Tag: Politics

  • Israel and Hamas Reach Agreement on Hostage Release, Marking Step Toward Peace

    Israel and Hamas Reach Agreement on Hostage Release, Marking Step Toward Peace

    WASHINGTON – In a triumph of American diplomacy and unyielding resolve, President Donald Trump has brokered a historic breakthrough between Israel and Hamas, securing agreement on the first phase of a comprehensive peace plan that promises the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza and a long-overdue ceasefire in the war-torn enclave. Announced late Wednesday on Truth Social, the deal – hammered out in the sun-baked halls of Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt – stands as a testament to Trump’s deal-making prowess, where previous administrations’ hand-wringing gave way to his bold 20-point blueprint for Middle East stability.

    “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump declared in a midnight post, his words crackling with the optimism of a man who promised – and is delivering – peace through strength. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace. All Parties will be treated fairly! This is a GREAT Day for the Arab and Muslim World, Israel, all surrounding Nations, and the United States of America, and we thank the mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, who worked with us to make this Historic and Unprecedented Event happen. BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

    The agreement, set for formal signing in Egypt on Thursday, October 9, 2025, envisions Hamas freeing the estimated 20 living hostages and the remains of over two dozen others – victims of the barbaric October 7, 2023, terror rampage that slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and ignited a conflict that has claimed more than 66,000 Palestinian lives, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. In exchange, Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 serving life sentences, and pull back troops to a pre-agreed line, allowing a surge of humanitarian aid into the devastated strip – a move that pauses the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) operations in Gaza City while preserving Israel’s ironclad right to self-defense.

    09israel hamas ru3 zhbj superJumbo
    Some people are just waking up to this, and waiting to find out when a truce might come into effect. © Ronen Zvulun/Reuters

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government faces a Thursday cabinet vote to ratify the accord, hailed it as “a great day for Israel” in a Telegram post, pledging to “convene the government tomorrow to approve the agreement and bring all our dear hostages home.” “With the help of the Almighty, together we will continue to achieve all our goals and expand peace with our neighbors,” he added, crediting the IDF’s relentless pressure – not weak-kneed negotiations – for forcing Hamas to the table. Even as hardliners like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich decry the plan as a “tragedy” echoing the failed Oslo Accords, broad swaths of Israel’s political spectrum, from centrist Yair Lapid to nationalist Avigdor Lieberman, have rallied behind it, with hostage families tearfully calling it a “historic turning point” after two years of agony.

    Hamas, the Iran-backed terror outfit designated by the U.S. and EU, issued a rare nod to Trump in its Telegram statement, appreciating “the efforts of US President Donald Trump” alongside mediators Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey for “ending the war on Gaza, ensuring the withdrawal of the occupation forces, allowing the entry of aid, and facilitating a prisoner exchange.” Yet, in a reminder of the group’s duplicitous nature, it vowed to “never relinquish our people’s national rights until freedom, independence, and self-determination are achieved,” while urging guarantors to “compel the occupation government to fully implement its obligations.” Qatar’s foreign ministry confirmed the pact covers “all the provisions and implementation mechanisms of the first phase,” with details forthcoming.

    09israel hamas ru3 mlcq superJumbo
    President Trump announced the agreement, the Israeli military reminded residents of the Gaza Strip in a statement in Arabic that Israeli troops continued to occupy the territory and that they were still fighting a war. © UGC/Reuters

    From the White House, the drama unfolded like a scene from Trump’s reality-TV playbook. During a roundtable on Antifa threats – a nod to the domestic chaos sown by leftist radicals – Secretary of State Marco Rubio slipped the president a note: Deal imminent. “We’re very close to a deal in the Middle East, and they’re going to need me pretty quickly,” Trump quipped to reporters, wrapping up early to greenlight his triumphant Truth Social blast. In a Fox News sit-down with Sean Hannity, Trump eyed Monday for the hostages’ return – “probably” including the deceased’s remains – and floated a trip to Egypt, Israel, and perhaps a Knesset address: “They want me to give a speech at the Knesset and I will definitely do that if they want me to.” “Gaza is going to be a peaceful, much safer place,” he assured, envisioning a “Council of Peace” – chaired by himself, with figures like Tony Blair aboard – to oversee reconstruction and a technocratic interim government, deradicalizing the strip and barring Hamas forever.

    Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff, fresh from Cairo huddles, were the on-the-ground architects, building on Trump’s October 3 ultimatum: Release hostages by Sunday or face annihilation. This isn’t the limp diplomacy of Joe Biden’s era, where endless talks yielded endless rockets; it’s Trump channeling Reagan’s “peace through strength,” pausing IDF strikes at his behest to create breathing room while keeping the hammer poised. The plan’s genius: Hamas disarms for amnesty, Gaza demilitarizes under a U.S.-led board, and the Palestinian Authority – reformed – paves a path to statehood, sans terror tunnels or Iranian puppets. “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return,” the accord stipulates, a humane flourish amid the rubble.

    skynews ceasefire celebrations 7046390
    In Tel Aviv, people chanted ‘Nobel prize to Trump’ after the ceasefire deal was confirmed by the US president. © AP

    Skeptics like Arab Center’s Yousef Munayyer warn of fragility – thorny issues like full Hamas disarmament and governance loom large – but Trump’s track record, from Abraham Accords to North Korea summits, silences the naysayers. Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, threaten to bolt if Hamas survives, but the premier’s bipartisan buy-in and hostage families’ pleas – “After almost two years of unimaginable anguish, we stand at a historic turning point” – drown out the din. Even Tony Blair, tipped for the peace board, called it “bold and intelligent,” offering “the best chance of ending two years of war, misery and suffering.”

    Globally, reactions pour in like applause at a MAGA rally. Bipartisan U.S. leaders, from Rubio to hawks in Congress, hail the “fantastic day”; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey – key mediators – see a ripple toward broader Arab-Israeli normalization. On X, the buzz is electric: “Trump Secures Israel-Hamas Deal for Hostage Release and Gaza Ceasefire,” posts one aggregator, echoing the sentiment that this is “a great day for the world.”

    The war’s toll – Houthi disruptions in the Red Sea, Israeli strikes on Lebanon, U.S. hits on Iran’s nukes – has scarred the region, but Trump’s vision resets the board: A terror-free Gaza as a launchpad for prosperity, not peril. As he eyes Walter Reed Thursday morning before jetting east, one truth endures: In the art of the deal, no one’s better than Donald J. Trump. If this holds, the Nobel whispers won’t be whispers for long.

