Bombs have fallen silent along the Thai-Cambodian border, at least for now, as a fragile 72-hour ceasefire takes hold after weeks of deadly clashes.
After a brutal conflict that claimed dozens of lives and uprooted thousands, Thailand and Cambodia struck a new ceasefire deal that started on Saturday, aiming to restore peace and let civilians reclaim their shattered lives, as reported by The Hill
The conflict, raging for weeks, saw devastating losses on both sides, with Thailand reporting 26 soldiers and 44 civilians killed, while Cambodia mourned around 30 civilian deaths and 90 injuries.
Just before the agreement, violence peaked with Cambodia dropping 40 bombs on a village in Banteay Meanchey province on Friday, followed by Thailand deploying F-16 jets for airstrikes in the same area.
Even as peace talks unfolded on Saturday morning, air strikes continued, casting doubt on whether either side truly wanted to lay down arms.
Yet, amidst the chaos, a General Border Committee meeting paved the way for this temporary truce, a small but critical step toward stability.
The terms of this 72-hour pause are clear: Thailand must return 18 Cambodian soldiers held since July and work to clear deadly landmines from their shared border.
Both nations will monitor the ceasefire closely to ensure it holds, with Thai Defense Minister Nattaphon Narkphanit stating, “The ceasefire will be monitored and observed for 72 hours to confirm that it is real and continuous.”
Let’s be honest—72 hours is a blink in the face of such entrenched hostility, and if either side flinches, we’re back to square one faster than a progressive policy flops at the ballot box.
The ultimate goal is to let displaced families return to their homes, fields, and schools, a sentiment echoed by Cambodian Defense Minister Tea Seiha, who said the pause will allow people “to return to their homes, work in the fields, and even allow their children to be able to return to schools and resume their studies.”
That’s a noble aim, but let’s not pretend stability is guaranteed when trust between these neighbors is thinner than a politician’s promise during campaign season.
Still, if the ceasefire holds, it could be a rare win for common folks caught in the crossfire of territorial disputes.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed the announcement, urging both nations to stick to the terms and fully honor the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords.
President Trump, though not directly involved this time, has been a vocal advocate for peace in the region, previously pushing for ceasefires and engaging with both Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet.
While some, like Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sun Chanthol, have floated lofty praise for Trump’s past efforts, the real test isn’t in words but in whether this truce can survive beyond a mere three days—because peace isn’t built on accolades, but on accountability.
Governor Ron DeSantis is drawing a line in the sand, positioning Florida as the frontline in the battle against unchecked artificial intelligence expansion.
With a bold agenda to curb AI’s societal and economic fallout, DeSantis is clashing with tech giants and even President Donald Trump, who champions a laissez-faire approach to AI for global dominance, Politico reported.
This isn’t about cultural flashpoints or progressive overreach; it’s about hard-nosed concerns over jobs, community resources, and the very fabric of democracy.
On Dec. 15 in Jupiter, DeSantis didn’t mince words, warning against what he called a dangerous “transhumanist strain” in AI tech.
“The idea of this transhumanist strain, that somehow this is going to supplant humans and this other stuff, we have to reject that with every fiber of our being,” DeSantis declared.
That’s a gut punch to Silicon Valley’s utopian dreams, and it’s refreshing to hear a leader prioritize human dignity over machine worship.
Just days later on Dec. 18 in Sebring, DeSantis doubled down, slamming AI-generated content as little more than deceptive junk.
“Let’s not try to act like some type of fake videos or fake songs are going to deliver us to some kind of utopia,” he said. Talk about a reality check for Big Tech’s rose-colored glasses.
Meanwhile, Trump’s pushing for federal oversight with minimal restrictions, even threatening lawsuits against states like Florida for daring to set their own rules—yet DeSantis remains unfazed, leaning on states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.
At the heart of DeSantis’ crusade is a push to halt the spread of massive data centers, which he and local Floridians see as resource hogs causing noise, pollution, and utility spikes.
