Has Michelle Obama joined the Hollywood quick-fix club with her newly trimmed figure? The former first lady’s latest Instagram post has ignited a firestorm of debate over whether her toned look is the result of hard work or a shortcut like Ozempic, the New York Post reported.
Over the weekend before this story, Obama shared behind-the-scenes glimpses of a photoshoot with renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz, sparking widespread chatter about her noticeably slimmer frame.
This photoshoot, intended for a new edition of Leibovitz’s book "Women," aimed to capture the evolving roles of women today. Obama donned a casual gray T-shirt, jeans, and brown suede boots, flaunting toned arms and a taut midsection that left many jaws on the floor. And yet, the image has raised more questions than applause.
Social media platforms like Twitter/X quickly became a battleground of opinions, with users speculating that Obama’s transformation might owe more to weight-loss drugs like Ozempic than to diet and exercise. One user quipped, “It’s called Ozempic,” while another mused it’s “way easier” than a strict regimen. These armchair detectives aren’t holding back, though proof remains elusive.
The accusations aren’t just idle gossip; they tap into a broader cultural frustration with celebrity transparency. If Obama did use such medications, shouldn’t she own it, especially given her platform on health? Honesty, after all, is a value many Americans hold dear, regardless of political stripes.
Attempts to get clarity from Obama’s team have hit a wall, as no response was provided when contacted by The Post. This silence only fuels the speculation, leaving the public to wonder if there’s something to hide. It’s a curious stance for someone so vocal about personal wellness.
Back in 2022, Obama opened up to People magazine about the challenges of weight gain during menopause, painting a relatable picture of bodily changes. “I’m not trying to stick to numbers, but when you’re in menopause, you have this slow creep that you just don’t realize,” she said. It’s a candid admission that resonates with many women navigating similar struggles.
She continued, “We’re all in menopause with stretchy bands, and our athleisure wear on, and you look up, and you can’t fit the outfits you had last year.” Her words highlight a universal frustration, yet they also set the stage for why her recent transformation feels so jarring to observers.
More recently, in an interview with People magazine earlier this month, Obama doubled down on her commitment to health, emphasizing diet, exercise, and regular medical checkups. This focus on wellness suggests a disciplined approach, but for skeptics, it doesn’t fully quiet the Ozempic whispers. Could there be more to the story than mindful living?
The online peanut gallery hasn’t minced words, with comments ranging from accusatory to begrudgingly impressed. Another Twitter user speculated, “GLP-1. They have the money; they don’t have to worry about insurance covering it.”
Such remarks reflect a growing cynicism about wealth and access in healthcare, a concern that transcends political divides. While it’s unfair to assume without evidence, the sentiment underscores a demand for authenticity from public figures. If privilege plays a role, shouldn’t the conversation be open?
Obama herself spoke glowingly of the photoshoot, praising Leibovitz’s ability to capture meaningful moments. Her Instagram caption celebrated the project as a way to showcase how women present themselves today. But the irony isn’t lost that her own presentation has become the story.
Let’s be clear: Obama has every right to prioritize her health and appearance, whether through sweat, sacrifice, or science. The issue isn’t her slimmer figure—it’s the perception of dodging accountability in an era where transparency is currency. A little candor could turn critics into admirers.
For now, the debate rages on, a microcosm of larger cultural clashes over authenticity versus image. While some see a conspiracy in every celebrity transformation, others just want straight answers. Until then, Michelle Obama’s photoshoot remains a lightning rod for speculation, not celebration.
Imagine losing your spouse in a tragic accident, only to be told you can’t even seek justice because of an outdated legal precedent.
This is the harsh reality for the widow of Air Force Staff Sergeant Cameron Beck, whose case was recently turned away by the Supreme Court, despite a passionate dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, Fox News reported.
Back in 2021, Beck was leaving a military base in Missouri on his motorcycle, heading to meet his wife and young child for lunch. A civilian government employee, distracted by her phone, struck him, leading to his death at the scene. The employee later admitted fault through a plea deal.
