New York City's new Democratic Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said he "will reach out" to President Donald Trump to foster cooperation, Breitbart reported. The 34-year-old expressed his intention to quit playing politics and do what's best for the city, which is a refreshing change from the way the rest of his party has handled the GOP president.
Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, handily won the race to become the mayor of the Big Apple. He beat out former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent after Mamdani crushed him in the Democratic primary, and the GOP choice, Curtis Slewa.
Now that the 34-year-old is ready to get down to business, he sat down with NBC New York’s Melissa Russo and said he would take a different approach with Trump than others in his party. While the rest of the Democratic Party is fighting him tooth and nail, Mamdani reversed course and said he would be the one to reach out first.
Flanked by First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan in the interview, Mamdani promised a new approach and stated that he "will be proactive" when it comes to speaking with Trump to prevent his immigration crackdown in the city. Mamdani has spoken out about Trump's practice of sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or the National Guard into America's cities, and he believes he can dissuade Trump with his goodwill.
"I will be proactive in the work that I do, and I think that is because the responsibility I hold to 8.5 million people being their mayor," Mamdani told Russo. "It is important that you are open to working with anyone, no matter what disagreements you may have," he added. This is the kind of talk about Trump that sends Democrats into a tailspin, but Mamdani seems to be wiser.
"And, I’ve said this when it pertains to President Trump, that President Trump wants to speak about lowering the cost of living or delivering cheaper groceries like he ran on, I’m there to have that conversation. The distinction will be that previous administrations have looked to have that conversation to the benefit of themselves, in the expense of the people that we look to serve," Mamdani clarified.
Russo asked Mamdani if he would be the one to pick up the phone first, and Mamdani said he would "be reaching out to the White House" before he takes office. "This is a relationship that will be critical to the success of this city," Mamdani noted.
When the host asked what that call would entail, Mamdani said that he would tell Trump he is "here to work for the benefit of everyone that calls" New York City their place of residence. Mamdani also said he will tell Trump he's ready to cooperate with him "wherever there is a possibility for working together towards that end."
This spirit of cooperation with Trump is new for Mamdani, who is singing a different tune than he was immediately following his election to office. During his victory speech, Mamdani called out Trump as a "despot" and urged him to "turn the volume up" to hear his defiant rhetoric, the UK Guardian reported.
The president cited that speech during an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, and noted that Mamdani got off to a "bad start" with that message. "It was a very angry speech, certainly angry toward me,” Trump told the host.
"I think he should be very nice to me. You know, I’m the one that sort of has to approve a lot of things coming for him. So, he’s off to a bad start," Trump noted. Previously, Mamdani had said the president was "waging war on the First Amendment" and trampling on "constitutional rights" by pursuing illegal immigrants.
Trump told New Yorkers that the choice was now "between communism and common sense" after Mamdani, who proposed city-run grocery stores and open borders, was elected. The president has since vowed that the country is "not going communist in any way, shape or form" as long as he's in the White House.
Mamdani seems to understand what he's up against with Trump and is hopefully ready to back off from his attacks against the president. Meanwhile, Trump does not take kindly to Democrats who allow their cities to be overrun with unvetted illegal immigrants, and the two may clash over that issue, even if Mamdani is more conciliatory than others in his party.
The Trump administration is moving to rescind the Biden-era drilling ban on 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska's Arctic region.
During a press release on Thursday, the administration announced that it would issue a final rule on Friday to rescind the ban on drilling in the area.
The rule is expected to be published in the National Register on Friday.
The petroleum reserve is a 23-million-acre property that was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 to serve as an emergency supply for the Navy.
However, the land has not been fully developed for drilling because of environmental reasons, as Democrat presidents have blocked it.
Biden's reason for blocking drilling there was to protect the environment, but Trump touted help for the local economy and improving national security by producing more of our own energy.
“By rescinding the 2024 rule, we are following the direction set by President Trump to unlock Alaska’s energy potential, create jobs for North Slope communities and strengthen American energy security,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a written statement.
The proposal to rescind the order happened earlier this year; Friday's action just makes the proposal permanent.
Harvard Law School estimated that the National Petroleum Reserve could produce about 590 million barrels of oil over 30 years.
It certainly wouldn't provide all of U.S. energy usage, which is currently about 20 million barrels a day.
It is a lot of oil, though, and it helps meet Trump's goal of increasing our energy independence.
As of 2023, the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but we do import some of our oil because it is a different type than we can produce ourselves.
