Hold onto your hats, folks—Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has just emerged from a brutal tumble that left his face looking like a Halloween mask gone wrong.
Here’s the quick rundown: Fetterman, 56, took a nasty spill during a morning walk in Braddock, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, landing himself in the hospital with nearly two dozen stitches and a serious health scare before being released on Saturday, the New York Post reported.
This wasn’t just a scraped knee for the Pennsylvania senator. While out for his usual stroll, Fetterman suddenly felt lightheaded and hit the ground hard, suffering significant facial injuries that required a whopping 20 stitches.
Out of caution, he was rushed to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center for evaluation. Doctors diagnosed a ventricular fibrillation flare-up, a dangerous condition where the heart’s rhythm goes haywire, potentially stopping proper blood flow.
It’s a stark reminder of Fetterman’s ongoing health battles, including a stroke during his 2022 Senate campaign that left him with auditory processing challenges. Despite progress, these incidents pile up like bad policy proposals from the left.
By Saturday, Fetterman was back home with his family, no doubt relieved to leave the hospital bed behind. “20 stitches later and a full recovery, I’m back home with @giselefetterman and the kids,” he posted on X, trying to keep spirits high.
That attempt at humor continued when he quipped about his battered appearance earlier in the week. “If you thought my face looked bad before, wait until you see it now!” Fetterman said in a statement on Thursday, proving he can still crack a joke through the pain.
Let’s be real—posting a graphic photo of a bloodied face isn’t exactly the polished PR move you’d expect from a senator. But in a world obsessed with curated images and woke posturing, there’s something oddly refreshing about Fetterman’s raw honesty, even if his politics often miss the mark.
The timing of this fall couldn’t be worse, happening just two days into a media tour for his memoir, “Unfettered.” The book delves into his health struggles and political journey, and this incident adds another dramatic chapter he didn’t ask for.
Fetterman’s health isn’t the only rough patch in his story. He’s also got a well-documented clash with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, dating back to a 2020 Zoom hearing over commuting sentences for two brothers convicted of murder.
During that hearing, Shapiro voted against commutation with what Fetterman called a “very long-winded and unnecessary” statement, while Fetterman supported the move. The tension boiled over to the point where Fetterman admitted to some colorful language about Shapiro behind closed doors.
Now, while personal spats shouldn’t define public service, this feud highlights deeper divides in Pennsylvania’s leadership. It’s the kind of drama that distracts from real issues—like fixing broken systems—yet somehow fits Fetterman’s unpolished, straight-talking persona.
Speaking of struggles, Fetterman’s early Senate term in 2023 saw him check into Walter Reed Medical Center for six weeks to tackle clinical depression. That’s a heavy load for any public figure, especially one under the relentless scrutiny of Washington.
Yet, despite these setbacks, Fetterman keeps pushing forward, whether it’s through health scares or political battles. While his progressive stances often clash with common-sense conservative values, you can’t deny the grit it takes to keep standing after each hit—literal or figurative.
As he recovers at home, Fetterman’s latest ordeal serves as a reminder that even in the rough-and-tumble of politics, personal resilience matters. Here’s hoping he mends quickly, even if we’d rather debate his policies than stitch up his wounds.
Picture this: dodging a bullet—literally—only to be struck by the devastating news of a dear friend’s murder, a double blow that has reshaped President Donald Trump’s world.
In a whirlwind of relentless rallies, a near-fatal attack in Butler, Pennsylvania, and the heartbreaking murder of his friend Charlie Kirk, Trump has navigated a storm of challenges that have altered his approach to public events and personal security, the Washington Examiner reported.
For a decade, Trump has been the maestro of nearly 900 rallies, transforming them into festival-like gatherings that pulse with energy.
These events, often held outdoors, pull in massive crowds early, featuring music and speeches from local heroes, union leaders, elected officials, and retired military officers.
By choosing overlooked spots like Butler—where only he and John F. Kennedy have campaigned—Trump brings a spotlight to communities long ignored by the political elite.
