unfolded with procedural efficiency, but not without tension. Fitzgerald, the esteemed Enron prosecutor who called representing Comey “the honor of my life,” pushed for a “speedy trial” while securing a Jan. 5, 2026, date—outside the speedy trial clock at both sides’ request, citing the case’s “complexity” involving classified materials. Judge Nachmanoff, a Bush appointee, expressed skepticism—”This does not appear to me to be a complex case”—but relented, ordering the DOJ to expedite security clearances for the defense. “There should be no reason this case gets off course because of some classified information,” he warned.
Comey, fidgeting occasionally with hands clasped under his chin, shared the room with family: daughter Maurene, a fired Southern District of New York prosecutor now suing over her dismissal (tied, she claims, to her father’s feud with Trump), and son-in-law Troy A. Edwards Jr., who quit his national security post post-indictment. No detention was sought; Comey walked free on his own recognizance.
Behind the scenes, the prosecution’s origins reek of the very politicization Comey once decried. Erik Siebert, the career U.S. attorney who deemed evidence insufficient, resigned under White House fire. Trump installed Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney with zero prosecutorial experience, who signed the indictment solo—unusual, per legal experts—until two North Carolina DOJ lawyers jumped on Tuesday. A grand jury nixed a third charge, and reports suggest Halligan ignored internal memos urging against indictment.
The defense isn’t pulling punches. Fitzgerald signaled motions by Oct. 20 alleging “vindictive prosecution” at Trump’s behest, challenging Halligan’s appointment, grand jury abuse, and “outrageous government conduct.” Oral arguments are slated for Nov. 19 and Dec. 9. “Comey could become the poster child for selective prosecution,” a former Eastern District prosecutor told Politico, unwittingly bolstering the right’s narrative that the case is ironclad despite left-wing bleating.
Hours after indictment, Comey posted a video defiantly proclaiming innocence: “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system… I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial.” Conservatives see through the theater—Comey’s “confidence” mirrors the arrogance that fueled his downfall.
This saga is the opening salvo in Trump’s retribution era, with probes underway against New York AG Letitia James, ex-advisor John Bolton, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). On the right, it’s vindication: The man who orchestrated the Russia witch hunt now faces the music, potentially paving the way for Mueller’s full exposure. Democrats cry “authoritarianism,” but as Trump allies like Cruz note, it’s poetic justice—Comey leaked to kneecap a president; now truth leaks back.
Markets, ever attuned to political stability, reacted bullishly. The Dow climbed 1.2% Wednesday, buoyed by signals of a DOJ purge that could end regulatory overreach stifling growth. Political betting sites like PredictIt saw odds of a Comey conviction surge to 68%, reflecting investor bets on Trump’s mandate restoring institutional trust—and unleashing an economic boom unburdened by deep-state sabotage. Bond yields dipped slightly, as fears of politicized prosecutions eased amid vows of due process.
From a conservative vantage, Comey’s plea is just another chapter in the tall tale of a self-righteous bureaucrat who fancied himself above reproach. His leaks didn’t just undermine Trump; they eroded public faith in the FBI, fueling years of chaos. Trump’s pressure? Not meddling—it’s leadership, demanding the impartiality Comey never delivered. As the January trial looms—expected to wrap in two to three days—the nation watches not for drama, but deliverance. The deep state crumbles, one indictment at a time, and with it, the shadows that dimmed America’s promise. Comey may tower physically, but his legacy shrinks daily.
WASHINGTON – In the high-stakes arena of President Donald Trump’s second term, where loyalty to the America First agenda is the ultimate litmus test, few voices cut as sharply as Laura Loomer’s. The firebrand conservative activist, once a fringe provocateur chaining herself to Twitter’s headquarters in protest, has evolved into a self-appointed guardian of MAGA purity. With 1.8 million followers on X and her podcast Loomer Unleashed reaching thousands weekly, Loomer wields influence that rivals official advisors – and lately, she’s turning that blade inward, clashing with fellow travelers like Tucker Carlson and even White House picks. What some dismiss as chaotic infighting, however, looks to true believers like the necessary purge of complacency in a movement still under siege from the deep state.
Loomer’s recent salvos have rattled the administration’s inner circle, where officials whisper about her unchecked access to Trump and speculate on shadowy funding behind her crusades. According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, the 32-year-old has claimed credit for ousting over a dozen national security holdovers she brands as “deep state” saboteurs – including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, whom she boasted of engineering his firing last month after a White House sit-down with the president. Trump, ever the dealmaker, later downplayed her role, but the timing spoke volumes: Firings followed her accusations like clockwork.
“They can attack me all they want, I’m more America First than them,” Loomer told the Journal in a defiant interview, framing the backlash as antisemitic targeting – a charge that resonates deeply in a base still smarting from years of media smears. Her collaboration with Israeli-American cyber analyst Yaacov Apelbaum, who fed her opposition research on alleged “Muslim sympathizers” in the administration, underscores her hawkish stance on national security. Apelbaum, who helped amplify Hunter Biden’s laptop scandals pre-2020, defended her to the Journal: “She doesn’t hate Muslims, she’s terrified of Muslims.” Loomer, a self-proclaimed “Islamophobe” banned from platforms like Facebook and Instagram for her unfiltered rhetoric, has long railed against Islamist threats, from 9/11 “inside job” theories to warnings about curry-scented White Houses under Kamala Harris.
