Hold onto your helmets, folks -- Ohio University just sacked its first-year football head coach, Brian Smith, for a playbook of personal fouls that would make even the most lenient referee blow the whistle.
The university dropped the hammer on Smith after a review uncovered serious misconduct, including an inappropriate relationship with an undergraduate student and violations of alcohol policies on campus, as the New York Post reports.
Let’s rewind to the start of this messy game: Smith was first placed on leave early this month, signaling trouble on the horizon for the Bobcats’ leader.
Before the axe fell, university officials had already issued a stern warning to Smith about his behavior, particularly regarding alcohol use in the workplace.
A letter from an administrator detailed how Smith admitted to keeping alcohol in his office desk and sipping after hours, a clear violation of campus rules.
Ohio University’s policy is crystal clear -- staff can’t possess or consume alcohol on duty or in the workplace, no exceptions, no excuses.
Adding fuel to the fire, President Lori Stewart Gonzalez noted that Smith “smelled strongly of alcohol and appeared intoxicated” during a public event, a claim that paints a troubling picture of leadership.
Smith, for his part, argued that these incidents didn’t impair his professional duties, claiming no one was under the influence during these after-hours toasts.
But let’s be real -- when you’re steering a university football program, optics matter, and stashing bourbon in your desk doesn’t exactly scream “role model” for student-athletes.
Then came the bombshell: an affair with an undergraduate student, allegedly conducted on campus at a university inn, as outlined in a letter from President Gonzalez.
This wasn’t just a personal misstep; it was a direct violation of the trust and responsibility entrusted to a coach who’s supposed to guide young adults, not exploit them.
University officials didn’t mince words, stating the firing followed “an administrative review of allegations that Smith violated the terms of his employment agreement by engaging in serious professional misconduct."
With Smith out, associate head coach John Hauser has stepped in as interim coach, tasked with leading the Bobcats in an upcoming bowl game against UNLV.
Hauser inherits a team that, under Smith, posted a respectable 8-4 record this season, a bittersweet note in an otherwise sour saga.
While the scoreboard shows success, the sideline drama reminds us that character counts just as much as wins, especially in a culture that’s too quick to excuse bad behavior under the guise of “personal freedom.” Ohio University’s decision to terminate Smith sends a message that accountability isn’t just a buzzword -- it’s a standard, even if it stings for fans who admired Smith’s on-field results. In a world obsessed with bending rules for the progressive agenda, it’s refreshing to see an institution hold the line on basic decency, though one can’t help but feel for the players caught in this crossfire.
Brace yourselves, TikTok fans -- a blockbuster deal might just save your favorite app from a US ban, keeping those viral dances alive for millions.
ByteDance, the Chinese parent of TikTok, has finalized binding agreements to sell over 80% of TikTok’s American assets to a trio of investors, hoping to sidestep a government shutdown over national security fears, as the New York Post reports.
This saga began back in August 2020, when then-President Donald Trump first pushed to ban the app, sparking a long-running battle over its future in the States.
Now, ByteDance has teamed up with Oracle, Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi-based MGX to create a new entity dubbed TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC.
The ownership split of this venture sees Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX each taking 15% for a combined 45%, while ByteDance holds onto 19.9%, and the remainder goes to affiliates of existing ByteDance investors.
Set to close on January 22, this deal builds on terms floated in September when Trump delayed a ban enforcement to January 20, contingent on a sale meeting US divestiture rules.
Trump confirmed the arrangement aligns with government demands, addressing years of concern that TikTok’s Chinese ties could jeopardize American user data.
While the White House has deflected questions to TikTok and Oracle stayed silent, the deal’s implications are massive for the app’s future here.
TikTok itself spun the news positively, stating it will allow “over 170 million Americans to continue discovering a world of endless possibilities as part of a vital global community.”
That’s a charming sentiment, but let’s not ignore the elephant in the room -- ByteDance retaining nearly 20% ownership hardly feels like a clean break from potential foreign influence.
On Thursday, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew shared the update with staff, likely aiming to ease tensions after a rollercoaster of uncertainty for the company’s U.S. operations.