Beck’s widow, seeking accountability, attempted to sue the federal government for her husband’s untimely death. Her claim, however, was swiftly rejected by a federal court, citing a long-standing precedent.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal, pointing to the Feres v. United States doctrine. This rule shields the government from wrongful death lawsuits by families of servicemembers if the incident occurred during duty.
Here’s the rub: Beck wasn’t on a mission or even in uniform—he was off duty, just trying to grab a sandwich with his family. Yet, the courts ruled that the precedent still applied, leaving his widow with no recourse.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a sharp dissent, argued this case was a perfect chance to revisit the Feres precedent. “We should have granted certiorari. Doing so would have provided clarity about [Feres v. United States] to lower courts that have long asked for it,” Thomas stated, per court records.
Thomas didn’t stop there, pointing out the absurdity of the ruling. “Beck was not ordered on a military mission to go home for lunch with his family. So Mrs. Beck should have prevailed under Feres,” he added, cutting through the legal fog with plain logic.
Let’s be real: if a man isn’t on the clock, how can the government hide behind a “duty” excuse? Thomas’s words highlight a glaring flaw in a system that too often prioritizes bureaucratic shields over basic fairness.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while siding with the majority to reject the case, couldn’t ignore the injustice baked into the Feres doctrine. She called for legislative intervention to fix these “deeply unfair results,” acknowledging the pain this precedent inflicts on families like Beck’s.
Four justices are needed to take up a petition, but this case didn’t muster the support. That leaves the widow and others like her stuck in a legal limbo that feels more like a slap in the face than justice.
From a conservative angle, this isn’t about undermining military structure—it’s about holding the government accountable when it fails spectacularly. Why should a distracted employee’s mistake, admitted no less, be swept under a rug of immunity?
The Feres precedent, while perhaps once rooted in protecting military discipline, now seems like a relic that punishes the very families who sacrifice alongside our servicemembers. It’s not “woke” to demand fairness; it’s common sense.
Progressives might argue for sweeping reforms or endless lawsuits, but that’s not the answer either. A targeted fix, as Sotomayor suggested, could balance accountability with the need to protect military operations—Congress just needs to stop dragging its feet.
For now, Beck’s widow is left with grief and a bitter lesson: the system isn’t always on the side of the little guy, even when the facts scream for justice. If this doesn’t light a fire under lawmakers to revisit Feres, what will?
In the aftermath of a Democrat statement encouraging military troops to disobey orders from President Donald Trump, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) admitted to ABC "This Week" host Martha Raddatz that she wasn't aware of any instance when President Donald Trump issued an illegal order to the military.
“Let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?” Raddatz asked.
“To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal — but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes, and everything related to Venezuela,” Slotkin answered.
Slotkin justified the Democrat statement about disobeying Trump, which she participated in, by saying that they did it because of the “sheer number” of troops and young officers asking them what they “should do.”
“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” the lawmakers say in the video, which was released on Tuesday.
“Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly says in the video.
“You can refuse illegal orders,” Slotkin says in the video.
President Donald Trump's response on Truth Social initially said the statement was "sedition," which is "punishable by death," but Trump later revised his statement after saying he did not want to "execute" the lawmakers.
“THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OKAY,” Trump wrote in a post on Saturday. “IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!”
It is important to note that, technically, the Democrats did not tell military members to disobey Trump.
That being said, they certainly seemed to imply from their comments that Trump was a "threat to the Constitution" and was issuing or would likely issue illegal orders to the military at some point, which is unfair and wrong of them to do.
Their words obviously created a controversy, based on Slotkin's appearance on "This Week."
Even if they were sincere about wanting to respond to the inquiries they said they were getting, they ended up inflaming the situation rather than calming it down, which is never a good thing (but probably exactly what they wanted to do, if truth be told).
Hold onto your hats, folks—most Americans are saying a resounding "no" to military action in Venezuela, even as tensions simmer and the U.S. ramps up its presence in the region.
