Is an $850 million monument in Chicago’s historic Jackson Park a beacon of hope or a budget-busting eyesore? That’s the question swirling around Barack Obama’s forthcoming Presidential Center, a project drawing both sharp criticism and eager anticipation, the Daily Mail reported.
The Obama Presidential Center, slated for a 2026 opening, promises a sprawling 19.3-acre campus with a museum, library branch, and even an NBA-sized basketball court, but it’s also sparking fierce controversy over its cost, design, and location.
Located in Chicago’s Jackson Park, this ambitious project features an eight-story, 225-foot-tall granite museum, complete with four floors of exhibits chronicling Obama’s presidency and a Sky Room for panoramic views. The design, reportedly inspired by four hands reaching skyward, also includes a forum with a 299-seat auditorium and spaces for podcasts and music recording. A garden pavilion and a fruit-and-vegetable garden at the library branch round out the vision.
Yet, the price tag—$850 million, with reports of being $200 million over budget—has conservatives and locals alike raising eyebrows. How does a project meant to inspire community action justify doubling costs and years of delays? It’s a question that cuts to the heart of fiscal responsibility.
Critics on social media aren’t holding back, blasting the design as a hulking monstrosity unfit for parkland. One user quipped, “A 'living, breathing, dynamic cultural' cement outhouse on steroids?” as cited from online commentary, reflecting a sentiment that this isn’t the legacy many hoped for.
Even Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined the fray, tweeting, “Locating the Death Star to Chicago was a bold move,” likening the grey monolith to Darth Vader’s infamous lair. It’s a witty jab, but it underscores a deeper concern: does this resemble a cultural hub or a sci-fi fortress? One wonders if the Force is with this budget.
Inside, the museum will boast striking art, like an 83-foot-tall abstract glass piece by Julie Mehretu, drawing from African and American history. The exterior will feature words from Obama’s speech on the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches. It’s a nod to history, but does it outweigh the loss of public green space?
Obama himself has framed the center as more than a personal tribute, telling The New York Times, “I wanted the center to be 'a living, breathing, dynamic cultural and gathering space.'” It’s a lofty goal, but when costs spiral and timelines lag, one must ask if the vision matches the execution. Are we building inspiration or just another overpriced landmark?
The forum building offers a low-slung contrast, housing classrooms, a café, and offices for the Obama Foundation. It’s practical, sure, but critics argue the community feels sidelined, with promises unkept and parkland sacrificed. Is this truly a space for “the people” or a vanity project in disguise?
Public opinion is split down the middle, with some social media users decrying what they see as mismanagement mirrored in Obama’s presidency. Others, however, are thrilled, with one supporter noting, “That's amazing! The Obama Presidential Center sounds like it's going to be a truly inspiring space,” as shared online.
Supporters see potential for events and community engagement, envisioning a welcoming hub that could uplift Chicago’s South Side. They argue it’s a far cry from mere political showboating—think less ballroom renovation, more cultural cornerstone. It’s a fair point, but only if the center delivers on accessibility.
Detractors, though, aren’t buying the hype, pointing to the irony of a “hopeful” project built over a beloved park. They argue the community’s voice has been drowned out by granite and glass. When does inspiration become imposition?
What’s undeniable is the center’s scale—spanning nearly 20 acres with features like a “home court” basketball arena. But scale comes at a cost, and not just in dollars. Should public land and taxpayer goodwill be the price of legacy?
At the end of the day, the Obama Presidential Center could be a game-changer for Chicago if it truly activates and inspires, as its namesake intends. Yet, conservatives must question whether such extravagance aligns with the principles of restraint and accountability we hold dear. It’s a tightrope between honoring history and overreaching ambition.
Come 2026, when those granite doors swing open, the verdict will be in the hands of the people—both those who cheer and those who jeer. Until then, this monolith stands as a symbol of division, a reminder that even the noblest intentions must face the hard light of scrutiny. Will it be a slam dunk or a costly airball?
For the eleventh time, Senate Democrats voted against a Republican bill to end the government shutdown, which now enters its fourth week.
The vote was 50-43, with Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, and Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, voting with Republicans to end the shutdown, the Hill reported.
Another Democrat who has routinely voted to end the government shutdown, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, did not vote Monday. Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) was the only Republican to vote "no."
Democrats under Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-Ny.) have refused to fund the government without a firm guarantee to permanently extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are expiring at year's end.