  • James Comey Pleads Not Guilty to Congressional Perjury Charges

    James Comey Pleads Not Guilty to Congressional Perjury Charges

    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.

    im 34111719
    This courtroom sketch depicts former FBI Director James Comey, second from left, and his attorneys. © Source: Associated Press

    The Charges: A Reckoning Rooted in 2020 Testimony

    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.

  • Beijing’s Cutbacks Shake America’s Soybean Trade

    Beijing’s Cutbacks Shake America’s Soybean Trade

    In the heart of the Midwest, where golden fields stretch toward the horizon under a crisp autumn sky, the hum of combines should signal prosperity. Instead, for America’s soybean farmers, harvest season has become a grim countdown to financial ruin. As they reap what the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects to be a record 4.2 billion bushel crop this year, their largest buyer—China—has vanished from the market, leaving silos overflowing and prices plummeting to five-year lows around $9.50 per bushel.

    China hasn’t booked any U.S. soybean purchases in months; farmers warn of ‘bloodbath’

    The trade war between the United States and China, now in its second year under President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff regime, has turned soybeans into collateral damage. Beijing’s retaliatory 25% tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports have priced American beans out of the Chinese market, where they once commanded over half of the $24.5 billion in annual U.S. soybean exports. From January through August 2025, Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans totaled a mere 200 million bushels—down from nearly 1 billion bushels in the same period of 2024, according to USDA trade data. That’s a 80% plunge, robbing Midwestern farmers of billions in revenue and forcing a scramble for alternative markets that may never fully compensate.

    “We’ll see the bottom drop out if we don’t get a deal with China soon,” warns Ron Kindred, a veteran farmer managing 1,700 acres of corn and soybeans in central Illinois. Halfway through his harvest, Kindred has locked in contracts for just 40% of his crop at prices already eroding below $10 per bushel in local elevators. The remaining 60% sits in limbo, a high-stakes bet on a breakthrough in Washington-Beijing negotiations. “There’s no urgency on China’s side, and the farm community’s clock is ticking louder every day,” he adds.

    Screenshot 2025 10 08 at 9.30.50 PM

    Kindred’s plight echoes across the soybean belt, from Illinois prairies to Iowa’s rolling hills. Rising input costs—fertilizer up 20-30% year-over-year, equipment maintenance strained by inflation, and a glut of both corn and soybeans flooding domestic markets—were squeezing margins even before the trade spat escalated. Now, with China’s boycott, the USDA estimates average losses of up to $64 per acre for Illinois growers alone, the nation’s top soybean-producing state with 6.2 million acres planted this year. University of Illinois Extension economists project total state-level shortfalls could exceed $400 million if export volumes don’t rebound by spring 2026.

    Enter the Trump administration’s lifeline: a proposed $10-14 billion farmer aid package, building on December 2024’s $10 billion relief bill. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that President Trump, speaking at the White House on October 6, vowed to “do some farm stuff this week” to cushion the blow. Aides say he’s slated to huddle with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins as early as Friday to finalize funding sources, leaning heavily on the $215 billion in tariff revenues collected during fiscal 2025 (October 2024-September 2025), per U.S. Treasury figures. “The president is deploying every tool in the toolbox to keep our farmers farming,” a USDA spokesman told Reuters.

    Yet for many in the heartland, the aid feels like a temporary fix for a structural crisis. Soybean farmers, who backed Trump overwhelmingly in 2024 (with 62% of rural voters in key swing states like Iowa and Wisconsin casting ballots for him, per Edison Research exit polls), are voicing frustration laced with loyalty. “We voted for strong trade deals, not handouts,” says Scott Gaffner, a third-generation farmer in southern Illinois tending 600 acres. His crop, typically destined for Chinese ports, now languishes in on-farm silos as he frets over fixed costs like diesel fuel and seed that have surged 15% since planting. “We’re not just anxious; we’re angry. When the administration’s jetting off to Spain for TikTok talks while our harvest rots, it feels like we’re the last priority.”

    Gaffner’s son, Cody, the would-be fourth generation on the land, echoes the generational stakes. “If I return after college, it’ll be with a second job just to make ends meet,” the 22-year-old says. Their story underscores a broader ripple: Rural economies, where agriculture drives 20-25% of GDP in states like Illinois and Iowa, are buckling. Tractor sales at CNH Industrial, a Decatur, Illinois-based giant, plunged 20% in the first half of 2025, CEO Gerrit Marx revealed in an August interview at the Farm Progress Show. “The good news only flows when China places orders,” Marx said, a sentiment that hung heavy over the event in the self-proclaimed “soy capital of the world”—a title now whispered to be shifting south to Brazil.

    Dean Buchholz, a DeKalb County, Illinois, peer of Gaffner’s, is already waving the white flag. After decades in the fields, skyrocketing fertilizer bills and sub-$10 soybean futures have convinced him to retire. “I figured I’d farm till they buried me,” the 58-year-old says. “But with debt piling up and health acting up, it’s time to rent out the acres. This trade war’s the final straw.”

    Desperate Diplomacy: Chasing Markets in Unlikely Corners

    With China—home to the world’s largest hog herd and importer of 61% of global traded soybeans over the past five years, per the American Soybean Association—off the table, U.S. agribusiness is on a global charm offensive. Trade missions to Nigeria, memorandums with Vietnam, and a 50% surge in sales to Bangladesh (up to 400,000 metric tons through July 2025) highlight the scramble. Yet these “base hits,” as Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt calls them, pale against China’s home-run demand.

    Screenshot 2025 10 08 at 9.37.03 PM

    Ewoldt, who farms 2,000 acres near Des Moines, jetted to Rome in January to woo a Tunisian poultry giant. “They grilled me: Can we count on steady U.S. supply, or will you switch crops and jack up prices?” he recalls. Tunisia’s imports, while growing, total under 100,000 tons annually—barely a blip. “It helps long-term, but right now, we’re cash-strapped. My operation burns a million bucks a year; without sales, we’re dipping into reserves just to cover debt service.”

    Across the Mississippi, Morey Hill has logged thousands of miles this year, from Cambodia’s fish ponds to Morocco’s chicken coops. In Phnom Penh last week, the Iowa grower evangelized to importers about swapping low-protein “fish meal” for U.S. soybean meal, touting yields that could fatten local aquaculture 20-30%. “We’ve got success stories—Vietnam’s up 25% year-over-year to 1.2 million tons,” Hill says. But even aggregated, the EU and Mexico (combined $5 billion in sales) plus risers like Egypt, Thailand, and Malaysia can’t fill the void: Total U.S. soybean exports dipped 8% to 18.9 million metric tons through July, USDA Census Bureau data shows.