A recent CBS News/YouGov poll, alongside escalating military moves and stark government warnings, paints a picture of a nation wary of entanglement in yet another foreign conflict while the Trump administration sharpens its focus on Venezuelan entities, The Hill reported.
The poll, conducted between Nov. 19 and 21 with 2,489 respondents and a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points, revealed a striking 70% of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Venezuela, with only 30% in favor.
Public awareness of the situation isn’t exactly front-page news for everyone, though—only 20% of respondents had heard “a lot” about the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean Sea near Venezuela, while 40% heard “some,” and a combined 39% heard “not much” or “nothing at all.”
Despite this lukewarm engagement, the message is clear: most folks aren’t itching for another overseas fight, especially when the progressive crowd often pushes for endless intervention under the guise of humanitarianism.
Let’s rewind a bit—recently, the U.S. military has beefed up its footprint near Venezuela, most notably deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean, a move that’s hard to ignore.
On top of that, President Trump has greenlit CIA covert operations within Venezuela, signaling a willingness to play hardball with a regime many conservatives view as a destabilizing force in the Western Hemisphere.
Then there’s the Federal Aviation Administration stepping in with a stern warning for pilots, advising them to “exercise caution” near Venezuela due to a “worsening security situation and heightened military activity,” as stated in their recent advisory.
The FAA didn’t mince words, noting that “threats could pose a potential risk to aircraft at all altitudes” in the Maiquetia Flight Information Region—a chilling reminder of how volatile things have gotten.
Just last Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dropped another bombshell, announcing that designating Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization opens up new avenues for action against the alleged drug cartel, which officials claim is tied to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Hegseth himself put it bluntly: “Well, it brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States.” While that’s music to the ears of those fed up with narco-trafficking networks, it’s worth asking if these “options” will drag us deeper into a quagmire most Americans want no part of.
After all, the poll numbers don’t lie—70% opposition isn’t a rounding error, and it reflects a broader fatigue with military overreach, a sentiment often drowned out by the left’s sanctimonious calls for global policing.
From a conservative standpoint, targeting entities like Cartel de los Soles makes sense—drug trafficking and corruption are real threats to regional stability, and Maduro’s regime has long been a thorn in America’s side.
Yet, empathy for the average American’s reluctance must be acknowledged; after decades of costly interventions, the appetite for boots on the ground is understandably thin, especially when domestic issues like border security and inflation loom large.
So, while the Trump administration’s tougher stance on Venezuela might resonate with those who prioritize national strength, the public’s clear message—backed by hard data—suggests a need for restraint over saber-rattling, lest we stumble into another endless conflict.
Imagine a 20-year-old with a keyboard full of venom, openly plotting violence against political figures, and the FBI somehow misses every glaring red flag.
That’s the heart of the shocking case of Thomas Crooks, who attempted to assassinate the then-presumptive GOP presidential nominee during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, the New York Post reported.
Despite a trail of extremist social media posts, the Bureau failed to act before his violent intentions became reality.
Retired FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker has stepped forward with sharp criticism, claiming the Bureau had countless opportunities to intervene before Crooks struck.
“It’s clear that he was popping off on the social media sites and saying things that should have garnered attention,” Swecker said.
Yet, the FBI seemingly ignored the warnings, perhaps too eager to paint Crooks as a simple far-right lone wolf instead of confronting the complex truth.
Crooks’ online presence was a glaring danger sign, filled with calls for terrorism-style attacks and targeted violence against government officials.
One chilling post suggested members of Congress deserved a “quick, painful death,” showcasing a mind bent on destruction.
If even half of these rants were real, as Swecker emphasized, how did the FBI fail to spot this walking red alert?
Swecker didn’t hold back on the FBI’s handling post-incident, criticizing the investigation under former Director Christopher Wray for its lack of openness.
This secrecy, he argued, only fueled wild conspiracy theories in the absence of clear facts from the Bureau.
