George Abaraonye, who was forced out at the Oxford Union for cheering when Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was shot, has issued an apology to the family, the UK Daily Mail reported. Abaraonye was elected president of Oxford University's student-led publication but lost the position after remarks he made in a WhatsApp group of Union colleagues about Kirk's death.
Kirk was gunned down while speaking at a Utah Valley University campus in Orem, Utah, on September 10. This fact should have outraged Abaraonye as both a college student and a member of the press, but instead, he reserved his ire for the dead activist.
In a chat with other students who worked on the publication, Abaraonye said, "Charlie Kirk got shot, let's f****** go." He echoed those same sentiments on Instagram, and his words carried much more weight as Abaraonye had previously met Kirk and debated him on behalf of the Oxford Union.
However, Abaraonye is now walking back those remarks. "I had very little context for what I was reacting to, but I wanted to start a conversation… I missed the mark… and that's why I deleted and retracted my comments," he claimed.
Perhaps losing his prominent position has truly caused a change of heart for Abaraonye. "I want to offer my apologies and my condolences," he said, now singing a completely different tune after suffering the effects of making such heinous remarks.
"No one deserves to lose a husband, no child deserves to grow up without a father. I hope that they are able, in some capacity, to move on from what was a tragic event, and to that end, I am very sorry," Abaraonye added.
Despite the fact that the whole world witnessed the gruesome death the day it happened, Abaraonye pretended he was unaware of the severity of the event and only later, upon reflection, realized how disgusting he was for sayingwhat he did. "I reacted without nuance and without having done research," he claimed in an interview.
"I saw a headline, and I reacted. I didn’t take into account the nuance or consider that at all when I made the comments," he added. However, the timing seems to suggest it came only after he suffered the real, much-deserved consequences for saying such a thing.
Abaraonye was first slapped with a motion of no confidence in his presidency. What followed was a vote plagued by claims of "obstruction, intimidation and unwarranted hostility" that ultimately ended with 1,200 members voting to remove him.
After the remarks about Kirk, other clips began to resurface, shedding more light on the motivations Abaraonye had for cheering Kirk's death, Fox News reported. One of those included a clip of Abaraonye speaking about the necessity of political violence.
"At times, there is simply nothing else that can be required except for violent retaliation. And this is a view I wholeheartedly agree with; the view that some institutions are too broken, too oppressive to be reformed, like cancers of our society," Abaraonye claimed.
"And they must, and they should be taken by any means necessary," he added. This only adds to the sense that Abaraonye holds radical views that were only problematic for him once he suffered the consequences of sharing them in the wake of Kirk's death.
"They should - and they must - be taken down, by any means necessary. They are cancers in society!"
George Abaraonye, the new president of @OxfordUnion, flagrantly promotes political violence.
It comes after he celebrated Charlie Kirk's execution. pic.twitter.com/ivJjfWS7hs
— Peter Lloyd (@Suffragent_) September 12, 2025
Reactions like this are a good litmus test for people in the media and in power. Regardless of a man's political opinions, his assassination is not something to be celebrated, especially as his widow and their children are just coming to grips with the reality of such a loss. Anyone who finds this a time to celebrate deserves to lose his positions of power and prominence.
Any Lucia Lopez Belloza was deported to her native Honduras after attempting to board a flight from Boston to Texas to surprise her family for Thanksgiving, ABC News reported. A federal judge blocked the 19-year-old college student's deportation, but she was removed from the U.S. anyway.
Lopez Bella had entered the U.S. illegally as an 8-year-old with her family. While trying to board her flight to her Texas home to see her relatives a decade later, Lopez Belloza was singled out by airport authorities because of the deportation order.
Her attorney, Todd Pomerleau, said his client was detained and arrested at the airport over the order. A federal judge ruled that the government could not remove Lopez Belloza from the U.S. or anywhere outside of Massachusetts, but the government ignored that edict and moved Lopez Belloza to Texas and sent her Honduras the following day.
