Democrats have been desperate to land a glove on Donald Trump - but "Signal-gate" has not put a dent in his popularity.
A new poll from CBS News found Trump's approval rating holding strong at 50%. The poll was taken after The Atlantic published its story about the administration's leaked Signal chats.
Notably, most Americans told CBS that they do believe the Signal breach is "serious," but it hasn't impacted Trump's popularity. His overall job rating is split down the middle 50-50.
The poll, which surveyed 2,600 Americans on March 27 and March 28, found that some parts of Trump's agenda have been received better than others.
While the president's ambitious deportation plans remain popular, voters are cool to his sweeping tariffs, which are seen as an economic risk. And many Americans feel Trump isn't focused on lowering inflation as much as he should be.
64% said Trump is not focused enough on lowering prices, and 55% said he was too preoccupied with raising tariffs. Most expect tariffs to raise prices further.
While Trump has conceded that tariffs could cause short-term pain, he says they will redound to the nation's benefit down the line. Still, few Americans are willing to take the risk: only 5% said they want more tariffs.
On the other hand, Trump still has somewhat of a grace period. 38% of Americans still blame Joe Biden for economic woes, more than the 34% who point to Trump.
Overall, Trump's approval rating on the economy is 48%. But his handling of his signature issue, immigration, receives net-positive ratings. 53% approve, versus 47% who disapprove. And a whopping 58% approve of his deportation policy.
One of the most controversial elements of Trump's agenda - his effort to slash the government workforce with DOGE - is dividing Americans 50-50, the CBS poll found.
Democrats have struggled to coalesce around a leader or message since Trump's historic triumph in November. After months of getting steamrolled by the president, Democrats pounced on the recent publication of leaked messages that were inadvertently shared with a liberal journalist.
While 44% said the breach is "very serious," 31% said "somewhat serious" and 25% said not serious at all.
The takeaway from the poll seems clear: Americans want to see Trump do more about the economy, but they aren't holding "Signal-gate" against him.
The message for Democrats is that they cannot expect one mistake to throw Trump off track. And the problems facing Democrats are deeper and more fundamental: while Trump remains relatively popular, voters see his opponents as out of touch with the cultural mainstream.
In short, it looks like Democrats' dark days are far from over.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's true that those who run for political office, like Congress, have moderate resources when they campaign.
Often, they're lawyers, or from other professions, where they've had good salaries, or they come from state or local government, where they've collected decent paychecks.
And in government, like Congress, they earn $174,000, with bonuses for a few select officers.
So how do they accumulate vast personal wealth, in the hundreds of millions of dollars?
After all, 20 years of such salary is only about $3.5 million and that's before living expenses.
DOGE wants to know:
Elon Musk, running President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency to track down and remove fraud, waste and corruption in government spending, confirmed at a town hall in Wisconsin that he's asked DOGE team members to investigate.
A report at the Daily Mail "has long been vocal in his suspicions about ultra-wealth career politicians."
"A lot of strangely wealthy members of Congress, where I just can't, I'm trying to connect the dots of how they became rich," Musk said. "How'd they get $20 million if they're earning $200,000 a year? Nobody can explain that. We're gonna try to figure it out, and certainly stop it from happening."
Musk's own fortune estimated as some $340 billion is linked to his companies, Tesla, X and SpaceX.
The report noted members of Congress are allowed to buy and sell stocks and cryptocurrency as long as they disclose all transactions. That actually hasn't always happened.
The report said, "Musk has specifically taken aim at Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, whose cumulative net worth is said to total an estimated $439 million in a post shared to Musk's X account."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Colleges and universities across America have an estimated $837 billion stashed away for a rainy day if they want, in their endowments.
And Republicans in Congress are eyeing that trove as a possible source for tax revenue for the nation.
Reports say that Harvard alone has about $49 billion stashed away, and the University of Texas some $45 billion.
But members of the GOP have talked about raising the tax on those assets significantly, to help bring in revenue to balance the tax cuts they intend to create in a "sweeping fiscal overhaul," according to a report in the Washington Examiner.
"I love it. We should do it," U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, said in an interview with the publication about taxing endowments.
The report explained the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, during President Donald Trump's first term, set an excise tax of 1.4% on the investment income of universities if their endowments exceed $500,000 per student.
That has raised, over the years, not even a billion dollars.