Projects like a proposed 202-acre facility in Palm Beach County are on hold, while St. Lucie County residents fight a $13.5 billion center threatening agricultural land—a classic case of corporate interests steamrolling community needs.
DeSantis isn’t buying the tech industry’s “jobs and growth” pitch, pointing to examples like Louisiana’s mammoth data hub as a cautionary tale Florida must avoid.
As Florida’s legislative session looms on Jan. 13, 2026, DeSantis has made AI restrictions a top priority, proposing consumer notifications, bans on AI-driven mental health counseling, and parental controls over kids’ tech use.
Lawmakers are already advancing a bill to ensure human oversight in insurance decisions, a sensible guardrail against algorithm tyranny, while the state House held extensive hearings in December 2025 to weigh innovation against protection.
DeSantis frames this as a bipartisan fight to shield families and ratepayers from AI’s darker side, building on Florida’s existing laws against AI misuse in political ads and child exploitation—a rare issue where common sense might just prevail over partisan noise.
Is your tax money funding a ghost daycare in Minneapolis? Congressman Tom Emmer, a Republican from Minnesota, is raising serious questions about millions in federal aid funneled to a South Minneapolis facility that appears to be anything but operational.
The issue centers on the Quality Learning Center, where a viral video by citizen journalist Nick Shirley exposed an eerily empty daycare, despite claims it serves nearly 100 children, Breitbart reported.
Emmer is now pressing Governor Tim Walz for answers amid broader concerns about social services fraud in Minnesota.
This controversy kicked off when Shirley, a YouTuber, visited the Quality Learning Center during a weekday and found no signs of activity. There were no kids, no bustle, just silence at the facility.
Adding insult to injury, the center’s sign reads “learing” instead of “learning,” a detail that hasn’t escaped sharp-eyed critics. It’s hard to trust an educational facility with millions in taxpayer funds when it can’t even spell its own purpose correctly.
Shirley’s footage captured a tense moment when an unidentified woman inside shouted, “Don’t open up,” while wrongly accusing him and his companion of being ICE agents. That’s a peculiar way to greet visitors at a supposed bustling daycare, don’t you think?
In the video, Shirley himself noted, “There’s no one here,” a simple observation that cuts to the heart of this scandal (Nick Shirley, YouTube video). If a center claiming to care for 99 children is a ghost town midweek, where exactly is the money going?
Reports suggest the Quality Learning Center has raked in nearly $8 million in federal taxpayer money since 2019. This includes $1.9 million alone in 2025 and a total of $4 million over two years. That’s a hefty sum for a place that looks more like a vacant lot than a vibrant childcare hub.
Rep. Emmer didn’t hold back, sharing Shirley’s video on X and pointedly asking, “Care to explain this one, @tim_walz?” (Rep. Tom Emmer, X post). It’s a fair question—hardworking Americans deserve to know why their dollars are bankrolling an apparent mirage.
The timing of this viral video couldn’t be worse for Minnesota, as it coincides with a staggering announcement from Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson. He revealed that half of $18 billion in federal welfare funds have been lost to fraud. That’s more than the GDP of some countries, according to the Government Accountability Institute.
The Quality Learning Center has a troubling history, with 95 violations flagged by the state human services agency between 2019 and 2023, as reported by 5KSTP. These aren’t minor slip-ups—issues like failing to secure hazardous items suggest systemic neglect.
Another violation included missing records for 16 children at the center. This raises serious questions about oversight and care at the facility.
This isn’t just about one daycare; it’s part of a larger pattern of alleged social services fraud in Minnesota. The scale of misused funds is a wake-up call for tighter controls on these programs.
Taxpayers aren’t asking for much—just transparency and accountability. When millions are handed out, shouldn’t there be a basic check to ensure the lights are on?
Governor Walz now faces mounting pressure to explain how such a facility could receive substantial federal aid with so little apparent activity. Silence on this matter won’t cut it when public trust is already shaken by broader fraud scandals.
