Former Harvard president Larry Summers has resigned from the board of directors at OpenAI following revelations of a close association with disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Breitbart reported. Summers, who served as former President Bill Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, said he was "deeply ashamed" after Epstein's emails proved their friendship.
Summers had announced his resignation from the artificial intelligence tech company after originally sharing that he was stepping back from his public-facing commitments. "Larry has decided to resign from the OpenAI Board of Directors, and we respect his decision," the company said in a statement.
"We appreciate his many contributions and the perspective he brought to the Board," OpenAI added. Conservative commentator Steve Guest shared an image of the correspondence in which Summers "emailed Jeffrey Epstein about getting advice about women," he captioned his post to X on Nov. 13.
Larry Summers, who was Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary and director of the National Economic Council under Barack Obama and is currently on the board of OpenAI & Skillsoft, emailed Jeffrey Epstein about getting advice about women.
"….hit on a few women 10 years ago and… pic.twitter.com/9IGF4UUayI
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 13, 2025
Summers ducked out of the company, which called his move "in line" with what he had already announced. "I am grateful for the opportunity to have served, excited about the potential of the company, and look forward to following their progress," Summers said.
He had joined OpenAI's board in November 2023, just as it was going through growing pains under its CEO, Sam Altman, who was ousted at the time and has since been reinstated. In fact, it was Summers, in his position as a board member, who reviewed the firing that was ultimately overturned.
OpenAI wasn't the only board on which Summers was featured prominently before stepping down. He also served as a paid contributor to Bloomberg TV and was a contract writer for the New York Times' opinion section, though the Gray Lady has cancelled that arrangement.
Summers served on the Budget Lab at Yale and as the chairman of the Center for Global Development's board. He was also recently released from his teaching job at Harvard University, where he had once served as president, Fox News reported.
A video captured by students in Summers' economics class, featuring his lament about his ties to Epstein, went viral. The Ivy League school's spokesperson wouldn't comment except to say that 'his co-teachers will complete the remaining three class sessions of the courses he has been teaching with them this semester, and he is not scheduled to teach next semester."
According to CNN, Epstein's emails show his reach included celebrities, high-profile businesspeople, government officials, and others. While the mainstream media has been attempting to make a big deal about his tangential connection to President Donald Trump, it's clear that Epstein was a contact point for hundreds of prominent people.
"CNN’s analysis of about 2,200 email threads found that at least 740 were exchanges between Epstein and prominent figures in academia, government, media, and business. Epstein’s correspondence with them, which also included numerous text messages, spanned a decade from 2009 to the day before his July 2019 arrest," CNN reported.
This was even after Epstein had been convicted of soliciting prostitution with a minor and had been a registered sex offender since 2008. More resignations are sure to follow after the president signed legislation demanding that the Justice Department release all files on Epstein, The Hill reported.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been ordered to release the information in the next 30 days after the resolution passed with near unanimous support. It allows for Bondi to hold back records "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution."
The Epstein files are sure to contain information that will ruin many lives once they're made public. The emails have already caused Summers to step away from every place of honor, and there will likely be many others like him in the months to come.
New Jersey police sergeant Andrew LaBruno was arrested Monday over accusations that he sexually assaulted a minor, Breitbart reported. The 44-year-old, who is also the former Democratic mayor of Dumont and currently serves on the Jersey City Police Department, allegedly showed up at the Englewood home of a child he met online and drugged the minor.
The details of the alleged crime are stomach-churning. LaBruno is accused of spraying "an unknown substance into his hand" then "placing it over the victim’s mouth and nose, causing the victim dizziness."
Once the alleged victim was "physically helpless" from the effects of the drug, LaBruno allegedly engaged in his heinous act with the child. When a 911 call was made, police found the victim was still suffering "cognitive impairment" and was treated at a local hospital.
