The Department of Government Efficiency canceled the lease for the site of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, Illinois, the UK Daily Mail reported. This news comes as divorce rumors swirl about former President Barack Obama and wife Michelle Obama.
Tesla billionaire Elon Musk has been heading up DOGE's efforts to streamline the government. One of those undertakings deemed wasteful was Barack Obama's planned legacy project, which cost $1.4 million annually in rent since 2016.
The site northwest of Chicago was home to many artifacts from the Obama administration, including dresses worn by the former first lady, a jewel-encrusted sword and scabbard gifted from Saudi Arabia, and a baseball signed by the 2010 San Francisco Giants who won the World Series that year. It also included his infamous silver BlackBerry device Barack Obama used while president.
The National Archives and Records Administration was in charge of the building and contents at Hoffman Estates where the center is being built. The collection will now be stored permanently in College Park, Maryland, and will be on loan to the Obama Presidential Center periodically when it opens next year.
Although the building was slated to be closed before DOGE set to eliminate it, this news comes at a tumultuous time for the Obamas. Rumors have been swirling about an impending divorce for the former first couple, and recent events only underscore that concern.
Michelle Obama was noticeably absent during the state funeral for the late President Jimmy Carter earlier this year. Then, on Wednesday, Barack Obama attended a Los Angeles Clippers game without his wife.
Although he was well-received by the crowd, it didn't go unnoticed that he was not with Michelle Obama again for another highly public event. Political commentator Dom Lucre posted on X, formerly Twitter, how this fueled speculation about the demise of their marriage.
"Former President Obama just ignited more divorce rumors after he was spotted at a Los Angeles Clippers basketball game without his wife Michelle Obama. This comes after a report that Obama has been staying with his ‘best friend’ Martin Nesbitt in preparation for their new $18M mansion in Hawaii," he wrote Thursday.
🔥🚨BREAKING: Former President Obama just ignited more divorce rumors after her was spotted at a Los Angeles Clippers basketball game without his wife Michelle Obama. This comes after a report that Obama has been staying with his ‘best friend’ Martin Nesbitt in preparation for… pic.twitter.com/9wVJ1ZhIik
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) March 6, 2025
Whether or not the Obamas' marriage is on the rocks, the former president's legacy project seems to have been doomed from the start. According to Fox News, cost overages and a race-based lawsuit have caused significant delays as it limps toward opening in 2026.
The 19.3-acre site was slated to cost $350 million to build out for the project. Though no firm public figures exist, an analysis of the 2021 annual report shows it has ballooned to be $830 million. Moreover, the project suffers from the same flaw that sunk Barack Obama's legacy: racial strife.
The former president envisioned the project as a grand stage for diversity, equity, and inclusion that was a focus of his. Instead, it has resulted in a huge price tag, including a $40.75 million lawsuit from a minority-owned contractor over changes to concrete work.
The lawsuit claims engineering company Thornton Tomasetti did so to racially discriminate against the contractor. Thornton Tomasetti insists it was necessary after subpar work and that it "bent over backwards to assist what everyone knows was a questionably qualified subcontractor team in areas where a more qualified subcontractor would not have required it."
It's sad to watch the Obamas possibly break up their marriage while the former president's legacy suffers under the weight of his terrible philosophies. However, it's true that we all reap what we sow, whether peasant or president.
Sen. Joni Ernst was outed in a sexting scandal Tuesday that revealed a relationship she was having with a high-ranking military official, the Daily Beast reported. The 54-year-old Iowa Republican was one of several women on Capitol Hill who were exchanging sleazy messages with retired Maj. Gen. Christopher Finerty.
A January 2023 report from the Air Force's inspector general alleged that the Finerty had multiple "sexual, inappropriate, or unprofessional relationships" against military policy. Finerty was demoted over the scandal and retired from the service in November.
The women's names were redacted when the report was released to the press. However, two sources close to the matter confirmed that Ernst was one of the women involved in the scandal after being implicated in a similar relationship in 2019 with a Navy legislative affairs official.
Republican Senator Joni Ernst is being accused of having relationships with two military officials.
One is Air Force Major General Christopher Finerty, who was demoted after getting busted sexting women on Capitol Hill, according to a ProPublica report.
