Actor Josh Brolin, who voices Thanos in the Marvel movies and got his start in movies on 1985's "The Goonies," told "The Independent" that President Donald Trump was a longtime friend of his and that he wasn't worried about Trump refusing to leave the presidency in 2029 after his second term.
“I’m not scared of Trump, because even though he says he’s staying forever, it’s just not going to happen,” Brolin told the paper. “And if it does, then I’ll deal with that moment. But having been a friend of Trump before he was president, I know a different guy.”
Brolin and Trump met on the set of Oliver Stone's "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" in 2010. Trump filmed a cameo in the movie but it was cut from the final version of the film.
“There is no greater genius than him in marketing," Brolin said. "He takes the weakness of the general population and fills it. And that’s why I think a lot of people feel that they have a mascot in him.”
“I think it’s much less about Trump than it is about the general population and their need for validation," he added.
The subject came up when Brolin was asked if his recent role as Monsignor Wicks in Glass Onion was meant to be a take on Trump.
Wicks preaches hate in the movie and is generally just a despicable character, but Brolin said the character was not in any way inspired by the current president.
“I could make something up and say it was rooted in a kind of Trumpian greed,” but in reality, it wasn't, Brolin said. He added that once “Wicks garners a sense of power, then there are no boundaries."
It's refreshing to see an A-list actor who doesn't hate Trump and constantly feel the need to attack him.
Brolin has a balanced view--he thinks Trump is on a quest for power, but not like his character Thanos who was willing to obliterate half of the world to do it.
And unlike many actors in Hollywood today, Brolin actually spent time with Trump and knows him on a personal level.
Undoubtedly, Brolin will now be enemy number one among his peers, but his shoulders seem plenty broad.
The left can say, of course Thanos is a friend to Trump, but it sounds like Brolin knows the truth about who Trump is and isn't afraid to say it.
When Joe Biden let 76,000 Afghans into the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 after he disastrously pulled the U.S. military out of the country and left it under Taliban control, he didn't vet them very well.
Turns out, over 5,000 Afghan nationals who were allowed to resettle in the U.S. were flagged by the Department of Homeland Security for national security concerns, and now President Donald Trump wants them gone following the shooting of two National Guard troops by an Afghan national let in as part of that program.
Trump ended Temporary Protected Status for Afgan nationals earlier this year, but an estimated 885 of those flagged by DHS are still here, according to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
She posted about the problem on X on Sunday.
The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan. Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on… pic.twitter.com/DhWUs2E28g
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) November 30, 2025
"The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan," she wrote. "Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on American soil."
She added, "Trump has been working every day since January 20 to clean up this unmitigated national security crisis."
Trump now wants a review on the vetting protocols for foreign nationals let into the U.S. seeking asylum from 19 "high risk" countries, as well as all asylum cases approved by the Biden administration.
The review was precipitated by the alleged actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect arrested for shooting Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Andrew Wolfe, 24.
Beckstrom later died from her injuries, and Wolfe is still in serious condition after surgery.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ would seek the death penalty for Lakanwal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told the New York Post that he had tried to raise the issue of unvetted Afghans for "years" but no one paid attention.
“I spent years calling attention to the weak vetting standards in Operation Allies Welcome, despite considerable pushback from the Biden administration and many of my colleagues in Congress,” Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told the Post. “Sadly, this past week’s tragedy in Washington only validates my concerns further.”
Incidents like these fit in perfectly with much of the Democrats' agenda to destabilize the U.S. by whatever means necessary so that people will think government is the answer to everything. Good for Trump for reversing the damage as much as he can.
The Indiana state House has decided to pursue redistricting to gain a GOP seat in the U.S. House after President Donald Trump pushed the matter, and the Senate plans to reconvene if the House passes a newly drawn map.
Senate GOP leader Rodric Bray said two weeks ago that there wasn't enough support to move forward with redistricting, but reversed course when Trump threatened to primary GOP state senators if they did not act.
"A RINO State Senator, Rodric Bray, who doesn’t care about keeping the Majority in the House in D.C., is the primary problem. Soon, he will have a Primary Problem, as will any other politician who supports him in this stupidity," Trump posted on social media after Bray's initial refusal.
Last week, State House Speaker Todd Huston announced, "House Republicans will gavel in on Monday, Dec. 1, reconvening the 2026 regular session. All legislative business will be considered beginning next week, including redrawing the state’s congressional map."