They found enough physical evidence and used LaBruno's statements made to police, which were captured on body cam footage, to arrest the officer. Nobody else was at the Englewood home at the time the married father of two allegedly attacked the minor.
LaBruno "was suspended without pay immediately following his arrest," said Kim Wallace-Scalcione, press secretary for the Jersey City mayor's office. Wallace-Scalcione said that the JCPD "will assist the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office as needed during its criminal investigation."
There will also be an investigation into what his colleagues may have known. "As is standard procedure, JCPD Internal Affairs is conducting its own investigation and will determine his final employment status pending the outcome of all investigations," Wallace-Scalcione said.
The disgraced police sergeant is in custody at the Bergen County Jail, where he is being held without bail. According to NJ Advance Media, LaBruno pleaded "not guilty" to all three charges and will find out Friday whether he will remain in prison while awaiting trial.
"He hasn’t been indicted yet, he’s presumed innocent, " Anthony Barbieri, LaBruno's public defender, said Wednesday. "These are just charges, allegations," Barbieri added.
“He’s a rather prominent person in the community, and I’m sure the judge will take all of that into account,” Barbieri added about whether LaBruno will remain in jail. He had served as Dumont's mayor from 2020 to 2023 and recently ran for state assembly in the 39th legislative district on the Democratic ticket and lost.
LaBruno came close to winning on the Democratic ticket, and Jay Costa, who ran on the GOP ticket for Bergen County Commissioner, called out Democrats for their hypocrisy in supporting a man like him. "The NJ Democrat Party ran a smear campaign against me, calling me a 'Right Wing Gun Extremist' and accusing me of illegal activity, which lead to THREATS to the SAFETY of my FAMILY," LaBruno wrote on X.
"At the same time, they endorsed and supported Andrew LaBruno, who is now an alleged PEDOPHILE and sexual predator, as a candidate for District 39 assembly. They will do anything to gain or secure their power, and they will RUIN your life in the process without batting an eye," he went on in his post on Tuesday.
"Be warned, this is what we are up against in New Jersey. They are ruthless. Keep fighting," Costa added.
The NJ Democrat Party ran a smear campaign against me, calling me a "Right Wing Gun Extremist" and accusing me of illegal activity, which lead to THREATS to the SAFETY of my FAMILY.
At the same time, they endorsed and supported Andrew LaBruno, who is now an alleged PEDOPHILE and… pic.twitter.com/fVSi1Pco5x
— Jay Costa (@JayCostaUSA) November 18, 2025
If these allegations are true, it's a disgraceful crime on LaBruno's part, and he deserves the full extent of the punishment allowed by law. It's also an indictment of the state of the Democratic Party in New Jersey and the kind of people they will tolerate among their ranks if La Bruno is convicted.
An American citizen who served jail time in Saudi Arabia and was banned from leaving the country after his release in 2023 will now be released after a meeting between Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Donald Trump at the White House.
Police in Saudi Arabia arrested 75-year-old Saad Almadi during a family visit in 2021 after he suggested on X that a street in the country's capital be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who died at a Saudi Arabian consulate in 2018.
He was accused of terrorism for that criticism of the Saudi royal family, sentenced to 13 years in jail, but was only jailed until 2023. He was not allowed to leave the country after being released, however.
Almadi's family was grateful for his release and credited Trump with arranging it.
"This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration,” the Almadi family said in a statement after his release was announced. “We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.”
Why did the Saudi royal family consider Almadi's post to be critical of it?
Because there have been long-standing accusations that the crown prince ordered the operation that took Khashoggi out, even though Salman denies that he did so.
And how does criticizing the royal family of Saudi Arabia get turned into terrorism?
Well, you're on your own with that one.
In addition to Almadi's release, Trump also seemed to get another $400,000 in U.S. investments out of Salman.
It was a very productive meeting, by all accounts.
Trump has often bragged about his positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, but it hasn't always been evident in how the country has treated the U.S.
