Picture this: a congressional campaign in California stumbles into a digital blunder so glaring it’s almost a caricature of today’s hyper-sensitive political landscape. Esther Kim Varet, a Democratic hopeful in California’s 40th District, found her campaign website under fire for a photo mix-up that has raised eyebrows and sparked sharp criticism. It’s a small error with big implications in a race already simmering with tension.
In a nutshell, Varet’s campaign mistakenly posted a photo of a different Black woman while touting an endorsement from U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, only to scramble for a fix when the error was exposed, as Fox News reports.
This isn’t just a typo or a misplaced comma; it’s a visual misstep that plays into broader debates about authenticity and attention to detail in politics. Varet, who owns Various Small Fires, an art gallery chain spanning Los Angeles, Dallas, and Seoul, is challenging Republican Rep. Young Kim in a district covering parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. One might think an art curator would have an eye for the right image, but this slip suggests otherwise.
The erroneous photo was yanked from Varet’s website on Thursday afternoon after Fox News Digital pointed out the mistake. It’s a quick correction, sure, but not before the gaffe caught the attention of political watchdogs eager to pounce on any misstep. In an era where every pixel is scrutinized, this kind of oversight is a gift to opponents.
Christian Martinez, national Hispanic press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), didn’t hold back on X, formerly Twitter, slamming Varet’s campaign with pointed criticism. “Racist. Arrogant. Totally out of touch,” Martinez posted, adding that Varet’s “hate-filled, bigoted self isn’t getting anywhere near Congress.” While the rhetoric is heated, it underscores how quickly a simple error can be weaponized in today’s polarized climate.
Let’s be fair -- mistakes happen, and a photo swap doesn’t inherently signal malice. But in a campaign already marred by Varet’s past social media jab at Rep. Kim as an “ESL puppet” during a critique of Trump-era immigration policies, this latest flub only adds fuel to accusations of insensitivity. It’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore, even if one grants the benefit of the doubt.
Varet, the child of Korean immigrants, has previously drawn ire for her pointed attacks on Rep. Kim, who was also born in South Korea. The NRCC labeled Varet “unhinged” back in August after her remarks on Kim’s English skills and an alleged challenge to Martinez to “prove” his Latino credentials. These incidents paint a picture of a candidate struggling to navigate the cultural tightrope of modern campaigning.
Rep. Young Kim, for her part, has responded with dignity to the personal critiques lobbed her way. “My story is not unique. It’s the story of so many Korean Americans and immigrants across the country who are proud Americans and are making our communities better every day,” Kim told Fox News Digital.
“I’m proud of my accent and will keep using my voice to protect the American dream for future generations,” she continued. Her words are a quiet rebuke to Varet’s barbs, emphasizing resilience over resentment -- a stance that resonates with those tired of divisive rhetoric. It’s a contrast that voters might well remember.
Meanwhile, the political landscape in California’s 40th District is shifting underfoot, with recently redrawn lines aimed at tilting more seats toward Democrats. This redistricting, a response to voter-approved measures and a counter to Texas’s Republican-leaning map adjustments, sets the stage for a heated contest. Varet’s missteps could undermine any advantage her party hoped to gain.
Rep. Kim isn’t just facing Varet; she’s also contending with a primary challenge from fellow Republican Rep. Ken Calvert. It’s a double-front battle for the incumbent, who must balance defending her record against intra-party competition while fending off Democratic attacks. The photo fiasco might be a minor distraction, but it’s a reminder of how optics matter in tight races.
Critics of progressive campaigns might see Varet’s error as emblematic of a broader carelessness with identity politics -- a rush to check boxes without checking facts. While it’s unfair to paint an entire ideology with one campaign’s mistake, the incident does highlight the pitfalls of prioritizing image over substance. Conservatives could argue it’s a cautionary tale against the woke obsession with representation at the expense of competence.
Still, let’s not overblow the situation -- Varet’s team corrected the error swiftly once it was flagged. But in the lightning-fast world of digital media, even a few hours of a wrong photo can cement a narrative. Campaigns must be meticulous, especially when endorsements are meant to build trust across diverse communities.
What’s the takeaway for voters in California’s 40th? This race, already charged with cultural and political undercurrents, shows how even small errors can amplify existing tensions. It’s a reminder to look beyond surface-level gaffes and focus on the policies and character of those vying for power.