But Nehls is proposing a plan that would make that rate 21%, "which would bring it in line with the rate paid by for-profit corporations," the report said.
That is estimated to be able to raise $70 billion over a decade, the report said the Tax Foundation suggested.
The GOP could adopt that through reconciliation, a process in Congress that allow proposals to bypass the Senate filibuster, where Democrats could halt such an idea, and be adopted with a simple majority vote.
Universities already had been facing significant financial turmoil because of the cuts they have faced under the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to reduce fraud, waste and corruption in government spending.
Multiple grant programs have been affected.
The report explained the GOP generally likes the idea, because universities are viewed "as overrun by left-wing radicalism."
Another possible change facing universities is a plan to end the tax exemption from municipal bonds, where the interest, under current law, is excluded from taxable income.
A spokeswoman for the National Association of College and University Business Officers said the options are part of the "tools that colleges and universities use to keep costs low."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – President Donald Trump is opening up about his thought process in agreeing to having dinner with one of his fiercest political critics, Bill Maher.
In a message posted on Truth Social Sunday night, Trump indicated: "I got a call from a very good guy, and friend of mine, Kid Rock, asking me whether or not it would be possible for me to meet, in the White House, with Bill Maher, a man who has been unjustifiably critical of anything, or anyone, TRUMP.
"I really didn't like the idea much, and don't like it much now, but thought it would be interesting. The problem is, no matter how much he likes your Favorite President, ME, he will publicly proclaim what a terrible guy I am, etc., very much like the Democrats at my recent Address to the Joint Session of Congress, where I stated, correctly, that no matter what I said or did, they wouldn't stand, they wouldn't applaud, they wouldn't smile or laugh and, certainly, they wouldn't be in any way 'nice.'
"Who knows, though, maybe I'll be proven wrong? In any event, I'm doing a favor for a friend. I look forward to meeting with Bill Maher, Kid Rock and, I believe, even the Legendary Dana White will be present. It might be fun or, it might not, but you will be the first to know!"
Maher himself is looking forward to the dinner at the White House, telling Chris Cuomo:
"I'm doing it because, first of all, it was presented as … maybe this is a beginning to heal America. Now, I don't have some sort of complex where I think I can heal America. I can't! OK, let's get that clear. I'm not going to be healing America.
"But if two guys who've been at each other for so long, I mean, it's kind of a Nixon-to-China thing. I have the credential. There was nobody who was harder on Trump, or more prescient about the fact that he wasn't going to leave office voluntarily than I was. I feel like I have the credentials.
"But they also respect me because I'm honest abut the woke train to Crazytown. And I don't shrink from that, and I've also lost a lot of fans for that. The woke people have left the building and I'm willing to make that sacrifice. But it does give you a certain credibility."
"First of all it's an honor to be invited to the White House," Maher explained. "I'm impressed by it a lot. I'm impressed the f*** out of it. I get to go to the White House. And yes, that is the structure of this dinner.
"It's just, let's talk. Let's talk to each other face to face. Let's stop shouting from 3,000 miles away. So, if they expect me to be leaving in a MAGA hat, they're gonna be very disappointed, but I know they don't.
"Look it probably will accomplish very little, but you gotta try, man. You gotta try."
As the Wrap reported, Bill Maher laid into Republicans during his "New Rules" segment on Friday's "Real Time," which he started by explaining to people who ask why, if he roasts "the woke nonsense peddlers, why don't you go all the way and join" the right wing.
"Let me give you the short answer," Maher said. "Because I don't want to live in North Korea."
"Republicans dance like Trump now. They may name weapons systems after him. They've even dressed like him with the trademark suit and tie, available exclusively at Banana Republic," he added. "All these super macho guys eating the a** of another man."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A toddler has been targeted by, and kicked out of, a nursery school, for being "transphobic."
A report at Fox News explained the child was 3 or 4, but the school was not identified, in the documentation about the dispute.
It had been the Telegraph that confirmed the disciplinary action was taken by school officials because the little child allegedly was "transphobic."
While the actual definition of such a word would mean an unreasoning fear of transgenders or their agenda, the contemporary application often means no more than someone who objected to, criticized or rejected the transgenderism that is surging among leftists.
A Department of Education official said in the report that "all pupils and staff should feel safe and protected at school and should never face violence or abuse."