Subsequently, Bray posted, "The issue of redrawing Indiana's congressional maps mid-cycle has received a lot of attention and is causing strife here in our state. To resolve this issue, the Senate intends to reconvene as part of the regular 2026 session on Dec. 8."
The House now has a razor-thin GOP majority, and is trying to preserve it in the midterm elections.
So far, signs have pointed toward GOP losing some seats, which would quickly deny them the majority.
California will be moving forward with redistricting in the opposite direction, while Texas could gain a significant number of GOP seats if it can overcome legal challenges to its plan.
Meanwhile, Trump is scrapping for every single seat he can possibly get, knowing that a Democrat House will pretty much kill his agenda outside of getting GOP-leaning judges appointed.
In Indiana, seven of nine seats are already Republican-controlled, but it's a solid GOP state, so what's one more?
In California, 25% of voters are registered Republican, but only 17% of districts are currently held by Republicans. If the gerrymandering efforts there are successful, up to five more seats could go to Democrats, making things even more lopsided there.
Every seat could be important in 2026, and Trump knows full well that he won't get much accomplished if he can't pass any of his bills in Congress.
Of course, Democrats have a massive advantage between California redistricting and the historical loss of seats for the ruling party in the midterms.
The bloodbath could be massive, and it seems likely that Republicans will not control the House in 2027, the way things are going.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump is turning up the heat on Indiana Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional map in a bold bid to lock in GOP dominance.
The Hoosier State’s legislature is back in session to tackle redistricting, driven by Trump’s insistence on securing a stronger Republican foothold ahead of the 2026 midterms as part of a nationwide clash over district boundaries, Fox News reported.
This isn’t just a local skirmish; Indiana has emerged as a key battleground in the national redistricting war, where both Republicans and Democrats are scrambling to shape the political landscape for the upcoming elections.
A few weeks back, Republican Senate leader Rodric Bray signaled there wasn’t enough support in his chamber to push forward with new maps, seemingly putting the brakes on the plan.
Trump, never one to sit idly by, fired back with threats of primary challenges for any GOP lawmaker dragging their feet on this issue, making it clear he means business.
Soon after, Bray announced the Senate would reconvene on Dec. 8 as part of the 2026 regular session to review any redistricting proposals passed by the House, showing how quickly the tide can turn under presidential pressure.
Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Indiana House, led by Speaker Todd Huston, isn’t wasting any time, kicking off the 2026 regular session on Dec. 1 to dive into legislative business, including the contentious map redraw.
Huston confirmed the agenda, stating, “House Republicans will gavel in on Monday, Dec. 1, reconvening the 2026 regular session,” signaling a full-steam-ahead approach to Trump’s priorities.
Let’s be honest—when the House moves this fast, it’s not just about maps; it’s about sending a message that they’re ready to fight for every inch of Republican ground in Congress.
The proposed congressional map for Indiana would tip the scales further in the GOP’s favor by creating an additional Republican-leaning district, potentially flipping the currently Democratic-leaning 1st Congressional District.
With Republicans already holding seven of nine congressional seats in the state, this move is less about survival and more about building an ironclad majority to weather the midterm storm, a time when the ruling party often stumbles.
Trump himself underscored the stakes, declaring, “We must keep the Majority at all costs,” a rallying cry that reminds us why every district matters in the razor-thin national House balance.
Indiana’s fight is just one front in a broader Republican strategy, with states like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio already drafting new maps to bolster GOP seats, while Florida and Kansas mull similar moves.
Democrats aren’t sitting on their hands either, with states like California—where voters recently handed redistricting power back to the Democrat-led legislature—along with Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia, pushing maps to secure or expand their own congressional turf.
While Texas faces legal hurdles with federal judges blocking its new map (though the Supreme Court has paused that ruling for now), and Utah’s GOP map was struck down in favor of a Democratic-leaning alternative, the national chess game over districts is far from over, and Indiana could be the next big play.
Brace yourselves—the Supreme Court is launching into a pivotal session after Thanksgiving that could redefine presidential power, free speech, and more.
This final sitting of the year will address four critical disputes with massive implications for executive control, campaign finance rules, pregnancy center rights, and First Amendment freedoms, The Hill reported.
On December 8, the justices will dive into whether President Trump can remove a Federal Trade Commission member without cause. This case challenges a nearly 90-year-old precedent limiting such dismissals, a restriction some conservative justices see as undermining presidential authority. Lower courts upheld the status quo, but a shift could be coming.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the Trump administration’s lead advocate, will argue this FTC case himself. A ruling in favor of the administration would strengthen executive oversight of independent agencies—a move many of us see as restoring rightful presidential control.
