Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s shakeup of public health policy is facing backlash from some Senate Republicans who voted to confirm him to President Trump's Cabinet.
Kennedy's sudden firing of Susan Monarez as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was condemned by Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who was a key vote for Kennedy to lead the Health and Human Services Department.
Cassidy is now sharing second thoughts, saying the government's vaccine recommendations can no longer be trusted because of Kennedy's recent moves and turmoil at the CDC.
The senator was echoed by Sen. Susan Collins (R), of Maine, who expressed "alarm" at Monarez's firing less than a month into her job, calling her a "highly capable scientist who brought a wealth of experience to the agency."
Monarez's firing was reportedly prompted by her refusal to endorse Kennedy's vaccine policies, with Monarez's lawyers saying she chose "protecting the public over serving a political agenda." The White House says Monarez was fired for failing to support President Trump's priorities.
"As her attorney's statement makes abundantly clear, Susan Monarez is not aligned with the president's agenda," the White House said.
Four top CDC officials have also resigned in protest after Monarez's dramatic firing, which came after months of tensions surrounding Kennedy's reforms, particularly concerning vaccines.
His critics accuse him of conducting a dangerous coup against established science, but Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, says he is fighting a corrupt system that prioritizes profits for Big Pharma.
Kennedy purged an influential vaccine panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), earlier this year and replaced its members with people sympathetic to his views -- and he has restricted access to COVID-19 shots to include primarily those with higher risk, ending the emergency authorization that allowed most people to easily get them.
In the wake of Kennedy's shakeup of the CDC, Cassidy has called for a September 18 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to be postponed indefinitely, saying the panel's recommendations would “directly impact children’s health."
The meeting will cover vaccines for COVID-19, hepatitis B, RSV, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella.
"Serious allegations have been made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September ACIP meeting,” Cassidy said in a statement.
“If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in the CDC leadership,” he said.
President Donald Trump is recruiting his son-in-law and former White House adviser, Jared Kushner, to help map out Gaza's post-war future.
According to Axios, Kushner attended a lengthy White House meeting Wednesday where Trump and his top advisers discussed plans to rebuild Gaza once Hamas is no longer in power. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was another notable outsider at the huddle.
Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, who is Trump's eldest daughter, have avoided the political spotlight since leaving their roles as senior advisers in the first Trump administration.
Trump's son-in-law has deep personal ties to the Middle East, and Kushner was instrumental to the Abraham Accords, the crowning diplomatic achievement of Trump's first term that normalized ties between Israel and several Arab states.
Kushner's informal return to the White House comes as Trump warms to an Israeli plan to occupy Gaza City and annihilate Hamas, which has governed the war-torn Gaza Strip since 2007.
Top Israeli official Ron Dermer assured Trump at Wednesday's meeting that Israel has no desire to occupy Gaza permanently or expel the Palestinians. But who would rule the devastated enclave in the future remains uncertain.
Much of Gaza has been destroyed since Israel's war with Hamas began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 Israelis and took dozens captive. More than 63,000 Palestinians, including civilians and combatants, have since been killed in Israel's military offensive.
Trump's efforts to secure a durable peace have proven elusive so far.
Wednesday's meeting was reportedly inconclusive, but Trump gave Kushner and Blair approval to keep developing a plan for Gaza's post-war future, Axios reported.
Trump's own vision for Gaza has been a moving target. He previously toyed with expelling Palestinians and developing the strip into a resort, a proposal that faced furious backlash. Kushner has echoed Trump's idea in the past, saying Gaza's waterfront has "valuable" potential.
At Wednesday's meeting, Kushner and Blair shared some proposals that they had run by special envoy Steve Witkoff in the past, but never with Trump himself, according to Axios.
"They tried to give an idea of how Gaza could be governed and how you create an environment for investment so that reconstruction can happen. The goal was to run the ideas by Trump to see if he likes them and want to move forward, so that Witkoff and Rubio can use them," a source said.