Now, Salman seems to be pleased with Trump's policies and appreciative that Trump is letting the whole Khashoggi thing slide. Not sure if that's a good idea or not, but I guess it's water under the $1 billion bridge now.
Hold onto your hats, folks—baseball has lost a true icon with the passing of Randy Jones, the San Diego Padres’ first Cy Young Award winner, at the age of 75.
The news marks the end of an era for a pitcher who carved his name into Padres history with jaw-dropping records, a deceptive style, and a heart for the San Diego community that never wavered, even after hanging up his cleats.
Born in Orange County, Jones became a household name in San Diego over his eight seasons with the Padres, complemented by a two-year stint with the New York Mets.
Across his decade-long career, he notched a 100-123 record with a solid 3.42 ERA, starting 285 games and logging 1,933 innings with 735 strikeouts.
But it’s with the Padres where Jones truly shone, holding franchise records for 253 starts, 71 complete games, 18 shutouts, and 1,766 innings pitched—numbers that still stand as a testament to grit over flash.
Back in 1975, he nearly snagged the Cy Young with a 20-12 record and a league-leading 2.24 ERA, finishing second to Tom Seaver, even as his team stumbled to just 71 wins.
Then came 1976, when Jones clinched the Cy Young Award with 22 wins for a Padres squad that managed only 73 victories, pitching a staggering 315 1/3 innings across 40 starts, including 25 complete games—all tops in the majors.
Nicknamed “Junkman” for his crafty, control-based pitching rather than raw speed, he baffled hitters and drew fans in droves, boosting attendance during his peak years as Padres faithful packed the stands.
While today’s culture might obsess over velocity and highlight reels, Jones proved that brains can outmuscle brawn—a lesson some of the modern game’s stat-obsessed analysts might do well to revisit.
After retiring, Jones didn’t drift into obscurity; he returned to San Diego County, becoming a fixture at Padres games and a beloved community figure.
His presence was so cherished that a barbecue joint bearing his name opened at Qualcomm Stadium, later relocating to Petco Park, serving up nostalgia with every bite.
The Padres honored his legacy by retiring his No. 35 jersey in 1997 and inducting him into their Hall of Fame in 1999, cementing his status as a franchise cornerstone.
Jones faced personal challenges too, announcing in 2017 that he battled throat cancer, likely tied to chewing tobacco use during his playing days, only to triumphantly declare himself cancer-free in 2018.
The Padres themselves reflected on his impact, stating, “Randy was a cornerstone of our franchise for over five decades. His impact and popularity only grew in his post-playing career, becoming a tremendous ambassador for the team and a true fan favorite.”
Let’s unpack that—while some franchises chase fleeting trends or bow to progressive fads, Jones represented something timeless: loyalty to a city and a sport, a reminder that character matters as much as stats in a world often too quick to forget its heroes.
President Donald Trump has just clinched the highest foreign policy approval rating of any 21st-century commander-in-chief at this stage of a second term.
At a solid 43 percent approval on foreign affairs, Trump outshines his predecessors and sets a new benchmark, though domestic economic woes could overshadow this win as the 2026 midterms loom.
Let’s break this down. Trump’s current 43 percent approval on foreign policy towers over George W. Bush’s 36 percent and Barack Obama’s 37 percent at similar points in their second terms.
Even more striking, Trump has boosted his own record from a 35 percent approval in his first term to this impressive 43 percent now. That’s a leap worth noting, showing a growing confidence in his global strategy.
On specific issues like the Israel-Hamas War, Trump’s net approval stands at a respectable +3. Compare that to Joe Biden’s staggering net disapproval of -37 on the same conflict, and you’ve got a 40-point gap that’s hard to ignore.
“In other words, Trump’s net approval on the Israel-Hamas War is 40 points higher —40!— than Biden’s,” the data reveals. That’s not just a gap; it’s a canyon, highlighting a clear public preference for Trump’s approach on this volatile issue.