In addition, energy usage is expected to increase to support the adoption of AI in various areas of society.
This will include oil to power electric plants and power the grid for the foreseeable future, and Trump is being realistic about these needs.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Donald Trump's legal team, and BBC chief Samir Shah has penned a separate, and personal, letter to the White House, apologizing for the network's edit of the president's words that falsely suggested his responsibility for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.
"Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump's legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday," a BBC spokesperson has confirmed. "BBC chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the president's speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme."
The BBC's Panorama program about the events that day took comments from Trump, omitted his statement about supporters protesting "peacefully" and linked the comments with remarks an hour apart, "to make it appear like one long statement," according to a report from Fox News.
The BBC statement added, "While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim."
Trump earlier had cited the "false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements" when he confirmed consideration of a $1 billion lawsuit.
Already, BBC News chief Deborah Turness and BBC director-general Tim Davie have resigned because of the scandal.
At the time he walked away, Turness claimed that, "BBC News is not institutionally biased."
He added, "Mistakes are made."
Trump's legal team had written to the BBC, explained, "the BBC's reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements."
They demanded a full and fair retraction.
"If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages. The BBC is on notice," their letter warned.
WND previously reported Trump's lawyers said statements by the network's "Panorama" documentary were "fabricated and aired by the BBC," leaving him no other option than to seek legal remedy.
The broadcast segment, called "Trump: A Second Chance," was aired in 2024, just before the presidential election.
The president's lawyers charged the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump's speech to supporters.
"The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: 'We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'"
Trump's actual statement was: "We're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
Also edited out, according to the letter, was Trump indicating: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Retiring California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi's partisan committee that was purported to be "investigating" the events in Washington on Jan. 6, 2023, spent some $17.4 million of taxpayer money.
Their result was an evidence-edited and message-orchestrated claim that President Donald Trump somehow was at fault.
That was the day Trump held a rally for supporters, encouraging them to peacefully protest what was perceived as the faulty results of the 2020 president election.
Some went to the Capitol, some went inside and some vandalized various parts of the building.
Actually that election now is known to have been skewed by several undue influences. One was that Mark Zuckerberg handed out cash like candy to local elections officials who often used it to recruit voters in Democrat districts.
The other was the FBI's decision to try to suppress information about Biden family scandals contained in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden. A poll after the election said had those details been reported routinely, like other election issues, Biden likely would have lost.
The FBI falsely claimed at the time the information was Russian disinformation, even though agents knew the evidence was factual.
Pelosi, then speaker of the House, assembled a partisan team, refusing to seat GOP nominees. She then picked Democrats and two Trump-hating Republicans to be on the team, which ignored evidence supporting Trump and amplified claims of his responsibility, even to the point of hiring producers and others to assemble videos "dramatizing" their claims against Trump.
Now a report at the Center Square explains its investigation has confirmed while the projected budget for the committee was $9.3 million, House disbursements confirm the political scheme cost taxpayers at least $17.4 million.
U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, is on a new committee appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson assigned to review security failures that day and confirmed the original committee "didn't spend taxpayer money properly after The Center Square told him about the final costs of the panel's investigation."
"They wasted it, wasted it," he confirmed. "That was a sham committee. (Liz) Cheney. (Adam) Kinzinger. It was a joke."
He cited Cheney, who shortly later was thrown out of her congressional office by her own voters, and Kinzinger, another Republican who decided against seeking re-election. He later took a job with a leftist network.
Dan Savickas, of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a non-partisan nonprofit, told the Center Square the more than doubling of the budget was not appropriate.
"The median budget for a House committee is $6 million a year, so for the Jan. 6 committee to spend $17.4 million is excessive," he confirmed. "And anytime a committee is grandstanding, specifically Jan. 6, to fit a narrative instead of holding people accountable and getting the story is bad. That's why they hired documentary filmmakers."
Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who orchestrated the committee's work, wouldn't comment, but a communications director, Yasmine Brown, said, "The work of the committee speaks for itself, and the chairman continues to stand by it."
The report explained, "An undetermined amount was spent on three dozen contractors and consultants. Many worked for a few months or less than a year, rather than all 18 months like full-time staff. They are listed in the committee's report but do not show up in a list of expenditures the U.S. House posted online disclosing its spending."
Those include a former ABC News executive, a longtime ABC producer and more.