    Industry lobbies are pulling levers too. The U.S. Soybean Export Council sponsored a June Vietnam mission yielding $1.4 billion in MOUs for ag products, including soy. August brought Latin American buyers to Illinois for farm tours, though exports to Peru and Nicaragua remain negligible. In Nigeria, a modest 64,000 tons shipped last year hasn’t translated to 2025 bookings yet. And Secretary Rollins’ September tweet hailing Taiwan’s “$10 billion” four-year ag commitment? It’s a rebrand of existing $3.8 billion annual flows, not new money, USDA clarifications confirm.

    “There’s talk of India, Southeast Asia, North Africa as future markets,” says Ryan Frieders, a 49-year-old Waterman, Illinois, farmer who joined a February trek to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. “But nothing explodes overnight to replace China.” Frieders, facing $8-10 per acre losses per University of Illinois models, plans to bin most of his harvest, gambling on futures prices rebounding above $11 by Q1 2026.

    The Shadow of South America and Tariff Games

    As U.S. beans languish, Brazil and Argentina feast. China, pivoting since 2018’s first trade war, now sources 80% of its needs from South America. Last month, Argentine President Javier Milei’s temporary export tax suspension lured $500 million in Chinese cargoes, traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange report. U.S. beans traded at $0.80-$0.90 per bushel cheaper than Brazilian equivalents for September-October shipment, but Beijing’s 23% tariff tacks on $2 per bushel—enough to divert 5 million metric tons southward.

    “The frustration is overwhelming,” says Caleb Ragland, 39, Kentucky farmer and American Soybean Association president. On Truth Social Wednesday, Trump himself griped: “Our Soybean Farmers are hurting because China, for ‘negotiating’ reasons, isn’t buying.” He teased soybeans as a centerpiece in his upcoming summit with Xi Jinping in four weeks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking Thursday, promised a Tuesday announcement on aid, potentially including a $20 billion swap line for Milei—irking U.S. growers who see it as subsidizing their rivals.

    On Friday, soybean futures closed at $9.42 per bushel on the CME, down 2% weekly amid harvest pressure and zero Chinese bookings. Analysts at Zaner Ag Hedge forecast a “bloodbath” if no deal materializes by November: Storage costs could add $0.50 per bushel, while on-farm debt—$450 billion industry-wide, per Farm Credit Administration—balloons.

    The trade war’s winners? South American exporters, grinning from bumper crops (Brazil’s output hits 155 million metric tons this year, USDA estimates), and U.S. tariff coffers, flush for bailouts. Losers abound: From Decatur’s processing plants, once buzzing with Chinese-bound shipments, to the 1.2 million farm jobs at risk nationwide, per the American Farm Bureau Federation.

    For Kindred, Gaffner, and their ilk, the math is merciless. “We want trade, not aid,” Gaffner insists. “China’s building routes elsewhere; once they’re hooked on Brazil, we might never claw it back. That’s not just my farm—it’s the next generations, the rural towns, the whole engine of America’s breadbasket.”

    As combines roll on, the Midwest holds its breath. A Xi-Trump handshake could flood elevators with orders; stalemate risks a cascade of foreclosures and fallow fields. In this high-stakes harvest, soybeans aren’t just seeds—they’re the fragile thread binding U.S. farmers to their future.

  • Pro-Trump Firebrand Laura Loomer Turns on MAGA Allies

    Pro-Trump Firebrand Laura Loomer Turns on MAGA Allies

    Laura Loomer WEB
    Who Is Laura Loomer? A Look at the Far-Right Figure Linked to Trump’s Campaign. © Getty Images

    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.

    AP25264750566776
    Tucker Carlson speaks at a memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, September 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona. © AP Photo/John Locher

    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.

  • Pentagon Deploys 200 National Guard Troops Following Trump’s Portland Order

    Pentagon Deploys 200 National Guard Troops Following Trump’s Portland Order

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday ordered 200 Oregon National Guard troops to be deployed under federal authority while the state filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s move to send military forces into the Democratic-run city of Portland.

    The Republican president on Saturday announced plans to send troops into Portland, saying they would be used to protect federal immigration facilities against “domestic terrorists” and that he was authorizing them to use “full force, if necessary.”

    Trump’s deployments of military forces into other municipalities led by Democrats, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have spurred legal challenges and protests.

    Oregon’s suit was filed against Trump, Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in federal court in Portland on Sunday by Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit accused Trump of exceeding his powers.

    “Citing nothing more than baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext – the President says Portland is a ‘War ravaged’ city ‘under siege’ from ‘domestic terrorists.’ Defendants have thus infringed on Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and National Guard resource,” the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit stated that protests against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in Portland have been small and relatively contained since June.

    Trump’s planned deployment caught many at the Pentagon by surprise, six U.S. officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. On Sunday, Hegseth signed a memo ordering 200 Oregon National Guard troops deployed under federal authority. The memo was made public as an attachment to Oregon’s lawsuit.

    The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    “Sending in 200 National Guard troops to guard a single building is not normal,” Rayfield said in a statement, apparently referring to an ICE facility.

    Violent crime in Portland has dropped in the first six months of 2025, according to preliminary data released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association in its Midyear Violent Crime Report. Homicides fell by 51% compared to the same period a year earlier, according to these statistics.

    Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has made crime a major focus of his administration even as violent crime rates have fallen in many U.S. cities.

    In 2020, protests erupted in downtown Portland, the Pacific Northwest enclave with a reputation as a liberal city, following the killing in Minneapolis of a Black man named George Floyd by a white police officer. The protests dragged on for months, and some civic leaders at the time said they were spurred rather than quelled by Trump’s deployment of federal troops.

    It was unclear whether Trump’s warning that U.S. troops could use “full force” on the streets of Portland meant he was somehow authorizing lethal force and, if so, under what conditions. U.S. troops are able to use force in self-defense on domestic U.S. deployments.

    Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, like other Oregon officials, learned of Trump’s order from social media on Saturday.

    The Situation in Portland

    Many in Trump’s own Pentagon were caught off guard.

    “It was a bolt from the blue,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the military was previously focused on carrying out prudent planning for potential deployments of troops by Trump into cities such as Chicago and Memphis.

