This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is calling for a "major investigation" into celebrity endorsements, calling them "illegal" campaign contributions, as his feud with rock star Bruce Springsteen continues.
In a message posted early Monday morning on Truth Social, Trump used all capital letters to state:
"HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT? WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS?
"ISN'T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO???
"I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren't allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment.
"In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT'S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic "entertainers," this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
In a follow-up message later in the day, Trump added: "According to news reports, Beyoncé was paid $11,000,000 to walk onto a stage, quickly ENDORSE KAMALA, and walk off to loud booing for never having performed, NOT EVEN ONE SONG!
"Remember, the Democrats and Kamala illegally paid her millions of Dollars for doing nothing other than giving Kamala a full throated ENDORSEMENT.
"THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ELECTION SCAM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL! IT IS AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION! BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, OPRAH, BONO AND, PERHAPS, MANY OTHERS, HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!"
The president's remarks come in the wake of Springsteen's hammering of Trump during concerts in Manchester, England, in which "the Boss" said on stage May 17:
"My home America, the America I've written about that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration."
"Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American spirit to rise with us, raise your voices and stand with us against authoritarianism and let freedom ring."
Before performing "My City of Ruins," Springsteen noted: "There's some very weird, strange, and dangerous (expletive) going on out there right now."
"In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now."
Last week, in response to Springsteen, Trump posted: "I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States."
"Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he's not a talented guy − Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country."
The president hinted there could be consequences if the rock star had made his remarks on American soil.
"This dried out 'prune' of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that's just 'standard fare,'" Trump said.
"Then we'll all see how it goes for him!"
On May 16, the American Federation of Musicians voiced support for both Springsteen and pop superstar Taylor Swift, of whom Trump said: "Has anyone noticed that, since I said 'I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,' she's no longer 'HOT?'"
"The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada will not remain silent as two of our members − Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift − are singled out and personally attacked by the President of the United States," the organization said.
"Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift are not just brilliant musicians, they are role models and inspirations to millions of people in the United States and across the world. … Musicians have the right to freedom of expression, and we stand in solidarity with all our members."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Transgenders in the U.S. military services – institutions that were, until recently, bastions of forced wokeness thanks to the Biden administration – are now being removed from America's armed forces under President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
\Within the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, ICD-10 diagnosis codes have shown a significant rise in "transsexualism" within the military in recent years. And according to a 2023 survey conducted by this reporter, 59% of the survey's 229 participants disclosed that they have served with a transgender.
With transsexualism on the rise with no end in sight, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that President Trump could constitutionally carry out his ban on transgender service members. The ruling came after Trump issued a Jan. 27 executive order banning transgenders from serving in the military. Then on May 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to senior Pentagon leadership and others within the Department of Defense to begin their removal.
According to Hegseth's memo, the active-component transgender service members have 30 days to voluntarily separate or be forced out, while those in the National Guard and Reserve have 60 days. The directive immediately impacts about 1,000 openly identifying as transgender service members.
WorldNetDaily spoke to retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub, a former UH-60 Blackhawk pilot and battalion commander, who considers Hegseth's memo "a good move." As he wrote for Armed Forces Press, he is "happy to see these failed experiments end, hopefully never to return."
In Gaub's view, "It sends a clear message that weakness and wokeness will no longer be tolerated," adding, "The SecDef is portraying and messaging to everybody that our military is not a political work force, but a force of lethality and readiness."
"Regardless of the politics and the personal opinions of all this," he said, and even the sympathy many may feel for people drawn into transsexualism, "we have been wasting time, money, medical and other resources on people who often cannot do the job they signed up to do in the military in the first place," particularly "if they're going through" a so-called "transition" process "while they're on active duty."
"These individuals impact recruiting, retention and morale," Gaub argued. "For example, consider a parent's perspective who might not have want their kids involved in a woke military." Removing wokeness benefits such a family.