“A little bit of transparency goes a long way in these types of investigations,” Swecker noted, urging the FBI to involve the public by sharing more about such threats.
Beyond internal missteps, Swecker highlighted a terrifying reality: Crooks’ radicalization exposes how foreign adversaries could exploit social media to weaponize troubled individuals.
With groups like ISIS already mastering online radicalization, nations like Russia, China, or Iran could easily follow, turning the internet into a battlefield for inciting violence.
Americans must stay vigilant to dangerous online rhetoric, Swecker advised, though without becoming a society of overzealous informants—balance is key.
Hold onto your hats, patriots—President Trump’s much-touted Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, has vanished into thin air well before its scheduled end.
In brief, DOGE, the administration’s flagship effort to gut government waste, has ceased operations eight months early, with its tasks now handed off to other federal offices, the Daily Mail reported.
From the get-go, DOGE was unveiled with bold promises via executive order at the start of Trump’s second term, set to run until mid-2026.
Led by tech mogul Elon Musk, DOGE charged forward, slashing budgets and reshaping federal agencies to match the administration’s vision.
Musk was its loudest cheerleader, even swinging a chainsaw at a conservative gathering to dramatize the mission of cutting government bloat.
“This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,” Musk proclaimed at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a catchy soundbite that now rings a bit empty given DOGE’s silent exit (Elon Musk).
Despite the early hype from Trump, Musk, and top officials on social media, DOGE’s collapse came without a whisper of acknowledgment from the White House.
Scott Kupor, head of the Office of Personnel Management, didn’t mince words, stating, “That doesn’t exist,” when pressed on DOGE’s current standing (Scott Kupor).
Kupor and internal reports confirm that many of DOGE’s roles have shifted to the OPM, while other duties are now scattered across the federal landscape.
As DOGE faded, its staff didn’t just sit idle—key players like Zachary Terrell landed as CTO at Health and Human Services, while Rachel Riley took a top spot at the Office of Naval Research.
Others, including Jeremy Lewin, moved to oversee foreign aid at the State Department, and some joined the newly formed National Design Studio under ex-DOGE member Joe Gebbia.
Gebbia’s studio, focused on polishing government websites, got a shout-out from DOGE alum Edward Coristine, who urged followers online to apply for roles there.
The National Design Studio isn’t just window dressing—it’s launched platforms to recruit law enforcement for D.C. streets and promote Trump’s drug pricing efforts.
Meanwhile, the battle against red tape continues, with former DOGE staffer Scott Langmack building AI tools at HUD to target regulations for elimination.
For those of us rooting for a leaner government, DOGE’s unannounced demise—especially after Musk’s public clash with Trump and exit from Washington—feels like a fumble, though the fight against bureaucratic overreach still shows signs of life elsewhere.
President Trump has ignited a firestorm by accusing Democratic lawmakers of sedition for urging U.S. service members to reject unlawful orders, The Hill reported.
This controversy centers on Trump's escalating rhetoric against a group of Democratic legislators with military and intelligence backgrounds who released a video advising troops to defy illegal directives, prompting the president to demand their imprisonment while the White House clarifies he does not seek their execution.
The saga began earlier this week when several Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, alongside Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, released a video message.
In it, they emphasized that service members are not obligated to follow commands that breach the law or the Constitution. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” the lawmakers stated in the video released earlier in the week. Their message, while not targeting a specific White House policy, comes amid scrutiny of recent deadly strikes in the Caribbean authorized by the Trump administration against boats suspected of drug trafficking, strikes lacking clear legal justification.
Trump didn’t take kindly to this, and by Thursday, he was firing off posts on Truth Social, labeling the lawmakers’ actions as treacherous and questioning whether they should be locked up. His words were sharp, accusing them of undermining authority with what he called seditious conduct. It’s hard to ignore the irony of a video meant to protect constitutional integrity being spun as a betrayal of the nation.
By late Saturday, Trump doubled down on his platform, Truth Social, with posts that pulled no punches. “THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK,” Trump declared on Truth Social on Saturday night. One has to wonder if this level of heat is aimed at accountability or just silencing dissent.
