Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently voiced sharp criticism over the alleged decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to pause U.S. Cyber Command's offensive operations against Russia. In a defense of his strategy, Hegseth pointed to Clinton's own attempt to reset U.S.-Russia relations with a symbolic act that ultimately did not achieve its intended effect, Breitbart reported.
The exchange highlights the contrasting approaches to U.S.-Russia relations across different administrations and individuals involved in shaping American foreign policy.
In her critique, Clinton suggested that Hegseth's pause was based on a desire not to damage diplomatic relations with Russia, quipping about not wanting to upset Russian President Vladimir Putin. This critique comes amid broader efforts reportedly by the Trump administration aimed at improving diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Russia against a backdrop of continuing geopolitical tensions in the region.
Clinton's criticism recalls her own initiative in 2009, when she presented a "reset" button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The gesture was intended to symbolize a fresh start in U.S.-Russia relations following a period of strain. However, a linguistic error marred the symbolic act. The button had been mistakenly labeled with the Russian word for "overload" rather than "reset," an error that received widespread attention.
The reset initiative took place in the aftermath of Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, an event that had significantly strained relations between the United States and Russia. Despite the symbolic gesture, relations continued to deteriorate, especially with Russia's later annexation of Crimea in 2014.
At the time, it was considered by some, including Clinton, as a worthwhile endeavor to improve dialogue and relations with a major nuclear power, despite its failure to effect significant long-term change.
The attempt to reset U.S.-Russia relations under Clinton and the then-Obama administration is a focal point for Hegseth's defense. He countered criticism by highlighting this previous effort, which, according to The Blaze, was deemed worthwhile despite its lack of success.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump also referenced Clinton's past endeavors, using it as a backdrop in his arguments against her criticisms. Trump recalled how Clinton, during her tenure as Secretary of State, seemingly sought friendly relations with Russia through the symbol of the reset button.
Clinton's critical stance today contrasts her past actions, providing fodder for those defending current strategies. The context of her 2009 initiative is often used to highlight shifting priorities and critiques within American foreign policy discourse.
The diplomatic landscape between the United States and Russia remains complex and fraught with historical tensions. Both nations have navigated numerous challenges, from defining spheres of influence to addressing mutual security concerns. The reset attempt, although symbolic, was part of broader policies aimed at finding common ground.
This history forms part of the backdrop to current debates, where policymakers must balance historical context with contemporary needs. Actions taken by figures such as Hegseth are thus evaluated not just in isolation but against a broader tapestry of diplomatic history.
Every move made is scrutinized both within the U.S. political sphere and by international observers. The need for nuanced approaches in handling U.S.-Russia relations is paramount, and this often requires reflection on past actions and outcomes.
The use of symbolic gestures, such as the reset button, reflects the challenges inherent in diplomatic overtures. These actions are often layered with intentions of goodwill and mutual benefit but can fall short, as seen in Clinton's 2009 initiative.
Diplomacy often involves calculated risks and attempts to sway the course of international relations positively. Yet, the outcome can be unpredictable, heavily reliant on numerous external factors and the actions of other global players.
The current exchanges between Clinton and Hegseth, therefore, serve as a microcosm of the broader dialogues surrounding U.S. foreign policy and its handling of complex international relationships. Lessons from the past remain instructive as new approaches continue to unfold.
A Senate Republican effort to codify a bill preventing boys from participating in girls' sports ran into a roadblock earlier this week.
According to Fox News, the attempt was held up in the filibuster process, as it did not reach the 60-vote threshold required to pass. The bill was shot down on party lines in a 51-45 procedural vote.
Every single Democratic senator voted to dismiss the motion to proceed on the bill. Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Peter Welch (D-VT) didn't vote as they were reported absent.
The bill, called the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, "would require Title IX to treat gender as 'recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,' and would disallow any adjustment for it to apply to gender identity," the outlet reported.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) introduced the bill, which had 40 co-sponsors in the Republican-led upper chamber.
