Imagine a room full of eager conservative influencers, clutching binders labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1,” only to find recycled drivel inside.
This debacle, centered on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s mishandled release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents in February 2025, has sparked internal friction within the Trump administration and frustration among the president’s loyal base.
Let’s rewind to the buildup: Bondi hyped the impending release on Fox News, teasing major revelations about Epstein’s notorious activities with a dramatic flair.
On Feb. 27, 2025, at a White House event, influencers like Liz Wheeler and Rogan O’Handley (aka DC Draino) were handed these binders, expecting bombshells.
Instead, they got old contact lists with redacted addresses—hardly the earth-shattering disclosures promised to expose elite misconduct tied to Epstein, who died in custody in 2019.
The backlash was swift, as Trump’s supporters, hungry for transparency after years of promises, felt duped by what amounted to a paperweight of nothingness.
Enter White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who didn’t mince words in a Vanity Fair interview published on a recent Tuesday, critiquing Bondi’s grasp of the issue’s weight.
“I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Wiles said, pointing to Bondi’s failure to deliver for Trump’s core fans.
Her jab about “binders full of nothingness” stings with truth—why hype something so critical only to serve up stale crumbs?
Adding to the tension, a Justice Department memo from earlier in the summer revealed no incriminating “client list” exists, nor evidence to pursue uncharged parties.
Yet, with Trump signing the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, mandating the DOJ to release most remaining records within 30 days, the clock is ticking.
Behind the scenes, dozens of FBI agents in New York are sifting through files, though some skeptics murmur about efforts to shield certain names—a claim lacking hard proof.
Trump himself isn’t untouched by the Epstein saga, with his name appearing in records as a social acquaintance from the 1990s, though never linked to wrongdoing.
He’s openly admitted to flying on Epstein’s plane, as passenger manifests show, but a falling out ended their association long before the scandal’s full scope emerged.
“He’s in the file. And we know he’s in the file. And he’s not in the file doing anything awful,” Wiles noted, dispelling any shadow of impropriety with a blunt defense.
Curiously, in July 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in Florida, who’s serving 20 years for sex trafficking.
Maxwell’s subsequent transfer to a less restrictive Texas facility, without consulting Wiles or Trump, raised eyebrows and reportedly irked the president.
Meanwhile, Bondi took to X to defend Wiles, stressing unity with, “Any attempt to divide this administration will fail. We are family.” Nice sentiment, but the Epstein file flop still smarts for many who expected more.
Imagine the FBI storming a former president’s home, guns drawn, over documents they weren’t even sure warranted a raid. That’s the unsettling picture painted by newly declassified emails obtained by Fox News Digital, revealing internal doubts within the FBI about the August 2022 search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. It’s a story of bureaucratic overreach that raises serious questions about political influence in law enforcement.
This saga centers on a raid targeting Trump’s alleged retention of classified records post-presidency, where FBI hesitations were steamrolled by pressure from the Biden Justice Department, pushing forward a search many agents deemed questionable.
Months before the raid, FBI officials were already uneasy. Emails show the Washington Field Office fretting over a lack of solid evidence, with concerns that their information relied on a single, uncorroborated source that might be outdated.
One FBI official candidly admitted, “Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents,” as reported in an email to Anthony Riedlinger. If the evidence was this thin, why push forward? It smells like a fishing expedition rather than a pursuit of justice.
Alternatives were on the table, too. The FBI suggested a simple chat with Trump’s attorney to secure any sensitive materials, arguing that even if documents were declassified, they deserved protection. Yet, this reasonable path was ignored.
Instead, the Justice Department doubled down. Despite FBI reservations, DOJ officials insisted they had enough for probable cause, demanding a broad search of Trump’s residence, office, and storage areas. It’s hard not to see this as a power play, not a measured investigation.
By August 4, 2022, plans for the raid were locked in, with emails detailing the execution strategy. The FBI wanted a low-key operation, mindful of the optics, but their hands were tied by the DOJ’s aggressive stance.
One agent vented frustration in an email, stating, “We haven’t generated any new facts, but keep being given draft after draft after draft.” If no new evidence was emerging, why the relentless push? It’s a question that lingers like a bad aftertaste.