The Democrats also want to undo eligibility restrictions in Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act that exclude many non-citizens from receiving federal health benefits.
Lawmakers did not vote on the shutdown Tuesday as Republicans met with President Trump for a Senate lunch, where Trump insisted that Republicans won't be "extorted."
“I wanted to say from the beginning, our message has been very simple: We will not be extorted on this crazy plot of theirs. They’ve never done this before. Nobody has. You always vote for an extension,” Trump said.
“Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats need to vote for the clean, bipartisan CR and reopen our government. It’s got to be reopened right now,” he added.
Neither party has shown any sign of budging, as Democrats look to hammer a healthcare message heading into the 2026 midterms and Republicans refuse to play along with Schumer's hardball tactics.
Democrats say that unless the ACA subsidies are renewed, millions of Americans will be unable to afford their premiums. Critics take this as a tacit admission that Obamacare failed to deliver on its promise of affordable health care.
In any case, Republicans have said they are willing to negotiate the subsidies when the government is up and running. They have insisted that Democrats pass a "clean" resolution to fund the government for a few weeks, without any strings attached.
“It is truly amazing how a program Democrats created and tax credits that they chose to sunset have now become the Republicans’ crisis,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said in floor remarks. “Republicans, in fact, never had anything to do with it.”
“Democrats created ObamaCare — alone. They implemented the enhanced tax credits — alone. And they chose a sunset date for those tax credits — alone,” he continued.
“Democrats are solely — solely — responsible for the ObamaCare tax credit cliff, and yet they’re trying to pin this disaster on Republicans while at the very same time they’re asking Republicans to bail them out.”
The average price for a gallon of gas is below $3 across America for the first time in four years, giving consumers a sense of normalcy after costs surged in the Biden era.
The White House is touting the news as proof that President Trump has kept his promise to ease the cost-of-living, which became a major campaign issue in 2024. According to analysis from GasBuddy, the average gas price is now $2.98, having fallen 15 cents per gallon in one year.
This is the cheapest that gas has been since the 2020, when demand for gas collapsed during the COVID lockdowns.
"Gas prices have finally fallen below $3 per gallon nationally — the earliest date we’ve seen a $2.99 national average since 2020, when COVID was the primary driver of low prices,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.
There's more good news to come, says De Haan: "Barring any major disruptions, gas prices are likely to remain slightly below year-ago levels and could stay under $3 for much of the next few months.”
Of course, prices vary widely based on location. At one station in Colorado, gas is under $2 per gallon. On the other hand, gas is the most expensive in California, where it costs an average of $4.60 per gallon.
Compare that to the state's all-time high of $6.437 for a gallon of regular unleaded in June 2022.
So, who deserves the credit for the current trade of lower prices?
GasBuddy isn't rushing to give Trump any: “OPEC+ deserves much of the credit for this trend, having steadily raised oil production for much of 2025," De Haan said.
Some analysts have linked increased oil production by OPEC+ to pressure from President Trump.
Even the anti-Trump New York Times has acknowledged that OPEC+ appears to be appeasing Trump by keeping oil prices low.
The Trump administration has attributed the drop in prices to Trump's emphasis on "energy dominance," an approach he summarized as "drill baby drill" on the campaign trail last year.
For Trump and his team, cheap gas is a simple and tangible achievement that shows Trump is keeping his promises to voters.
“President Trump understands that energy dominance is a key driver for growing our economy and lowering costs — making good on a promise he repeatedly made on the campaign trail after years of Biden-induced economic disaster. In fact, under Biden, average gas prices remained above $3 per gallon for nearly the entirety of his presidency,” the White House said in a press release.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in the Loudoun County, Virginia, school district have had a long history of promoting the LGBT ideologies.
In fact, it has gone so far that students, unhappy with board members who decline to believe there's a difference between boys and girls and refuse to protect vulnerable students in private areas like restrooms and showers, are resorting to democracy to try to change that.
They're encouraging voters to choose candidates who, in fact, would not force girls to share their showers with boys, and vice versa.
A commentary at Twitchy was prompted to state, "BOOM! VA teens take matters into their own hands to stop school board trans-LUNACY…"
The commentary said, "What do Loudoun County, Virginia, teenagers do when their school board ignores their concerns about males in females' spaces and sports? Believe it or not, they don't just get on TikTok and complain about it. Nope. They take matters into their own hands and go to the polls, asking voters to support school board members who will restore girls-only and boys-only sports and spaces. Pretty cool, eh?"
