President Donald Trump called on Sunday for House Republicans to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, a reversal from his earlier opposition to doing so.
"We have nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party," Trump wrote after his return from a weekend in Florida.
With the addition of a new Democrat to the House, that chamber is able to pass a pending measure compelling the DOJ to release all files related to Epstein with or without the support of Trump.
Furthermore, selectively leaked emails have put Trump in a bad light in regards to alleged involvement with Epstein, and he now seems eager to use the emails to correct the record and fight the allegations that he had anything to do with Epstein's sex trafficking and other illicit activities with underage girls.
Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on some Sunday political shows that they expect up to 100 Republicans to break from Trump and order the release of the files.
"I'm hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote," Massie said, adding that he expects a "deluge" of GOP lawmakers to vote yes on it.
A discharge petition from Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for the release of the files has been on the docket since July, but Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent the chamber on recess early to avoid a vote at the time.
When they came back into session, that discharge petition was still hanging over their heads.
Furthermore, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) was finally sworn in, giving Massie and his GOP cohorts the 218th vote needed to make the petition successful.
Her swearing in was delayed during the federal government shutdown, and some have said it was to avoid this vote while Trump still opposed it.
"I'm not tired of winning yet, but we are winning," Massie said.
Johnson seemed to acknowledge Massie's win on the issue.
"We'll just get this done and move it on. There's nothing to hide," he said, adding that the Oversight Committee has released "more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit."
"They're doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not," Johnson said.
Newly released records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate have exposed a text conversation between a Democrat delegate and the late billionaire and child trafficker.
Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett was testifying in front of Congress in 2019 when she exchanged text messages with Epstein, seemingly consulting with him on how to answer questions.
These messages were released in a large batch of documents from the House Oversight Committee this November as the House continues to dig into Epstein's empire of child trafficking and political influence.
Plaskett was one of the members of a Congressional panel questioning former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in February 2019 and it appears that she was coordinating with Epstein on how to nail Cohen down and cause trouble for President Donald Trump.
One text from Epstein read, "Hes [Cohen] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org." These texts suggest Epstein was working with Democrats to undermine Trump, completely undermining an emerging narrative that Trump and Epstein were friends in any capacity.
For years, Democrats accused Trump of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. That conspiracy was based on falsified opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but Trump had to fight against those charges for years.
At the same time that Democrats were pushing the Russian collusion hoax, it seems that certain Democrats were in active communication with Epstein on how to undermine Trump.
Furthermore, by 2019, Epstein's human trafficking allegations were firmly in play, leaving little excuse for anyone to be dealing with him. Democrats accused Trump of being friends with Epstein ignoring the fact that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago in 2004.
To add further intrigue to this situation, Plaskett herself received significant political donations from Epstein and initially refused to return those donations after Epstein's arrest until public pressure built up.
Plaskett has also been named in a 2023 lawsuit filed by six Epstein accusers alleging Virgin Islands authorities benefited from or enabled Epstein's child trafficking network. While the case was dismissed, it's become apparent that Plaskett was firmly in Epstein's orbit and benefited from his monstrous crimes.
The information released by the House Oversight Committee is long overdue, as Americans deserve answers about Epstein's crimes and those who were aware and/or participated in those crimes.
Even while these discoveries are important, they shine a light on the incompetence of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been downright dismissive of demands from voters to release more information on Epstein and his sordid criminal network.
Trump promised transparency if elected, and so far, the people that Trump has brought into his administration have failed miserably in fulfilling that promise. It's unlikely that Plaskett was the only Democrat politician with deep ties to Epstein; there are likely others still serving in Congress who must face accountability.
New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani called on his supporters to boycott the popular coffee shop chain Starbucks in support of the workers' union.
Starbucks Workers United, the union representing the coffee shop's employees, has declared an open-ended strike in what is being dubbed the "Red Cup Rebellion."
The union alleges that Starbucks is engaged in unfair labor practices and is refusing to negotiate with the union in good faith.
Mamdani took to X on Thursday saying, "Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract. While workers are on strike, I won’t be buying any Starbucks, and I’m asking you to join us. Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee."
It's hard to imagine leftist consumers being able to skip buying their daily overpriced frappuccino, but if anyone can mobilize leftists, it's the self-described socialist set to be New York City's next mayor.
In a post on social media, the union wrote, "As of today, Starbucks workers across the country are officially ON STRIKE and we're prepared for this to become the biggest and longest ULP strike in Starbucks history. Say #NoContractNoCoffee with us: DON'T BUY STARBUCKS for the duration of our open-ended ULP strike! $SBUX."
This boycott coincided with Starbucks's Red Cup Day, an important day for Starbucks loyalists who can pick up a holiday-themed red cup that is reusable.