Some are even whispering that Trump’s foreign policy legacy could rival the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. It’s a bold claim, but with numbers like these, the comparison isn’t entirely far-fetched.
“That is all great news for Trump’s legacy, which, I’m confident, will loom every bit as large as Franklin Roosevelt’s and Ronald Reagan’s,” the story suggests. While history will be the ultimate judge, these approval stats lay a strong foundation for such lofty predictions.
Yet, let’s not get too carried away with global triumphs. The upcoming 2026 midterm elections, which will shape the final two years of Trump’s presidency, are unlikely to be swayed by foreign policy wins.
Instead, the electorate’s focus seems laser-locked on domestic struggles like soaring gas prices, pricey groceries, and the dream of homeownership slipping further out of reach. Foreign policy may earn applause, but pocketbook pain hits harder.
The stakes for 2026 couldn’t be higher. If Democrats seize control of the U.S. House, expect a storm of investigations and possibly even impeachment attempts aimed at Trump and the Republican Party.
Adding to the drama, congressional Democrats are rumored to have their sights set on Vice President JD Vance. Their apparent goal? Weaken his standing ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run.
It’s a calculated move, turning the political arena into a battlefield where personal finances, not peace accords, dictate the outcome. Voters aren’t likely to care about Middle East stability when they’re wincing at the gas pump.
Foreign policy matters, no doubt, but it’s often drowned out by the everyday grind of economic reality. As the 2026 midterms approach, Trump’s impressive overseas record might just be a footnote if the economy doesn’t turn around.
So, while Trump’s foreign policy numbers are a feather in his cap, the road ahead looks bumpy. The real test will be whether his administration can tackle the domestic discontent that could define his final years in office.
Could the Bush dynasty be staging a quiet coup to reclaim the Republican Party from Donald Trump’s iron grip?
Whispers are growing that former President George W. Bush and his allies are crafting a strategy to steer the GOP back to their vision once Trump exits the White House, according to recent reports.
Let’s rewind to the public tensions first noted years ago. Back in 2019, Bush didn’t hold back, calling Trump’s foreign policy an “isolationist United States” that was “destabilizing around the world” and “dangerous for the sake of peace,” as reported by John Binder of Breitbart News. Some might say that’s a bold critique from a leader who oversaw wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 4,500 Americans died, including more than 3,500 in combat.
By 2021, Bush’s reservations about Trump remained evident. In a CBS News interview with Norah O’Donnell, he suggested Trump “lacked the ‘humility’ necessary to be an effective leader,” per Breitbart News. That’s a subtle jab that could rile a party now shaped by Trump’s bold persona.
Despite these public remarks, Bush has reportedly opted for silence on current criticisms. Sources indicate he’s steering clear of direct attacks on Trump, even as some former aides grumble about the MAGA movement’s dominance. It’s a calculated move—why stir the pot when you can wait for the right moment?
Behind the scenes, however, plans may already be in motion. Reports hint that Bush and his family are quietly working to influence the GOP’s future direction once Trump’s time is up.
The Daily Mail has stoked speculation with talk of a “shadow Republican Party” poised to emerge when Trump steps aside. This hidden network, with ties to influential figures nationwide, could be the Bush family’s trump card.
An unidentified former Bush official added fuel to the fire, noting Trump “knows that there’s no third term option.” That’s a stark reminder for MAGA supporters hoping for an endless Trump era.
The same official also pointed out that Vice President JD Vance “has a head start” among potential Republican contenders for 2028. Yet, they predicted a “big open field” within the party for that race, hinting the Bush camp sees room to maneuver.
Some notable figures are pushing Bush to take a more active role now. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele has urged Bush to engage in party matters, claiming he has “a voice that would resonate with a lot more Americans.”
Still, rumors remain just that—unconfirmed speculation. The idea of a Bush resurgence might excite some longing for pre-MAGA days, but it could alienate a base loyal to Trump’s unfiltered style.