The very next day, the court turns to a campaign finance battle. Republicans, including their Senate and House campaign arms, then-Sen. JD Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio, want federal limits on coordinated party spending with candidates struck down. They argue these caps violate free speech, a point that hits home for anyone frustrated by government meddling in politics.
“A political party exists to get its candidates elected,” Republicans stated in court filings. “It is therefore only natural that a party would want to consult with its candidate before expressing support for his election.” Honestly, why should bureaucrats dictate how parties and candidates collaborate?
Lower courts rejected the Republicans’ plea, but with the Trump administration supporting the challenge and abandoning defense of the law, the Democratic National Committee and lawyer Marc Elias are left to fight back. The Supreme Court once upheld these limits to prevent corruption, but restricting speech often just breeds new issues. Roman Martinez from Latham & Watkins was appointed to assist in defending the rule, though momentum may lean the other way.
On Tuesday, the court will hear a First Amendment case from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy network in New Jersey. State Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s subpoena for donor data and materials, part of a probe into alleged deceptive practices, is seen by the centers as a violation of their speech and privacy rights.
“Petitioner faces penalties for nonproduction only if a New Jersey state court issues an order requiring the production of documents—and even then, only if Petitioner is held in contempt for failing to comply with that judicial order,” Platkin’s office argued in filings. That’s little reassurance for groups facing what looks like a state-sponsored intrusion into private matters.
Lower courts called First Choice’s challenge premature, pushing it to state courts, but the centers worry federal courts might block a second chance if state rulings go against them. Backed by the Trump administration, Mike Pence’s advocacy group, and Republican lawmakers through Alliance Defending Freedom, they’ve got strong allies. Platkin, meanwhile, has 20 Democratic attorneys general in his corner—predictable, isn’t it?
Finally, a free speech dispute from Mississippi involves Gabriel Olivier, a street preacher arrested under a city ordinance for demonstrating near a public amphitheater outside a designated area. An evangelical Christian, Olivier was convicted and fined $304 before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming the rule infringes on his First Amendment rights.
Lower courts dismissed Olivier’s suit, and now the Supreme Court must interpret a 1994 ruling requiring defendants to prove a conviction was invalidated before suing officials for damages. Olivier’s team stresses he seeks only protection from future arrests under this ordinance, not compensation—a fair request for anyone valuing expression over petty local rules.
These four cases are more than courtroom dramas; they’re a test of how much liberty and authority Americans can hold against government overreach. The outcomes could reshape the balance of power and speech in profound ways.
For conservatives who prioritize constitutional values over progressive mandates, this session is a critical moment. We’re watching to see if the justices uphold the principles of freedom that built this nation.
Let’s hope the court’s rulings cut through decades of bureaucratic creep and affirm that liberty isn’t negotiable. If they do, it could mark a turning point for executive strength and individual rights alike.
With just days to go, President Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind a key Tennessee congressional race, stirring up a storm of attention.
Two days before the special election for Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, Trump took to Truth Social to rally support for Republican candidate Matt Van Epps while sharply criticizing his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Aftyn Behn, Fox News reported.
Trump’s endorsement of Van Epps isn’t new—he formally backed the candidate earlier this year, a move Van Epps described as “an incredible honor.”
On Sunday, Trump posted a passionate call to action on Truth Social, urging Tennesseans to turn out for Van Epps in the special election.
He didn’t hold back on the urgency, stating, “all America First Patriots in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, who haven’t voted yet, to please GET OUT AND VOTE.” Let’s be honest, when Trump sounds the alarm like this, it’s a reminder that every vote counts in a race that could shape the district’s future.
Trump also emphasized his full confidence in Van Epps, giving him his “Complete and Total Endorsement” and promising the candidate “WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!” That’s a hefty promise, but for many conservative voters, Trump’s word carries serious weight.
Turning his focus to Behn, Trump unleashed a barrage of critiques, alleging she opposes core values important to many Tennesseans.
He claimed Behn “hates Christianity, will take away your guns, wants Open Borders, Transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, and openly disdains Country music.” While these are strong accusations, they play into broader conservative concerns about progressive policies that seem out of step with Tennessee’s cultural heartbeat.
Trump insisted these views are well-documented, adding, “She said all of these things precisely, and without question — IT’S ON TAPE!” If true, such statements could alienate a significant chunk of voters in a deeply red district.