It's a powerful move to flip what is typically a great marketing scheme by Starbucks on its head and use it as a rallying point for the boycott as the union works to get a better deal from the company.
However, the effectiveness of this boycott is certainly in question. If you ask Starbucks representatives, this year's Red Cup Day was a massive success despite the union's boycott.
Jaci Anderson, Starbucks Director of Global Communications, spoke to Fox News and explained, "In terms of our annual Reusable Red Cup Day – we actually had a great day – 99% of our coffeehouses remained open and welcoming customers and we exceeded our sales expectations across company-operated coffeehouses in North America, making it the best Red Cup Day ever."
She continued by saying, "We’re disappointed that Workers United, who represents less than 4% of our partners, has called for a strike instead of returning to the bargaining table. Less than 1% of our coffeehouses are experiencing any level of disruption and the vast majority of our 240,000 partners came to work ready to serve customers and celebrate Reuseable Red Cup Day. "
So far, it would appear that even Mamdani can't seem to get the average leftist to stand with workers' unions against their favorite corporation that sells overpriced coffee.
Turns out leftist voters care more about their overpriced coffee, which is a hallmark of American consumerism, than standing with workers. It's entirely possible that with Mamdani's campaign over, many of his supporters no longer care about ongoing political issues.
As for Starbucks, they insist that they are ready to hold talks with the union, even though Starbucks Workers United doesn't have enough members to disrupt Starbucks' operations on a national level. For conservatives, this entire situation is an entertaining episode of left-on-left violence, considering Starbucks's massive contributions to the Democrat Party.
The Trump administration is moving to rescind the Biden-era drilling ban on 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska's Arctic region.
During a press release on Thursday, the administration announced that it would issue a final rule on Friday to rescind the ban on drilling in the area.
The rule is expected to be published in the National Register on Friday.
The petroleum reserve is a 23-million-acre property that was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 to serve as an emergency supply for the Navy.
However, the land has not been fully developed for drilling because of environmental reasons, as Democrat presidents have blocked it.
Biden's reason for blocking drilling there was to protect the environment, but Trump touted help for the local economy and improving national security by producing more of our own energy.
“By rescinding the 2024 rule, we are following the direction set by President Trump to unlock Alaska’s energy potential, create jobs for North Slope communities and strengthen American energy security,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a written statement.
The proposal to rescind the order happened earlier this year; Friday's action just makes the proposal permanent.
Harvard Law School estimated that the National Petroleum Reserve could produce about 590 million barrels of oil over 30 years.
It certainly wouldn't provide all of U.S. energy usage, which is currently about 20 million barrels a day.
It is a lot of oil, though, and it helps meet Trump's goal of increasing our energy independence.
As of 2023, the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but we do import some of our oil because it is a different type than we can produce ourselves.
In addition, energy usage is expected to increase to support the adoption of AI in various areas of society.
This will include oil to power electric plants and power the grid for the foreseeable future, and Trump is being realistic about these needs.
President Donald Trump recently floated a controversial idea to make mortgages more affordable for families: a 50-year mortgage, which is two to more than three times the current options of 15 or 30 years.
The blowback from this idea was loud and instantaneous, and now officials in the administration are calling for the head of the man who suggested the idea to Trump, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte.
It was Saturday when Pulte floated the idea of the 50-year mortgage to Trump, using a poster board to bolster his defense of the plan.
Trump apparently went for it, since he mentioned it on Truth Social right afterward. But not surprisingly, a lot of people didn't go for the idea, which would dramatically increase the amount of interest paid and the length of time people would make payments before owning their homes.
Financially, it's just a bad idea, but to people priced out of the housing market by a few hundred dollars a month, it may be something they want to consider.
It may be more of a temporary fix until mortgage interest rates go down further, or until wages catch up with inflation.
All that to say, it may not be a completely terrible idea at a time when the cost of buying a home has virtually doubled in under 10 years.
This is probably what Trump thought, but the usual suspects, along with the fiscal hawks, jumped all over him the moment they saw the idea.
“The idea behind the 15- and 30-year mortgage is that you eventually own the home you live in, whereas the 50-year mortgage abandons this pretense altogether and fully embraces the idea of housing as a speculative asset. Not good, unless you’re a bank,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo wrote on X.
“The 50-year mortgage proposal is basically: cut a few hundred off the monthly payment, spend hundreds of thousands more overall. If that sounds like a good deal to you, congratulations! You just rented from the bank for half a century,” podcaster Steven Crowder wrote on X.
Which leads to the reaction of Trump officials to the backlash.
“Anything that goes before POTUS needs to be vetted,” a person present for Pulte’s pitch said. “And a lot of times with Pulte they’re not. He just goes straight up to POTUS.”