The bill would also have the added benefit of codifying one of President Donald Trump's executive orders regarding the debate over boys playing in girls' sports, which millions of Americans believe is grossly unfair.
"Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports" was the title of Trump's executive order.
The EO read, "It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth."
The White House released a statement on the bill.
"Through an amendment to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, this bill would expressly recognize what is already federal law—that it is an illegal act of discrimination for a man to participate in a federally funded athletic program or activity designated for women or girls," the statement read.
Tuberville launched the bill years ago under former President Joe Biden. There were obviously no similar executive orders signed by the former Democratic president.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Chairman Bill Cassidy released a statement on the bill.
"Female athletes who work extremely hard should not have their future in athletics hindered because they are forced to compete against biological males. Instead of standing up for women and girls, Democrats voted to cosign Joe Biden’s attempted assault on Title IX," Cassidy wrote.
He added, "I will continue working with President Trump and my Republican colleagues to preserve Title IX, ensuring every woman and girl has the chance to succeed."
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is off to a successful start, but he isn't without his fair share of bumps in the road.
One of those happened this week, as it was reported by Politico that a top HHS spokesperson resigned over disagreements with RFK Jr. over the measles outbreak.
Two people familiar with the matter reportedly told Politico that the spokesperson disagreed with Kennedy and several aides over the direction of the agency amid the ongoing outbreak.
Thomas Corry, the former spokesperson, announced his resignation this week, emphasizing that it was "effective immediately."
The abrupt resignation sent shockwaves through Washington D.C., as Corry, the assistant secretary for public affairs, had come on board Kennedy's team just two weeks ago.
Corry announced his resignation from HHS in a LinkedIn post, wishing his colleagues success down the road.
"I want to announce to my friends and colleagues that last Friday I announced my resignation effective immediately," he wrote in the post. "To my colleagues at HHS, I wish you the best and great success."
Thomas Corry announced on Monday that he had resigned "effective immediately," just two weeks after joining the department as its assistant secretary for public affairs.
“I want to announce to my friends and colleagues that last Friday I announced my resignation effective… pic.twitter.com/CSHS2QU3bn— Weaponized News (@WeaponizedNews) March 4, 2025
Politico noted:
The sudden departure was prompted by growing disagreement with Kennedy and his principal deputy chief of staff, Stefanie Spear, over their management of the health department, said the two people, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Corry was also reportedly disturbed by Kennedy's response -- in his perception, the lacktherof -- regarding the measles outbreak in Texas.
The HHS secretary wrote in an op-ed for Fox News recently that he believes the measles vaccines is good for children and the broader community, but only when parents confer with their doctors regarding the shot.
Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health," he wrote. "All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the [measles, mumps, rubella] vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one," Kennedy added.
Stefanie Spear, his principal deputy chief of staff, released a statement on the actions taken for the Texas outbreak.
"The CDC is actively supporting Texas state health officials and will be on the ground Tuesday working with the frontline health care providers," she said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat in Congress may have accidentally spoken the quiet part out loud in a heated statement blasting President Donald Trump, Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk, and other Republicans.
In a tactic seldom before used, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove exclaimed, "We are going to continue to speak lies to his truth."
Her full quote was, "You don't care about this country and that is unacceptable if you claim to be the president of the United States. So we are here, we are not going anywhere. We are going to continue to fight back, and we are gonna continue to speak lies to his truth, to his stealing and to his cheating. Thank you."
Kamlager-Dove isn't unfamiliar with wild statements: She previously suggested race may have been a factor in the devastating Los Angeles wildfires that burned thousands of homes.
And she has mounted a raucous defense of the concept of "birthright citizenship," a current question that was raised by President Trump which has yet to be ruled on by the Supreme Court.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the major targets of President Donald Trump's Make America Great Again campaign is the Panama Canal.
That asset, he pointed out, was built with American lives and American money, and turned over to Panama to operate.