    There have been growing tensions in major U.S. cities over Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown days after a shooting targeting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas left one detainee dead and two others seriously wounded.

  • Portland Faces Off With Trump Again on Federal Forces

    Portland Faces Off With Trump Again on Federal Forces

    Portland, Oregon — Echoes of 2020 reverberated through the streets of Portland this weekend as President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 200 National Guard troops to the city, igniting a fierce legal and political showdown with Oregon’s Democratic leadership. The move, aimed at safeguarding federal properties like an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility amid ongoing protests, has drawn swift condemnation from state officials who filed a lawsuit Sunday to block what they call an “unlawful” and unnecessary intrusion. As tensions simmer, with at least one reported clash between protesters and federal agents, the episode highlights Trump’s aggressive stance on domestic security in Democratic strongholds during his second term.

    The drama unfolded rapidly over the weekend. On Saturday, Trump took to Truth Social to announce he had directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to dispatch “all necessary Troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any other ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” Hegseth followed through Sunday with a memo federalizing 200 members of the Oregon National Guard under Title 10 authority, stationing them in Portland for 60 days to shield federal assets where “protests are occurring or likely to occur.” This legal maneuver allows the president to commandeer state Guard units during perceived national emergencies, bypassing local consent—a tactic Trump employed earlier this year in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    Oregon’s response was immediate and unified. Governor Tina Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson—all Democrats—jointly sued the administration in federal court, arguing the deployment violates federal law and is based on a “baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext.” “Oregon communities are stable, and our local officials have been clear: we have the capacity to manage public safety without federal interference,” Rayfield stated. Kotek, who spoke directly with Trump before the order, emphasized at a news conference in Tom McCall Waterfront Park: “Our city is a far cry from the war-ravaged community he has posted on social media. There is no insurrection, there is no threat to national security and there is no need for military troops in our major city.”

    The lawsuit echoes a similar challenge from California in June after Trump’s Los Angeles deployment, which remains unresolved. In that case, a federal judge ruled that while Trump could federalize troops, their activities were constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting military involvement in domestic law enforcement without explicit congressional approval or under the Insurrection Act. Legal experts warn that invoking the Insurrection Act—last used controversially in the civil rights era—could escalate matters further, as it allows broader military intervention in civil unrest. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice noted that such deployments have historically required governor requests or overwhelming crises, conditions not evident in Portland.

    On the ground, federal agents arrived over the weekend, leading to immediate friction. Video from local station KATU-TV captured an ICE officer shoving a protester outside the South Portland ICE facility on Friday, with another demonstrator detained amid confrontations. Protests at the site have persisted for months, largely peaceful but marked by arrests, with federal officials accusing demonstrators of threatening officers. Hundreds gathered Sunday night, chanting in opposition to the troops, as captured in social media footage showing tense standoffs.

    Local reactions are mixed. Some residents, like David Schmidt near the ICE building, expressed frustration with ongoing protests: “Every night, there’s tons of protesters basically being vagrants on the street… They are making noise constantly.” Others, such as Ocean Hosojasso, fear a repeat of 2020’s unrest: “I’m just worried that we’re going to see things blow up like they did in 2020.” Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) advised protesters to avoid direct clashes, suggesting the federal presence aims to provoke conflict. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) decried it as a “gross abuse of power.”

    Business leaders joined the chorus of criticism. Vanessa Sturgeon of the Portland Metro Chamber stated: “Portland is a city on the rise. We are working to tackle our biggest challenges together… and it does not need federal troops.” Social media buzzed with the hashtag #WarRavagedPortland, featuring ironic posts of serene city scenes to counter Trump’s narrative.

    The administration defends the action as essential protection. Senior aide Stephen Miller highlighted summer protests at the ICE facility, while a Department of War spokesperson declined comment on the litigation. Trump’s broader strategy includes similar deployments, like an impending one in Memphis with Tennessee’s GOP governor’s consent. Even some Republicans, like Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), express reservations about troops in cities but acknowledge a federal role in protecting assets.

    As Oregon seeks an emergency injunction, the clash tests the boundaries of presidential power in an increasingly polarized nation. Neighboring officials, including Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell and Washington AG Nick Brown, planned a Monday press conference to address the trend. California AG Rob Bonta voiced solidarity: “The National Guard is not Trump’s personal police force.” With the lawsuit pending, Portland braces for what could become another flashpoint in America’s ongoing debate over federal overreach and local autonomy.

  • NYC Mayoral Race ‘Not for Sale to Trump Donors,’ Mamdani Says

    NYC Mayoral Race ‘Not for Sale to Trump Donors,’ Mamdani Says

    NEW YORK – In a stunning turn of events that could reshape the Big Apple’s political landscape, Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani fired back at what he perceives as interference from President Donald Trump and his wealthy supporters, insisting that the New York City mayoral race remains “not for sale” following incumbent Mayor Eric Adams‘ abrupt withdrawal from the contest.

    Adams, who had been mounting an independent bid since April, released a video on social media Sunday announcing the end of his reelection campaign – just three weeks after defiantly vowing to press on. The move comes amid reports of a meeting earlier this month between Adams and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, sparking speculation about a potential role for the mayor in the Trump administration. While Adams’ spokesperson emphasized that he will serve out his term without any confirmed post-office plans, the decision has ignited a firestorm of reactions from the remaining candidates, highlighting deep divisions in a race already fraught with ideological clashes.

    Mamdani’s Vision for New York City

    Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblyman who clinched the Democratic nomination over the summer with a decisive victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others, wasted no time framing Adams’ exit as part of a broader scheme orchestrated by Trump and his billionaire backers. Appearing on MSNBC Sunday evening, Mamdani declared, “Donald Trump and his billionaire donors may be able to determine the actions of Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo, but they will not dictate the results of this election.” He doubled down on this sentiment in a video posted to social platform X, warning Cuomo: “You got your wish. You wanted Trump and your billionaire friends to help you clear the field. But don’t forget. You wanted me as your opponent in the primary too, and we beat you by 13 points.”

    From a conservative vantage point, Mamdani’s rhetoric smacks of the kind of far-left paranoia that has alienated moderate voters in cities across America. As the youngest and most progressive candidate in the field, Mamdani’s campaign promises to slash living costs in one of the world’s priciest metropolises through aggressive policies that critics argue could stifle economic growth and empower socialist-leaning agendas. His attacks on Trump – a president who has championed deregulation and tax cuts to boost urban economies – seem designed to rally the Democratic base but risk turning off independents and working-class New Yorkers weary of progressive experiments that have led to rising crime and fiscal woes in the past.