For the former battalion commander and pilot, "The whole issue has been magnified so much to the point where it was made very large in the eyes of the country's population, so this thousand people affected by getting kicked out of the military for being transvestites could have had an impact on the military's capability to meet recruiting goals."
Gaub added, "The message" – that is, removing transgenders and wokeness in general from the U.S. armed forces – "this sends to those within our country, or out of it, is one of strength and readiness, so their removal is worth this benefit."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The DEI ideology, for "diversity, equity, inclusion," largely was banished by President Donald Trump where he could because it bases hiring or qualification decisions on the sex, race or even "gender identity" of individuals.
Many schools and corporations divested themselves of the concept when Trump took office.
But it is coming back now, little bit at a time, and sneakily, according to a new survey.
Polling by Resumetemplates reveala that one in seven business leaders now sees scaling back the ideological agenda as a mistake, made because of political pressure.
And one in five companies that "rolled back" the race- and sex-based processes are "quietly" bringing them back.
The pollsters explained, "In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become highly politicized. What began as a widespread corporate commitment after the 2020 protests has faced growing backlash. Some critics have questioned the effectiveness of DEI efforts, while others have framed them as divisive or exclusionary. Facing political pressure, some companies have scaled back or eliminated their DEI programs."
The backlash from leftists who supported the programs, however, has brought concerns about "consequences" from the effort to minimize the agenda, the report said.
A survey of 750 U.S. business leaders has confirmed the nominal return of the ideologies.
"The plurality of respondents (30%) say the consensus among business leaders at their company is that the decision to scale back DEI was a necessary response to external pressures. Additionally, 23% say they see it as a positive move that aligns with company values, while 18% say the company's leaders overall consider it a neutral decision with minimal impact," the survey found.
But, "Fifteen percent say it's believed to be a mistake that created new challenges. The remaining say the company's leaders are either divided in their perspectives (9%) or unsure (4%)."
The reasons the agendas were ditched include political pressure, public scrutiny, budget limits and leadership turnover.
But two-thirds said they saw various "negative" results, such as damage to brand perception, loss of customers or boycotts, after they ditched the beliefs.
"Consumers, employees, and job seekers are more aware than ever of corporate policies and decisions, and they vote with their dollars and career choices," said ResumeTemplates' Chief Career Strategist Julia Toothacre. "When organizations dismantle DEI efforts, it sends a message that they don't care about being fair and equitable. For many customers and workers, that doesn't sit well. Word spreads fast, especially on social media, and I'm not surprised to see companies now rethinking those decisions."
It also speaks to the power of the leftists who are publicizing issues, spreading information, or disinformation, about the agendas, and those political and media people in key positions who lobby for the agendas.
Significant, 21% of those companies that left the DEI initiatives behind now are "quietly reintroducing or re-expanding them."
Another 12% are doing so publicly.
Just why go back to the sexism and racism?
"Of respondents, 75% say that whether or not their company has a DEI program ultimately comes down to what's best for the bottom line, rather than being rooted in values or social responsibility," the survey organizations said.
Toothacre claimed that DEI programs actually create "a safer, more respectful workplace," and that produces "higher morale, better productivity, and fewer HR complaints."
A report at WTOP said the results also show that companies are bringing back DEI, but are calling it "inclusive culture" or "culture of belonging" to get away from the stigma of DEI.
Also, 40% of companies said they are avoiding new DEI activism.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will not waste taxpayer money on those numerous "diversity, equity, inclusion" projects launched under the Joe Biden administration, according to a new report.
A Justice Department official has told Fox News those funds are now in the process of being moved to budget categories that target criminals.
"The Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will not waste discretionary funds on DEI passion projects that do not make Americans safer," the spokesman told the network.
"We will use our money to get criminals off the streets, seize drugs, and in some cases, fund programs that deliver a tangible impact for victims of crime."
Bondi's work on her first day at the DOJ included ordering officials to make certain that all DEI programs at the department were terminated.
