President Donald Trump has kept his campaign promise and once again donated his presidential salary to the White House Historical Association, Breitbart reported. The president famously gave away his $400,000 annual earnings during his first term as well, breaking with the majority of his predecessors who kept their pay.
Trump shared the news on his Truth Social on Wednesday. "I am proud to be the only President (with the possible exception of the Late, Great George Washington) to donate my Salary. My first 'Paycheck' went to the White House Historical Association, as we make much needed renovations to the beautiful 'People’s House,'" Trump wrote.
"Great improvements and beautification is taking place at the White House, at levels not seen since its original creation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" the president concluded.
As with his first term, Trump pledged to give away his presidential salary after his reelection. This immense act of charity is another way to make not only America, but also the nation's capital, great again, without taking more from the taxpayers.
There are many projects underway in Washington, D.C., thanks to Trump, including adding a flagpole on the North Lawn near the new Rose Garden patio and another on the South Lawn. Each flagpole is nearly 100 feet high and will proudly fly the Stars and Stripes, thanks to the personal generosity of the president.
Trump has also announced plans for a grand ballroom to be added to the White House, a project which he and other private donors will fund. The new addition is planned for the East Wing off the East Room and will be used as the Reception Room upon completion.
In a surprise move on Tuesday, Trump fielded questions from reporters about the plan as he made an appearance on the White House roof, according to the Associated Press. "Anything I do is financed by me, so you don't have to worry. It's contributed just like my salary is contributed," Trump said, making it clear that taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill.
LOL! Trump is on the White House roof inspecting his improvement projects while taking questions from the press…
"Anything I do is financed by me, so you don't have to worry. It's contributed just like my salary is contributed."
pic.twitter.com/Gtlx40f2oJ— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) August 5, 2025
Meanwhile, the president has also worked on sprucing up the Oval Office by adding his signature gold trim throughout and gilded decor pieces to the mantelpiece. Trump hung portraits that were previously long in storage, including those of past presidents, adding gravitas and more ornamentation to the historic space.
This means a great deal to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who frequented the White House as a child. "I’ve been coming to this building for 65 years, and I have to say that it has never looked better," said Kennedy, who is the nephew of President John F. Kennedy and son of Robert F. Kennedy, who served as attorney general at the time.
"I’ve spent some time in the Oval Office, which really has – it’s been transformed," Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said. "I was looking at a picture of the Oval Office the other day when I was there, when I was a kid with my uncle," he added..
"And you know… it’s always extraordinary to go into that, that sacred space, but I have to say that it looked kind of drab in the pictures, and they’re black and white pictures, but it looked drab, and it looks the opposite of drab today," he added. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also said that inhabiting beautiful spaces "elevates the human spirit. And this building, of all buildings, should look beautiful. And under your stewardship, it looks extraordinary today."
A recent ruling by a federal judge has declared a California law regulating AI-generated election parody videos unconstitutional, violating free speech protections.
In a pivotal decision, the court supported the arguments of Elon Musk and other plaintiffs, emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of expression in digital platforms.
The controversy began when California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation last year aimed at controlling the distribution of AI-generated content that could potentially influence election outcomes. The law specifically targeted online platforms, restricting them from hosting AI-generated videos that parody or manipulate political figures and issues during the critical election period.
Among the most vocal opponents of the law were Elon Musk's social media platform X, satirical news site The Babylon Bee, and video platform Rumble. They argued that the legislation infringed upon the constitutional rights to free expression in the digital realm, akin to traditional forms of political satire and critique.
The case garnered attention after Musk shared a parody video featuring Vice President Kamala Harris, demonstrating the type of content he believed warranted protection under the First Amendment. This act of defiance highlighted the broader implications of the law on free speech and innovation in digital media.
Appearing before Judge John Mendez, the plaintiffs contended that the law was not only repressive but also vague and overly broad. They argued it could inadvertently censor lawful speech by categorizing it as harmful or misleading without just cause.
Judge Mendez agreed with the plaintiffs' arguments, noting that existing federal regulations already provide online platforms with immunity from liability for third-party content, muddying the necessity and efficacy of California's law.
Delivering his verdict, Mendez criticized the law's broad and subjective parameters, which he believed could encompass legitimate political commentary under the guise of preventing election misinformation. He underscored the importance of protecting such expressions, equating modern digital content to the political pamphlets and cartoons of earlier centuries.
Mendez further hinted at potential overreach in another related California statute requiring labels on digitally altered campaign materials. He expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such measures, highlighting the complexities involved in regulating digital content without infringing on fundamental rights.