In the end, Varet’s photo blunder is a stumble, not a fall -- but it’s a stumble in a race where every step counts. Rep. Kim’s steady response and the district’s evolving dynamics ensure this contest will remain one to watch. For now, it’s a lesson in the power of a picture -- and the peril of getting it wrong.
Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is throwing his weight behind the Trump administration’s hard-hitting military strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
This unfolding saga, which kicked off in September, centers on a U.S. military operation targeting alleged narcotics trafficking vessels, resulting in at least 95 reported deaths so far.
From the get-go, the administration has framed this as a counter-narcotics mission, but skepticism lingers among lawmakers about the broader intent, especially regarding ties to Venezuelan leadership.
Back in September, the U.S. military launched this aggressive campaign, taking out boats they claim are ferrying drugs through Caribbean waters.
With 95 alleged traffickers killed to date, the body count has raised eyebrows, yet the administration remains tight-lipped on hard evidence linking these vessels to narcotics.
It’s a bold move, no doubt, but without public proof, some wonder if this is more about sending a message than stopping shipments.
Fast forward to this week, and Senator Fetterman emerged from a private briefing with a surprising vote of confidence for the operation.
He called the intel “pretty comprehensive,” insisting the strikes aren’t some wild free-for-all but are guided by precise data on who and what’s aboard these boats.
“I mean, there’s extensive intelligence and they know exactly who’s on that boat and what’s actually on that boat right now,” Fetterman told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on “CUOMO.”
Still, not everyone’s buying the narrow “counter-drugs” label that officials keep slapping on this campaign.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, pressed Trump officials for clarity on whether this is really just about drugs or a stepping stone to confronting Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Graham’s frustration was palpable when he noted their vague response, hinting that a stronger push against Maduro might be the unspoken goal.
President Trump hasn’t helped clear the fog, keeping his cards close while calling Maduro an “illegitimate leader” whose time is running out.
White House chief of staff Susie Wiles reportedly said Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” as noted in a Vanity Fair profile, which suggests a personal vendetta might be at play. If that’s the strategy, it’s a risky chess move in an already volatile region.
Meanwhile, voices like Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stick to the script, emphasizing the mission is about halting the flow of drugs that harm American communities, not toppling a regime.
Is the Department of Homeland Security caught in a political crossfire, or is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) spinning a tale for the cameras?
Reports surfaced recently when Omar claimed her U.S.-born son was stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents after a routine Target run, only for DHS to fire back with a sharp denial, labeling the accusation a publicity maneuver, The Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to the weekend when this drama unfolded. During an interview with local station WCCO, Omar recounted how her son was allegedly pulled over by ICE agents on a Saturday after a shopping stop. She insisted he was released only after showing his passport, a document he carries out of fear of being targeted.
According to Omar, this incident reeks of racial profiling, a charge that’s become a lightning rod in debates over immigration enforcement. Her spokesperson doubled down, painting ICE as an agency out of control and prone to questionable tactics.
“The congresswoman’s son and others were pulled over by ICE, racially profiled, and forced to prove their citizenship with a passport,” Omar’s spokesperson declared. That’s a heavy accusation, but where’s the hard proof? Without corroborating evidence, it’s tough to take this at face value when balanced against official records.
On the flip side, DHS didn’t mince words when responding on Tuesday. They flatly denied any encounter with Omar’s son, stating there’s “absolutely ZERO record” of such a stop. It’s a bold counterpunch, suggesting the whole story might be more fiction than fact.
“[ICE] has absolutely ZERO record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son,” DHS posted on X, pulling no punches. They went further, calling the claims a “PR stunt” designed to tarnish the agency’s reputation. If true, that’s a low blow in a climate already thick with distrust of federal enforcement.
DHS also tackled the profiling narrative head-on, labeling such accusations as “disgusting, reckless and categorically FALSE.” That’s a strong stance, but it raises questions about public trust in an agency often under scrutiny for its methods.
Meanwhile, Omar’s camp isn’t backing down. Her spokesperson accused ICE of being a “rogue agency beyond reform,” hinting at deeper systemic issues. It’s a fiery retort, but without concrete evidence of this specific incident, it feels more like rhetoric than resolution.
Adding fuel to this fire are recent comments from President Trump about Minnesota’s Somali community. His assertion that “hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia are completely taking over” the state has stirred controversy, especially given the Minnesota Daily’s report that most Somalis there are citizens or permanent residents.
