President Donald Trump got a standing ovation from the Israeli Knesset on Monday when he asked Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of bribery charges he faces.
“Hey, I have an idea. Mr. President, why don’t you give him a pardon? Give him a pardon,” Trump said, after which applause and chants of “Bibi, Bibi!’ broke out.
“By the way, that was not in the speech, as you probably know, but I happen to like this gentleman right over here,” Trump continued.
“It just seems to make so much sense. You know whether we like it or not, this has been one of the greatest wartime presidents. Cigars and champagne? Who the hell cares about that?” he stated.
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump asks the President of Israel ON THE SPOT to give Benjamin Netanyahu "a PARDON."
The Knesset erupts into a standing ovation
"That was NOT in the speech! But I happen to like him, and it just seems to make so much sense. One of the greatest war time… pic.twitter.com/EgdBx2RtEj
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 13, 2025
Trump's on the spot request has put Herzog on the spot, and at a time when both Trump and Netanyahu are being looked at as heroes for reaching a deal to stop the fighting.
Trump has been saying since June that the State of Israel should drop the charges against Netanyahu.
Supporters of the PM say the charges of petty corruption for acts such as receiving cigars from a friend are politically motivated.
The judges in the case even suggested that at least one of the charges should be dropped, but Netanyahu was forced to testify during a time of war anyway.
Trump is riding high on public opinion after brokering an initial peace deal between Israel and Hamas, bringing an end to the fighting and the release of all hostages held by Hamas for the last two years.
Figures on both sides of the political aisle are lauding him for the peace deal, even some who criticized him before.
This includes media figures like CNN's Jake Sullivan, The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, and even his former presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
"I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what's often called the day after," Clinton told CBS' Norah O'Donnell on Friday.
Former President Barack Obama praised the peace deal, but did not name Trump in the post that did so, drawing criticism from another CNN figure, host Abby Phillip.
"I think if you can't say that ending a deadly war that has killed so many children and human beings is a good thing, I think you need to take a look at your gut and find out what's going on there. This is, everybody wants this to end and if he's able to get it done, he deserves credit for it," she said.
President Donald Trump on Saturday directed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to pay the 1.3 million active duty troops on October 15 even though they would not normally be paid while the government is shutting down, using funding earmarked for research and development that has not been allocated in order to do so.
The government has been shut down since October 1 after the House passed a continuing resolution to fund the government at currently legislated levels, but Senate Democrats blocked its passage in that chamber while demanding rollbacks of changes made in the One Big Beautiful Bill over the summer.
“If nothing is done, because of ‘Leader’ Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, our Brave Troops will miss the paychecks they are rightfully due on October 15th,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “That is why I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to do this.”
The Office of Management and Budget has let Congress know that it will use the $8 billion in funding to pay the military.
The move comes as last week House Democrats sort of tried to approve funding to pay the military by bringing it up for a unanimous consent vote during a pro forma session.
House Republicans blocked the attempt by Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) when House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) gaveled out the session before she could finish reading her request.
Republicans did this for two reasons: first, they saw it as an attempt to save face while still forcing their demands for another $1.5 trillion in new spending through Congress in an attempt to undo the progress made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Second, as House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) pointed out afterward, Elfreth's request didn't follow the protocols for bringing up legislation, so it wouldn't have worked even if she had been allowed to finish it.
"You can't do that in a pro forma session. So again, it's just to get attention," Emmer said, calling the attempt a political stunt of "gargantuan proportions."
While the two sides squabble in Congress over whether to come out of the shutdown, Trump did what he had to do to get the military paid, which shows a lot of leadership in my opinion.
He also reallocated other funding to keep WIC, a food program for women during pregnancy and while they have very young children, operating during the shutdown.
So much for the narrative that he is a cold, unfeeling tyrant who wants to see people starve.
Democrats need to come to terms with the fact that elections have dictated their lack of power.
It's unfair to hold the government hostage to get concessions that they could never have gotten otherwise, given the power that they now have.
They are getting the blame for anything bad that happens as a result of the shutdown, and they know it. Their downward spiral will continue until they realize how they are shooting themselves in the foot over and over with their radical left leanings.
A federal appeals court reversed a lower court ruling blocking President Donald Trump from calling up the National Guard in Chicago.
Thanks to this decision, troops stationed at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, Illinois, can stay put. However, there is still the question of whether Trump can actually deploy these troops into the city.
The one-page order from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals read, "Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so."
This order reverses a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry, who barred the White House from federalizing and deploying National Guard troops from Illinois and Texas in Chicago.
She rejected the Trump administration's argument that, because of increasing lawlessness and riots against federal law enforcement, the National Guard was required to ensure federal law enforcement would be able to do its job.
It's also worth noting that Perry was appointed by former President Joe Biden, in case that wasn't immediately obvious.
