President Donald Trump has dropped a bold statement that’s sure to stir the pot, expressing his strong desire for the Supreme Court’s elder statesmen, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, to hold their ground on the bench.
Trump made clear his hope that these two conservative pillars, aged 77 and 75 respectively, will stick around to preserve the court’s current 6-3 conservative tilt, a balance he helped forge with three key appointments during his first term.
“I hope they stay ’cause I think they’re fantastic, OK?” Trump declared to Politico, doubling down on his admiration for both men.
Well, let’s unpack that quote—Trump’s not just whistling Dixie here; he’s signaling a deep investment in maintaining a court that reflects his vision, one that’s already reshaped American law in profound ways.
During his first term, Trump’s trio of appointments—Amy Coney Barrett at 53, Neil Gorsuch at 58, and Brett Kavanaugh at 60—joined Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, now 70, to solidify a conservative majority that’s been a game-changer.
These picks weren’t just names on a list; they’ve been among the most defining moves of Trump’s initial stint in office, steering the court toward landmark rulings.
Under this reshaped court, we’ve seen seismic decisions, like the reversal of long-standing abortion protections and the establishment of presidential immunity for certain official acts—rulings that have conservatives cheering and progressives gnashing their teeth.
Now, with the court currently mulling over elements of Trump’s second-term plans, including a critical decision on his ambitious tariff program, the stakes couldn’t be higher for keeping that majority intact.
Both Thomas and Alito were present at Trump’s inauguration ceremonies in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025, a subtle reminder of their enduring roles in this judicial saga.
Here’s the rub: if either Thomas or Alito steps down or passes away under a Democratic administration, the court’s balance could tip, undoing years of conservative gains in a heartbeat.
Trump’s own history proves the point—when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed during his first term, he swiftly replaced her with Barrett, locking in a younger conservative voice for decades.
Replacing either of the senior justices now with another youthful pick would further cement that conservative edge well into the future, a prospect that’s music to the ears of those wary of progressive overreach.
Let’s be real: Trump’s not just playing nostalgia with his plea for Thomas and Alito to stay; he’s playing chess, eyeing a court that can withstand the shifting winds of political change.
His second quote to Politico, “Both of those men are fantastic,” isn’t just flattery—it’s a rallying cry to conservatives who see the judiciary as the last bastion against a creeping progressive agenda.
So, as the Supreme Court continues to weigh Trump’s latest policy ambitions, the question looms: will Thomas and Alito heed the call to stay, ensuring the conservative majority stands firm against whatever challenges come next?
Brace yourself, America: the housing market is buckling under pressures that some say were entirely preventable.
The latest HUD "Worst Case Housing Needs Report" for 2025 paints a grim picture of affordability for low-income families, with HUD Secretary Scott Turner pointing to unchecked immigration and open-border policies as a major culprit in driving up costs and squeezing out American households.
Released every two years since 1991, HUD’s flagship report assesses the state of affordable housing for those struggling most, tracking trends in housing stress and identifying gaps in low-cost rental supply.
This year’s findings are particularly stark, issuing a pointed warning about how increased immigration, especially of the unauthorized variety, has strained the market.
According to the report, a staggering 15 million unauthorized immigrants make up 30% of the foreign-born population in the U.S., significantly contributing to housing demand.
In states like California and New York, immigrants drove 100% of rental growth and over 50% of owner-occupied housing increases in recent years, a trend that has policymakers scratching their heads.
Nationally, the foreign-born population accounted for over 60% of rental demand growth, with two-thirds of that surge tied directly to noncitizen households.
HUD’s analysis suggests that without this migrant influx, housing inventory pressures would have been far less severe, with nearly 784,000 fewer households forming over the studied period.
Compare that to earlier reports from 2019 and 2023, where noncitizen rental demand growth was just 13%, and it’s clear something has shifted—fast.
HUD Secretary Scott Turner isn’t mincing words, placing much of the blame on past policies that failed to enforce immigration controls.