Rep. Emmer’s call for answers resonates with many frustrated by government waste and progressive policies that seem to prioritize funding over results. It’s not about pointing fingers; it’s about ensuring every dollar serves its intended purpose—helping real children, not padding empty ledgers.
Picture a charity cloaked in goodwill, yet shadowed by whispers of foreign money and political favors that could make even the most trusting skeptic raise an eyebrow.
Newly released FBI documents expose a 2016 effort by field agents to investigate Hillary Clinton over potential misuse of the Clinton Foundation for foreign donations and campaign debt settlements during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Daily Caller reported.
This story kicks off during Clinton’s time at the State Department, when FBI agents began sniffing out troubling links between her foundation and overseas contributions, despite her pledge to restrict such funds.
Under the operation dubbed "Cracked Foundation," investigators gathered evidence, including a recorded discussion between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal about foundation donations and clearing debts from her 2008 presidential run.
Chatwal, a foundation trustee and key player in Clinton’s past campaign, admitted guilt in 2014 to laundering straw donations for that race, coughing up $1 million in a deal with the Justice Department.
Yet, when field agents pushed to grill Clinton on these pay-to-play concerns, FBI headquarters in Washington slammed the brakes, refusing to let the probe move forward.
FBI New York Assistant Director Diego Rodriguez pressed for specific questions about the foundation to be put to Clinton, as shown in documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 15.
Agents had prepared queries about Chatwal’s involvement in the 2008 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement and whether his funds influenced that policy shift on nuclear proliferation rules.
They also sought answers on the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, formed after Clinton’s no-foreign-funds promise, which reportedly channeled money to the foundation without required transparency.
Chatwal didn’t hold back, reportedly telling an FBI informant, “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system,” about straw donations (as cited in FBI records).
That line hits hard—here’s a convicted campaign finance schemer seemingly confessing to manipulating the process, all while linked to Clinton’s foundation. Doesn’t this fuel conservative doubts about elite accountability?
In 2019, an assistant U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of New York vented frustration, stating, “We were trying to explore the Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ” (as per court statements).
By July 2016, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI over her private email server in a separate case called “Midyear Exam,” not one question about the foundation or foreign bribery surfaced.
While some on the left might claim Clinton endured enough scrutiny elsewhere, the hard evidence of intercepted talks and undisclosed foreign cash suggests a missed chance for real answers.
Ultimately, for those wary of unchecked power, this tale of blocked investigations and unanswered questions isn’t just a footnote—it’s a glaring reminder that transparency shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
Washington, DC, just got a long-overdue shakeup with the FBI’s iconic J. Edgar Hoover Building closing its doors for good.
FBI Director Kash Patel dropped the bombshell on Friday before late December 2025, announcing the permanent closure of the deteriorating headquarters and a relocation of most staff to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in the nation’s capital.
For hardworking taxpayers across America, this move signals a rare win against government waste, slashing a staggering $5 billion plan for a new headquarters that wouldn’t have opened for another decade. The financial burden of such a bloated project would have landed squarely on the shoulders of everyday folks already squeezed by inflation and overreach. Let’s hope this sets a precedent for fiscal sanity, not just another photo-op.
The J. Edgar Hoover Building, operational since 1975, has been a crumbling symbol of bureaucratic inertia, with the FBI and General Services Administration debating a replacement for over ten years. Options in Maryland and Virginia were tossed around, but no shovel ever hit the ground.
Enter Kash Patel, who earlier in 2025 hinted at shaking things up by reallocating FBI personnel nationwide and moving agents out of the outdated Hoover structure. A memo obtained by Fox News Digital confirmed to employees that this relocation was the most budget-friendly path forward.
By May 2025, Patel was already floating plans to prioritize field manpower over desk jobs in DC, a nod to getting agents closer to the real threats facing our homeland. It’s about time someone remembered that safety isn’t secured from a swivel chair.
Fast forward to November 27, 2025, when Patel held a press conference cementing the decision to shutter the Hoover Building permanently. Most headquarters staff will now call the Ronald Reagan Building home once upgrades are finished.