In the final stretch of his recent campaign surge, he kept up a punishing pace, sometimes cramming four or five rallies into a single day, kicking off as early as 8 a.m.
Yet, danger shadowed this grind—an assassination attempt in Butler left Trump bloodied, a bullet grazing his ear in a stark reminder of the risks he faces.
Having endured two such attempts, he’s had to reassess, especially when it comes to the outdoor events that fuel his connection with supporters.
“The outdoor rallies, I love them, but I probably have to be careful,” Trump conceded, balancing his passion for open-air crowds against the harsh reality of heightened threats (Donald Trump).
But as jarring as those close calls were, nothing struck Trump quite like the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, a loss that shook him to his core.
Kirk wasn’t merely a political ally; Trump saw him as a magnetic figure who inspired young people with a rare charisma.
“He had a mystique, something special over the young people attracted to him,” Trump noted, capturing the unique void Kirk’s death has left behind (Donald Trump).
Trump described Kirk as a dedicated soul—a hard worker, a genuinely good man, and someone who cherished his wife with unwavering devotion.
This tragedy hasn’t just been a personal blow; it’s forced Trump to rethink how he engages with the public in a time when safety feels more precarious than ever.
While the progressive agenda often dismisses the real dangers faced by conservative figures, Trump’s experience—coupled with Kirk’s murder—underscores a sobering truth: standing for traditional values can come at a steep cost, and security isn’t just a luxury, it’s a necessity.
Imagine tuning into a high-stakes congressional hearing only to learn a lawmaker was texting a notorious figure like Jeffrey Epstein for real-time advice. That’s the bombshell dropped by newly released records from Epstein’s estate, exposing a curious exchange with Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett during a 2019 testimony by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. It’s a plot twist that raises eyebrows about influence and propriety in the halls of Congress.
These records, unveiled by the House Oversight Committee this month, paint a picture of Epstein messaging Plaskett as she sat on a panel grilling Cohen, with suggestions that appear to shape her line of questioning.
Let’s rewind to February 27, 2019, when Cohen’s testimony gripped the nation with revelations about the Trump Organization. Epstein, watching intently, fired off texts to someone on the panel—context and timestamps, as reviewed by The Washington Post, point squarely to Plaskett. It’s unsettling to think a figure with Epstein’s dark history had a direct line to a sitting delegate during such a pivotal moment.
In one exchange, Epstein nudged Plaskett to dig into “other henchmen” at the Trump Organization, as if scripting her next move. “Hes [sic] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org,” he texted, per the released documents. That’s not just a casual chat—it’s a playbook suggestion from a man whose own scandals were about to explode.
Plaskett’s reply? “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn,” she shot back, showing she was dialed in and ready to act, according to the records. It’s hard not to wonder if this was just friendly banter or something more coordinated.
When Cohen name-dropped Rhona Graff, a Trump aide, Epstein pounced, texting Plaskett to call her the “keeper of secrets.” Sure enough, Plaskett soon pressed Cohen on Graff by name, mirroring Epstein’s tip. That kind of synchronicity doesn’t exactly scream independent thought.
Beyond the professional nudges, Epstein’s messages veered into the personal, complimenting Plaskett’s outfit and even asking if she was chewing on camera. She clarified it was just a nervous habit, chewing the inside of her mouth since middle school. It’s a quirky detail, but one that underscores how familiar this exchange seemed for a public hearing.
Epstein also inquired how long Plaskett would stick around at the hearing, as if keeping tabs on her schedule. For a man with no official role in Congress, that level of interest feels like overreach. It’s a reminder of how blurred lines can get when powerful figures mingle with elected officials.
Epstein’s ties to the Virgin Islands, where he owned two private islands, add another layer of discomfort to this story. He donated to various politicians, Plaskett included, as reported by Business Insider. That financial link, even if legal, casts a shadow over these interactions.
