Starting early next year, the federal government is dusting off a long-dormant tool to crack down on defaulted student loans.
The Trump administration’s Department of Education will resume wage garnishment for borrowers in default as of early January 2026, marking the end of a collections pause that’s been in place since March 2020 amid the pandemic.
For taxpayers footing the bill, this is a double-edged sword: while it’s a step toward accountability, the timing couldn’t be worse for struggling households already buried under high delinquency rates, with a staggering $117 billion in defaulted loans held by 5.3 million borrowers as of mid-2025.
The pause on collections since March 2020 gave borrowers a breather, but that reprieve is over, and the Department of Education means business.
Come the week of Jan. 7, 2026, roughly 1,000 borrowers will get the first wave of default notices, with more to follow each month.
Borrowers will have just 30 days after notification to challenge the action, pay up, or arrange a deal to dodge the garnishment hammer—a tight window that might leave many scrambling.
Under federal law, the government can seize up to 15% of a borrower’s disposable income through administrative wage garnishment until the debt is cleared or resolved.
That’s a significant chunk of a paycheck, especially for working families already stretched thin by inflation and the fallout of post-pandemic economic policies.
Education officials argue this move restores accountability and protects taxpayers from bearing the burden of unpaid loans, a stance that resonates with those tired of footing the bill for progressive lending experiments.
Delinquency and default rates have soared since the end of pandemic protections and a 12-month repayment “grace” period that concluded on Sept. 30, 2025.
Missed payments are piling up, and borrower advocates warn that restarting enforcement now could push already struggling households over the financial edge.
While their concern for borrowers carries weight, let’s not forget that endless leniency often rewards irresponsibility at the expense of those who play by the rules.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Education Department recently proposed a settlement in December 2025 to scrap the Biden-era SAVE income-driven repayment plan, pending court approval, shifting enrolled borrowers to other programs.
This shake-up, paired with renewed collections, has advocates fretting over increased financial strain, though one wonders if the real issue is the expectation of perpetual handouts rather than personal accountability.
For everyday Americans watching their tax dollars vanish into bloated federal programs, this return to enforcement might just be the wake-up call needed to rein in a system that’s long favored debt forgiveness over fiscal responsibility.
New York City is about to swear in a new mayor with a progressive agenda that could reshape the Big Apple’s economic landscape. On Jan. 1, 2026, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will administer the oath of office to Zohran Mamdani (D), marking the start of a term that promises sweeping policy changes.
On that day, starting at 12:01 a.m., Mamdani officially takes the reins as mayor after a hard-fought election win last month.
Mamdani’s plans—like city-owned grocery stores and free buses—will balloon municipal budgets if they come to pass. These proposals, while aimed at affordability for over 8 million residents, risk spiking property taxes or slashing funds from critical services like sanitation or public safety. Conservatives are right to demand a line-by-line audit of how these schemes will be paid for without breaking the bank.
Sanders, an independent who leans democratic socialist, was handpicked by Mamdani for this honor, though any official able to notarize a legal document could have done the job. This choice isn’t random—Sanders endorsed Mamdani during the campaign and even hit the trail with him. It’s a buddy system that raises eyebrows among those wary of ideological echo chambers at City Hall.
“Mamdani’s campaign was inspirational,” Sanders declared back in June, praising him as a “visionary” leader. Inspirational to whom, exactly? Many small business owners might see visions of red tape and higher costs under policies like rent freezes on nearly 1 million apartments.
Let’s not forget Sanders’ track record—he also swore in former Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) for his second term in 2018. History suggests Sanders loves playing kingmaker for NYC’s left-leaning leaders. But will this alliance deliver results or just more unfunded promises?
Mamdani clinched victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) with 50.8% of the vote to Cuomo’s 41.3%. That’s a solid margin, and with over 1.1 million votes, he’s the first mayoral candidate since 1969 to cross the million-vote threshold citywide. Still, popularity doesn’t equal fiscal responsibility.
His platform centered on affordability, a noble goal for a city where the cost of living crushes families daily. But noble intentions don’t pay the bills when you’re proposing to freeze rents and undercut private grocers with city-run stores.
Conservative voters and business owners are already sounding alarms over potential compliance costs and legal exposure if these policies disrupt markets or trigger lawsuits from property owners. The rent freeze alone could spark a wave of litigation, tying up courts and taxpayer dollars. We need transparency on how Mamdani plans to navigate these minefields.
