Hollywood’s elite are staging a blockbuster protest against President Donald Trump after a daring U.S. military operation nabbed a controversial foreign leader, Breitbart reported.
In a stunning move, Trump announced on Saturday morning that U.S. forces had successfully apprehended Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in an overnight mission in Venezuela’s capital.
The operation, directly ordered by the president, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from left-leaning celebrities who’ve taken to social media to decry the action as unconstitutional and demand Trump’s impeachment.
During his national address, Trump laid out the specifics of the mission, emphasizing the strategic importance of capturing Maduro and Flores.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up with a statement, revealing that the couple faces serious charges, including narco-terrorism conspiracy and cocaine importation conspiracy, alongside possession of machineguns and destructive devices aimed against the United States.
While the administration frames this as a win for national security, the backlash from Tinseltown has been swift and, frankly, predictable.
Actor John Cryer, known for “Two and a Half Men,” didn’t mince words on Bluesky, bluntly stating, “Impeachment now.”
While Cryer’s quip might play well with the progressive crowd, it sidesteps the gravity of the charges against Maduro—hardly the stuff of a sitcom punchline.
Similarly, actress Mia Farrow jumped into the fray on the same platform, alleging Trump’s motives are tied to Venezuela’s oil wealth and urging, “Impeach this evil guy.”
Farrow isn’t alone in spinning the oil narrative; actors like Mark Ruffalo, alongside Stephen King and Wendell Pierce, have echoed the theory that this operation is a greedy grab for resources.
Ruffalo even went as far as comparing Trump to historical tyrants, a tired trope that often drowns out any chance of reasoned debate on policy merits.
Then there’s comedian Rob Delaney, of “Deadpool” fame, who speculated about Trump plotting to build some sort of detention network in Venezuela—a claim as unsubstantiated as it is dramatic.
Star Trek’s George Takei chimed in with a civics lesson, reminding followers that only Congress can declare war on another nation, implying Trump overstepped his authority.
While constitutional questions deserve scrutiny, the selective outrage from Hollywood often feels more like a script than a genuine concern for checks and balances—especially when the target is a leader like Maduro with a rap sheet longer than a summer blockbuster.
Even Ellen Barkin, of “Pulp Fiction” renown, couldn’t resist piling on, accusing Trump of illegally seizing control of a foreign nation while mocking his delivery during public remarks, a jab that’s more about style than substance.
In a gut-wrenching blow to military families, two U.S. Space Force officers lost their Washington, D.C. home to a vicious burglary and arson just days after Christmas.
This horrific incident saw Major Jason "Red" Mills and his wife, both dedicated Space Force officers, lose not only their residence but also their beloved family cat in a deliberate blaze, the Daily Caller reported.
While the family was away in Florida celebrating the holidays with their 10-month-old daughter, their home became a target for crime.
On Dec. 28, Mills received a chilling 5 a.m. call from D.C. police, alerting him to the fire that ravaged his property.
Upon returning to inspect the damage, he discovered his car vandalized with hateful graffiti, including phrases like "Fuck Trump" and "Fuck you space man," alongside a jab at what might be a reference to the Space Force.
The vehicle's mirrors were ripped off, papers strewn about, and black ink smeared across the dashboard—a clear sign of personal spite.
Local fire officials confirmed the sinister nature of the attack, noting two separate fires set in the kitchen and basement, officially classified as "incendiary."
Mills, speaking personally and not on behalf of the Space Force, donned a hazmat suit with his wife to sift through the ashes, salvaging precious mementos like their daughter’s hospital bracelet.
Tragically, they also uncovered the remains of their cherished cat among the debris, a heartbreaking loss amid the destruction.
“I would say there is a general anti-military sentiment in certain parts of D.C. nowadays,” Mills told the Caller, pointing to a troubling undercurrent in some urban circles.
Let’s be clear: targeting a family for serving their country isn’t just a crime; it’s a shameful jab at the very folks who protect our freedoms. This isn’t "progressive"—it’s personal and petty.