In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom's office, Tara Gallegos, emphasized the continuing importance of clear labeling for "deepfakes" to preserve the integrity of elections. Despite acknowledging the judge's decision, the administration's focus remains on mitigating the risks posed by digitally manipulated media, without crossing constitutional boundaries.
Judge Mendez's remarks encapsulated the challenges of legislating in the digital age while respecting traditional First Amendment protections. He emphasized that while the fears of a digitally manipulated media landscape are justified, they do not allow lawmakers to override constitutional rights.
As the state reviews the ruling, stakeholders and legal analysts alike will keenly observe any further developments or appeals. The balance between combating misinformation and protecting free speech, especially in the rapidly evolving digital environment, continues to be a contentious and critical issue.
The outcome of this legal battle underscores a pivotal moment for digital content creators and distributors who rely heavily on the protections afforded by free speech rights.
This case may set a significant precedent for how similar laws are evaluated and enforced across the United States, serving as a benchmark for future disputes over digital content and its regulation.
As digital technologies evolve, the decisions made today will undoubtedly influence the landscape of political expression and media ethics for years to come, testing the boundaries of law, technology, and civil liberties.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For the first time, Americans can see exactly how a major U.S. employer outsources American jobs, not in vague terms, but through formal documentation. A binding contract between Prudential Financial Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions lays out a step-by-step playbook for eliminating American jobs and shifting the work to foreign workers overseas.
This isn't theory, it's in writing. The document provides rare black-and-white evidence of how U.S.-based work is "transitioned" out of the country. While Americans have heard stories about being forced to train their replacements, this agreement reveals the actual process behind those headlines: how Prudential worked with Cognizant to plan, schedule and execute a full transfer of work to offshore teams, with American employees pushed out in the process.
The devil is in the details: The betrayal in black and white
Section 1.1(b) of the agreement openly states that the work previously handled by Prudential employees would be "eliminated" and reassigned to Cognizant. These weren't new jobs. They were the same roles Americans had been doing – application support, software maintenance, reporting – all now classified as functions to be transitioned out.
The language is careful but clear. Cognizant wouldn't just be stepping in to help; it was there to take over. The contract also gave Cognizant the right to perform any "incidental" tasks needed to complete the work, even if not spelled out directly. In other words, it had wide authority to expand its control over operations once embedded.
The built-in replacement plan
The contract's Transition Services section describes the process by which Cognizant would assume responsibility for Prudential's internal IT operations. A detailed transition plan was required, complete with milestone dates and task lists, all designed to avoid disruptions to business continuity. But what the contract avoids saying outright is what's plainly obvious: This plan definitively phases out American workers in favor of a lower-cost, offshore workforce.
This wasn't a case of hiring extra help. It was a direct replacement strategy. Cognizant was required to observe how Prudential's in-house team handled the work, copy it, and then eventually take it over – permanently. The agreement mandated a phased approach so the transfer wouldn't appear sudden. But behind the corporate phrasing was the harsh reality: The American team had to teach the offshore team how to do their jobs before being let go.
American workers forced to hand over their jobs
The agreement also makes it clear that Prudential would manage the entire transition internally. The company appointed project leads and gave Cognizant open access to internal systems, documents and staff. These staff were expected to help onboard the new offshore teams. But the contract offered them no job protection, no bonus, no role in the future structure. Their job was to help with the transition … and then leave.
Foreign labor in, American labor out
From the very first deliverables listed, it's clear what this contract was meant to do. The top priority: "Set up an offshore development center," or ODC. That's a dedicated office or facility in another country, in India in this case, where a foreign team will take over work that was once done in the U.S. This ODC becomes the new home base for handling core operations.
Right after that came the requirement to build and carry out a "knowledge transition plan," which is the process of transferring everything the American workers knew to the new offshore team. These steps weren't optional, they were the foundation of the entire deal. The rest – maintenance, bug fixes, reporting and support – were tasks already being done by U.S. employees. Now, those responsibilities were being prepared for transfer abroad.
Engineered dependence on foreign labor
The contract also included a unique clause about "non-billable" consulting hours. For every dollar Prudential spent, it received free consulting hours from Cognizant. But here's the catch: Those hours were heavily weighted toward India-based services. Once Prudential spent over $1 million in a month, it earned up to 800 hours of free offshore consulting, far more than what it would get from U.S.-based support. That structure created a clear incentive: The more Prudential outsourced to India, the more "free" services it received. The longer it stayed with Cognizant's offshore model, the deeper its dependence became.
