This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Top Democrats, including some prominent members of Joe Biden's administration, are now without security clearances after they were revoked Monday by Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's director of National Intelligence.
In a post on X, Gabbard cited a directive on the matter from Trump, who became victim to lawfare against him over the past four years by some names on the list, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Gabbard's statement says: "Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden "disinformation" letter. The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden."
When Biden was in office, he famously said Trump, then a former president, should not have any intelligence briefings because of his "erratic behavior."
"There's no need for him to have that intelligence briefing," Biden told CBS News.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk have commented positively about each other in the wake of their reported Cabinet Room shouting match at the White House.
The pleasant exchange happened on X, which Musk owns. The comments came after Rubio said the State Department had found, "5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States."
Those contracts were part of the United States Agency for International Development.
Rubio thanked DOGE in the same X post. Musk then responded with, "Good working with you. The most important parts of USAID should have always been with the State Department."
Over the weekend, the pair shared similar criticism of Polish Prime Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
Sikorski accused the U.S. of threatening to shut off Musk's Starlink Internet program, which Poland partly pays for Ukraine to use.
Rubio said Sikorski was "Making things up," and that "Ukraine would have lost the war a long time ago" without the crucial services of Starlink.
Both Secretary Rubio and Mr. Musk agreed that cutting off the service would gravely harm Ukraine's defenses. Musk, for his part, piled on by calling the prime minister "A small man" and that there is "no substitute for Starlink."
It appears that – for now – Mr. Musk and Mr. Rubio are back on the same page.
The student who has been leading Columbia University's anti-Israel protests was arrested by ICE agents Saturday night in his university-owned apartment a few blocks from the campus, his lawyers told the New York Post.
Mahmoud Khalil already has his graduate degree from Columbia, having graduated in December, but he was allowed to remain on campus according to the school's policies.
His undergraduate degree is from Beirut. He was responsible for Palestinian activism at Columbia and Barnard College, reportedly seeking the “total eradication of Western civilization.”
Video and audio from X depicted Khalil holding a bullhorn during last week’s takeover of the Milstein Library at Barnard College.
The protest included propaganda flyers from the Hamas Media Office and reportedly justified the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that resulted in 1,200 casualties, over 250 hostages, and many women raped and others injured.
“These protesters were handing out materials from terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Every American citizen should be concerned when students are encouraging terrorist activities on US soil regardless of their nationality," Ari Shrage, head of Columbia’s Jewish Alumni Association, told the Post about the protest.
While the ICE agents were arresting Khalil, Columbia put out a statement saying that the agents were on campus and said it would not cooperate with them except when required by law.
“Consistent with our longstanding practice and the practice of cities and institutions throughout the country, law enforcement must have a judicial warrant to enter non-public university areas, including university buildings,” the statement read in part.
“Columbia is committed to complying with all legal obligations and supporting our student body and campus community," it continued.
Of course, responses like the one at Columbia are exactly why these protests continue to go on for weeks on end and why they haven't stopped in the almost 18 months since the attack.
When colleges express solidarity with the protesters and give them a slap on the wrist rather than any meaningful consequence for their actions, of course they are going to keep right on doing what they please.
It's now hateful on many campuses to call a person by their biologically correct but not preferred pronouns, but it's not hateful to say that Hamas was justified to attack Israel, kill 1,200 people, rape hundreds of women, and take 250-plus hostages.
It seems to me like these colleges should face some kind of consequences for the way they've screwed up the minds of thousands of college students at a formative time in their lives when they don't know enough about reality yet to know they're being fed lies.
It's good to see Trump and ICE taking on these protesters and their leadership and finding ways to stop them, even if they have to deport them.
Politico interviewed a number of House lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle who said that between six and a dozen of their colleagues have mental faculties too diminished to do their jobs effectively.
“There’s no question that somewhere between six and a dozen of my colleagues are at a point where they’re … I think they don’t have the faculties to do their job,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn) said.
An anonymous Republican added, “I have a difficult time sometimes telling between the deterioration of members and a handful who are just not very smart.”