Trump’s blunt language, including calling Omar “garbage” during a Cabinet meeting, only deepens the divide. It’s a stark reminder of how immigration debates often turn personal, overshadowing policy discussions with raw emotion.
Let’s not forget the underlying issue: ICE’s role in communities where citizenship status can be a flashpoint. While Omar’s story, if true, would be concerning, the lack of documentation makes it a he-said-she-said battle. Conservatives might argue this is another attempt to paint enforcement as inherently biased, a narrative that often ignores the complexities of border security.
From a right-of-center lens, it’s hard not to see this as a potential overreach by Omar to score political points. Pushing divisive claims without solid evidence risks undermining legitimate grievances about immigration policy. Still, empathy is due—if her son felt targeted, that fear deserves a hearing, even if the facts don’t align.
What’s clear is that trust between public figures and federal agencies is at a low ebb. Both sides have dug in, with DHS defending its integrity and Omar’s team alleging misconduct. The truth likely lies in the messy middle, but without records or witnesses, it’s a puzzle missing key pieces.
Ultimately, this spat highlights a broader struggle over how immigration enforcement is perceived and executed. While conservatives champion law and order, there’s room to question whether agencies like ICE always operate with transparency. Until both sides prioritize facts over flair, expect more of these headline-grabbing showdowns.
Hold onto your wallets, folks—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., known for her fiery critiques of wealth and privilege, has some explaining to do about a nearly $50,000 campaign spending spree in Puerto Rico.
Reports surfaced last week revealing that AOC’s campaign dropped a hefty sum on luxury hotels, high-end dining, and a venue rental during a trip earlier this year, Fox News reported.
This lavish expenditure happened while she attended a Bad Bunny concert in San Juan, raising eyebrows among even her staunchest defenders.
The details, uncovered by Fox News Digital through AOC’s latest campaign filings, paint a picture of extravagance that’s tough to reconcile with her public rhetoric.
Over $15,000 went to two upscale hotels in San Juan during the time of Bad Bunny’s “Residency” tour at El Choli Coliseo de Puerto Rico.
That tour, a star-studded event running from August through September, was just part of the backdrop for her campaign’s spending.
Additionally, her campaign shelled out more than $10,500 on meals and catering services in the same reporting period, covering July through September.
During this trip, AOC was spotted in social media videos visiting a housing development in Puerto Rico, speaking out against gentrification—a cause in line with her platform.
Yet, footage from August 10 also shows her enjoying box seats at Bad Bunny’s concert, dancing alongside Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y.
While it’s fine to unwind, using campaign funds for such opulence raises questions about whether this aligns with the image of a fighter for the working class.
Conservative voices were quick to highlight the apparent contradiction, with some labeling it a clear case of double standards.
“AOC rails nonstop against ‘the rich,’ yet drops tens of thousands in campaign cash on luxury hotels, upscale catering, and elite venues on a Puerto Rico trip,” said GOP Florida congressional hopeful Michael Carbonara.
Carbonara’s critique reflects a broader frustration among those who feel progressive leaders often dodge scrutiny for enjoying the perks they publicly condemn.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer also weighed in, noting, “This is not new for her, she's a hypocrite.”
Spicer referenced AOC’s past appearance at the MET Gala in a designer dress emblazoned with “Tax The Rich,” suggesting a pattern of embracing luxury while criticizing it—a sharp but fair observation about political optics.
Is a presidential library just a fancy bookshelf if the funds aren’t there? Former President Joe Biden is finding out the hard way, as his efforts to build a lasting legacy in Delaware are hitting a financial wall, according to a recent New York Times report.
The crux of the story is that Biden has managed to secure only a tiny portion of the money needed for his envisioned presidential library, facing stagnant donations and internal debates about merging with existing institutions, the New York Post reported.
Let’s start at the beginning: Biden’s library foundation hasn’t seen a single new donation in 2024, relying instead on a $4 million surplus from his 2021 inauguration.
Fast forward to 2025, and the foundation remains tight-lipped about current totals, admitting only that Biden is just now kicking off active fundraising efforts.
Even their projections are grim—they’ve told the IRS they expect to raise a mere $11.3 million by the end of 2027, a far cry from the $200 million goal set by aides.
