A new Daily Mail and J.L. Partners poll released on Thursday showed that First Lady Melania Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lead the pack with the highest favorability ratings in the Trump administration.
Melania Trump had a 45% very or somewhat favorable rating in the poll, while only 32% had a very or somewhat unfavorable rating. That's a +13 in the poll.
A few points behind her was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had similar favorable ratings of 45% combined, but had higher unfavorable ratings of 39% for a +6 rating.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt both had +3 ratings in the poll, but all the other officials and administration members included had negative numbers, including the president himself.
Vice President J.D. Vance had -1 and Trump had -5 in the survey of 1006 registered voters--both were underwater in their ratings.
Even further underwater were Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at -9 and DOGE head Elon Musk with -15. Musk will soon be mostly leaving the administration to devote himself to Tesla and other projects, but will still work with Trump one to two days a week.
The only figure with a lower rating than Musk in the poll was Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had a -59.
DOGE has been a controversial addition to the government in that it has seemed to cut government spending with a machete rather than a scalpel.
Thousands of federal employees have been laid off or offered early retirement, and most everyone knows of something they don't think should have been cut.
There is also resentment at Musk and Trump, both billionaires, cutting funding for some of the most needy in society, like Medicare, drug treatment, and mental health treatment grants and funding.
Cutting the wasteful and unnecessary spending in the government was at first popular with voters, but the extent of the cuts or temporary budget freezes has alarmed many.
DOGE claimed that it cut $160 billion from the annual budget in its first 100 days, but almost $100 billion of that is not itemized on the DOGE website, so it's hard to say what the real figures are.
Musk originally pledged to cut $2 trillion from the annual budget, but that has not materialized as planned.
Still, any cuts are better than the automatic and exponential increases we have gotten from the last few administrations, including Trump's first term.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case out of Oklahoma after the state's Supreme Court blocked a Catholic Church from a charter school contract.
The court cited concerns that the catholic organization violated state and federal bans on government-sponsored sectarian education, as ABC News reported.
The nation's Supreme Court's conservative majority, however, seemed ready to make way for the first-ever religious charter school in the United States, directly funded by taxpayers.
A decision that overturns the state high court would have far-reaching consequences across the country, particularly in the 45 states where over 3.8 million students attend 8,000 charter schools.
According to the Republican attorney general of the state, charter schools serve as an extension of the state government that is bound by the principles of separation of church and state because they are public institutions that are accessible to everyone and closely monitored.
The justices weighed the First Amendment's ban on state establishment of religion and protection of free exercise of religious faith for over two hours.
The three liberal justices on the court agreed that, as fundamentally public institutions, charter schools cannot use public funds to promote specific ideology.
"The essence of the Establishment Clause was, we're not going to pay religious leaders to teach their religion," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
According to Justice Elena Kagan, the Oklahoma statute that establishes charter schools makes it clear that the schools cannot have any religious affiliation.
"These are state-run institutions," Kagan said. "With respect to a whole variety of things, the state is running these schools and insisting upon certain requirements."
Conservatives insisted they saw charter schools differently, as independent contractors providing a public good rather than an official government agency.
"The argument that St. Isidore and the board has made is that it's a private entity that is participating in a state program," noted Justice Clarence Thomas. "It was not created by the state program."
A ruling by the nation's high court against St. Isidore on First Amendment grounds could have an impact on other government contracts with religiously linked organizations, according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I think a concern here is that religiously operated senior homes or food banks or foster care agencies or adoption agencies or homeless shelters, many of which get substantial funding from the government, would potentially … become state actors and, thus, not be able to exercise their religion," Kavanaugh said.
Last year, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case without explaining why, but veteran court watchers have noted her close ties to Notre Dame and the previous relationships she has cultivated with some of the law professors participating in the case.
If the court were to become stuck at 4-4 due to her absence, the decision of the Oklahoma state Supreme Court would remain in effect. It is generally believed that Roberts will cast the deciding vote.
"Today's oral arguments made clear that states must not treat religious individuals and institutions as second-class citizens," said Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and president of JCN, a conservative legal advocacy group.
"I expect the court will follow precedent and allow St. Isidore to offer educational choice for Oklahoma's students."