It's not the first such case, the report said, as 94 students at primary schools in the U.K. have been suspended or "permanently excluded for transphobia or homophobia."
In an interview with the Telegraph, Helen Joyce, of the Sex Matters organization, charged, "Every once in a while, the extremes of gender ideology throw up a story that seems too crazy to believe, and a toddler being suspended from nursery for so-called transphobia or homophobia is one such example."
She continued, "Teachers and school leaders involved in this insanity should be ashamed of themselves for projecting adult concepts and beliefs onto such young children."
Author J.K. Rowling commented, "This is totalitarian insanity. If you think small children should be punished for being able to recognize (sic) sex, you are a dangerous zealot who should be nowhere near kids or in any position of authority over them."
During a meeting of Democrat lawmakers in Michigan, Rep. Debby Ringell (D) openly admitted that her party was using underhanded tactics to thwart President Donald Trump's agenda.
The Washtenaw County Democratic Party meeting, titled “Democratic Responses to Trump’s Attacks & Lessons Learned from 2024 MI House Races,” was posted online to showcase the plans made there.
Their plans didn't turn out exactly how they wanted, however, and Ringell had to try to shut down a young Black voter who applauded Trump for appointing Alice Marie Johnson as pardon czar, which he considered a meaningful step toward criminal justice reform.
“A couple points slash concerns to bring up. I think one thing that’s missing in this conversation,” the man asked Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit.”Trump appointed a new pardon czar. And it’s a Black woman, a real Black. And so I bring that up to bring up the point that the Republicans are kind of moving in on what is traditionally like a progressive concept, right? You know, giving people back there for very different reasons though, right? He’s trying to take care of the people that take care of him, whereas I don’t see very strong Democrat messaging on this point at all.”
Following the comment, a man tried to take the speaker's microphone, but the audience showed its disapproval to that plan.
Dingell then let the Democrat plan slip, or at least part of it.
“We need to make sure it’s in every one of those damn conservative, wherever they’re communicating, and we have to be the voices that are smart, targeted and effective, and fighting back. And the way we do it. We litigate. We legislate. We only need three votes, three Republican votes. I don’t know that we can ever get the person that’s closest to us, but he is chair of Ed and Labor, but we need to be targeting someone that may want to run for governor,” Dingell said.
Not only does Dingell want to see people protest Trump, but she wants her party to use the courts against him (which Democrats are already doing in full force). At the end of her comments, she mumbled, "I hope nobody taped that."
Democrats want to stop all the parts of Trump's agenda, even the ones their own people agree with and want to see.
Trump knows this--he addressed it when he spoke before the joint session of Congress back in February.
This is my fifth such speech to Congress, and, once again, I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud," he said. "Nothing I can do. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease — a disease that would wipe out entire nations, or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded, and these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements. They won’t do it no matter what."
It has gone beyond political differences at this point--they hate the man himself because he has been able to take away their power and is now dismantling through DOGE and budget cuts their gravy train of billions of dollars funneled to their supporters and patrons.
This is further undercutting their power, so Trump is effectively killing two birds with one stone.
He's saving money that would have been spent by the government and added to the deficit, at the same time he is destroying long-time leftist subsidies that have been within the government even when Republicans were in power and helped them have an unfair advantage in elections.
During an appearance on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow addressed the phenomenon of Democrat-tied judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda, calling it a "national disgrace" and saying the rules regarding "judge-shopping" need to change.
Host Maria Bartiromo asked Marlow whether it was a coincidence that Federal Judge James Boasberg has gotten four cases involving the president.
Marlow answered, “Of course not. It’s not a coincidence, Maria, what’s going on is judge shopping. This is a practice that’s been in play since 1988 when Congress changed laws so that you don’t have to have any connection to the jurisdiction where you’re filing cases."
He called the numerous cases against Trump and the administration seeking injunctions to stop their actions an attempted "judicial coup."
"The Democrats have figured this out, their lawfare machine which is very well funded, very well organized, and they’re targeting specific judges to try to have a judicial coup against the President of the United States.”
So far, judges have blocked Trump's executive actions 15 times on a nationwide level, more than during the entire administration of his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Judges have ordered planes carrying imprisoned illegal immigrants to turn around in the sky, prevented Trump from cutting staff or firing people at various government agencies, and stopped various budget cuts suggested by DOGE but implemented by agency heads.