She also ordered the elimination of DEI from the DOJ's training procedures, the report said.
Ordered removed were the programs' endless insistence on making decisions, such as hiring employees, based on race or sex factors.
Now the hiring is "solely on merit," the report said.
Bondi's own words explain what the department now is doing.
"Arresting violent terrorists, dismantling cartel networks, and rooting DEI out of American institution."
She told Fox, "We will continue working day in and day out to deliver on President Trump's Make America Safe Agenda."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Marc Elias, a lawyer known in headlines now as the "Russia hoaxer" for his prominent role in the made-up claims supporting Hillary Clinton's run for the White House in 2016, now is suing the state of Wyoming.
It's because lawmakers adopted requirements to make the election more secure.
A report in the Federalist explains Elias, who orchestrated with the Clinton campaign and various sources to made up wild claims about Trump, resulting in the debunked "Steele dossier," was unhappy that lawmakers adopted a bill requiring those who want to vote to provide proof of U.S. citizenship.
That could come from a passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers or other options.
The state House adopted the plan 51-8 and the Senate by 26-4, and Gov. Mark Gordon allowed the bill to become law without his signature.
However, Elias has joined with the Equality State Policy Center and the leftist American Civil Liberties Union to sue in his attempt to destroy the will of the lawmakers in the state.
The plaintiffs claim there are violations of the First and 14th Amendments, because the law will "impose new, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary requirements that will make it harder for eligible citizens to vote."
The plaintiffs claim that documenting citizenship will somehow cause the "disenfranchisement" of voters.
They claim that women, Hispanic, young and low-income voters will find it harder to register to vote.
The lawsuit specifically cites the debunked claim that women will have trouble because they often change their last name when getting married.
Existing Wyoming law calls for people to promise that they are eligible.
But state Rep. John Bear pointed out that "attestation" is not the same as proof.
According to the report, "Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray said the lawsuit 'shows how far the radical Left is willing to go to try to stop election integrity. The far-left's lawsuit is a meritless attempt to undermine the common-sense election integrity measures Wyomingites want. Proof of citizenship and proof of residency are common sense measures pivotal to election integrity, which is why house Bill 156 was the number one priority of our conservative election integrity agenda during the 2025 Legislative Session."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the fights leftists have brought against President Donald Trump is over his decision to sanction those law firms that actively engaged as players in fabricated agendas that were launched against him.
Specifically, during the 2016 race law firms abandoned their role as legal advisers and actively coordinated with Hillary Clinton's campaign to falsify claims against Trump to try to derail his political campaign, specifically the lies created for the Russia collusion campaign.
Now an organization serving some of those firms, and the firms themselves, may be in trouble for discriminating based on race.
A report in the Federalist describes how the group Americans for Equal Opportunity has filed a race discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The complaint, on behalf of three white members, accuses the group called Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and some of the legal giants in Washington of illegally discriminating against white Americans "in the name of diversity," the report said.
SEO places interns with "some of the nation's largest law firms," and the charge alleges misbehavior by the SEO and its 44 partners, "some of the country's most well-heeled law firms."
The accusation charges the suspected organizations violated Title VII.
"Title VII is the federal statute which prohibits employers, as well as employment agencies, from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, or religion. And the EEOC charge filed by Americans for Equal Opportunity, a recently formed membership organization dedicated to 'promot[ing] and protect[ing] the right of the public to be free from discrimination on the basis of race,' details how SEO allegedly violated Title VII through its discriminatory law fellowship program," the report explains.
Some of the evidence comes from SEO's own boasting, where it talks about being "the nation's premier summer internship and training program targeting talented African American, Hispanic and Native college students."
Previously, it talked about being the "nation's only summer internship program for pre-law students of color."
The report cited the sponsoring firms as "a veritable 'who's who,' of the nation's top law firms."
Involved were extraordinarily high compensation levels, up to $4,000 a week, as well as offers not available to many others.