Those opposed to religious charter schools expressed concern that a major court decision right now could have a long-lasting impact.
"If today's arguments are any indication, the Supreme Court may be on the verge of abandoning one of the bedrock principles of our democracy," said Rev. Dr. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a left-leaning Christian advocacy group.
"Let's be clear, this was always a test case, and today, the constitutional protections that have guarded true religious freedom for generations are at risk."
On Tuesday, marking 100 days in office, President Donald Trump made that official with a snub to his former opponent.
Trump dismissed Doug Emhoff, former Second Gentleman, and others selected by Joe Biden from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, as Breitbart News reported.
It is worth noting that Emhoff was appointed by the Biden administration to spearhead its "strategy" against antisemitism.
However, this plan was diluted and failed to address the root cause of anti-Jewish animosity following the terror attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023. As a result, there were antisemitic demonstrations and attacks.
The New York Times reported on the issue, noting that the current administration was firing the previous administration's appointees.
The board is one that oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and was home to not just the former second gentleman, but a number of other Biden officials.
“Today, I was informed of my removal from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council,” Mr. Emhoff said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized. To turn one of the worst atrocities in history into a wedge issue is dangerous — and it dishonors the memory of six million Jews murdered by Nazis that this museum was created to preserve.”
This is far from the first removal done by Trump of Biden officials, both functional and ceremonial, with the changes rippling through Washington like an alligator surfacing in the swamp.
The other officials removed by the Trump administration include Ron Klain, Biden’s first chief of staff; Tom Perez, the former labor secretary and senior adviser to Biden; and Susan Rice, the national security adviser to former President Barack Obama.
The former first lady didn't get off unscathed, though, as Trump also removed Anthony Bernal, a senior adviser to Jill Biden, the former first lady.
Ironically, Trump has been able to fire a large number of Biden appointees to various councils and offices largely because the Biden administration was so adamant about the same.
Biden relentlessly fired anyone Trump had appointed during his first term, including Sean Spicer, who served as the former press secretary.
That purge, which was upheld by the Supreme Court was the foundation for the change and paved the way for Trump to do the same.
The humor of that situation was not lost on those who got the ax at the start of the last administration. “Now all of these Biden appointees are paying the price for what Biden did,” Spicer said.
A federal judge ruled Friday to temporarily prevent President Donald Trump from stopping collective bargaining activity for federal employees whose jobs deal with national security, a move that could prevent hundreds of thousands of federal workers from joining unions.
The sticking point is a law passed by Congress to strengthen federal employees' collective bargaining rights, which the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) argued the Trump executive order bans.
The March order applies an exception in the law to employees in the departments of Treasury, State, Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and parts of Health and Human Services, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Homeland Security, among others.
The NTEU argued in the suit that the exception was narrow and applied to the FBI and a few other agencies, not to jobs in the agencies above.
In the NTEU's view, the president just wants to be able to fire federal employees more easily.
“The President’s sweeping Executive Order is inconsistent with the narrow exception that Congress provided,” the NTEU said. “None of the NTEU-represented agencies that the Order targets … do national security or intelligence work. Indeed, the Administration’s own issuances show that the President’s exclusions are not based on national security concerns, but instead a desire to make federal employees easier to fire and to weaken federal sector unions.”
The Department of Justice countered these arguments by saying that union negotiations could harm the readiness of federal employees to defend the nation.
After all, if union workers necessary for national security decide to strike, it could leave a gaping hole in the country's defenses.
National security is a part of many federal jobs, even if indirectly.
National president of NTEU Doreen Greenwald said after the order was issued that it was a “victory for federal employees, their union rights and the American people they serve.”
“NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies and their legally protected rights to organize,” Greenwald added.
Could Trump be trying to make it easier to fire federal workers?
It's possible he wants to expand the cuts made by DOGE so far into other areas, combine jobs, or reduce staff in certain areas to save some of the vast trillions of taxpayer dollars currently spent by agencies.
On the other hand, maybe he just wants to keep the country more secure and keep our enemies from exploiting weaknesses.
Former U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who falsified most of his resume while running for a House seat in 2022, was sentenced on Friday to seven years in prison for wire fraud and identity theft.