Safety and infrastructure improvements are already in progress at the Reagan Building, ensuring the transition isn’t just a pipe dream. This isn’t about shiny new toys—it’s about giving agents modern tools without breaking the bank.
“After more than 20 years of failed attempts, we finalized a plan to permanently close the FBI’s Hoover headquarters and move the workforce into a safe, modern facility,” Patel posted on X. Well, hats off for finally cutting through the red tape, though one wonders if 20 years of dithering deserves a victory lap.
Patel also emphasized, “This decision puts resources where they belong: defending the homeland, crushing violent crime, and protecting national security.” That’s a mission statement conservatives can rally behind, especially when progressive agendas often seem to prioritize optics over outcomes.
The relocation isn’t just about saving billions—it’s a strategic pivot. Some FBI personnel will stay in the field, part of a broader push to deploy more boots on the ground where they’re needed most.
Contrast this with the endless delays and cost overruns of past proposals, and it’s clear why scrapping the $5 billion boondoggle was the right call. Throwing good money after bad isn’t governance; it’s malpractice.
For communities worried about national security, this shift promises better-equipped agents without the sticker shock. It’s a refreshing change from the usual DC habit of spending first and thinking later.
While some may grumble about losing the Hoover Building’s historic presence, the reality is that nostalgia can’t trump practicality. Patel’s plan, crafted with direct input from President Trump and Congress, shows what can happen when leaders stop posturing and start problem-solving.
Blacksburg Town Council member Liam Watson has just thrown in the towel after a jury slapped him with serious felony convictions.
In a stunning turn of events, Watson was found guilty of two counts of election fraud and one count of illegal voting, leading to his resignation just days before the new year, with an effective date of noon on Jan. 2, 2026.
For Watson's constituents in Blacksburg, this saga raises red flags about trust in local governance and the integrity (or lack) of elected officials.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: On Dec. 10, 2025, a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convicted Watson on three felony charges tied to his 2023 campaign.
The charges stem from Watson listing a false address on candidate and voter forms, using a Blacksburg rental property tied to outgoing Mayor Leslie Hager-Smith, despite living elsewhere at the time.
Watson’s defense claimed Hager-Smith gave him the green light to use the address as a residency workaround, but she denied any such assurances under oath during the trial.
Fast forward to Dec. 18, 2025, and Watson announced his resignation, just eight days after the verdict dropped like a bombshell.
His exit, while not immediate, gives the council a small window to regroup before the effective date early next year.
Speaking on his decision, Watson said, “After a week of prayerful discernment, I have decided to resign as a member of the Blacksburg Town Council, effective at noon on Jan. 2, 2026.”
He added, “I am heartbroken by the jury’s verdict but respect their decision.” Heartbroken or not, conservatives in Blacksburg might argue that actions speak louder than words, especially when facing up to 25 years behind bars.
Watson’s term wasn’t even set to end until 2027, leaving many to wonder why he didn’t fight harder to stay, given Virginia law allows convicted officials to remain in office during appeals.
His legal team has already filed a motion to challenge the verdict, but the court of public opinion may not be so easily swayed.
In the days after the verdict, council members couldn’t agree on whether Watson should stick around, with some expecting him to be seated in January.
Outgoing Mayor Hager-Smith herself shrugged off the drama, saying, “Whether or not he remained on the council was a matter of political will.” That’s a convenient sidestep for someone whose property address landed Watson in hot water—shouldn’t there be more scrutiny here?
As Blacksburg braces for a leadership shakeup, the bigger question looms: How do we prevent these shenanigans from happening again? Conservatives might argue it’s time for stricter vetting of candidates, not more excuses or progressive leniency on election rules. For a town that prides itself on integrity, this scandal is a wake-up call to demand accountability, not just apologies.
President Donald Trump’s reluctance to back Somaliland’s independence, even after Israel’s groundbreaking recognition, is raising eyebrows among conservative taxpayers who foot the bill for foreign policy decisions.