    Cuomo, running as an independent centrist, welcomed Adams’ departure as a game-changer that sharpens the race into a clearer ideological showdown. Speaking to reporters outside a campaign event in Queens Sunday night, Cuomo praised Adams’ “selflessness” and warned that a Mamdani victory should terrify New Yorkers. “I believe Mayor Adams is 100% sincere. I applaud his selflessness… He said, ‘I’m going to put my personal ambition aside for the good of the city,’ because he’s afraid of the result if Mr. Mamdani would win the election, and we should all be afraid of the result,” Cuomo said. He dismissed Mamdani’s primary win as irrelevant in the general election, noting, “This is now a much larger election where more New Yorkers will vote. And I am telling you, and I’m out there every day, New Yorkers do not support what Mamdani supports.”

    Cuomo’s comments underscore a pragmatic, results-oriented approach that resonates with right-leaning voters disillusioned by the city’s leftward drift under progressive leadership. Denying any direct conversations with Trump – despite a New York Times report suggesting otherwise – Cuomo positioned himself as the steady hand capable of steering New York away from what he sees as Mamdani’s radicalism. He also brushed off Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa as non-viable, though he expressed interest in speaking with Adams “whenever appropriate.”

    Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder and GOP standard-bearer, has faced his own pressures, revealing last week that unnamed wealthy New Yorkers – possibly Trump donors, though unconfirmed – offered him money to bow out. Undeterred, Sliwa’s spokesperson issued a statement affirming his staying power: “Curtis Sliwa is the only candidate who can defeat Mamdani. Our team, our resources, and our funding are unmatched. Most importantly, we have the best solutions to help working people afford to stay in New York City and feel safe.” Trump’s recent jab at Sliwa as “not exactly prime time” hasn’t helped, but in a fragmented field, Sliwa’s tough-on-crime stance could siphon votes from disaffected Democrats and independents who prioritize public safety over progressive platitudes.

    Polling data adds intrigue to the post-Adams landscape. A Suffolk University City View survey released last week showed Mamdani leading with 45% support, followed by Cuomo at 25%, Sliwa at 9%, and Adams at 8%. With Adams out, his centrist supporters – many of whom overlap with Cuomo’s base – could consolidate behind the former governor, potentially closing the gap. However, Mamdani remains unfazed, telling Eyewitness News that the race hasn’t fundamentally shifted: “It’s a race between us and the failed politics that we’ve seen, whether it’s Andrew Cuomo or Eric Adams… We’re going to show that they can’t dictate the outcome of this race.”

    Mamdani elaborated on Trump’s involvement, suggesting the president’s interest stems from fear of a genuine affordability agenda: “Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do, but the important thing is to understand why he’s so interested. He ran a campaign speaking about cheaper groceries and a lower cost of living. That’s the campaign that we ran. The difference is that he has shown no interest in delivering on that agenda, instead just persecuting his supposed political enemies.”

    Conservatives might counter that Trump’s economic policies have delivered real wins for urban America, from opportunity zones to criminal justice reform, and that his donors’ involvement reflects a healthy interest in preventing New York from sliding further left. Mamdani’s dismissal of such influence as nefarious ignores the reality that big-money politics cuts both ways – progressive billionaires like George Soros have long meddled in local races with far less scrutiny.

    As the November election approaches, Adams’ name will still appear on the ballot, alongside longshot Jim Walden, who suspended his campaign last week and endorsed Cuomo. The mayor’s exit could indeed boost Cuomo, but it also amplifies the stakes in a contest pitting progressive idealism against centrist pragmatism and conservative grit. New Yorkers, battered by high costs and urban challenges, will decide if Mamdani’s vision aligns with their aspirations – or if it’s time to reject the left’s grip on the city that never sleeps.

  • Eric Adams Exits New York City Mayoral Race

    Eric Adams Exits New York City Mayoral Race

    After working for the New York City Police Department for more than two decades. © ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock.com
    After working for the New York City Police Department for more than two decades. © ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock.com

    NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams abruptly suspended his re-election campaign on Sunday, September 28, 2025, just five weeks before Election Day, citing funding woes and relentless media scrutiny that he said had crippled his bid for a second term. The announcement, delivered in a nearly nine-minute video posted to X, marks the end of a tumultuous tenure for the one-term Democrat and could consolidate opposition votes behind former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, potentially tightening the race against Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.

    Adams, who rose from NYPD captain to Brooklyn borough president before winning the mayoralty in 2021 as the city’s second Black mayor, framed his exit as a reluctant necessity. “Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my re-election campaign,” he said, his voice steady but somber against a backdrop of city skyline footage. “The constant media speculation about my future and the campaign finance board’s decision to withhold millions of dollars have undermined my ability to raise the funds needed for a serious campaign.” He acknowledged lingering voter unease from his dismissed federal corruption case, insisting, “I was wrongfully charged because I fought for this city, and if I had to do it again, I would fight for New York again.”

    The mayor’s departure from the race—where he had been polling in the low single digits as an independent—leaves a crowded field led by Mamdani, the 33-year-old state assemblyman and democratic socialist who stunned observers by winning the June Democratic primary. Recent polls show Mamdani commanding 43% to 47% support among likely voters, far ahead of Cuomo’s 23% to 29% and Republican Curtis Sliwa’s 9% to 17%. Adams hovered below 10% in most surveys, a sharp fall from his early-term popularity amid post-COVID recovery efforts.

    Adams did not endorse any candidate, but his remarks carried clear barbs at Mamdani’s progressive platform, warning of “extremism growing in our politics” and “insidious forces [who] use local government to advance divisive agendas with little regard for how it hurts everyday New Yorkers.” He urged voters to choose leaders “not by what they promise, but by what they have delivered,” a nod to his own record of crime reductions and quality-of-life investments. “Major change is welcome and necessary, but beware of those who claim the answer is to destroy the very system we built over generations,” he added. “That is not change, that is chaos.”

    The decision caps a year of speculation fueled by Adams’s scandals, including a September 2024 federal indictment on charges of bribery, wire fraud, and illegal campaign contributions—dismissed in February 2025 at the Trump Justice Department’s urging to enlist the mayor in immigration enforcement. Critics alleged a quid pro quo, with then-interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigning after orders to drop the case. Adams denied any deal but admitted the probe had eroded trust.