He pleaded guilty in August 2024 to making fraudulent campaign donations in the names of 11 family members and reporting to the Federal Election Commission that he had loaned his campaign $500,000 when he only had $8,000 in his bank accounts.
Santos, who sobbed at Judge Joanna Seybert's sentence, has until July 25 to report to prison for the start of his sentence.
He also has to pay $373,000 in restitution and will have two years of probation after his time is served.
“I offer my deepest apologies,” Santos said. “I cannot rewrite the past, but I can control the road ahead.”
He admitted that he had “betrayed the confidence entrusted to me by constituents, donors, colleagues, and this court.”
Santos committed the fraud in order to qualify for aid from the national party, which helped him get elected to the swing seat.
In addition to the fraud, Santos's campaign also stole the identities and financial information of many of his donors and repeatedly charged their credit cards for more donations without authorization.
Judge Seybert did not buy his apology for one second. “Where’s the remorse? Where do I see it?” she asked.
She also called him “an arrogant fraudster talking out of both sides of his mouth."
“Mr. Santos, words have consequences,” she said. “You got elected with your words, most of which were lies.”
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York John J. Durham said after the sentence: “From the moment he declared his candidacy for Congress, Santos leveraged his campaign for his own enrichment and financial benefit."
“Today, George Santos was finally held accountable for the mountain of lies, theft, and fraud he perpetrated," Durham stated. "For the defendant, it was judgment day, and for his many victims including campaign donors, political parties, government agencies, elected bodies, his own family members, and his constituents, it is justice.
“To Mr. Santos and other dishonest individuals of that ilk, who lie, steal identities and commit frauds to get elected to public office, this prosecution speaks to the truth that my Office is committed to aggressively rooting out public corruption and that public officials who criminally abuse our electoral process will end up in a federal prison," he added.
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) made waves by making the insane claim that Trump administration officials should be arrested for "kidnapping."
During an appearance Friday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Raskin argued that because rogue leftist judges are being arrested for aiding and abetting illegal immigrants, Trump officials should also be arrested for “interfering with a legal proceeding” or “kidnapping.”
Raskin's statements come after federal authorities arrested Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin for aiding illegal immigrants avoid immigration officers who had a warrant for their arrest.
Raskin stated, "Now they’re arresting judges, and the first felony criminal charge brought against Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin is interfering with a legal proceeding, which is essentially what they’ve been doing all along. What Judge Boasberg is about to hold them in criminal contempt for and has found that there is probable cause for criminal contempt is that they deliberately ignored and defied his order not to take off in those airplanes headed for El Salvador and not turning the airplanes around."
On the face of it, this statement makes no sense, but it is very likely that Democrats are going to press this issue heavily as they attempt to thwart President Donald Trump's bold immigration agenda.
Raskin's assertion that Trump officials are guilty of "interfering with a legal proceeding” or “kidnapping" is entirely baseless and draws from the doomed movement to hold Trump officials in contempt of court for deporting illegal immigrants.
Raskin claimed in his interview with Maddow that, "They have been disobeying federal court orders systematically. They have incurred criminal contempt findings in the courtroom of Judge Boasberg, a conservative Republican, a judge. They have been demanding the impeachment of judges who rule against the lawlessness of the Trump administration."
For the record, Judge Boasberg was appointed by former President Barack Obama, which immediately throws Raskin's assertion that he is a conservative into a dubious light.
Furthermore, Judge Boasberg's attempts to hold Trump officials in contempt of court for failing to abide by an order they could never uphold show that he is an ideological opponent of the conservative movement.
Judge Boasberg attempted to order flights to El Salvador carrying violent illegal immigrants to turn around, but this was simply impossible. His attempt to push contempt of court charges was quickly shut down by a higher court.
Raskin ignored this higher order in arguing that the Trump administration should be held in criminal contempt. It's no surprise to see a Democrat ignoring evidence in order to push an absurd narrative against the Trump administration.
Trump's immigration agenda and deportation of violent illegal immigrants are massively popular with regular Americans, but that hasn't stopped activist judges from stonewalling and slowing down Trump's agenda at every turn.