In an interview with Fox News, Witkoff said the administration is putting together a "very comprehensive plan" for peace and stability.
“It’s a very comprehensive plan we’re putting together on the next day that I think many people are going to be -- they’re going to see how robust it is and how well-meaning it is,” Witkoff said. “And it reflects President Trump’s humanitarian motives here."
President Donald Trump has amassed over $1.5 billion in contributions since his 2024 electoral win, indicating robust financial support among his base.
This considerable sum contrasts sharply with the disarray currently faced by the Democratic Party.
The financial milestone was shared by Trump on his social media platform Truth Social, highlighting that the contributions exceeded $1.5 billion from various political groups since his reelection.
The current state of confusion within the Democratic ranks provides a stark backdrop to Trump’s financial success, signaling strong, organized support for his leadership.
With nearly $200 million in MAGA Inc., the primary super PAC dedicated to Trump, strategically positioned funds are set to heavily influence the political landscape as America approaches the 2026 midterms.
This underscores Trump's pivotal role and influence within the Republican Party, shaping its strategy and approach to future elections.
During a broadcast on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Trump mentioned that despite significant support, a third presidential run would probably not happen due to constitutional terms.
He hinted that the amassed funds might be utilized to support Republican strategies and candidates who align with his vision, even if he does not run again.
This announcement has shifted focus towards Trump’s potential role in guiding the GOP’s future through his significant financial and influential capacity.
Alex Marlow, commenting on democratic strategies, stated on his radio show that many see the Democrats as overly sympathetic to criminal activities, favoring criminals over law-abiding citizens.
"Democrats have been tricked into taking the side of criminals, and they’re now pro-criminal...backing criminals over American citizens," he articulated, marking a potential disadvantage for the party in future elections.
This perception could lead to pivotal voter shifts, particularly among moderates, impacting the Democratic Party's performance in upcoming electoral events.
Trump’s ability to raise substantial funds reveals his unrelenting grip on a significant portion of American voters and his savvy deployment of resources for political advantage.
These resources are expected to play a critical part in upcoming elections, potentially shaping political outcomes in favor of the Republican agendas that Trump supports.
The continued influence of Trump’s fundraising might redefine Republican strategies and overall political dynamics in the United States, marking a significant shift in the landscape as we head towards future elections.
In a win for the Trump administration, the Wisconsin judge accused of helping an illegal alien escape her courtroom has lost her bid to dismiss the charges.
A federal judge rejected Judge Hannah Dugan's claim that she is immune for "official acts," exposing the Milwaukee County judge to prosecution for her alleged crimes.
“There is no basis for granting immunity simply because some of the allegations in the indictment describe conduct that could be considered 'part of a judge’s job,'" Judge Lynn Adelman wrote.
Dugan is accused of trying to obstruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by letting a Mexican defendant in her courtroom charged with battery, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, slip out through a non-public door as agents waited to apprehend him in a public hallway.
According to prosecutors, Dugan became "visibly angry" when she learned that ICE was there on April 18 and told them to report to the office of the chief judge. Upon returning to the courtroom, she told Flores-Ruiz something to the effect of "Wait, come with me" and led him through a door meant for the jury.
After a foot chase that spanned the length of the courthouse, agents were able to catch Flores-Ruiz outside.
In May, Dugan was charged with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.
The state's Supreme Court suspended her from her job to protect the integrity of the court system.
Dugan fought the charges by invoking the landmark Supreme Court ruling that found President Trump - and all U.S. presidents by extension - are immune from prosecution for their "official acts."
"The problems with this prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts," her lawyers said. "The prosecution against her is barred. The Court should dismiss the indictment."
The Justice Department asserted that "well-established law... has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit," an argument that ultimately won the day in Judge Adelman's courtroom.
A magistrate judge had previously recommended that the case against Dugan move ahead.
The courts' refusal to shield her from charges is a victory for the Trump administration, which has complained about facing obstruction from "activist" judges who have tried to thwart Trump's immigration agenda.
