A federal appeals court has granted President Donald Trump's administration the right to prohibit abortion giant Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments, The Washington Times reported. The decision handed down Tuesday allows the provision found in Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act to stand as it was passed in July.
Pro-life advocate and Live Action founder Lila Rose lauded this decision as another win for the protection of the unborn. "Breaking: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to allow HHS to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood!" Rose posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
"Overturning lower court rulings that kept the money flowing. Taxpayers should never be forced to fund abortion chains which murder babies," she added.
BREAKING: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled to allow HHS to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood! Overturning lower court rulings that kept the money flowing. Taxpayers should never be forced to fund abortion chains which murder babies.
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) September 11, 2025
Trump's legislation was signed into law on July 4 this year and was almost immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood, Reuters reported. On July 28, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Boston, whom President Barack Obama appointed, blocked the provision on the basis that the law unfairly targeted Planned Parenthood with the intent to punish the abortion provider, which is unconstitutional.
Talwani claimed the provision amounted to a "bill of attainder," which means that the law was passed explicitly by Congress to punish a party without due process of a trial. "Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent," the judge said.
However, Trump's Department of Justice didn't see it that way but instead insisted "the bill stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion," which is something many Americans agree with. The DOJ further said it was incumbent upon Talwani not to allow Planned Parenthood to "supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences."
The judge disagreed, citing concerns about Planned Parenthood's Constitutional rights, including its First Amendment free association rights as well as its Fifth Amendment equal protection clause. This decision was described by White House spokesperson Harrison Fields as "not only absurd but illogical and incorrect" in a statement issued following the initial announcement.
In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Trump promised to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding so taxpayers would no longer have to foot the bill for its evil practices. J.D. Vance, who would become his vice president just weeks later after Trump's stunning electoral victory, stated in October 2024 that Trump was committed to rectifying this wrong, as reported by NBC News at the time.
“On the question of defunding Planned Parenthood, look, I mean our view is we don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions. That has been a consistent view of the Trump campaign the first time around," Vance said following Trump's return to Butler, Pennsylvania, to finish the rally where he was initially shot.
"It will remain a consistent view." Vance added. Although NBC News pointed out that just .9% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, the commitment meant a great deal to Trump's voters as evidenced by his Election Day victory. Of course, Planned Parenthood Votes executive director Jenny Lawson used the usual lines that this "would rob millions of people across the country of vital, affordable care."
Lawsom claimed in the usual shell game that taxpayer dollars fund other "healthcare" but not abortions. "'Defunding’ Planned Parenthood would only deepen and expand the public health crisis we’re already in thanks to Donald Trump, causing more people to suffer and die for lack of basic reproductive care," Lawson claimed.
The narrative is always that Planned Parenthood performs a tremendous public service by providing healthcare to poor women. Even if that were true, the fact that it also slaughters babies negates the right for the organization to receive a dime from taxpayers, and thankfully, the appeals court has agreed that Trump's plan to defund them is a go.
Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker blamed Charlie Kirk's assassination on President Donald Trump's "rhetoric" and claimed that he was responsible for "fomenting" political violence, Breitbart reported. The 31-year-old conservative star was gunned down during an appearance at a Utah college on Wednesday.
America was left reeling after Kirk was apparently shot in the neck by a sniper's bullet and later pronounced dead. The graphic video made the rounds on social media as many in the conservative movement expressed their deep sorrow and sympathies for Kirk's wife and children.
As of Thursday, authorities were still unsure of the motive and had not taken anyone into custody. Nevertheless, many on the left began their ghoulish business of celebrating the murder, including Pritzker.
He was asked for his remarks about Kirk's death while speaking to reporters, and Pritzker took the opportunity to take a shot at the president, even though it was unclear who the shooter was and what the motive might be. The Illinois Democrats are just one of many who took the opportunity of Kirk's death to smear Republicans.
Pritzker's answer to a reporter's question about Kirk's death was absolutely disgraceful. The governor started with a short word of condolence for Kirk's family before launching into his reprehensible rhetoric. "Charlie Kirk has become a target for somebody," Prtizker said.
