A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from abolishing a parole program for illegal immigrants on Wednesday, Fox News reported. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar ruling on the issue Friday, which could signal another future win for the administration on this issue.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled against abolishing the parole program created under then-President Joe Biden. Migrants from Ukraine, Latin America, and Afghanistan, along with their immediate family members, were given two years to reside in the U.S.
The program stipulated that parolees and their families must have an American sponsor to participate. Some were also granted access to the program after working as translators for the American military.
Abolishing the program immediately suspended the application for hundreds of thousands of migrants wishing to renew their legal status or apply for work permits. Trump targeted this as one of the many ways to crack down on illegal immigration.
Talwani ruled against the Trump administration's assertion that it had broad powers over the immigration system. The judge, an Obama appointee, said that it was within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security and granted class-action status to the migrants.
According to Talwani, it's "not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country, such that these individuals cannot legally work in their communities or provide for themselves and their families," she wrote. The decision also extended to humanitarian parolee cases.
"Nor is it in the public interest for individuals who enlisted and are currently serving in the United States military to face family separation, particularly where some of these individuals joined the military in part to help their loved ones obtain lawful status," the judge added. One of the plaintiff attorneys, Anwen Hughes from Human Rights First, championed Talwani's decision in a statement.
"This ruling reaffirms what we have always known to be true: our government has a legal obligation to respect the rights of all humanitarian parole beneficiaries and the Americans who have welcomed them into their communities. We share the judge’s hope that the government will adhere to this order and immediately resume adjudicating our clients’ applications for relief," Hughes wrote.
This decision is in line with Talwani's ruling last month for migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti. In that case, the judge found that status determinations must be made on an individual basis, though it has since been overturned.
According to NBC News, the Supreme Court overturned Talwani's earlier ruling because she was not authorized to decide such matters. The high court weighed in after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem filed an emergency petition, which was granted Friday.
This impacts some 532,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti who have now seen their status become immediately illegal. However, the affected individuals still have the option to apply for asylum, which many have already done.
Predictably, left-leaning Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion. Jackson claimed that the court's short opinion ignored "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."
Justice Action Center attorney Karen Tumlin cited the same concerns. "I cannot overstate how devastating this is: The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities," Tumlin claimed.
With Talwani's initial block already overturned, it seems any subsequent decision could meet the same fate. This is good news for the Trump administration and all who value a tighter, more secure immigration system.
A federal court has struck down much of President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs in a ruling Wednesday, the Washington Examiner reported. The U.S. Court of International Trade determined that it is not within the president's powers, but the administration immediately appealed.
This court's decision immediately nullified the flat 10% rate Trump imposed on most imported goods on April 2. However, the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and their components was left untouched as it was enacted under a different law.
Democrats were happy about the development as New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took to X, formerly Twitter, to rejoice. "BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON! A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket," Hochul said.
BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON!
A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket. https://t.co/jJtF61BuFM
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) May 28, 2025
Wednesday's decision came from a three-judge panel including a Trump appointee, a Reagan appointee, and an Obama appointee. They examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and whether it "delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," they wrote.
"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the decision noted. Of course, the White House objected to such a standard that hinders the president's powers.
"Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficit. These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute," White House spokesman Kush Desai said.
"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Desai added.
The challenge came from New York, Arizona, and Oregon, which sued over the implementation of these tariffs. However, the administration was quick to appeal the decision.
The Trump administration filed an appeal on Wednesday evening, almost immediately after the judges' ruling, CNN reported. The subsequent reversal from the United States Court of Appeals allows Trump to continue to impose tariffs.
Trump had used emergency powers to push through the tariffs, and the appeal will allow that to continue for now. In the meantime, the administration and the states objecting will have to file court documents arguing their positions.
Despite the setback, Trump's lead trade adviser, Peter Navarro, is undeterred and said "all strategic options" will be employed. "We will hear, within the next day or two, at a minimum, from the United States Trade Representative on how we will respond to all of this," Navarro said.
"We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this. I can assure the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth, into foreign hands," Navarro said about the future of the tariffs.
Although this was undoubtedly a setback for the Trump administration, the push and pull is part of what keeps power in check on both sides. Trump has many more tricks up his sleeve when it comes to his innovative economic policies, and it's unlikely this will stop here.