Compare that to Barack Obama’s Chicago presidential center, which has already amassed a staggering $1.5 billion, or Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to raise over $950 million for his Miami library before leaving office.
Here’s where it gets sticky: some of Biden’s most steadfast supporters haven’t even been approached to contribute, while other Democratic donors are openly uninterested, either distracted by opposition to Trump or disillusioned with Biden’s tenure.
“So far, some of Mr. Biden’s most loyal contributors said they had not been contacted by anyone about giving to the library,” The New York Times reported. Talk about a cold shoulder—how do you build a legacy when your own base hasn’t gotten the memo?
Then there’s John Morgan, a prominent Democratic donor, who didn’t mince words: “The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him. He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” he told The Times. Ouch—that’s not just a critique; it’s a funeral dirge for fundraising hopes.
With funds drying up, there’s talk of merging Biden’s library with existing institutions at the University of Delaware, potentially tapping into millions already earmarked for “Biden Hall.”
Right now, these are separate endeavors competing for the same donor pool, but many loyalists hope that combining them could streamline costs and salvage the project.
Neither the university nor the library foundation is commenting on a potential merger, leaving the idea dangling like a fiscal lifeline nobody wants to grab.
Biden himself has stayed vague, saying only that he wants the library in his home state of Delaware and prefers a smaller, less costly setup than Obama’s sprawling center.
The foundation claims delays stem from “intensive research,” including tours of other presidential libraries, but with a $200 million target looking like a pipe dream, one wonders if they’re just stalling for time.
Ultimately, Biden’s library saga feels like a metaphor for broader challenges—good intentions bogged down by poor outreach and a donor class that’s moved on. While a modest Delaware tribute could still emerge, the contrast with other presidents’ fundraising juggernauts is stark, raising questions about how history will remember this chapter.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Rep. Nancy Mace has turned the Charleston airport into a political battleground with behavior that’s raising eyebrows across South Carolina.
The fiery Republican, locked in a heated primary race for governor against state Attorney General Alan Wilson, has sparked outrage with profanity-laden confrontations at the airport, drawing sharp criticism and fracturing party unity, the New York Post reported.
Let’s rewind to April, when Mace clashed with TSA agents over a policy disagreement, frustrated that a family member couldn’t join her through expedited security.
After initial resistance, TSA relented and allowed her family through, but Mace later claimed the agency violated its own rules by separating her from her child during the ordeal.
Fast forward to Oct. 30, and the situation escalated into a full-blown spectacle as Mace, expecting a VIP escort for her outbound flight, unleashed a torrent of expletives when it didn’t materialize.
According to an internal Charleston Airport Authority report, obtained via public records, Mace demanded special treatment, berating officers and TSA staff in a display described as nothing short of shocking.
One officer recounted Mace snapping, “I’m sick of your s–t, I’m tired of having to wait,” while allegedly calling law enforcement “f–king idiots” and touting her status as a “f–king representative” (Charleston Airport Authority report).
Even more telling, the airport wasn’t even crowded that day, as one officer noted it was “not busy at all,” making her impatience seem all the more puzzling.
A veteran TSA officer with 23 years of experience remarked that no other dignitary or VIP had ever caused such a scene, highlighting just how unprecedented this meltdown was.
Enter Alan Wilson, Mace’s rival in the Republican primary, who didn’t mince words, accusing her of acting like a “spoiled brat” who treats cops like “servants” (Wilson interview).
Wilson doubled down, arguing that public servants deserve respect, not tantrums, and suggested Mace’s behavior reeks of entitlement when she doesn’t get her way.
While Mace has dismissed the airport’s investigative report as “falsified” on CNN, offering no proof, her actions have undeniably put her campaign on shaky ground.
Adding fuel to the fire, Mace has faced credible death threats recently, with a suspect denied bond, and she’s accused Wilson of downplaying the danger she faces as a single mother.
Meanwhile, her own team is splintering—consultant Austin McCubbin resigned, accusing her of abandoning MAGA values for a more libertarian lean, a charge that stings in a state hungry for Trump’s coveted endorsement.
Both candidates are jockeying for that golden nod from the former president, with Mace dubbing herself “Trump in high heels,” but the airport drama might just clip her wings before she gets off the ground.
Brace yourself for a chilling glimpse into the shadowy world of Jeffrey Epstein, as a newly released photo from his estate has set off a firestorm of speculation and disgust.