One example of lawmakers hanging on too long was Kay Granger, a longtime GOP representative from Texas, who missed six months of votes even though she was chair of the House Appropriations Committee.
Granger had planned to retire in 2024, but was found to be living in an assisted living facility in Texas while still a member of the House in December.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) said of Granger and others in similar situations, “I do think that leadership probably has a responsibility, on both sides, when somebody’s getting past their due date, to really encourage them to step aside, like Kay Granger last summer."
Beyer did acknowledge that the balance of power can make it hard to force the issue at times.
"I knew it was hard for them because the votes were so close, so they had a reason not to do it. But if they had a comfortable minority or majority, it would have been very good to say, ‘Please retire,’” he suggested.
Then there was Dianne Feinstein, who was there unless she was in the hospital, but reportedly had trouble recognizing people and staying on top of crucial votes and issues.
Her colleague Rep. Bo Khanna (D-CA) said, “In Feinstein’s case, it was just not being able to do the job. If you’re missing votes, if you’re not participating in meetings — if someone is really in decline where they’re not being able to do the job, they need to step aside.”
Turns out it's hard to let go of power, especially when the machine around you knows that any successor would be starting from the ground up.
Sometimes it seems more advantageous to prop up a failing member until it becomes plainly obvious that they can't do the job anymore.
That's what the Democrat machine thought about former President Joe Biden--even diminished, he was better than any alternative until he got a little cocky and decided to do a debate he no longer had the capacity to even fake his way through.
His situation has shined a light on an aging Congress. With increased scrutiny, there will probably be more retirements in the near future.
In a candid disclosure, Genevieve Ahearne has shed light on her past romantic involvement with Barack Obama, reigniting speculation regarding the current state of his marriage to Michelle.
As rumors gain momentum, Ahearne's revelations suggest potential turbulence in the former President's personal life, RadarOnline reported.
Genevieve Ahearne recently spoke about her once-private relationship with Barack Obama, which took place in their early twenties. The two met at a Christmas party in 1983 in New York City. At the time, Obama had just graduated from Columbia University, and Ahearne was three years his senior, working as a grammar school teacher.
During their relationship, Obama and Ahearne bonded over shared experiences, including their childhood memories in Indonesia. They spent numerous Sundays together at Obama's apartment, where they built a strong connection. Ahearne reminisced about their close interactions, stating that there was an intuitive understanding between them.
Obama later documented this period in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father," reflecting on the profound connection he felt with Ahearne. In his words, the relationship allowed them to create their "own private world," characterized by unique customs and a shared language.
Their romantic involvement turned intimate quickly, with the two spending their second date at Obama's apartment. This marked the beginning of what would be a brief yet intense relationship. However, it concluded when Obama left New York for Chicago in 1985 to pursue a budding political career.
While the relationship between Ahearne and Obama ended decades ago, the resurfacing details have sparked fresh speculation about trouble in Obama's marriage to Michelle. Recent reports suggest growing tensions, pointing to the possibility of them leading separate lives.
Adding to the rumors, Michelle has reportedly been absent from significant events, heightening discussions of a potential divorce. Additionally, some reports circulate about lawyers being engaged to divide their substantial fortunes.
Compounding these rumors, an alleged affair involving Obama and actress Jennifer Aniston has also been mentioned in recent discussions. These multiple angles have added layers to the conjecture surrounding the Obamas' current marital status.
Despite these swirling rumors, there has been no official comment from either Barack or Michelle Obama addressing the speculations. As the facts stand now, it remains unclear where the truth lies in regards to their personal relationship.
Genevieve Ahearne’s revelations, although centered around a past chapter of Obama’s life, have inadvertently stirred public interest in his present circumstances. Her comments, coupled with the vivid recollection in Obama's memoir, provide an intimate peek into his early adult years.
Public figures often face scrutiny over their personal lives, and the Obamas are no exception. Ahearne’s candid disclosure adds another dimension to the narrative, casting light on the intricate web of personal relationships that helped shape a future president.
As speculation continues, it's important to distinguish verified facts from rumors in the media.