However, he charged that China had embedded itself in the control functions of the canal, and he said that wouldn't be allowed, suggesting that America could "take it back."
Now that has happened, more or less.
An announcement has confirmed that money manager BlackRock has taken control of key canal ports in a $19 billion deal.
The announcement said, "BlackRock, the world's top money manager, is acquiring two key Panama Canal ports—Balboa and Cristobal—in a $19 billion deal with Hong Kong's CK Hutchison. The acquisition secures control over 40% of the canal's container traffic."
It said, "Trump has long claimed China 'runs' the canal and vowed to 'take it back'" Now, BlackRock's move effectively does it for him. With two-thirds of the canal's cargo linked to the U.S., this deal reshapes control over a critical global trade route."
Business Insider said BlackRock's acquisition brings ports "on both sides of the Panama Canal" under U.S. control and the move "removes them from the control of CK Hutchison Holdings."
The report explained BlackRock is acquiring "a 90% interest in the Panama Ports Company alongside Global Infrastructure Partners and container terminal group Terminal Investment."
Panama's participation in China's "Belt and Road Initiative" in which China takes control of various infrastructure around the world earlier was canceled.
CBS pointed out that the deal transfers control of "43 ports in 23 countries," including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia and Pakistan.
"This agreement is a powerful illustration of BlackRock and GIP's combined platform and our ability to deliver differentiated investments for clients. These world-class ports facilitate global growth," BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said.
The report explained, "U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama in early February and told President José Raúl Mulino that Panama had to reduce Chinese influence over the canal or face potential retaliation from the United States. Mulino rejected the idea that China had any control over canal operations."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is proposing to sell off 443 underused federal buildings.
These are buildings in 47 states, Washington and even Puerto Rico that would be part of his agenda to slash government waste and drain the swamp.
A report at the Gateway Pundit explained that the properties are "bloated with bureaucracy," and include even the headquarters of the DOJ, FBI and the General Services Administration.
Many of the locations are "regional" operations for various federal agencies.
"We are identifying buildings and facilities that are not core to government operations, or non-core properties for disposal. Selling ensures that taxpayer dollars are no longer spent on vacant or underutilized federal spaces," the GSA explained.
"Disposing of these assets helps eliminate costly maintenance and allows us to reinvest in high-quality work environments that support agency missions."
One of the buildings apparently heading for the auction block would be the Nancy Pelosi Federal Building in her home district in California.
The report explained the buildings include some 80 million square feet of office space, equal to about 12 Pentagons.
The annual savings from disposing of the buildings is estimated at $430 million.
Also on the list is the Dick Cheney Federal Building in Wyoming.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new study published in the Oxford Academic Journal of Sexual Medicine has confirmed the worst for subscribers to the transgender ideology, that men can become women and vice versa through the use of chemicals and surgical mutilations.
It states that the results "demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery."
It added, "Males with surgery showed a higher prevalence of depression … and anxiety. Females exhibited similar trends, with elevated depression … and anxiety. Feminizing individuals demonstrated particularly high risk for depression … and substance use disorders."
The results of the study have been explained in a report at RedState.
It explains that even though medical "professionals" who threaten parents that their child, if not given mutilating sex-change surgeries, will lead to suicide, the opposite is true.
"The results of the national database study, published on February 25, revealed that 'transgender individuals face heightened psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, partly due to stigma and lack of gender affirmation,'" the report said.
Analyzed were U.S. patients with gender dysphoria from June 2014 to June 2024.
"Mental health outcomes included depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance use disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder, assessed over two years post-surgery using clinician-verified ICD-10 codes," the report explained the study confirmed. "Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) was analyzed separately and not conflated with gender dysphoria cohorts to ensure the distinction between these conditions."
Some 107,000 patients' cases were reviewed.
Explained RedState, "Unconscionably, the study's conclusion didn't recommend against 'gender-affirming' surgery, but rather, simply suggested mental-health therapy to attempt to ward off post-surgery mental health issues."