Dugan, who denies wrongdoing, is scheduled to return to court on September 3.
John Bolton could be headed to prison for endangering national security after the FBI uncovered a trove of evidence at his home.
Bolton has not been indicted, but top FBI officials say he should face charges for stealing classified information during his brief, tumultuous tenure as national security adviser during Trump's first term, the New York Post reported.
According to sources who spoke with the Post, the FBI raid of Bolton's home and office uncovered "a lot" of evidence that prosecutors could use in a case against him.
Members of Trump's Justice Department believe the investigation had gone quiet during the Biden administration, possibly as a favor to Bolton, a vocal critic of Trump.
“The [Biden administration] had probable cause to know that he had taken material that was detrimental to the national security of the United States, and they made no effort to retrieve it,” a senior FBI official told The Post.
Bolton's preferential treatment would have come even as the Biden Justice Department tried to prosecute Trump for his handling of classified information - with the Biden FBI even raiding Trump's Mar-A-Lago estate.
The current investigation into Bolton is separate - and, insiders say, wider and more serious - than a previous criminal probe into Bolton's tell-all book, which contained classified information gathered from his time in the Trump White House.
Bolton, who was fired by Trump in 2019, published the anti-Trump tome despite a judge finding it likely "jeopardized national security."
Trump's critics have accused him of targeting Bolton for revenge, something Trump and his team have denied.
The New York Times, hardly a Trump-friendly newspaper, conceded in a new article that the FBI investigation appears to have a credible basis.
The probe centers on e-mails, intercepted by U.S. intelligence, which had been obtained by a foreign spy service, the newspaper noted. The e-mails were apparently sent by Bolton to people close to him using an unclassified server.
Two different judges signed off on search warrants targeting Bolton, which would have required probable cause of a crime.
"One major reason for conducting the searches was to see if Mr. Bolton possessed material that matched or corroborated the intelligence agency material, which, if found, would indicate that the emails found in the possession of the foreign spy service were genuine," the Times wrote.
After the raid last Friday morning, Trump questioned Bolton's loyalty to the country.
“He’s not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy,” Trump said. “We’re going to find out.”
The Federal Reserve issued a statement obliquely pushing back on President Trump's shock firing of board member Lisa Cook, which has disturbed business as usual in Washington, D.C.
The central bank didn't directly acknowledge that Trump had fired Cook, instead noting that the Biden appointee is taking legal action to challenge her removal for alleged mortgage fraud.
"As always, the Federal Reserve will abide by any court decision," the Fed said in its statement.
Behind its measured language, the bank insinuated that it views Cook's removal as a threat to the so-called independence of the Fed, which is said to be insulated from politics.
In a pointed comment, the Fed suggested that Cook's firing was improper, noting that Fed governors "may be removed by the president only ‘for cause.'"
“Long tenures and removal protections for governors serve as a vital safeguard, ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data, economic analysis, and the long-term interests of the American people,” the Fed spokesperson said.
Trump explained his decision to fire Cook in a letter Monday, citing a mortgage fraud allegation forwarded to the Justice Department that accused Cook of claiming two different homes as her primary residence simultaneously.
Cook's lawyer, former Hunter Biden attorney Abbe Lowell, filed a lawsuit Thursday in Washington D.C., arguing that an unproven allegation does not meet the "for cause" threshold.
The case was assigned to judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, who set a hearing Friday morning to weigh Cook's request.
Lowell noted that Cook is “the first black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s Board in its 111-year history."
Lowell further added that even if the allegations are true, they should not count against her because they concern "private" conduct that occurred before she joined the Federal Reserve.
The White House has argued, however, that Cook's alleged conduct is disqualifying for a top financial regulator.
In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump “exercised his lawful authority to remove a governor” based on being “credibly accused of lying in financial documents from a highly sensitive position overseeing financial institutions.”
Congress has given presidents the authority to fire Fed governors "for cause", but no president before Trump has invoked this power.