Van Epps, a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee Army National Guard and former Army helicopter pilot, brings a background of service to the table. For many, his military record signals discipline and dedication—qualities conservatives often prioritize in leaders.
Trump painted Van Epps as a top-tier candidate under siege, warning that “The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat” him. It’s a classic narrative of the underdog patriot fighting against a well-funded progressive agenda.
Trump’s plea to not “take this Race for granted” underscores the stakes, suggesting even a strong candidate like Van Epps needs every supporter to show up. Complacency, after all, is the silent killer of many a campaign.
Meanwhile, Behn has found herself under the national spotlight for past statements that have raised eyebrows among conservatives. Her previous calls to cut funding for the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department have resurfaced, drawing questions about her stance on law enforcement.
Last week, on MS NOW’s “The Weekend,” host Catherine Rampell pressed Behn to explain her critical comments from 2020 about police. Behn sidestepped a direct defense, instead focusing on local solutions over federal or state overreach, which might not satisfy voters craving clarity on public safety.
Behn’s admitted aversion to country music and Nashville’s drinking culture also risks painting her as disconnected from the district’s identity. In a state where honky-tonks and heartfelt ballads are practically sacred, such views could be a tough sell. While her policy positions deserve fair debate, cultural missteps might just be the bigger hurdle in winning over Tennessee hearts.
President Donald Trump has ignited a firestorm by suggesting that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) should be ousted from the United States over unverified claims about her immigration history, Breitbart reported.
Trump's remarks, made during a conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One, center on allegations that Omar may have entered the country through questionable means, while also targeting her outspoken defense of Minnesota's Somali community amid ongoing controversies.
Let’s rewind to the start of this saga, where whispers about Omar’s past first surfaced years ago. Reports from outlets like Powerline, dating back to 2019, suggested that Omar entered the U.S. in 1995 under a different family name, not genetically tied to the “Omar” family, as part of an asylum application. Allegations further claim her true name was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi before this process.
Adding fuel to the fire, Powerline also reported that while Omar and some family members sought asylum in the U.S. under assumed identities, three of her siblings used their real names to gain asylum in the United Kingdom. This discrepancy has long been a point of contention for conservative critics who question the legitimacy of her entry.
Fast forward to 2020, when the Powerline blog cited a Daily Mail story quoting a Somali community leader, Abdihaikm Osman Nur, who alleged Omar married a sibling to secure his stay in the U.S. “Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother and said she would ‘do what she had to do to get him “papers” to keep him in U.S.’, reveals Somali community leader,” the report claimed (Powerline, via Daily Mail). If true, this raises serious questions about legal and ethical boundaries, though no court has substantiated these claims.
Trump has not shied away from amplifying these accusations, recently questioning whether Omar’s actions were a ploy to gain citizenship. His pointed query—whether she wed her brother for immigration benefits—has kept this story alive in conservative circles, even as Omar and her supporters dismiss it as baseless.
On Thanksgiving, Trump took to Truth Social to vent his frustrations, targeting both Omar and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). He described Omar as someone who “does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country,” while painting Somalia as a nation plagued by chaos and dysfunction (Truth Social). It’s a classic Trump jab—blunt, unfiltered, and designed to rile up his base.
But let’s unpack that for a moment. While Trump’s rhetoric may resonate with those frustrated by perceived ingratitude from elected officials, it risks overshadowing legitimate policy debates about immigration and asylum processes with personal grievances.
Trump doubled down during his Air Force One remarks, stating the U.S. doesn’t need newcomers “telling us what to do.” It’s a sentiment that plays to concerns about national sovereignty, yet it sidesteps the reality that Omar, as a sitting congresswoman, was elected to represent her constituents’ voices.
Omar, for her part, has been a fierce advocate for Minnesota’s Somali American community, pushing back against Trump’s narrative. She’s accused him of issuing “lawless threats” against Somalis, as reported by Breitbart News, framing his comments as dangerous overreach. Her stance highlights a deep divide on how immigration and cultural integration are discussed in today’s political arena.
Meanwhile, Trump has also criticized Somalia itself, calling it a place of “persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence” in a Truth Social post. While these descriptors aren’t entirely off-base given Somalia’s documented struggles, they paint a one-dimensional picture that ignores the resilience of its diaspora communities in the U.S.
