With the ongoing government shutdown now the longest such impasse in American history, some lawmakers are attempting to ensure that members of Congress go without paychecks just as thousands of federal workers have been forced to do.
On Thursday, Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott sought unanimous consent for what he called the “No Budget, No Pay Act,” which would cause legislators’ paychecks to be halted until the shutdown concludes, but the effort was blocked by liberal Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), as the Daily Caller reports.
After Scott introduced the measure, a floor debate ensued, revealing Markey’s opposition to the proposal.
Markey noted that he had already requested a deferment of his own government pay until the shutdown ends, a declaration that prompted questions and incredulity from Scott.
“If he’s willing to defer his paycheck, why wouldn’t he allow my bill to pass that all of us should defer our paychecks until government gets open again?” Scott wondered.
The Massachusetts Democrat is not the only member of the upper chamber who has balked at the idea of missing paychecks in solidarity with federal workers across the country who have gone without salaries amid the continued funding impasse.
Sen. Ruben Gallego stated weeks ago that he simply could not afford to go without a paycheck, a sentiment with which countless government employees can relate, despite their own inability to solve the situation that keeps them unpaid.
Last week, Sen. John Kennedy also attempted to put a stop to lawmaker paychecks until the shutdown standoff concludes, trying to pass three measures via unanimous consent that would have done just that.
Democrat Patty Murray (D-WA) stood in opposition to Kennedy’s proposals, but, to the frustration of many, so did Republican Sen. Rand Paul (KY).
Kennedy delivered pointed remarks on the issue, underscoring that “folks aren’t being paid while we’re in a shutdown. Our air traffic controllers are not being paid. In fact, starting tomorrow, the airlines are going to be cancelling flights. Our staff are not being paid… Our military is only being partially paid… The only people that I can ascertain who are being paid are members of Congress.”
Opining that “it’s time that Congress set an example,” Kennedy said, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” and he urged his Senate colleagues to support the “No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act.”
Paul, however, was having none of it, and he proceeded to object to the measures proposed by Kennedy, with Murray also blocking the Louisiana Republican’s push to pass Sen. Ron Johnson’s “Shutdown Fairness Act” that would pay federal workers deemed “essential.”
The dispute over lawmaker pay during the shutdown sparked a reaction from President Donald Trump, who took to Truth Social and wrote, “It was so interesting yesterday when our Great Senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy, introduced a Bill in an attempt to withhold Members of Congress from getting paid, and Rand Paul, who never votes for anything, tried to stop it, because he wanted to be paid!”
Trump went on, “In other words, Rand wanted to pay the people who stopped Government from working! What’s going on with Rand?” surely echoing the sentiments of millions who would have liked to see Scott’s or Kennedy’s commonsense proposals pass with ease.
The Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case on President Trump's tariff powers, and it's entirely possible that justices appointed by Trump could prove to be a major problem.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's use of an emergency law to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs, which have been the source of major controversy and several serious lawsuits.
So far, justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett seem to be the most skeptical about Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is bad news for Trump.
The Supreme Court has a 6-4 conservative majority, which Trump is banking on to score easy victories. However, with two conservative justices seemingly wavering, this could lead to a decision that isn't in Trump's favor.
Should the Supreme Court declare that the Trump administration's tariff policy is illegitimate, it will completely knock down a cornerstone of Trump's economic policy.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. Trump has cited the trade deficit as such an emergency to impose tariffs via executive order earlier this year.
However, lawsuits filed by Democrats against Trump's declaration have claimed that since the words "tariffs" or "taxes" do not appear in the text of the IEEPA, Trump's actions are unlawful.
The Supreme Court is considering the power to "regulate importation" during a national emergency, which would certainly seem to include tariffs, which are essentially a fee on any imported goods.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer by asking, "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch also inquired, "What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?"
Of course, the Trump administration has been adamant that while tariffs may seem like taxes, they are legally separate concepts that should settle any concerns about the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's leftist justices have already made it clear that they do not support Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA, which means that this will be a 6-4 decision, in the best-case scenario.
This means that the Trump administration must secure both Barrett's and Gorsuch's votes to avoid a devastating defeat that will undermine Trump's economic agenda.
Court observers have suggested that a Trump victory is still very much in play, but there is growing concern that Gorsuch or Barrett, both appointed by Trump in his 1st term, could flip and join the left. That would be an unparalleled disaster for Trump, who is in bad need of a win.