The raid itself was a spectacle. FBI agents seized boxes of documents, some potentially covered by attorney-client or executive privilege, sparking legal battles over their handling. Trump’s attorneys, barred from the searched rooms, were left to question the fairness of the process.
Adding fuel to the fire, Fox News Digital later uncovered that the Biden administration greenlit the potential use of deadly force during the operation. Agents arrived with standard weapons, ammo, handcuffs, and bolt cutters, though they were told to keep gear concealed under unmarked shirts. This level of preparedness for a document search feels like overkill, pun intended.
The raid’s fallout was immense. Trump faced 37 felony counts from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe, including charges of willful retention of national defense information and obstruction, plus three more in a later indictment—all of which he denied.
Yet, the FBI’s own “Operations Order” focused on seizing classified materials and government records as outlined in the warrant. A “Policy Statement” even noted that deadly force could be used if necessary. Does this sound like a proportionate response to paperwork disputes?
Critics might argue the DOJ was just doing its job, ensuring national security. But when internal FBI emails reveal such hesitation and suggest less invasive options, it’s tough to swallow that this was purely about protecting secrets. It looks more like a political statement.
The Mar-a-Lago raid isn’t just a legal footnote; it’s a glaring example of how federal power can be wielded with little regard for restraint or optics. If even the FBI doubted their grounds, shouldn’t that have been a red flag for the DOJ? This isn’t about woke agendas—it’s about basic fairness and accountability in government action.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio just dropped a bombshell that could reshape the Republican future.
In a stunning move, Rubio has declared he won’t challenge Vice President JD Vance for the GOP presidential nomination if Vance throws his hat in the ring after President Trump’s term ends.
This revelation came during a Vanity Fair profile featuring White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, where Rubio, the 54-year-old former Florida senator, made his intentions crystal clear.
“If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him,” Rubio told interviewer Chris Whipple, an expert on White House dynamics and author of a notable book on chiefs of staff.
That’s a bold pledge from a man once seen as a fierce critic of Trump, now aligning himself with the MAGA torchbearer in Vance, age 41. It’s a signal to conservatives that unity, not infighting, is the path forward against the progressive agenda.
Meanwhile, President Trump, at 79, has been playing matchmaker, suggesting earlier this year during a trip in Asia that Rubio and Vance could form an unbeatable duo, though he didn’t specify who’d take the top spot.
Trump has also toyed with the idea of sidestepping the Constitution’s two-term limit under the 22nd Amendment, though he’s admitted it’s likely a nonstarter. Wiles, hailing from Florida like Rubio, assured Whipple that Trump isn’t seriously planning to defy the law.
“But he sure is having fun with it,” Wiles quipped to Whipple, capturing Trump’s knack for keeping everyone guessing. Let’s be honest—Trump’s playful musings are a masterclass in keeping the left off balance, even if the Constitution remains the final word.
Back to the main players, Rubio and Vance are widely seen as the top contenders to carry the Republican banner once Trump’s tenure concludes. Their potential partnership could be a powerhouse for those of us tired of woke overreach.
During a photo shoot for the same Vanity Fair piece, Vance reportedly cracked jokes about the 2028 buzz, showing he’s not sweating the speculation just yet. That kind of levity is refreshing in a political landscape often choked by sanctimonious posturing from the other side.
However, not everyone was thrilled with the magazine’s coverage—Wiles later expressed regret for participating, taking to X to blast the article as a skewed attack on her and the administration. Her frustration is understandable; conservative voices often get twisted by outlets pushing a different worldview.
Still, the focus remains on Rubio’s decision to step aside if Vance runs, a move that could solidify the GOP’s next generation of leadership. It’s a selfless act in an era where personal ambition often trumps party loyalty.
For conservatives, this signals a potential end to the internal squabbles that have sometimes weakened our resolve against big-government overreach. Rubio’s choice prioritizes a unified front, something we desperately need.
As the Republican base looks ahead, the prospect of Vance leading with Rubio’s support offers hope for a ticket that champions America-first policies without the baggage of endless culture-war distractions. It’s a pragmatic pairing that could resonate with voters craving stability over progressive experiments.