After reports of these texts surfaced on a recent Friday evening, Plaskett’s office pushed back, claiming she received messages from “staff, constituents and the public at large,” Epstein among them, during the hearing. They framed it as routine communication, nothing out of the ordinary. But let’s be honest—Epstein wasn’t your average constituent dropping a friendly note.
Her team also leaned on her background as a former prosecutor, emphasizing her work on sexual assault and trafficking cases. They insisted she welcomes any information to uncover truth. That’s a noble stance, but it sidesteps why someone with Epstein’s baggage was a go-to source during a live hearing.
Then there’s the messy aftermath of Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges. Plaskett’s office initially resisted returning his campaign contributions, only relenting under public pressure. It’s a flip-flop that doesn’t inspire confidence in where her priorities lie.
In 2023, Plaskett found herself named in a lawsuit by six Epstein accusers, alleging Virgin Islands officials either benefited from or enabled his trafficking network. That suit was dismissed with prejudice earlier this year, closing the legal chapter. Still, the association lingers like a bad aftertaste.
What’s the takeaway from this tangled web? These texts reveal a troubling coziness between a lawmaker and a man whose crimes would soon shock the world, all while she questioned a key witness on national television. It’s not illegal, but it’s a stark reminder that optics matter in public service.
Conservative voices often rail against the progressive elite for questionable alliances, and this incident fuels that fire without needing to exaggerate. Plaskett may have had pure intentions, but leaning on Epstein’s input—however minor—during a hearing is a misstep that undermines trust. In an era where accountability is demanded, this is a story that deserves scrutiny, not a shrug.
Brace yourselves, Charlotte—federal agents are rolling into town with a mission to tackle public safety threats tied to unauthorized migration, and the sparks are already flying.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has kicked off a major immigration enforcement operation in Charlotte, N.C., deploying additional law enforcement to address what they call serious risks to the community, while local leaders cry foul over the fear and uncertainty it’s stirring among residents, Just The News reported.
This all started heating up on Thursday when Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden got word from federal officials that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol personnel would arrive in Charlotte either Saturday or early next week. The heads-up was a nod to collaboration, but the suddenness of it all has left many on edge. What’s the plan, and who’s really being targeted?
Saturday marked the official start of these operations, as confirmed by DHS, with Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin doubling down on the need to protect Americans from what she sees as dangerous elements. “Americans should be able to live without fear of violent criminal illegal aliens hurting them, their families, or their neighbors,” McLaughlin stated, as reported by The Associated Press. But let’s be honest—painting this as a simple safety fix ignores the messy reality on the ground.
Local officials aren’t buying the “public safety” line without question. Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles, County Commissioner Mark Jerrell, and school board member Stephanie Sneed issued a joint statement saying, “We want people in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to know we stand with all residents who simply want to go about their lives.” It’s a noble sentiment, but when federal boots hit the pavement, platitudes won’t calm the nerves of a city with over 150,000 foreign-born residents among its 900,000-strong population.
Even Sheriff McFadden, while welcoming better communication with federal partners, seems to be walking a tightrope. He’s emphasized the need for trust and safety in Mecklenburg County, but with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department explicitly sitting this one out, it’s clear not everyone’s on board with DHS’s playbook.
North Carolina Governor Josh Stein dropped a bombshell on Friday, pointing out that the “vast majority” of those detained in these sweeps have no criminal convictions, and some are even U.S. citizens. That’s a far cry from the narrative of rounding up hardened threats. If true, it raises serious questions about the scope and precision of this operation.
Governor Stein didn’t stop there—he’s urged residents to document any overreach by authorities and report it to local law enforcement. It’s a subtle jab at federal tactics, suggesting the state isn’t fully confident in how this crackdown will play out. And in a city as diverse as Charlotte, that lack of confidence could fray community bonds faster than you can say “paperwork error.”
Let’s not pretend this is happening in a vacuum. The Trump administration has been ramping up efforts nationwide to combat violent crime and unauthorized migration, with National Guard troops deployed to cities like Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Los Angeles. While courts have blocked similar moves in Portland, Charlotte’s now the latest battleground in this broader push.
