Intelligence information coming from the White House has been under the microscope, and recently, some of it has even been withdrawn.
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard called for the National Security Agency to withdraw a report on Venezuela recently, and the internet has been abuzz about it, according to The Hill.
Gabbard cited concerns about the identification of a senior Trump administration official, who reportedly shouldn’t have been listed in the report.
The document, which was issued several months ago, focused on one Richard Grenell, who was the former acting director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration.
Grenell now heads the Kennedy Center and serves as a special envoy to Venezuela, taking on both roles for a hefty administration presence.
According to early reports about the security information, the report included sensitive details about some communications between Grenell and Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Those communications included negotiations about undocumented migrants from Venezuela that have made their way into the United States.
Gabbard described how it happened:
Officials cherry-picked parts of a 6-page intelligence document on Venezuela's Tren Aragua gang.
They excluded FBI confirmation that Venezuela's government supports the gang's US operations.
This selective disclosure had a purpose. pic.twitter.com/jW2b0EOmPO
— Voyrobi Bristy (@puja_roy30223) September 6, 2025
The DNI made the recall with a notice that states, “the report is accurate and in accordance with all N.S.A. policy, directives and guidance; however, the D.N.I. directed N.S.A. to recall the report.
“Please remove the original report from all manual and computer files.”
Some publications cited unidentified sources who said the report was recalled because of the identity of Grenall being included at all, when Gabbard attempts to keep the names of officials out of such documents.
One intelligence official told reporters that it was due to concerns about personal civil liberties and privacy, particularly concerning GOP officials’ focus on the problem of “unmasking” in intelligence reports.
The White House has yet to comment on the change by the DNI; however, up to now, President Donald Trump and other officials have seemed pleased with the way Gabbard has handled her position.
Gabbard was previously a Democrat lawmaker from the state of Hawaii, and later left the party and became aligned with Trump.
Gabbard was also involved in a legal battle with former First Lady Hillary Clinton, who accused her of being a possible Russian asset several years ago.
A bipartisan initiative spearheaded by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) is close to pushing the Epstein Files Transparency Act to a House vote, requiring only three more signatures to meet the threshold, Breitbart reported.
As the U.S. struggles with transparency, a crucial document release hangs in the balance, initiated by two Congress members from across the aisle.
The titled "Epstein Files Transparency Act" was filed on July 15, with the intention of unsealing all government-held documents concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Representatives Massie and Khanna aim to shed light on any hidden details tied to Epstein's case through this legislative push.
Securing enough signatures for the discharge petition has been a contentious journey. To date, the petition has acquired 215 signatures, just shy of the required 218 to bring it to the House floor for a deliberation and vote.
The support for the petition is largely drawn from the Democratic side, with 211 out of 212 House Democrats signing it, whereas only four Republicans, including Massie, have endorsed it. These Republicans are Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
On ABC News, Rep. Ro Khanna asserted that they have 216 votes secured, counting on two additional Democrat supporters who have yet to officially sign due to vacancies, but have expressed their commitment to the petition.
While the effort has seen notable bipartisan support, not everyone agrees with the approach. House Speaker Mike Johnson has criticized the discharge petition as unnecessary, pointing out that recent document releases might render the petition redundant. He argues that the petition might jeopardize the protection of victims' identities.
In a more direct political challenge, Former President Donald Trump criticized Rep. Massie, hinting at a potential endorsement of a challenger against him due to his involvement with the petition.
The strategy behind the proposal allows the Attorney General to redact any sensitive information from the files, yet mandates that all unclassified documents be released in a searchable format within 30 days of the act’s enactment.
Earlier this month, on September 2, the House Oversight Committee received a tranche of documents from the Department of Justice related to Epstein. These documents, which had been delivered to the committee on August 22, include over 33,295 pages of content. Such developments suggest ongoing progress in uncovering details about the Epstein saga through established channels.
Despite facing criticism, Reps. Massie and Khanna continue to emphasize the significance of their proposed legislation in ensuring government transparency and accountability. Thomas Massie voiced on social media, asking constituents whether their representatives would choose transparency and justice or reject such principles when the time comes to vote.
Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative who was absent due to a family member's bereavement, has stated his intent to support the petition upon his return, potentially bringing the initiative closer to its critical threshold.