Further, the SEO suddenly became "coy" about its discrimination in recent years, abruptly changing its web language "to conceal its discriminatory practices, replacing the term 'diverse' with 'underserved,' and describing programs as open to 'all,'" the report said.
The topic isn't entirely new. The EEOC's acting chair, Andrea Lucas, wrote a couple dozen law firms in March asking for information about their DEI agendas, including the SEO work, but critics of President Trump claimed it was a targeting of the law firms that were politically opposed to the president.
At that time, the leftists in the American Bar Association said the letters meant nothing.
The report continued, "The AEO's charge of discrimination, brought on behalf of its members, cannot be so glibly dismissed. And with an official charge of discrimination filed against SEO and the law firms, the EEOC now has a statutory duty to investigate."
The report noted a finding of race discrimination, which evidence suggests could be obvious, "will vindicate Trump against charges his administration is targeting political enemies."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
When Robert Prevost, a Chicago archbishop for the Catholic church, this week was picked to be the new pope, Leo XIV, President Donald Trump wished him well.
"Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope," Trump said on his Truth Social account.
"What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!" he said.
Then surfaced social media statements from Prevost, while a cardinal, that adopted an anti-Trump, pro-illegal immigration agenda. The statements specifically targeted the current White House administration with condemnation.
So the White House responded to that, too.
"The president made his reaction to Pope Leo's announcement yesterday he is very proud to have an American Pope," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during her briefing. "It's a great thing…and we're praying for him."
She did not discuss the political statements expressed by Prevost as cardinal.
The Daily Mail confirmed Prevost "made a series of social media posts critical of the president's policies and often reposts sentiments critical of the Trump administration."
"A 2014 tweet is going viral where Prevost called Jesus a migrant and some of his social media content has been critical of the president," the report explained. "Prevost specifically criticized the White House's actions regarding immigration and in the past has expressed support for progressive causes."
His most recent X post came only a few weeks ago, when he retweeted a post slamming Trump's deportation of illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.
Garcia also has been a cause celebre for Democrats in America, but their advocacy for what they describe as a family man has been undercut by allegations besides being an illegal alien in America, he was involved in human traffic and repeatedly had been accused of abusing his wife.
The report said Prevost is a registered Republican, but that "should not be confused with support for President Donald Trump."
"He has made a series of social media posts critical of the president's policies and often reposts sentiments critical of the Trump administration," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In his May 5 memorandum intended for senior Pentagon leadership, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled his plan to scale back the number of general and flag officers serving in the military.
Maintaining his focus on the lethality of the U.S. military, Hegseth called it "a critical step" necessary to "optimize and streamline leadership."
WorldNetDaily spoke to Air Force Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness, who didn't mince words: "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just dropped a bombshell on the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy." He added, "Hegseth's move to cut the brass and redirect funds to the rank-and-file is a 'less generals, more GIs' strategy I've been screaming about for years."
The former bomber squadron commander who served the U.S. military for more than 30 years told WND, "His plan to slash 20% of four-star generals and 10% of general officers is the kind of gut punch the military needs to get back to its warfighting roots."
For example, Maness points out, "We've got 44 four-star flag officers today, compared to just 17 when we had 12 million troops in World War II." He adds starkly, "That's not leadership, [but] a top-heavy mess sucking up resources that should be arming our grunts and flyboys."
Calling out the Air Force specifically, the former bomber squadron commander suggested, "If the Air Force's generals won't ditch their rainbow agendas, fire them all and start fresh." That is the position he has maintained for months, pointing to a January 2025 X post.
According to Maness, "Too many of these careerist stars have been playing political games, protecting their institution instead of the Constitution." Many went along with "the unlawful COVID 'vaccine' order and hurting their troops, pushing woke nonsense like DEI quotas or climate change programs." Rather, he said, these senior officers should have been focused on what really matters: "killing the enemy and winning wars."