Mills also noted, “If they were intending to target from the get-go... I’m the only person even remotely nearby that would ever be in uniform,” suggesting his daily commute in uniform might have painted a bullseye on his back.
Police have apprehended a suspect caught with some of Mills’ stolen belongings, though the investigation remains active and unresolved.
Meanwhile, the military community and beyond have rallied around the family, with a GoFundMe raising a staggering $90,000 in just four days, including a generous $10,000 from NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. It’s a rare bright spot in a dark story, showing that patriotism still has a pulse, even if some corners of society seem allergic to it.
With Mills alerting his chain of command about the targeted nature of this attack, and receiving their full support, it’s evident that this incident strikes at broader concerns about how our service members are viewed in certain ideological bubbles.
What better way to ring in the New Year than with a Cabinet secretary busting moves to a 90s hip-hop classic at President Donald Trump’s iconic Mar-a-Lago resort?
On Wednesday night, the glittering estate hosted a star-studded New Year’s Eve gala where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stole the show dancing to Vanilla Ice’s timeless hit, "Ice Ice Baby," while high-profile guests, a charity auction, and a personal announcement added to the evening’s buzz, as the New York Post reports.
The celebration kicked off with the kind of energy only Mar-a-Lago can muster, drawing a crowd of heavy hitters from politics and beyond.
Among the notable attendees were Don Jr. and Eric Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—fresh from a Monday meeting with President Trump on the Gaza Strip cease-fire—House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Emirati billionaire Hussain Sajwani, who’s promised a whopping $20 billion for U.S. data centers.
Also mingling were D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, and U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor, proving this wasn’t just a party but a power summit.
President Trump himself took the stage, delivering remarks that underscored his optimism as his second term’s first year drew to a close.
“America is doing great,” Trump declared, setting a confident tone for the night and the year ahead.
That line might irk the perpetually aggrieved on the left, but let’s be honest—after years of doom-and-gloom narratives, a little positivity from the top feels like a breath of fresh air.
Yet, the real viral moment came when Kristi Noem hit the dance floor to the iconic beats of “Ice Ice Baby,” a nostalgic nod that had everyone talking.
A clip of Noem grooving was shared by Katie Miller, wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who was also spotted getting down in the video.
Katie captioned it with a playful “ICE ICE Baby,” a quip that’s pure gold for those who appreciate a good pun over progressive piety.
Of course, some detractors have taken to calling Noem “ICE Barbie,” a jab that’s less clever than it thinks, especially when she’s clearly just enjoying a well-earned night of fun amid a grueling job securing our borders.
The evening wasn’t all dance moves and star power; a charity auction featured a speed-painted portrait of Jesus by Christian artist Vanessa Horabuena, signed by Trump himself to boost its value.
The winning bid came in at an impressive $2.5 million, with proceeds benefiting the local sheriff’s department and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital—a reminder that even amid celebration, the spirit of giving shines through.
Adding a personal touch to the night, Katie and Stephen Miller announced they’re expecting their fourth child in 2026, a joyful note that rounded out an evening of patriotism, nostalgia, and forward-looking hope.
President Donald Trump just pulled the plug on National Guard deployments in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland after a string of courtroom defeats.
This dramatic turn comes after state officials successfully argued that the federal takeover of their Guard units was an unlawful overstep of authority.
Let’s break it down: Trump initially sent the Guard to these cities to tackle what he called runaway crime threatening public safety.
California, Illinois, and Oregon pushed back hard, filing lawsuits claiming the federalization of their National Guard was a clear violation of state rights.
Federal judges sided with the states, blocking the deployments and returning control to local leaders in key rulings.
One such decision specifically ordered the Guard in Los Angeles back under the command of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a major blow to Trump’s strategy.
Trump insists the Guard’s presence drove down crime significantly, pointing to safer streets as proof of federal effectiveness.
In Chicago, homicides hit a historic low with 412 murders recorded by late 2025, down from 585 the previous year.
Yet, tensions flared elsewhere, with Portland facing heated anti-ICE protests and Los Angeles grappling with violent unrest tied to deportation policies targeting criminal unauthorized migrants.