Trump loves to say that the economy is booming, but in reality it is more like hanging on by a thread.
And while Trump can use any help he can get right now, 50-year mortgages seem more like a band-aid for inflation and a cautious Fed than a real solution to what may become a housing crisis soon.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have released new files to Congress showing how the Clinton Foundation, run by Bill and Hillary Clinton, collected foreign and domestic donations from those seeking influence over the U.S. government, but were never investigated fully for influence peddling schemes.
The files are being called the "Clinton Corruption Files," and Patel and Bondi plan to make them public in the next week or two once some information related to the whistleblowers is removed.
The evidence will show that there was an effort “to obstruct legitimate inquiries into the Foundation by blocking real investigation by line-level FBI agents and DOJ field prosecutors and keeping them from following the money,” an official who has seen the files said.
The Clinton Foundation was started after Bill left office in 2000, but some of the contributions were received while Hillary served as Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
Whistleblowers in 2015 said that some of the documents and evidence was kept from investigators in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the pair lived before Bill Clinton became president.
The investigation was soon shut down by order of Obama Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, but if the evidence bears out, it appears that former President Joe Biden wasn't the first powerful executive branch figure to run a pay-to-play scheme out of the White House.
In fact, there were three separate investigations into the Clintons that were all shut down by Yates.
According to Trump officials, the documents show that lower-level FBI agents and prosecutors prevented evidence from getting to decision makers in the multiple investigations of the Clinton Foundation.
It's not at all surprising that damning evidence about the Clintons was buried so deeply that it never came to light.
Anyone familiar with the speculation surrounding the Clinton Foundation for years will not be surprised by the revelations by Patel and Bondi.
Republicans long thought that the foundation was a corrupt vehicle for influence peddling, but they never had any hard evidence until now.
Unfortunately, the statute of limitations on influence peddling is five years, so unless there is evidence of a crime without a statute of limitations, the Clintons will once again get off scot-free.
Other than propping up their legacies, I don't even know why they care anymore whether people know what they did.
Maybe it would give away the Democrat playbook, although it seems like maybe it skipped a generation with Barack Obama.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama once again blasted the Trump administration for demolishing the East Wing of the White House, saying that it "denigrates" the traditional workspace of the first lady and by extension, her role.
“When we talk about the East Wing, it is the heart of the work” of a first lady, Obama stated. “And to denigrate it, to tear it down, to pretend like it doesn’t matter — it’s a reflection of how you think of that role.”
Obama claimed that her work as first lady and the “balanced image of the first family” it created got her husband "five extra approval points," according to the New York Times.
While former President Barack Obama's approval rating fluctuated, as most presidents' do, he left office fairly popular.
It wasn't Michelle Obama's first criticism of President Donald Trump's plan to build a massive ballroom where FLOTUS had worked.
She told Stephen Colbert during a recent taping that the East Wing was a lighthearted place that had children and puppies.
She was "confused" about the values of the country under Trump, and added, “I just feel like, what is important to us as a nation anymore? Because I’m lost.”
She's not the only one who has used the image of a wrecking ball at the White House as a metaphor for Trump's presidency.
Former President Joe Biden said during an appearance in Omaha last week that Trump would “take a wrecking ball to the country,” and he called the ballroom “a perfect symbol of his presidency.”
Similar comments were made by former Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; Clinton even used the construction to raise money (for what, we don't know).
On behalf of Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that many presidents have undertaken renovation projects at the White House.
She asserted that a large indoor event space was needed in light of the fact that state dinners are currently held in rented tents on the South Lawn.
In defending his decision to demolish the East Wing, Trump said it had been renovated 20 other times, including adding a floor on the top, which he said looked awful.
For now, the first lady's offices have been relocated to other areas of the White House, and it was not immediately clear whether permanent replacement office space would be provided.
The Trump administration said on Monday that it would continue to seek a block of an order to pay full SNAP benefits for November in the midst of a federal government shutdown.
A Rhode Island court issued the order last week after President Donald Trump agreed to pay partial benefits to SNAP recipients using existing funding, but said that full benefits would not be paid because the funding was not yet approved by Congress.
A Boston appeals court twice ruled that it would not stay the lower court ruling while the Supreme Court considered the case.
Besides the issue of whether a court can rule that payments be made in the absence of funding by Congress, the Trump administration also argued that the ruling violated a SCOTUS decision about lower courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the order while the White House decided whether to continue to seek a block on the lower court decision.
A supplemental brief is being filed today, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond by Tuesday morning.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration also sent a memo to states that unilaterally said they would pay the full SNAP benefit amount to recipients, telling them they had to "undo" the payments.