Two monumental decisions loom on the horizon that could reshape America’s economic landscape.
In January 2026, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flagged a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump’s tariff policies alongside the much-anticipated selection of a new Federal Reserve chair.
Let’s rewind to April 2025, when Trump unveiled his bold "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs, a move designed to level the playing field for American businesses. These tariffs, taxes slapped on imported goods at the border, often trickle down to consumers through pricier products. It’s a tough pill, but many see it as a necessary stand against unfair trade practices.
The numbers don’t lie—tariff revenue has soared, with the Treasury Department reporting a staggering $215.2 billion collected in fiscal year 2025, ending September 30. Since October 1, another $71 billion has rolled in for the new fiscal year. That’s serious cash, though critics argue it’s everyday Americans footing the bill.
Now, the Supreme Court is stepping into the fray with two cases—Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. O.S. Selections Inc.—brought by an educational-toy maker and a family-owned wine and spirits importer. These challengers question whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the president the right to impose such tariffs or if it oversteps constitutional boundaries. It’s a legal showdown with massive implications.
Bessent didn’t mince words on this, stating, "Economic security is national security." He told Maria Bartiromo that a ruling against the administration would be a blow to national defense itself. Well, if economic strength is indeed our shield, shouldn’t we prioritize policies that bolster it over progressive hand-wringing about costs?
This isn’t just about dollars and cents; it’s about whether America can protect its interests without judicial overreach. A ruling against Trump’s tariffs could signal to global competitors that our hands are tied. That’s a dangerous precedent in a world where economic warfare is as real as any battlefield.
Switching gears, Bessent also highlighted the ongoing search for a new Federal Reserve chair, with Trump personally interviewing candidates. The current chair, Jerome Powell, nominated by Trump in 2017, wraps up his term in May 2026, paving the way for fresh leadership. This isn’t just a job—it’s the helm of U.S. monetary policy.
Trump’s shortlist includes Kevin Hassett, his top economic advisor, and Kevin Warsh, a former Morgan Stanley banker and Federal Reserve Board member. Bessent, who’s known both for over two decades, described Trump as "very deliberate" and "very direct" in this process. Sounds like the president isn’t messing around when it comes to steering the economy.
Speaking of the selection, Bessent revealed, "We had an interview last week. We may have one or two more interviews this week and next week." That’s a tight timeline, but it shows the urgency of locking in a leader who can navigate these turbulent economic waters.
Whoever lands the Fed chair role will inherit a nation grappling with tariff fallout and inflation concerns. Will it be Hassett with his insider perspective, or Warsh with his Wall Street and Fed experience? Either way, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Let’s be real—while some on the left might cry foul over tariffs as regressive taxes, they often ignore how foreign trade imbalances have hollowed out American industries. Protecting our economic sovereignty isn’t just pragmatic; it’s patriotic. But the balance must be struck carefully to avoid overburdening consumers.
As for the Fed, a chair aligned with Trump’s vision could prioritize growth over the bureaucratic caution we’ve seen too often. Yet, there’s a fine line between bold moves and reckless ones—something both candidates will need to navigate.
January 2026 is shaping up to be a defining moment for America’s economic path. Between the Supreme Court’s tariff verdict and the Fed chair announcement, we’re staring down decisions that could either fortify our nation or leave us vulnerable to global headwinds.
So, keep your eyes peeled—these aren’t just policy updates; they’re battles for America’s future. If we want to keep the progressive agenda from derailing hard-fought gains, supporting strong economic defenses is non-negotiable. But let’s hope the burden doesn’t fall too heavily on the average Joe at the checkout line.
Is the Department of Homeland Security caught in a political crossfire, or is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) spinning a tale for the cameras?
Reports surfaced recently when Omar claimed her U.S.-born son was stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents after a routine Target run, only for DHS to fire back with a sharp denial, labeling the accusation a publicity maneuver, The Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to the weekend when this drama unfolded. During an interview with local station WCCO, Omar recounted how her son was allegedly pulled over by ICE agents on a Saturday after a shopping stop. She insisted he was released only after showing his passport, a document he carries out of fear of being targeted.