“It is now the point now where Donald Trump, if he wants an executive action, he needs unanimous consent from 700 odd judges essentially," Marlow pointed out.
In other words, all Democrats need to do is find a sympathetic judge on the opposite side of the aisle politically, and they can block whatever Trump is trying to do with an emergency injunction, then tie up the action for months or years while the lawsuit plays out.
"This is tyranny, but unfortunately there’s no quick way to stop it," Marlow said.
He suggested a rules change that would disallow judge-shopping or block injunctions from being effective nation-wide rather than only in the jurisdiction where the case was filed.
"We need to change these rules right away. They’re targeting these judges and it’s blocking just about every element of the agenda from what DOGE is doing to DEI to rolling back some of the trans stuff to deregulation to trying to deport illegally child molesters," he concluded. "They can’t do any of it unless all these judges sign on to it which they’re not."
Instead of ruling fairly, the judges are bending to the will of partisans and using the law to do things it was not intended to do, like thwart the will of the voters by blocking the agenda of the president they elected.
"They’re Democratic-tied. You all know what’s going on. This is truly a national disgrace,” Marlow said.
Even before he assumed the role of secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was more than clear about the transformation he hoped to see at the agency he now leads.
The strong, sometimes controversial positions Kennedy has taken on issues ranging from food additives to vaccines have caused no end of concern among the D.C. establishment, and they have reportedly now led to the departure of Dr. Peter Marks from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as Fox News reports.
Fox News cited a report in the Wall Street Journal claiming that due to his disagreement with Kennedy, particularly on matters related to vaccines, Marks, currently serving as director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was given the option of either resigning from his role or being fired from it.
Specifically, Marks took issue with Kennedy's outspoken positions on vaccine safety, including what he believes are the HHS head's dangerous views.
A resignation letter reportedly submitted by Marks did little to quell rumors of a fundamental – and apparently intractable -- conflict with his new boss.
“It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” the letter states.
The resignation of Marks, who served as a key figure in the first Trump administration's COVID-19 vaccine development program known as Operation Warp Speed, will become effective on April 5.
Reacting to the impending departure of Marks from the FDA was Dr. Paul Offit, a noted vaccine expert working at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Offit was clear in his belief that Marks was wrongfully forced out of a job by Kennedy and that his ouster represents a significant loss for the agency, as the Associated Press reports.
“RFK Jr.'s firing of Peter Marks because he wouldn't bend a knee to his misinformation campaign now allows the fox to guard the hen house. It's a sad day for America's children,” Offit lamented.
Also reacting to the news was former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, who said that Marks' resignation letter itself “should be frightening to anyone committed to the importance of evidence to guide policies and patient decisions.”
Califf continued, “I hope this will intensify the communication across academia, industry and government to bolster the importance of science and evidence.”
Despite his critics, Kennedy is moving full steam ahead on reforming HHS, as The Hill notes, standing in support of the Trump administration's recently announced decision to cut 10,000 jobs at the agency as he works to fulfill the promise to attack America's illness epidemic.
“We're not cutting front-line workers, we're cutting administrators, and we're consolidating the agency to make it more efficient,” Kennedy said on Thursday,” adding that his goal is to “focus the mission so that everybody who is at HHS is going to wake up every morning and say, 'What am I going to do today to Make America Healthy Again,'” and that is a position with which millions can get on board.
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his intention to deport non-citizens engaged in illegal activity or those who support or promote terrorist organizations.
Not surprisingly, however, the Trump administration has encountered obstacles erected by federal district court judges who are increasingly asserting a controversial degree of authority over the executive branch, as evidenced by a Friday ruling preventing the deportation of a Tufts University graduate student, as Fox News reports.
At issue late last week was the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, an international student from Turkey living in Somerville, Massachusetts, who was detained by federal authorities near her off-campus apartment.
A representative from the Department of Homeland Security asserted that Ozturk has been “engaged in activities in support of Hamas,” and according to Fox News, she co-authored an op-ed piece last year in the Tufts Daily blasting the school's stance on Israel's actions in Gaza.
Ozturk and her co-authors demanded that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and adjust its financial affairs based on other entities' ties to the Jewish state.
After her arrest, Ozturk was taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center, presumably in preparation for eventual deportation, a move her attorneys said was improper due to her status as a F-1 visa holder with no pending criminal charges.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper halted any deportation plans, saying, “To allow the Court's resolution of its jurisdiction to decide the petition, Ozturk shall not be removed from the United States until further order of this court,” referencing an updated complaint filed by the student's attorneys to which the government has until Tuesday to file a response.