State and local leaders, from governors to mayors, hailed the court rulings as a win for the rule of law while slamming Trump’s approach as heavy-handed.
On Truth Social, Trump fired off: “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities.”
Sure, Trump’s claiming credit for the drop in crime, but isn’t it convenient to ignore local policies or community efforts that might have played a role?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t hold back on X, stating, “About time @realDonaldTrump admitted defeat.”
Newsom’s victory lap aside, one has to question if state leaders are too quick to dismiss any federal contribution while they celebrate their courtroom triumph.
Trump, never one to back down, cautioned that if crime surges again, the federal government might return “in a much different and stronger form,” a parting shot that leaves the door wide open for round two.
Imagine a world where political allegiance takes a backseat to a polished jawline. That's the bizarre reality unfolding as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent target of conservative criticism, finds himself lauded by fringe right-wing voices—not for his policies, but for his appearance.
In an unexpected twist, far-right commentators like Nick Fuentes and streamer Clavicular have turned their focus from policy debates to superficial charm, praising Newsom's looks while sharply criticizing Vice President JD Vance, the New York Post reported.
This peculiar narrative began when Fuentes, known for his controversial online presence and extreme views, took to X on a recent Sunday to express an unusual preference.
In a post dripping with superficiality, Fuentes declared, "I would vote for [Gavin Newsom] 100x" over Vance, citing Newsom's attractiveness as the sole reason, while dismissing Vance in harsh terms (X).
Let's unpack that: a self-described opponent of progressive agendas like Newsom's is ready to throw support behind him based on nothing more than a headshot. It’s a stark reminder of how shallow discourse can erode substantive political critique.
Fuentes doubled down with rhetoric about "physiognomy," the outdated notion that looks reflect character, proclaiming a belief in "beauty and aesthetics" above all else. This isn’t conservatism; it’s a beauty pageant with dangerous undertones.
Not to be outdone, Clavicular, a streamer embroiled in his own controversies including a ban from Kick after a troubling incident, echoed Fuentes’s odd fixation on appearances.
In a conversation with right-wing podcaster Michael Knowles, Clavicular stated, "JD Vance is subhuman and Gavin Newsom mogs," using Gen Z slang to suggest Newsom overshadows Vance in looks. Such language reduces public figures to mere objects of vanity, sidelining the real issues at stake.
Clavicular even admitted he’d back a "6 foot 3 Chad" like Newsom over Vance, whom he criticized for his physique. It’s a sad commentary when policy debates are swapped for locker-room jabs.
Michael Knowles, a familiar voice in conservative circles, didn’t shy away from slamming Newsom’s governance, calling him the "worst governor in the country" and a host of other unflattering titles.
Yet, even Knowles couldn’t resist conceding that Newsom has a certain appeal, likening him to the infamous Patrick Bateman from "American Psycho." It’s a begrudging nod that underscores how even fierce critics can’t ignore the surface-level allure.
Still, Knowles’s critique of Newsom’s leadership as deeply flawed stands as a necessary counterpoint to this odd obsession with aesthetics over substance.
Neither Newsom’s nor Vance’s offices have weighed in on these peculiar remarks, leaving the public to grapple with this strange detour from policy discussion.
It’s telling that such frivolous commentary hasn’t warranted a response, perhaps signaling that both leaders recognize the irrelevance of this sideshow. After all, governing a state or serving a nation isn’t a modeling gig.
This episode, while amusing on the surface, highlights a troubling trend where fringe voices prioritize triviality over the pressing challenges facing our country. Conservatism should stand for values and accountability, not who looks better on camera. Let’s hope this is a fleeting distraction and not a sign of deeper decline in political discourse.
New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is kicking off his term in a way that’s anything but ordinary.
In a move blending history with progressive flair, Mayor-elect Mamdani will take his oath just after midnight on New Year’s Day in a private ceremony at the long-shuttered Old City Hall subway station, the New York post reported.
This isn’t your typical City Hall photo-op; Mamdani’s swearing-in will unfold below City Hall Park at a station that’s been out of service since 1945.