Singer and guitarist Rick Derringer passed away Monday in Ormond Beach, Florida, the Associated Press reported. The 77-year-old was best known for hits "Hang On Sloopy" and "Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo" with the band The McCoys.
Derringer's death was announced by his caregiver, Tony Wilson, in a post to Facebook. He did not indicate the cause of death for the rock legend.
"Derringer’s legacy extends beyond his music, entertaining fans with his signature energy and talent. His passing leaves a void in the music world, and he will be deeply missed by fans, colleagues, and loved ones," Wilson posted to Facebook.
Of all the credits in Derringer's decades-long career, his only Grammy Award came from his work as producer on "Weird Al" Yankovic's self-titled debut album. The parody singer-songwriter was one of many musicians to offer a fond farewell.
In a post to Instagram, Yankovic included a photo with Derringer and kind words of remembrance. "I’m very sad to say that my friend, rock guitar legend Rick Derringer, has passed," Yankovic wrote in his post on Tuesday.
"Rick produced my first 6 albums and played guitar on my earliest recordings, including the solo on 'Eat It.' He had an enormous impact on my life, and will be missed greatly. RIP," Yankovic wrote.
View this post on Instagram
Fellow guitarist Joe Bonamassa also offered his condolences via X, formerly Twitter. "Joe Rest in Peace my friend. It was an honor to know you, work with you, and call you a friend," Bonamassa wrote.
Mötley Crüe star John Corabi also tweeted his goodbyes. "So sad to hear about the passing of Rick Derringer. What a brilliant guitarist/producer and songwriter. I saw him quite a few times, and was blown away at what he did with his guitar. R.I.P. Rick."
With a career spanning multiple genres and years, Derringer was a valuable asset to the music industry. He was only 17 when the McCoys, formed with his brother, Randy, charted the hit "Hang On Sloopy" in 1964.
His solo hit "Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo" found a new audience after being featured in the Netflix series Stranger Things in its fourth season. In 1973, Derringer's album "All American Boy" reached No. 25 on the charts, featuring instrumental tracks "Time Warp" and "Joy Ride."
Music production was a significant part of Derringer's credits, including his work with Yankovic. However, Derringer also worked as a session musician playing for Barbara Streisand, Kiss, and Todd Rundgren during the 1970s and 1980s. His work for Steely Dan included the tracks "Katy Lied," "Gaucho," and "Countdown to Ecstacy."
By the mid-1980s, Derringer landed a spot on tour with Cyndi Lauper and played on three of her albums, including her wildly successful "True Colors." In 1985, Derringer produced "The Wrestling Album" for the World Wrestling Federation using many songs he co-wrote as theme songs for pro wrestlers, including Hulk Hogan's "Real American."
Derringer may not be a household name, but his career includes many hits and collaborations that have certainly become well-known. His presence in the industry will surely be missed.
President Donald Trump accepts that there will be changes to his "big, beautiful bill" that passed by one vote in the House last week, the Washington Examiner reported. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson believes this might endanger the bill's final fate in the Senate.
During remarks to the press in Morristown, New Jersey, on Sunday, Trump explained that he anticipates and even welcomes some changes to the final bill. "I want the Senate and the senators to make the changes they want," Trump said.
"It will go back to the House, and we’ll see if we can get them. In some cases, the changes may be something I’d agree with, to be honest," Trump continued.
"I think they are going to have changes. Some will be minor, some will be fairly significant," Trump advised. Some of the proposed changes include examining radio licensing changes, Medicaid cuts, and the potential abolition of green energy tax credits created under the administration of then-President Joe Biden.
While Trump is optimistic about the future of the bill, Johnson has said getting the bill passed was like "crossing over the Grand Canyon on a piece of dental floss." According to NBC News, the Louisiana Republican cautioned his colleagues in the upper chamber of Congress against tinkering with the bill.
“I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It’s the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this ball over the goal line, so to speak," Johnson said.
"And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance," he added. With a majority in the House already very slim, Johnson was able to eke out a 215-214 vote with two Republicans voting no.