They even set up what's called a Center of Excellence, or CoE, a permanent team focused on building deep expertise around Prudential's systems. This team, made up mostly of Indian business analysts and engineers, was responsible for mastering the technology, guiding decisions and supporting long-term operations. Although the contract labeled this effort "non-billable," meaning Prudential didn't pay extra for it, the long-term effect was significant. It wasn't just about supporting the transition, it was about anchoring control overseas.
The transition team: Locked out for good
As part of the transition, Cognizant assigned two full-time managers: an account manager and a transition manager. These weren't back-office roles, they were embedded into Prudential's leadership chain, given the responsibility to oversee the transition and manage future staffing. They represented Cognizant's permanent leadership presence inside Prudential's operations.While Cognizant controls the operation, Prudential still directs staffing decisions, and there is a clause prohibiting Cognizant from rehiring former Prudential employees unless Prudential explicitly allows it. That means even if laid-off American workers wanted to come back through the vendor, they couldn't. Their exit is final and contractually reinforced.
That clause closed the door on U.S. workers returning under the new model, even if they were qualified. They had trained their replacements and that was the end of the road – for them.
The technology transfer and foreign control
Another section lays out the software licensing structure: Prudential granted Cognizant, including its India-based affiliates, full legal rights to use its proprietary software systems to perform services. That meant Indian offshore teams were authorized to access and operate systems containing personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive financial data tied to Prudential's American clients. Cognizant assumed liability for its offshore teams' use of the software, but the control and the data were now fully remote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a San Francisco courtroom, the Clorox Company recently dropped a legal bombshell – a $380 million lawsuit against Indian-American information technology company Cognizant, alleging gross negligence in a 2023 cyberattack.
In the complaint dated July 22, 2025, Clorox contends a hacker simply called Cognizant's helpdesk, lied about being an employee and was handed network credentials – no identity verification, no oversight, just a password transfer. The resulting cyberattack ended up paralyzing Clorox's operations, costing upwards of $49 million in remediation and much more in lost business.
Offshoring ecosystem under the microscope
Cognizant, though officially headquartered in New Jersey, was founded in Chennai, India in 1994, and now employs over 250,000 people across India, providing everything from software development to helpdesk services for global corporations. Industry analysts have warned that shifting U.S. companies' sensitive customer data offshore exposes Americans to significant privacy risks. India lacks comprehensive data privacy laws or an enforcement body like the Federal Trade Commission.
While offshoring offers cheap labor and scalability, it also creates layers of separation between U.S.-based clients and the employees handling their data. Those layers can conceal critical weaknesses.
Clorox case: A failed firewall
In Clorox's telling, the hacker didn't crack advanced encryption or "spear-phish" executives. He just called Cognizant on the phone and lied about who and what he was. That was enough. Cognizant agents reset the account, handed over passwords and reopened Clorox's VPN access without a single identity check. Agents reportedly said phrases like: "Here's the password … Welcome …"
Cognizant disputes the claim, saying its contract with Clorox, dating back to 2013, covered only helpdesk tasks, not broader cybersecurity responsibilities. Cognizant characterized Clorox's own defenses as "inept," calling the attack partly Clorox's fault.
Is Clorox an isolated scandal or a warning sign?
India is a developing nation – its legal structures, enforcement mechanisms and low-level infrastructure are still evolving. While not a "third-world country" in the academic sense, the country certainly lacks the same data-privacy enforcement ecosystem as the U.S.
Critics point to the absence of comprehensive federal data-privacy laws and raise concerns about bribery, corruption and crime embedded at both business and government levels.
That helps explain why U.S. companies outsourcing to India may unknowingly be entrusting critical personal identification information (PII) to far-away work environments with less accountability and weaker deterrents to crime.
What happens next?
Clorox's lawsuit is likely to go to trial. If Clorox prevails, other clients served by Cognizant or similar foreign vendors may begin re-examining their risk exposure. Investors and corporate boards may start pushing for deeper scrutiny of offshored operations. Client companies may begin demanding much stricter contractual audits and identity verification procedures – or else bring those services back onshore in America.
More than a tale of cost-savings gone wrong, the Clorox-Cognizant lawsuit serves as a cautionary tale, dramatizing how a model built on offshoring for the sake of lowering labor costs can sometimes yield disastrous results.
Put simply, for agents to literally hand over passwords without questions is not just a breach, but a major wake-up call.
Clorox's case could foreshadow more lawsuits, more revelations and a broader re-evaluation of whether Americans' personal identification information should be in the hands of unmonitored call centers thousands of miles away.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's plan to reallocate $4 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, CBS News reported. The funds would come from FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which the agency had eliminated in April.