“The unchecked illegal immigration and open borders policies allowed by the Biden administration continue to put significant strain on housing, pricing out American families,” Turner declared, signaling a sharp pivot under the current leadership.
While his rhetoric is fiery, one has to wonder if pinning the crisis so squarely on immigration misses the deeper, decades-long underbuilding of homes that’s left us millions of units short.
Turner’s response includes an audit of public housing authorities to verify citizenship status, alongside scrapping mortgage programs for unauthorized migrants that were offered previously.
He’s also prioritizing American citizens for HUD housing and moving to an English-only model, while noting that HUD currently serves only one in four eligible families due to lax enforcement of rules barring federal aid to noncitizens.
Critics like Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman aren’t buying the focus, arguing, “You are worsening the housing crisis with your budget proposal,” suggesting that slashing HUD’s funding by over 50% undercuts any claim of wanting to solve the problem. Well, if you’re going to swing a hammer at policy, at least make sure it’s hitting the right nail.
Texas politics just took a sharp turn with a surprising exit and a potential new contender stirring the pot.
Former Rep. Colin Allred, once the Democrat standard-bearer for a Texas Senate seat, has stepped away from that race to pursue a congressional position in the newly drawn 33rd District, while on the same day, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) is set to reveal if she’ll challenge Sen. John Cornyn for the Senate.
Allred’s pivot away from the Senate race comes with a stated desire to avoid a divisive Democratic primary.
“In the past few days, I’ve come to believe that a bruising Senate Democratic primary and runoff would prevent the Democratic Party from going into this critical election unified,” Allred said.
That’s a noble sentiment on paper, but let’s be honest—ducking a tough fight might just be a savvy move to secure a safer seat in a district he claims is unfairly drawn.
His new target, the 33rd District, is described by Allred as “racially gerrymandered” by political forces he opposes, yet it’s also the community of his childhood, which adds a personal layer to his campaign.
On the flip side, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, known for her sharp criticism of conservative leadership, is on the cusp of announcing whether she’ll take on Sen. Cornyn.
She’s been teasing this decision for days, recently stating she’s “closer to yes than no” on a Senate bid.
That confidence might raise eyebrows, but in a state as vast as Texas, with 30 million residents, turning bravado into votes is no small feat.
Crockett isn’t shy about her prospects, asserting, “The data says that I can win.”
While data is nice, as she herself admits, executing a campaign in a state this size is a logistical nightmare, potentially costing upwards of $100 million—a figure that could make even the most optimistic donor pause.
Her appeal, she claims, lies with key voter demographics who backed Democrats in recent out-of-state elections, positioning her as a formidable force despite skepticism from some quarters.
Both Allred and Crockett are playing high-stakes chess in a state where conservative values often dominate, and their moves could reshape the Democratic strategy against a strong Republican incumbent like Cornyn.
While Allred seeks to return to Congress in a district he knows well, Crockett’s potential Senate run could either energize her party’s base or expose the limits of a progressive agenda in a red-leaning state—either way, Texas voters are in for a show.
In a fiery address that could torch hopes for peace in Gaza, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has outright rejected President Donald Trump’s carefully crafted 20-point peace plan.
Speaking via video at the “Pledge to Jerusalem” conference in Istanbul on Saturday, Mashal made it clear that Hamas has no intention of laying down arms or accepting international oversight, as broadcast on Al Jazeera.
Mashal’s speech celebrated the October 7, 2023, “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack on Israel as a pivotal moment, framing Gaza as the spearhead of a broader push to oust Israel from what he calls “our homeland.”
With a tone that practically dared the world to challenge him, Mashal dismissed core elements of Trump’s plan, including disarmament, the deployment of an International Stabilization Force (ISF), and Hamas stepping away from power in Gaza.
He doubled down on armed resistance, declaring, “The resistance and its weapons are our honor and glory,” as reported by Al Jazeera, showing zero interest in compromise. That’s a bold statement, but it’s hard to see how clinging to weaponry advances anything but more conflict.