The other is a Navy… pic.twitter.com/vfh7AElcUP
— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) March 4, 2025
According to ProPublica, Finerty's colleagues slammed his exploits as "highly inappropriate" because of Ernst's position in Congress, which could give the Air Force an unfair advantage. Ernst, a combat veteran, is on the Senate's Armed Services Committee.
Part of her duties include drafting the Pentagon's annual budget, including allocating spending to the Air Force. "I honestly felt sick to my stomach because it just felt so sleazy," a colleague said.
The Republican lawmaker, who has been in the Senate since 2015, was not married at the time of the affair, nor was Finerty. Moreover, there's nothing in the Senate rules that precludes lawmakers from carrying on with lobbyists.
Although Finerty isn't a lobbyist, his position presents ethical concerns that certain relationships could create undue influence. "From an ethics standpoint, it’s severely problematic," said a former military legislative affairs official.
In fact, those who worked for Finerty believed that their relationship "absolutely gave the Air Force undue influence." It didn't help that their romance was the worst-kept secret, as at least six colleagues reportedly knew about and were concerned regarding their relationship.
Finerty was rightly demoted for his conduct, but Ernst will also suffer because of their relationship if the reports are accurate. Her spokesperson refused to speak on the matter but stressed that the Iowa Republican was not compromised in her job.
"The fake news media is clearly too busy gossiping to report the real news that Senator Ernst is focused on cutting waste at the Pentagon. Her votes and work in the Senate are guided by the voices of Iowans who elected her and her constitutional duty alone," the spokesperson said.
"Any insinuation otherwise by tabloid ‘journalism’ is a slanderous lie — full stop," the person added. Finerty's attorney also wouldn't say whether he was involved with Ernst and denied wrongdoing.
"The IG report found no evidence suggesting anything remotely approaching either conflict of interest or undue influence involving General Finerty and anyone on Capitol Hill. Further, the IG report found no law, rule, policy, or guidance prohibited any of General Finerty’s relationships. Any suggestion to the contrary would be defamatory," his attorney said.
This scandal is harmful to all parties involved and could easily have been avoided if all parties acted with the dignity of their offices. If the reports are true, it's a terrible look for them all and will surely have a ripple effect in Congress and the military.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly halted U.S. Cyber Command's offensive against Russia, according to the Associated Press Monday. The media ran with the news and critics slammed the decision before the Pentagon formally denied that this was happening.
On Monday, news outlets said that an official in President Donald Trump's administration ordered cyber operations against Russia to cease. The source requested to remain anonymous while supposedly spilling secrets about security operations against an adversary of the U.S.
The AP claimed Hegseth's move "comes as many national security and cybersecurity experts have urged greater investments in cyber defense and offense, particularly as China and Russia have sought to interfere with the nation’s economy, elections and security." It cited one expert's warning about Russian interference in elections through cyberattacks.
"Instead of confronting this threat, the Trump administration has actively taken steps to make it easier for the Kremlin to interfere in our electoral processes," said Liana Keesing, campaigns manager for technology reform at the nonprofit Issue One. This was one of several criticisms launched at Trump and Hegseth based on the incorrect reporting.
After the reports spreading across the establishment media about Hegseth's decision to ax this critical security measure, there was no shortage of naysayers. Several lawmakers jumped on the news, including Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL).
"I don’t know why he’s doing that. But the Russians are attacking us every single day," Gimenez said during an interview with Fox Business.
"The Chinese are attacking us every single day. I don’t think you signal to the Russians that ‘Hey, we’re gonna unilaterally withdraw from this space,'" Gimenez went on.
"If they can keep attacking us — and they do every single day — they should be fearful of our capacity to inflict damage on them. So I really don’t understand where that’s coming from," the Florida Republican added.
The reports were definitely was red meat for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said Sunday that Hegseth's alleged decision was a "critical strategic mistake." As it would turn out, this handwringing and hysteria were all for naught.
The Pentagon did not respond to the reports directly at first except to reiterate Hegseth's mission. "There is no greater priority to Secretary Hegseth than the safety of the Warfighter in all operations to include the cyber domain," an official told The Hill Monday.