"She thought she was going to go home, see her family, fly back, take her finals, and now she's sitting in Honduras," Pomerleau said. While the establishment media is using her story to show the cruelty of President Donald Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, it's not the whole story.
On this surface, this is a tragic story about government officials gone rogue and the plight of a young woman on her way to a bright future. Instead, it's another illustration of the dangers of ignoring immigration enforcement for decades and the human cost of reversing course when the need arises.
The order to deport Lopez Belloza was issued in 2015, but the failure to act allowed her to plant roots in a place she shouldn't have been allowed to enter in the first place. Moreover, as Mass Daily News noted in a post to X on Thursday, the media spin about this unfortunate situation ignores some glaring realities.
The Boston Globe captioned Lopez Belloza's story as an unfortunate situation for someone who "had received a scholarship to study in Massachusetts, and dreamed of opening a tailor shop with her dad," the Globe claimed. "When immigration agents detained her at Logan airport, everything changed," the outlet said ominously.
Mass Daily News noted that what the Boston Globe left out decimates two major talking points on the issue. "Any Lucia Lopez Belloza is an illegal immigrant with a deportation order from 10 years ago. The president 10 years ago? Barack Obama," the social media post said.
And the part that Boston Globe didn’t put in their headline:
Any Lucia Lopez Belloza is an illegal immigrant with a deportation order from 10 years ago.
The president 10 years ago?
Barack Obama. https://t.co/Y6TkaI7MRD
— Mass Daily News (@MassDailyNews) November 27, 2025
Illegal immigration has created so many pitfalls, but so has the legal immigration system. As part of his Thanksgiving post to Truth Social, Trump announced his plan to "permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system" to alleviate some of the problems caused by such an influx.
The president blamed former President Joe Biden for allowing illegal immigraiton as well as "Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen" letting in migrants who burden the federal government and social safety net. Trump wants to "remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization," Trump wrote.
"These goals will be pursued with the aim of achieving a major reduction in illegal and disruptive populations, including those admitted through an unauthorized and illegal Autopen approval process. Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation. Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long!" Trump concluded.
Immigration in the U.S. is a mess, thanks to decades of poor leadership from Democrats and spineless Republicans. Trump now has many problems to sort out because of it, and he's not afraid to do that even if it creates some unfortunate situations, as it did for Lopez Belloza, or outrages opponents.
Hold onto your popcorn, folks—Melania Trump is stepping into the Hollywood spotlight with a venture that’s sure to shake up the entertainment world.
Melania Trump has officially entered the film industry with the launch of her own production company, Muse Films, announced recently on social media, with her debut project, "MELANIA," set for a global theatrical release on January 30, 2026, the Daily Caller reported.
This isn’t just a side hobby; it’s a deliberate move by the former first lady to carve out her own space in a field often dominated by progressive voices.
The announcement came straight from Melania herself via Instagram on a Friday, catching the attention of supporters and skeptics alike.
“PRESENTING: MUSE FILMS My new production company. MELANIA, the film, exclusively in theaters worldwide on January 30th, 2026,” she captioned, making it clear she’s not just dipping a toe but diving headfirst into this endeavor (Melania Trump, Instagram).
Now, let’s unpack that—while some might scoff at a first lady turning producer, this move signals a savvy pivot to control her own story in a culture that often distorts conservative figures.
Muse Films isn’t a vanity project; Melania is taking a hands-on role, much like she did during her White House years managing initiatives with precision and grace.
Her signature elegance and tightly curated public image are evident in this venture, suggesting she’s not here to play by Hollywood’s usual rules.
It’s refreshing to see a conservative woman step into an industry that often pushes a one-sided agenda, potentially offering narratives that don’t bow to the woke playbook.
This leap into entertainment marks a striking shift for Melania, moving from the reserved poise of a first lady to a bold creator ready to influence American culture.
While critics might roll their eyes at her foray into film, it’s hard to deny the guts it takes to enter a space where conservative voices are often sidelined or mocked.