"I don’t know whether it’s political violence, because I don’t know who did it. But I will say that political violence, unfortunately, has been ratcheting up in this country," Prtizker remarked.
"We saw the shootings, the killings in Minnesota. We’ve seen other political violence occur in other states. And I would just say it’s gotta stop," Pritzker said, referring to the murder of Minnesota’s Democratic House Speaker, Rep. Melissa Hortman, and her husband, earlier this year.
"And I think there are people who are fomenting it in this country. I think the president’s rhetoric often foments it," Pritzker claimed. He then went on to repeat the narrative about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. "We’ve seen the January 6th rioters who clearly have tripped a new era of political violence," he claimed, though the only person killed in that attack was an unarmed woman shot by a Capitol Police officer.
JB Pritzker uses the assassination of Charlie Kirk to blame President Trump and talk about J6: "Political violence has been ratcheting up in this country. I think the president's rhetoric often foments it."
Despicable. pic.twitter.com/fkHanokers
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 11, 2025
Pritzker was quick to blame Trump for Kirk's killing, but the governor has actively encouraged the people of his state to resist federal and National Guard troops sent in to clean up the crime in Chicago. "To any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous, we are watching, and we are taking names," Pritzker said late last month.
This was deliberately misleading about the reason for their presence, namely, stopping the hundreds of murders that happen in the Windy City every year. He also made a veiled threat on social media, promising, "If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me — not time or political circumstance — from making sure you face justice…"
Still, Pritzker wasn't the only leftist to pin the murder of a conservative pundit on Republicans. As the New York Post reported, MSNBC's Matthew Dowd blamed Kirk after previously speculating that it could have been a bullet from a "supporter shooting their gun off in celebration," the author and political analyst said on air as the tragedy unfolded.
"You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place. That’s the unfortunate environment we’re in," Dowd claimed.
Kirk's assassination was one of the most harrowing tragedies to befall a political figure in recent times. While decent people mourn the loss of a man who was a husband, father, and beloved public figure, the dregs of society on the left took the opportunity of Kirk's death to debase him and themselves.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt set the record straight that President Donald Trump did not act as an FBI informant in the case of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, The Hill reported. The rumor surfaced last week after House Speaker Mike Johnson mentioned it during a press conference.
Leavitt was asked about Johnson's claim on Tuesday during a White House press briefing. When Johnson was asked about Trump's supposed connections to Epstein, Johnson said that the president "was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down" referring to the sex trafficker's heinous conduct.
"I can affirm that is not true," Leavitt told reporters. "I think the Speaker was referring to the fact that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago property for reasons the president has already discussed," she added.
Johnson also took the opportunity to set the record straight on his previous remarks on Monday and called it "much ado about nothing" after the media's coverage of the throwaway line. According to CNN, Johnson clarified what he meant by his previous statement while speaking to the press.
"What I was referring to in that long conversation was what the (Epstein) victims’ attorney said. More than a decade ago, President Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, and he was one of the only people, one of the only prominent people, as everyone has reported … that he was willing to help law enforcement go after this guy who was a disgusting child abuser, sex trafficker, all the allegations," Johnson explained.
"That’s what they heard. So the president was helpful in that," Johnson added.
"I don’t know if I used the right terminology, but that’s common knowledge, and everybody knows that. So this is much ado about nothing," Johnson said. The CNN reporter asked Johnson if Trump told him about being an informant, and the Louisiana Republican said it was "recounting what others have said" but that Trump had spoken out against "the Epstein evils many times" before.
"I was repeating what has been common knowledge for a long time. The president was helpful in trying to get Epstein for the law enforcement to go after Epstein. That’s always been my understanding. That’s common knowledge. It’s the public’s understanding. I didn’t — I was not breaking news there, OK? What I’m trying to emphasize is that the president is as disgusted about this as everyone is," Johnson said.