However, the Department of Defense Rapid Response team put out an official rebuttal Tuesday. "TO BE CLEAR: @SecDef has neither canceled nor delayed any cyber operations directed against malicious Russian targets, and there has been no stand-down order whatsoever from that priority," the account posted to X, formerly Twitter.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency took the denial a step further. "CISA’s mission is to defend against all cyber threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, including from Russia. There has been no change in our posture. Any reporting to the contrary is fake and undermines our national security," its post to X stated.
CISA’s mission is to defend against all cyber threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, including from Russia. There has been no change in our posture. Any reporting to the contrary is fake and undermines our national security.
— Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (@CISAgov) March 3, 2025
The Trump administration is transparent in its mission to protect the U.S. on all fronts. The reporting about this issue created a panic where none was due, but they couldn't pass up the opportunity to blame Trump for something.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a First Amendment case involving the "bias response team" at Indiana University, the Washington Examiner reported. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority on this refusal.
Bias response teams encourage students to inform on their peers over instances of supposed bias. Some claim they "objectively chill" free expression on college campuses and cause students to self-police their speech.
Thomas said that deciding a case on this issue would have provided a definitive statement on the use of this model. "Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs," Thomas wrote.
Some 450 colleges throughout the U.S. employ this model. "The Court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a 'patchwork of First Amendment rights,' with a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography," Thomas added.
The organization Speech First initiated the lawsuit against Indiana University school officials, including President Pamela Whitten, in 2024, Reuters reported. It has sued nine other universities over similar speech-limiting policies.
The main issue for Speech First involved how the university's policy defined "bias incidents." The vague language included "any conduct, speech or expression motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group's actual or perceived identities."
Students are then encouraged to submit a report of such conduct, whether they experienced it or witnessed something they thought was discriminatory. "Indiana University is committed to creating welcoming, inclusive, and respectful campus communities where everyone can thrive and do their best work - a place where all are treated with civility and respect," the school's website touts.
However, the policy meant to ensure these lofty ideals tramples of the free speech rights of some of its students. The university confers the power to its administrators "to police speech that someone believes is motivated by 'bias,'" the lawsuit noted.
"This policy poses a grave risk of chilling the open and unfettered discourse that should be central to higher education," the lawsuit added. This is especially problematic because the university is a public institution.
This battle over free speech on college campuses is creating other concerns. While traditionally-minded students feel hemmed in by bias response teams, Jewish students are increasingly falling victim to anti-Israel hatred.
According to the Associated Press, freedom of speech on college campuses applies liberally to phrases such as "from the river to the sea," which implies Israel has no right to exist. While institutions penalize students for any perceived slight, these incendiary phrases are allowed.
"What I always hear now is how, when students are upset or offended, they phrase it as ‘I feel unsafe.’ And I think it’s so important that we separate out the campus’ duty," Edwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean for the University of California, Berkley, claimed.
"It’s not our role to make them safe from ideas that they don’t want exposed to. But that line, I think, has gotten blurred," he added.
It's unfair that some speech is protected while others are silenced. Thomas and Alito are right that the high court should not remove itself from this issue, if for no other reason than to shore up First Amendment rights for all with a definitive ruling on it.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to hear a case about free speech on college campuses, the Daily Caller reported. The Republican-appointed justice said in his dissenting opinion Monday that failing to take the case would let the "confusion persist."
The case involved so-called "bias response teams," which restrict freedom of speech rights on college campuses throughout the U.S. Some 450 institutions of higher learning have this model, whereby students are encouraged to file complaints against each other for bias claims.
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito would have gladly heard the case, Speech First, Inc. v. Pamela Whitten, but were outnumbered by the remaining judges. Thomas thinks this was a lost opportunity to shore up this fundamental constitutional right.
"Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs. The Court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a ‘patchwork of First Amendment rights,’ with a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography," Thomas wrote.
Speech First, an advocacy group for First Amendment protections on campus, brought the case against Indiana University's bias team. Their lawsuit filed in May said that students "credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views" would be under fire on campus.
Those views included "that every person is either male or female" and that "the federal government needs to vigorously enforce our immigration law." The lawsuit was meant to expose the atmosphere these bias response teams create on campus against right-leaning or Republican students.
"This Court hasn’t addressed the free-speech rights of college students since at least 2010. Over that time, those rights have not fared well," Speech First's petition stated.