While Israel became the first nation to officially recognize Somaliland as independent from Somalia on Dec. 26, 2025, Trump has signaled he’s not ready to follow suit, prioritizing other issues like the Gaza Strip cease-fire and reconstruction efforts.
For American taxpayers, this hesitation could mean continued financial burdens in a region where strategic opportunities, like Somaliland’s offer of a naval base near the Red Sea, are left on the table while resources are funneled elsewhere. Many on the right wonder if this is another missed chance to secure U.S. interests without deeper entanglement. After all, every dollar spent on endless overseas commitments is a dollar not spent on domestic priorities.
Somaliland, a former British protectorate, has operated as a de facto independent state since 1991, carving out a stable democracy with peaceful power transitions—unlike the chaos often seen in Somalia’s Mogadishu-based government.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made history by recognizing Somaliland’s sovereignty on Dec. 26, 2025, and even held a video call with Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi to celebrate the diplomatic milestone.
Netanyahu also told Abdullahi, “I’ll communicate to President Trump your willingness and desire to join the Abraham Accords,” signaling an intent to bring Somaliland into the fold of nations normalizing ties with Israel.
Yet Trump, who brokered a cease-fire in Gaza and now chairs a U.N.-approved Board of Peace for the region’s reconstruction, seems unmoved by Netanyahu’s advocacy, with a meeting scheduled for Dec. 29, 2025, to discuss this and other matters.
When pressed on Somaliland, Trump told The Post, “Just say, ‘No.’” That blunt dismissal suggests a lack of urgency, leaving conservatives to question whether strategic gains in the Gulf of Aden are being sidelined for less tangible wins.
Somaliland’s offers are hardly trivial—they’ve proposed land for a U.S. naval base near the Red Sea’s mouth and a port on the Gulf of Aden, a critical spot for American military and economic interests.
Gen. Dagvin Anderson of U.S. Africa Command visited Somaliland recently, sparking local hopes for a potential deal, but no firm commitments have emerged from Washington.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican and Trump ally, is pushing the “Republic of Somaliland Independence Act,” backed by fellow conservatives like Reps. Tom Tiffany, Andy Ogles, and Tim Burchett—all of whom see the region’s potential.
Meanwhile, opposition comes from figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat born in Mogadishu, who staunchly defends Somalia’s territorial claims, leaving little room for compromise on Somaliland’s autonomy.
Somaliland enjoys support from Ethiopia and the UAE, but faces pushback from Egypt and Turkey, creating a complex web of alliances that the U.S. must navigate carefully.
Trump’s broader frustrations with Somalia, including his recent criticism of alleged taxpayer exploitation in Minnesota tied to Democratic policies, only add fuel to the debate over whether Somaliland deserves a closer look as a reliable partner.
For now, conservative voters and policy hawks alike are left wondering if Trump’s hesitation is a missed opportunity to counter progressive foreign policy missteps or a rare moment of restraint in a world begging for American overreach. With strategic ports and bases up for grabs, the clock is ticking. Isn’t it time to prioritize American interests over endless diplomatic dithering?
Is New York prioritizing felons over victims in its latest prison reform push? Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman certainly thinks so, as he publicly rebuked Governor Kathy Hochul for signing a bill that reserves a seat on the state corrections commission for a convicted criminal.
This controversy stems from a sweeping prison reform bill signed by Hochul last Friday, which expands the New York State Corrections Commission to include a formerly incarcerated individual while aiming to boost oversight and safety in state facilities after tragic inmate deaths.
Why should public funds support a commission seat for someone who broke the law, when victims of crime—already burdened by financial and emotional costs—could offer a firsthand perspective on justice? This feels like a slap in the face to those footing the bill for a system that seems to coddle offenders.
The reform bill wasn’t born in a vacuum—it came after horrifying incidents of inmates dying in custody. Cases like Robert Brooks, allegedly beaten by prison personnel, and Messiah Natwi, reportedly killed similarly, have fueled demands for change. Corrections officers even staged a strike earlier this year, underscoring the tension within the system.