The Old City Hall stop, part of the city’s first subway line from 1904, boasts stunning Guastavino tiles and chandeliers, though it’s mostly inaccessible except for rare tours by the New York Transit Museum.
Mamdani picked this spot for its historical weight, a nod to the city’s past, though one wonders if this choice signals more nostalgia than practical focus for the future.
New York Attorney General Letitia James will administer the oath, and she’s already framing this as symbolic of unity, posting on social media, “Our subways connect us all, and they represent exactly what our next mayor is fighting for: a city every New Yorker can thrive in.”
While the sentiment sounds noble, let’s hope the new administration prioritizes fixing the subway’s daily woes over poetic metaphors about connectivity.
The midnight event will be an intimate affair, a small gathering in stark contrast to the massive public celebration planned for later that day.
Around City Hall Park in Lower Manhattan, a block party is expected to draw over 40,000 attendees, shutting down streets south of Canal on Broadway’s famed “Canyon of Heroes.”
This “man of the people” bash aims to bring thousands together on New Year’s Day, but taxpayers might question the cost of such a spectacle when potholes and public safety remain pressing concerns.
Mamdani himself seems eager to embrace the moment, stating, “When I take my oath from the station at the dawn of the New Year, I will do so humbled by the opportunity to lead millions of New Yorkers into a new era of opportunity, and honored to carry forward our city’s legacy of greatness.”
That’s a lofty promise, but New Yorkers are a tough crowd—let’s see if this “new era” tackles gritty issues or just rides on symbolic gestures like underground ceremonies.
Later in the week, on Thursday afternoon, a larger public swearing-in will occur outside City Hall, with Senator Bernie Sanders, a fellow Democratic Socialist, delivering the oath.
With temperatures forecasted to dip below freezing, attendees might need more than ideological warmth to endure the event, though the transition team has been planning these spectacles for weeks.
While Mamdani’s rollout blends historical reverence with populist outreach, conservatives might raise an eyebrow at whether this energy will translate into policies that prioritize fiscal restraint over progressive pageantry.
Rep. Ilhan Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, is caught in a whirlwind of suspicion as his venture capital outfit, Rose Lake Capital, mysteriously wipes nine key names from its website while a massive welfare fraud scandal rocks Minnesota, Breitbart reported.
This story boils down to a billion-dollar fraud scheme, ties to Omar’s circle, and a digital disappearing act by Mynett’s firm that’s raising eyebrows across the political spectrum.
Let’s start at the beginning: Tim Mynett, married to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), launched Rose Lake Capital back in 2022.
Almost overnight, the firm’s value reportedly skyrocketed from next to nothing to somewhere between $5 million and $25 million, per recent reports.
That kind of rapid ascent might impress Wall Street, but it also invites questions about how such wealth accumulates so fast.
Meanwhile, Omar’s own net worth has allegedly jumped from a modest $51,000 to a staggering $30 million in just one year, a figure she disputes but one that’s tied to Mynett’s ventures, including a winery alongside this venture capital firm, according to the New York Post.
Now, let’s pivot to the bigger storm brewing in Minnesota, where federal prosecutors have charged eight more individuals, six of Somali descent, in a welfare fraud scheme described as the largest of the pandemic, totaling over $1 billion in stolen taxpayer funds.
Omar herself has deep connections to organizations and individuals implicated in these cases, even hosting events at Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, a venue linked to the investigations.
The owners of Safari, Salim Said and Aimee Bock, have already been convicted in the Feeding Our Future case, which siphoned off $250 million in child food aid from the state.
Amid this legal firestorm, between September and October, Rose Lake Capital scrubbed the names and bios of nine officers and advisors from its public website, a move that smells like damage control to many observers.
Among those erased are heavy hitters like Adam Ereli, a lobbyist and former Obama ambassador, and Max Baucus, another Obama-era ambassador, alongside DNC-linked figures like Alex Hoffman and William Derrough.
Even Keith Mestrich, ex-CEO of Amalgamated Bank, vanished from the site, a man who once boasted of his institution as “the institutional bank of the Democratic Party,” per his own words.