Muse Films could be the platform she needs to redefine how her story—and perhaps others’—are told, away from the mainstream media’s often biased lens.
The launch of Muse Films isn’t just about making movies; it’s about Melania Trump staking a claim to her legacy on her own terms.
In a world quick to caricature strong conservative women, her emergence as a creative force in a politically charged industry is a quiet but powerful statement.
Come January 30, 2026, when "MELANIA" hits theaters worldwide, we’ll see if this venture delivers a fresh perspective—or at least a compelling story worth the ticket price.
President Trump has dropped a bombshell, announcing his plan to fully pardon a former Honduran president locked away for massive drug trafficking crimes, Fox News reported.
Trump revealed his intention to grant a "full and complete pardon" to Juan Orlando Hernández, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison for aiding the movement of over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S., while also throwing his weight behind a key Honduran presidential candidate just days before a critical election.
Last year, Hernández faced justice in a New York courtroom, receiving a hefty 45-year sentence after his conviction in March 2024 for conspiring to import cocaine and related weapons charges, as reported by The Associated Press.
The announcement of a potential pardon came on Friday, with Trump signaling his belief that Hernández has been dealt an unfair hand by the legal system.
"I will be granting a Full and Complete Pardon to Former President Juan Orlando Hernandez who has been, according to many people that I greatly respect, treated very harshly and unfairly," Trump declared. Well, if that’s not a curveball, what is—pardoning a man tied to hundreds of tons of narcotics raises eyebrows, though Trump’s conviction about injustice resonates with those skeptical of overzealous prosecutions.
Trump tied this decision to broader hopes for Honduras, suggesting the pardon aligns with a vision for the country’s future success under new leadership.
Just days before Hondurans cast their votes on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his endorsement of Nasry "Tito" Asfura, the National Party candidate and former mayor of Tegucigalpa.
Trump promised the U.S. would be "very supportive" of Honduras should Asfura emerge victorious, highlighting confidence in Asfura’s policies for political and economic prosperity. It’s a clear signal—Trump sees Asfura as a partner in steering Honduras away from troubling influences.
In a Truth Social post earlier that same Friday, Trump emphasized collaboration, stating he and Asfura "can work together to fight the narcocommunists and bring needed aid to the people of Honduras." There’s a jab at progressive ideologies here, cleverly masked as a call for unity against shared threats.
Trump didn’t hold back on Asfura’s opponents, taking aim at Rixi Moncada of the ruling party and Salvador Nasralla of the Liberal Party with pointed critiques.
He painted Moncada as an admirer of Fidel Castro, suggesting her ideals clash with Honduran values, while accusing Nasralla of playing a deceptive game to split conservative votes. It’s a classic political chess move—call out the opposition’s playbook while rallying the base.
Nasralla, Trump noted, previously served as vice president under current President Xiomara Castro, Honduras’s first female leader since 2022, before resigning and now positioning himself as an anti-communist candidate. One has to wonder if this flip-flop is genuine or just election-season theater.
With polls showing Asfura nearly neck-and-neck with Moncada and Nasralla, as reported by Reuters, this Sunday’s election is anyone’s game. The winner will lead Honduras from 2026 to 2030, a pivotal period for the nation’s direction.
Trump’s involvement, from the pardon announcement to his candidate endorsement, underscores a broader U.S. interest in Honduras’s path, particularly in curbing drug trafficking and leftist policies. While some may see this as meddling, others might argue it’s a necessary stand against destabilizing forces in the region.
As Hondurans prepare to vote, the shadow of Hernández’s case and Trump’s bold promises loom large, potentially swaying opinions at the ballot box. It’s a high-stakes moment—will Trump’s gambit pay off, or will it fuel more division in an already tense political landscape?
Buckle up, folks—War Secretary Pete Hegseth is under fire for allegedly ordering a no-survivors strike on a drug smuggling boat, and the controversy is hotter than a summer day in the Caribbean.