Hold onto your hats, folks—another judicial roadblock has slammed down on the Trump administration’s efforts to bring order to Portland’s chaotic streets.
In a stunning decision, a federal judge has permanently barred the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, declaring the move unconstitutional and overstepping presidential authority, the New York Post reported.
This saga kicked off when the city of Portland and the state of Oregon filed a lawsuit in September, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to send 200 National Guard members to the city. The move came after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized the federalization of troops from Oregon, Texas, and California. The administration claimed the deployment was necessary to safeguard federal personnel and property amid heated protests at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.
On a Sunday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, ironically a Trump appointee, issued a temporary order blocking Hegseth from moving forward with the troop deployment. That injunction held firm, keeping the National Guard at bay while the legal battle unfolded.
The temporary block wasn’t just a speed bump—it set the stage for a deeper examination of whether the protests justified federal military intervention. A three-day trial ensued, scrutinizing the administration’s rationale. And let’s be honest, when progressive strongholds like Portland cry foul, the courts often seem eager to play referee.
Fast forward to Friday, and Judge Immergut dropped a 106-page bombshell, converting the temporary order into a permanent injunction. The ruling didn’t just slap the administration’s wrist; it declared the entire deployment unconstitutional. If that’s not a judicial overreach, what is?
Immergut’s decision hinged on the argument that the president overstepped his bounds, especially since Oregon’s governor opposed the deployment and federal officials at the ICE building didn’t even request it. The judge found no evidence of a rebellion or imminent threat to justify federalizing the National Guard.
In her words, “evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority” (Judge Karin Immergut). Now, isn’t it curious how state objections suddenly trump federal needs when it suits the anti-administration narrative? One might wonder if local leaders are more interested in political theater than public safety.
Immergut didn’t stop there, doubling down by invoking the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states unless explicitly granted to the federal government. She argued this deployment violated that principle, effectively telling the president to keep his hands off state-controlled forces. It’s a classic states’ rights argument—noble in theory, but often weaponized against conservative policies.
The judge also took aim at the administration’s legal footing, stating, “Even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard” (Judge Karin Immergut). That’s a bold claim, considering the federal government’s duty to protect its own assets. Are we to believe that a few rowdy protests don’t warrant a strong response?
While the Trump administration argued the troops were essential to protect federal interests, Immergut countered that no sufficient emergency existed to bypass state consent. It’s almost as if the judiciary expects the president to beg permission from every governor before acting. That’s not leadership; that’s red tape.
Now, the administration faces not only this permanent injunction in Portland but also a temporary block on a similar deployment in Chicago. The legal battles are stacking up faster than objections at a city council meeting. One has to ask: Are these rulings protecting the Constitution, or just obstructing a president trying to maintain order?
The Trump administration isn’t out of options yet—an appeal remains on the table to challenge this sweeping decision. Given the stakes, it’s hard to imagine they’d let this ruling stand without a fight. After all, ceding ground on federal authority sets a dangerous precedent for future crises.
Critics of the progressive agenda might see this as yet another example of the judiciary bending over backward to undermine conservative efforts to restore law and order. While respecting state autonomy is important, shouldn’t there be a balance when federal interests are under siege? Portland’s streets aren’t exactly a bastion of calm these days.
Ultimately, this ruling raises bigger questions about the limits of presidential power and the role of the courts in second-guessing executive decisions. As the legal dust settles, one thing is clear: The fight over who controls the National Guard—and who gets to define “emergency”—is far from over. Let’s hope the next chapter prioritizes safety over political point-scoring.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who recently announced that she will not seek reelection and will finally hang it up after decades in Congress, has long been scrutinized and criticized over her stock trading activities.
According to The Daily Caller, Pelosi's wealth has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels since she became a member of Congress. Numbers revealed that since taking office, her wealth has grown a staggering 2,297% in 37 years in Congress, mostly thanks to unbelievable stock trades.
Many have said that Pelosi, who primarily trades through her husband, has a better return record than some of the best and most seasoned Wall Street traders. Somehow.
Of course, those same people draw the same conclusion that anyone would -- Pelosi has likely used her office and the intimate knowledge of industry she's privy to, to score massive returns on the market.
Thanks to mandatory financial disclosures she's subject to because of her elected office, the public can get an idea of just how wealthy she's become since serving in the lower chamber.