While none of the nine removed from the website face charges in the fraud, the timing of this digital purge—right as new indictments dropped—hardly seems coincidental.
Critics also point to Omar’s legislative record, noting she pushed policies that some argue opened the door for what federal authorities call a historic fraud, as reported by the New York Post.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL), never one to mince words, has even proposed a resolution to expel Omar and slammed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN), declaring he “should be in jail” for his handling of the issue.
Picture a charity cloaked in goodwill, yet shadowed by whispers of foreign money and political favors that could make even the most trusting skeptic raise an eyebrow.
Newly released FBI documents expose a 2016 effort by field agents to investigate Hillary Clinton over potential misuse of the Clinton Foundation for foreign donations and campaign debt settlements during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Daily Caller reported.
This story kicks off during Clinton’s time at the State Department, when FBI agents began sniffing out troubling links between her foundation and overseas contributions, despite her pledge to restrict such funds.
Under the operation dubbed "Cracked Foundation," investigators gathered evidence, including a recorded discussion between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal about foundation donations and clearing debts from her 2008 presidential run.
Chatwal, a foundation trustee and key player in Clinton’s past campaign, admitted guilt in 2014 to laundering straw donations for that race, coughing up $1 million in a deal with the Justice Department.
Yet, when field agents pushed to grill Clinton on these pay-to-play concerns, FBI headquarters in Washington slammed the brakes, refusing to let the probe move forward.
FBI New York Assistant Director Diego Rodriguez pressed for specific questions about the foundation to be put to Clinton, as shown in documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 15.
Agents had prepared queries about Chatwal’s involvement in the 2008 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement and whether his funds influenced that policy shift on nuclear proliferation rules.
They also sought answers on the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, formed after Clinton’s no-foreign-funds promise, which reportedly channeled money to the foundation without required transparency.
Chatwal didn’t hold back, reportedly telling an FBI informant, “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system,” about straw donations (as cited in FBI records).
That line hits hard—here’s a convicted campaign finance schemer seemingly confessing to manipulating the process, all while linked to Clinton’s foundation. Doesn’t this fuel conservative doubts about elite accountability?
In 2019, an assistant U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of New York vented frustration, stating, “We were trying to explore the Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ” (as per court statements).
By July 2016, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI over her private email server in a separate case called “Midyear Exam,” not one question about the foundation or foreign bribery surfaced.
While some on the left might claim Clinton endured enough scrutiny elsewhere, the hard evidence of intercepted talks and undisclosed foreign cash suggests a missed chance for real answers.
Ultimately, for those wary of unchecked power, this tale of blocked investigations and unanswered questions isn’t just a footnote—it’s a glaring reminder that transparency shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
Could a presidential pardon crack open the cell of a Colorado clerk jailed on state charges?
Tina Peters, a former Republican county clerk in Colorado, stands at the heart of a heated clash over a pardon from President Donald Trump, with her legal team fighting for her freedom while state authorities insist the pardon lacks power, Fox News reported.
Peters’ journey started with her role as a clerk, where she was convicted of official misconduct, conspiracy, and influencing a public servant under Colorado law after permitting unauthorized access to voting equipment over doubts about election integrity.
In October 2024, a Colorado judge sentenced Peters to nine years in prison, a decision that highlighted the state’s strict approach to safeguarding electoral systems.
Her conviction has cast her as a polarizing figure, admired by some as a defender of transparency but condemned by others for overstepping legal bounds.
Then, in early December 2025, President Trump entered the fray by issuing a pardon for Peters, framing her actions as a noble pursuit of fair and honest elections.
Trump voiced his support on Truth Social, declaring, “Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” a statement that resonates with conservatives frustrated by what they see as overreach against election skeptics.
Colorado officials, however, have firmly rejected the pardon’s relevance, arguing that presidential clemency doesn’t apply to state-level convictions, keeping Peters locked up amid the dispute.