Hochul’s administration has already rolled out measures like speeding up camera installations in prisons and mandating their use by staff. She also secured $2.5 million in this year’s budget to equip the corrections commission with more resources for oversight. But is adding a criminal’s voice to the commission the right next step?
“Every single individual who enters our prisons deserves to be safe, whether they are employed there or serving their time,” said Governor Kathy Hochul. Nice sentiment, Governor, but conservatives might argue that safety starts with supporting victims and law enforcement, not amplifying the perspective of those who violated the public trust.
Blakeman, a leading Republican candidate for governor, didn’t mince words in his critique of Hochul’s decision. “If the Commission of Correction is going to be expanded, the additional seat should go to a crime victim, not someone who broke the law,” he told the Washington Examiner. His point hits home for many who feel the system too often forgets those harmed by crime.
From a populist lens, Blakeman’s stance resonates with everyday New Yorkers tired of progressive policies that seem to sideline their concerns. Victims, after all, bear the real-world consequences of a justice system that can feel maddeningly lenient.
Prison reform advocates, like State Senator Julia Salazar, have cheered Hochul’s move, calling it a step toward transparency and reduced violence. But shouldn’t transparency start with ensuring the voices of the wronged are heard over those who did the wronging? That’s a question conservatives are asking.
Not everyone in the corrections world is on board with this reform package either. The NYS Correctional Officers Police Benevolent Association called it an overreach, arguing it unfairly paints all officers with the same brush after isolated tragedies. Their frustration is palpable—and understandable.
“The death of Robert Brooks was a profound tragedy, and meaningful reforms to ensure that never happens again must be made,” the association stated. Yet, they quickly added, broad punitive measures targeting dedicated professionals miss the mark. From a right-of-center view, this feels like another case of policy overreaction at the expense of those who keep us safe.
Hochul’s reforms, including funding for investigations and camera mandates, show she’s trying to address systemic issues. But conservatives might argue that true accountability means no one—especially not those in power—gets a pass from scrutiny. Every incident must be investigated thoroughly, no exceptions.
The debate over this corrections commission seat isn’t just about policy—it’s about values. Does New York stand with victims, or does it bend over backward for a progressive agenda that risks alienating the law-abiding majority? That’s the tension Blakeman is tapping into.
For many on the right, this is a clear-cut issue of justice being turned on its head. A commission meant to oversee safety shouldn’t be a platform for those who once endangered it. Let’s hope future reforms remember who the real stakeholders are.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just got a Christmas surprise from President Donald Trump with the permanent appointment of his acting chief of staff, Ricky Buria, despite months of fierce opposition from within the White House.
This move, confirmed by sources close to the matter, cements Buria’s role after eight months of interim service, navigating a storm of internal Pentagon clashes and White House resistance over his past political ties and ongoing conflicts.
Buria’s journey to this permanent post hasn’t been a smooth parade down Main Street.
Since stepping into the acting role eight months ago, he replaced Joe Kasper, who exited amid a wave of firings of Hegseth’s senior aides tied to a leak investigation—a mess that left several aides disputing their dismissals.
Hegseth pushed for Buria’s official title as early as spring, only to hit a brick wall with the White House presidential personnel office, which balked at the pick due to Buria’s history.
Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room—Buria’s past raises eyebrows among conservatives who value loyalty to the America First agenda.
Federal Election Commission records show he donated to a Democrat in 2023, and he previously served as a junior military aide under Biden-era Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, hardly a resume that screams MAGA devotion.
Yet, Buria, a retired Marine colonel with 20 years of service, managed to win over Hegseth and even Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, showing personal charm can sometimes outshine ideological purity.
Inside the Pentagon, Buria’s tenure has been less about camaraderie and more about cage matches with fellow Trump appointees.
He recently tried—and failed—to boot senior aide Patrick Weaver, and took a swing at firing Matt McNitt, the White House liaison to the Pentagon, who not only kept his job but snagged a temporary dual role in the White House.