During the entire term of former President Joe Biden, the press did not seem interested in learning more about Epstein, his victims, or his crimes. Now that Trump is in office, they are demanding answers, which the Trump administration has admittedly been short on aside from the established narrative.
Trump has called this aspect of their curiosity a "hoax," which the leftist media has tried to claim was a dismissal of the entire story. Johnson was explaining this aspect when he said that Trump was an informant. "He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax," Johnson explained on Friday.
"It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago," Johnson added, which is an established fact that even the media admits to.
"He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered these unspeakable harms," Johnson said, which is what sparked the media questions about the fact.
Trump may not have been an informant, but he certainly seemed like one of the few wealthy and powerful individuals who stopped associating with Epstein after getting to know him better. The left can spin this however they choose, but the truth is that they are the ones who looked the other way for years on the Epstein case, and America knows it.
Vice President JD Vance said that Democrats are only concerned about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes when they can use them against political enemies, Breitbart reported. The left has begun claiming the reason President Donald Trump won't release the files is that he's implicated in them, even though his predecessor ignored the scandal.
Vance was responding to recent news about a "birthday card" that the New York Times and other outlets claimed the president signed for the sex trafficker. "The Democrats don't care about Epstein," Vance posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
"They don’t even care about his victims. That's why they were silent about it for years. The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies. No one is falling for this BS," the vice president wrote.
The Democrats don't care about Epstein. They don’t even care about his victims. That's why they were silent about it for years. The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies.
No one is falling for this BS. https://t.co/u3pHgBtQDf
— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 8, 2025
In July, the Wall Street Journal described a birthday greeting Trump purportedly sent to Epstein in 2003 that featured a signed drawing of a naked woman with a message to Epstein about a " wonderful secret." Trump denied such a letter existed and sued the news outlet for defamation after the story broke.
However, copies of a note supposedly penned by Trump were released Monday by the House Oversight Committee and published in the Journal. Now, the left is going crazy with insinuations and accusations against Trump in another bid to smear the president with whatever they can get their hands on.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that believing this letter to be authentic is absurd, given the apparent contradictions in the reporting. "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false," Leavitt said.
"As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation," Leavitt went on.
There has never been any dispute in the fact that Trump knew Epstein and had a casual relationship with the disgraced financier, as many of the top echelon of wealth and power had as well. The difference is they were willing to look the other way when it was people like former President Bill Clinton, but now that they can pin something on Trump, they're ready to pounce.
Former President Joe Biden refused to release the Epstein files, and Democrats were mostly okay with that during his time in the White House, Fox News reported. Democratic California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was House Speaker for a time during Biden's presidency, remained silent when asked about her lack of curiosity until now.
Other Democrats like Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin are suddenly keyed into the Epstein saga, but even he couldn't explain his sudden interest when asked about it on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "But, Congressman, you could have gotten that from '21 to '25, when Democrats controlled the DOJ. Why — it was a crisis then," co-host Joe Scarborough asked.
"It’s a crisis now. Why didn’t Democrats call for it from '21 to '25?" Scarborough pressed. Raskin spoke in circles, claiming "you’d have to go back and look specifically at particular prosecutorial decisions and what was taking place in terms of the other cases. So, I don’t know, we could try to reconstruct that record."
Democratic Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal was also cagey when pressed about her sudden interest in the case by a reporter at CNN. "I would have been happy to raise it then as well. Frankly, we were focused on so many different pieces," Jayapal claimed.
Now that they believe they can take down Trump with it, Democrats are suddenly apoplectic about the goings on with Epstein. Their concern would be more credible if they hadn't spent years trying to make the story go away, but Vance has exposed their selective concern, which is clearly only for political gain.
In trying to explain the latest comments by President Donald Trump about Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker Mike Johnson shocked the country on Friday by claiming that Trump was an "FBI informant" on Jeffrey Epstein.
After fielding press inquiries about his statement all weekend, Johnson clarified his statement to say that Trump helped authorities who were investigating Epstein, but backed off from his earlier "informant" statement, which implied a formal relationship between Trump and the FBI on the investigation.