Local broadcaster WJLA said, "For the past four years, LCPS has allowed students to use bathrooms and locker rooms at school based on their chosen gender identity and not biological sex. Several students have protested the policy in the past, but the school board hasn't budged. Since the teens said the school board hasn't listened to their concerns, these students want a new school board and they're asking voters to help."
One teen told the outlet, "I've been sick of it for quite a while. I just can't put up with it anymore. It's not normal. It's not something we should be supporting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden and expert on everything related to crack cocaine, is flushed with outrage after President Donald Trump shared an artificial intelligence video of himself dropping poop on protesters.
The commander in chief late Saturday posted an epic video of himself piloting an American fighter jet called "King Trump," dumping what appears to be loads of feces on "No Kings" protesters voicing their objections over the weekend against the president.
Among the protesters is left-wing influencer Harry Sisson, who is seen getting completely doused in dung.
Hunter Biden said during a podcast with some graphic language: "So when I see the president of the United States create an A.I. video wearing a crown and dumping excrement on the heads of American peaceful protesters and, you know, TikTok stars like Harry… I see him basically, you know, painting a bull's-eye, painting a bull's-eye on somebody like that."
Biden added the video just cements the notion that Trump is acting like a king, rather than a president.
"It's not only the potential for violence, it's this. Isn't he just completely conditioning us? How many times has he sent out videos of him wearing a crown? And by the way, it's not a joke, it's not just a troll," he said.
"He's done it! He just commuted George Santos' sentence. By the way, nobody likes George Santos! Republicans don't like George Santos. Nobody on Fox News likes George Santos. Everybody was happy that George Santos was going away. Why did he do it? Do you know why he did it? To show that he can do anything, anything he wants. Because he can."
"Pathetic," said New York Times best-selling author Brigitte Gabriel. "Where was his outrage about the assassination of Charlie Kirk?"
Journalist Collin Rugg noted: "The left is so scared that the right is going to be 'violent' with them, but it turns out all the violence comes from their side. Charlie was assassinated. Trump had at least two attempts on his life. It is only coming from one side."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's every parent's nightmare: Racing their child to the emergency room, only to learn that the cough syrup they gave their son or daughter, rather than relieving their cough, instead had poisoned their child. It's the kind of horror story no one expects, especially from something made for children. Yet it accurately reflects a grim reality of today's global pharmaceutical trade.
In this case, a drug manufacturer in India decided to swap safe ingredients for cheaper, toxic chemicals, the same substances used in engine coolant, brake fluid and antifreeze. As horrifying as that story sounds, there's an even more unsettling truth: The same country responsible for those deadly syrups also produces a huge share of the medicines sitting in American homes and hospitals.
India now dominates the global generic drug market, supplying the majority of the low-cost prescriptions Americans take every day.
Behind that dominance lies a disturbing pattern of fraud, contamination and neglect. Factories caught falsifying test results, skipping safety checks or cutting corners with unsafe inputs have continued shipping products abroad with little interruption – and even less accountability.
For American families, that means the same system that poisoned children overseas is the one filling pharmacy shelves across the United States, a system propped up by loopholes, blind trust and an unhealthy dependence on foreign supply chains that prize volume and profit over human life.
How India became the pharmacy of the world
"Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recognized India's strategic importance to the U.S. – and to the agency in fulfilling our mission – and opened one of the FDA's first foreign offices in India. Since that time, the Indian medical products sector has continued to grow as has our reliance on medical products made in India.. India sometimes describes itself as the 'pharmacy to the world.'" – Robert M. Califf, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs during the Biden administration
For years, India has branded itself as the "pharmacy of the world," a title repeated by politicians, trade lobbyists and global institutions. The narrative paints India as a benevolent supplier of affordable medicine to developing nations and a trusted producer of lifesaving generics for the West. But behind that reputation lies a far darker reality, one built not on innovation or quality, but on cost-cutting, corruption and corner-cutting.
India's rise in pharmaceuticals was not driven by breakthroughs in science or superior manufacturing. It began when India rewrote its patent laws in the 1970s, allowing domestic firms to reverse-engineer Western drugs without licensing fees. That loophole fueled an explosion of generic production: cheap, fast and profitable. When international patent protections were later restored in the U.S. 2005, Indian manufacturers pivoted again, flooding foreign markets with off-patent generics while undercutting competitors through low labor costs, weak oversight and questionable testing practices.