For over 170 million American users, this could mean stability, but conservatives might question if partial divestiture truly shields against data privacy risks.
This joint venture may end a drawn-out clash, but ByteDance’s lingering stake could still fuel skepticism among those wary of Big Tech and overseas control.
Still, the deal offers a pragmatic step forward, tackling at least some national security worries while preserving an app that’s become a cultural staple for millions.
Whether this compromise satisfies critics or just delays deeper scrutiny remains to be seen, but for now, TikTok’s American heartbeat keeps ticking.
President Donald Trump just dropped a geopolitical bombshell by ordering a naval blockade near Venezuela, tightening the screws on a regime already gasping for economic air.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2025, Trump commanded U.S. forces to halt sanctioned oil tankers in Venezuelan waters, seized a key tanker named the Skipper, and escalated a decades-old feud over expropriated American oil assets, prompting Caracas to cry foul at the United Nations.
For American taxpayers, this move hits close to home with the potential for higher energy costs if global oil markets jitter from these disruptions. Venezuela’s oil, which accounts for 88% of its $24 billion export revenue, according to a recent New York Times report, is a linchpin for international supply chains. A prolonged standoff could mean financial strain for folks already squeezed at the pump.
Let’s rewind to the roots of this clash—back in 2007, under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela strong-armed U.S. giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips out of multibillion-dollar oil projects. Trump now demands the return of these “stolen” assets, framing it as a theft from the American people, though it’s corporate property at stake.
The blockade isn’t just symbolic; it’s a direct jab at Venezuela’s oil shipments to China, the regime’s last major buyer since Western markets largely pulled out. Cutting this lifeline threatens the hard currency Nicolás Maduro’s government desperately needs to prop itself up.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has beefed up its military muscle in Latin America, boasting 15% of its naval assets in the Southern Command theater—the biggest presence in decades. They’ve already struck at narco-traffickers in nearby waters, signaling they mean business.
Venezuela’s government didn’t mince words, blasting the blockade as an “irrational” and “grotesque threat” to steal their oil wealth. They raced to the U.N. Security Council with a formal complaint on the same day, hoping for international sympathy.
Trump, never one to shy away from bold declarations, took to Truth Social with a fiery message: “Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.”
He continued, “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.” Talk about throwing down the gauntlet—Trump’s not just playing chess; he’s flipping the board.
Since the blockade kicked off, Venezuelan oil exports have tanked, with shipping lanes thrown into chaos by U.S. actions. This isn’t a minor hiccup—oil is the lifeblood of Maduro’s economy, and every delayed tanker is a gut punch to his regime’s coffers.
Analysts point out that Maduro’s options for pushback are slim without shooting himself in the foot. Targeting U.S. interests like Chevron, which still operates there under a special license, could backfire spectacularly on a cash-strapped government.
Let’s not kid ourselves—Maduro’s fear of a U.S.-led ouster isn’t paranoia when you’ve got a naval armada breathing down your neck. But escalating this into a broader conflict might be the last thing his crumbling economy can afford.
From a conservative standpoint, Trump’s hardline stance is a refreshing rejection of the soft-glove diplomacy we’ve seen for too long with rogue regimes. It’s about time someone stood up for American interests, even if the “stolen” label on corporate assets feels like a rhetorical stretch.
Still, we must weigh the costs—disrupting global oil flow isn’t just a Venezuela problem; it’s a risk to American families already battling inflation. While Maduro’s mismanagement deserves no pity, let’s hope this blockade doesn’t boomerang into a bigger burden for our own economy.
Washington, D.C., just got a hefty dose of federal muscle upheld by the courts.
In a decisive ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has greenlit the Trump administration’s plan to keep National Guard troops stationed in the nation’s capital through the end of February 2025.
For hardworking D.C. taxpayers, this saga means footing the bill for an extended military presence, with potential costs piling up in the millions for logistics and support. From a conservative angle, it’s a win for law and order, but let’s not ignore the financial sting to local budgets already stretched thin. We must keep a sharp eye on where every dime goes—no free passes here.