The DC noted:
The former House speaker, who announced Thursday that she will retire from Congress in 2027, had a $2,675,036 minimum net worth in the year she began serving and a $63,996,050 minimum net worth in 2024, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of assets and liabilities listed in her congressional financial disclosures.
But it gets even worse -- Quiver Quantitative did an analysis on her networth and put it in the range of $278,760,000 million.
Her maximum net worth in 2024, as calculated, reaches up to $311,443,000 million.
Many assume that Pelosi has simply used her office to gain intel that allows her and her husband to make Wall Street trades that the most advanced traders can't even touch.
The Daily Caller added:
The 85-year-old congresswoman’s portfolio nearly doubled the S&P 500’s growth in 2024, the DCNF previously reported. Her wealth prompted calls for reforming the rules on lawmakers trading stocks, as well as suspicion that she engaged in illegal insider trading based on advance knowledge about industry trends.
Pelosi has denied any accusations of insider trading and has even gone as far as saying she doesn't even own any stocks, noting that her husband, Paul Pelosi, manages her portfolio.
The former Democratic Speaker's trading activity has sparked a bipartisan effort to eliminate the ability of top elected officials to take part in the stock market.
Unfortunately, the effort to pass such legislation always seems to fall conveniently short to pass or make a difference.
Hopefully, that changes down the road, as elected office wasn't meant to be a tool to gain extreme personal wealth.
Stephen Moore, a former top adviser to President Donald Trump and a longtime fellow at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, made a bombshell announcement this week regarding his future at the organization.
According to the New York Post, Moore, in an X post, announced that he would be resigning from the think tank to focus on another project he's working on.
The news comes in the wake of a massive controversy regarding the organization's president Kevin Roberts’ defense of Tucker Carlson platforming white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
Notably, Moore didn't reference the controversy in his exit announcement, but many believe the timing of his resignation is simply too close to what's going on behind the doors at the organization.
There was reportedly "internal revolt" and pressure from donors after the Fuentes situation unfolded, with many calling for Roberts to resign, even though he later apologized for defending Carlson.
Moore stated in his announcement that he was leaving to focus his work on the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
“After 12 happy and productive years, I have decided to resign my position as senior visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation in order to concentrate my work load on continuing to build up @Comm4Prosperity [Committee to Unleash Prosperity] and the mounting influence of our daily Hotline,” he wrote.
Friends:
After 12 happy and productive years, I have decided to resign my position as senior visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation in order to concentrate my work load on continuing to build up @Comm4Prosperity and the mounting influence of our daily Hotline.
As Ed Feulner…
— Stephen Moore (@StephenMoore) November 6, 2025
However, it doesn't take a detective or inside information to presume why Moore is actually quitting the foundation.
The Post noted:
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity co-founder had been asked by donors to that group to leave Heritage, one source familiar with Moore’s exit told The Post.
Moore’s wife, Anne, had also proclaimed in a since-deleted tweet that Roberts didn’t deserve “a second chance” and that her “husband will be submitting his resignation.”
Users across social media reacted to Moore's shocking, but expected, announcement.
"Heritage Foundation leaders are jumping ship. Get out while you still can," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "You were patient and hopeful Stephen. You waited this many days, you gave them time."
It'll be fascinating to see who else leaves the organization in the coming days and weeks.
The Trump-Russia probe is probably one of the biggest scams in modern U.S. history, and the actors behind it, many of whom were top government officials, could soon face the music.
According to Fox News, a bombshell report indicated that several FBI officials, agents, and other agency heads have received or will soon receive federal subpoenas.
The subpoenas are reportedly part of the Department of Justice's efforts to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, which many believe was a politically driven attempt to destroy Trump to keep him out of the White House.
The probe, which was named "Crossfire Hurricane," was first opened in 2016 by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
Several former officials who were instrumental in bringing the Trump-Russia probe online have reportedly already received subpoenas. Those include Strzok and Lisa Page, a former FBI lawyer.
Sources told Fox News Digital that the grand jury is out of the Southern District of Florida, and added that some 30 subpoenas are expected in the coming days.
🚨 ALERT: A Federal Grand Jury just SUBPOENAED John Brennan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page 🚨@MirandaDevine says this is their “WORST NIGHTMARE” 🤯 pic.twitter.com/WtJ0tSUVTG
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) November 8, 2025
Former CIA Director John Brennan also received a subpoena, according to the report. The outlet noted that he was under investigation since this summer.