Another Republican simply voted "present," while two more skipped out completely, while Democrats unilaterally voted against it. This doesn't bode well for the Senate, especially considering the opposition over the bill's proposed Medicaid cuts from Democrats.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Trump after he "promised to love and cherish Medicaid" and went forward with the cuts. "Instead, his One Big Ugly Bill represents the largest healthcare cut in our country’s history. Millions of people will lose their Medicaid coverage and hardworking American taxpayers will be forced to pay higher premiums, copays, and deductibles," he claimed.
While Trump and Johnson disagree about modifications to the bill, other Republicans are worried about the entire bill being a "debt bomb ticking," as Rep. Thomas Massie called it, according to The Hill. The Kentucky Republican was one of two GOP lawmakers who voted against the budget reconciliation bill in the House.
Some believe it will be an uphill battle in the Senate as it is currently crafted, let alone with objectionable changes and economic conditions. "I think we’re having trouble selling our long bonds already," Sen. Rick Scott said, noting that interest rates are creeping up.
The Florida Republican and at least three other GOP senators are concerned about the financial impact. The budget bill, which exceeds 1,000 pages, includes some reforms but falls short of significantly reducing the federal deficit, which could balloon to $2.5 trillion by 2035 if projections are accurate.
"I want to get a deal done; I support the president’s agenda. I support the border, I support the military, I support extending the Trump tax cuts — but we have to live in reality. But we got to live in reality here: We got a fiscal crisis," Scott explained.
This bill is complicated and isn't the panacea some would like to believe it is. However, Trump and the Republicans are serious about getting America back on track, and this is a very good start even if it ultimately fails full passage.
With the use of DOGE leader Elon Musk's algorithms and data collection techniques, the Social Security Administration has been able to remove 12.3 million people whose birth dates say they are over 120 years old from the rolls, preventing fraud and abuse at the agency.
DOGE posted about the accomplishment on X on Friday.
After 11 weeks, @SocialSecurity has finished this major cleanup initiative: ~12.3M individuals aged 120+ have now been marked as deceased.
Some complex cases remain, such as individuals with 2+ different birth dates on file. These will be investigated in a follow-up effort. https://t.co/u942yTxlsG pic.twitter.com/DaXyqx5e4k
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) May 23, 2025
"After 11 weeks, @SocialSecurity has finished this major cleanup initiative: ~12.3M individuals aged 120+ have now been marked as deceased," the agency wrote.
The initiative began in March. It was not clear whether any money was going to the 120+ year individuals on the list, but just them being included could lead to fraud if hackers got ahold of their information.
There were some names that still had to be verified, as they had two or more differing birth dates in the system.
Musk also said in March that 2.1 million non-citizens were issued Social Security numbers in 2024, which should never have happened.
Longtime friend of Musk, Antonio Gracias, CEO of Valor Equity Partners, suggested at the time that the numbers were issued during a Biden-era program that allowed migrants into the U.S. and provided them access to Social Security numbers.
“When you come in the country, if you’re illegal, there’s a couple of ways to come in. You can come in through a port of entry and you can tell them you’re afraid and they’ll give you an asylum case, you’ll get an interview, then you get in. That’s one way to do it. Another way to do it is to just go to the border … walk up to a border patrol officer and you tell them you want to come in,” Gracias said.
“Once you’re in the country and you got an asylum through one of these pathways, you can apply for a work document. You file a 765, you get this form called a 766, and then the social security administration automatically sends you in the mail a social security number. No interview. No ID,” he concluded.
Obviously, this should not be happening in any way, shape or form.
Once an illegal immigrant has a social security number, they will be able to apply for things like section 8 housing and SNAP benefits.
They will also be able to get jobs legally.
It's possible that the previous administration justified this because the government could make tax revenue from it, but the tradeoff is not even close to fair in the long run.
It seems that some Democrats have not learned from the fiasco of the 2024 presidential campaign that the more they go after Trump with lawfare and political stunts like impeachment, the more popular he gets.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) promised on MSNBC on Sunday that House Democrats would investigate the Trump family "when" they get the majority back.
It's not a done deal that Democrats will regain the House majority in 2026, but the margin is small and the party out of power usually gains seats in the midterm elections.