Back in September 2025, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb threw down the gauntlet, suing the Trump administration over what he called an overreach in deploying Guard troops. He argued it stepped on the city’s own law enforcement toes and pushed for a pause while the case unfolded.
The lower court initially sided with Schwalb, ordering thousands of National Guard members to pack up and head home. But the Trump team wasn’t about to roll over, appealing the decision faster than you can say “federal authority.”
Enter the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which first put a temporary hold on that lower court ruling while mulling over a longer pause. On December 17, 2025, the panel of three judges, including one Obama appointee and two Trump picks, delivered a unanimous verdict. It’s a rare bipartisan nod in a town that thrives on gridlock.
The appeals court pointed to D.C.’s peculiar status as a federal district, not a state, as a key reason why President Trump likely holds the upper hand legally. They suggested this unique setup, crafted by Congress itself, gives the president a strong case for overseeing security in the capital. It’s a punch to the gut for those pushing hyper-local control over national interests.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee no less, noted, “The President’s order implicates a strong and distinctive interest in the protection of federal governmental functions and property within the Nation’s capital.” Well, isn’t that a refreshing bit of clarity? It’s hard to argue against safeguarding the heart of our government, even if progressive agendas cry foul over state-like autonomy.
The court didn’t stop there, though, warning that sending Guard troops to other states without consent could be a constitutional mess. Their order stated, “Deploying an out-of-state Guard to a non-consenting State to conduct law enforcement would be constitutionally troubling to our federal system of government.” A fair point—federal power has limits, and conservatives should cheer any check on overreach beyond D.C.’s borders.
This ruling isn’t the final word, as the judges themselves called it a “hurried” and preliminary assessment. They’ve paused the lower court’s order indefinitely, allowing Guard members to stay put for now, but the full legal battle is far from over.
Schwalb’s office fired back with restrained optimism, stating, “This is a preliminary ruling that does not resolve the merits. We look forward to continuing our case in both the District and appellate courts.” Good luck with that—challenging federal authority in D.C. is like bringing a slingshot to a tank fight, but we’ll see how it plays out.
For now, images of National Guard troops patrolling the National Mall and heading to the D.C. Armory remain a stark reminder of the stakes. From a right-of-center view, their presence signals a commitment to stability in turbulent times, even if it rankles those obsessed with local control over common sense.
Let’s not pretend this is all rosy—D.C. residents deserve a say in how their city is policed, and conservatives should respect that principle of self-governance. But when the capital’s safety is on the line, federal priorities must take the wheel, especially when threats to national property loom large.
The court admitted this stay is an “extraordinary remedy,” reflecting the Trump administration’s strong likelihood of winning on appeal. That’s a nod to the administration’s argument, not a blank check, and we should demand transparency on why these deployments stretch so long.
At the end of the day, this ruling keeps the Guard in D.C. through February 2025, a victory for federal authority over progressive pushback. It’s a reminder that in the nation’s capital, national security isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a necessity worth defending, even if it means ruffling a few feathers. Conservatives can stand by this, while still insisting every decision gets a hard look under the microscope.
Scott Adams, the brilliant mind behind the iconic Dilbert comic strip, announced on YouTube over the weekend that he's paralyzed from the waist down while grappling with aggressive prostate cancer.
For those unfamiliar, Adams, 68, has been fighting this brutal disease since at least March 2025, revealing a dire situation that’s left him bedridden and pleading for urgent help.
American retirees, who’ve chuckled at Dilbert’s office satire for decades, now face the sobering reality of a cultural icon in crisis, with potential medical delays raising questions about healthcare access—a system many fear is bogged down by bureaucracy at a steep human cost.
Adams, whose Dilbert has skewered corporate nonsense since 1989 across 57 countries in 19 languages, first confirmed his prostate cancer diagnosis earlier this year, though he hinted he’d been battling it longer than some politicians admit their own health woes.
Initially keeping his struggle private, he shocked fans with a bedside announcement on YouTube, admitting, “Paralyzed below the waist,” and clarifying he can feel but not move.
That’s a gut punch for a man whose wit has sold over 20 million books and calendars, and it’s hard not to wonder if a system prioritizing paperwork over patients is partly to blame for his decline.