"Bias-response teams are designed to get as close to the constitutional line as possible, so it’s no surprise that they ‘have divided’ the lower courts," the filing added. Another Speech First case last year against Virginia Tech similarly failed to make it to the high court's docket.
Thomas also dissented from the majority on that decision with similar misgivings. However, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling without agreeing to take the full case.
While many of these institutions crack down on traditional values, other objectionable and even illegal protests are allowed to proceed. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump vowed to right that wrong, Fox News reported.
"All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came," Trump wrote on his Truth Social.
"American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter," he added. Schools readily allowed anti-Israel protests that turned destructive even after the nation was attacked by the terrorist organization Hamas while treating Republicans and conservatives with disdain.
College campuses used to be bastions of free thought and intellectual ideas. Now, the left has taken over and won't tolerate dissent from its students, and Thomas is right that the Supreme Court needs to intervene.
A federal judge's ruling on Saturday that President Donald Trump unlawfully fired Office of Special Counsel head Hampton Dellinger last month sets up a possible Supreme Court battle over the action.
District Judge Amy B. Jackson ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction reversing the firing; Dellinger was nominated to the position by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by Congress last year to a five-year term.
Jackson believes that Dellinger's position is not fireable by the president because it needs to be independent to function as a watchdog over the president and other officials.
“The Special Counsel’s job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices directed at federal civil servants, and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals,” Jackson wrote. “It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.”
The Office of Special Counsel oversees enforcement of the Whistleblower Protection Act since its creation in 1989, and later began to oversee the Hatch Act as well.
The Hatch Act prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch from campaigning and certain other political activities.
Because Dellinger was fired via a one-sentence email that didn't give any cause, Dillinger argued in his suit, his firing violated language stating that his position can only be fired by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
“That email made no attempt to comply with the Special Counsel’s for-cause removal protection,” Dellinger’s lawsuit said. “It stated simply: ‘On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.’”
Trump has argued that as president, he can fire anyone he wants in the executive branch.
He has made it a point to fire as many partisan and Democrat-appointed federal employees as he can after employees in those groups have continuously worked against him and undermined him in every way possible.
He sees Dellinger's firing as part of gutting the deep state and wants to replace him with his own appointee just like he has for every other nominated position in the executive branch.
DOJ representative Madeline McMahon said Jackson’s order was an “extraordinary intrusion” into the president’s authority and asked him to stay the order until the D.C. Circuit can rule on it, but Jackson refused.
If the case does go to the Supreme Court, it will be the first such ruling on the issue.
A previous case, Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, left out the Office of Special Counsel from the list of federal agency heads the president can fire at will, but didn't say the president could not do so.
In the wake of Donald Trump's election to a second term in the Oval Office, some observers speculated about just how involved his wife, Melania Trump, would be in official events over the course of the next four years.
Skepticism about the first lady's enthusiasm for official events should now begin to recede, given that Mrs. Trump has just announced that preparations for the beloved tradition of the White House Easter Egg roll are well underway, as Fox News reports.
As the White House Historical Association explains, the initial Easter Egg Roll took place on April 22, 1878, during the administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, marking the start of a much-loved custom that has endured across the decades.
A statement released by the White House heralded this year's festive plans, saying, “The president and first lady look forward to continuing this entertaining tradition and making it a truly memorable experience for all.”
As Fox News noted, the egg roll is generally an event overseen by the resident first lady, with each one bringing their personal signature to the proceedings.
Recent years have seen additions to the expected egg rolling races, such as dancing, music, and the like, with attendees receiving a keepsake souvenir from the event to take home with them.
Tickets to the annual gathering are free but must be requested via an online lottery that will run between March 4 and March 10, with lucky winners set to be informed on March 18 of their ability to attend the April 21 event.
As Fox News reported separately, another favorite White House tradition recently resumed, a move that was surely greeted with great excitement by legions of Americans.
Amid the recent transition between the Biden and Trump administrations, public tours of the White House were put on hiatus, a scenario that likely proved frustrating to those visiting the nation's capital during that time.
However, the Office of First Lady Melania Trump announced earlier this month that the aforementioned tours were slated to begin again on Feb. 25.
In a press release revealing the date tours would restart, Mrs. Trump declared, “The President and I are excited to reopen the White House to those interested in the extraordinary story of this iconic and beautiful landmark.”