Amid this back-and-forth, Trump has tied his critique of Omar to broader policy moves, such as his plan to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somali nationals. He’s cited reports of missing billions in funds as justification, though specifics remain murky, leaving room for debate on whether this is a pragmatic decision or a political jab.
Then there’s the issue of taxpayer healthcare fraud reports linked to Minnesota’s Somali community, which Trump has referenced in his broader attacks. While fraud allegations deserve scrutiny, conflating them with Omar’s personal story risks unfairly tainting an entire community—a misstep that could alienate rather than persuade.
At its core, this controversy isn’t just about Omar or Trump—it’s about how we grapple with immigration, identity, and representation in a polarized era. Trump’s call to “throw her the hell out” may energize some, but it’s a distraction from crafting policies that address root concerns without resorting to exile as a punchline.
Ultimately, until concrete evidence emerges to support or debunk these marriage allegations, this story remains a lightning rod for deeper tensions. Both sides have valid points to argue—whether it’s Trump’s focus on legal accountability or Omar’s defense of marginalized voices—but the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the messy middle. Let’s hope the discourse shifts from social media barbs to substantive debate sooner rather than later.
President Donald Trump has never been shy about declaring his disdain for mainstream media outlets in this country, many of which he characterizes as dangerous purveyors of “fake news.”
Now that he is back in the White House for a second term, Trump and his administration have launched a website feature known as “Media Offender of the Week” as a means to highlight what the president believes are the most egregious offenders when it comes to journalistic bias, as Fox News reports.
The debut of the “Media Offender of the Week” website section occurred on Friday, and its purpose was made crystal clear by the “Misleading. Biased. Exposed” banner that now sits atop the page.
In addition to the “Offender of the Week,” the website feature also includes an “Offender Hall of Shame,” where outlets deemed to have committed especially heinous or repeated instances of dishonesty in coverage of the president and the administration.
Commenting on the new website feature was Kaelan Dorr of the White House Office of Communications, who took to X on Friday to explain what visitors could expect.
“For those of you still arguing with family over the holidays…We rolled out WH.gov/mediabias today for you. But most importantly to hold the media accountable.”
Dorr’s announcement concluded with an ominous warning to media members bent on distorting the truth, namely, “Misleading? Biased? Prepare to be EXPOSED.”
The first targets of the White House’s ire were revealed on Friday, with CBS News’s Nancy Cordes, Alyssa Vega of the Boston Globe, and Andrew Feinberg of the Independent put in the crosshairs over what the administration says were their inaccurate portrayals of Trump’s response to a controversial video message from six Democrat lawmakers.
In the video at issue, the legislators suggested that members of the intelligence community and the military had the right -- and indeed the duty -- to disregard orders from the Trump administration they believe are illegal.
The White House website contended that in response, Trump simply called for accountability for any member of Congress attempting to “incite insubordination in the United States military,” and he did not, as the above-referenced outlets implied, call for their “execution.”
According to the site, “President Trump has never issued an illegal order. The Fake News knew that, but ran with the story anyway.”
In addition to the “Offender of the Week,” the White House website displayed the initial batch of inductees into its “Offender Hall of Shame,” with the Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, and MSNBC logos prominently featured.
When asked for comment about its presence in the “Hall of Shame,” a representative of the Post stated that the outlet is “proud of its accurate, rigorous journalism.”
With the White House also boldly listing supposed “Repeat Offenders” such as Politico, Axios, the New York Times, ABC News, The Hill, and the Associated Press, it seems certain that the ongoing tensions between Trump and the mainstream press are unlikely to abate anytime soon.
The tragic shooting last week of National Guard members deployed to Washington, D.C., has sparked renewed concerns about the lack of vetting conducted on foreign nationals admitted into the United States during the Biden administration.
Now, amid news that the accused D.C. attacker is an Afghan national who entered the country as part of former President Joe Biden’s “Operation Allies Welcome” scheme in 2021, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced a pause on visa issuance for anyone traveling on Afghan passports, as Breitbart reports.
It was on Wednesday that 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the aforementioned Afghan national, allegedly ambushed members of the West Virginia National Guard who were deployed to the nation’s capital.
The attack took the life of Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and left U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe critically injured.
Reporting has since revealed that Lakanwal was initially vetted by the CIA amid Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he ultimately secured asylum approval earlier this year under Donald Trump’s administration.
The scenario has revived past concerns about insufficient vetting of Afghans said to have provided aid and support to U.S. troops during their time overseas, prompting the State Department to issue a statement declaring that it has, as Fox News notes, “IMMEDIATELY paused visa issuance for individuals traveling on Afghan passports.”