Mashal also scoffed at any form of external control, rejecting what he called “guardianship” or “re-occupation” over Palestinian territories, including the Trump-backed ISF meant to secure and rebuild Gaza.
Adding a twist to the narrative, another Hamas figure, Bassem Naim, struck a slightly softer note on Sunday, telling the Associated Press in Doha that the group might consider “freezing or storing” weapons for a 5-to-10-year truce.
While Naim rejected international forces inside Palestinian areas, he floated the idea of U.N. monitoring at Gaza’s borders. It’s a sliver of daylight, but one wonders if this is genuine flexibility or just tactical posturing.
Meanwhile, Israel’s Foreign Ministry didn’t mince words, accusing Hamas of “making a mockery of President Trump’s peace plan,” as posted alongside video clips of Mashal’s speech.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while open to testing an international force, expressed skepticism about its ability to handle Gaza’s toughest challenges alone, emphasizing disarmament as non-negotiable in the plan’s second phase.
Netanyahu noted progress on the ceasefire’s first phase, with most hostage exchanges nearly complete, and signaled upcoming talks with Trump to hammer out details on ending Hamas’s rule.
Retired U.S. Army Major John Spencer chimed in on X, pointing out that Hamas lacks the leverage or global backing it once had, suggesting Israel could keep targeting the group while stability zones are established.
Trump’s plan, endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, envisions an ISF taking over from Israeli forces, a technocratic Palestinian body running Gaza, and Hamas stripped of all military capacity—a tall order given Mashal’s defiance.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar warned that Mashal’s rejection undermines the very conditions needed for ceasefire and hostage deals to progress, casting a shadow over diplomatic efforts.
As the dust settles on Mashal’s speech, the divide couldn’t be starker: Hamas clings to its arsenal while the U.S. and Israel push for a demilitarized Gaza. If peace is the goal, someone’s got to blink first—and it doesn’t look like Mashal is volunteering for the job.
Imagine waking up to news that a ghost from nearly five years ago has finally been caught, admitting to planting bombs in the heart of Washington, D.C., on the eve of chaos.
The New York Post reported that Brian Cole Jr., a 30-year-old from Woodbridge, Virginia, has been charged with placing viable pipe bombs outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters on January 5, 2021, just before the Capitol riot, and was arrested on Thursday, after confessing to the crime.
Let’s rewind to that tense night in early 2021 when Cole allegedly set down two dangerous explosives near the nerve centers of both major political parties.
These devices, fully capable of destruction, sat undiscovered for 17 hours until they were found on January 6, 2021, just as supporters of the former president stormed the Capitol, delaying the certification of the 2020 election results.
Fast forward to this week, when federal investigators, after years of dead ends, finally nabbed Cole following a meticulous re-examination of the case.
It’s almost poetic justice that it took a fresh set of eyes to solve a crime that haunted D.C. for so long, especially under new FBI leadership determined to cut through bureaucratic fog.
“This is what it’s like when you work for a president who tells you to go get the bad guys and stop focusing on other extraneous things not related to law enforcement,” said FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino at a press conference on Thursday.
Well, credit where it’s due—Bongino’s team did what others couldn’t in four years, though one wonders if the previous focus on political theater over hard evidence slowed things down.
“Our team re-examined the case from the ground up after the previous leadership spent four years with no success,” said FBI Director Kash Patel to The Post on Thursday.
Cole, after his arrest on Thursday morning, December 4, 2025, confessed that afternoon, admitting to the chilling act, though his motives remain murky due to inconsistent statements during a lengthy four-hour interview.
He told investigators he bought into claims that the 2020 election was stolen, yet a national Republican operative noted there’s “zero indication” Cole was a committed supporter of the former president.
Interestingly, Cole wasn’t registered with either party in Virginia and skipped primaries, though he did vote in general elections in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024, painting a picture of a politically ambiguous figure.
On Friday, Cole made his initial appearance in D.C. federal court before U.S. Magistrate Moxila Upadhyaya, where he did not enter a plea.