Adams is undergoing radiation, hoping it halts tumor growth and restores some strength to his lower body, but he’s pinning bigger hopes on Pluvicto, a new FDA-approved drug he believes could extend his life.
Yet, frustration mounts as he claims Kaiser of Northern California has stalled scheduling his Pluvicto infusion, leaving him to publicly lament, “I am declining fast.”
Conservative taxpayers can’t help but grimace—when even a near-$70 million net worth can’t cut through healthcare red tape, what chance do regular folks have against such institutional inertia?
Desperate, Adams took to social media in November 2025, begging President Donald Trump to intervene and get Kaiser to schedule his treatment pronto.
Trump, never one to shy away from a fight against bloated systems, fired back on Truth Social with a swift “On it!” showing the kind of decisive action many on the right crave.
A follow-up from a presumed associate named Kennedy asking how to reach Adams suggests the plea didn’t fall on deaf ears, a rare win for those skeptical of elite indifference.
By December 2025, during a livestream, Adams noted his social media outcry on platform X might’ve nudged Kaiser to pay more attention, though he’s quick to question if that’s fair to other patients.
Still, his second Pluvicto dose remains postponed due to ongoing radiation, a setback for a man who was told he might not survive past summer 2025.
While Adams’ controversial conservative stances—like a 2023 rant costing him a book deal with Penguin Random House and 77 newspapers dropping Dilbert over anti-woke plots—have made enemies, no one can deny the man’s fight for life deserves respect over petty culture war grudges.
Dan Bongino, the fiery conservative voice turned FBI deputy director, has just dropped a bombshell by announcing his exit from the bureau come January 2026.
Bongino revealed on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, that he’s stepping down after a contentious nine-month stint marked by public spats and friction with the Justice Department, a move hinted at by President Trump himself.
For hardworking taxpayers, this saga raises serious questions about government accountability and the financial burden of constant leadership turnover at the FBI, where instability can mean wasted resources and disrupted investigations.
Appointed in February 2025, Bongino came to the FBI with a background as a popular podcaster—his “The Dan Bongino Show” ranked No. 56 on Spotify at the time—and a former Secret Service agent who served under President George W. Bush.
Before this, he cut his teeth with the NYPD, worked in the Secret Service’s Baltimore Field Office, and even hosted “Unfiltered” on Fox News until a contract dispute ended that gig in 2023.
But his time at the FBI quickly turned into a lightning rod, with controversies piling up faster than debt at a progressive think tank.
By May 2025, Bongino was pushing hard on investigations into the 2023 White House cocaine discovery and a leaked 2022 Supreme Court draft on the Dobbs ruling, showing a no-nonsense approach that conservatives cheered.
Yet, his history of promoting unverified theories—like claims about pipe bombs near party headquarters before the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot being an inside job—drew sharp criticism, even from some Trump allies.
He also faced heat for questioning the FBI’s past election probes and investigations into assassination attempts on Trump, painting him as a skeptic of the bureau’s own integrity.
Rumors of Bongino’s exit first swirled in July 2025 after a public clash with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files, especially after the FBI backtracked on claims of murder or a “client list.”
By August 2025, the appointment of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director alongside Bongino by Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel only fueled speculation that his days were numbered.
President Trump, commenting on the departure, called Bongino’s work “a great job,” though one wonders if that’s faint praise for a tenure so steeped in conflict.
In his own words, Bongino expressed gratitude, saying, “I want to thank President Trump, AG Bondi, and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose.”
“Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you. God bless America, and all those who defend Her,” he added, striking a patriotic chord that resonates with many conservatives tired of bureaucratic games.
Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is throwing his weight behind the Trump administration’s hard-hitting military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
This unfolding saga, which kicked off in September, centers on a U.S. military operation targeting alleged narcotics trafficking vessels, resulting in at least 95 reported deaths so far.
From the get-go, the administration has framed this as a counter-narcotics mission, but skepticism lingers among lawmakers about the broader intent, especially regarding ties to Venezuelan leadership.