House Democrats dropped a bombshell on Friday, unveiling 19 carefully chosen photographs from Epstein’s estate as part of a congressional probe, including a deeply troubling image on his desk that’s fueling intense online debate, the Daily Mail reported.
These images, plucked from a staggering 95,000 provided to the House Oversight Committee, come just before a December 19 deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Trump on November 19, to release all Department of Justice records on Epstein.
The most unsettling snapshot, undated and partially censored, appears to show an incapacitated individual on a couch, with a black box obscuring the face for privacy.
Social media has erupted over this image, with users like Leasha Knight venting on X, “What a sicko.”
While the context and subject remain unclear, it’s hard not to question what kind of person keeps such a photo in plain sight, raising serious concerns about Epstein’s mindset and untouchable arrogance.
Other photos reveal Epstein rubbing shoulders with powerful figures like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew (now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor), Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Alana Dershowitz, and Steve Bannon at his Manhattan townhouse.
Trump appears in multiple images, including with six women whose faces are censored, on what looks like a plane with another obscured woman, and at a social event alongside Epstein.
Yet, let’s be clear: none of these photos provide evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, Clinton, or others pictured, despite the progressive agenda often eager to spin such narratives.
The release has sparked political fireworks, with the GOP-led Oversight Committee accusing Democrats of selectively curating photos and applying unnecessary redactions to push a biased story.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson fired back on Friday, saying, “Once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”
She didn’t stop there, pointing out that the Trump administration has pushed harder for transparency and support for Epstein’s victims than Democrats, who she claims cozied up to Epstein even after his conviction.
Adding to the tension, the Epstein Files Transparency Act overrides past grand jury secrecy rules, forcing full disclosure of DOJ records—a move long demanded by conservatives frustrated with government stonewalling.
The story carries a tragic weight with Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of trafficking and abusing her after being recruited at 16 from Mar-a-Lago, passing away by suicide in April, though she exonerated Trump in her memoir.
Epstein, indicted for sex trafficking in July 2019, took his own life in jail a month later, while Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for procuring underage girls, serves a 20-year sentence in Florida—reminders of the grim human cost behind these photos.
Buckle up, America -- history is being made as the Trump administration announces a staggering milestone in immigration enforcement.
Since President Donald Trump took office in late January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that over 2.5 million unauthorized migrants have left the U.S., through a mix of deportations and voluntary exits, as Breitbart reports.
This achievement, hailed by DHS as a groundbreaking success, stems from a hardline stance on border security that’s been missing for far too long.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deported more than 605,000 individuals since Trump’s second term began, many with criminal charges or convictions pending.
Meanwhile, nearly 2 million others have chosen to self-deport, encouraged by DHS initiatives like the “CBP Home” app, which offers a free flight and a $1,000 stipend for those who leave voluntarily.
It’s a clever nudge -- why wait for a knock at the door when you can exit with a little cash in hand?
For six straight months, DHS has maintained a strict policy of not releasing any unauthorized migrants into the U.S. from the southern border.
This shift isn’t just about numbers; it’s rippling through the economy, with reports of falling home prices and rents catching the attention of everyday Americans.
Could this be the relief hardworking families have been waiting for, after years of progressive policies inflating housing costs?
HUD Secretary Scott Turner pointed out that rents have dropped for four consecutive months, aligning closely with the decline in unauthorized migration.
Research backs this up -- Danish economists found that a small uptick in local immigration over five years can drive rental prices up by 6% and house prices by 11% at the municipal level.
“The connection between illegal immigration and skyrocketing housing costs is as clear as day,” said Vice President JD Vance, adding, “We are proud to be moving in the right direction. Still so much to do.”
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin didn’t mince words, stating, “The Trump Administration is shattering historic records with more than 2.5 million illegal aliens leaving the U.S.”
She’s right to crow -- this dual approach of over 605,000 deportations and 1.9 million self-exits shows a system finally flexing some muscle, without resorting to the chaos of unchecked borders that some on the left seem to romanticize.
While compassion for individual stories remains vital, the data suggests that prioritizing American citizens’ economic stability isn’t just tough talk -- it’s tangible policy. After all, when rents eat up more income, as Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies noted with a 5-percentage-point immigrant increase correlating to a 12% rent burden hike, who really pays the price? It’s time to rethink the cost of open-border daydreams and focus on results like these.