Assistant Secretary McLaughlin’s rhetoric about ensuring safety is hard to argue against in principle—who doesn’t want safer streets? But when the net catches folks with clean records or even citizenship, it starts looking less like precision and more like a sledgehammer approach. The administration needs to show its homework on who’s really a threat.
Local leaders are right to worry about the ripple effects of fear in a community where so many have ties abroad. Charlotte isn’t just a dot on a map; it’s a vibrant hub where trust between residents and authorities matters. Sweeps like this, if mishandled, risk turning neighbors into suspects overnight.
On the flip side, ignoring public safety concerns tied to unauthorized migration isn’t an option either. The challenge for DHS is proving this operation isn’t just political theater but a targeted effort to address real risks. So far, the jury’s out, and Charlotte’s residents are left waiting for answers.
The clash between federal priorities and local values isn’t new, but it’s playing out in real time on Charlotte’s streets. With the police department stepping back from immigration enforcement, the burden of perception falls squarely on DHS to avoid missteps. Transparency, not just muscle, will be the key to keeping this from spiraling.
For now, Governor Stein’s call to record any inappropriate behavior by authorities is a reminder that accountability cuts both ways. If federal agents overstep, they’ll have more than just local leaders to answer to—they’ll face a public armed with smartphones and skepticism. That’s a modern reality no badge can ignore.
As this operation unfolds, Charlotte stands as a microcosm of a national debate over how to handle immigration without sacrificing community or safety. The Trump administration’s hardline stance may resonate with those fed up with lax borders, but it must tread carefully to avoid alienating the very Americans it claims to protect. Here’s hoping for clarity—and calm—in the days ahead.
Newly released records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate have exposed a text conversation between a Democrat delegate and the late billionaire and child trafficker.
Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett was testifying in front of Congress in 2019 when she exchanged text messages with Epstein, seemingly consulting with him on how to answer questions.
These messages were released in a large batch of documents from the House Oversight Committee this November as the House continues to dig into Epstein's empire of child trafficking and political influence.
Plaskett was one of the members of a Congressional panel questioning former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in February 2019 and it appears that she was coordinating with Epstein on how to nail Cohen down and cause trouble for President Donald Trump.
One text from Epstein read, "Hes [Cohen] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org." These texts suggest Epstein was working with Democrats to undermine Trump, completely undermining an emerging narrative that Trump and Epstein were friends in any capacity.
For years, Democrats accused Trump of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. That conspiracy was based on falsified opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but Trump had to fight against those charges for years.
At the same time that Democrats were pushing the Russian collusion hoax, it seems that certain Democrats were in active communication with Epstein on how to undermine Trump.
Furthermore, by 2019, Epstein's human trafficking allegations were firmly in play, leaving little excuse for anyone to be dealing with him. Democrats accused Trump of being friends with Epstein ignoring the fact that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago in 2004.
To add further intrigue to this situation, Plaskett herself received significant political donations from Epstein and initially refused to return those donations after Epstein's arrest until public pressure built up.
Plaskett has also been named in a 2023 lawsuit filed by six Epstein accusers alleging Virgin Islands authorities benefited from or enabled Epstein's child trafficking network. While the case was dismissed, it's become apparent that Plaskett was firmly in Epstein's orbit and benefited from his monstrous crimes.
The information released by the House Oversight Committee is long overdue, as Americans deserve answers about Epstein's crimes and those who were aware and/or participated in those crimes.
Even while these discoveries are important, they shine a light on the incompetence of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been downright dismissive of demands from voters to release more information on Epstein and his sordid criminal network.
Trump promised transparency if elected, and so far, the people that Trump has brought into his administration have failed miserably in fulfilling that promise. It's unlikely that Plaskett was the only Democrat politician with deep ties to Epstein; there are likely others still serving in Congress who must face accountability.