Free buses sound great on paper, but someone’s footing that bill—likely the same New Yorkers already stretched thin by inflation. Mamdani’s vision might appeal to commuters, but it risks sidelining infrastructure needs like road repairs or police funding.
City-owned grocery stores are another head-scratcher—government isn’t exactly known for efficiency in retail. Will this experiment drive down food prices, or will it create a boondoggle of waste and mismanagement?
Rent stabilization for nearly a million units is perhaps the most divisive idea, pitting tenants against landlords in a policy brawl. While renters may cheer, property owners could see their investments tank if they can’t cover maintenance or taxes.
As Jan. 1, 2026, approaches, all eyes are on Mamdani to see if he can balance his ambitious agenda with the city’s fiscal realities. Conservatives must hold his administration accountable, ensuring no taxpayer dime is squandered on utopian dreams.
The Sanders-Mamdani duo may inspire the progressive crowd, but for many working-class New Yorkers, the proof will be in the pudding—or the budget. Let’s hope this inauguration isn’t just a photo op but the start of real debate over policies that could reshape the city.
President Trump’s seemingly unstoppable run at the Supreme Court just hit a brick wall.
On Friday, December 19, 2025, the justices declined to step in on a contentious case involving speech curbs on immigration judges, snapping a winning streak for the administration on the court’s emergency docket that had held strong since spring. This rare loss has conservatives scratching their heads, wondering if the court is finally pushing back.
For those just tuning in, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s urgent request to halt a lower court’s ruling that allows a lawsuit over speech restrictions on immigration judges to move forward before a federal district judge.
Now, let’s talk about who’s feeling the pinch—hardworking federal employees like immigration judges, who are caught in a bureaucratic vise with these speech rules requiring prior approval for public remarks tied to their duties. If these restrictions stand unchallenged, they face real legal exposure, potentially muzzled from speaking out on critical issues while risking career repercussions for non-compliance.
The case, brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), argues that these prior-approval mandates violate the First Amendment. While the core free speech question wasn’t directly before the Supreme Court yet, the administration wanted to stop the lawsuit in its tracks, pushing for the matter to be handled by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) instead.
The lower court, however, wasn’t buying it, allowing the case to proceed while raising “serious questions” about the MSPB’s functionality after President Trump’s personnel moves left it without a quorum for a time. From a populist perspective, this smells like another case of federal bureaucracy failing to serve the people it’s meant to protect.
The Supreme Court’s brief order didn’t pull punches, stating, “At this stage, the Government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay.” Well, that’s a polite way of saying, “Try harder next time,” but it leaves conservatives wondering if the court is ignoring the bigger picture of executive authority being undermined by activist judges.
This rejection marks the first time since spring 2025 that the Supreme Court has turned down one of the administration’s emergency appeals. Notably, no justice publicly dissented, which might suggest a unified front—or just a quiet agreement to let this play out lower down the ladder.
Still, the door isn’t slammed shut; the government can circle back as the case progresses. For now, though, this is a rare dent in the Trump team’s near-perfect record on the emergency docket, where they’ve filed 32 applications since retaking the White House.
Most of those cases have either been decided in the administration’s favor or are still pending, with a few withdrawn. The administration insists this flood of emergency filings stems from federal district judges overreaching to block Trump’s agenda—a claim that resonates with conservatives tired of judicial roadblocks.
On the flip side, critics argue these frequent emergency requests show the president flouting legal norms. From a right-of-center view, though, it’s hard to ignore how often progressive-leaning courts seem to delight in stalling policies voters supported.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer didn’t hold back, warning in filings, “The lower ruling would indefinitely thwart the MSPB.” That’s a fair point—if the MSPB can’t function as intended, what’s the point of having it? Conservatives see this as another example of the system being gamed to slow down Trump’s reforms.
Meanwhile, Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute representing NAIJ, cheered the decision, saying, “The Supreme Court was right to reject the government’s request for a stay of proceedings.”
Ms. Krishnan didn’t stop there, adding, “The restrictions on immigration judges’ free speech rights are unconstitutional, and it’s intolerable that this prior restraint is still in place.” While her passion for free speech is noted, conservatives might argue that executive branch employees knew the rules when they signed up—balancing rights with responsibility isn’t woke, it’s rational.
This case isn’t just about immigration judges; it carries weight for other federal workers entangled in similar disputes. If the MSPB remains sidelined, as the lower court suggested, countless cases could grind to a halt, leaving employees and taxpayers in limbo.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision is a hiccup for the Trump administration, but not a knockout blow. Conservatives can take heart that the fight isn’t over, and with the court’s track record, there’s still a strong chance for a comeback. Let’s keep a sharp eye on how this unfolds—accountability, not agenda, must win the day.