The public's enduring interest in the lives of former presidents and their families keeps such stories in the spotlight, whether they are fully substantiated or not.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Video emerged Sunday of an emotional Mexican man who claims he is leaving the U.S. with his American wife because of his illegal status in country for two decades.
"Today is my last day right here in the United States after 20 years," the crying, unidentified man began.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy, I'm going to my country. I'm going to Mexico. I'm bringing my wife with me."
The man's purported wife is featured in interspersed clips, saying: "The truth is, we basically just reelected Hitler. And I don't feel safe."
"I'm really hopeful that everything goes easily at the airport and that nothing scary happens."
"I think it's truly shocking that the United Sates of America feels like one of the least safe places in the world."
"I'm super annoyed that the things going on in the world are playing on any level in the plans of our future because I do think that it's just putting such a damper on something that we could be very positive and excited about.
"It's so weird I'm not going to be living here anymore."
Some comments online include:
"Had 20 years to get his paperwork squared away … Entirely his fault!"
"After 20 years,why isn't he a citizen? Most get it in 10. This is on them for not doing what should have been done 20 years ago. Are they really married or is it just a cover story?"
"Why didn't they work on making him legal in the last 20 years? She can also move to Mexico if she needs to be with him and loves him so much. I am not trying to be cold but good God. They need to play another card other than victim!"
"Emotions don't determine if a law was broken or should be enforced. I still have empathy, though."
"20 years is more than enough time to pay the fine for illegally entering the country and getting your paperwork in order. They rode the wave too long. Time to wash out."
Though most of the 2020 election hoopla is over with, President Donald Trump scored a major victory in the state of Georgia thanks to its Republican-controlled state Senate.
According to NTD News, the Georgia Senate just unanimously passed a bill that would allow defendants in criminal cases to recover their legal fees if the prosecuting attorney is disqualified "due to improper conduct."
That's exactly what happened in the state of Georgia with Fulton County DA Fani Willis' case against Trump and 18 co-defendants.
Trump and the co-defendants were indicted by Willis in 2023 on a dozen election-related charges, but Willis was later removed from the case after her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade was uncovered in court
The bill, known as Senate Bill 244, which passed easily in the Georgia Senate, would allow everyone prosecuted in the case to request reimbursement for legal fees.
Willis was removed from the case last year after relentlessly pursuing Trump and the co-defendants.
NTD noted:
Last December, a state appeals court declined to dismiss the case itself but removed Willis and her office from it, citing a “significant appearance of impropriety” on the part of the prosecution. The decision overturned an earlier ruling by the presiding judge that would have allowed Willis to stay on the case as long as Wade resigned.
Willis had immediately moved to appeal the decision, but the Georgia Supreme Court has still not decided whether or not it will take up the case.
Georgia Senate Minority Leader Harold Jones II weighed in on the bill, explaining that it could have broader implications if passed.
"If you have that young person, possession of marijuana, whatever it may be, and the prosecutor has done something wrong, and that case is dismissed because the prosecutor did something wrong, they’re entitled to have their attorney’s fees back,” said Jones.
He added, "That’s actually something that we probably would have pushed many years ago."
Trump has argued from the beginning that the case was just another political witch hunt and after Willis was disqualified, he experienced some level of vindication.
Recouping his legal fees from the ordeal would be that much sweeter.
Only time will tell if the Georgia House and the governor signs off on the bill, but it would certainly have major implications across the state if that happens.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, continue to fuel rumors that the two are potentially headed for a divorce.
The rumors have heated up in the wake of the former first lady skipping out on several high-profile events that her husband attended alone, including President Donald Trump's inauguration and the late President Jimmy Carter's funeral.
While nothing has been confirmed, many in the business believe that the two are purposely not hanging out in public together, and some are already trying to buy the details of what's going on behind the scenes.
Barack and Michelle Obama have been married since 1992.
The number of people who believe the couple are headed for splitsville is numerous, and sources have reported that journalists and outlets are lining up to pay the Obamas big bucks to land the first post-split interview, if that's where they're headed.
One insider reportedly believes that each of the Obamas could land $10 million+ for an exclusive, post-divorce interview.
"There is going to be a real rush to bag their signatures for interviews and the figures are going to be at least $10 million and that’s each,” an insider reportedly said.