President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon all those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest at the U.S. Capitol has been a source of endless controversy and debate, drawing the particular ire of Democrats, and additional clemency moves made by the administration late last week may add fuel to that fire.
As the Daily Mail reports, Trump granted a second pardon on Friday to Dan Wilson, a man who received a prior grant of clemency for his presence at the infamous Jan. 6 protest, clearing his record again in a felony firearm case.
Trump had already pardoned Wilson earlier in the year for his role in the Jan. 6 demonstration, but he remained incarcerated due to gun crimes discovered back in 2022, offenses to which he pleaded guilty.
It was during a probe of the Kentucky man’s involvement in the Jan. 6 unrest that authorities found six weapons and approximately 4,800 rounds of ammunition at his residence, possession of which was rendered unlawful by his past felony convictions, as NPR explains.
After a court battle related to whether the Jan. 6 pardon rightly encompassed the firearms conviction, the White House ultimately contended that the discovery of the guns and ammunition would never have happened absent the raid on Wilson’s home, which stemmed from his involvement in the D.C. protest.
“Because the search of Mr. Wilson’s home was due to the events of Jan. 6, President Trump is pardoning Mr. Wilson for the firearm issues,” a White House statement declared.
Wilson had been destined to remain in prison until 2028, but Friday’s pardon resulted in his immediate release, with his attorney stating that his client “can now reunite with his family and begin rebuilding his life.”
Wilson was not the only Jan. 6-related pardon issued by Trump last week, with Suzanne Ellen Kaye of Florida also receiving the nod, as NPR further notes.
Kaye had spent a year and a half in prison as a result of social media threats against federal agents who visited her home in 2021 to probe what they thought was her involvement in the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, as the Miami Herald explained.
Having suggested on social media that she would shoot any agent who arrived at her home, Kaye later testified at trial that she did not actually own any guns and did not intend to threaten federal officials.
She also stated that she was not even present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and she was never charged with any crimes related to the events of that day.
In discussing Kaye’s pardon, an unnamed White House official stated that she suffers from “stress-induced seizures” and that her case was one “of disfavored First Amendment political speech being prosecuted and an excessive sentence.”
There has been no shortage of debate regarding Trump’s decision to grant sweeping pardons to those involved in the Jan. 6 unrest, particularly in cases of individuals accused of engaging in physical violence on that day and also in those involving largely unrelated -- yet incidentally discovered -- offenses.
Even so, the administration is standing firm in its decisions, with Edward Martin, special pardon attorney at the Justice Department, stating emphatically on X that “President Trump is unwinding the damage done by Biden’s DOJ weaponization, so the healing can begin.”
In May of this year, a chaotic scene erupted at a New Jersey ICE detention facility, one that led to the arrest and indictment of a congresswoman from that state.
Now, despite Rep. LaMonica McIver’s attempts to have the charges against her dismissed, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper last week determined that the lawmaker must stand trial on two of the three counts, reserving judgment on whether a third count will be allowed to stand, as Breitbart reports.
The incident that gave rise to McIver’s current legal troubles unfolded on May 9, when, according to the Department of Justice, the congresswoman “forcibly impeded and interfered with federal officers as they attempted to arrest an individual outside the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility.”
Though McIver and two other members of the lower chamber appeared at the facility to “conduct a congressional oversight inspection,” their presence coincided with a demonstration in protest of the Trump administration's immigration policies.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka arrived on the scene as well, entering a secured area of the facility, and when a federal officer indicated to him that he was not permitted to be in that part of the building, a dispute ensued.
McIver and her congressional colleagues challenged the officer’s assertions and opposed Baraka’s potential removal from the facility, eventually surrounding the mayor to protect him from arrest.
According to the DOJ, “McIver slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer and also reached out and tried to restrain that officer by forcibly grabbing him. McIver also used each of her forearms to forcibly strike a second officer,” conduct that led to an indictment on three criminal counts.
In response to the indictment, McIver and her attorneys argued that the prosecution itself was unfair and that she is entitled to protection from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause, as Politico notes, which provides immunity to lawmakers from actions stemming from official duties.