The notion of ending the so-called “Bush Exile,” as the Daily Mail describes it, sparks interest. Could a family once at the heart of Republican power reclaim the party from a movement that’s reshaped it?
For now, any Bush family plans stay in the realm of whispers and backroom talks. If they’re indeed plotting a return, it’s a long-term strategy avoiding the limelight.
What’s undeniable is that the Republican Party faces a pivotal moment. Will it hold fast to Trump’s populist surge or revert to the steady conservatism of the Bush years?
Only time will reveal the outcome, but if these reports hold any truth, the battle for the GOP’s identity is just beginning. The clash of old guard and new energy promises a fascinating struggle ahead.
A Florida Democrat has been indicted for allegedly swiping millions in disaster relief funds meant for desperate Americans. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) faces serious charges that could land her behind bars for decades, all while the nation grapples with the fallout of natural disasters.
The Department of Justice dropped a bombshell on Wednesday, announcing that a Miami grand jury indicted Cherfilus-McCormick for allegedly conspiring to steal $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to fuel her 2021 congressional campaign and personal coffers.
Let’s rewind to 2021, when Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother Edwin Cherfilus were working through their family healthcare company on a FEMA-funded contract for COVID-19 vaccination staffing.
Prosecutors say the company received a hefty overpayment of $5 million in July 2021 from FEMA, a windfall that apparently proved too tempting to handle ethically.
The indictment claims Cherfilus-McCormick, her brother, and several co-defendants routed this money through various accounts to hide its origins, a classic shell game that raises eyebrows about accountability in government contracts.
Even worse, a large chunk of this cash allegedly went straight into campaign contributions for her 2021 congressional run or was pocketed for personal gain—hardly the “public service” taxpayers expect.
The scheme gets murkier: Cherfilus-McCormick and a co-defendant, Nadege Leblanc, are accused of using straw donors to funnel contributions, channeling FEMA contract funds to associates who then donated to her campaign.
If these allegations hold up, we’re talking about a deliberate betrayal of trust at a time when disaster relief is a lifeline for so many struggling families.
Attorney General Pam Bondi didn’t mince words on this one: "Using disaster relief funds for self-enrichment is a particularly selfish, cynical crime." She’s right—diverting money meant for hurricane victims or pandemic recovery isn’t just wrong; it’s a gut punch to every American who believes in helping their neighbor.
If convicted, Cherfilus-McCormick could face up to 53 years in prison, a sentence that would send a loud message about messing with public funds.
The political heat is already on, with Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) announcing plans on X to file a motion to censure her and strip her of committee assignments on Veterans’ Affairs and Foreign Affairs.
Steube called it "one of the most egregious abuses of public trust I have ever seen," and it’s hard to argue with that when FEMA dollars are supposedly buying campaign ads instead of rebuilding lives.
The Republican Party of Florida also weighed in on X, demanding her immediate resignation and labeling the situation as “absolutely disgusting”—a sentiment many taxpayers might echo when they hear about relief funds being siphoned off.
While some might rush to defend Cherfilus-McCormick as a target of political witch hunts, the fact remains that these charges stem from a detailed indictment, not partisan gossip, and they follow a 2023 House Ethics Committee probe into her campaign finance practices.
At the end of the day, this case isn’t about left or right—it’s about right and wrong, and whether those entrusted with public resources can be held accountable when they allegedly prioritize personal ambition over public good.
Brace yourselves, folks—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) just dropped a bombshell on the Capitol steps that’s stirring up a storm.
On Tuesday, Greene stood boldly with victims of Jeffrey Epstein, defending her push for a House vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act while countering President Donald Trump’s stinging accusation of being a "traitor."
This clash started brewing last week when Trump suggested Greene had "lost her way," a remark that sent ripples through the MAGA base.
Things escalated on Monday when Trump publicly dubbed Greene a "traitor" for challenging him after he reportedly pressed her to abandon a petition forcing a vote on releasing Epstein-related documents.