So far, two judges have been arrested for openly thwarting a legal arrest of illegal immigrants and have already been canonized by the left for their valiant efforts in protecting illegal immigrants, who often are a threat to the American people.
Thankfully, the Trump administration is working to hold those rogue judges accountable, and the Supreme Court will likely have a large role to play in reining in these activist judges who care more about illegal immigrants than the safety of the American people.
Ukraine is engaged in peace talks with Russia mediated by the Trump administration, and the latest reports indicate that pressure on Ukraine is building.
Kyiv's Mayor Vitali Klitschko reportedly stated that achieving a peace deal with Russia may require President Volodymyr Zelensky to give up some areas that Russia has taken since the beginning of the brutal war.
The BBC reported on Friday that Klitschko stated, "One of the scenarios is...to give up territory. It's not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution, temporary."
In Ukraine's situation, fairness isn't even being considered. With the United States bled dry and European nations balking at funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions a year, Ukraine must make a peace deal sooner rather than later.
Russia also has a strong motivation to sue for peace as it has been brutalized by the war, losing thousands of men and untold amounts of equipment that Russia is struggling to replace due to its failing economy.
Both sides must make concessions to end the war, but both sides are being predictably difficult. Russia holds more cards than Ukraine, but it is Ukraine that is refusing to give up a single square mile of the territory conquered by Russia, which is arguably an insignificant area.
Russia had hopes of seizing major areas quickly at the beginning of the war, but failed horrifically, and the war became a grinding war of attrition, with many of Russia's gains coming at immense cost in lives and equipment.
President Zelensky's refusal to make any concessions is bogging down peace talks, which have frustrated U.S. President Donald Trump, who wanted the war to end within weeks of assuming office back in January.
While both sides continue to make no concessions, people continue to die. On Thursday, Kyiv was hit by missiles and drones from Russia, killing at least 12 people in the biggest attack on the capital this year.
For Ukraine, the question is will it be worth it to continue fighting in this brutal war or would it be better to concede a small amount of territory that wasn't worth the cost of conquering?
With the U.S. scaling back financial and military support for Ukraine, the clock is ticking. It's up to Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to make the right decision for their people and end the war that has caused over one million killed or injured.
Trump and Zelenskyy met this past week ahead of Pope Francis's funeral, and the sentiment seems to be that a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia is "very close."
This happened as Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on Friday to discuss Washington’s peace plan, although details of that meeting weren't being made readily available.
According to a Truth Social post, Trump claimed that "most of the major points are agreed to” between Russia and Ukraine. The White House is now working on a meeting between Ukrainian and Russian representatives to settle the remaining issues and finally sign a deal.
Despite loud demands from Ukraine that Crimea be returned after being annexed in 2014, hopes are high that the end is finally here.
Politico reported on Wednesday that sources said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) will announce on May 5 that she will not seek re-election in 2026.
Schakowsky, 80, plans to retire when her current term ends, the sources told Politico.
She said that she would discuss her plans on May 5, but did not say anything publicly about retiring.
When the Politico report came out, she again refused to announce a decision, asking those interested to wait until May 5 for the decision.
Reportedly, she has begun talking to colleagues about her plans to retire, however.
Schakowsky was a leader of progressives in the House. I guess she has decided not to hang around to see if Democrats can retake the majority in 2026.
Many of the oldest members of Congress from both parties are retiring, particularly given that this is the oldest Congress anyone can remember.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin also announced his retirement on Wednesday. Durbin is also 80.
Politico called the current state of affairs among Democrats in Congress a "reckoning," with a number of young challengers attempting to displace some of the older members there.
Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg is one of those young Progressives. He said he would use the committee's funds to back challengers to older Democrats, but exempted Schakowsky and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA).
Maybe they got passes because they are women? It's hard to say.
It could be that Pelosi is still wielding her considerable power over the party and told Hogg not to go after Schakowsky. Every power move has its limits, after all.
Schakowsky was a major part of drafting Obamacare, and Pelosi appointed her in 2010 to Obama's Bowles-Simpson reform committee.
She also supports J Street, a radical anti-Israel group. She recently voted with 77 other Democrats to embargo Israel.
The nation's high court appears to be leaning in favor of some parents from the state of Maryland who are asking for a change in some of the materials taught to their kids.