But it’s her intraparty broadsides that have MAGA traditionalists squirming. Loomer dubbed ex-Fox host Tucker Carlson “Tucker Qatarlson,” accusing him of being “bought off by the Muslim Brotherhood” and slamming his son for working with Vice President JD Vance. She piled on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, calling the Georgia firebrand a “loud-mouthed bitch” for allegedly funneling government cash to her daughter – a claim Greene dismissed as “racist, hateful” and un-MAGA. Even Joe Kent, the counterterrorism chief whose wife perished in a 2019 Syrian suicide bombing, drew her ire for a report framing threats as “violent extremism” rather than “Islamic terrorism.” Kent fired back on X, hinting Loomer was “paid by the side that’s too afraid to come at me directly,” prompting her to demand he delete the post.
These aren’t random potshots; they’re a calculated effort to enforce ideological hygiene, Loomer insists. On her podcast earlier this month, she clarified her rogue status: “I’m not working for President Trump. I’m not getting paid by President Trump… And yet, I feel like every single day, it’s a full-time job just to make sure the president is protected.” White House insiders, per the Journal, beg to differ – they’re “tired” of her end-runs around official channels, launching informal probes into her motives and donors. Concerns spiked over her attacks on non-security targets, like a Food and Drug Administration official and a push for Venezuelan drilling licenses, which smelled of ulterior interests to skeptics. Loomer denies pay-for-post schemes, attributing her funding to “ideologically motivated donors” who share her zeal for rooting out anti-Trump elements in intel roles.
Politico reports paint a similar picture of escalating tensions, highlighting Loomer’s broadsides against Trump’s inner circle. She’s torched Attorney General Pam Bondi for not purging the Justice Department fast enough, decried Surgeon General nominee Casey Means – a wellness guru sans medical license who “talks to trees and spiritual mediums” – as a clownish pick, and howled over Trump’s Mideast diplomacy. When the president lifted Syrian sanctions and inked a Qatar investment deal – a nation she brands a Hamas financier stoking U.S. campus protests – Loomer erupted: “We cannot accept a $400 million ‘gift’ from jihadists in suits,” she posted on X, scorning a potential luxury 747 handover (which Trump clarified would benefit the nation, not him personally). She even swiped at the new Pope Leo XIV as “anti-MAGA” and a Marxist after Trump’s praise, and sparred with Elon Musk over H-1B visas, decrying lax vetting of administration hires.
Her White House odyssey is a saga of near-misses: She lobbied for a job but got rebuffed, pivoting to press credentials (still pending) and her consulting outfit, Loomered Strategies, which churns out opposition dossiers. Last September’s campaign trail antics – jetting on Air Force One to the Harris debate and 9/11 memorials – irked the inner circle, yet Trump called her a “strong person” and “free spirit.” Steve Bannon, another self-styled MAGA conscience, hailed her on his show as “a warrior in the information war,” even as she dropped a bombshell claiming foreknowledge of Joe Biden’s advanced prostate cancer diagnosis, announced Sunday by his office.
Critics like Peter Montgomery of the left-leaning People For the American Way call her “dangerous” for having Trump’s ear, but from a right-wing lens, Loomer’s chaos is the antidote to bureaucratic drift. In a town infested with RINOs and globalist whispers, her unfiltered fury keeps the flame alive – exposing cracks before they widen into chasms. The real scandal, conservatives argue, isn’t her volume; it’s the administration’s pearl-clutching over a loyalist who dares question sacred cows. As intraparty sniping escalates – with Carlson and Candace Owens peddling antisemitic fever dreams about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, blaming shadowy Israeli plots in hummus-scented rooms – Loomer’s retorts, like accusing Carlson of Doha payoffs, remind us: True MAGA demands vigilance, not velvet gloves.
Netanyahu’s dismissal of those theories as “insane” echoes the base’s fatigue with fringe distractions, and Loomer’s pushback – tying it to suppressed Biden dirt via Apelbaum’s analysis – positions her as the movement’s unapologetic defender. Owens shot back that Israel backers like Loomer are “scraping the very bottom of the barrel,” but in the coliseum of conservative media, that’s just blood in the water.
As Trump navigates his encore, Loomer’s shadow looms large: A credential-less agitator with the president’s nighttime ear, claiming victories from the outside. White House officials insist no further meetings are planned and she’s no advisor, but actions – like Wednesday’s suspension of Army official Nicholas Waytowich over her exposé on the anti-ICE app Red Dot – tell a different tale. “I don’t work for the administration, and I don’t control hiring,” she shrugged to the Journal. “I’m posting facts.”
In MAGA’s endless war for the soul of America, Loomer isn’t turning against the movement – she’s sharpening its sword. Whether that fortifies Trump or fractures the tent remains the billion-dollar question, but one thing’s clear: In the fight against the swamp, complacency is the real enemy. And Laura Loomer? She’s anything but.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