Shad Murib, Colorado Democratic Party Chair, scoffed at the gesture, calling the pardon “meaningless” and asserting that Trump holds no authority to force her release, a sharp dismissal of the president’s move.
On December 23, Peters’ attorneys submitted a motion to a Colorado appellate court, demanding her release and pressing for recognition of Trump’s pardon as valid for her state convictions.
Peter Ticktin, Peters’ attorney, remains hopeful, stating, “Contrary to Colorado’s governor, we see the pardon as applicable to state charges,” a defiant challenge to the state’s narrow view of legal precedent.
The motion claims the pardon encompasses actions linked to election security, a contention that could reshape the scope of presidential mercy if upheld by the courts.
On Christmas Eve, the Colorado Court of Appeals acknowledged the motion, directing the prosecution to respond by early January without yet taking a definitive stand on the pardon’s impact.
While the legal process unfolds, Peters is expected to remain behind bars through New Year’s Day 2026, a harsh reality for those who view her as a casualty of a system resistant to scrutiny.
This ongoing battle underscores a deeper divide over election trust and governmental power, leaving Peters’ fate as a symbol of a much larger struggle between state authority and federal intervention.
Hold onto your Santa hats— a Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center has been axed over a fiery dispute about slapping President Donald Trump’s name on the iconic venue, as Fox News reports.
The uproar began when the Kennedy Center board voted unanimously on Dec. 18 to rebrand the institution as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," igniting a storm of criticism and leading to multiple artist cancellations, including the holiday jazz show.
This saga kicked off earlier this year when Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board, having removed 18 trustees appointed by the prior administration. The move already raised eyebrows among arts enthusiasts who cherish the center’s storied past.
Back in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation making the Kennedy Center a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy after his tragic assassination the previous year. The law, as reported by The Associated Press, explicitly bars the board from turning the center into a tribute for anyone else or adding another name to the exterior.
Fast forward to last week, and workers were already updating the building’s signage and website to reflect the new "Trump-Kennedy Center" title. It’s a bold move that’s left many questioning whether this honors or undermines the original intent of the memorial.
The Kennedy family isn’t holding back their dismay over this rename. Maria Shriver, a niece of JFK, called the decision "beyond comprehension," as reported by The Associated Press, signaling deep frustration with the board’s direction.
Shriver’s sentiment isn’t just family talk— it’s echoed by artists like Chuck Redd, the host of the now-canceled Christmas Eve jazz concert. Redd, who’s led the holiday "Jazz Jams" at the center since 2006 and jammed with legends like Dizzy Gillespie, didn’t mince words about his exit.
"When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert," Redd told The Associated Press. Well, that’s one way to make a statement— pulling the plug on a beloved holiday tradition to protest what many see as a political overreach.
Redd isn’t alone in taking a stand against the rename. Other big names, like Lin-Manuel Miranda, have also pulled their performances, with Miranda canceling a production of "Hamilton" at the venue since Trump’s return to office.
Now, let’s be fair— Trump’s supporters might argue that adding his name reflects his role as board chairman and a renewed vision for the center. But when a law explicitly protects the Kennedy legacy, one has to wonder if this is less about tribute and more about flexing political muscle.
The backlash isn’t just about nostalgia; it’s about principle. For conservatives who value tradition, even this move might feel like a step too far, trampling on a memorial meant to stand untouched by partisan games.
Meanwhile, the Kennedy Center’s website quietly lists the jazz show as canceled, with no official comment yet on the growing controversy. Fox News Digital has reached out for a statement, but the silence so far speaks volumes.
This rename has turned a cultural gem into a lightning rod for debate, pitting respect for historical mandates against modern political influence. It’s hard not to see this as another chapter in the broader cultural tug-of-war over whose values get to define America’s institutions.
For now, the Christmas Eve jazz fans are out of luck, and the Kennedy Center risks losing more artists if this naming spat drags on. The question remains— will this be a temporary flare-up, or a lasting scar on a national treasure?
One thing’s clear: when politics and culture collide, it’s rarely a harmonious tune. While Trump’s name shines on the building, the discord it’s caused might just drown out the music for a while.