The unfolding debate over the Epstein Files Transparency Act encapsulates the broader challenges and controversies surrounding government transparency and the safeguarding of sensitive information. As the political drama continues to unfold, all eyes will be on the pending signatures and the subsequent actions of the House.
The story thus not only underscores significant bipartisan efforts but also reflects deep political divisions and the complexities inherent in balancing transparency with the protection of privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The ultimate decision, likely to come soon, will significantly impact public trust and the overarching narrative surrounding accountability in high-profile cases involving influential figures.
President Trump is introducing new federal guidance to protect the right to prayer in public schools - just his latest effort to push back on anti-Christian bias in American education.
Trump announced the new protections in a speech for the Religious Liberty Commission at the Bible Museum, where he vowed to "bring back religion."
“As president, I will always defend our nation’s glorious heritage, and we will protect the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding, and we will protect them with vigor,” he said. “We have to bring back religion in America, bring it back stronger than ever before as our country grows stronger and stronger. Our country is now the hottest nation anywhere in the world.”
The president acknowledged Texas student Hannah Allen, who stood her ground after she was barred from praying for an injured classmate during lunch. Her school eventually backed down under legal pressure.
"A few years ago, Hannah organized a group of her classmates to pray for an injured peer,” Trump said. “The school principal declared that Hannah’s generous act of love was prohibited from taking place in front of the other students.”
"Hannah very strongly stood her ground and she won," Trump added.
Trump also invited 12-year-old Shea Encinas to discuss his experience with being bullied by his school over his refusal to proselytize transgenderism.
The boy said that he was pressured to teach a kindergartner that people are free to choose their gender.
“After my family spoke up, the school treated us badly, and kids started bullying me and my brother because of our faith. And the school did nothing to stop it. It hurt a lot. But I kept trusting God," Encinas said.
Trump praised Encinas and Allen for their strong faith and pledged to ensure that other students do not experience the same treatment.
"I am pleased to announce this morning that the Department of Education will soon issue new guidance protecting the right to prayer in our public schools, and it's total protection," the president said.
The president also emphasized that he would protect Christians from violence in the wake of the recent massacre at a Catholic school in Minneapolis.
"Our hearts are shattered for the families of those beautiful children,” Trump said. “And I’ve made clear Attorney General Pam Bondi is working really hard that we must get answers about the causes of these repeated attacks. And we’re working very, very hard on that. The Trump administration will have no tolerance for terrorism or political violence. And that includes hate crimes against Christians, Jews or anybody else. We’re not gonna allow it.”
On a personal note, Trump announced that he is donating his family Bible to the Bible Museum.
The Trump administration has fired at least four employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for using their government devices to watch porn and arrange sexual encounters in foreign countries.
The firings mark the latest effort by the Trump administration to eliminate government bloat and abuse of taxpayer resources. FEMA falls under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security.
"This behavior and misuse of government resources is absolutely disgusting.” said Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
"The revolting actions of these employees, now the second group to be caught at FEMA engaged in such acts, represents a clear national security risk. These employees, who had access to highly sensitive systems, spent their duty hours sexting strangers, including foreign nationals, on encrypted government devices. Such conduct is unacceptable, and these employees have been terminated.”
An investigation from the Department of Homeland Security’s Insider Threat Operations Center initially uncovered two employees consuming porn on the job, some of which was "racially charged" and involved "bestiality," the New York Post reported.
The employees were based at a remote FEMA command center in the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center near Bluemont, Virginia.
One of the individuals used a chatbot to have graphic messages read aloud in a foreign accent.
“These individuals had access to critical information and intelligence and were entrusted to safeguard Americans from emergencies—and instead they were consuming pornography,” Noem said in a statement.
“And in at least one case the pornography consumed was racially charged and involved bestiality,” Noem said.
An investigation later uncovered a third employee at the same facility who used the government's network to send lewd messages over Facebook messenger to a person in the Philippines.
The chats contained "graphic sexual content, references to a Filipino dating group, and statements about plans to visit the individual overseas later this year," a DHS press release said.
The individual, who was an IT worker with a top security clearance, even searched hotels and discussed plans to travel in November or December, the Daily Caller reported.
"I wish you were here sitting in my lap while I work," the person wrote on August 28. "I want to hug your waist while I work and smell your hair, kiss your neck."
Another FEMA employee uploaded a picture of male genitals to an adult website, where the person had "multiple graphic conversations" all on the taxpayers' dime.