Unfortunately for McIver, Judge Semper disagreed with her characterization of the case and declined to throw out two of the three counts, with a determination on the third count still in abeyance pending receipt of additional evidence.
In a 41-page opinion on McIver’s request, Semper wrote, “Defendant’s active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight.”
The opinion continued, “Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties.”
The trial in the case was originally slated to start last week, but the judge permitted a postponement of the proceedings, perhaps with the expectation that an appeal of this ruling will follow in short order.
Not surprisingly, McIver was frustrated by the outcome, issuing a statement that said, “I am not in this fight only for myself, and I am concerned that this decision will simply embolden the administration.”
At the time of the initial indictment, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the administration’s position clear, stating, “No one is above the law. If any person, regardless of political party, influence or status, assaults a law enforcement officer as we witnessed Congresswoman McIver do, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” and that is a sentiment with which millions surely agree. Whether a conviction ultimately results, however, only time will tell.
New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani called on his supporters to boycott the popular coffee shop chain Starbucks in support of the workers' union.
Starbucks Workers United, the union representing the coffee shop's employees, has declared an open-ended strike in what is being dubbed the "Red Cup Rebellion."
The union alleges that Starbucks is engaged in unfair labor practices and is refusing to negotiate with the union in good faith.
Mamdani took to X on Thursday saying, "Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract. While workers are on strike, I won’t be buying any Starbucks, and I’m asking you to join us. Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee."
It's hard to imagine leftist consumers being able to skip buying their daily overpriced frappuccino, but if anyone can mobilize leftists, it's the self-described socialist set to be New York City's next mayor.
In a post on social media, the union wrote, "As of today, Starbucks workers across the country are officially ON STRIKE and we're prepared for this to become the biggest and longest ULP strike in Starbucks history. Say #NoContractNoCoffee with us: DON'T BUY STARBUCKS for the duration of our open-ended ULP strike! $SBUX."
This boycott coincided with Starbucks's Red Cup Day, an important day for Starbucks loyalists who can pick up a holiday-themed red cup that is reusable.
It's a powerful move to flip what is typically a great marketing scheme by Starbucks on its head and use it as a rallying point for the boycott as the union works to get a better deal from the company.
However, the effectiveness of this boycott is certainly in question. If you ask Starbucks representatives, this year's Red Cup Day was a massive success despite the union's boycott.
Jaci Anderson, Starbucks Director of Global Communications, spoke to Fox News and explained, "In terms of our annual Reusable Red Cup Day – we actually had a great day – 99% of our coffeehouses remained open and welcoming customers and we exceeded our sales expectations across company-operated coffeehouses in North America, making it the best Red Cup Day ever."
She continued by saying, "We’re disappointed that Workers United, who represents less than 4% of our partners, has called for a strike instead of returning to the bargaining table. Less than 1% of our coffeehouses are experiencing any level of disruption and the vast majority of our 240,000 partners came to work ready to serve customers and celebrate Reuseable Red Cup Day. "
So far, it would appear that even Mamdani can't seem to get the average leftist to stand with workers' unions against their favorite corporation that sells overpriced coffee.
Turns out leftist voters care more about their overpriced coffee, which is a hallmark of American consumerism, than standing with workers. It's entirely possible that with Mamdani's campaign over, many of his supporters no longer care about ongoing political issues.
As for Starbucks, they insist that they are ready to hold talks with the union, even though Starbucks Workers United doesn't have enough members to disrupt Starbucks' operations on a national level. For conservatives, this entire situation is an entertaining episode of left-on-left violence, considering Starbucks's massive contributions to the Democrat Party.
Brace yourselves, patriots—President Donald Trump has just dropped a political bombshell by pulling his support from one of the most polarizing figures in the Republican Party, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
In a stunning turn of events on Truth Social, Trump announced he’s done backing Greene, citing her constant grievances as a key reason for his decision, Breitbart reported.