A supposed whistleblower who warned about cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development has donated to 23 Democratic candidates, Breitbart reported. Nick Enrich, acting assistant administrator at USAID Global Health, was placed on leave Sunday for publicly criticizing the Department of Government Efficiency and others.
President Donald Trump has entrusted Tesla billionaire Elon Musk with heading up DOGE's efforts to streamline the bloated government, which has outraged the left. Enrich slammed Trump Musk, and the State Department over those efforts in a memo Friday.
Enrich alleges that DOGE has imposed "intentional and or/unintentional obstacles" to funding what he considers crucial programs. He warned the cuts would "undermine U.S. leadership, weaken global stability, and increase long-term costs" in his memo.
"The number of deaths attributable to the loss of USAID funding and support is not known at this time," claimed Enrich. However, it's difficult to heed his warning when Enrich appears unapologetically partisan.
While Enrich is being lionized as a valiant civil servant blowing the whistle on Trump's recklessness, it's clear that he's just regurgitating the Democratic talking points. Since 2019, Enrick has made a total of $400 to ActBlue, which raises money for Democratic candidates.
He has funneled those donations to Democrats in the 2020 presidential primary, including Elizabeth Warren and then Joe Biden. Enrich also supported Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and others in Congress.
While his donations were small, it's significant that Enrich intended them all for radical Democrats. He did this while raking in a $171,000 annual salary as a USAID Program Manager, outpacing the national average by 80.2% for those working for the government.
Despite this clear motivation, both as a Democratic donor and as the recipient of wasteful government spending, Democrats are praising Enrich for coming forward. They have glommed onto his message to smear Trump as callous and uncaring to those who receive foreign aid.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) jumped at the chance to claim that withdrawing foreign aid was one of their "worst fears" and predicted "deaths" because of it. "These new details confirm our worst fears: the illegal and systematic dismantling of USAID will cause real suffering and deaths that are entirely preventable," Schatz claimed.
The fake outrage and handwringing from Enrich and the Democrats don't change the fact that DOGE's mission has already saved the American taxpayer. The Trump administration gutted USAID and subsequently saved $60 billion that was previously squandered under the guise of foreign aid.
With a blessing from Trump, Musk and his organization have rooted out waste in even the most vital government sectors, including the Department of Defense. According to Fox News, the DOD could save $80 million by cutting waste in many areas, including diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Sean Parnell, the agency's spokesperson, championed DOGE for cutting the waste after it found ridiculous studies in the name of DEI. "This stuff is just not a core function of our military," Parnell said.
"This is not what we do. This stuff is a distraction from our core mission. We believe these initial findings will probably save $80 million in wasteful spending," the spokesman added.
The left is disingenuous about the role people like Enrich play in these controversies, and it vindicates Trump's assertion that these attacks are all partisan. Enrich is someone who doesn't support Trump, but they're using his memo and subsequent dismissal to fuel their neverending narrative against the president and his administration's effort to stop the financial bleeding.
Iranian Vice President Mohammad Javad Zarif resigned from his office on Sunday, implying in his resignation letter that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni and other hardliners in the government forced him from power.
Zarif was considered a moderate or "reformist" in Iran's government, which only means he wasn't as hardline as Khameni and other officials.
He was instrumental in brokering the 2015 nuclear deal with the U.S., known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which then-President Barack Obama entered into and President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from during his first term in office.
Zarif and former moderate President Hassan Rouhani endorsed Masoud Pezeshkian, a fellow moderate, in the June 2024 special election to replace hardline President Ebrahim Raisi after he died in a helicopter crash, and Pezeshkian won.
Zarif was actually Vice President for Strategic Affairs, one of several vice presidential positions in the Iranian government, but he campaigned alongside Pezeshkian like the vice president does here in America.
He had already tried to resign once, only two weeks into his term, during a struggle over Pezeshkian's cabinet.
At the time, Pezeshkian refused to accept his resignation.