It is unsurprising that the Fed would assert its long-standing independence against Trump's unprecedented move, but the central bank does not come out looking good, either, by defending a member who it appears has been credibly accused of unethical conduct.
A new poll shows that President Donald Trump has reached an all-time high in his approval rating, rising from 40% in July to 45% as of August 28, Breitbart reported. Author John Nolte credits this to the president's violent crime crackdown using the National Guard in Washington, D.C., while Democrats move further towards protecting criminals.
As Nolte points out, the poll was conducted by the "far left" news outlet, the Associated Press, which makes his high approval ratings that much more significant. The president has seen an 8% increase in his approval rating on crime, while also making up ground in his handling of the economy.
"The poll also shows that a vast majority of the public agrees with Trump on a number of issues Democrats oppose him on," Nolte wrote. This is great for Trump, as Democrats are forced to take a position that is antithetical to what Americans want simply so they can continue to oppose the Republican president.
AP-NORC POLL - Trump Approval
Approve: 45% (+5)
Disapprove: 53% (-5)Trump's highest approval ever by AP-NORC, including his first term
——
Net Approval
🟢 Crime: +8
🟤 Immigration: -9
🟤 Economy: -11 (was -22)(shift vs July) | 8/21-25 | 1,182 A https://t.co/2fdy0kVLdn pic.twitter.com/1XIa5SVYfm
— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 27, 2025
The left was apoplectic when Trump announced he was sending in the National Guard to deal with crime in the nation's capital, but Americans seem to like the plan. "While Democrats and their regime media allies assure us violent crime is not a serious problem, the AP-NORC poll found that, 'Two-thirds of the public think crime is a major problem in the country overall and 8 in 10 say it is a major problem in large cities,'" Nolte wrote.
"What’s more, 55 percent, including 30 percent of Democrats and a plurality of 46 percent of Independents, agree that it is 'completely' or 'somewhat acceptable' to use 'the U.S. military and National Guard to assist local police," Nolte added. Notably, Trump enjoys a 53% approval rating on his handling of crime, with only 45% disapproving.
This demonstrates that Trump's tough-on-crime stance is effective for garnering widespread support. "There’s really no question that Trump’s decision to step in and finally do something about the godawful crime in Washington D.C. is what boosted this approval rating," Nolte contends.
"The contrast of Trump’s proactive approach with Democrats and their corporate media allies screaming fascism while arguing there was no serious crime problem was really something. This is such an easy win for Trump," the author went on.
"First off, fighting crime is easy. All you have to do is enforce the law and put criminals in prison. Secondly, fighting crime has been a popular move for politicians going back to the first politicians ever," Nolte wrote. "It’s a no-brainer. Always has been."
Rather than get on board with Trump's plan to clean up America's cities, Democrats have doubled down on their opposition to the president's agenda. "So, the fact that Democrats oppose both fighting crime and jailing violent criminals tells you just how far to the extreme left the party has been pushed by the lunatics in their base, the same lunatics about to elect a full-blown communist as mayor of New York City," Nolte wrote, referring to the appeal of Zohran Mamdani.
Even mainstream Democrats have lost their minds, as demonstrated in a clip Nolte shared of Democrat Rep Jamie Raskin (D-MD) downplaying the impact of violent crime. "In D.C., he was talking about cleaning up the graffiti and dealing with the blight of homelessness, which are obviously local, not federal issues," Raskin said of Trump.
"And he's trying to militarize our society, intimidate his political opponents. The whole idea of picking cities based on their partisan leadership is absurd," Raskin went on. Trump has considered sending the National Guard to other cities plagued by violence, vandalism, and criminal activity, but Raskin believes it's just part of the landscape people must accept if they live there.
"I mean, there are lots of Republican cities and towns struggling with crime. Everybody is across the country, always. Crime has always been part of our history," Raskin said.