Greene didn’t flinch, reminding everyone she clinched her first primary victory without Trump’s endorsement, outmaneuvering eight male contenders in a tough race.
Her comeback was sharp, asserting that her loyalty was always a choice, not an obligation, and rooted in shared "America first" values.
“I was called a traitor by a man that I fought for five to six years for,” Greene stated. “I gave him my loyalty for free.”
“Let me tell you what a traitor is,” she added. “A traitor is an American that serves foreign countries and themselves. A patriot is an American that serves the United States of America and Americans like the women behind me.”
With those words, Greene cast herself as a champion for Epstein’s victims, labeling her push for the files’ release as a truly "patriotic" mission—take that as a subtle jab at Trump’s priorities.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, aimed at compelling the federal government to disclose records linked to Epstein’s notorious activities, is slated for a House vote on Tuesday after a bipartisan petition forced the issue forward.
Greene gave a nod to the American public for ramping up pressure on Congress, proving that everyday voices can still shake up the halls of power.
Curiously, Trump changed his tune on Sunday, urging House Republicans to back the legislation despite earlier attempts to brush it aside, exposing a fracture within the MAGA movement.
Greene expects the House vote to sail through with near-unanimous support, reflecting a rare cross-party agreement on the need for transparency about Epstein’s network.
However, she cautioned that the "real fight" awaits after the bill’s initial passage, suggesting tougher battles against bureaucratic stonewalling or hidden opposition lie ahead.
If unraveling Washington’s secrets is the goal, this could be like wrestling a bear in a fog—Greene and her allies better gear up for a long haul.
Well, folks, the judicial gavel has fallen with a resounding thud against former President Donald Trump in his battle against CNN.
In a decision that has conservatives scratching their heads, a federal appeals court panel has affirmed the dismissal of Trump’s whopping $475 million defamation lawsuit against the cable news giant over their use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, Newsmax reported.
This saga began when Trump filed the lawsuit, arguing that CNN’s repeated use of the phrase was a deliberate attempt to smear him by invoking comparisons to Nazi propaganda and Adolf Hitler. His complaint tallied over 7,700 instances where he believed CNN linked his actions to such historical atrocities. It’s no small accusation, and many on the right see this as yet another media pile-on against a figure who challenges the progressive narrative.
The district court, under Judge Raag Singhal—a Trump nominee, mind you—first tossed out the case, ruling that CNN’s statements were opinions, not verifiable facts, and thus not grounds for defamation. That’s a bitter pill for many conservatives who feel the media hides behind “opinion” to sling mud without consequence.
Trump appealed, hoping for a different outcome, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, consisting of Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth L. Branch, stood firm. Interestingly, Newsom and Branch were also Trump appointees, which adds a layer of irony to this defeat. Some might quip that even Trump’s own picks aren’t buying what he’s selling here.
The appeals court’s eight-page ruling didn’t mince words, stating that Trump failed to prove the falsity of CNN’s statements. “Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN's statements,” the judges wrote. For many on the right, this feels like a dodge—how can a phrase so loaded not carry defamatory weight?
Digging deeper, the court clarified that CNN never directly equated Trump’s actions to Hitler’s, despite the loaded implication of the term “Big Lie.” “To be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump's 'actions and statements were designed to be, and actually were, variations of those [that] Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations,'” the judges noted. Still, conservatives might argue that the implication was loud and clear to anyone paying attention.
The court also dismissed the sheer volume of CNN’s use of the phrase as irrelevant to whether it was false or defamatory. For Trump supporters, this feels like ignoring the cumulative effect of a media campaign designed to paint a damning picture.
Adding insult to injury, the panel found that Trump didn’t sufficiently show CNN acted with actual malice—a key requirement in defamation cases involving public figures. That’s a high bar, and one that often leaves conservatives feeling the deck is stacked against them when taking on media behemoths.