This latest decision is another win for President Trump, but there are real questions to be settled about whether he has the power to actually use the National Guard in Chicago, a Democrat-run city that has been designated a "sanctuary city."
Under radical leftist mayor Brandon Johnson, Chicago has become home to scores of illegal immigrants who are putting a strain on Chicago's infrastructure and social safety nets. This hasn't stopped Chicago Democrats from fighting tooth and nail to protect these illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have been working in the city, but that is very much in spite of Democrats. In fact, the Chicago Police Department was ordered not to assist federal agents who were under literal siege by violent leftist protestors.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson would rather defend illegal immigrants than make life better for American citizens in Chicago and the state of Illinois and they are willing to let federal law enforcement be besieged like they are conducting operations in a warzone.
Of course, it seems like Trump will come out on top in this particular fight as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also appears poised to authorize Trump's use of the National Guard in Portland, another leftist city committing insurrection by protecting criminals against federal law enforcement.
Democrat cities around the nation have opened their doors for illegal immigrants and other criminals, but refuse to allow federal law enforcement to come in and do their job.
Considering Democrats screeched about Trump committing "insurrection" for questioning the outcome of the election in 2020, one would think Democrats would believe strongly in the rule of law and the federal government's role in keeping the peace.
The actions of Democrats like Brandon Johnson must be viewed as blatant insurrection and rebellion against the federal government's lawful enforcement of immigration law.
Once this National Guard issue is put to rest, the Department of Justice ought to look into what charges could be brought against Democrat politicians who willfully obstruct and endanger federal agents.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear to be poised to deal a fatal blow to the incredibly flawed Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, and it appears that the court is leaning towards striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans "racial gerrymandering when it dilutes minority voting power."
Gerrymandering is a frowned-upon but legal act except in this one specific exception, thanks to the Voting Rights Act. It essentially creates a requirement that certain Congressional districts favor minority voters to "ensure representation."
While the left has framed this court battle as the Supreme Court ending minority representation, this is actually an opportunity for the Supreme Court to end a law that has overtly written racial preferences into American law.
Of course, the GOP has a ton to gain as this case could lead to significant redistricting efforts that could net Republicans over a dozen House seats.
Without Section 2, it's estimated that 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's seats could be wiped out.
Of course, the only reason these seats exist is because of an arbitrary and racist requirement that Congressional maps specifically carve out districts that would advantage minority candidates. Racial demographics should never have been a factor in writing district maps.
States like Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi would have a massive GOP shift with Section 2 being struck down.
These overwhelmingly conservative states have Democrat enclaves thanks to Section 2, requiring racial district maps that favor Democrats and preserve their existence in states where they would otherwise be voted out easily.
Predictably, Democrats are in full panic mode and are busy screeching about democracy and about the "corrupt" Supreme Court. Corruption is when a properly installed Supreme Court makes rulings that don't benefit Democrats.
Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Warg issued a statement saying, "The only way to stop it is to play offense — aggressively redraw maps wherever possible, focus relentlessly on taking back Congress, and be ready to use that power to pass real pro-democracy legislation and hold this corrupted Court accountable."
The Supreme Court has been on a tear these past few years, taking a sledgehammer to decades-old legal mistakes ranging from 2nd Amendment rights to election laws.
The Supreme Court has been ruled by leftist ideologues who believe the Constitution is a living document and can be adjusted with the times at will. This new regime of conservative justices believes in a more rigid originalist interpretation and is working hard to shore up rights that have been torn down.
The Voting Rights Act was a well-intentioned piece of legislation, but it was deeply flawed, and it's good to see that this Supreme Court may have the courage to finally reform the Voting Rights Act, which has been overtly favoring Democrats for decades.
The Cabinet of President Donald Trump broke out in spontaneous applause on Thursday afternoon when he signed a proclamation honoring Christopher Columbus for Columbus Day on Monday.
"Today we have your Columbus Day proclamation for Monday, which we're signing a bit early," White House staff secretary Will Scharf told Trump before the customary monthly Cabinet meeting.
"Columbus, obviously, discovered the new world in 1492. He was a great Italian explorer. He sailed his three ships, the Nina, the Pinto and Santa Maria, across the Atlantic Ocean, and landed in what's today the Caribbean. And this is a particularly important holiday for Italian Americans who celebrate the legacy of Christopher Columbus, and the innovation and explorer zeal that he represented," he continued.
"In other words, we're calling it Columbus Day," Trump quipped as the Cabinet applauded.
"We're back, Italians," he went on, as the applause continued. Trump himself is not Italian; he is German and Scottish.
Later, Trump claimed that it was the press applauding when he made the remarks, but that seems unlikely.