According to Omar, this incident reeks of racial profiling, a charge that’s become a lightning rod in debates over immigration enforcement. Her spokesperson doubled down, painting ICE as an agency out of control and prone to questionable tactics.
“The congresswoman’s son and others were pulled over by ICE, racially profiled, and forced to prove their citizenship with a passport,” Omar’s spokesperson declared. That’s a heavy accusation, but where’s the hard proof? Without corroborating evidence, it’s tough to take this at face value when balanced against official records.
On the flip side, DHS didn’t mince words when responding on Tuesday. They flatly denied any encounter with Omar’s son, stating there’s “absolutely ZERO record” of such a stop. It’s a bold counterpunch, suggesting the whole story might be more fiction than fact.
“[ICE] has absolutely ZERO record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son,” DHS posted on X, pulling no punches. They went further, calling the claims a “PR stunt” designed to tarnish the agency’s reputation. If true, that’s a low blow in a climate already thick with distrust of federal enforcement.
DHS also tackled the profiling narrative head-on, labeling such accusations as “disgusting, reckless and categorically FALSE.” That’s a strong stance, but it raises questions about public trust in an agency often under scrutiny for its methods.
Meanwhile, Omar’s camp isn’t backing down. Her spokesperson accused ICE of being a “rogue agency beyond reform,” hinting at deeper systemic issues. It’s a fiery retort, but without concrete evidence of this specific incident, it feels more like rhetoric than resolution.
Adding fuel to this fire are recent comments from President Trump about Minnesota’s Somali community. His assertion that “hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over” the state has stirred controversy, especially given the Minnesota Daily’s report that most Somalis there are citizens or permanent residents.
Trump’s blunt language, including calling Omar “garbage” during a Cabinet meeting, only deepens the divide. It’s a stark reminder of how immigration debates often turn personal, overshadowing policy discussions with raw emotion.
Let’s not forget the underlying issue: ICE’s role in communities where citizenship status can be a flashpoint. While Omar’s story, if true, would be concerning, the lack of documentation makes it a he-said-she-said battle. Conservatives might argue this is another attempt to paint enforcement as inherently biased, a narrative that often ignores the complexities of border security.
From a right-of-center lens, it’s hard not to see this as a potential overreach by Omar to score political points. Pushing divisive claims without solid evidence risks undermining legitimate grievances about immigration policy. Still, empathy is due—if her son felt targeted, that fear deserves a hearing, even if the facts don’t align.
What’s clear is that trust between public figures and federal agencies is at a low ebb. Both sides have dug in, with DHS defending its integrity and Omar’s team alleging misconduct. The truth likely lies in the messy middle, but without records or witnesses, it’s a puzzle missing key pieces.
Ultimately, this spat highlights a broader struggle over how immigration enforcement is perceived and executed. While conservatives champion law and order, there’s room to question whether agencies like ICE always operate with transparency. Until both sides prioritize facts over flair, expect more of these headline-grabbing showdowns.
Buckle up, folks—America’s energy engine just hit overdrive, with Texas steering the wheel. In November, the U.S. oil and gas industry smashed production records, proving once again that domestic energy isn’t just a resource; it’s a powerhouse of resilience.
From crude oil peaking at an unprecedented 5.9 million barrels per day to natural gas exports soaring, the numbers tell a story of innovation and grit, largely fueled by Texas’ Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale, Just The News reported.
Let’s start with the headline stat: U.S. crude oil output reached an all-time high of 5.9 million barrels daily, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). That’s not just a number; it’s a signal that America can meet its own needs without bowing to foreign whims.
Texas alone accounts for over 42% of domestic crude and nearly 30% of marketed natural gas, cementing its role as the nation’s energy backbone. The Permian Basin, sprawling over 86,000 square miles across Texas and New Mexico, churns out half of U.S. crude and a fifth of natural gas. If that’s not a flex, what is?
Productivity in the Permian Basin jumped 14.1% year over year in October, while Eagle Ford wasn’t far behind with an 8.7% rise. Even with 20.4% fewer rigs operating, Texas boosted combined oil and gas output by 5.8% through November. Efficiency like that slaps down any narrative of decline.