It was in January that Trump signed an executive order mandating the revocation of student visas for those advocating in support of Hamas.
The order came in response to what the president said was an “unprecedented wave of vile, antisemitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses.”
As NBC News reports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that several hundred student visas have already been pulled as a result of the executive order.
“It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio said.
Rubio also opined, “We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to be a social activist that comes in and tears up our university campuses. If you invite me into your home because I say, 'Oh, I want to go to your house for dinner,' and I come into your house and I start putting mud on your couch and spray-painting your kitchen, I bet you you're going to kick me out.”
While Ozturk's case continues its journey in the courts, another high-profile matter involving Columbia University protest leader and alleged Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil is making headlines after the activist was detained over two weeks ago by ICE agents.
During a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that Khalil will remain in the aforementioned Louisiana ICE facility for the time being amid unsettled jurisdictional arguments, leaving the fate of his and several other similar cases uncertain as complex legal wrangling appears poised to continue.
The former Biden administration recently faced scrutiny over delaying the disclosure of a report that concluded the establishment of additional U.S. LNG export terminals did not significantly affect greenhouse gas emissions or energy prices, Fox News reported. The decision to hold back this information sparked criticism from members of Congress and former Trump administration officials, further intensifying the ongoing debate over U.S. energy policy.
This report, finalized by September 2023, and titled "Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports," was not made public until after the December 2024 presidential election, casting doubt on the administration's motivations for withholding the findings.
The report was a collaborative effort between U.S. Energy Department scientists and federal contractors, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the implications of U.S. LNG exports.
Despite the report's availability, its findings remained concealed until the final month of 2024. During this period, tensions in energy policy discussions were heightened, primarily due to the Biden administration's public assertions that LNG exports would elevate consumer prices and contribute to environmental degradation.
This narrative was further complicated in January 2024, when President Biden announced a temporary halt on new U.S. LNG export terminals. This move, intended to address climate activists' demands, contrasted with the report's conclusions that downplayed negative environmental and economic impacts. Key figures from the previous administration, including former Trump officials, accused Biden's team of intentionally keeping Congress and the public in the dark about the report's content.
The House Oversight Committee became actively involved by March 2024, pursuing the report's details. The delayed release added fuel to the fire of these tensions, highlighting discrepancies between governmental claims and scientific data. When GAO court filings in September 2024 acknowledged that the Department of Energy had researched LNG exports since 2023, it underscored the depth of the issue.
Reports suggest that the Biden administration's decision to withhold the findings until late 2024 was an attempt to mollify climate-focused factions within the Democratic Party. During Biden's presidency, LNG exports surged to record levels, propelling the U.S. to become a global energy leader amidst rising European demand.
However, not all voices within the administration supported this trend. Progressive lawmakers like Sen. Jeff Merkley expressed unequivocal opposition to the expansive LNG export volume, advocating for more environmental consideration. This internal friction further complicated the administration's position on energy policy.
According to various testimonies, a significant factor in the administration's decision-making process was the need to reconcile with environmentally conscious constituents. The Biden team was strategizing to scale back LNG exports while navigating the political landscape influenced by rising environmental activism.
In December 2024, another report issued by the Biden administration forecasted a potential 30% increase in consumer prices due to LNG export expansion, thereby compounding the backlash. Critics argued that this was inconsistent with the conclusions of the earlier unpublished report, portraying the administration's stance as problematic.
Opinions from former officials reflected deep disapproval of the administration's handling of the report's dissemination. There were assertions of political maneuvering intended to "undermine American-made energy production" and appease environmental groups, contrary to the scientific evidence presented.
One notable voice, Chairman James Comer of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, vocalized these concerns sharply. He criticized the administration for undermining the process and failing to provide transparency to the American people and their representatives.
The case exemplifies the delicate balance of political interests, scientific research, and public transparency. With the report's findings now public, the conversation surrounding the future of U.S. LNG exports and environmental policy remains as contentious as ever.
As the Biden administration navigates these complexities, these debates underscore the broader implications for U.S. energy strategy and environmental management. The intersection of policy, science, and political agendas continues to shape the ongoing dialogue at the national and international levels.