Columbus Day has become something of a flashpoint between conservatives and liberals, with liberals choosing to call the day "Indigenous People's Day" because of a belief that Columbus contributed to "genocide" of Native Americans.
Given that the press is notoriously liberal, it doesn't seem like they would clap for Columbus unless most of them are Italian.
The day has only been a federal holiday since 1971, although Italian-Americans celebrated it on their own before that.
Trump also signed a proclamation honoring Leif Erikson as the first explorer to set foot on North American soil on October 9.
If a case the Supreme Court is looking at goes Republicans' way, it could lead to 19 more solid GOP seats in the House, almost guaranteeing a Republican majority for the foreseeable future.
The high court plans to rehear Louisiana v. Callais, a case that challenges section 2, the provision that prevents racial gerrymandering if the result would dilute minority votes in that district.
In other words, it's currently illegal to redistrict a majority Black or Hispanic district so that it stops being a majority district for that race. It's a form of affirmative action for voting, so that's why liberals are worried the court will rule to strike it down.
Most majority Black or Hispanic districts vote Democrat, so the provision benefits Democrats.
If it is struck down, experts estimate that Republicans will net 19 House seats, which could be enough to keep them in the majority in 2026 and beyond.
The court probably won't rule on the case before primaries for the midterms in 2026, so changes will have to wait until after that.
But there's a chance the ruling could come that soon, and Republicans will be ready to jump on it if it does.
Other redistricting could give Republicans about eight more seats, but the party in power generally loses seats in the off-year, so we will have to see what happens.
Democrats are already talking about a "one-party system" if their fears come to fruition, but whose fault do they think that is?
Maybe if the party hadn't lurched so far to the left in the last few elections, they'd still be relevant and wouldn't be bleeding minority voters who don't want to see their taxes skyrocket and their world turn woke while inflation makes their dollars worth less every year.
If Democrats spent as much time listening to the concerns of their voting bloc and figuring out what the majority of their members really want as they do trumpeting soft socialism and transgender surgeries for minors, they might not be in this mess in the first place.
For Republicans' part, if they can avoid shooting themselves in the foot long enough, they might just be able to regain some of the strength they had in the 1980s, like in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states.
Trump has managed to turn much of the economy around in just a few months, and if he can keep control of Congress, he could do even more during the rest of his term.
Let minorities get elected due to their platform and positions, not their skin color.
The Texas National Guard deployed 200 troops to Illinois to protect federal property and personnel from anti-immigration protesters, with troops arriving in the state on Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.
The mobilization will be for an initial 60-day period, with any further deployment to be decided later.
The troops are there "in support of the Federal Protection Mission to protect federal functions, personnel, and property," the Pentagon statement read.
Some of the troops arrested about a dozen protesters near an ICE facility in Broadview, where they have gathered for several days.
News footage on Tuesday afternoon also showed several troops outside the Army Reserve Training Center in Elwood, just south of Joliet.
Troops are "on the ground and ready to go," Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) said on X. "They are putting America first by ensuring that the federal government can safely enforce federal law."
Officials in the state continue to be opposed to the deployment of any National Guard troops in the state, even after a DHS vehicle was hemmed in by about 10 cars and rammed by one or more of them on Saturday.
"The Trump administration must end the war on Chicago," the city's Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) said during a news conference Monday, calling the deployment "illegal, unconstitutional, dangerous and wrong." "The Trump administration must end this war against Americans. The Trump administration must end its attempt to dismantle our democracy."
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (D) filed a lawsuit to keep the Guard troops out of the state, but it hasn't yet been heard.
Johnson signed an executive order on Monday that created "ICE-free zones" in the city and said that ICE personnel cannot use city-owned property for its operations to enforce immigration laws.
How crazy is American politics when cities make laws that try to prevent others from making sure laws are followed?
That should not be happening, but it's the status quo in numerous sanctuary cities all over the nation.
As long as they can characterize Trump as a dictator and a "bully," these groups feel justified to protest and try to bully everyone else into not following the law along with them.
Meanwhile, people are getting hurt by the violence and illegal immigrants continue to commit crimes, take American jobs, and create a drain on services.
President Donald Trump confirmed Monday that rapper Sean "Diddy" Combs asked him for a pardon after being sentenced to more than four years in prison for charges related to prostitution.
“I have had a lot of people ask me for pardons," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
“I call him Puff Daddy. He has asked me for a pardon," Trump added.
The clip of Trump's comments was brief and didn't address whether Trump planned to grant the pardon.
It was only three days ago that Combs was sentenced to four years and two months in prison, which was a much lighter sentence than the 11 years prosecutors were seeking.
Combs was also acquitted by the jury on racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking, the most serious charges he faced.
But instead of considering that he got off easy, he has persisted in saying he shouldn't have been prosecuted at all and is looking to get off scot free.