“Even with fewer rigs operating this year, productivity gains in regions like the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale show the efficiency and innovation of Texas producers,” the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) declared in a recent report. Innovation, not ideology, is what’s keeping American energy on top—sorry, green dreamers, but facts don’t care about feelings.
Globally, oil demand is revving up, with the EIA revising estimates twice this quarter, including a hefty 500,000 barrels per day bump for 2024. They now project demand will climb by nearly 1 million barrels daily through 2026. Texas is poised to meet that hunger, no question.
On the natural gas front, U.S. exports are surging, with net exports up 42% year over year in November, per EIA data. America’s on track to overtake Russia as the world’s top natural gas exporter, and Texas is paving the way with pipeline projects exceeding 20 billion cubic feet per day underway.
“Natural gas is entering a new era, and Texas is leading it,” said R. Dean Foreman, Ph.D., chief economist at TXOGA. While progressive agendas push untested energy fads, Texas is building infrastructure for real, reliable power—now that’s leadership.
Liquified natural gas (LNG) exports are another feather in America’s cap, bolstered by long-term procurement strategies that dodge volatile spot-market prices. Texas energy exports are expected to top $220 billion this year, a lifeline for allies abroad and stability at home.
Pipeline construction in Texas is ramping up to meet future LNG demand, with over 25 billion cubic feet per day of projects announced. This isn’t just growth; it’s a strategic move to ensure America’s energy dominance while others dither on policy.
Even as global supply is projected to rise by 2.8 million barrels per day in 2025 and 1.3 million in 2026, mostly from non-OPEC sources, the EIA predicts U.S. growth will slow to 0.2 million barrels daily by 2026. Some experts, however, call this overly cautious, and given Texas’ track record, it’s hard not to side with the optimists.
In a year plagued by inflation pressures, Texas energy has been a quiet hero, delivering affordability and reliability to U.S. households and global consumers. While some push costly, unproven alternatives, Texas keeps the lights on without breaking the bank.
Permian Basin associated gas isn’t expected to drop off sharply despite market shifts, further solidifying supply resilience. That’s the kind of dependability that cuts through the noise of trendy energy policies.
At the end of the day, Texas isn’t just producing oil and gas; it’s producing stability in a world desperate for it. While others debate, Texas drills—and America reaps the benefits. Let’s hope policymakers take note before chasing the next shiny distraction.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Elon Musk is diving headfirst into the Republican ring with a hefty checkbook for the 2026 midterms.
In a striking pivot, Musk is bankrolling House and Senate Republican campaigns, mending fences with President Donald Trump after a messy public spat earlier this year, and signaling a full-throttle commitment to GOP causes with plans for more donations down the line, Breitbart reported.
This saga kicked off with a rough patch in May when Musk walked away from his role in the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, a move that seemed to widen the rift with Trump.
By June, the tension boiled over into a very public fallout, with Musk and Trump seemingly at odds over core political visions.
Undeterred, Musk flirted with launching a third-party effort earlier in 2025, a venture that raised eyebrows among traditional conservative circles.
Yet, as summer turned to fall, whispers of reconciliation began, especially after Musk reportedly dined with Vice President JD Vance, hinting at a shift back toward GOP allegiance.
The turning point came in late September when Musk and Trump appeared side by side at a memorial for Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who tragically lost his life to assassination on September 10.
At the event, both the White House and Musk shared a poignant photo on X, captioned “For Charlie,” symbolizing a united front in honor of a fallen conservative voice.
Kirk himself had hoped for such a reunion, saying back in July, “I think Elon and Trump will reconcile,” a prediction that now seems eerily prophetic (Turning Point USA).
Kirk’s earlier words carry weight, as he noted, “It might seem as if this is irreconcilable, but President Trump has a rather dramatic and telling track record of being able to reconcile and work with people that were otherwise considered to be sworn enemies of MAGA” (Turning Point USA).
His optimism about political feuds cooling off appears to have played out, with sources now confirming that Musk and Trump occasionally speak, a far cry from the icy silence of mid-year.
While some might scoff at such on-again, off-again alliances, it’s hard to deny that politics often thrives on pragmatic handshakes rather than permanent grudges.
Now, Musk is carving out a fresh identity as a major Republican donor, funneling significant funds into campaigns and super PACs with the aim of securing congressional seats in 2026, per sources cited by Axios.