On September 2, the U.S. military conducted a strike against a speed boat suspected of carrying 11 members of a narco-terrorist group, sparking a fierce debate over a reported second attack on survivors that has Democrats crying foul and Hegseth defending the operation as a necessary blow against drug trafficking.
The initial strike targeted the vessel in the Caribbean Sea as part of Operation Southern Spear, a campaign to dismantle drug smuggling networks.
After the first hit, reports claim two individuals were spotted clinging to the wreckage, barely holding on.
According to a story by The Washington Post, a Joint Special Operations Command commander then ordered a second airstrike, allegedly following a verbal directive from Hegseth to eliminate everyone on board.
Four missiles in total were reportedly fired—two to ensure no crew survived and two more to sink the boat entirely, with the Pentagon justifying the follow-up strikes as a means to remove navigational hazards.
The Pentagon insists the strikes were designed to be “lethal, kinetic,” with a clear mission to halt drug trafficking and neutralize narco-terrorists tied to designated terrorist organizations.
Hegseth has come out swinging, dismissing the accusations as baseless and accusing the media of trying to tarnish the reputation of brave service members. “As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” Hegseth stated.
He doubled down, arguing the operation was fully compliant with U.S. and international law, vetted by top military and civilian legal experts up and down the chain of command.
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic lawmakers are not buying the explanations, demanding investigations and even floating the possibility of war crimes charges.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., scoffed at the Pentagon’s rationale, calling the idea of a small boat posing a marine hazard “patently absurd” and labeling the act of targeting survivors as outright illegal.
Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., echoed the call for transparency, insisting that Congress and the public deserve to see unedited footage and hear the radio orders from that day.
Adding fuel to the fire, an anonymous source who witnessed a live feed of the second strike warned that the public would be “horrified” if the footage ever surfaced—hardly a comforting thought.
Interestingly, after the September 2 incident, Pentagon protocols were updated to prioritize rescuing survivors, a shift that suggests even internal brass may have had second thoughts about the operation’s optics or ethics.
While President Trump shared video of the initial missile strike, the footage conveniently omitted the follow-up attacks, leaving many to wonder what the full story might reveal—and whether Hegseth’s staunch defense will hold under scrutiny or crumble like a house of cards.
Brace yourself for a presidential power move that’s shaking up Washington: President Donald Trump has just dropped a bombshell by voiding a slew of documents signed with former President Joe Biden’s autopen, Breitbart reported.
Trump’s stunning announcement on Friday targets what he calls an illegal overreach, claiming that a staggering number of Biden’s official papers—estimated at 92%—were inked by machine without proper authorization, rendering them legally meaningless.
Let’s rewind to earlier this year when whispers of autopen misuse first surfaced, with a Heritage Foundation report in March raising eyebrows by noting that most of Biden’s signatures were mechanical reproductions.
By May, Trump was already sounding the alarm on Truth Social, warning that this autopen saga was ballooning into a full-blown scandal that could tarnish Biden’s legacy.
Fast forward to late October, and the House Oversight Committee stepped into the fray, pressing the Justice Department to probe whether some executive actions under Biden were rolled out without his direct consent.
Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., didn’t mince words, stating, “We have provided Americans with transparency about the Biden Autopen Presidency, and now there must be accountability.”
Trump’s Friday decree wasn’t just a statement—it was a sledgehammer, as he declared all executive orders and other documents not personally signed by Biden to be nullified due to what he deems unauthorized autopen use.
Posting on Truth Social, Trump asserted, “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect.”
He didn’t stop there, adding, “The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States.”
Trump’s accusations cut deeper, alleging that Biden had no hand in the autopen process and hinting at legal consequences like perjury if Biden claims otherwise.
Reports from the House Oversight Committee fueled this fire, suggesting that some of Biden’s own aides might have deployed the autopen on executive actions without his knowledge—a troubling breach of trust if proven true.