Fox News noted:
Strzok and Page first came under scrutiny in 2018 when Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz uncovered a series of anti-Trump text messages between them. Both were assigned to work on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2017.
Page had resigned from the FBI in 2018 and Strzok was ultimately fired from his position.
Users across social media weighed in on the stunning news regarding the subpoenas.
"About time justice catches up to those Russiagate clowns. Finally holding the deep state accountable!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Finally seeing justice chase the architects of that bogus Russia collusion hoax, as a Florida grand jury drags key plotters before the law with dozens more subpoenas incoming to expose the deep state sabotage once and for all."
It'll be interesting to see just how far this investigation goes and if anyone is actually held accountable. Only time will tell.
A federal judge has permanently banned President Donald Trump's administration from deploying the National Guard to clean up the crime and violent protests happening on the streets of Portland, NBC News reported. The judge handed down her final decision on Friday after extending a temporary stay.
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, whom Trump appointed during his first term, said that it was a "necessary conclusion" to keep the president from sending the military to do what local law enforcement won't. The judge said that the situation didn't meet the criteria for him to do so.
"This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' nor was the President 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States' in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard," Immergut explained.
The city and state first sued in September to remove the National Guard from Portland and were successful in obtaining a temporary injunction. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is appealing this latest ruling and was already in the process of doing so for the temporary order.
For some reason, leftists really love it when a city is severely lacking in law and order. Citizens are afraid to leave their houses or property unprotected because of high crime, and they are told that they are the ones in the wrong.
Trump tried to do what was right for these people, but was instead met with opposition. In response to ongoing violent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents cracking down on illegal immigrants, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sent about 200 troops into Portland to stop the attack on the immigration processing facility.
Now that his effort has been completely shut down for now by the courts, leftists are rejoicing. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said it was "a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people." Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek also celebrated the decision that will objectively make Portland less safe in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
"This ruling validates the facts on the ground. Oregon does not want or need military intervention, & President Trump’s attempts to federalize the guard is a gross abuse of power. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now," she added.
This ruling validates the facts on the ground. Oregon does not want or need military intervention, & President Trump’s attempts to federalize the guard is a gross abuse of power. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now. pic.twitter.com/UtNinL7D0I
— Governor Tina Kotek (@GovTinaKotek) November 8, 2025
While the leftists on the left coast are doing all they can to thwart Trump, the president's attorneys have made the case that sending troops is the only option. In her decision, Immergut determined that Trump's justification for sending troops in and calling Portland "war-ravaged" as "ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa" from "crazy people" wishing "to burn down buildings, including federal buildings" was incorrect.
"The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts," Immergut claimed. The Justice Department said that her decision "improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief’s supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and endangers federal personnel and property.
Furthermore, his attorneys said that the president's "determination was amply justified by the facts on the ground," the legal filing said. "In the weeks and months preceding the President’s decision, agitators assaulted federal officers and damaged federal property in numerous ways, spray-painted violent threats, blockaded the vehicle entrance to the Portland ICE facility, trapped officers in their cars, followed them when they attempted to leave the facility, threatened them at the facility, menaced them at their homes, doxed them online, and threatened to kill them on social media," attorneys noted.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department pointed out that the National Guard was necessary because they're "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." Not surprisingly, Oregon has downplayed the ongoing unrest and the need it's created.
The people who live in these leftist cities and states are being held hostage by the criminals who run amok. Trump is merely trying to restore order to an area plagued by chaos, and he's met with resistance and court cases actively trying to prevent him from helping.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is favoring Vice President J.D. Vance as the logical choice to be the GOP's presidential nominee in 2028, Politico reported. Rubio supposedly admitted this to his close confidants after President Donald Trump named Vance and Rubio as the two he believed could replace him.
Both of Trump's election victories came after a remarkable struggle that remade the Republican Party in his image. The question of who can fill his shoes is a crucial one, and politicians and pundits alike are already exploring the possibilities.
Those close to the matter noted that Rubio has been deferential to Vance as the potential nominee, as Trump has named both men as possible successors. "Marco has been very clear that JD is going to be the Republican nominee if he wants to be," a source close to Rubio said.