Though exact figures won’t surface until next month’s campaign finance reports, insiders suggest Musk’s contributions are substantial, with more planned throughout the election cycle—a clear sign he’s not just testing the waters but diving in deep.
Perhaps Musk has realized that fighting the progressive agenda requires aligning with a team that, while imperfect, shares a distaste for overreaching government and cultural overreach; it’s a calculated play, and one that could reshape the GOP’s financial firepower.
Well, folks, it looks like Ford Motor Co. just slammed the brakes on its electric vehicle (EV) dreams with a jaw-dropping $19.5 billion write-down.
Ford announced on Monday a strategic pivot away from its struggling EV division, racking up a historic impairment charge and refocusing on gas-powered vehicles, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids to stem the bleeding, Breitbart reported.
This isn’t just a minor detour; it’s the biggest financial hit ever taken by a Detroit automaker, reflecting a staggering $13 billion in losses for Ford’s EV segment since 2023.
Let’s be real—Ford’s all-in bet on EVs hasn’t panned out, and the company is now scrambling to redirect capital to more profitable ventures like traditional engines and hybrid options.
The decision to halt production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck—a flagship in their EV lineup—speaks volumes about the disconnect between corporate green agendas and what everyday Americans actually want.
Instead, Ford is doubling down on an extended-range version of the F-150, hoping to bridge the gap for consumers who find pure EVs too impractical or pricey.
Currently, only 17% of Ford’s global vehicle volume comes from hybrids, extended-range models, and EVs, a clear sign that the market isn’t ready to ditch gas anytime soon.
Yet, Ford projects that by 2030, roughly half of its global sales will shift to these reduced-emission options, a cautious nod to environmental concerns without ignoring consumer hesitancy.
This pivot isn’t just about numbers; it’s an admission that hybrids and plug-in models are more affordable and realistic for folks who can’t—or won’t—shell out for a full EV.
Ford CEO Jim Farley, once a vocal cheerleader for EVs, is now singing a different tune, citing the need to stop throwing money at unprofitable electric projects.
“Instead of plowing billions into the future knowing these large EVs will never make money, we are pivoting,” Farley said, per Ford’s official statement, signaling a pragmatic retreat from EV idealism.
Call it a reality check—his words reveal a hard truth that the U.S. market isn’t bowing to the progressive push for an all-electric future, and Ford can’t afford to ignore that.
Farley also touted EV manufacturing simplicity as a cost-saver, saying, “Half the fixtures, half the work stations, half the welds, 20% less fasteners,” according to Ford’s release.
While that sounds slick on paper, it’s tough to buy the hype when the balance sheet shows billions in red ink—simpler doesn’t mean successful if buyers aren’t biting.
As Ford commits to a $30,000 EV pickup by 2027 to anchor a low-cost lineup and slashes distribution and advertising costs to stay competitive, one can’t help but wonder if this is too little, too late for a company burned by overzealous green ambitions.
In a decision that’s got the cannabis industry buzzing louder than a beehive, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, December 16, 2025, declined to take up a challenge to federal marijuana laws brought by four licensed companies.
This ruling, or lack thereof, leaves the $32 billion legal marijuana industry looking to the Trump White House for potential reform, especially on the hot-button issue of rescheduling cannabis.
Let’s rewind a bit to October 2023, when Verano Holding Corp. first took on the Justice Department with a lawsuit, setting the stage for this legal showdown.
Joined by Canna Provisions, a Massachusetts retailer, Gyasi Sellers of Treevit delivery service, and Wiseacre Farm, a cultivator, these companies aimed to challenge federal marijuana laws before the Supreme Court for the first time since 2005.
They argued that with over two dozen states now allowing adult-use marijuana, the old 2005 Gonzales vs. Raich ruling is as outdated as a flip phone, claiming the factual ground has shifted beneath it.
But both a lower federal court in Massachusetts and an appellate court swatted down their constitutional arguments, leaving them to pin their hopes on the highest court in the land.
On December 12, 2025, the justices huddled behind closed doors to mull over the petition in the case titled Canna Provisions et al v. Bondi, only to ultimately pass on hearing it four days later.