Let’s be honest: the term “Big Lie” isn’t just a neutral descriptor; it’s a rhetorical sledgehammer meant to evoke the worst historical parallels. Many on the right see this as part of a broader pattern where the mainstream media weaponizes language to discredit conservative voices. It’s not hard to understand why Trump and his base feel targeted.
Yet, the court’s logic, while frustrating, isn’t without grounding in legal precedent—opinions, even harsh ones, are protected speech. For conservatives, this raises a bigger question: how do you fight a cultural battle when the rules seem to shield your opponents?
Trump sought a hefty $475 million in punitive damages, a figure that speaks to the depth of his grievance. Many supporters likely saw this as a chance to finally hold a media outlet accountable for what they perceive as relentless bias. Alas, the courts had other plans.
The ruling also underscores the uphill climb public figures like Trump face in defamation suits. The “actual malice” standard is a fortress, and breaking through it requires more than just hurt feelings or perceived slights. Conservatives might argue it’s a standard that lets the media off too easily.
For now, this chapter closes with Trump on the losing end, though it’s unlikely to be the last we hear of his grievances with CNN. The right will continue to rally against what they see as a biased press, even if the courts aren’t the battleground for victory.
At the end of the day, this decision might not change the minds of Trump’s base, who see the media as an adversary regardless of legal outcomes. It’s a reminder that in the court of public opinion, narratives often outlast rulings. And isn’t that the real “big” story here?
Brace yourself for a Capitol Hill exodus that’s shaking up the political landscape as a staggering 36 House members pack their bags and call it quits ahead of next year’s midterm elections, Fox News reported.
This wave of retirements, spanning both Democrats and Republicans, signals a deeper frustration with the toxic partisanship and gridlock that have come to define Congress,
The retirements kicked off with announcements earlier this year, including from notable figures like moderate Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a retired Air Force general who’s battled through nine tough races in his Omaha district over the past decade.
Bacon, who revealed this summer he won’t seek a sixth term, summed up his disillusionment with a blunt confession to Fox News Digital: "The fire wasn’t there anymore."
Let’s unpack that—when a seasoned fighter like Bacon, who’s weathered countless political storms, admits the spark is gone, it’s a glaring red flag about the state of our legislative arena.
He’s not alone; with 21 Republicans and 15 Democrats bowing out, the tally reflects a bipartisan discontent, though the GOP feels the heavier hit as they scramble to defend a slim House majority.
While some departing Democrats, like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 85, carry decades of service, the majority of retirees are surprisingly younger, fed up with the nastiness that’s infected Capitol Hill.
Take Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington of Texas, just 53 and chair of the House Budget Committee, who told Fox News Digital he views public office as "a temporary stint in stewardship, not a career."
That’s a refreshing nod to the Founding Fathers’ vision, but it also stings—when even rising stars see more value outside Congress than in it, what’s left for those still grinding through the partisan muck?
Then there’s Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, only 43, who penned a raw op-ed in the Bangor Daily News lamenting the "increasing incivility and plain nastiness" pervading politics.
Golden’s words cut deep, especially for those of us who long for a return to principled debate over petty name-calling, but they also highlight how progressive and far-right agendas have turned compromise into a dirty word.
Former Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire echoed this, noting to Fox News Digital that working across the aisle became "much more difficult" over her 12 years, as moderate GOP allies vanished.
Even major legislative victories, like the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s second-term domestic agenda—haven’t convinced some Republicans to stay.
David Wasserman of The Cook Report pointed out that many GOP members feel they’ve made their mark with this bill and now see "opportunities to be more impactful elsewhere," a sobering take on Congress’s diminishing allure.
Yet, amidst the gloom, Bacon offers a flicker of hope, telling Fox News Digital, "When folks move on, new people move in, and I know there’s good people out there," a reminder that fresh faces might just shake off the partisan cobwebs.