    As recently as early September, Adams vowed to stay in, declaring himself “the only one who can beat Mamdani.” He skipped the Democratic primary to run independently, a maneuver that spared him from Mamdani’s upset victory but isolated him further amid liberal backlash over his rapport with President Donald Trump. Trump’s overtures—suggesting Adams and Sliwa exit to boost Cuomo—added to the pressure, though Sliwa has rebuffed calls to withdraw.

    Adams’s exit could reshape the November 4 contest, potentially funneling his supporters—outer-borough Black and Latino Democrats, Orthodox Jews—to Cuomo, the centrist independent who has positioned himself as Mamdani’s chief foil. In head-to-head hypotheticals without Adams and Sliwa, Mamdani’s lead narrows to 48%-44%, per a New York Times/Siena poll, though he still holds a double-digit edge in multi-candidate scenarios. Cuomo, speaking after an unrelated Queens event, called the dropout “a game-changer,” praising Adams’s resilience: “Only in New York can a child raised in a tenement in Bushwick… rise to become mayor.”

    Mamdani, campaigning on affordability in the world’s priciest city, dismissed the shift on X: “Trump and his billionaire donors might be able to determine Adams and Cuomo’s actions. But they won’t decide this election.” Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder, faces internal GOP pressure but insists on staying, despite Trump’s quip that he’s “not exactly prime time.”

    Gov. Kathy Hochul, who endorsed Mamdani, lauded Adams: “He leaves the city better than he inherited it.” Trump, in a Reuters interview, predicted Adams’s votes would flow to Cuomo. Republican Rep. Mike Lawler urged Sliwa’s support to “defeat Zohran Mamdani.”

    Adams pledged to serve out his term, battling COVID fallout, crime surges, the migrant crisis, and economic woes. “This is not the end of my public service,” he said. “I will continue to fight for this city… to make our streets safer and our systems fairer.” He implored his successor to expand his initiatives on policing, mental health, and homelessness.

    With Adams out, the race—New York’s first competitive general election in decades—pivots to a potential Cuomo-Mamdani showdown, testing the city’s appetite for bold progressive change against centrist pragmatism. Polls suggest Mamdani’s enthusiasm edge among younger voters could prove decisive, but Cuomo’s consolidation play keeps the outcome fluid. As one X user quipped amid the frenzy, “Eric Adams was given a choice… dropout, and turn Fed evidence against the NYC crime machine.” Whether that’s hyperbole or harbinger, the Big Apple braces for a bruising finish.

  • Oregon Sues to Halt Trump’s National Guard Deployment

    Oregon Sues to Halt Trump’s National Guard Deployment

    Officials in Oregon have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Portland, adding to the legal battles against President Trump’s use of troops in major cities.

    The state of Oregon and city of Portland filed a joint lawsuit Sunday against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over the deployment of the National Guard to the Beaver State’s biggest city. 

    The lawsuit, filed in federal court, calls the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland “heavy-handed” and unlawful. 

    The president, in a post on his Truth Social platform Saturday morning, directed Hegseth to “provide all necessary Troops” to deploy to Portland. The move stems from protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the city, with Trump claiming the building was “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

    The court filing, though, argued the protests have involved fewer than 30 people in recent weeks and noted no arrests have been made since mid-June. 

    “Defendants’ heavyhanded deployment of troops threatens to escalate tensions and stokes new unrest, meaning more of the Plaintiffs’ law enforcement resources will be spent responding to the predictable consequences of Defendants’ action,” the lawsuit states. 

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D), appearing at a press conference alongside state Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson (D), called the deployment “an abuse of power and a disservice to our communities and our service members,” according to KOIN in Portland.

    Kotek also marched with residents in downtown Portland on Sunday, saying in a post on the social platform X that “we don’t need military intervention here.”

    ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F73%2F04%2F3c4b03f94b328c4243441761be86%2Fgettyimages 2237685150
    People hold signs during a protest on Sunday in Portland, Ore. © Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

    As governor, Kotek controls her state’s National Guard. The lawsuit alleges Trump does not have the authority to seize control of the Oregon National Guard under Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which gives the president the capacity to federalize state national guards if the country is facing an invasion or rebellion or the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the law.”

    The lawsuit also says Trump’s order violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that authority not delegated to the federal government is reserved for states. It also says the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from being used for civilian law enforcement.

    “Defendants have thus infringed on Oregon’s sovereign power to manage its own law enforcement activity and National Guard resource,” the lawsuit says. “Far from promoting public safety, Defendants’ provocative and arbitrary actions threaten to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry.”

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told The Hill that the president’s actions were “lawful” and would “make Portland safer.”

    “President Trump is using his lawful authority to direct the National Guard to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following months of violent riots where officers have been assaulted and doxxed by left-wing rioters,” she said. 

    The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Hill has also reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

  • Xi Demands U.S. Opposition to Taiwan Independence in Talks With Trump

    Xi Demands U.S. Opposition to Taiwan Independence in Talks With Trump

    1x 1
    Xi Jinping, China’s president. © Qilai Shen/Bloomberg

    In a bold and aggressive move that underscores Beijing’s relentless ambition to dominate the Indo-Pacific, Chinese President Xi Jinping is reportedly maneuvering to extract a major concession from President Donald Trump: a formal U.S. declaration opposing Taiwan’s independence. This push, revealed in recent reports, exploits Trump’s focus on securing a robust trade deal with China, potentially at the expense of America’s longstanding commitment to the democratic island nation that stands as a bulwark against communist expansionism.

    Xi, who has made “reunification” with Taiwan a cornerstone of his authoritarian “China Dream” since seizing power in 2012, sees the upcoming high-stakes meetings with Trump as his golden window to erode U.S. support for Taipei. According to sources familiar with the matter, Beijing has urged the Trump administration to shift from the Biden-era phrasing that the U.S. “does not support” Taiwan independence to a stronger stance explicitly “opposing” it – a semantic change with profound implications that could embolden China’s military adventurism and undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty. This would mark a diplomatic triumph for Xi, aligning Washington more closely with Beijing’s narrative that Taiwan is a breakaway province destined for absorption, by force if necessary.

    The Trump administration has yet to decide on this demand, which sits amid a laundry list of Chinese asks under review. But conservatives in Washington are sounding the alarm, warning that any capitulation would signal weakness and betray America’s allies. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton blasted the idea on X, stating, “Recent reports confirm Xi Jinping is going to leverage trade negotiations with Trump to push the U.S. to abandon our position on Taiwan independence. This is exactly what I warned against last week.” Bolton’s concerns echo his earlier criticism of the administration’s decision to withhold over $400 million in military aid to Taiwan this summer amid trade talks, a move that raised eyebrows about prioritizing economic deals over deterring Chinese aggression.