The Tuesday hearing before the Supreme Court seemed to show the majority of conservative judges offering questions that supported the parents who object to books with gay and transgender characters for primary school kids, as Breitbart News reported.
The 2½-hour oral argument centered around the parents' religious beliefs. Given that the conservative justices are in favor of religious liberty, the parents' case against the Montgomery County Board of Education was strong.
The parents are not requesting that the materials not be present in their children's school, just that they have an opt-out option for those whose religious beliefs preclude the materials' morals.
Some justices expressed concern that the board's refusal to provide an opt-out was due to religious bias.
A debate has been ongoing in Montgomery County, English language arts textbooks, since 2022, when the school board in the diverse region outside of Washington requested additional LGBTQ storybooks to more accurately represent its residents.
Muslims and Orthodox Christians objected to the content on religious grounds, citing the First Amendment, contending that their children should have the right to opt out.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the more conservative members of the bench, was one of several who offered his concern about statements about the school board in question.
The school representative stated in a media interview that a student who objected to the books was "parroting dogma" from her parents, as per court documents.
She also compared their complaints to those of white supremacists who opposed civil rights laws.
“Does that suggest a hostility toward religion?” Gorsuch asked in his questioning, harkening back to a 2018 ruling in which the court ruled in favor of JackPhillips, a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake to celebrate a gay couple.
Several conservative justices seemed surprised by the school board's decision to make providing an opt-out too difficult for most parents to effectively do for their children, as well as the wisdom of the curriculum at all.
“Why isn’t that feasible?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.
Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned, “I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible."
Although the school board maintained that the policy did not mandate that students affirm or support the books' content, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared doubtful: "Is that a realistic concept when you are talking about a 5-year-old?" he asked.
Protesting what they saw as pressure from the Justice Department to express remorse for pursuing the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, three federal prosecutors from Manhattan resigned on Tuesday.
Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom all accused DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche of trying to get the to lie and "express regret" to re-establish their employment in relation to the case that accused Adams of accepting bribes from Turks in exchange for travel perks, the New York Post reported.
“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” the three prosecutors, who had been placed on “administrative leave,” wrote in a scathing one-page letter obtained by The Post.
The DOJ under President Trump “has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington,” the prosecutors claimed.
Dale Ho, the judge presiding over Adams' case, recently ruled that the prosecutors involved were only acting within the bounds of legality, which led to the departures.
“The record before the Court indicates that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York prosecutors who worked on this case followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. There is no evidence — zero — that they had any improper motives,” the judge wrote.
During their time working for the SDNY office, Rohrbach, Cohen, and Wikstrom mentioned that they had experience working under both Republican and Democrat presidents.
This is the office is responsible for supervising high-profile trials, such as the Sean "Diddy" Combs case. According to the outgoing employees, they’d been allowed to do their jobs “without fear or favor."
Both Rohrbach and Cohen were heavily involved in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was a client of Jeffrey Epstein, and Cohen was in charge of a number of local mob prosecutions.
The resignations occurred on the very first day that Jay Clayton, who was appointed by Trump to serve as an interim leader of SDNY, assumed office. The Department of Justice's February campaign to dismiss Adams' case led to the resignation of five SDNY prosecutors.
In her resignation letter, the then-interim head of the SDNY, Danielle Sassoon, accused the White House of arranging a corrupt "quid pro quo" arrangement in which Adams consented to meet Trump's demands over immigration policy in return for the dismissal of his case.
Hagan Scotten, who was the primary prosecutor in the Adams case, has also stepped down.
Danielle Sassoon was part of the turnover, tendering her resignation in February in protest of the Justice Department's order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Because of that change, Matthew Podolsky agreed to step down and took over for Sassoon.
Following Trump's firing of Edward Kim, who had served as U.S. attorney throughout the transition in administrations, Sassoon was appointed to the position.
Until federal judges in Manhattan confirm or appoint him, Trump's choice Jay Clayton will serve as an interim for a maximum of four months. Throughout Trump's inaugural year in office, Clayton oversaw the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Prior to becoming head of the SEC, Clayton advised Wall Street firms and other corporations on complying with federal regulations while working as a partner at the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.