In response to a question from host Alex Witt, Crockett said, "So long as we end up taking the House, which I fully anticipate that we will do, and we are going to work hard to obviously help our senate colleagues as well, then as someone who serves on the Oversight Committee and hopes to lead the Oversight Committee, I can guarantee you that we will do what we are supposed to do as constitutionally sworn members of the House, which means that we will conduct oversight.”
Crockett clarified what she meant by oversight, promising to go after the Trump family, specifically its efforts to get into the crypto business but also any other attempts to make money in any way whatsover.
“That means that we will investigate," she promised. "We will look at whether or not this president himself has violated the Emoluments Clause as it relates to say such things as getting a $400 million plane from the Qataris. We also will make sure that we’re looking into all these business deals that they have going on. I mean, think about it this way, Alex. they were going after Hunter because he sat on a board. Think about how much money they are raking, raking in, whether we’re talking about the next golf resort that they’re setting up in Qatar or whether we’re talking about them leveling Gaza, as they’ve talked about and talked about how it would be great beachfront property, whether we’re talking about this crypto scam, the scam that people didn’t even want to walk into and show their faces.”
Basically, Democrats like her want to run the Trumps out of town on a rail for being entrepreneurs.
It's typical of that party, which has made it clear it is against entrepreneurship, especially by those they don't agree with politically.
Crockett added, “Let me tell you, there is no shortage of things for us to dig into and determine whether or not there have been not only violations of the law, but definitely violations of our Constitution as a whole.”
It seems very one-sided to accuse Trump of violating laws and the Constitution but completely ignore the mountain of evidence against former President Joe Biden and act like he did nothing wrong by having his family take payouts from the Chinese and other nations.
It's typical of Democrats, who engaged in lawfare against Trump and got their allies in the courts to indict him four times on charges that no other former president has faced, even for similar or worse actions.
The American people rejected these spurious charges by electing Trump to another term as president, and they will reject any future efforts as well.
If Democrats want Trump to be even more popular than ever before, they should keep investigating him and his family for doing nothing more than other leaders and officials have done.
They will only lose by treating him the way they have.
Recent tell-all books about the Biden White House, including one from CNN's Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, have endeavored to reveal the depths to which staffers, family members, and members of the media sunk to deprive the public of the truth about the then-president's true mental and physical condition.
Now, another well-known political insider, namely former Barack Obama adviser Jon Lovett, has stepped forward to reveal why he played a role in the emerging cover-up, blaming what was his consuming desire for a Democratic Party victory over Donald Trump, as Fox News reports.
Having served as an aide in the Obama White House, Lovett went on to assume the role of a co-host on the liberal Pod Save America podcast.
During a recent appearance on Jon Stewart's The Weekly Show podcast, Lovett took pains to offer an explanation as to why he stayed mum about concerns he says he had about Biden's decline while president and amid the 2024 presidential campaign.
According to Lovett, his concerns about Biden were very real, but he believed that the Democratic Party's electoral prospects against Trump were more important than speaking truth to the American people.
“I remember feeling I want to talk about this as a huge liability. To talk about this is something Joe Biden can overcome, but I'm not going to go so far as to say, 'I think Joe Biden must drop out. He is too old to be president,'” Lovett stated.
The reasons for that stance, Lovett added were, “A, because I didn't know exactly what was going on behind the scenes, but B, if Joe Biden is the candidate, I want him to f***ing win.”
In his attempted defense of his lack of candor on the situation, Lovett expressed his fear that coming clean with his audience about what he observed would result in the weaponization of that information by the president's opponent.
Saying quiet, he contended, helped prevent “having the words we're saying taken out of context and all of sudden be part of the case against Joe Biden from the right – that would use any person criticizing Joe Biden from the left as a weapon against him.”
Arguably struggling to reconcile his current admissions and past conduct, Lovett added, “So it was about being honest about Joe Biden's age as a liability while knowing that if he is the nominee, I want to be clear that I thought it was important to make sure we did everything we could to reelect him.”
While the belated -- and often disingenuous -- explanations of the roles played by liberal elites in hiding Biden's true condition from the country have continued to make headlines and fill airtime on cable news networks, a potentially more serious exploration of what went on now appears poised to commence.
House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) announced last week that he sent letters to a series of individuals who served in the Biden White House, requesting that they appear from transcribed interviews on the subject of the former president's decline.