India exports of pharmaceutical products to United States
Today, India produces about 20% of the world's generic medicines and nearly half of all generics sold in the United States. But low prices come with high risk. A landmark study found Indian-made generics had a 54% higher risk of serious side effects compared to U.S.-produced equivalents.
All generic drugs are not equal
The results have been nothing short of deadly. Indian manufacturers have repeatedly been tied to contamination, falsified test data and toxic ingredients, from Ranbaxy's $500 million fraud case to the cough syrup poisonings. Investigations by the World Health Organization and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime have traced these tragedies to systematic negligence, criminal substitution of ingredients and the failure of regulators to act.
Despite this record, India continues to market itself as the "pharmacy of the world." And that global branding becomes far more consequential when set against America's growing dependence on overseas supply.
America's medicine cabinet is not made in America
Over the past two decades, America's medicine chest has quietly been moved offshore. The United States is now dangerously dependent on foreign manufacturers for the vast majority of its pharmaceuticals, relying heavily on supply chains controlled by other nations. Since 2000, pharmaceutical imports have surged to unprecedented levels: By 2024, the U.S. brought in more than 828,000 metric tons of drugs and ingredients, over seven times the volume imported at the start of the century.
This surge is not about higher medical needs. It is the product of a failed trade and regulatory model that has sacrificed American manufacturing for short-term profits and cheaper foreign supply with higher risk. The result is a $118 billion pharmaceutical trade deficit in 2024 and the steady erosion of national control over one of America's most vital industries.
The United States, once the global leader in medical innovation and quality, now relies on foreign powers to make its citizens' medicines.
Two countries, China and India, dominate the American drug supply. Together they account for 70 to 80 percent of the generics and key ingredients in U.S. medicine cabinets. India alone produces nearly half of all finished generics sold in this country, while China supplies many of the raw compounds used to make them. This dependency doesn't just threaten America's health; it hands foreign governments and corporations enormous leverage over U.S. national security.
The cost of cutting corners: Fraud, deaths and denial
The scale of dependence would be less alarming if quality were assured. In February, when researchers revealed that Indian-made generic drugs carried a significantly higher risk of serious side effects – including hospitalization, disability and death – than their U.S.-manufactured equivalents, the industry's first reaction was denial.
India's pharmaceutical lobby immediately challenged the findings. Industry representatives accused the researchers of "bias," arguing the analysis unfairly targeted India's global role while insisting its products met "international quality standards." Yet, while the industry defended its image, the actual evidence at home and abroad told a much darker story.
Fact: Over recent years, Indian-made cough syrups have been linked to hundreds of children's deaths across multiple continents. The World Health Organization has documented more than 300 child fatalities caused by syrups laced with diethylene glycol (DEG) and ethylene glycol (EG), industrial toxins used in antifreeze.
Between 2022 and 2023, fatal outbreaks were reported in The Gambia, Uzbekistan and Indonesia. In 2025, new deaths in the large Indian state Madhya Pradesh were traced to syrups containing nearly 500 times the allowable diethylene glycol limit.
Each time, regulators and manufacturers called the tragedies "isolated incidents." But repetition reveals a pattern: Rather than acknowledge systemic failure, authorities compartmentalized the crisis, treating each cluster of deaths as unrelated. The strategy kept headlines small, tempered international outrage and allowed exports to continue uninterrupted.
The pattern looks less like bureaucratic incompetence and more like strategic containment, a deliberate effort to protect India's global image as the "pharmacy of the world."
As India's Biden-era Health Minister Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya declared, "The Indian pharma industry should strive to maintain the reputation of India as the 'Pharmacy of the World' … Indian pharma industry never compromises with the quality of the medicines."
Yet data from India's own regulators contradict that claim. Over 36% of Indian drug-manufacturing plants inspected since mid-2023 were ordered to shut due to non-compliance.Despite this, the government continues to celebrate export growth while quietly ignoring the negligence and corruption within the pharmaceutical sector documented by international agencies. The same companies implicated in earlier poisonings remain operational, exporting to dozens of countries under the banner of "affordable medicine."