He faces serious charges, including transporting explosives across state lines with harmful intent and attempted malicious destruction using explosive materials, and was ordered held pending a detention hearing on December 15, 2025.
President Donald Trump is swinging the wrecking ball of progress straight into the heart of the White House with a jaw-dropping ballroom project.
Fox News reported that Trump has greenlit a massive renovation, complete with a privately funded $300 million ballroom addition, overseen by a newly appointed architectural firm, to host grand state visits and gatherings.
Back in July, when this ambitious plan was first unveiled, the estimated cost sat at a hefty $200 million, but that figure has since ballooned to $300 million.
Fast forward to October, and the project roared to life with heavy machinery tearing into the historic East Wing, a sight that both stuns and signals a new era for the presidential estate.
By late October, excavators were spotted clearing rubble, a clear sign that there’s no turning back on this monumental overhaul of a cherished national symbol.
While some may wince at the loss of history, the White House insists this addition has been long in the making, promising a venue worthy of America’s global stature.
On Thursday, Trump tapped Shalom Baranes Associates, a respected Washington, D.C.-based firm, to steer the design of this grand ballroom, marking a pivotal shift in the project’s development.
Originally, McCrery Architects led the charge on the design, and they’ll stay on as consultants, ensuring continuity as the vision takes shape.
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle couldn’t contain the excitement, declaring, “As we begin to transition into the next stage of development on the White House Ballroom, the Administration is excited to share that the highly talented Shalom Baranes has joined the team of experts to carry out President Trump’s vision.”
Ingle also praised the new architect’s credentials, stating, “Shalom is an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades and his experience will be a great asset to the completion of this project.”
While Ingle’s enthusiasm paints a rosy picture, let’s be real—redefining the White House isn’t just about pretty blueprints; it’s about ensuring this space reflects American strength, not just another overpriced progressive pet project.
President Trump himself chimed in with a touch of humor, admitting, “I wouldn't say my wife is thrilled.”
He added, “She hears pile drivers in the background all day, all night.”
One can only imagine the First Lady’s patience wearing thin with the constant clamor, but if this ballroom turns out as promised, it might just be worth the headache—let’s hope it’s not another government boondoggle dressed up as innovation.
In a world obsessed with quick fixes, Erika Kirk, widow of conservative titan Charlie Kirk, dropped a truth bomb at a high-profile summit, rejecting the tired narrative that guns are the root of violence.
At The New York Times DealBook Summit on Wednesday, held at Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City, Erika, now CEO of Turning Point USA, spoke candidly about her husband’s assassination and the deeper issues plaguing society.
Fox News reported that Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist, was originally slated to speak at this prestigious event, which has hosted heavyweights like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. His tragic assassination left Erika to step into the spotlight, facing tough questions with unwavering resolve.
Interviewed by journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin, Erika didn’t shy away from the elephant in the room—gun violence in America. Sorkin pressed her on how she views the issue after such a personal loss, expecting perhaps a softened stance.
“He was a real believer, as you know, in the Second Amendment, and I'm curious how you think today about gun violence in America, given what happened to him,” Sorkin asked. Nice try, Andrew, but Erika wasn’t about to let progressive talking points frame her grief—she doubled down on her support for constitutional rights.
Far from blaming firearms, Erika pointed to a deeper malaise, arguing that violence stems from human and mental health crises, not just tools. This isn’t the surface-level drivel we’re used to hearing; it’s a call to look beyond the weapon to the wounded soul wielding it.
Erika’s words cut through the noise of shallow policy debates with surgical precision. “That's not a gun problem. That's a human, deeply human problem,” she insisted, highlighting a cultural failure to address mental health and moral decay.
She’s onto something—college counselors, as she noted, consistently report mental health struggles like anxiety and depression as top issues for students. If we’re serious about stopping violence, shouldn’t we start there instead of obsessing over inanimate objects?
Charlie himself understood this, often stressing to students the importance of brain health, proper rest, and self-care, according to Erika. His message wasn’t just political; it was profoundly personal, a blueprint for living well in a chaotic world.