The first lady continued, “There is much to learn about the American Presidency, the First Families who have lived here, and our Nation's rich history from a firsthand experience at the White House.”
The vigor and happiness with which Mrs. and Mrs. Trump have resumed life at the White House was evident yet again last week when, during the first public tour since the transition-related closure, the president himself made an appearance, thanking attendees and promising them a “great” time, as the New York Post reported.
“The first lady worked very hard in making it perfect, and I think you're going to really love it,” Mr. Trump assured the group, and it seems certain that the same will be true of the upcoming Egg Roll on the White House grounds.
Michael LaRosa, a former White House staffer, now admits that the campaign was "gaslighting" voters during President Joe Biden's 2024 campaign, Mediaite reported. LaRosa said they were in strict "denial" to the public and the media.
LaRosa had an inside view of the president's condition as the press secretary for then-first lady Jill Biden. The 81-year-old incumbent president was forced to give up his reelection bid after a humiliating debate performance against Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, the official narrative was that he was "sharp as a tack" despite his advanced age. Now that there's nothing to lose, people like LaRosa and CNN's Jake Tapper are ready to come clean.
Tapper teamed up with Axios reporter Alex Thomson in a new tell-all book, Original Sin, that spills the secrets of the White House's efforts to keep Biden's cognitive decline under wraps. LaRosa spoke with Tara Palmeri from Puck about what it was like behind the scenes.
When Palmeri interviewed LaRosa Wednesday at the Science Institute at American University, he denied a "cover-up" but said the lying began "Day 1" about the problems both with Biden's age and his polling numbers. "There are some things that are true, I mean, like the gaslighting," LaRosa said.
"There was a lot of denial of the polling. And I will use the term gaslighting because that’s what they were doing, the campaign, former colleagues," LaRosa added.
"The message to everybody was to make sure that you tell people it’s too early. It’s too early. These polls don’t mean anything. Well, it became too early. And these polls don’t mean anything for about a year and a half. The polls, the numbers never moved," he went on.
"But by denying the data that was out there publicly, by denying the really insightful journalism, you know, they were actually demeaning to a lot of the people. But it was the data denial that really bothered me because we loved polling when we were running because we were always ahead," LaRosa said.
LaRosa said the Biden campaign's desperation got the best of it. "All of a sudden, because they’re always behind, the polls are meaningless. And they were attacking The New York Times. They did do a lot of gaslighting of people," LaRosa shared.
"And I think if you were watching MSNBC, you probably believed them and were probably pretty shocked. But if you were consuming information, consuming data, and looking at it objectively, and trying to interpret it and process it objectively, then none of it was surprising," LaRosa added.
The campaign took to hiding Joe Biden from the public. "The president’s team was scared to death of impromptu, unscripted, un-rehearsed, unpracticed, un-choreographed, anything, they couldn’t compete for the attention economy. They just couldn’t do it," LaRosa admitted.
He said Joe Biden "loves TV" but couldn't be trusted. "Biden needed the press. When he needed them the most, they didn’t trust him, they gave him the benefit of the doubt and they put their foot on the gas and never took it off. And he was politically dead," LaRosa added.
It was obvious to anyone honest enough to say it that age got the best of Joe Biden. The only surprising thing about LaRosa's confession is that even insiders are willing to admit their role in what's arguably the most significant coverup in presidential history.
Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration's request Wednesday to delay a deadline and continue withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, The Hill reported. A lower court ordered the payments to resume.
President Donald Trump has attempted to slash waste and fraud in the federal government. This has come with many cuts, including for projects that fall under the U.S. Agency for International Development.
However, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled Tuesday that billions of dollars in payments must resume to USAID and the State Department. Roberts' ruling allows the spending freeze to stand, which is necessary considering the logistical nightmare of forcing payments while audits are underway.
"This new order requiring payment of enormous sums of foreign-assistance money in less than 36 hours intrudes on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch. The President’s power is at its apex—and the power of the judiciary is at its nadir—in matters of foreign affairs," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris noted in the emergency petition to the Supreme Court.
Trump imposed a foreign aid freeze as one of his first executive orders after taking office. Prior to Roberts' intervention, the Trump administration was prepared to disobey the midnight Tuesday deadline.