Maness praised Trump's Defense chief for "finally swinging the axe, [saying] it's about damn time." But he warned, "Let's not get carried away popping champagne just yet." The coming reductions, he said, need to be "surgical" and "not a blind hack job."
Hegseth, he said, must "target the dead weight – those Biden-era officers who've turned the Pentagon into a social experiment lab and following unlawful orders – while keeping the battle-hardened leaders who live for the mission."
On May 6, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. took to X to post his objection to Hegseth's new directive, claiming it could "cripple the military."
For Maness, "Senator Reed's whining about 'crippling' the military isn't entirely baseless, [as] arbitrary cuts without a clear plan could kneecap our readiness." That's why, he said, "Hegseth needs to root out the disloyal, the incompetent and the agenda-driven, replacing them with merit-based warriors who'll put America first."
"If he pulls this off," Maness argued, "we'll have a military that's not just smaller but stronger – focused on crushing threats, not chasing diversity metrics." He trusts that Hegseth is "serious about a leaner, meaner force, but it has to be done right."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'You came here today to defeat women in their own sport'
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Wednesday chaired a hearing of the House DOGE subcommittee lambasted the chairman of USA Fencing, Damien Lehfeldt, one of the witnesses who testified.
Lehfeldt was there to justify his organization's inclusion of biological males in female categories of fencing competition. Quoting from a blog post of Lehfeldt's, Greene noted his feelings on his daughter hypothetically competing against a man.
"You came here today to defeat women in their own sport," Greene told Lehfeldt. "You are a man who would tell his daughter to lose to a biological man and enjoy it!"
Greene's hearing was in response to a female fencer who recently refused to compete against a male fencer who "identifies" as a woman.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge whose biased courtroom policy – he routinely orders case participants to use "preferred" pronouns demanded by the leftist transgender agenda – has refused to let women athletes involved in a dispute over a promotion of transgenderism appeal.
The fight involves S. Kato Crews, who is paid as a federal judge in Colorado. He's hearing a case involving women athletes against the Mountain West Conference over its decision to allow a man, Blaire Fleming, to compete on the women's team in the conference.
The update comes from Cowboy State Daily, which noted that multiple women from the University of Wyoming are involved.
Crews routinely orders those in his court to use "preferred" pronouns for participants. That could be the totally inaccurate "she" or "her" for a man.
The women bringing the action against the conference asked him to recuse from the case, as his courtroom demeanor suggested he had prejudged the case. He refused.
They asked to appeal. And he refused again.
He claimed that he was allowing an exception for the women in this legal fight, so there were no grounds to appeal.
The underlying fight is over Fleming, and his presence on the women's team for San Jose State University's volleyball team.
"Eleven current and former collegiate athletes and one SJSU volleyball coach on Nov. 13 sued the Mountain West Conference, and SJSU and its umbrella organization in the federal U.S. District Court for Colorado," the report explained.
Wyoming forfeited two of its games against San Jose State University because of the man's participation on the women's team. Several other teams also forfeited.
The report noted, "Crews maintains a rule requiring the use of 'preferred' pronouns for transgender people referenced in his court."
The women argued that he should not hear the case, as he has shown he "has pre-judged the case and its question of whether a transgender volleyball player is a woman under the law."
The response from Crews, over his refusal to allow an appeal, was that he said he waived the pronoun requirement for participants in this case.
The judge turned sarcastic in his response to the women athletes, stating, "Rather than operating under the purported 'stigmas' and 'specters,' the Court encourages Plaintiffs to take 'yes' for an answer. Countless times now, the Court has told Plaintiffs they may use whatever pronouns they choose in these proceedings. They've done so from the start. They've done so without sanction or admonishment from the Court."
However, his answer did not address the fact that his ordinary courtroom standards include the "pronoun" requirement, leaving still standing the perception of his bias.
The judge also claimed his rules that benefit one side of the transgender arguments do not suggest a pre-judgment.
The case will now proceed in the district court where it was filed.