The Supreme Court has given Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) approval to detain suspected illegal aliens in Los Angeles on the basis of things like language and ethnicity, overruling a Biden judge who found that using those factors constitutes illegal racial profiling.
The court was split 6-3. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, which held that the lower court's restrictions went against "common sense."
“The interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That is not an especially weighty legal interest.”
Kavanaugh took a moment to rebuke district courts that attempt to control immigration policy, a trend that has frustrated the Trump administration a great deal.
"The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict," Kavanaugh said.
A judge appointed by President Biden, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, had ruled in July that agents in Los Angeles may not make stops based on any combination of the following elements: ethnicity, speaking Spanish, presence at certain locations such as pick-up sites for day labor, and the type of work a person does.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Frimpong's order, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding it imposed an unreasonable burden on immigration agents.
While ethnicity cannot be the sole determining factor, Kavanaugh said agents may consider it alongside things like location, place of employment, and the ability to speak English when deciding if there is "reasonable suspicion," which is the lowest evidentiary standard in policing.
Kavanaugh noted that Los Angeles has an "extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants", and that those illegal aliens tend to work in certain jobs that do not require paperwork, such as landscaping and agriculture.
Moreover, many are from Mexico or Central America, and often do not speak English. Taken together, these circumstances establish "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence, he said.
Kavanaugh noted that "immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of U. S. immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations," and that millions of illegal aliens entered the country during the Biden presidency alone.
"As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States,” he wrote.
Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the high court, wrote a blistering dissent.
"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor writes. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
The White House insists that the newly released letter from President Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein is fake, Breitbart reported. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the document that Trump supposedly gave to Epstein for his birthday, has been debunked.
Leavitt wasted no time striking back at the Journal's reporting on Monday, attempting to say now that the document is authentic. "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false," Leavitt posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
"As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation. Furthermore, the 'reporter,' @joe_palazzolo, who wrote this hatchet job reached out for comment at the EXACT same minute he published his story giving us no time to respond. This is FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!"
The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire “Birthday Card” story is false.
As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.
President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively…
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) September 8, 2025
There appear to be several gaps in the story, as the Journal covered it in July without publishing a photo of the letter. It was described as a drawing of a naked woman that included a message to Epstein and Trump's signature.
The president vehemently denied it at the time when the story first circulated. "This is not me. This is a fake thing," Trump said after the Wall Street Journal story broke.
"It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life," Trump added. He countered that it was not at all the sort of thing he would ever write.
"I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words," Trump said about the purported note. In fact, Trump was so adamant that this was fake that he sued the Journal for defamation over it, Reuters reported on July 20.
Now that the media received a copy from the House Oversight Committee, the narrative is once again swirling that Trump was a bosom buddy of the disgraced financier. However, if reporter Joe Palazzolo indeed waited until the story was published before asking for comment, that fact only cements Trump's assertion that there is something disingenuous about the whole thing.
There are already questions about the authenticity of the letter based on the reporting, but other red flags suggest that this is not something Trump would have done. Firstly, some of the lines in the letter are too on the nose for the left's narrative and not at all in Trump's voice.
"We have certain things in common, Jeffrey," one of the lines reads. The letter concludes with Trump saying, "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." For someone like Trump, who has been in the public eye for decades as a real estate developer and celebrity, many are familiar with his typical speech and sentiments.
However, the problems with it go beyond content, as commentator Benny Johnson and others pointed out that the signature looks wrong. "Is this really the best they could do? Trump has the most famous signature in the world," Johnson posted to X on Monday. He included a photo of the document in question.
The Wall Street Journal just released the “letter” they claim President Trump sent to Epstein…
Is this really the best they could do?
Trump has the most famous signature in the world.
Time to sue them into the oblivion. pic.twitter.com/zE7DQ1y0CW
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 8, 2025
The left is prone to hoaxes in their pursuit of tearing down Trump and his supporters. This scandal doesn't pass the smell test, and this is precisely the kind of nonsense the left has pulled many times over to "get" Donald Trump. This letter is a fake, and the truth will eventually come out, as it always does.
Vice President JD Vance said that Democrats are only concerned about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes when they can use them against political enemies, Breitbart reported. The left has begun claiming the reason President Donald Trump won't release the files is that he's implicated in them, even though his predecessor ignored the scandal.