Even symbolic gestures came under scrutiny, as the White House displayed presidential portraits in the West Wing colonnade, with Biden’s reportedly being a mere snapshot of an autopen signature.
This isn’t just about signatures; it’s about the integrity of executive power and whether the American people were misled by a presidency potentially run on autopilot.
While some may argue that autopen use is a practical necessity in a busy administration, the sheer scale—92% by Trump’s estimate—raises valid questions about oversight and authenticity that deserve answers.
As this controversy unfolds, Trump’s decisive action and Comer’s push for accountability signal that the autopen issue won’t be swept under the rug, ensuring that trust in governmental processes remains a priority for conservatives who value transparency over bureaucratic convenience.
President Donald Trump is issuing a pardon to a former president who was sentenced to 45 years in a massive drug trafficking case.
On Friday, Trump announced that he would be issuing a pardon for former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison last year in a bombshell drug trafficking case.
Hernandez was convicted of conspiring to import 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. as well as several weapons charges, which led to his astounding 45-year sentence.
However, Trump announced on Truth Social that he decided to pardon Hernandez because "according to many people that I greatly respect,” Hernandez was “treated very harshly and unfairly."
Trump is particularly susceptible to unfair and political indictments, so it made sense for him to hear Hernandez's camp out.
Since his conviction, Hernandez has been appealing the sentence while serving time at the U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton, in West Virginia.
Beyond the fairness of Hernandez's trial being called into question, there are geopolitical motives behind this decision to pardon Hernandez. The Trump administration is putting a heavy focus on South and Central American relations.
One of Hernandez's lawyers, Renato C. Stabile, issued a statement thanking Trump, saying, "A great injustice has been righted and we are so hopeful for the future partnership of the United States and Honduras. Thank you President Trump for making sure that justice was served. We look forward to President Hernandez’s triumphant return to Honduras."
The Trump administration does seem to be prioritizing improving relations with Honduras, and this pardon not only rights a grave injustice in the eyes of Trump but also gives him a valuable ally in improving relations.
Trump is also backing Nasry “Tito” Asfura for Honduras’ presidency in the election happening on Saturday. Trump has promised to increase support for Honduras if Asfura wins, but warned support wouldn't be coming should the country's leftist candidate prevail.
With the United States getting involved, Sunday's election promises to be chaotic as both sides are already deeply polarized.
Both the opposition and the government have alleged that there is voter fraud happening in the election, which seems to be a hallmark of any close election.
Americas director at Human Rights Watch Juanita Goebertus warned that “allegations of possible fraud, aggressive moves by both prosecutors and the army, and political deadlock in the electoral authority are threatening Hondurans’ right to participate in free and fair elections."
These elections will be worth keeping an eye on. The Trump administration will certainly be watching closely, especially if voter fraud is in play. Hopefully, things aren't too bad as there are certainly fears of military action should the election go badly.
Imagine a law so restrictive that even licensed gun owners can’t carry their firearms at the local gas station without jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
In Hawaii, a contentious new law has sparked a legal showdown with national implications, as it bars concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public -- like restaurants or grocery stores -- unless they have explicit permission from property owners, as Fox News reports.
This restriction, enacted as a misdemeanor offense, requires clear authorization, whether in writing, verbally, or via signage, creating a maze of red tape for law-abiding citizens.
The U.S. Justice Department has stepped in with a powerful friend-of-the-court brief, siding with plaintiffs in the case known as Wolford v. Lopez, arguing that this law tramples on Second Amendment protections.
Attorney General Pam Bondi didn’t mince words, declaring on X, “Hawaii's law plainly violates the Second Amendment.”
Well, if a law can make a concealed carry permit as useless as a paperweight in most public spaces, perhaps Bondi has a point -- why issue permits just to render them moot?
This isn’t the first time gun laws have faced scrutiny; the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen struck down overly strict permitting rules that demanded applicants prove a special need for self-defense.
Hawaii’s latest move, according to the Justice Department, clashes directly with Bruen by effectively gutting the practical use of concealed carry licenses issued after that landmark decision.