The companies threw everything at the wall, citing a 2021 comment from Justice Clarence Thomas hinting that federal marijuana law might not be “necessary or proper” in today’s context.
They even claimed the Constitution itself grants them a historic right to grow and sell marijuana, while alleging the Controlled Substances Act stomps on their Fifth Amendment due process protections.
Josh Schiller, a partner at Boies Schiller and an attorney for the plaintiffs, previously told MJBizDaily the case was an attempt to “shake the box a little bit” after federal reform stalled in Congress and beyond.
Well, if shaking the box means getting a cold shoulder from the Supreme Court, mission accomplished—but it’s hard to see this as anything but a missed opportunity to address a patchwork of laws that’s confusing at best and oppressive at worst.
Instead of tackling the progressive push to normalize what many still see as a gateway drug, the court’s silence leaves hardworking business owners in limbo, caught between state freedoms and federal overreach.
This legal dead end came just months after the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort, where health regulators admitted cannabis has accepted medical uses, prompting a Justice Department proposal to downgrade it to Schedule 3—a move that fizzled out before Trump’s inauguration.
Now, all eyes turn to the Trump White House, which is reportedly mulling over directives to reschedule marijuana and even cover certain CBD treatments under Medicare, though a much-anticipated executive order failed to drop on December 16, 2025.
Insiders familiar with Oval Office talks involving cannabis industry leaders, lawmakers, and Cabinet officials suggest an announcement might come as early as Wednesday, December 18, 2025—here’s hoping it’s more than just smoke and mirrors for an industry desperate for clarity.
Imagine the head of the FBI trumpeting a big win, only to have it crumble like a house of cards within hours.
That’s the situation facing FBI Director Kash Patel after a high-profile blunder in the tragic Brown University shootings in Rhode Island, where two lives were lost, and nine others were injured over the weekend.
Let’s rewind to the start of this mess. A horrific shooting rocked Brown University, leaving the campus in mourning with two fatalities and nine wounded in a senseless act of violence.
Enter FBI Director Kash Patel, who took to the social media platform X to announce the capture of a person of interest. He proudly detailed how the FBI, using cutting-edge geolocation tech, nabbed the individual at a hotel in Coventry, R.I. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch.
Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez confirmed that the FBI acted on a tip to locate this person. It seemed, for a fleeting moment, that justice might be near for the victims and their families.
But then, the plot twisted faster than a progressive policy flip-flop. On Sunday, authorities released the person of interest after finding no evidence tying them to the crime.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha stepped in to clarify the situation, stating the case “now points to a different direction.” That’s a polite way of saying the FBI’s big announcement was a swing and a miss. (Source: Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha)
Neronha also expressed regret over the public fallout, noting it was “unfortunate that this person’s name was leaked to the public.” It’s a fair point—dragging someone’s reputation through the mud without proof is the kind of rush-to-judgment that fuels distrust in our institutions. (Source: Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha)
Meanwhile, the real gunman remains at large. Police are still scouring for leads in a case that has left a community shaken and desperate for answers.
Patel’s social media victory lap, as reported by USA Today, now looks more like a stumble on the national stage. When the FBI’s top brass jumps the gun, it’s not just embarrassing—it erodes confidence in law enforcement at a time when trust is already on thin ice.
This isn’t about piling on Patel, who no doubt wants to solve this tragedy as much as anyone. But leadership means owning the missteps, not just the wins, and a little restraint before hitting ‘post’ could have spared some grief.
The Brown University shootings are a stark reminder of the violence plaguing our campuses, and solving them requires precision, not PR stunts. Families of the victims deserve better than false starts and empty headlines.
As the investigation continues, one can’t help but wonder if this blunder has cost valuable time. Resources spent on the wrong lead are resources not spent tracking the actual perpetrator.
Conservative values often emphasize law and order, but that means getting it right, not just making a loud statement. Patel’s intent may have been to reassure the public, but premature announcements only deepen the frustration when the truth comes out.
Until the gunman is found, Rhode Island—and the nation—waits for closure. Let’s hope the FBI refocuses on facts over fanfare, because two lives lost and nine injured demand nothing less than competence and accountability.