Vance was responding to recent news about a "birthday card" that the New York Times and other outlets claimed the president signed for the sex trafficker. "The Democrats don't care about Epstein," Vance posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
"They don’t even care about his victims. That's why they were silent about it for years. The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies. No one is falling for this BS," the vice president wrote.
The Democrats don't care about Epstein. They don’t even care about his victims. That's why they were silent about it for years. The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies.
No one is falling for this BS. https://t.co/u3pHgBtQDf
— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 8, 2025
In July, the Wall Street Journal described a birthday greeting Trump purportedly sent to Epstein in 2003 that featured a signed drawing of a naked woman with a message to Epstein about a " wonderful secret." Trump denied such a letter existed and sued the news outlet for defamation after the story broke.
However, copies of a note supposedly penned by Trump were released Monday by the House Oversight Committee and published in the Journal. Now, the left is going crazy with insinuations and accusations against Trump in another bid to smear the president with whatever they can get their hands on.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that believing this letter to be authentic is absurd, given the apparent contradictions in the reporting. "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false," Leavitt said.
"As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation," Leavitt went on.
There has never been any dispute in the fact that Trump knew Epstein and had a casual relationship with the disgraced financier, as many of the top echelon of wealth and power had as well. The difference is they were willing to look the other way when it was people like former President Bill Clinton, but now that they can pin something on Trump, they're ready to pounce.
Former President Joe Biden refused to release the Epstein files, and Democrats were mostly okay with that during his time in the White House, Fox News reported. Democratic California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was House Speaker for a time during Biden's presidency, remained silent when asked about her lack of curiosity until now.
Other Democrats like Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin are suddenly keyed into the Epstein saga, but even he couldn't explain his sudden interest when asked about it on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "But, Congressman, you could have gotten that from '21 to '25, when Democrats controlled the DOJ. Why — it was a crisis then," co-host Joe Scarborough asked.
"It’s a crisis now. Why didn’t Democrats call for it from '21 to '25?" Scarborough pressed. Raskin spoke in circles, claiming "you’d have to go back and look specifically at particular prosecutorial decisions and what was taking place in terms of the other cases. So, I don’t know, we could try to reconstruct that record."
Democratic Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal was also cagey when pressed about her sudden interest in the case by a reporter at CNN. "I would have been happy to raise it then as well. Frankly, we were focused on so many different pieces," Jayapal claimed.
Now that they believe they can take down Trump with it, Democrats are suddenly apoplectic about the goings on with Epstein. Their concern would be more credible if they hadn't spent years trying to make the story go away, but Vance has exposed their selective concern, which is clearly only for political gain.
A federal appeals court ruled on Monday against President Donald Trump's appeal of an $83 million verdict against him for defamation against E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of raping her in a department store dressing room more than 30 years ago.
Carroll somehow managed to get a $5 million verdict against Trump for some sort of sexual misconduct against her, even though she couldn't remember the date it happened or the layout of the store, and didn't have any physical evidence against him.
Then, because Trump had the audacity to her accusations weren't true and that she wasn't his type, she sued him for defamation (egged on and paid by some of his political enemies).
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the defamation award was fair and reasonable, mostly on the grounds that his presidential immunity didn't cover the remarks he made against Carroll.
His lawyers had asked for a new trial because of the immunity ruling, but they didn't get that either.
"Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable,” the opinion Monday said.
The immunity defense might not apply to a case that happened in 2023 and 2024, about comments made in 2022.
But here's what none of the judges and juries who dealt with this case ever considered: Trump was a presidential candidate at the time of the civil trial against him, which happened in 2023 and 2024.
The case should have been dismissed for one simple reason: it clearly attempted to influence the election (but, fortunately, failed).
Carroll and all the Trump-haters who egged her on had one thing in mind and one thing only: to paint Trump as a womanizer, sexual predator, and liar so that voters would not vote for him.
If there had been any type of evidence against Trump besides a writer, spinning a yarn about him, then sure, the case should go forward.
People want to know if their elected leader is a scumbag, but they don't want some vague allegations meant to tarnish his reputation with no proof whatsoever that anything occurred.
Unfortunately, there are enough Trump-hating judges and jury members in certain places (like Manhattan) to convict him of something like this whether there's actually any proof of it or not and make him pay through the nose, if they can't convict him criminally.