In the wake of her husband’s murder, Erika made a bold move—she purged social media and news apps from her phone. She’s not hiding; she’s protecting her sanity, letting others filter the online vitriol while she focuses on what matters.
This echoes Charlie’s own habits, who, despite recognizing social media’s power for good and evil, made a weekly ritual of unplugging. Every Friday night, he’d stash his phone in a junk drawer, embracing family time and rest with a hearty “Shabbat Shalom.”
It’s a lesson for our always-on culture—Charlie knew life was bigger than endless notifications or petty online spats. If only more of us could ditch the digital leash for a weekend, we might rediscover what’s truly sacred.
Erika’s resolve to carry forward Charlie’s legacy is evident in how she speaks of his intentional balance between work and family.
He wasn’t just a public figure; he was a dad, a husband, a man who knew when to step away from the world’s clamor.
While the left might push for simplistic solutions to complex tragedies, Erika’s perspective forces us to grapple with uncomfortable truths about our society’s mental and spiritual state.
Her voice at the summit wasn’t just a widow’s lament—it was a rallying cry for deeper reflection.
Violence isn’t solved by stripping rights or slapping on Band-Aids; it’s addressed by healing broken hearts and minds, as Erika so powerfully reminded us. Let’s hope her words resonate beyond the halls of Jazz at Lincoln Center and spark a long-overdue conversation.
President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue salute to America’s bravest warriors with a stroke of his pen.
On Monday, Trump signed the Medal of Honor Act, H.R. 695, boosting the monthly pension for the nation’s highest military award recipients from roughly $1,406 to a far more respectable $5,625.
This isn’t just pocket change—it’s a nearly fourfold increase, taking the annual payout from about $16,880 to $67,500 for the 61 living recipients among over 3,515 honored since 1863.
Let’s be real: in a world obsessed with handing out participation trophies, it’s refreshing to see actual heroes get their due.
These Medal of Honor recipients, who’ve risked everything for our freedoms, have been scraping by on pensions that started at a measly $10 a month back in 1916, per the Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll.
Even after bumps to $100 in 1961 and $1,000 in 2002, it’s been a slow climb—hardly matching the sacrifice of those who’ve earned this rare distinction.
Credit where it’s due: Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, who’s retiring soon, championed this cause with the Medal of Honor Act, proving not all politicians are out of touch.
“Medal of Honor recipients truly embody the best of our nation,” Nehls declared. Well said, but let’s hope this isn’t just lip service—actions like this bill speak louder than any speech.
“My bill, the Medal of Honor Act, eases their financial burden by increasing their special pension — ensuring they know that America is grateful for all they’ve done to serve our country and defend our freedoms,” Nehls added. It’s a solid step, though one wonders why it took so long to value valor over virtue-signaling pet projects.
Trump didn’t stop at one bill on Monday; he also signed the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, tackling substance abuse and mental health programs under the Department of Health and Human Services.
But let’s keep the spotlight on our heroes—Trump’s approval of the Medal of Honor Act is a rare bipartisan win in a swamp of endless bickering. It’s a reminder that some things, like honoring sacrifice, should transcend petty politics.
While progressive agendas often prioritize trendy causes, this move cuts through the noise to focus on those who’ve bled for the flag, not just waved it.
Think about it: only 61 living souls bear the weight of the Medal of Honor, a legacy stretching back over 160 years. That’s a tiny fraction of the thousands who’ve served, yet their impact is immeasurable.
This pension hike isn’t charity; it’s a debt we’ve owed for decades, finally paid with interest. In an era where government spending often feels like a black hole, here’s a cause conservatives and patriots can rally behind without hesitation.
President Donald Trump had harsh words for Eric Holder's plan of expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to water down its conservative leanings, Breitbart reported. The president was specifically reacting to a video that echoed the sentiments of many on the left.
Democrats have been trying to undermine the court since the balance shifted to 6-3 in favor of conservatives. Since justices are appointed for life, the only way the left can retake the court is by adding more justices until the balance comes back to their side, so they can push their radical agenda items through without resistance.