A judge in Massachusetts quickly blocked that memo, however.
To me, it seems like a lot of to-do over nothing. When the shutdown ends, which it looks like will happen this week, full benefits will be paid.
It seems like a lot of court activity over a few days of delay, and I'm not sure why that's a hill Trump wants to die on.
The Senate finally advanced a spending bill on Sunday after working through the weekend, and the terms seem pretty favorable to Republicans, which means it will likely pass in the House as well.
The bill funds the government through January, but funds SNAP benefits through most of 2026.
It also guarantees a vote on extending ACA subsidies for an additional year, but did not approve the subsidies yet.
The end of the shutdown also seems likely to alleviate shortages at food banks and other issues stemming from a lack of payments to lower-income individuals.
The Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case on President Trump's tariff powers, and it's entirely possible that justices appointed by Trump could prove to be a major problem.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's use of an emergency law to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs, which have been the source of major controversy and several serious lawsuits.
So far, justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett seem to be the most skeptical about Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is bad news for Trump.
The Supreme Court has a 6-4 conservative majority, which Trump is banking on to score easy victories. However, with two conservative justices seemingly wavering, this could lead to a decision that isn't in Trump's favor.
Should the Supreme Court declare that the Trump administration's tariff policy is illegitimate, it will completely knock down a cornerstone of Trump's economic policy.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. Trump has cited the trade deficit as such an emergency to impose tariffs via executive order earlier this year.
However, lawsuits filed by Democrats against Trump's declaration have claimed that since the words "tariffs" or "taxes" do not appear in the text of the IEEPA, Trump's actions are unlawful.
The Supreme Court is considering the power to "regulate importation" during a national emergency, which would certainly seem to include tariffs, which are essentially a fee on any imported goods.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer by asking, "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch also inquired, "What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?"
Of course, the Trump administration has been adamant that while tariffs may seem like taxes, they are legally separate concepts that should settle any concerns about the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's leftist justices have already made it clear that they do not support Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA, which means that this will be a 6-4 decision, in the best-case scenario.
This means that the Trump administration must secure both Barrett's and Gorsuch's votes to avoid a devastating defeat that will undermine Trump's economic agenda.
Court observers have suggested that a Trump victory is still very much in play, but there is growing concern that Gorsuch or Barrett, both appointed by Trump in his 1st term, could flip and join the left. That would be an unparalleled disaster for Trump, who is in bad need of a win.
A magistrate judge overseeing the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey has been openly hostile to the Trump administration, and that signals serious trouble ahead.
The judge, William Fitzpatrick, accused Trump's Department of Justice of pursuing a “indict first, investigate later” strategy. It's an absurd claim considering that the Trump administration has been plotting to hold Comey accountable for years since his false testimony to Congress.
Judge Fitzpatrick also ordered the government to disclose a raft of documents from search warrants and grand jury proceedings in another move that suggests that he is skeptical of the case against Comey.
For Republicans, this news suggests that there is yet another exhausting court battle ahead for the Trump administration.
Comey has pleaded “not guilty” to charges that he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, but now he has a chance of beating the case thanks to an activist judge who appears to have an anti-Trump bias.
The Department of Justice has hit back at Fitzpatrick in a filing stating that he had exceeded the "scope of the Magistrate Judge’s delegated authority and was entered without the necessary findings that the defendant has shown particularized and factually based grounds exist for disclosure and that the need for disclosure outweighs the long-established public interest in grand jury secrecy."
Fitzpatrick's order demands every document stretching back years, suggesting that Fitzpatrick believes the case is illegitimate and is searching for any technical flaws that could spring Comey free.
Comey's lawyers have also been attacking the case, with lead attorney Patrick Fitzgerald alleging that the prosecution is “vindictive” and “selective."
Comey's team also claims that acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan was appointed illegitimately as there supposedly cannot be two subsequent acting attorneys in a district.
The Department of Justice responded to this saying, "Even were Ms. Halligan’s appointment invalid, the motions to dismiss should be denied. While Defendants challenge Ms. Halligan’s appointment as interim US Attorney, the actions they challenge do not hinge on her validly holding that particular office."
This case has quickly devolved into a legal mess, and conservatives hoping to see Comey face justice quickly are going to be sorely disappointed.
Leftist bureaucrats like Comey have evaded justice for years, both thanks to former President Joe Biden and leftist judges who have fought any efforts to bring charges.
Another factor at play is the GOP in the Senate, which has refused to take measures to undermine Democratic obstruction efforts against Trump's nominees. The Senate GOP could settle any issues of Halligan's legitimacy if they made rule changes that would end the Democrat blockade.
It seems highly likely that this case will take some time to prosecute and will likely end up in a higher court where one activist judge can't skew things.