Boasted Melinda Arons, a former Nightline employee, "I was part of the first ever team of former television journalists brought in by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to produce the historic live hearings laying out the committee's evidence to the country."
The J6 committee hired "freelancers with backgrounds in producing and editing graphics as well as video and audio footage – prominent features of the committee's 10 nationally televised hearings from June to December 2022," the report said.
The anti-Trump conclusions from the committee later have "come into question," the report said.
"In an op-ed for Politico in January 2023, Georgetown Professor Donell Harvin, who oversaw the District of Columbia's assessment of threat intelligence, wrote that '(t)he events of Jan. 6 represented the most telegraphed and predictable attack on the homeland in history.' Further, Harvin noted that the committee devoted only 44 pages in the annexes to the security and intelligence issues, roughly 5% of the 845-page report."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate, who agreed with Democrat demands to discuss extending heightened Obamacare subsidies in order to end the record-setting Schumer Shutdown of the federal government, have delivered more bad news to the minority party.
They are linking the Democrats' demands that emergency additional subsidies be continued to a new effort to enforce already existing federal abortion limits.
The shutdown triggered, and maintained, by many votes by Senate Democrats against opening the government, was partly over heightened subsidies for Americans getting health insurance through the hugely troubled Obamacare system.
The Democrats, then in the majority, had approved "emergency" additional subsidies a few years back. Then they continued those additional subsidies several times. But they scheduled them to end at the conclusion of 2025, and they are not in the majority now to push them into another extension.
The problem is that the failings within the Obamacare system are expected to trigger huge increase in premiums for Americans getting those policies starting January 1.
The shutdown is concluding now, with legislation being approved in the Senate, and House, to reopen government operations.
The GOP promise was that those Obamacare extensions would be discussed.
And discussed they will be, along with those abortion funding limits.
A report at Breitbart explains Sen. Majority Leader John Thune said, "A one-year extension along the lines of what [Democrats] are suggesting, and without Hyde protections — doesn't even get close."
Republicans simply want to block states from allowing people to access abortions through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces using state or other funding, the report said.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., has indicated he's open to extending the subsidies, but said Republicans won't support it without the abortion restrictions, the report said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a radical abortion advocate, claimed the GOP now wants a "backdoor national abortion ban."
He called for Democrats to "dismiss" the plan that would enforce existing abortion limits, and extend Obamacare subsidies.
The enhanced Obamacare subsidies first were begun during the COVID pandemic created by the China virus.
The report said without an extension of the subsidies, "individuals who purchase health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplaces will see steep premium rises — some by thousands of dollars a month — beginning next year."
Thune said the GOP requests aren't complicated, a "more stringent enforcement of longstanding restrictions on federal funding being used for abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Already, mortgage-fraud charges have caught up with New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI chief James Comey, both of whom were involved in multiple lawfare cases against President Donald Trump.
A third name soon could be on that list, ardent anti-Trumper Rep. Eric Swalwell of California.
A columnist's post at the Gateway Pundit explains Swalwell apparently has no residence in California, which he represents, possibly running afoul of legal requirements.
It is columnist Joel Gilbert who charges that Swalwell, who has been criticized in recent years for his "alleged ties to the Chinese spy 'Fang Fang,'" and his "removal from the House Intelligence Committee over national security concerns," might be in serious trouble.
It's because Swalwell, on legal documents, formally has declared that his Washington, D.C., property is his "principal residence." That affirmation comes on his public Deed of Trust for his home.
He made that statement as a condition for a loan on the property.
He apparently has no residence listed, either as owned or rented by him, in California, the report said.
"Under Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress must be 'inhabitants' of the state they represent at the time of their election," Gilbert wrote. "In California, maintaining this inhabitancy means holding tangible, verifiable ties to the state, such as owning or renting a residence, registering to vote, paying state income taxes, and possessing a California driver's license."
In fact, the California Elections Code insists a domicile is "the place in which his or her habitation is fixed" and "the place where a person intends to return and remain."
The report explained, "If Swalwell's true domicile is in Washington, DC, the city where he has declared his principal residence, he may no longer meet the basic requirement of being a California 'inhabitant.' Public records searches have not revealed any home ownership or lease under Eric Swalwell's name in California."
The report noted, "Failure to maintain a legitimate residence in California could expose Swalwell to legal, ethical, and electoral repercussions. A false declaration of residency risks tax violations, misrepresentation to lenders, and challenges to his eligibility for re-election."