There is a running joke about the number of jobs Trump has bestowed on Rubio, with the role of Secretary of State being the most prestigious. He is a busy man who seems content to do his duty without seeking the spotlight, which is a trait that serves him well.
This was evidenced by a July 2025 interview Rubio had on Fox News with Lara Trump on her My View program. The president's daughter-in-law asked Rubio whether he had an eye towards possibilities "outside the State Department," which gave Rubio the opportunity to champion Vance's candidacy for president.
"I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee, if he decides he wants to do that," Rubio said. The former U.S. senator from Florida ran for president in 2016 and lost in the primary to Donald Trump, which raises the question of whether he'd consider another run. However, it seems he thinks his time has come and gone.
"I think he’s doing a great job as vice president. He’s a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it," Rubio said of Vance. A clip of this exchange was shared to X, formerly Twitter, on July 27, 2o25.
Lara Trump: You are talked about quite frequently as a possible contender in 2028. Do you have your sights set outside of the state department?
Rubio: I think J.D. Vance would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that… pic.twitter.com/BAVjNRIzQ9
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2025
The relationship between Rubio and Vance seems strong and free from rivalry, and Politico's second source said that the two men get along well. "No one expects Marco to resign from the Cabinet and start taking potshots at the sitting vice president. Beyond that, they’re friends," the source, who also wished to remain anonymous, added.
Meanwhile, another person close to the matter said that the "expectation is J.D. as [nominee] and Rubio as VP," the third anonymous source said. This potential ticket is the most popular, as Vance is the leading choice of those who voted for Trump in 2024, a Politico poll conducted from October 18 to 21 found.
Of those asked, just 2% had Rubio as their first pick while 35% chose Vance. Notably, the open-ended question posed to participants captured a complete 28% who wished to see Trump run. Meanwhile, James Blair, who served as the political director for Trump's 2024 campaign and is now his deputy chief of staff, believes that the 2026 midterms could yield the strongest candidate for the 2028 presidential run.
"If you’re a Republican that wants to run in 2028 right now, you need to focus on keeping Republicans in power for 2026. I think the number one thing everybody can do is focus on the team and helping their team and not focus on themselves," Blair told Politico. "Voters will sniff out anybody who has seemed to be sort of focused on themselves," Blair added.
Vance and Rubio were known to have a close friendship while serving in the U.S. Senate, and it's clear they maintain a solid working relationship now. Republicans will need strong name recognition and actual accomplishments, and both men bring that to the table.
A magistrate judge overseeing the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey has been openly hostile to the Trump administration, and that signals serious trouble ahead.
The judge, William Fitzpatrick, accused Trump's Department of Justice of pursuing a “indict first, investigate later” strategy. It's an absurd claim considering that the Trump administration has been plotting to hold Comey accountable for years since his false testimony to Congress.
Judge Fitzpatrick also ordered the government to disclose a raft of documents from search warrants and grand jury proceedings in another move that suggests that he is skeptical of the case against Comey.
For Republicans, this news suggests that there is yet another exhausting court battle ahead for the Trump administration.
Comey has pleaded “not guilty” to charges that he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, but now he has a chance of beating the case thanks to an activist judge who appears to have an anti-Trump bias.
The Department of Justice has hit back at Fitzpatrick in a filing stating that he had exceeded the "scope of the Magistrate Judge’s delegated authority and was entered without the necessary findings that the defendant has shown particularized and factually based grounds exist for disclosure and that the need for disclosure outweighs the long-established public interest in grand jury secrecy."
Fitzpatrick's order demands every document stretching back years, suggesting that Fitzpatrick believes the case is illegitimate and is searching for any technical flaws that could spring Comey free.
Comey's lawyers have also been attacking the case, with lead attorney Patrick Fitzgerald alleging that the prosecution is “vindictive” and “selective."
Comey's team also claims that acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan was appointed illegitimately as there supposedly cannot be two subsequent acting attorneys in a district.
The Department of Justice responded to this saying, "Even were Ms. Halligan’s appointment invalid, the motions to dismiss should be denied. While Defendants challenge Ms. Halligan’s appointment as interim US Attorney, the actions they challenge do not hinge on her validly holding that particular office."
This case has quickly devolved into a legal mess, and conservatives hoping to see Comey face justice quickly are going to be sorely disappointed.
Leftist bureaucrats like Comey have evaded justice for years, both thanks to former President Joe Biden and leftist judges who have fought any efforts to bring charges.