America’s Coast Guard is hot on the trail of a rogue oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea, flexing muscle against Venezuela’s shady dealings.
This high-stakes pursuit, part of a broader Trump administration crackdown, involves seizing sanctioned vessels tied to Venezuela’s government for evading U.S. sanctions through shadowy operations.
For hardworking American taxpayers, this isn’t just a nautical chase—it’s a fight to recover billions in lost investments from Venezuela’s nationalized oil assets, with legal battles like ExxonMobil’s $1.6 billion arbitration win still unpaid. These seizures signal a push to hold foreign regimes accountable, ensuring that U.S. companies aren’t left footing the bill for socialist overreach. And let’s be honest, every dollar unrecovered is a burden on our economy that we can’t afford.
The timeline of this saga kicks off on Dec. 10, 2025, when the Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, nabbed a tanker called Skipper, operating without a national flag and hauling sanctioned cargo. It was a bold first strike against what’s been dubbed a shadow fleet sneaking around U.S. restrictions.
President Trump didn’t mince words after that seizure, promising a blockade of Venezuelan oil traffic and ramping up pressure on Nicolás Maduro with warnings that his grip on power is slipping. Trump’s also demanded the return of assets swiped from American oil firms years ago, pointing to decades of nationalization under Maduro and his predecessor. It’s a reminder that U.S. interests aren’t a global charity case.
Fast forward to Dec. 20, 2025, and the administration scored again with a predawn capture of the Panama-flagged Centuries, labeled by the White House as a “falsely flagged vessel operating as part of the Venezuelan shadow fleet to traffic stolen oil.” That’s quite the accusation, but if true, it’s another nail in the coffin of Venezuela’s illicit oil schemes. Shouldn’t we be asking why these vessels think they can dodge accountability on the high seas?
Just a day later, on Dec. 21, 2025, the Coast Guard was at it again, chasing down another tanker in the Caribbean, confirmed by a U.S. official as a “sanctioned dark fleet vessel that is part of Venezuela’s illegal sanctions evasion.” If that doesn’t scream organized deception, what does? The administration isn’t playing games with vessels flying false flags and ignoring judicial seizure orders.
This latest pursuit, first flagged by Reuters, shows the U.S. isn’t backing down from its mission to disrupt Venezuela’s workaround tactics. Some of these sanctioned tankers are already rerouting to avoid capture, a sign that Trump’s tough talk is hitting home.
Trump’s broader strategy isn’t just about oil—it’s tied to accusations of drug trafficking, with orders to the War Department for strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific suspected of smuggling fentanyl and other drugs. Since early September 2025, at least 104 lives have been lost in 28 known strikes. It’s a grim tally, but one that underscores the high stakes of securing our borders from multiple threats.
Let’s not forget the backstory—U.S. oil giants dominated Venezuela’s petroleum sector until nationalizations in the 1970s, and again under Chávez and Maduro stripped them of assets. The compensation offered? A pitiful fraction, laughed off by American firms as woefully inadequate.
Trump’s rhetoric ties these seizures to lost investments and a pressure campaign against Maduro, whose regime he accuses of everything from asset theft to narco-trafficking. It’s a populist stand that resonates with Americans tired of seeing their nation’s interests undermined abroad.
For retirees and investors with stakes in these oil companies, the financial hit from uncompensated seizures is a lingering wound. Legal exposure from unpaid arbitration awards, like the $1.6 billion owed to ExxonMobil since 2014, keeps the issue alive. Isn’t it time for justice to be more than a word on paper?
Trump’s blockade threat isn’t just bluster—it’s a signal to Venezuela that the days of exploiting U.S. sanctions loopholes are numbered. With each seized tanker, the noose tightens on Maduro’s economic lifelines.
The question remains: will this aggressive stance finally force Venezuela to return stolen assets and play by international rules? For now, the Coast Guard’s pursuits are a loud message that America’s patience has run dry.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about picking fights—it’s about protecting American interests and ensuring that regimes like Maduro’s face consequences for skirting the law. For every tanker chased down, it’s a small victory for accountability in a world too often swayed by progressive excuses for bad behavior. Let’s keep the pressure on until the job is done.
On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shot down a demand from every Democrat on the panel for a public hearing on the Trump administration’s boat strike campaign in the Caribbean.