Zarif continued to be targeted by hardliners who thought he was too moderate.
His opponents have tried to invoke an Iranian law that they say prohibits anyone from holding office if they or their children have dual citizenship. Zarif's children were born in the United States during Iran's mission to the United Nations, of which Zarif was a part.
This means they are naturalized American citizens with passports.
Zarif said in a social media post that he had endured “the most ridiculous insults, slanders, and threats against my family in the past six months.”
It was “the most bitter” time of his 40 years in government service, he said.
He said the chief justice of Iran, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, advised him to go back to lecturing at university so the government would be under less pressure.
Zarif favored negotiating a new deal with President Donald Trump, but an edict by Khameni forbade the negotiations in February.
The recent disclosure of substantial U.S. government payments to the Taliban has ignited a wave of scrutiny and calls for accountability across political lines.
According to the Daily Caller, a government inspector general report revealed that $1.8 million was funneled to the Taliban through a series of foreign aid programs, raising questions about financial oversight and sparking political backlash.
The Department of Defense inspector general released the report on Tuesday, detailing how the State Department managed to direct significant funds to the Taliban over a period of three years. This revelation has shone a spotlight on the practices of foreign aid distribution, particularly in the context of the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
According to the report, the payments, amounting to $1.8 million, were made between September 2021 and December 2024. These funds were distributed through various foreign aid initiatives for expenses such as local employee taxes and registration fees for vehicles. The inspector general indicated that these payments, described as authorized by "General Licenses" from the Treasury Department, were distributed despite official statements to the contrary.
The Treasury Department has maintained that it has not authorized financial transactions to the Taliban. This assertion creates a perplexing contradiction, as the State Department's explanation to the Department of Defense inspector general's office stated the exact opposite. This inconsistency has further fueled calls for an in-depth investigation into the approval processes governing these financial transfers.
The payments were made following the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan, a period during which America has not formally acknowledged any government led by the Taliban. This action has sparked requests for legislative remedies aimed at safeguarding U.S. tax dollars from being utilized by terrorist organizations such as the Taliban.
In the political arena, some Republicans have already introduced legislation designed to protect U.S. funds from being accessed by adversarial groups. Also, former President Trump's administration announced plans for sweeping reductions in foreign aid contracts, aiming to prevent similar financial lapses in the future.
High-ranking officials have stepped forward to voice their priorities. A representative from Trump's State Department asserted the unyielding focus on national security matters. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency, has expressed concern over the federal spending practices uncovered by his team.
Musk articulated grievances that approval officers at the Treasury were instructed to endorse payments, even if they involved known fraudulent or terrorist entities. This disclosure has intensified the demand for transparency and stricter control measures surrounding government fund allocations.
This development has prompted diverse reactions from different sectors. Civil society and policy analysts are calling for enhanced vigilance and improved systems to prevent the misuse of public funds. The complexity of the issue is reflected in differing viewpoints on how best to uphold financial integrity while fulfilling international responsibilities.
Adding another layer to this scenario, a Tajik individual faces serious charges for funneling money to overseas terrorists. If found guilty, he could face up to two decades behind bars. This case further illustrates the ongoing challenges of preventing financial aid from benefitting malicious actors.
The debate over the State Department’s fiscal practices amid the broader geopolitical landscape is taking center stage. As the situation in Afghanistan remains precarious, U.S. policymakers and their global counterparts continue to grapple with the ramifications of such financial decisions.
Current developments have rekindled discussions about the efficacy and moral implications of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts—particularly in regions experiencing tumultuous political changes. The U.S. commitment to fighting terrorism and promoting stability worldwide remains steadfast, yet instances like these underscore the delicate balance required in the allocation of resources.
As investigations progress, many are eager to see the results provide clarity and instigate comprehensive reform of protocol measures with regard to foreign aid. The government, together with private sector experts and international partners, is tasked with ensuring that financial assistance does not inadvertently fall into the wrong hands.