Back in September, the U.S. military launched this aggressive campaign, taking out boats they claim are ferrying drugs through Caribbean waters.
With 95 alleged traffickers killed to date, the body count has raised eyebrows, yet the administration remains tight-lipped on hard evidence linking these vessels to narcotics.
It’s a bold move, no doubt, but without public proof, some wonder if this is more about sending a message than stopping shipments.
Fast forward to this week, and Senator Fetterman emerged from a private briefing with a surprising vote of confidence for the operation.
He called the intel “pretty comprehensive,” insisting the strikes aren’t some wild free-for-all but are guided by precise data on who and what’s aboard these boats.
“I mean, there’s extensive intelligence and they know exactly who’s on that boat and what’s actually on that boat right now,” Fetterman told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on “CUOMO.”
Still, not everyone’s buying the narrow “counter-drugs” label that officials keep slapping on this campaign.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, pressed Trump officials for clarity on whether this is really just about drugs or a stepping stone to confronting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Graham’s frustration was palpable when he noted their vague response, hinting that a stronger push against Maduro might be the unspoken goal.
President Trump hasn’t helped clear the fog, keeping his cards close while calling Maduro an “illegitimate leader” whose time is running out.
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly said Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” as noted in a Vanity Fair profile, which suggests a personal vendetta might be at play. If that’s the strategy, it’s a risky chess move in an already volatile region.
Meanwhile, voices like Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stick to the script, emphasizing the mission is about halting the flow of drugs that harm American communities, not toppling a regime.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass admitted on a podcast in November that she fumbled the response to the city’s most catastrophic wildfire ever, but her team yanked the footage before it could go public, the New York Post reported.
The Palisades and Eaton fires, now etched in history as LA’s most destructive blaze, exposed glaring failures in leadership as Bass confessed to mishandling the crisis on a podcast, only for her team to scramble and scrub the evidence from public view.
During an interview on Matt Welch’s “The Fifth Column” podcast, released last month, Bass let slip her candid thoughts on the disaster response.
“Both sides botched it,” Bass declared, a rare moment of honesty that cuts through the usual political spin.
Yet, instead of owning the mistake, her team quickly moved to yank the four-minute confession off YouTube, claiming the chat happened after the interview ended.
That excuse rings hollow when accountability is already in short supply, especially for a disaster that claimed 19 lives in west Altadena due to missing evacuation alerts.
Bass herself pointed out the deadly oversight, saying, “They didn’t tell people they were on fire,” highlighting a breakdown that left residents defenseless.
The tragedy unfolded as the fires raged, yet Bass failed to deploy a crisis response team—hundreds of trained volunteers backed by nearly a million dollars in funding—for almost a week in January.
Only after inquiries from The Post did the team finally mobilize, raising questions about whether public pressure, not leadership, spurred action.
Before her podcast slip, Bass had already pointed fingers at former fire chief Kristin Crowley, firing her in February while on a diplomatic trip to Ghana.
That trip, which Bass later called a mistake, also saw her delete text messages about the fires, a move ABC7 revealed violated public disclosure laws.
Her defense—that her phone auto-deletes messages after 30 days—does little to ease concerns about transparency during a historic crisis.
The Los Angeles Fire Department union boss didn’t mince words, slamming Bass for making Crowley a scapegoat in the aftermath.
Meanwhile, Bass has hinted at frustration over bearing the brunt of criticism, telling the LA Times the situation was “unfortunate” and suggesting others, like the Board of Supervisors, escape scrutiny.
This attempt to spread blame, while sidestepping her own delays and deletions, feels like a dodge when Angelenos deserve straight answers after such profound loss.
Tragedy struck São Paulo when a young Brazilian influencer met a heartbreaking end, plummeting from her high-rise home on November 29 under suspicious circumstances that led to the arrest of her husband days later.
The devastating fall of 25-year-old Maria Katiane Gomes da Silva from her 10th-floor condominium balcony has left a community reeling, with her husband, Alex Leandro Bispo dos Santos, now in custody on suspicion of femicide.
Hailing from Crateús, Brazil, Maria carved a new life in São Paulo after humble beginnings in restaurants and supermarkets, eventually tying the knot with Santos.