They added, "Obama recently picked up $ 1.2 million for three speeches on Wall Street, so $ 10 million to talk about his marriage and how that was conducted within the pressure cooker of the White House doesn’t seem such bad value. And Michelle will also be offered a similar amount."
The Hollywood Insider noted:
The informant went on to reveal that the interviews would likely be one of the biggest media events ever. This is because Barack and Michelle would be the first-ever former First couple to split after leaving the White House. In addition, they represent many things to the American people, many of whom have strong feelings about the Obama family.
The insider explained that major media networks are scrambling to land the interview, should the two actually split
"The interviews would be dynamite as they are the first couple to split up after being president and first lady," the insider reportedly said.
"That is a pretty big deal. The stakes are high on this one and the networks are scrambling to make sure they are not the ones who miss out on landing the Obamas."
It'll be interesting to see if they actually split and, if so, which one of them will take the money first.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Higher education across America long has dealt with the upper echelons of the economy: Billions of dollars in endowments, tuition of $50,000 or more, and faculty salaries routinely in six digits.
But even so, a sudden drop of $400 million in grants is bound to be noticed.
That's what's happening to Columbia University, because of the anti-Semitism it has allowed on campus.
President Donald Trump's announcement Friday was that the government will rescind more than $400 million in federal grants to the leftists running the school.
The move even earned the support of Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat.
A report from Fox News said just days ago the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education and the U.S. General Services Administration revealed a full review of more than $5 billion in federal grants going to Columbia.
It was triggered by the "ongoing investigations for potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act" related to anti-Semitism on campus.
The report cited "sources familiar with the matter" who said more than $400 million already is being rescinded.
And the review continues.
The university campus was the site of multiple anti-Israel occupations and protests after the attack by Hamas terrorists on innocent Israeli civilians Oct. 7, 2023.
As recently as days ago several students were arrested after a taking took over a library on campus.
Fox reported, "Linda McMahon, the Trump administration's Secretary of Education, visited the campus on Friday to meet with university leaders and discuss the ongoing concerns related to antisemitism."
She explained, in a recent statement, "Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses—repeatedly overrun by antisemitic students and agitators. Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled."
She said schools need to protect all students from discrimination, and Columbia's apparent failure "raises very serious questions about the institution's fitness to continue doing business with the United States government."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Demand letter to school district results in resolution of problem brought by conservative student
A report from the American Center for Law and Justice has confirmed that an "environment of intimidation" created by a radical leftist teacher for students in a school district has been ended, following its demand letter to the school district.
The location of the district and the identities of the student and teacher involved were not released, as the dispute never rose to the level of a court action.
But the ACLJ, which for years has battled on behalf of constitutional rights, confirmed the dispute was resolved satisfactorily.
Its own reporting confirms it was a "major victory" on behalf of the student, "whose constitutional rights were systematically violated."
When it became aware of the weaponization of a classroom against conservative students, the ACLJ wrote to the district insisting on corrective action.
The teacher in question "spent up to one-third of the 90-minute class" delivering her own politics, in an "aggressive" fashion, and attacking President Donald Trump.
"This teacher also engaged in a deeply troubling pattern of viewpoint discrimination that strikes at the core of First Amendment protections. She used her classroom as a political forum for discussion but then shut down our client, a Christian student with conservative beliefs, whenever she disagreed with the teacher and supported President Trump," the ACLJ reported. "The classroom became a forum where students who agreed with the teacher's political views were encouraged to speak, while those with conservative perspectives were systematically suppressed. The teacher went beyond merely sharing opinions into creating an environment of intimidation that prevented students from expressing alternative viewpoints."
Included in the teacher's wild claims were about Trump establishing "concentration camps" for African Americans – using time that could have been focused on "actual course material," the report said.
"We were prepared to file a lawsuit in federal court on the student's behalf to ensure that this conduct stopped. We are pleased that our legal demand letter got the attention of the district before the deadline we provided. It responded and resolved this situation to our client's satisfaction," the legal team said.
Among the district's commitments are that it will "comply with the requirements of the First Amendment and district policy."