The administration blew through another Rhode Island court's order to unfreeze funds, and all of this has outraged the left. "The lengths to which the government is going to flout a court order, all for the goal of ending life-saving humanitarian assistance, is staggering," a statement from the plaintiffs' attorney, Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, said.
Roberts, who is in charge of emergency petitions, chose not to have the full court weigh in on the matter. Now, the plaintiffs in the case say they must cease operations without the fresh injection of taxpayer dollars.
"After flouting the district court’s temporary restraining order for a full twelve days in letter and in spirit — requiring the district court to not once, not twice, but three times order compliance — Defendants bring this premature appeal in a last-ditch effort to evade the order of an Article III court," another attorney, Stephen Wirth, wrote. The plaintiffs claimed "time truly is of the essence" in this matter.
However, the Justice Department noted that there are other ways to access funding to run their programs. This fight for taxpayer dollars, even as the Trump administration still uncovers waste and abuse, has demonstrated the depth of the problems.
This legal win comes after another good week for the Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, Fox News reported. DOGE is already responsible for rooting out hundreds of millions in government waste and is seeking to save even more.
Their efforts have survived several legal challenges, including being allowed to proceed with mass firings of federal workers. The organization is also allowed to audit several federal agencies after judgments in favor of DOGE failed to block access.
Notably, DOGE has also uncovered a mysterious $4.7 trillion in payments from the Treasury, as its account on X, formerly Twitter, explained. "The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is an identification code linking a Treasury payment to a budget line item (standard financial process)," the post said.
"In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost impossible. As of Saturday, this is now a required field, increasing insight into where money is actually going," it added.
DOGE's mission is a great one, and it appears to be rolling along smoothly even in the face of opposition. This latest decision to freeze payments was another good one from the courts and great news for the Trump administration.
First lady Melania Trump is being widely praised for her wardrobe choice at the White House National Governors Association Dinner Sunday, Parade Magazine reported. Trump donned a Dolce & Gabbana black velvet tuxedo jacket trimmed in satin paired with a Ralph Lauren cummerbund and pants.
The former fashion model's outfit was a take on masculine formal wear but with feminine touches, including flowing tresses, dazzling earrings, and her signature high heels. She posted photos from the event on her official account on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday.
"It was an honor to host our distinguished governors at the White House. Together, we embraced a moment of unity, forging a path toward a brighter future for all," Trump captioned the post.
It was an honor to host our distinguished governors at the White House. Together, we embraced a moment of unity, forging a path toward a brighter future for all. pic.twitter.com/Fa0Eh72aoM
— First Lady Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) February 24, 2025
As the wife of President Donald Trump, Melania Trump is used to being in the spotlight as a political spouse. However, she was a well-known model long before marrying the media mogul who would become president, and it shows.
During President Trump's first term, the media ignored the fashion plate in the White House even as her fans continue to heap praise on the georgous first lady. "Grace, elegance, and leadership, Melania Trump continues to set the standard," conservative social media personality Desiree posted to X.
"The media could never give her the credit she deserves, but the people see it!" Desiree added. Other users offered similar accolades to the beautiful first lady.
"You are absolutely stunning in that tuxedo suit!!! Classy and gorgeous!!! another admirer offered.
"Thank you!! I love the tuxedo look!! Very classy!" said another X user. "Stunning as always Melania!" still another said of the first lady while another person called Melania a "beautiful hostess."
Melania Trump is arguably the most beautiful woman to be first lady. She is always dressed to impress while out in public, whether on official business or not, and knows how to wear high fashion.
Still, Vogue's editor-in-chief Anna Wintour is obviously "biased" in whom she decides will grace the cover of her magazine, Melania Trump noted. In 2022, the magazine featured then-first lady Jill Biden on the cover after spending years ignoring Melania Trump.
Melania Trump was previously given the cover in 2005 after marrying Donald Trump, but that was long before he became the left's most hated Republican president. Melania Trump was asked about this obviously intentional oversight in an interview with People.
"I think American people and everyone sees it. It was their decision, and I have much more important things to do — and I did in the White House — than being on the cover of Vogue," Melania Trump said in 2022.
With her husband back in the White House, it's still unlikely Melania Trump will ever become a Vogue cover girl again. Of course, she doesn't need Anna Wintour's approval when she has the love, support, and admiration of the American people.