    Trump, known for his art-of-the-deal negotiating style, has so far played his cards close, avoiding explicit commitments to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion to preserve leverage. In August, he revealed that Xi had assured him China would not invade during his presidency, adding cryptically, “China is very patient.” Yet, recent actions – including denying Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te a routine U.S. transit stop and delaying arms deliveries – have fueled speculation that trade priorities might be overshadowing security pledges, prompting unease in both Washington and Taipei.

    53fb6a0711c0ad6da05c36f7ea631fdb

    The U.S. maintains its “One China” policy, acknowledging Beijing’s claims without endorsing them, and emphasizes opposition to any unilateral changes to the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. A State Department spokesperson reiterated to reporters, “We have long stated that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. China presents the single greatest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” This stance was bolstered earlier this year when the department removed Biden-era language explicitly not supporting independence, a tweak praised by Taiwan but met with fury from Beijing.

    Xi’s strategy is clear: capitalize on Trump’s desire for a trade win following the recent TikTok agreement, which kept the app operating in the U.S. under American ownership. The leaders have a slate of engagements lined up, including a face-to-face at next month’s Asia-Pacific economic summit in South Korea, Trump’s potential visit to Beijing in early 2026 – a diplomatic coup for Xi – and Xi’s reciprocal trip to the White House later that year, contingent on progress on trade and fentanyl curbs.

    Experts warn this is classic Chinese Communist Party tactics: incremental gains to erode U.S. resolve. Evan Medeiros, a former U.S. national security official, told reporters, “Driving a wedge between Washington and Taipei is the holy grail of the Taiwan problem for Beijing. It would undermine Taiwan’s confidence and increase Beijing’s leverage over Taipei.” Yun Sun of the Stimson Center added, “No U.S. policy change on Taiwan will happen overnight. But China will push persistently to inch forward – and in the process, undermine Taiwan’s confidence in U.S. commitment.”

    From Taiwan’s vantage point, these developments are alarming but not insurmountable. A senior Taiwanese national security official, speaking anonymously, dismissed Beijing’s ploy: “China’s attempts to exploit political transitions in the US to create a ‘strategic gap’ would not succeed, as they disregard Washington’s established strategic policy on Taiwan.” Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung recently appealed for U.N. recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty, arguing it’s time for the world to “leave no one behind” by embracing Taiwan’s contributions. Taipei remains confident in its U.S. ties, viewing a strong Taiwan as essential to Indo-Pacific stability.

    Meanwhile, China’s military saber-rattling intensifies. Beijing has ramped up war games in the Taiwan Strait, claiming jurisdiction over the 110-mile waterway. Leaked documents reveal Moscow is aiding Xi’s preparations, agreeing to train Chinese paratroopers and supply vehicles for a potential aerial assault, with Western intelligence estimating Beijing could be invasion-ready by 2027. Chinese Embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu stonewalled inquiries, reiterating, “China firmly opposes any form of official exchanges or military ties” between the U.S. and Taiwan.

    Right-leaning voices argue this is no time for concessions. Trump, who championed America First policies, should stand firm against Xi’s coercion, prioritizing deterrence over deals that could embolden a regime hell-bent on regional hegemony. As Bolton warned, trading away Taiwan’s security for short-term economic gains risks long-term catastrophe, echoing the appeasement pitfalls of the past. With global stocks rising amid bets on U.S. rate cuts, the real stakes are geopolitical: Will America hold the line against communist aggression, or blink in the face of Beijing’s bluster?

  • Judges Reject Trump Request to Dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Cook

    Judges Reject Trump Request to Dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Cook

    MA6YO6AZENKHJF3MUUWLDVU2U4
    Dr. Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, nominated to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, speaks before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 3, 2022. © REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/Pool/File Photo

    WASHINGTON — In a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the Federal Reserve, a federal appeals court on Monday night rejected the administration’s emergency bid to remove Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s Board of Governors, upholding a lower court’s temporary block on her termination. The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ensures that Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, can participate in this week’s crucial Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, where policymakers are widely expected to vote on a quarter-point cut to the federal funds rate amid signs of a cooling labor market.

    The ruling comes at a pivotal moment for the U.S. economy, as the Fed grapples with inflation pressures exacerbated by Trump’s tariff policies and a weakening job market. Cook, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022 and reappointed in 2023 for a term extending to January 2038, launched her legal challenge on August 28 after Trump fired her on August 25. The dismissal was based on allegations from Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte that Cook made false claims on mortgage applications in 2021—prior to her Senate confirmation—potentially securing more favorable loan terms by misrepresenting properties in Michigan, Georgia, and Massachusetts as primary residences.

    U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb had granted Cook’s request for a preliminary injunction on September 9, finding that the removal likely violated the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” provision and her Fifth Amendment due process rights. Cobb noted that the allegations, which predate Cook’s tenure, did not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal, describing them as raising “many serious questions of first impression.” Documents reviewed by Reuters indicate that Cook declared a Georgia property as a vacation home, not a primary residence, undercutting Pulte’s claims, while Michigan property tax authorities confirmed no rules were broken on a home she listed as primary.

    The Trump administration swiftly appealed, arguing in briefs that the president has broad discretion to remove Fed governors for cause, including pre-office conduct that reflects a “lack of care in financial matters” inconsistent with public trust. Lawyers for the White House contended that courts should not second-guess such decisions, warning that blocking the removal would “diminish” the Fed’s integrity. They sought an emergency stay to oust Cook before the FOMC’s two-day meeting starting Tuesday, emphasizing the need to ensure governors are “competent and capable of projecting confidence into markets.”

    Cook’s legal team fired back in a Saturday filing, urging the appeals court to deny the stay and highlighting the broader implications for Fed independence. “A stay by this court would therefore be the first signal from the courts that our system of government is no longer able to guarantee the independence of the Federal Reserve,” her attorneys argued, warning that it could allow the president to fire board members on “flimsy pretexts,” ending the era of central bank autonomy and risking dire economic consequences. They stressed that the government provided no meaningful notice or opportunity for Cook to respond to the allegations, a point the appeals court majority echoed in its order.