David Katz, a former DEA agent turned CEO of Global Security Group, noted how states are playing a sly game of whack-a-mole with gun rights, finding backdoor ways to limit carry options after being barred from outright permit denials.
The DOJ’s brief pulls no punches, stating, “Hawaii's restriction is blatantly unconstitutional as applied to private property open to the public,” and warning that states can’t dodge Bruen with sneaky, indirect bans on public carry.
If a state can’t say ‘no’ to permits, should it be allowed to say ‘no’ to carrying almost everywhere? That’s the million-dollar question heading to the Supreme Court.
The case’s outcome could ripple far beyond Hawaii’s shores, potentially reshaping similar restrictive laws in states like California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, where gun rights often face an uphill battle.
New York City Councilwoman Irina Vernikov, who faced her own legal tangle over carrying an inoperable firearm at a rally in 2023 -- charges later dropped -- voiced strong support for the DOJ’s stance, emphasizing the need for self-protection in crime-ridden areas.
Bondi echoed the broader stakes on X, writing, “California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York have similar laws. So a win in this case will restore Second Amendment rights for millions of Americans.”
Let’s be real: when law-abiding citizens in multiple states are caught in a web of rules that seem designed to frustrate rather than protect, it’s hard not to see this as a deliberate push against constitutional freedoms -- though, of course, public safety concerns deserve a fair hearing too.
Washington, D.C., was rocked by a shocking act of violence as two National Guardsmen were shot by a suspect with ties to the CIA's past operations in Afghanistan.
The incident involves Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, who allegedly opened fire on the Guardsmen in the nation's capital, prompting a swift suspension of all immigration processing for Afghan nationals, including those who once worked with the U.S. government, pending a security review, as Breitbart reports.
Lakanwal's story begins in Kandahar, a volatile region in southern Afghanistan often called the Taliban's stronghold, where fierce battles raged between NATO forces and insurgents after the 2001 U.S. invasion.
According to former CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Lakanwal served as part of a partner force in Kandahar, collaborating with U.S. intelligence until the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
That partnership ended shortly after the evacuation, yet the Biden administration saw fit to bring Lakanwal to American soil in September 2021, citing his prior work with the government.
One has to wonder if the vetting process was more about political optics than national safety, given the tragic outcome we're now witnessing in D.C.
A close relative revealed to NBC News that Lakanwal spent a decade in the Afghan army, often working alongside U.S. Special Forces, which paints a complex picture of a man once considered an ally.
After arriving in the U.S., he settled in Washington state, over 2,600 miles from the scene of the shooting, raising questions about what led him to the capital.
Details remain scarce as Lakanwal is currently hospitalized with injuries described as non-life-threatening, leaving authorities and the public grasping for answers.
Jeffery Carroll, executive assistant chief at the Metropolitan Police Department, noted, "Many details about the suspect are still unknown as he’s still in the hospital receiving treatment."
President Donald Trump weighed in, expressing deep concern over the vetting process, stating, "He was flown in by the Biden administration in September 2021 for those infamous flights that everybody was talking about."
Trump's point hits hard -- how could a system meant to protect Americans allow someone with such a murky background to slip through, only to allegedly turn on our own troops?
In the wake of this incident, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has indefinitely halted processing immigration requests for Afghan nationals, a move that signals a much-needed reevaluation of security protocols.
While some may cry foul over this pause, it’s a pragmatic step when trust in the system has been shattered by an event as grave as this shooting.
Let’s hope this review isn’t just bureaucratic theater but a genuine effort to ensure that those who come to our shores are truly aligned with our values and safety, not potential threats waiting to strike.
Imagine your Thanksgiving table packed with political heavyweights, and guess who’s snagging the prime seat? A fresh poll from the Daily Mail and JL Partners crowns Donald Trump as the most desired guest for Americans’ holiday feasts, beating out familiar faces like Barack Obama, as the Mail reports. It’s a win for the MAGA crowd, though not without some eyebrow-raising caveats.