The report noted that Swalwell's listed indebtedness has remained unchanged mostly since 2011, and he holds more than $50,000 in student loan debt, more than $15,000 in credit card debt to American Express and Chase Bank, and more than $1 million for a home loan.
The column charges, "It is time for Eric Swalwell to come clean. As he declared his Washington, DC house as his principal residence, while not disclosing any verifiable domicile in California, he is deceiving both his lenders and his voters. The law is clear: a member of Congress must remain an inhabitant of the state they represent. By abandoning any genuine California address, Swalwell risks disqualification and betrays the very district that elected him."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was called "Operation Dirtbag" and it apparently was well-named as the federal law enforcement sweep apprehended some 150 illegal migrant "sexual predators."
It is a report in the New York Post that described the Florida project's results, as revealed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
They were among more than 230 illegal aliens rounded up in Florida on charges including sexual offenses, drug offenses and even murder.
The "dirtbags" included those who already had been convicted of child molestation and sexual assault, the DHS confirmed.
"This operation was called Operation Criminal Return. I call it Operation Dirtbag, because these individuals were sex offenders, but not just sex offenders, they targeted children," announced Noem in an interview with "Fox & Friends."
"These 150 individuals will be gone off of our streets. Our kids will be safer."
Agencies of the state of Florida, directed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, helped, she said.
"These individuals should have never been in our country to begin with. The fact that they were sexual deviants and perverts, and now we've gotten them off of our streets, it's remarkable. And we need to do more of it," she said.
President Donald Trump's use of the National Guard to address surging crime in various locations already is credited with a 41% decline in robberies and a 35% drop in shootings in Chicago, where state officials have fought the president's every move to help battle crime.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a result that could be filed under, "Well, Duh!" a new report says leftist, high-tax states like New York and New Jersey recently have lost the taxes on some two-thirds of a trillion dollars in residents' taxable incomes.
It's because residents are fleeing states where gender ideology, communist ideas and socialism is surging.
It is the Unleash Prosperity organization that reported this week that New York lost the ability to tax more than $517 billion in residents' incomes from 2013 to 2022. New Jersey, another enclave of leftists, lost $170.1 billion.
California lost the taxes on $370.1 million in residents' incomes and Illinois lost the taxes on $315.2 billion.
The four states alone, all dominated by Democrat politics and politicians, lost the ability to tax nearly $1.4 trillion in income, and that will continue into the future.
A report at Fox Business said, "The report covers cumulative gains and losses in each state's resident income, as a mover takes their income to another state for subsequent years – not just the first year after their move."
"New York and New Jersey combined have lost two-thirds of a trillion dollars in net income and purchasing power over the last decade due to moving vans departing these states," said Steve Moore, economist and co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, in an interview.
"This has been one of the greatest wealth losses for one region in American history. New Jersey and New York are being bled to death by low tax states in the South," Moore said.
At the other end of the scale was Florida, where a gain of $1 trillion in taxable income was confirmed, as well as Texas, with saw a $290 billion increase.
The report said, "Based on tax filing data from the 2011-12 period through 2021-22, New York lost a net 1.757 million residents to domestic migration, while California lost 1.632 million, Illinois 881,012 and New Jersey 350,111 over that period."
Florida gained nearly 1.6 million and Texas 1.2 million.
The report, according to the New York Post, follows "an election where New Jersey chose to stay left and New York City opted to go farther left.
It explained, "It's not uncommon to look at the one-year losses and gains of income from internal migration such as taxpayers fleeing New York for Florida, but that fails to capture the long-lasting impact: The migrant's income is lost (or gained) year after year for the rest of his or her life."
Democrats are calling for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to resign after the shutdown dragged on for weeks before they ultimately caved to Republicans' demands, Newsweek reported. After the longest shutdown in U.S. history, one independent and seven Democrats joined the GOP to end it without the healthcare subsidies Democrats demanded.
The shutdown lasted 40 days and disrupted services such as air traffic control and SNAP food subsidies as both sides blamed the other. The Democrats were looking to extend Affordable Care Act handouts that are set to expire in January, while Republicans opposed more entitlements.
Neither side was budging until some Democrats jumped ship and joined Republicans to reopen the government, with the promise that another vote in December would re-examine the possibility of extending healthcare handouts. This ultimately rendered the shutdown completely useless.
Now, some are looking to Schumer to find out why he didn't know there would be so many defectors to undermine their effort. The deal has been struck, and Democrats subjected their constituents to ongoing closures and benefit denials to ultimately roll over in the end anyway.