That's exactly what happened here, and Trump may have no recourse to do anything about it. The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case because it's a civil one and not a super-important matter of law, even though it affects the president.
A recent U.S. military operation against a drug trafficking vessel off the Venezuelan coast has sparked substantial political controversy concerning its legality and morality, the Daily Mail reported.
The lethal strike resulted in the deaths of 11 members from the Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua cartel, intensifying debates over the operation's adherence to due process.
The U.S. military described the action as a defensive measure designed to disrupt the cocaine trade, notably shipments tainted with fentanyl, signaling heightened U.S. enforcement efforts in the region.
Senator JD Vance publicly supported the military's actions, describing them as a necessary force against drug cartels, which he deemed detrimental to U.S. citizens. Vance's blunt justification included dismissive remarks towards criticisms labeling the act as potential war crimes.
Contrasting Vance's views, Senator Rand Paul criticized the operation for overriding judicial processes, emphasizing the risks of targeting individuals without a fair trial, thereby potentially violating human rights.
"What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul asserted, challenging the moral and legal basis of Vance's position on using military interventions in law enforcement actions.
Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's leader who is not recognized by the U.S., condemned the strike as a criminal threat to his country's sovereignty. He declared a state of maximum preparedness in response to the U.S. military's aggressive posturing.
President Donald Trump capitalized on the incident to warn against drug trafficking into the U.S., asserting through a released video that the military action destroyed a significant threat, with Trump aggressively pledging continued actions against drug shipments.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reasserted the strike's justification, pointing out that the vessel was actively engaged in narco-terrorism, reinforcing the administration's commitment to combating drug trafficking via military means.
In response to the ongoing threat, the Pentagon has reportedly intensified its naval and air presence in the southern Caribbean, aiming to deter similar trafficking activities.
Adding to the administration's efforts, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a significant reward for information leading to the arrest of Nicolas Maduro, accusing him of leading a prolific drug trafficking operation.
This reward signifies a stern U.S. approach to dealing with individuals they deem threats under international narcotics laws, suggesting a proactive stance that includes military and legal dimensions.
This incident has stirred significant discussion regarding the practicality and ethics of using military forces in international law enforcement actions, especially those that bypass traditional legal paths.
The debate extends beyond U.S. borders, potentially affecting international relations with Latin American countries and shaping global policies on narcotics and terrorism.
As the U.S. continues to enforce its narcoterrorism policies, the repercussions for diplomatic relations with countries like Venezuela and broader international law implications remain a pressing concern.
President Trump issued a stark ultimatum to Hamas, warning the terrorist group to release all of its hostages now and accept a peace deal.
"Everyone wants the Hostages HOME. Everyone wants this War to end! The Israelis have accepted my Terms. It is time for Hamas to accept as well. I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one! Thank you for your attention to this matter," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Almost two years after launching the worst attack in Israel's history, Hamas still has about 50 Israeli hostages, around 20 of whom are believed to be alive.
Over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.
Trump's warning to Hamas echoed one from Israel, which threatened to obliterate Gaza City, the last bastion of Hamas forces, if the hostages are not released immediately.
“A mighty hurricane will hit the skies of Gaza City today, and the roofs of the terror towers will shake,” Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz wrote on X.
“This is a final warning to the murderers and rapists of Hamas in Gaza and in the luxury hotels abroad: Release the hostages and lay down your weapons — or Gaza will be destroyed, and you will be annihilated.”
Israel did not confirm that it accepted Trump's deal, the terms of which were left clear.
The office of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel is "giving very serious consideration to President Trump’s proposal,” adding, “Hamas will likely persist in its intransigence.”
Hamas said it welcomes negotiation after receiving "some ideas from the American side to reach a cease-fire agreement."
The terrorist group said it will release all of the hostages in return for a "clear declaration to end the war, a full withdrawal from Gaza, and the formation of a committee of Palestinian independents to manage Gaza."
But Israel has no intention of withdrawing from Gaza without guarantees that Hamas no longer poses a threat to Israel's security.
Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Israel would accept an end to the war in return for all of the hostages and a disarmed Hamas - a demand Hamas has repeatedly rejected.
Despite both sides making what appear to be clashing demands, Trump told reporters Sunday that he anticipates a deal to end the war "very soon.”