What Johnson was trying to do with his original comment was explain an earlier comment by Trump that the Esptein saga was a "hoax."
The comment prompted cries of outrage by alleged victims of Epstein, but Johnson said Trump wasn't referring to Epstein's crimes as a hoax.
Instead, Trump was saying the narrative that he was involved in any of Epstein's illicit activities, which had been put forward by his political enemies, was a hoax.
To bolster his argument, Johnson said that Trump was an FBI informant.
But what he meant was that Trump had helped the FBI investigate Epstein when no one else was offering to do so.
“The Speaker is reiterating what the victims’ attorney said, which is that Donald Trump — who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago — was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator,” a statement from Johnson’s office read.
Democrats in Congress, and a few Republicans, are livid that Trump is backtracking on the release of the Epstein files, and speculation has been rampant for why.
Some say Trump is guilty of the same kind of conduct as Epstein and that he wants to hide his involvement, while others think he's covering up for some of his friends.
For my part, I think he has his reasons for keeping it quiet. As Johnson and others have pointed out, Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago and cut ties with him years before his first arrest for sex trafficking.
Why would he suddenly want to protect him?
But the public has the need to be titillated by the release of all the information on Epstein, so it will kick up a fuss.
Democrats want to force Trump's hands, but they should be careful about what they wish for. The information could hurt them a lot more than it would Trump, and then where will they point the finger?
Well before he took office for a second term, President Donald Trump made clear his intention to reverse much of his predecessor’s immigration policy, including the expansion of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to migrants from a host of countries.
However, the Trump administration suffered a setback last week when a federal judge appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama blocked its attempt to end TPS for over 1.1 million arrivals from Haiti and Venezuela, as Breitbart reports.
It was on Friday that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen put a halt to the Trump administration’s desired changes to TPS eligibility.
In Chen’s estimation, the administration’s change wrongfully “truncated and condensed” the timeline for curtailing the legal protections and work permits afforded to migrants under the program.
In a 69-page ruling, Chen stated, “This case arose from action taken post haste by the current DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, to revoke the legal status of Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders, sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”
He further noted, “The Secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violates the law.”
Though Chen’s halt on the Trump administration action is only temporary in nature, the judge indicated his belief that impacted individuals can renew their current status while litigation is pending, with eventual Supreme Court review likely.
As Fox News reports, Trump administration officials are speaking out against the ruling, promising that the fight to effectuate the president’s vision on this issue will continue.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told Fox News Digital, “For decades, the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program.”
The representative continued, “Its use has been all the more dangerous, given the millions of unvetted illegal aliens the Biden administration let into this country.”
Pointing to the administration’s next steps, the spokesperson noted, “While this order delays justice, Secretary Noem will use every legal option at the department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”
The statement continued, “Under God, the people rule. Unelected activist judges cannot stop the will of the American people for a safe and secure homeland.”
The Trump administration has continued to face court challenges of its immigration agenda, often butting heads with federal district judges who critics suggest are acting more like pro-immigrant activists than fair-minded jurists.
Though the president has seen some success in his appeals of lower court rulings against his immigration-related actions, whether that will be the case when it comes to TPS, only time will tell.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama, dined at the same restaurant as former Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, but in separate rooms, Jim Geraghty of the National Review reported. Many believe this signals a rift between the two couples, following dashed hopes for a Harris presidency in 2024.
Harris was a last-minute swap out for the Democrats after then-President Joe Biden withdrew from his re-election bid. Democrats were eager to hold onto the White House, and Obama thought he could work his magic by stumping for her at the last minute after initially declining to do so.
In a video shared to X, formerly Twitter, in October 2024, Obama said that "Kamala Harris is ready for the job." Unfortunately, the American people did not agree and instead elected President Donald Trump, and Democrats have not forgiven Harris for losing to him.
.@KamalaHarris has spent her life fighting on behalf of people who need a voice and a champion. She was raised in a middle class family, and actually cares about what other people are going through.