As usual in Washington, D.C., there is a long list of people waiting to jump into Schumer's political grave should he be ousted. Some of those poised to take over for him include Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who has been positioning himself to raise his profile within the party.
In April, Booker engaged in a 25-hour filibuster, which broke a Senate record and made headlines. Booker is undoubtedly ambitious, but he might have his sights set even higher, while others, like Amy Klobuchar, seem to be in the sweet spot.
The Minnesota Democrat is chair of the Steering & Policy Committee, which is often a stepping stone to party leadership. She has also been in front of the press during the government shutdown and was pushing for Democrats to hold steady on the fight for healthcare subsidies. Of course, there's always Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has tried and failed several times to elevate her position.
However, some believe that Sen. Tammy Baldwin may be a strong contender after her powerful speech on sticking to the subsidies. "I am not willing to just go along with this government funding bill that does nothing to address health care costs skyrocketing. That’s why I went to the floor to try to add a one-year extension to the Affordable Care Act tax breaks. This fight is not over," she wrote on X, formerly Twitter, with a video of an impassioned speech during the shutdown.
I am not willing to just go along with this government funding bill that does nothing to address health care costs skyrocketing.
That’s why I went to the floor to try to add a one-year extension to the Affordable Care Act tax breaks.
This fight is not over. pic.twitter.com/Qz5ig9BJxT
— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) November 11, 2025
According to The Hill, there is a growing number of Democrats who support leadership change for the 76-year-old. "Squad" member Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said that it was time for Schumer to vacate the position, as she is mulling her own Senate run.
"I’m very disappointed. I think that we find ourselves in an unprecedented moment, and that unprecedented moment demands new leadership, a different approach. But I am again, very disappointed in the eight Democrats that did not hold the line in keeping with what was the demands of the people in the communities who sent them there," Pressley told Politico.
Similarly, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan also chastized Schumer, especially when it came to his lack of support for Gaza in the war with Israel. During the shutdown, she blamed Schumer for potentially ruining the midterm elections for Democrats in 2026.
"Sen. Schumer has failed to meet this moment and is out of touch with the American people. The Democratic Party needs leaders who fight and deliver for working people. Schumer should step down," Tlaib said in a post to X.
The government shutdown was supposed to hurt Republicans, but it seems to have backfired on Democrats. Since Schumer was the head of it all, he will be the one that they scapegoat. One thing Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that it's about time that the elderly politician steps down anyway.
Hold onto your hats, folks— the U.S. border just hit a milestone that’s got everyone talking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proudly reported a record-breaking drop in unauthorized border crossings for October, marking the start of fiscal 2026 with the lowest numbers ever seen for that month, the Washington Examiner reported.
This isn’t just a small dip; it’s a historic plunge.
DHS data reveals a staggering 30,561 total encounters nationwide in October 2025, a figure hailed as the smallest start to any fiscal year in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) history.
That’s a jaw-dropping 79% decrease from the same month last year under the previous administration, and a solid 29% lower than the prior record low set over a decade ago.
Progressives might squirm at these stats, but let’s be real—fewer unauthorized crossings mean a tighter grip on national security, something most Americans can get behind.
Adding to the achievement, DHS noted six straight months of zero releases of unauthorized migrants into the country.
This policy shift is a stark contrast to the more lenient approaches of the prior administration, signaling a no-nonsense stance that prioritizes enforcement over open-door ideals.
While some critics may cry foul, arguing for compassion over control, the data suggests this strategy is working—numbers don’t lie, even if they don’t fit a feel-good narrative.
Since the first full day of the current administration, DHS has logged 106,134 enforcement encounters along the Southwest Border through the end of October.
That’s well below the monthly average of 155,485 encounters seen under the previous leadership, with daily apprehensions down by a whopping 95%.
“History made: the lowest border crossings in October history and the sixth straight month of ZERO releases,” declared DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. “This is the most secure border ever.”
Noem’s enthusiasm is matched by CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, who stated, “Our mission is simple: secure the border and safeguard this nation. And that’s exactly what we are doing.”
Scott added, “No excuses. No politics. Just results delivered by the most dedicated law enforcement professionals in the country. We’re not easing up — we’re pushing even harder.”
While Scott’s words brim with resolve, one has to wonder if this hardline approach will hold under inevitable political pressure—still, credit where it’s due, the results speak volumes.