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns of Boston issued his ruling on Tuesday that halted the plan. The case was brought in July by Massachusetts and 19 other Democrat-led states, which sued over FEMA's ability to dispense with funds meant for fortifying infrastructure against natural disasters.
Before its elimination, BRIC set aside funding for flood control, including stormwater management infrastructure, or elevating or relocating buildings in areas that experience repeated floods. The judge contended that using funds from the canceled program on anything but disaster relief would cause "irreparable harm" to areas prone to flooding.
"The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives," Stearns wrote of the since-eliminated program. Stearns is also "not convinced" that the money Congress had set aside for BRIC should be reallocated to other projects based on how it was awarded.
According to Newsweek, FEMA said in a news release published April 4, 2025, that BRIC was being eliminated as "yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program." It said that the program was "more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters."
The agency has since walked back that position, including removing that news release from the website. FEMA's acting administrator, David Richardson, said that the "BRIC program provides technical and financial assistance to States and local governments for cost-effective pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property," in a reversal of April's news release.
"The Secretary of Homeland Security [Kristi Noem] has not made a final decision to end the BRIC program," Richardson said, adding that "no grants have yet been canceled." Still, the states that brought the lawsuit against the Trump administration over the funds say Trump is playing politics.
"The president keeps breaking the law, and we keep holding him accountable in court. Shuttering this program would do nothing to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse or improve government efficiency," California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the lawsuit's lead plaintiffs, said in July.
"This is a program with bipartisan support that is focused on protecting lives and livelihoods from flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, and other natural disasters," he added. However, like many government programs, suspected partisanship in FEMA seems to cut against Republicans, including one high-profile case in Florida.
As the Daily Wire reported at the time, employees of FEMA were fired after it was revealed that officials in the agency told disaster relief workers to skip houses with Trump signs in Florida. The news outlet shared a screenshot of an internal message in a bombshell exclusive on November 8.
EXCLUSIVE: Internal messages obtained by The Daily Wire show a FEMA official ordered relief workers in Florida not to help houses with Trump signs pic.twitter.com/o73ejUuYUG
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) November 8, 2024
At least 20 homes with Trump signs in the Lake Placid, Florida, area were not offered aid following Hurricane Milton, as per the directive. In a letter to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in March, FEMA's then-acting director Cameron Hamilton explained that three employees in supervisory roles were fired over the issue.
"As you know, FEMA terminated that crew lead’s employment with the agency on November 9. Since then, in cooperation with the Office of Inspector General and the Office of the Special Counsel, FEMA’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) — which reports directly to me — conducted an exhaustive investigation of this incident to determine the full extent of any further inappropriate behavior or misconduct," Hamilton noted.
The White House has been blindsided by judicial decisions that are reversing agenda items. Whether the BRIC program was politicized or not, it seems that each agency should be able to make decisions about where its funds end up, regardless of who is in the White House.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials with the Penske truck-rental company are now complaining that U.S. border-enforcement officers are using their trucks to round up illegal aliens in Los Angeles.
They said the cargo areas of the trucks are not for passengers.
But Homeland Security officials responded with a zinger, pointing out that the company was totally silent when law enforcement officers found 58 migrants "crammed" into another Penske truck.
That was a case of alleged human smuggling.
Homeland Security said, on social media, "Care to remind the American people what Penske said when this happened? Silence speaks volumes. … The brave agents of @ICEgov and #CBP will continue carrying out their mission to protect Americans."
The human smuggling case was from two years ago, in Texas, when Marquez Oviel, an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested and charged with human smuggling counts.
Social media commenters took advantage of the company's statement, with, "Have you considered crying about it?" and "Okay well now I will never rent a Penske truck for the rest of my life."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One would think that an institution called "Aloha High School" might be allowed to honor the first king of Hawaii, Kamehameha, with its logo – but it will no longer be tolerated.
The Beaverton, Oregon, high school received a bit of pushback last year over its longtime logo, which represents the team name, the "warriors."
Here is the former logo, considered "inappropriate" by some, featuring King Kamehameha:
While the school will keep the moniker "warriors," the new symbol representing the name will be a wolf, officially introduced with the new school year.
As KOIN-TV reports, Oregon has prohibited public schools from using Native American mascots and team names, unless they reached an agreement with federally recognized tribes across the state, since July 2017.
While the school's mascot depicts the first king of Hawaii instead of a Native American figure, and "warriors" is permitted as a team name as long as it isn't combined by imagery associated with American Indian Tribes, Aloha High School revealed in spring 2024 that several people had raised an issue with its branding.