The declaration continued, “The Department is taking all necessary steps to protect U.S. national security and public safety.”
Not surprisingly, critics of the administration have already weighed in, voicing the belief that the State Department action is unlawful.
Among those expressing frustration was a representative from AfghanEvac, a group focused on the relocation and resettlement of Afghan allies who worked collaboratively with U.S. troops prior to the American military’s exit from their country.
The group’s president, Shawn VanDiver, opined, “It appears Secretary Rubio is attempting to shut down the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program in direct violation of federal law and standing court orders.”
VanDiver went on, “He is seemingly acting at the direction of President Trump and Stephen Miller, and there is no doubt this is the outcome they have been driving toward for months.”
He added, “They are using a single violent individual as cover for a policy they have long planned, turning their own intelligence failures into an excuse to punish an entire community and the veterans who served alongside them.”
Naysayers aside, the administration appears to be standing firm on the subject of rooting out any arrivals who, like Lakanwal, may have nefarious motives and the capacity to do great harm, with Trump himself observing that “when it comes to asylum, when they’re flown in, it’s very hard to get them out. No matter how you want to do it, it’s very hard to get them out. But we’re going to be getting them all out now.”
Rubio, reacting to the tragedy and the actions the administration is now taking, stated plainly, “The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people,” and that is a sentiment with which few could easily disagree.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills is in hot water, and it’s not just the Sunshine State humidity.
Between eyebrow-raising campaign expenditures and a laundry list of personal scandals, Mills, 45, is under intense investigation by the House Ethics Committee for alleged financial missteps and misconduct, the Daily Mail reported.
Let’s dive into the money trail first. Campaign finance records, uncovered by The Washington Examiner, show Mills spent nearly $80,000 between February 2023 and December 2024 on what looks like a lavish getaway spree.
Private jet charters through firms like Million Air Austin and Luxury Aircraft LLC ate up almost $30,000 of campaign cash. Another $7,000 went to limousine services, painting a picture of travel fit for a tycoon, not a public servant.
Then there’s the hotel bills—Mills dropped $5,711 at The Fairmont Hotel in Puerto Rico in May 2024, a five-star beach resort with a casino. The purpose of this trip remains unclear, as Mills has declined to comment despite media outreach.
Within Florida, campaign funds covered stays at upscale spots like the Fountainbleau in Miami Beach and the Breakers Hotel in Boynton Beach. Even Las Vegas saw action, with $1,700 spent at The Venetian across two visits in late 2024.
But the financial questions are only part of the storm. A report from NOTUS alleges that during a 2021 mission to rescue Americans in Afghanistan, Mills was found with sex workers in a hotel hallway in Tbilisi, Georgia, prompting his team to abandon him mid-mission.
Despite being left behind, Mills continued solo to Afghanistan. The incident has sparked outrage, yet no statement or denial has come from his office, leaving the public grasping for answers.
Fast forward to 2024, and more controversies have surfaced, including claims of domestic abuse and threats to release revenge porn against an ex-girlfriend—allegations he denies. A Florida judge, however, issued a restraining order against him last month.
Fellow Republican Rep. Nancy Mace has had enough, publicly urging party leaders to yank Mills’ committee assignments. She shared a screenshot of alleged explicit messages Mills sent to a 28-year-old girlfriend while still married, amplifying the scandal.
One message in a chat titled “New Year’s Fun” reportedly read, “And you will be a good girl and do anything he wants or asks?” (as posted by Nancy Mace on social media).
Another allegedly stated, “He can have you as many times as he wants, anyway he wants, and finish anywhere he chooses, right, babe?” (also shared by Mace). If verified, these messages raise serious concerns about personal conduct for someone in public office.
Meanwhile, Mills is navigating a divorce and has been romantically tied to a Washington, D.C., marketing manager, though the relationship’s current status is uncertain. Personal drama aside, the core issue remains whether campaign donors unknowingly bankrolled a lifestyle far from conservative fiscal values.
Let’s keep perspective—everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves, and Mills should get his say. Still, when campaign funds meant for voter outreach allegedly go to private jets and casino hotels, it stings as a disservice to Floridians who trust their representatives.
The House Ethics Committee’s investigation will hopefully shed light on these murky dealings. For now, conservatives who champion accountability must hold their own to the same standard, lest the public’s trust erode further in a time when every dollar and every decision counts.