Trump is winning over the American people because he's doing so many things Democrats have been unwilling to do, like get serious about crime. In their haste to oppose Trump, Democrats have taken some of the most idiotic positions that seem to suggest that they just don't mind murder and mayhem. This will surely be their undoing.
President Donald Trump has announced plans to expand the student visa program for Chinese nationals, a policy some say is problematic and a significant departure from his stated agenda, according to Just the News. White House officials were blindsided when officials in the Trump administration considered revoking these visas due to national security concerns.
On Monday, Trump announced plans to import 600,000 students from China to attend America's colleges and universities. Trump believes this is an integral part of brokering a deal to end the tariff war between China and the U.S. and has floated a possible meeting with the nation's leader.
"I’d like to meet him this year. President Xi [Jinping] would like me to come to China. We’re taking a lot of money in from China because of the tariffs and different things.… It’s a much better relationship economically than it was before with [former President Joe] Biden," Trump told reporters.
"I mean, they just took him to the cleaners. We’re going to allow it, it’s very important, 600,000 students. We’re going to get along with China. But it’s a different relationship that we have now with China," Trump added.
It's surprising to hear Trump speak about broadening the program and importing more people from China, considering the growing threat it poses. Allowing Chinese nationals to come to the U.S. to study opens up numerous vulnerabilities, including intellectual property theft, economic espionage, and government infiltration.
Lawmakers have been sounding alarm bells that the Chinese Communist Party is the top concern for these attacks, and it's more than just theoretical. According to the House Committee on Homeland Security, at least 224 cases of espionage and other CCP activity occurred between 2000 and 2023, with 60 of those were found across 20 states during then-President Joe Biden's administration.
The way they go about it is also problematic in light of Trump's plan to import 600,000 students. "China continues to utilize ‘non-traditional’ collectors to conduct a plurality of their nefarious efforts here in the U.S. due to their successful ability to hide in plain sight," said former Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Bill Evanina in 2023.
"The non-traditional collectors, serving as engineers, businesspersons, academics, and students, are shrouded in legitimate work and research, and oftentimes become unwitting tools for the CCP and its intelligence apparatus," he added during his testimony at the time. Furthermore, the communist nation codified spying into state law in 2017, mandating that citizens called on by the government to conduct espionage must do so.
Even Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said just last month that the State Department needed to "aggressively" revoke student visas from Chinese nationals "with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields," he said in a State Department statement. Rubio also recommended the government "revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong."
It appears that the consensus is that the U.S. should proceed with caution in granting these student visas, let alone expanding them. Moreover, Trump ran on an "America First" agenda during his 2024 campaign, which leaves many to wonder how importing more than half a million students from a communist country serves that end.
This has caused friction with even the most steadfast of Trump supporters, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). "We should not let in 600,000 CHINESE students to attend American colleges and universities that may be loyal to the CCP," Greene said on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday. "Why are we allowing 600,000 students from China to replace our American student's opportunities? We should never allow that," she added.
Fox News's Laura Ingraham posed the same question to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. "The president’s point of view is that what would happen if you didn’t have those 600K students is that you’d empty them from the top, all the students would go up to better schools, and the bottom 15% of universities and colleges would go out of business in America. "He’s taking a rational economic view, which is classic Donald Trump," Lutnick claimed on The Ingraham Angle.
This is a very unusual move for Trump, especially given his harsh rhetoric against China for all of these years. Many are panicking that he's somehow pivoted away from his original agenda, but Trump has proven himself to be a master negotiator, and this is likely just another tactic meant to bring his adversary to his side of things.
The issue of foreign aid is once again at the forefront of political discourse as the Trump administration looks to adjust how American taxpayer dollars are distributed.
In this case, the Trump administration has requested that the Supreme Court allow the withholding of billions of dollars of congressionally approved foreign aid, as USA Today reported.
That aid would have been distributed before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, if the previous funding plan had moved forward.
However, the Department of Justice filed an appeal with the court this week, asking for the justices to pause a lower court’s order that would require the administration to distribute the money.