This reveals the true nature of India's pharmaceutical problem: not a lack of awareness, but a lack of accountability. When lives are lost, the response is rarely reform – rather, it's public relations. At best, the government's actions remain reactive: bans, recalls and arrests occur only after fatalities make global news. As Udaya Bhaskar of the All India Drugs Control Officers bluntly admitted,
"It's not the government's job to test every batch. That responsibility lies with the manufacturer."
In 2024, India's top regulator declared the crisis "under control." Yet within months, that assurance unraveled as new child deaths emerged and the owner of Sresan Pharmaceuticals was arrested and the World Health Organization issued a fresh global alert warning that contaminated syrups from multiple Indian companies posed a "serious risk to public health."
Yet India's response cycle of deny, deflect and delay continued.
The FDA's complicity and India's embedded influence
A June 2025 ProPublica investigation, "Threat in Your Medicine Cabinet: The FDA's Gamble on America's Drugs," shows how the Food and Drug Administration repeatedly allowed overseas factories, largely in India, to ship products even after serious manufacturing and quality failures.
More than 20 plants under U.S. import bans for contamination, falsified records and filthy labs received exemptions that let at least 150 drugs or ingredients to keep flowing into the American market: One from China, one from Hungary – and 148 from India.
Inspectors found metal shavings on production lines, raw materials contaminated with "extraneous matter" and "blackish" vials of injectable medication that still reached U.S. pharmacies. Yet the FDA, pressured by industry lobbyists and afraid of drug shortages, looked the other way. Instead of sounding the alarm, it kept the public and even Congress in the dark.
Adverse-event reports linked to these drugs included hospitalizations and deaths, but the agency rarely investigated.
What makes the crisis even more dangerous is the degree to which Indian pharmaceutical multinationals have embedded themselves inside America. They operate embedded U.S. subsidiaries with sales headquarters, policy offices and manufacturing plants that give them a foothold in America's regulatory ecosystem. Among the most prominent are Dr. Reddy's, Sun Pharma (including legacy Ranbaxy and Ohm), Lupin, Zydus, Aurobindo (through Aurolife and Aurobindo USA), Intas (via Accord Healthcare), Cipla and Glenmark. Most anchor their operations in New Jersey, Maryland and North Carolina.
These firms exert influence through direct federal lobbying and powerful trade groups such as the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC) and the U.S. India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF).
Shockingly, 13 of 23 board seats – more than half of the Association for Accessible Medicines leadership – are held by executives of companies owned or controlled by Indian parent corporations. These same Indian firms supply roughly 40-50% of the U.S. generic drug market, meaning they have direct influence over both production and policy advocacy in Washington through the AAM.
The overlap illustrates a significant conflict of interest: Companies repeatedly cited for safety violations, contamination and FDA noncompliance abroad are also shaping the U.S. generic drug policy agenda domestically.
This network grants them oversized market power, since American regulators and hospitals rely on their products, yet they also help shape the very rules meant to govern them. As a result, when quality or life-and-death safety concerns threaten profits, enforcement is easily softened and accountability delayed.
The ProPublica investigation exposes a dangerous cycle: The FDA, pressured to avoid shortages and influenced by industry ties, grants waivers to repeat violators; corporations, backed by Washington lobbyists, continue shipping questionable products – and American patients bear all the risk. The oversight process, once designed to protect public health, has become entangled in the same global networks that profit from America's dependency. Each "exemption" and import waiver further entrenches a system wherein profit outweighs safety, dependency overrides accountability and foreign influence seeps into the very heart of U.S. health policy.
U.S. dangerously reliant on high-risk imported drug supply
The human cost of outsourcing health
Consider these real-life nightmares: A young mother loses her life after receiving a contaminated IV infusion manufactured in India. Patients lose their eyesight after using Indian-made eyedrops. A five-year-old child dies of kidney failure after taking cough syrup laced with industrial toxins. Heart patients discover their medication has been recalled because of impurities introduced through contamination during production. Parents opening their children's antibiotic find worms floating inside.
In these and other documented horror stories tied to Indian pharmaceutical exports over the past several years, each case underscores the same truth: When safety takes a back seat to profit, people die. The promise of affordable medicine becomes meaningless when the cost is measured in human lives.
Rebuilding domestic pharmaceutical production isn't just sound and necessary economic policy; it's national security. Closing the $118.3 billion pharmaceutical trade deficit would not only create jobs, it would restore accountability to an industry that should never have been outsourced in the first place.