That’s the kind of president we need. pic.twitter.com/2vDkqrAmUg
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 25, 2024
Anonymous sources reported that both couples were spotted dining out at the State Road restaurant on Thursday night. At one point, they greeted each other and chatted briefly, but chose not to dine together, which Geraghty pointed out is a sign that tension still exists between the Democrats.
"Life comes at you fast. One moment you’re leading in the polls and on the path to be the next president of the United States," Geraghty wrote.
"The next minute, the Obamas are hoping you won’t notice they’re in the same restaurant as you." Geraghty believes the tension dates back to 2013, when Barack Obama called Harris the "best-looking attorney general in the country."
This remark reportedly upset Michelle Obama, not just because her husband made it but because Harris refused to comment publicly about it. Barack Obama eventually called Harris to apologize, but the damage was already done long before Harris lost the White House.
"Apparently, in the interim decade, the Obamas never grew that impressed with the vice president and didn’t think Harris should be handed the Democratic nomination without a fight," Geraghty went on. "Harris called Barack Obama the afternoon that Joe Biden withdrew from the race, hoping for an endorsement; he declined. The Obamas eventually endorsed her in a video that was entirely stage-managed by the couple," the senior political correspondent and author noted.
After Election Day in November, the truth about former President Joe Biden's mental health began to seep through, as did the unpopularity of Harris among Democrats. According to News Nation, Democratic megadonor John Morgan said that Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objected to Harris taking over for Biden as the eleventh-hour replacement, which is precisely why he nominated her on his way out.
"He did not want to go gently," Morgan said of Biden on Cuomo in November 2024. "He nominated her, basically, Obama did not want her. Obama did not endorse her for five days, Pelosi did not want her," Morgan went on.
In fact, Morgan believes Biden thumbed his nose at Obama and Pelosi by endorsing his vice president and thus closing off the possibility of another primary. "'I think it was to say, F you to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and every representative that was pushing him out… and I think he was pissed," Morgan told the host Chris Cuomo.
"Pelosi told her California delegation, there will be a conference, there will be a caucus, there will be a convention. We basically ran on this deal where ‘democracy, democracy!’ And then we didn’t have democracy in picking our nominee," Morgan noted.
Harris was not the candidate that anyone asked for, and her unpopularity led to a spectacular loss. Barack Obama likely believes his own hype that he was a transformative leader who set the Democrats up for success for generations to come, and now he blames Harris for squandering that.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday returning the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, Breitbart reported. The president had previously hinted at this move, which would restore the original name for the agency to convey more about the mission.
Trump had signaled this could happen in earlier discussions and had referred to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as his "secretary of war." The new order directs Hegseth to make the necessary moves to make the name change permanent through not only the executive office, but also the legislative process as needed.
It will also apply the change to signage, letterhead, and other public mentions of what will now be the U.S. Department of War. One of those changes includes a briefing room becoming the "Pentagon War Annex" over its previously defanged "public affairs briefing room."
The move is meant to restore both the name and the original purpose of the agency, as Trump explained in remarks in August. "Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was the Department of War. Then we changed it to Department of Defense," Trump noted.
Hegseth hinted at the change in a recent Fox & Friends interview on Fox News, explaining that it's a mindset shift as much as it is a renaming. "We won WWI, and we won WWII, not with the Department of Defense, but with a War Department, with the Department of War," Hegseth said.
"As the president has said, we’re not just defense, we’re offense. We’ve reestablished at the Department the warrior ethos. We want warriors, folks that understand how to exact lethality on the enemy," Hegseth continued.
"We don’t want endless contingencies and just playing defense. We think words and names and titles matter. So, we’re working with the White House and the president on it. Stand by," he promised last week.
The Department of War existed until 1949, when changes were made in response to the National Security Act of 1947, which changed the agency's moniker to the more vague and non-threatening Department of Defense. It remains to be seen whether Trump will need congressional approval for the name change, but the president believes he has the authority to make it happen.
"We're just going to do it. I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that. I don't think we even need that," Trump said on Aug. 25.