Boom! A federal appeals court just handed the Pentagon a significant win by upholding restrictions on transgender military service for now, even as legal battles continue to unfold.
In a nutshell, the court’s decision keeps the Department of Defense’s controversial policy in place, allowing the administration to maintain its stance on military readiness standards as lawsuits progress.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn’t hold back in his response, praising the ruling as a critical endorsement of the administration’s focus on a battle-ready force.
Hegseth took to social media to call it a “major legal victory” for the Defense Department, framing it as a triumph of practicality over ideology.
“American Greatness. Military Lethality. Common Sense. And THE LAW,” Hegseth posted, delivering a succinct jab at progressive agendas that, in his view, cloud military priorities.
Let’s unpack that: while Hegseth’s enthusiasm resonates with those who prioritize a no-nonsense military, one wonders if the courtroom is the right arena for defining “common sense” on such personal matters.
Diving deeper, Hegseth argued that maintaining strict, uniform standards is essential for “a lethal, cohesive, deployable U.S. Military—free of ideological agendas.”
That’s a bold claim, and it’s hard to ignore the pointed dig at policies perceived as driven by cultural trends rather than combat needs—though some might ask if readiness truly hinges on this specific restriction.
The court’s ruling, meanwhile, signals a judicial deference to military expertise, suggesting that Pentagon leaders, not judges, should set the bar for service qualifications.
This decision isn’t just legal jargon—it directly affects thousands of active-duty transgender service members whose careers now hang in a state of uncertainty.
Critics of the policy have raised valid concerns, pointing out that long-serving personnel could see their dedication sidelined by rules they deem unnecessary or overly rigid.
While their frustration deserves a fair hearing, supporters of the policy argue that a singular focus on operational effectiveness must trump individual accommodations in a force built for war.
Beyond the immediate impact, the appeals court’s stance could shape how future legal challenges to military policies are handled, potentially cementing executive authority in such debates.
As the administration continues to refine military standards, this ruling fuels an ongoing national conversation about balancing inclusion with the stark demands of defense readiness.
Newsweek sought comments from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense via email after regular hours on Wednesday, though responses remain pending as this story develops.
In a clash of values and policy, the White House has firmly backed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary against a storm of criticism from pro-life advocates.
On December 9, the administration dismissed demands from prominent pro-life groups, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, to oust Makary over the FDA’s handling of abortion-related medications, OSV News reported.
The controversy ignited with the FDA’s recent approval of a new generic version of mifepristone, a drug used primarily for early abortions but also in miscarriage care.
Mifepristone, first greenlit by the FDA in 2000 for early pregnancy termination, has long been a lightning rod in the culture wars.
Critics, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, slammed the FDA for what they call a dangerous disregard for safety by pushing through this latest approval.
Dannenfelser also accused Makary of stalling a promised study on the real-world effects of abortion drugs on women, a delay that Bloomberg reported on December 8.
Dannenfelser didn’t hold back, declaring, “Enough is enough,” and insisting that Makary “should be fired immediately” for failing to prioritize women’s safety.
Her frustration isn’t just with policy—it’s personal to the cause, as she argues Makary’s actions clash with the pro-life stance of President Trump and Vice President Vance.
She contends that state-level protections for the unborn are being undermined by federal overreach, a bitter pill for conservatives who champion local control.
Yet the White House isn’t budging, with spokesman Kush Desai asserting that Makary “is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”
Desai’s defense paints Makary as a reformer, highlighting achievements like tackling artificial food ingredients and overhauling baby formula safety reviews—hardly the image of a reckless bureaucrat.
Still, one wonders if “gold standard” science is just a shiny phrase when pro-life advocates see lives at stake every day the study lags.
Adding fuel to the fire, both Makary and others faced pointed questions from pro-life congressional members after the mifepristone approval, despite earlier hints of a thorough drug review.
Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice President Vance have walked a tightrope on this issue—Trump via video and Vance in person recently addressed the March for Life, signaling support for the movement, even as Trump has said he’d veto a federal abortion ban and leave the matter to states.
Vance, during the campaign, also noted Trump’s openness to mifepristone access, a stance that grates against the hardline position of activists like Dannenfelser, leaving some to question if the administration’s heart is truly with the cause or just playing political chess.