This survey of 1,246 registered U.S. voters, with a slim 3% margin of error, paints a fascinating picture of holiday preferences amid the usual partisan squabbles.
Trump grabbed 24% of the 841 responses, leaving Obama in the dust at 15%, while Kamala Harris and JD Vance trailed in third and fourth spots, respectively. For conservatives tired of the progressive agenda dominating dinner chatter, this feels like a small victory. Yet, let’s not carve the turkey just yet -- most Americans still aren’t eager to host Trump for the holiday.
When it comes to picking a single politician to share cranberry sauce with, Trump remains the undisputed champ. But the mood shifts when scenarios get more personal or collaborative. It’s as if folks admire his boldness from afar but aren’t ready to pass him the mashed potatoes.
Take the couples’ matchup: respondents had to choose between dining with Donald and Melania Trump or Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau paired with Katy Perry. A hefty 35% picked neither, 32% went for the Trumps, and 26% opted for the Canadian duo. Clearly, Trump’s charisma doesn’t always translate to a plus-one setting.
“A whopping 35 percent of all respondents said ‘neither,’” notes the Daily Mail and JL Partners poll. That’s a polite but firm rejection of both pairings, suggesting Americans might just want their turkey without a side of international drama. For conservatives, it’s a reminder that even Trump’s star power can’t win every room.
Then there’s the question of what role Trump might play at Thanksgiving beyond just showing up. The poll dug into which tasks Americans would trust him with, and the results are a bit of a roast. Spoiler: don’t expect him to whip up a pie.
A staggering 45% wouldn’t trust Trump to handle dessert, marking it as his least trusted gig. He also flunked in house decorating and table-setting duties, areas where folks seem to doubt his flair. It’s a funny mental image -- Trump wrestling with a tablecloth while the left chuckles from the sidelines.
“Americans would least trust Trump with making dessert, with 45 percent saying they would not have faith in him to do it at all,” the Daily Mail and JL Partners poll reveals. That’s a brutal verdict for a man known for bold moves, though perhaps conservatives can argue he’s better suited to leading the charge than baking it. Still, it stings to see such skepticism.
On the flip side, Trump shines when it comes to speaking roles, with the most trust placed in him to deliver the Thanksgiving toast. Carving the turkey came in as his second-strongest suit, showing Americans prefer his voice over his kitchen skills. For MAGA supporters, this aligns perfectly with his knack for commanding attention.
Media personalities also got their moment in the poll, with Ben Shapiro leading at 24% as a dream guest, followed closely by Candace Owens at 23% and Tucker Carlson at 18%. Among Republicans, Laura Ingraham edged out Carlson for top media pick, though Shapiro oddly landed as the least desirable for 22% of GOP respondents. It’s a curious split -- conservative voices are loved, yet not universally embraced even among their own.
These preferences highlight a broader trend: Americans, especially on the right, crave voices that challenge the woke narrative at their holiday tables. Shapiro and Owens resonate for their sharp takes, though the GOP’s mixed feelings toward Shapiro suggest not everyone’s ready for his brand of debate over pumpkin pie.
Thanksgiving often gets billed as a time to ditch partisan bickering, but this poll shows politics still sneaks into guest lists. Trump’s top billing as a solo guest is a nod to his enduring appeal among those fed up with establishment fluff. Yet the reluctance to invite him in other contexts hints at a nation still wrestling with his larger-than-life persona.
For conservatives, this data is a mixed bag worth chewing on alongside the holiday feast. Trump’s lead over Obama feels like a cultural pushback against years of progressive dominance, even if most wouldn’t open their doors to him. It’s a subtle reminder that admiration doesn’t always mean an invite.
So, as families gather this season, the question lingers: Would you save a seat for Trump? The poll suggests many would, but only if he sticks to toasting and skips the kitchen. For those on the right, it’s a chance to celebrate a small win while acknowledging the complex dance of politics at the dinner table.