Trump went further, branding their behavior as “sedition at the highest level” and a “major crime” in additional posts that night. He even claimed that numerous legal scholars back his view that the lawmakers committed a grave offense. While legal minds may debate the definition of sedition, this rhetoric feels more like a political sledgehammer than a courtroom argument.
On Thursday, Trump had already hinted at severe consequences, suggesting that such seditious acts could warrant the ultimate penalty. He quickly stirred the pot by mentioning that this behavior might be “punishable by death” in one of his Truth Social updates. Thankfully, cooler heads in the administration stepped in to dial that back.
Enter White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who moved swiftly to clarify that Trump does not advocate for executing the lawmakers. When directly asked by a reporter if the president wanted such an extreme outcome, Leavitt firmly responded with a “no.” This clarification is a relief, though it doesn’t erase the initial shock of the president’s words.
Leavitt didn’t stop there, arguing that encouraging active-duty personnel to defy the chain of command is a dangerous precedent for sitting members of Congress to set. She stressed that the president’s primary goal is to see these lawmakers held accountable for their statements. It’s a fair point—military discipline matters—but one can’t help but ask if this accountability push risks chilling legitimate constitutional discourse.
The backdrop of this clash isn’t trivial; the Trump administration’s recent Caribbean strikes on suspected drug boats have raised eyebrows for lacking transparent legal grounding. Unlike standard law enforcement protocols for drug interdiction, no clear evidence has been presented to justify these deadly actions. This context likely fueled the lawmakers’ video, though they avoided naming specific policies.
Trump’s supporters might argue he’s right to call out any perceived undermining of presidential authority, especially in military matters. After all, a unified chain of command is critical to national security, and public statements like these could sow confusion among troops. Yet, there’s a flip side—shouldn’t service members be reminded of their duty to uphold the Constitution above all?
The Democratic lawmakers likely see their video as a patriotic act, a safeguard against potential overreach. But to Trump and his base, it’s a direct challenge to executive power, perhaps even a reckless one. The tension here is real: loyalty to the commander-in-chief versus loyalty to the founding document.
Leavitt’s warning about the dangers of defying military hierarchy carries weight, especially in a polarized climate where trust in institutions is already fragile. Still, the administration’s response—calling for accountability without defining it—leaves room for interpretation, and not always the charitable kind.
As this story unfolds, the core question remains: where’s the line between dissent and disloyalty? Trump’s fiery language and the Democrats’ bold video have turned a nuanced debate into a political lightning rod. For now, the White House insists it’s about responsibility, not retribution, but the president’s own words keep the heat turned up high.
President Donald Trump claimed in a Truth Social message on Sunday night that the Republican party was bigger and more united than ever, calling out a few "lowlifes" who are making it seem more divided than it actually is.
The party has "never been so UNITED AS IT iS RIGHT NOW!" Trump posted.
"Other than Rand Paul, Rand Paul Jr.(Massie!), Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown, and a couple of other ‘lowlifes,’ and other than the fact that many want the Election threatening Filibuster TERMINATED (the Dems will do it in the first minute of their first chance!), and some don’t, there is great spirit and cohesion," he continued.
Of course, there is some division in the GOP because it's virtually impossible to get hundreds of nationwide legislators to be in lockstep at all times.
I would argue strongly that different views and vigorous debate make the party better than having a bunch of yes-men (and women) who just agree with the leader and don't think for themselves.
Most people don't totally agree with any one person's views, so I think they get it when they see Republicans debating on issues. It would be nice if they could be respectful, but that doesn't get media attention so it is becoming more rare.
In my opinion, the amount of differing opinions in the GOP has given it an advantage over Democrats in recent years, even though it is sometimes difficult to deal with (like the House Speaker race the last couple times).
Trump also bragged about the size of the GOP since he first ran for president in 2015.