Subsequently, a committee was formed to consider replacing the iconic Kamehameha.
Apparently, part of the problem with the king is his "specific gender."
"In the Beaverton School District and at Aloha High School, we believe that all students belong," the district said on its website. "We're committed to ensuring that all aspects of our school culture reflect this inclusivity, including our mascot. As a district, we're moving away from school mascots that depict human figures or specific genders, as these types of mascots do not connect to or represent all students."
The student body eventually voted to approve a new logo depicting a howling "warrior" wolf. It is unclear what gender the wolf identifies as.
While countless schools and professional sports teams have changed mascots to assuage community sensitivities in recent years, the Trump administration is restoring "inappropriate" names of military bases and other facilities that had been 86'd during the Biden years.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The tariffs on products from India now have hit 50%, as President Donald Trump has piled a new 25% cost on top of the previous 25%, and it's all because of that nation's allegiance to Moscow.
The Washington Examiner reports Trump's executive order raising the tariffs specifically stated, "I find that the Government of India is currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil."
Trump has worked to implement policies and practices for the United States around the world that reduce oil revenues for Russia, which has been using them to fund its invasion of Ukraine.
"Trump announced that he would impose a new 25% tariff on goods from India as well as an additional import tax for purchasing Russian oil," the report said.
He was critical of Indian officials for buying military equipment and energy supplies from Russia when "everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE."
Officials in India have given no indication they'll change their procedures.
These tariffs are part of Trump's campaign to de-escalate, even end, the war in Russia, launched by Russia's invasion and continued by Ukraine's decision to fight back.
Trump also has been using tariffs, or the threat of tariffs, to push nations around the world into agreeing to fair trade agreements with the U.S. Its consumers and businesses have been subsidizing the incomes of other nations for years with unbalanced trade requirements,
President Donald Trump is again calling for the federalization of Washington D.C., after a member of the Department of Government Accountability (DOGE) was badly beaten.
The staffer, Edward Coristine, also known as “Big Balls,” by those inside the D.C. beltway, was the victim of the attack, which has again reignited discussion about the possible takeover, as Fox News reported.
Trump’s push is backed by a number of Republicans, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has been calling for federalization for some time, saying the town should come under Congressional control.
Lee has even introduced the Bringing Oversight to Washington and Safety to Every Resident (BOWSER) Act, named after D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, in light of recent crime.
The bill, which was introduced with a companion bill by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has yet to make it out of Committee, despite some moderate support.
"The Constitution already federalizes D.C.," Lee said on X. "We just need Congress to do its job — and reassert its lawmaking power over our nation’s capital city. My bill, the BOWSER Act, would do that."
The president took to Truth Social on Aug 5 to talk about his frustration with the city that he now calls home, saying, “Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control.
“Local ‘youths’ and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released.”
According to Trump, the lawbreakers aren’t afraid of law enforcement “because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it’s going to happen now!”
Trump said that the D.C. laws needed to be changed to prosecute those carrying out the violent crimes as adults, regardless of whether they are legally minors, all the way down to the age of 14.
In his post, the president spoke about the recent victim who was “ beaten mercilessly by local thugs,” and he said that Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans.”
Trump also said he believes it’s important for the world to see a Washington, D.C. that is a reflection of the nation, which he believes could be accomplished via federal control.
“If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore.
He voiced his regret saying maybe if that step had already been taken, “this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky Tuesday praised President Trump's Federal Emergency Management Agency for how much better the agency is than under President Biden.
Beshear, a possible candidate for president in 2028, praised the speed and effectiveness of FEMA's response to natural disasters.
Fox News reports that the comments came in an interview with "At Our Table" podcast host Jaime Harrison. Beshear said he believed the American people agree that the federal government should be there at their darkest moments, "where through no fault of your own, a hurricane, a tornado, flooding has torn through your communities."
"The irony of all of it to me is, is Trump's FEMA on the ground has done a good job in Kentucky. They have bettered their customer service. We're not getting nearly as many complaints. They're getting a lot of money through individual assistance out to families, especially after flooding. It's actually a credit to his administration, and it seems to be the thing that they want to undo or unwind. Hopefully, him seeing it personally has an emotional impact because we need FEMA for that emergency response," Beshear said.
Discussing the current state of his Democratic Party, Beshear noted, "We've got to make sure that we don't get in our own way. And what I mean by that is we've got to be able to look at things that maybe we should have done better. And, as we go forward, make sure that we are not tripping ourselves up."