By late summer, the White House was hunting for a replacement chief of staff after Buria’s clash with McNitt, signaling just how deep the fractures run in this administration’s defense team.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell tried to polish this tarnished apple, stating, “Secretary Hegseth has put together an all-star team, and we are proud of our historic accomplishments.”
With all due respect to Parnell, an “all-star team” doesn’t usually spend months bickering while critical defense priorities wait on the sidelines—conservatives expect results, not drama, from those entrusted with our nation’s security.
Ultimately, Buria updated his LinkedIn profile on Friday to reflect his new title as chief of staff, a digital victory lap after Trump granted a waiver for his brief time as a Marine colonel, but the real test is whether he can unify a fractured Pentagon without further alienating key players.
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz just got blindsided by a wild question about a supposed romance with none other than progressive firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The eyebrow-raising moment came during a Monday interview with Tucker Carlson, where Gaetz was pressed on whether he ever dated the New York congresswoman, a notion he swiftly shot down, despite past bipartisan teamwork in Congress.
Let's rewind to May 2023, when Fox News host Greg Gutfeld first floated the idea of a hypothetical romance between Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez as a jest on "The Five." At the time, Gaetz was married, and Ocasio-Cortez was engaged to her fiancé, Riley Roberts. The quip seemed like harmless banter—until it resurfaced years later.
Fast forward to Monday, when Carlson, at 56, brought the rumor back to life on his web show, asking Gaetz point-blank about any romantic history with the 36-year-old democratic socialist. Gaetz, 43 and now hosting a show on One America News, didn’t mince words in his denial. It’s a reminder of how old jokes can morph into unwelcome headlines.
During their time in Congress, Gaetz—an outspoken MAGA supporter—and Ocasio-Cortez forged an unlikely partnership on bipartisan issues. They were even photographed together on the House floor on Jan. 3, 2023. But political collaboration doesn’t mean personal connection, and conservatives might smirk at how quickly the left’s narrative spins into melodrama.
Carlson wasn’t content with a simple no, pushing further with, "Did you try?" as he quizzed Gaetz on any interest in Ocasio-Cortez. Gaetz shot back with, "No, and uh, not my cup of tea," making it clear he wasn’t entertaining the idea.
From a right-of-center view, this line of questioning feels like a cheap shot, more suited to tabloid fodder than serious discourse. Yet, it’s hard to ignore how such rumors distract from policy debates that actually impact everyday Americans. Let’s keep the focus on legislative records, not soap opera plots.
Gaetz didn’t hold back on critiquing Ocasio-Cortez’s past behavior either, recalling her reaction to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol storming. He described her response as "bad performance art," suggesting it lacked the gravitas expected of a leader. A fair conservative critique might agree—public office demands composure, not theatrics.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has spoken of experiencing trauma from the Capitol events, a claim Gaetz seems to dismiss. For many on the right, such statements can appear overblown when compared to the resilience expected of public figures. Still, it’s worth noting her perspective as part of the broader story.
Gaetz’s own journey took a sharp turn in November 2024, when he resigned from Congress after President Donald Trump nominated him for attorney general. That bid collapsed when even fellow Republicans withheld support, leading Gaetz to withdraw his name. It’s a stark reminder that political loyalty isn’t always a two-way street.
Shortly after, the House Ethics Committee released a 2021 report on allegations of sex trafficking and other misconduct tied to Gaetz. While the Justice Department declined to charge him, his associate Joel Greenberg wasn’t as fortunate, earning an 11-year sentence for federal sex trafficking of a minor. Conservatives demand transparency here—no one gets a free pass, regardless of party or position.
On a brighter note, Gaetz and his wife, Ginger, welcomed a baby boy in August 2025, a personal milestone following their 2021 marriage. It’s a humanizing detail amid the political storm, and most Americans—left or right—can appreciate family joys.
Meanwhile, Gaetz continues to build his media presence on a conservative cable network, while Ocasio-Cortez remains a prominent voice for the progressive agenda. Their paths may have diverged, but their brief alliance in Congress shows that even opposites can find common ground. Let’s hope future collaborations focus on policy, not personal rumors.