Indian drugmakers can retain U.S. dominance even with tariffs, says industry body
If America is serious about protecting its citizens' health, it must reclaim control of its own medicine supply. In the era of MAHA – "Make America Healthy Again" – perhaps the first step is ending dependence on foreign manufacturers whose repeated failures are making many people sicker – not better.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cincinnati Police Chief Terri Theetge, who was sued for anti-white bias and blamed social media in the wake of a black mob's horrific beating of whites in the city in July, has now been placed on administrative leave "pending an internal investigation on the effectiveness of her leadership."
City Manager Sheryl Long told WLWT-TV: "The City continues to face serious public safety challenges that underscore the need for stability at the command level. Therefore, I've named Assistant Chief Adam Hennie as Interim Police Chief."
"Our focus remains on maintaining stability within the department and ensuring the highest standards of service to our residents. I have full confidence in Interim Chief Hennie and the department's command staff to continue their dedicated work at this time."
"DEI Police Chiefs have to go!" exclaimed journalist Nick Sortor.
Theetge's attorney held a news conference Tuesday, saying the ousted chief has done nothing wrong to warrant her removal.
"She is being used as a political scapegoat and a political pawn," said attorney Stephen Imm.
Theetge became a lightning rod of controversy after she blamed social media for publicizing the pummeling of the white victims.
"Social media, the posts that we've seen, does not depict the entire incident. That is one version of what occurred. At times, social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentations of the circumstances surrounding any given event," Theetge said at the time.
"What that does, that causes us some difficulty in thoroughly investigating the activity and enforcing the law. Because what happens, that social media post and your coverage of it distorts the content of what actually happened and it makes our job more difficult."
"I think by the irresponsibility with social media is it just shows one side of the equation quite frequently without context, without factual context, and then people run with that and then it grows legs and it becomes something bigger that we then have to try to manage as part of the investigation," she continued.
"Social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding any given event."
As previously reported, four previous members of the Cincinnati Police Department sued Theetge for workplace discrimination against white males on the force.
The lawsuit, brought by Captain Robert Wilson and Lieutenants Patrick Caton, Gerald Hodges, and Andrew Mitchell on May 19, alleges that the city and Theetge partook in "intentional and discriminatory practices" based on sex and gender, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. The officers asserted that they "suffered harm," "damage to [their] professional reputations," and "emotional distress" as a result of the department's alleged favorable treatment toward women and racial minorities.
"The city and Chief Theetge have actively and systemically undertaken efforts to promote, advance, and make promotion and assignment decisions that are preferable to women and minorities, and to the exclusion of White men," the lawsuit reads.
Republicans fought former President Joe Biden tooth and nail when he tried to institute student loan forgiveness plans during his administration, but now President Donald Trump has agreed to remove the pause on established programs that have been in place for years or decades.
Income-driven repayment plans cap the monthly loan amount at a percentage of the borrower's income, and usually forgive the loans after 20 or 25 years of consistent payments.
Trump had paused forgiveness under those plans earlier in the year to review them, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon had argued that the court order blocking Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education plan (SAVE) would allow them to stop offering loan forgiveness under the plans.
Despite this argument, Trump decided to restart them as part of an agreement with the American Federation of Teachers, which celebrated the move.
“This is a tremendous win for borrowers. With today’s filing, borrowers can rest a little easier,” legal counsel Winston Berkman-Breen said.
“The US Department of Education has agreed to follow the law and deliver congressionally mandated affordable payments and debt relief to hard-working public service workers across the country, and will do so under court supervision. We fully intend to hold them to their word.”
Under the agreement, borrowers who receive forgiveness will not owe taxes on the amount forgiven.
“The Biden Administration’s illegal attempts at mass student loan forgiveness impacted all of the Department’s income-driven repayment programs, including Income-Based Repayment. The courts intervened to stop their illegal efforts but that also impacted Department systems and prevented us from processing lawful loan discharges,” a spokesperson for the Department of Education told The Post in a statement.
“Thanks to the Trump Administration’s efforts to separate out the illegal loan cancellation schemes, we are able to process legitimate loan cancellations once again.”
The move is temporary, because Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill will be phasing out the programs by 2028 anyway.
But by agreeing to reverse the pause, Trump will settle the lawsuit by the AFT in March.
It makes sense because the borrowers were told they could access the program when they took the loans, so it doesn't seem fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Those paying under income-based repayment plans can end up owing far more than they originally borrowed because of interest over many years, so the forgiveness makes sense at some point.