After much speculation and several hints from the administration, Trump signed off on the order, which is his 200th since taking office. The move was celebrated by several conservatives, including Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk, who shared video of the historic moment on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
"For his 200th official executive action as 47, President Trump officially restores the original name 'Department of War' to the Department of Defense. Pete Hegseth will now be referred to as the Secretary of War," Kirk captioned the post.
🚨 For his 200th official executive action as 47, President Trump officially restores the original name "Department of War" to the Department of Defense.
Pete Hegseth will now be referred to as the Secretary of War 🔥 pic.twitter.com/l6E3soEN9v
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 5, 2025
While the left will likely attempt to trivialize this, the renaming is in line with Trump's effort to return America and its institutions to prominence. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order Restoring Names That Honor America's Greatness to "promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes."
Trump's latest move sends the message that the U.S. will once again celebrate its history and legacy of great strength in war. The president is right that the offensive stance is vital to retain not only in the new name for the Department of Defense, but also in its mission if the U.S. hopes to remain a world superpower.
Speaking independently of each other, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla both said this week that President Donald Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, the program that distributed COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. and globally in 2020.
“President Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed,” Cassidy said in a Wednesday statement on X.
“Operation Warp Speed restored consumer confidence, saved over $1 trillion in health care costs due to reductions in serious illness and avoidance of hospitalizations, and rapidly scaled up domestic production,” Bourla wrote a few hours earlier.
“This American leadership also delivered a new platform that may drive significant innovation in cancer research. Such an accomplishment would typically be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, given its significant impact,” he added.
Bourla credited Trump with saving 14 million people's lives around the world with Operation Warp Speed, which involved a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
Now that some time has passed, however, and complications of the vaccines have come to light, the current Trump administration is distancing itself from the vaccines.
Now, Trump wants drug companies to "justify" the success of their COVID drugs.
“It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree!” the president said in a Labor Day post on Truth Social.
Trump has mentioned several times that he thinks he deserves a Nobel Prize, though not for the same reason Bourla and Cassidy mentioned.
Pakistan said he should get one for defusing tensions between it and India in May 2025, while House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he should get one for the crime crackdown in Washington, D.C. in recent weeks.
Given the proclivities of the Nobel Committee, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to bestow an award on Trump.
Of course, Democrats would be beside themselves if Trump got a Nobel Prize, which is probably part of the reason he wants one so much.
He surely doesn't need the $1.1 million dollars that comes with the prize.
Instead, it's all about the honor and recognition that he did something that changed the world for the better, instead of more allegations that he's harming it.
For once, a federal appeals court has sided with President Donald Trump in his efforts to claw back taxpayer dollars sent to leftist groups.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the plan for EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to rescind $16 billion appropriated by former President Joe Biden in his lame duck days for basically a "slush fund" for "green" climate projects, reversing a lower court block on the action.
Zeldin first announced the freeze on $20 billion back in February, and it was immediately challenged by the groups who would have benefitted from the funds.
At the time, Zeldin compared Biden's appropriation to “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” and said there wasn't enough oversight on how the money would be spent.
“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” Zeldin said. “The American public deserves a more transparent and accountable government than what transpired these past four years.”
After the lower court said Zeldin had not given enough substantiation of his allegations against the nonprofits, the appeals court ruled 2-1 that Zeldin could terminate the grants and contracts.
The court also said that the nonprofits had no standing to challenge the termination of contracts, and that their arguments needed to go before a federal claims court that specifically hears contract disputes.
If the nonprofits take their claims to that court, there's still a chance that Zeldin could be forced to honor the contracts.
This was considered a loss for the groups, who were seeking immediate access to the money.
Another path the groups could take is to appeal the D.C. court's decision to the Supreme Court, but there's no guarantee the high court will even take the case.
The D.C. appeals court is by no means conservative, so its ruling cannot be seen as partisan.
While Trump is not necessarily against green energy, he doesn't think the federal government should be subsidizing it and propping it up to try to reduce fossil fuel use.
With $37 trillion in debt and counting, there's no way we need to be giving billions more to green energy groups.
Let them stand on their own two feet in the market and see what happens.