This saga began when Trump took to his platform to air his frustrations, pointing out that Greene’s behavior shifted after he shared a poll with her showing dismal numbers for potential runs as senator or governor.
According to Trump, that poll pegged Greene at a mere 12%, a figure that apparently didn’t sit well with the congresswoman.
He didn’t stop there, noting her complaints seemed to escalate after he stopped returning her calls, a luxury he claims he can’t afford with responsibilities to countless lawmakers and nearly 200 nations.
“I am withdrawing my support and Endorsement of ‘Congresswoman’ Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the Great State of Georgia,” Trump declared on Truth Social, making his stance crystal clear.
Trump also took a swipe at Greene’s recent appearance on a talk show he described as hostile to Republican values, accusing her of veering far from conservative principles.
He even hinted at supporting a primary challenger, praising “wonderful, Conservative people” who are fed up with Greene’s antics and might step up to the plate.
Let’s be honest—when Trump says he’ll back the “right person” to unseat her, it’s a not-so-subtle nudge to the base that Greene’s days as a MAGA darling might be numbered.
On the flip side, Greene didn’t take this lying down, responding with a fiery counterclaim that Trump’s move is pure political theater.
She posted images of text messages related to upcoming Jeffrey Epstein file releases, suggesting there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
“Trump was acting to make an example to scare all the other Republicans before next week’s vote to release the Epstein files,” Greene alleged, painting the withdrawal as a warning shot to the party.
Now, let’s unpack that—Greene’s implication is a bold one, framing Trump’s decision as a power play to keep Republicans in line ahead of a contentious vote.
While her theory raises eyebrows, it’s hard to ignore that Trump’s critique of her endless complaining and apparent leftward drift might resonate with conservatives tired of intra-party drama.
At the end of the day, this clash between two larger-than-life figures shows the GOP isn’t a monolith, and even the strongest alliances can fracture when priorities—or egos—collide.
Hold onto your steering wheels, folks—California’s latest scandal is a highway disaster waiting to happen.
According to Breitbart, a bombshell audit by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has uncovered that California, under Gov. Gavin Newsom, illegally handed out 17,000 Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) to foreign truck drivers who fail to meet federal safety standards.
The saga began with whispers of noncompliance, but it wasn’t until this week that the DOT, led by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, dropped the hammer with hard evidence of unlawful activity at California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
After weeks of California officials denying any missteps, the audit confirmed that these 17,000 licenses were issued in violation of federal rules, putting public safety at risk.
Secretary Duffy didn’t mince words, pointing out that these drivers are “dangerous and unqualified to drive semi-trucks.”
One has to wonder if California’s leadership thought federal standards were just a polite suggestion, rather than a mandate to keep our roads safe.
As a direct result, the DOT is revoking all 17,000 of these improperly issued CDLs, giving the affected foreign drivers a 60-day notice that their licenses will expire.
This isn’t just a slap on the wrist; the DOT has also withheld more than $40 million in federal funds from California for failing to comply with critical safety regulations.
Apparently, ignoring federal English Language Proficiency standards for CDL holders comes with a hefty price tag—both in dollars and in trust.
Secretary Duffy, who discussed the issue last week in an interview with Breitbart News Washington Bureau Chief, has been relentless in holding California accountable.
“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” Duffy declared.
That’s a polite way of saying someone’s been asleep at the wheel, and it’s not just the unqualified drivers.
Duffy also promised a deeper dive, stating, “Now that we’ve exposed their lies, 17,000 illegally issued trucking licenses are being revoked. This is just the tip of the iceberg.”
“My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses,” he added. It’s a firm stance on ensuring that only qualified individuals are navigating our highways and transporting our children.
While some may cry foul over the harsh measures, the core issue remains: public safety must trump political posturing, and federal standards aren’t optional, even in a state as defiant as California. Let’s hope this wake-up call steers Newsom’s administration back onto the right road, because the American people deserve better than bureaucratic recklessness masquerading as progressive policy.