As a lifestyle content creator, she inspired nearly 6,500 Instagram followers with posts on travel, makeup, and wellness, her final update showing her dancing with carefree joy just weeks before the tragedy.
Yet behind the polished posts, a grim reality emerged on November 29, 2025, when neighbors heard piercing screams and a loud bang, spurring them to alert authorities.
Officers arrived to a harrowing sight: Santos, 40, holding Maria’s lifeless body, insisting she ended her life after a heated dispute that day.
Authorities weren’t quick to accept that narrative, labeling the death suspicious from the outset in a society often too eager to overlook domestic shadows.
Surveillance footage soon painted a darker picture, showing Santos allegedly striking Maria in a parking garage, reaching for her neck in an elevator, and dragging her out with brutal force.
Later, cameras captured him crumbling in the elevator, head in hands—a moment that raises more doubts than clarity in this tragic saga.
Neighbors’ accounts of chaos clash starkly with the glossy veneer of social media, where personal struggles are too often buried under curated perfection.
Days after, at Maria’s funeral on December 1, Santos knelt beside her casket, visibly weeping—an image of sorrow or something more sinister?
By December 9, law enforcement had seen enough, taking Santos into custody for femicide, with suspicions he may have hurled his wife from their balcony.
This isn’t merely a personal loss; it’s a sobering wake-up call about hidden battles, often ignored by a culture fixated on image over grim reality.
As investigators dig deeper, Santos remains in temporary custody, while a nation grieves a vibrant soul snuffed out far too early.
Let this case remind us to look beyond the filters and hashtags, demanding justice for those whose cries are silenced behind closed doors.
Hold onto your wallets, folks—Obamacare’s enhanced subsidies are teetering on the edge of a cliff, and some House Republicans are ready to throw verbal punches at their own party leaders for letting it happen.
As the clock ticks toward the year-end expiration of these subsidies, moderate GOP lawmakers like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York are locked in a bitter feud with congressional leadership on both sides over a failure to secure a vote on extending the benefits.
Over the weekend, negotiations between GOP moderates and party brass fizzled out when leadership demanded that any extension—projected to cost a whopping $350 billion over a decade—come with matching spending cuts.
On Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson dropped the hammer, announcing there’d be no vote on extending the subsidies, leaving moderates like Lawler fuming at the inaction.
Lawler didn’t hold back, blasting both Republican and Democratic leaders for playing political games while constituents face the threat of skyrocketing insurance premiums.
“I am pissed for the American people. This is absolute bullshit,” Lawler declared, capturing the raw frustration of those in swing districts who fear a voter backlash if costs spike.
Alongside Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Lawler warns that letting these subsidies lapse could hammer middle-class families in competitive districts with higher insurance bills.
Critics of Obamacare, however, argue the program’s structure was never meant to include these temporary boosts, enacted without GOP support in 2021, and note that insurer profits have ballooned while premiums outpace employer-based plans.
Johnson defended the decision, claiming negotiations were conducted in “good faith” but failed to produce a workable solution for a dozen swing-district Republicans pushing for a vote.
Undeterred, moderates took action on Wednesday, with Fitzpatrick and Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine filing a discharge petition to force a House vote on a two-year extension, gaining support from about a dozen Republicans including Lawler.
Yet, the petition needs 218 signatures to succeed, and it’s nowhere near that magic number, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries pushes a separate three-year extension plan most GOP members reject.
Lawler accused Democrats of weaponizing the issue for political gain, pointing fingers at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for tabling a doomed three-year proposal earlier this month.
“The Democratic leader will not release his members to sign those two discharge petitions. Why? Because he doesn’t want to actually solve the problem,” Lawler charged, calling out what he sees as cynical maneuvering.
Meanwhile, GOP leadership is forging ahead with a Wednesday vote on the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act, a bill focusing on transparency and cost-sharing reforms but ignoring the expiring subsidies altogether.
As the deadlock drags on, Lawler hasn’t ruled out joining the Democratic-led petition for a longer extension, hinting that every option remains under consideration in this messy Capitol Hill showdown.