    In the majority opinion, joined by Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs—both Biden appointees—Circuit Judge Bradley N. Garcia wrote that Cook’s due process claim is “very likely meritorious,” as the administration “does not dispute that it provided Cook no meaningful notice or opportunity to respond.” The judges reasoned that granting the stay would “upend, not preserve,” the status quo, given Cook’s continuous service, and that her strong likelihood of success on the merits warranted denial. Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the “equitable balance” favored the government due to the heightened interest in ensuring Fed competence.

    White House spokesman Kush Desai responded defiantly Tuesday morning, stating to Barron’s that “The President lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause. The Administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.” The administration has until hours before the FOMC meeting to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, a path it has signaled it will pursue. This marks the first attempted “for cause” removal of a Fed governor in the central bank’s 111-year history, testing long-standing protections against political interference enshrined in the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which shields governors from at-will dismissal but does not define “for cause” or removal procedures.

    The case underscores Trump’s aggressive push to influence monetary policy, including public berating of Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting rates aggressively enough despite inflation concerns. The Fed has held rates steady since late 2024 but signaled a potential cut last month amid hiring weakness; economists now anticipate a reduction to about 4.1%, which could lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and businesses over time. Cook’s lawyers noted she has continued her duties during the litigation, and the Fed itself has remained neutral, requesting a swift resolution and pledging to abide by court orders.

    Complicating matters, the Senate narrowly confirmed Trump’s nominee Stephen Miran—current chair of the Council of Economic Advisers—to a vacated Fed board seat on Monday night in a 48-47 party-line vote, meaning he will also join this week’s meeting. Miran’s addition could tilt the board toward Trump’s preferences, but Cook’s retention preserves a Biden-era voice in deliberations.

    Beyond the immediate rate decision, the dispute has ramifications for the Fed’s independence, seen as essential for controlling inflation and stabilizing markets. The Supreme Court, in a May ruling on other agency removals, distinguished the Fed as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with singular historical traditions, potentially bolstering Cook’s position. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook, issuing grand jury subpoenas in Georgia and Michigan, though no charges have been filed and Cook denies wrongdoing, calling the allegations a pretext for her policy stances.

    As the legal battle escalates, markets await the FOMC’s outcome, with investors eyeing how this high-stakes clash might influence the central bank’s credibility and the broader economy under Trump’s second term.

  • President Trump sues The New York Times for $15 billion

    President Trump sues The New York Times for $15 billion

    H7CPQZC62JICLEFBR37QGKM5XU
    U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 15, 2025. © REUTERS/Jonathan

    In a bold move that’s got the liberal media establishment shaking in their boots, President Donald Trump unleashed a staggering $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and publisher Penguin Random House on September 15, 2025, calling out years of what he describes as vicious, fabricated attacks designed to derail his America First agenda and sabotage the 2024 election.

    This isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a full-frontal assault on the fake news machine that’s spent decades smearing Trump, his family, his businesses, and the patriotic movements like MAGA that have reshaped American politics. And despite a Florida judge’s temporary dismissal on technical grounds last Friday, Trump is already declaring victory, vowing to refile and hold these biased outlets accountable once and for all.

    The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida, zeroes in on three hit-piece articles from the Times—including a pre-election editorial branding Trump “unfit for office”—and the 2024 smear-job book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, cooked up by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig and peddled by Penguin. Trump’s lawyers argue these publications are riddled with “repugnant distortions and fabrications,” maliciously aimed at tanking his reputation and inflicting billions in damage to his brand and future earnings.

    In a fiery Truth Social post, Trump blasted the Times as “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country,” accusing it of becoming a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party” and labeling their Kamala Harris endorsement as “the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER.”

    Make no mistake: This lawsuit exposes the deep-seated hatred the elite media harbors for Trump and everything he stands for. The complaint lays out how the Times operated with “actual malice,” knowingly pushing lies because their reporters couldn’t stand the sight of a successful businessman-turned-president who puts America first. It’s no secret the Times has been gunning for Trump since day one, and this book—masquerading as journalism—is just the latest in a long line of partisan hacks.As detailed in the filing, Lucky Loser peddles tired tropes about Trump’s inheritance and success, ignoring his undeniable track record of building empires and winning elections against all odds.

    CPJLTZJFBVPB3H6FM3K4U35W5M
    People walk by The New York Times building in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., September 16, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and book publisher Penguin Random House. © REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

    But the deep state sympathizers in the judiciary tried to throw a wrench in the works. On September 19, Judge Steven Merryday—a Bush-era appointee—tossed the 85-page complaint, calling it “decidedly improper and impermissible” for including too much “vituperation and invective” and self-praise for Trump’s accomplishments. Merryday griped that lawsuits aren’t “a megaphone for public relations” or a “podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” but let’s be real: Trump’s filing was a necessary takedown of the media’s lies, and the judge’s nitpicking on length smells like another attempt to protect the establishment press. Still, in a huge win for Trump, Merryday greenlit a refiling within 28 days, limited to 40 pages—plenty of room to sharpen the knife and go after these defamers again.

    Trump, ever the fighter, brushed off the dismissal like the minor speed bump it is. During an Oval Office event, when ABC’s Jonathan Karl tried to gloat over the ruling, Trump shot back: “I’m winning, I’m winning the cases.” He then turned the tables, slamming ABC as a “terrible network” and Karl as “guilty” of unfair reporting. And he’s right—Trump’s racking up victories left and right. Just look at his July $10 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal over bogus Epstein smears, or the fat settlements he extracted from CBS ($16 million for deceptively editing a Kamala Harris interview) and ABC ($15 million over George Stephanopoulos’ false rape claims tied to E. Jean Carroll). These aren’t flukes; they’re proof that when Trump fights back, the fake news folds.

    The Times, predictably, whined that the suit is “an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting,” while Penguin called it “meritless.” But “independent“? Give us a break. This is the same rag that’s been a Democrat cheerleader for years, pushing hoaxes from Russia collusion to COVID fearmongering. A Pew survey earlier this year showed Republicans overwhelmingly agree the media’s been too critical of Trump, while Dems think he’s too hard on them—classic liberal bias.

    As of September 24, 2025, Trump’s team is gearing up to refile, with a spokesman affirming: “President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit.” On X, supporters are rallying, with posts slamming the Times as a “mouthpiece” and cheering Trump’s stand against media tyranny. This fight isn’t just about one man—it’s about restoring truth in journalism and protecting conservative voices from the left’s smear machine. Trump’s not backing down, and neither should we. MAGA forever.