Another factor at play is the GOP in the Senate, which has refused to take measures to undermine Democratic obstruction efforts against Trump's nominees. The Senate GOP could settle any issues of Halligan's legitimacy if they made rule changes that would end the Democrat blockade.
It seems highly likely that this case will take some time to prosecute and will likely end up in a higher court where one activist judge can't skew things.
Hold onto your hats, folks -- Nancy Pelosi, the long-standing Democratic Party heavyweight, has announced that she is hanging up her congressional gavel for good.
After two decades in Congress, the former House Speaker declared she won’t seek re-election when her current term ends in January 2027, prompting reactions ranging from cheers to jeers, with President Donald Trump leading the celebratory charge, as Breitbart reports.
Pelosi, at 85, made her retirement plans public on a Thursday morning, marking the end of an era for one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. Her tenure as Speaker saw fierce battles over policy and power, often clashing with conservative priorities. It’s a moment many on the right have long awaited, though her influence won’t vanish overnight.
President Trump didn’t hold back, welcoming Pelosi’s departure with open arms and a pointed jab. He called her retirement “a great thing for America,” framing it as a win for the nation’s future. It’s classic Trump -- unfiltered and unapologetic, reflecting the deep divide between these two political titans.
Trump went further, painting Pelosi as a figure who was “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country,” while claiming she was losing grip on her own party. While the rhetoric is sharp, it underscores a broader conservative frustration with Pelosi’s leadership style and progressive policies. Her exit, to many on the right, feels like a chance to reset the political chessboard.
Looking back, Pelosi’s relationship with Trump has been nothing short of a political cage match. During his first term, she famously tore up his 2020 State of the Union address right behind him on live television -- a moment of pure theater that still rankles conservatives. Trump later called it “a terrible thing,” arguing it was disrespectful to the office and the American people.
That infamous paper-ripping incident wasn’t just a stunt; Trump insisted it crossed a legal line. He told reporters it was “very illegal” to destroy official government documents, a charge that fueled conservative outrage at the time. The episode remains a symbol of Pelosi’s defiance, though her critics see it as petty grandstanding.
Pelosi’s disdain for Trump hasn’t faded with time, either. Just this week, she labeled him a “vile creature” and the “worst thing on the face of the Earth,” doubling down on her long-held contempt. Such fiery language only deepens the perception among conservatives that her tenure was more about personal vendettas than principled governance.
Their rivalry reignited after Trump’s return to the White House, with Pelosi skipping his inauguration and taking to television to criticize his leadership style. She even publicly urged the pope to condemn Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, a move many conservatives view as overstepping into international moralizing. It’s a reminder of how personal this political feud has always been.
Pelosi’s record includes stepping down from House leadership when Republicans regained control of the chamber in 2023, a shift that signaled her waning influence. Yet, she remained a vocal adversary to Trump, never shying away from a fight. For conservatives, her retirement offers a chance to move past what they see as obstructionist tactics.
Not everyone shares Trump’s harsh assessment, though. Former President Barack Obama praised Pelosi on social media, thanking her for her “leadership” and “friendship,” and hailing her as “one of the best speakers the House of Representatives has ever had.” It’s a glowing tribute, but one that many on the right would argue glosses over her divisive track record.
Trump, for his part, reveled in past battles, saying he was “very honored” that Pelosi impeached him twice, only to “fail miserably twice.” It’s a jab at what conservatives see as politically motivated overreach, a waste of time and resources when the country faced bigger challenges. The impeachment saga remains a sore spot for both sides.
As Pelosi prepares for her final year in Congress, her announcement signals a major shift in the Democratic landscape. Her critics on the right hope this opens the door to fresher, less combative leadership, while acknowledging her undeniable impact on shaping modern politics. It’s hard to imagine the House without her, for better or worse.
For now, Trump and his supporters are savoring the moment, viewing Pelosi’s exit as a long-overdue victory against a symbol of progressive overreach. Yet, her parting shots at Trump show she’s not going quietly into the night. The next chapter of this saga will likely be just as contentious as the last.
In the end, Pelosi’s retirement closes a turbulent chapter in American politics, one marked by fierce ideological battles and personal animosities. Conservatives may cheer her departure, but her legacy -- whether as a champion of the left or a thorn in the side of the right -- will linger for years. Let’s hope the future brings more focus on policy than personality clashes.