Although there are currently nine justices on the court due to tradition, there's no rule against adding as many as an administration sees fit. Meanwhile, Holder, who served as attorney general under Barack Obama, called the Supreme Court "a broken institution" that "cannot be left in place without a discussion, at least," he claimed.
"Without substantive reforms being put in place, this Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted — if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028 — Supreme Court reform is something that has to be considered. Potentially expanding the Court is something, I think, that also should be considered."
Trump shared the video of Holder's remarks. He responded strongly to this in a post to his Truth Social, where he obliterated Holder, including calling him "FAST AND FURIOUS" after the gun-running scandal he was embroiled in along with the Obama administration.
He went on to say that Holder is an "Obama sycophant...who did so much to hurt our Country, and who weaponized the Obama Administration against the Republican Party (and ME!)," Trump said. He then laid out the plan to stop the Democrats' effort to pack the court.
"The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking. It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028," Trump wrote.
"Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!" Trump said.
The left has been beating the drum to regain control of the Supreme Court by creating a majority just by adding more judges exactly at the time when Republican appointees overtook the court.
In fact, it was Holder who said during a Brookings Institution event in January 2021 that there was a "crisis of legitimacy" at the high court after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020.
He says Republicans' refusal to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016 and then Barrett's last-minute appointment just before Trump left office as a sign that Democrats "must use the power that they now have” to change that. "I believe it would be totally appropriate to add additional seats to the Supreme Court, in response to what has transpired over the past few years," Holder said.
The former attorney general also claimed that courts were "political bodies" and that the federal court system was full of "ideologues who consistently reach rulings based on their stunted mindsets." Holder said that justices should be term-limited to just 18 years and that a minimum age of 50 years should be required to serve on the court.
As recently as January 2024, Holder said on MSNBC’s The ReidOut that the Supreme Court faced a crisis after it sided with Trump in one of several cases that challenged his ability to run for president again. "There is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it," Holder claimed even though the court used both to decide.
The left was fine when they were the majority and their issues always won the day at the Supreme Court. Ever since the right has restored the balance and the justices returned to true constitutional law and American values, they have been trying to tear it down.
Actor Josh Brolin, who voices Thanos in the Marvel movies and got his start in movies on 1985's "The Goonies," told "The Independent" that President Donald Trump was a longtime friend of his and that he wasn't worried about Trump refusing to leave the presidency in 2029 after his second term.
“I’m not scared of Trump, because even though he says he’s staying forever, it’s just not going to happen,” Brolin told the paper. “And if it does, then I’ll deal with that moment. But having been a friend of Trump before he was president, I know a different guy.”
Brolin and Trump met on the set of Oliver Stone's "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" in 2010. Trump filmed a cameo in the movie but it was cut from the final version of the film.
“There is no greater genius than him in marketing," Brolin said. "He takes the weakness of the general population and fills it. And that’s why I think a lot of people feel that they have a mascot in him.”
“I think it’s much less about Trump than it is about the general population and their need for validation," he added.
The subject came up when Brolin was asked if his recent role as Monsignor Wicks in Glass Onion was meant to be a take on Trump.
Wicks preaches hate in the movie and is generally just a despicable character, but Brolin said the character was not in any way inspired by the current president.
“I could make something up and say it was rooted in a kind of Trumpian greed,” but in reality, it wasn't, Brolin said. He added that once “Wicks garners a sense of power, then there are no boundaries."
It's refreshing to see an A-list actor who doesn't hate Trump and constantly feel the need to attack him.
Brolin has a balanced view--he thinks Trump is on a quest for power, but not like his character Thanos who was willing to obliterate half of the world to do it.
And unlike many actors in Hollywood today, Brolin actually spent time with Trump and knows him on a personal level.
Undoubtedly, Brolin will now be enemy number one among his peers, but his shoulders seem plenty broad.
The left can say, of course Thanos is a friend to Trump, but it sounds like Brolin knows the truth about who Trump is and isn't afraid to say it.