“The cover-up of President Biden's obvious mental decline is a historic scandal. The American people deserve to know when this decline began, how far it progressed, and who was making critical decisions on his behalf,” Comer wrote. “Key executive actions signed by autopen, such as sweeping pardons for the Biden Crime Family, must be examined considering President Biden's diminished capacity," he added.
As such, Comer is seeking testimony from Biden physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor and former White House officials Neera Tanden, Anthony Bernal, Annie Tomasini, and Ashley Williams, and should those individuals decline cooperation with the probe, it remains to be seen whether subpoenas for their appearance will be the next phase in what many Americans believe is a necessary and long overdue probe.
Medicaid will no longer pay for so-called gender affirming care thanks to GOP-led legislation, Newsmax reported. The "big, beautiful bill" passed in the House on Thursday included the eleventh-hour addition banning federal funding for the controversial medical care.
An earlier version of the bill prohibited treatments for children under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. It bars these federal programs from paying for hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and bodily mutilations for gender-confused minors.
A manager's amendment later added to the bill extended the prohibition to recipients regardless of age. The final bill passed 215-214, with all Democrats and just two Republicans voting against it.
Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, skirted the issue by voting "present." Predictably, the left was not pleased with this provision and its implications.
The passage of this bill already triggered leftists as it codified much of President Donald Trump's agenda. However, it's particularly offensive to people like Caleb Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress, because of the transgender care issue
Smith claims that the expansion is proof that banning gender affirming care outright was the goal all along. "The bans on coverage for trans medical care were made so much worse, really, in the eleventh hour of this bill," Smith said in a statement.
"And what a display of how it's really not just about youth. It's never just been about youth; It's always been about curtailing access to medical care and bodily autonomy. All they had to do was strike ‘under 18' from the bill, and now it's everybody," Smith went on.
"There's a wildly strong case for this to be discrimination — it is discrimination. It really clearly violates equal protection because what we're saying, essentially, is that if you are a cisgender man and you want access to testosterone, you can have it, but if you are a transgender man and you want access to testosterone, ‘Sorry, we're not going to cover that,'" Smith claimed.
This argument about discrimination would be credible if the treatments being proposed weren't about genital mutilation and chemical castration, but it's not. There's no reason these should be part of medical treatments, let alone those paid for by the American people, as some Republicans have pointed out.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was the one who pushed through the ban for children after speaking out against it for years. "The Crenshaw Amendment will become law — and it's long overdue," Crenshaw said.
"Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation. So-called ‘gender-affirming care' isn't healthcare — it's fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks," Crenshaw asserted.
He touted his addition to the bill in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday. "Just a year ago, few believed we could put a stop to the radical gender ideology being pushed on kids—especially the kind masquerading as medicine, funded with your tax dollars. But now, we’re about to do exactly that," he said in the caption.
Just a year ago, few believed we could put a stop to the radical gender ideology being pushed on kids—especially the kind masquerading as medicine, funded with your tax dollars. But now, we’re about to do exactly that.
The Crenshaw Amendment in President Trump’s One Big… pic.twitter.com/cRlvCfZeeW
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 21, 2025
The issue of transgender medicine has been divisive, but limiting government spending on it is long overdue. These procedures are barbaric and ghastly, and it's about time someone put the brakes on them, even if it's just through cutting some of the funding.
Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution on the House floor seeking to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver after she was charged with assaulting law enforcement officers, Breitbart reported. The New Jersey Democrat took part in a riot at a detention center for illegal immigrants earlier this month.
On Wednesday, Mace filed the resolution citing McIver's conduct at the detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. She shared the news in a post to X, formerly Twitter, the same day.
"BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives," Mace captioned an image of the resolution. "No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better," she added.
🚨 BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives.
📣 No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better. pic.twitter.com/3JkOqGNkur
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 21, 2025
On Monday, the Justice Department announced charges against McIver stemming from her "assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement" during a May 9 protest at Delaney Hall. She and two other members of Congress claimed to be there in an official capacity.
President Donald Trump is cracking down on illegal immigration, so this was an opportune time to make a show of opposition to it, which they claimed was mere oversight. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also in attendance and was arrested but had charges dropped.