Solicitor General John Sauer said in the filing that the groups representing the aid contractors don’t have a legal basis to push the spending forward.
This is due to the fact that it’s up to Congress to challenge the administration if spending isn’t done appropriately by the executive branch, under a 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act.
“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer said.
“Any lingering dispute about the proper disposition of funds that the President seeks to rescind shortly before they expire should be left to the political branches, not effectively prejudged by the district court.”
Before the Supreme Court was involved in the case, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled in favor of the groups that rely on the aid. The Biden appointee said it was an obligation of the executive branch to distribute the funds by the end of next month.
The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is one of the groups in question, and one of their officials is who is challenging the holdbacks. That official was allegedly not surprised by the ruling.
“Time and again, this administration has shown their disdain for foreign assistance and a disregard for people’s lives in the United States and around the world. But even more broadly and dangerously, this administration’s actions further erodes Congress’s role and responsibility as an equal branch of government,” said coalition’s executive director, Mitchell Warren.
“The question being put to SCOTUS is whether they will be complicit in further eroding the constitutional commitment to checks and balance.”
Trump’s DOJ races to the Supreme Court to stop lower court judges from forcing billions in foreign aid payouts before the deadline. pic.twitter.com/oQDG2R290j
— Robert Gouveia Esq. (@RobGouveiaEsq) August 28, 2025
Sauer thinks that the question should be left to Congress, and those who believed they would receive the money, believe the battle was already won, and it should go to them. The Supreme Court has yet to rule.
In a striking legal intervention, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has blocked the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a suspected MS-13 gang member, Breitbart reported.
Judge Xinis’ order prevents the Trump administration from deporting Garcia, despite plans to send him to Uganda.
Appointed by former President Barack Obama, Judge Xinis took definitive action against the deportation after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Garcia, who had just been released from federal custody on human smuggling charges.
Federal authorities describe Abrego Garcia as an illegal alien involved in multiple criminal activities, including being a part of the notorious MS-13 gang, engaging in human smuggling, and domestic abuse. His arrest by ICE followed these allegations after his release.
This Monday, during a court session, Judge Xinis informed federal prosecutors about her decision, stating, "Your clients are absolutely forbidden at this juncture to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the continental United States," ensuring he remains within U.S. borders.
The judge's order specifies that Garcia must stay at the immigration detention center in Virginia, where he is currently held, instead of being deported.
Previously, federal prosecutors had offered Garcia a plea deal. In exchange for pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, they proposed deporting him to Costa Rica instead of Uganda. This plea deal represents a complex layer of legal alternatives explored by the authorities.
Abrego Garcia's link to broader criminal operations emerged in 2022 during a significant event. Tennessee state troopers stopped him while he was driving a vehicle owned by another indicted individual, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, known for running a human smuggling scheme.
During this stop, officers discovered nine individuals without luggage in the vehicle, raising immediate suspicions about a smuggling operation.
Further investigations and associations came to light as FBI agents noted that Hernandez-Reyes, who currently serves a sentence in federal prison, was indicted in 2020. His indictment included details of his operations, which he admitted involved hiring Abrego Garcia for smuggling purposes.
These facts laid the groundwork for heightened scrutiny of Abrego Garcia’s activities, drawing a clear link between his actions and a broader criminal network.
The decision by Judge Xinis represents a critical junction in assessing the balance between law enforcement’s pursuit of criminal deportation and judicial oversight preserving individual rights amidst deportation proceedings.
This case illustrates the ongoing tension between judicial authority and administrative immigration policies, especially in cases involving suspected gang affiliations and serious criminal allegations.
The broader implications of such judicial interventions raise questions about the dynamics between the judiciary and executive intentions, particularly under the polarized administration of President Trump.
As this case continues to unfold, the judicial oversight by Judge Xinis will undoubtedly be a significant point of reference in discussions about immigration law enforcement and the role of individual rights in deportation proceedings.