Hold onto your hats, folks—federal prosecutors are gunning for a shake-up in the legal team defending former FBI Director James Comey, alleging a conflict of interest that could upend his upcoming criminal trial.
In a nutshell, prosecutors are pushing to potentially disqualify Comey’s lead attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, over claims of his involvement in leaking classified memos back in 2017, while Comey faces serious charges tied to his past testimony on the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, the Washington Examiner reported.
This saga kicked off years ago when Comey’s handling of sensitive memos raised eyebrows, eventually leading to a scathing report from the Department of Justice inspector general.
Fast forward to September 2025, when a grand jury indicted Comey on two counts—making false statements and obstruction of justice—stemming from his 2020 remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the FBI’s investigation into President Donald Trump and Russian collusion allegations.
The plot thickened on Sunday night as prosecutors filed a motion flagging Fitzgerald’s alleged role in leaking those memos to the press in 2017, suggesting it could taint his ability to defend Comey without bias.
They’re not pulling punches, arguing that this connection might be grounds for disqualification, a move that could throw a wrench into Comey’s defense strategy just months before trial.
Led by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, alongside assistants N. Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz, the prosecution has asked U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff for a speedy ruling on a filter protocol to sift through evidence.
This protocol aims to quickly separate protected material, ensuring both sides get access to relevant information—whether it helps or hurts Comey’s case—without delay.
Prosecutors stressed, “The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court,” hinting at the urgency to resolve any conflict before the legal battle heats up (court documents).
Adding fuel to the fire, the Justice Department’s inspector general report from years back didn’t mince words about Comey’s actions, finding that his handling of certain memos broke both DOJ and FBI rules, as well as his own employment terms.
As Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the time, put it: “Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement” (DOJ OIG report). Well, that’s a bureaucratic slap if there ever was one, and now it’s haunting Comey’s choice of counsel.
Prosecutors also pointed out that some communications under review date back to the same period covered in that damning report, raising further questions about Fitzgerald’s suitability to lead the defense.
Meanwhile, Comey’s legal team isn’t sitting idly by—they’re set to file their initial motions on Monday, reportedly aiming to dismiss the charges altogether before the trial even starts.
With the trial slated for January 5, 2026, at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, this clash over counsel could be just the opening skirmish in a broader war over accountability, transparency, and the messy intersection of politics and justice.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed back Sunday on ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl's comments about "No Kings" protests and the new Pentagon press rules, saying that "this is the modern Democrat party" at work spreading lies and hate.
Karl attempted to take Johnson to task for calling the "No Kings" protests "hate America rallies," saying, "Just on this notion that these are 'hate America' rallies — and you not only talked about anarchists, Antifa advocates, pro-Hamas wing — you said this is the modern Democratic Party. But I remember not that long ago what you said after the murder of Charlie Kirk when you said that we should view fellow Americans, not as our enemies, but as our fellow countrymen."
Johnson said he was trying to warn the public about the "modern Democrat party," which definitely has its "hate America" contingents.
"Look at what's happening in New York," Johnson said, referring to the mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani. "They're about to elect an open socialist Marxist as the mayor of America's largest city."
The exchange followed questions about the Pentagon's new press policy, starting out with Karl characterizing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth as being "afraid to interact with journalists who cover him."
"Fear is not part of the secretary of War’s make-up, OK?" Johnson shot back.
Karl criticized Hegseth's requirement that journalists agree to certain conditions to get access, as well as the fact that he has had only two press briefings during his tenure.
Dozens of journalists turned in their badges last week rather than comply with the new requirements.
"I can’t remember, and I don’t think you can either, a secretary of Defense who has been so transparent, out in the open, talking about priorities, principles and things," Johnson said in response.
Karl then swerved to the current government shutdown, demanding to know why Congress isn't in session trying to resolve it.
"The House did its job, exactly a month ago today on September 19. We passed the clean resolution," Johnson anwswered. "The Democrats have voted 11 times, except for three Democrats in the Senate, they voted 11 times to shut down the government and cease and halt those programs," Johnson said.
At one point he circled back to the "No Kings" protests, saying, "If President Trump was a king, the government would be open right now."
While in some ways, the press seems to be getting a little fairer in regards to how they're covering Republicans including Trump, the "No Kings" protests seem to have emboldened them to show their true feelings once again.
As my mom used to say, "This too shall pass." Trump is not a king, and everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not.