McIver was involved in an altercation in which she allegedly "slammed her forearm into the body of a uniformed agent while trying to "restrain the agent by forcibly grabbing him." She also attempted to thwart the officers' ability to handcuff Baraka and allegedly "pushed an ICE officer and used her forearms to forcibly strike the agent."
Mace believes the country absolutely cannot stand for this from an elected official. "In a time when public trust in government is at a historic low, the House must act decisively," Mace announced.
"The charges are serious. And the public deserves to know that criminal conduct in the halls of Congress has consequences," Mace added.
Although this didn't directly involve the president, it was his policies that McIver and others were ultimately protesting against. The Hill reported that Trump wholeheartedly agreed with the charges against McIver and her ilk.
“Oh, give me a break. Did you see her? She was out of control," Trump said to reporters about the incident. "The days of woke are over. That woman — I have no idea who she is," Trump went on.
"That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents — she was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We’re going to have law and order," he added.
The president expressed exactly what the rest of America has been thinking about this incident. These people are elected officials and should be held to a higher standard, especially considering all of the caterwauling they did about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.
Based on reports of the incident, the charges against McIver are absolutely warranted, as is a public censure and expulsion from Congress, if that's what it comes to. This nonsense won't stop until they're all held accountable, and that's exactly what Mace is doing.
Fox News' Peter Doocy set the record straight about his coverage of former President Joe Biden's mental decline, Fox News reported. While other leftist news outlets ignored the warning signs, Doocy held Biden's feet to the fire, and he has the receipts to prove it.
During his presidency, it was taboo to notice any of the apparent signs of aging in Biden. While the mainstream media ignored it, Doocy was not afraid to bring it up, and he reposted those instances in a thread on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday.
"I have some unique insight on President Biden, having dedicated six years of my life to covering him. If you are wondering why nobody asked about his mental fitness, and why nobody asked if White House staffers were covering up his decline… then you weren’t paying attention. Here are 7 times I did just that," Doocy promised.
I have some unique insight on President Biden, having dedicated six years of my life to covering him. If you are wondering why nobody asked about his mental fitness, and why nobody asked if White House staffers were covering up his decline… then you weren’t paying attention.…
— Peter Doocy (@pdoocy) May 21, 2025
One of the many instances that made Biden's mental deficits clear came after Special Counsel Robert Hur interviewed the then-president about mishandling classified documents. Hur decided not to prosecute Biden because he would be seen as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" by the public.
This was problematic because it occurred while Biden was supposed to be the leader of the free world. Doocy brought up the comment and asked Biden about it in one of the quintessential exchanges about his mental acuity.
"I'm well-meaning and I'm an elderly man and I know what the hell I'm doing. I'm the president; I put this country back on its feet," Biden claimed. "I don't need his recommendation," he added.
Biden's speech sounded slightly slurred, but he managed to get the statement out in a way that was forceful. Rather than letting it deter him, Doocy saw it as an opportunity to press Biden about his memory and whether it would impede his ability to serve.
In his usual way, Biden got snippy and took a shot at the Fox News correspondent. "My memory is so bad, I let you speak," Biden sniped.
When Doocy wasn't personally confronting Biden, he would interrogate then-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. One of those confrontations specifically involved questions about Biden's mental and physical health.
The questioning came after the disastrous debate performance that ultimately forced Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race. Doocy asked Jean-Pierre about the White House's unwillingness to give Biden a proper cognitive evaluation.
"And are you guys just not — since February, testing President Biden for Parkinson's or for dementia because, if he gets a bad result, it's all over that day?" Doocy asked Jeanne-Pierre. The press secretary tried to skirt the issue by claiming Biden had a "comprehensive" exam.
Doocy pressed on, noting that if his wife had seen him "on TV misspeaking or saying the wrong thing or seeing a change in my appearance, she would probably say, 'Let's go to a doctor just to make sure that you are okay,'" Doocy said. "You have a family. You have an important job. Why doesn't anybody in the President's family urge him just to go to get checked out to say the coast is clear?" Doocy said.
Nobody got an answer to these questions, including Doocy, until well after the time when the truth mattered. The leftist media is now trying to say there was a cover-up they were unaware of, but Doocy's dogged pursuit of the truth at the time gives lie to them all.