"Many Millions More Members!" Trump wrote. "We now have the Strongest Border EVER, Biggest Tax Cuts, the Best Economy, Highest Stock Market in USA History, and sooo much more."
He added, "BUT, THE BEST IS YET TO COME! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!"
Trump is right here; the GOP has grown under his leadership.
That only leads to more diverse opinions, but that's part of the bigger tent and ultimately is good for the party.
Trump doesn't like diversity; he wants everyone to agree with him and I get it, but it's healthy and needs to happen.
Recently though, he has shown the ability to reconcile after having a spat with someone (i.e. Elon Musk and MTG, for a few examples), which is a welcome development as far as I'm concerned.
"I can patch up differences with anyone," he said when asked about Greene.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) decided to resign from Congress, apparently due to threats she and her three adult children have received since conflicting with President Donald Trump on several issues.
GOP political strategist Shermichael Singleton said on "State of the Union" on Sunday that whether or not Greene had statewide or larger political ambitions, he believed her political career is now over.
“I’m thinking there’s some other opportunity, perhaps in the media ecosystem, that she’s looking at,” the CNN political commentator said.” “But I think her future life in politics in over.”
It isn't known whether Greene still has any future political ambitions, but part of her rift with Trump is believed to be over his discouraging her to run for statewide political office, either for governor against Brian Kemp or senator against Jon Ossoff.
It was after this alleged discouragement (she denies it even happened) that she started disagreeing with Trump on some of his policy initiatives, like whether to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
It may be just coincidence, but it seems like the two may be connected one way or another.
She soon found out what unfortunately happens when you disagree with Trump publicly.
For his part, Trump doesn't seem to be holding any grudges.
He told NBC News he didn't think it would be easy for her to continue in politics, but added, “I’d love to see that.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), with whom Greene worked on the Epstein file release, said he thinks Greene could have a shot if she ran for president in 2028 because she seems like more of a populist than Trump or Vice President JD Vance does now that they are in office.
The polls do not agree with Khanna at this point--Vance is way ahead of the pack, with Greene in a distant 12th place.
Greene could make a good commentator because of her strong opinions and passionate delivery of them.
She is also still popular with her constituents, most of whom voted for Trump.
Not everyone can deal with death threats and the sort of nonsense that seems to follow anyone who expresses a divergent political opinion, though. We will just have to see whether Greene can come back from this or not.
Hold the barricades—President Donald Trump has dialed back his once-fiery rhetoric about sending the National Guard into New York City under its incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
In a surprising pivot, Trump has softened his stance on deploying troops to the Big Apple as part of his broader push to tackle crime in Democrat-run urban centers.
This shift comes despite his earlier tough talk, though he’s keeping the option open if circumstances shift in the future.
The change in tone follows a notable sit-down with Mayor-elect Mamdani at the White House, an encounter that caught many off guard.
Trump himself described the Oval Office meeting on Friday as unexpectedly cordial, a far cry from the campaign trail barbs.
He seems to be extending a rare olive branch to a figure he previously painted as part of the progressive problem.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, Trump clarified his current thinking on federal intervention in New York City.
He suggested that other cities are in greater need of the National Guard right now, showing a strategic pause rather than a full retreat.
“If they need it. Right now, other places need it more, but if they need it,” Trump stated, balancing caution with his signature resolve. (President Donald Trump)
Reflecting on the meeting with Mamdani, Trump hinted at a willingness to cooperate, which might raise eyebrows among his staunchest supporters.
“We agree on a lot more than I would have thought,” he told the press, suggesting there could be room for collaboration. (President Donald Trump)
Is this a genuine thaw, or just a tactical play to keep options open while focusing elsewhere?
Trump’s comments on New York City fit into his larger agenda of addressing urban crime through National Guard deployments in Democrat-led areas.
Legal challenges have dogged these efforts, with the Supreme Court currently reviewing a blocked deployment to Chicago, yet Trump remains undeterred.
Despite setbacks, he continues to champion federal intervention, claiming public support in struggling cities like Chicago where he insists citizens are clamoring for action.