Combs was accused of holding sex parties at his home and pressuring some who attended to engage in sexual acts with male and female prostitutes.
There was also testimony that he sexually assaulted several underage boys and girls, but that testimony was part of several civil suits against Combs, not part of his criminal trial.
It would be a mistake for Trump to pardon Combs, based on the accusations against him that are still unresolved.
Trump recently pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley from the reality TV show, "Chrisley Knows Best."
The Chrisleys were convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud, and were serving long prison sentences for their crimes.
They quickly revived their reality show and went back to business as usual, although let's hope they pay their taxes from this point forward.
The pardon didn't really make sense for Trump, so who knows what he'll do about Combs' request.
FBI Director Kash Patel vowed Sunday that there would be "justice" for those who rammed a DHS agents' vehicle in Chicago on Saturday.
Marimar Martinez and Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz were arrested after the incident. Martinez, who was armed with a semiautomatic rifle, was shot by agents defending the scene, treated for injuries, and released from the hospital into federal custody.
"They have been charged for assaulting federal officers with a deadly or dangerous weapon," Patel said. "Attack our law enforcement, and this FBI will find you and bring you to justice."
An FBI source told Fox News Digital that the bureau is treating the cases as AFOs, or assaults on a federal officer. The officers in the vehicle were not seriously hurt when their vehicle was hemmed in by multiple vehicles, then rammed.
Both suspects have been described as domestic terrorists, and Martinez has a history of doxxing federal officers.
According to a DHS news release, the scene became "increasingly violent as more domestic terrorists gathered and began throwing smoke, gas, rocks, and bottles at DHS law enforcement."
"Another domestic terrorist was arrested for assaulting CBP at the scene," the statement added. "Following JB Prtizker’s refusal to allow local police to help secure the scene, Secretary Noem has deployed special operations teams to restore law and order."
Two other suspects were arrested on Friday in the Chicago area for a similar attempt at ramming ICE officers' vehicles.
Miguel Escareno De Loera and Widman Osberto Lopez-Funes both face charges of weaponizing their vehicles in "deliberate attempts to ram and injure" ICE officers, Fox Digital reported.
Chicago has resisted attempts by the Trump administration to lower crime by using federal officers.
Both Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (D) have ordered local police not to assist federal agents in apprehending those breaking the law, including illegal immigrants in the city.
On Sunday night, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, prompting officials there to file a lawsuit to prevent the deployment.
A judge on Sunday blocked a similar deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon as protesters have surrounded an ICE building there.
What are we to conclude from these actions by Democrats to side with criminals against law enforcement but that they want crime in their cities? No wonder people are fleeing the party in droves.
A federal appeals court has ruled against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship in a major setback for the Trump administration.
The three-judge panel issued an injunction that will block Trump's executive order, issued in January, from going into effect. Birthright citizenship has long been abused by illegal immigrants to gain a path to citizenship, and this appeals court seems content to allow such abuse to continue.
In a 100 page ruling, the panel wrote, "The ‘lessons of history’ thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one’s parents rather than, in all but the rarest of circumstances, the simple fact of being born in the United States."
The notion of birthright citizenship is utterly insane and entirely derived from a twisted interpretation of the original Constitutional wording that the left is eager to uphold.
Without birthright citizenship, there would be no way for illegal immigrants to gain a path to citizenship by birthing children in the United States. And without a steady supply of dependent voters, the left wouldn't have power.
This decision to uphold birthright citizenship is setting the stage for a massive battle at the Supreme Court, where the hope is that the conservative justices will rule to finally put an end to birthright citizenship and its decades of abuse.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the charge against Trump's order, reacted to the decision by saying, "Today’s decision upholds a nationwide injunction in our lawsuit challenging the President’s attempt to end, with the stroke of a pen, the constitutional right to birthright citizenship."
He further added, "We will continue to oppose this executive order until the President’s attempt to unmake the Constitution is blocked completely," in acknowledgement of the future battle at the Supreme Court.
The left truly believes that any illegal immigrant who illegally crosses the border or even overstays a visa and gives birth in the United States confers citizenship to that child. It's long past time for the Supreme Court to deal a fatal blow to this absurd legal thinking.
Prior to this ruling, the Department of Justice had already asked the Supreme Court to review Trump's order, and it is expected that this will be one of many major cases that the court will oversee in its next term.
Immigration fraud comes in many different shapes and sizes, but the "anchor baby" strategy is one of the more common forms of fraud and abuse that foreigners exploit to gain citizenship.
The Trump administration has recognized the need to end birthright citizenship in order to put an end to these many types of immigration fraud and get a handle on America's out-of-control immigration crisis.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will review this matter sooner rather than later. This litigation has dragged on for far too long, as this executive order was originally issued nearly a year ago.