The issue at hand is the administration’s series of military airstrikes targeting suspected drug trafficking vessels, with at least 25 strikes since September resulting in 95 deaths, prompting Democrats to cry foul over potential violations of U.S. law while Grassley stands firm on the campaign’s legal grounding.
For American taxpayers, this isn’t just a policy spat—it’s a question of whether their hard-earned dollars are funding operations that could expose the nation to legal liability or international backlash, risking costly lawsuits or diplomatic fallout down the line.
Since September, the Trump administration has authorized at least 25 known strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling in the Caribbean, leaving a grim tally of 95 lives lost.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, clearly rattled, penned a letter on Wednesday to Grassley, demanding a public hearing to grill Justice Department officials over the legal rationale for these deadly operations.
They’re waving red flags, suggesting these strikes might trample on U.S. criminal statutes, but let’s be real—drug trafficking isn’t a game of patty-cake, and tough measures often stir up tough questions.
On Thursday, Grassley put his foot down, rejecting the Democrats’ plea for a public showdown over the strikes.
He pointed to a classified Justice Department opinion from earlier this summer, arguing it provides solid legal cover for the administration’s actions. If the memo’s as airtight as he claims, why the fuss?
“I personally made sure that both the majority and minority sides of the committee got access to the Office of Legal Counsel’s well-written classified opinion explaining the administration’s lawful authority to conduct these strikes,” Grassley said, sounding like a man who’s done his homework.
Democrats aren’t buying Grassley’s reasoning, dismissing the legal opinion as flimsy and branding the strikes as potential war crimes—a charge that’s sure to raise eyebrows among conservatives who see drug cartels as the real criminals.
“There is not, nor can there be, any justification for state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings,” the Democratic members of the committee declared, doubling down with, “Summary executions have no place in a constitutional democracy operating under the rule of law, no matter how heinous the accusations a government makes against someone.”
That’s a lofty sentiment, but when deadly drugs flood our streets, isn’t it worth asking if the rule of law sometimes demands a heavier hand?
Adding to the drama, Democrats this week ramped up pressure on the Pentagon to release unedited footage of a second strike on September 2 near Venezuela, where two survivors of an earlier hit were killed.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rebuffed the request on Tuesday, citing classified information, though Navy Adm. Frank Bradley hinted a day later at possibly wider release—talk about mixed signals.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday evening to force a vote on mandating the Pentagon to publish the video, proving the partisan divide on transparency and accountability isn’t budging anytime soon.
The prestigious performing arts venue in Washington, D.C., has been officially renamed The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts after a unanimous board vote, a decision that’s sparked both applause and outrage.
For taxpayers, this move raises serious questions about fiscal responsibility and oversight, especially given the Kennedy Center’s reliance on federal funding. The potential legal exposure from bypassing congressional approval, as critics argue is required, could lead to costly battles that ultimately burden the public. From a conservative standpoint, if procedural rules were skirted, no one should escape scrutiny—let’s get to the bottom of how this unfolded.
Earlier this year, legislative efforts were already stirring to honor President Trump with the center’s name. Rep. Bob Onder of Missouri proposed renaming the entire building as the “Trump Center for the Performing Arts,” while House Republicans pushed an amendment to name the opera house after First Lady Melania Trump, drawing sharp criticism from opponents.
Fast forward to December, and President Trump himself hinted at a possible name change while hosting the Kennedy Center Honors. After taking the reins as chairman following a board shakeup—where he replaced several members and saw resignations in response—the stage was set for a dramatic shift.
The unanimous vote to rename the center came from the board, as announced by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and confirmed by Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations. Daravi emphasized the decision as a tribute to Trump’s role in rescuing the institution from financial and physical decline. It’s a nod to leadership, but let’s not pretend everyone’s singing in harmony over this.
President Trump expressed surprise and gratitude for the honor, highlighting his efforts to stabilize the center. “We saved the building because it was in such bad shape, physically, financially, and in every other way, and now it’s very solid, very strong,” Trump said. While his supporters cheer this as a well-earned recognition, critics are sharpening their knives over the process.
Democrats and other detractors aren’t buying the “unanimous” claim, arguing that proper protocol was ignored. Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, an ex officio board member, stated, “Participants were not allowed to voice their concerns.” If true, that’s a troubling sidestep of transparency—something no American, left or right, should tolerate in institutions tied to public funds.
Jack Schlossberg, grandson of John F. Kennedy, also disputed the vote’s legitimacy, claiming microphones were muted during the meeting. His frustration is palpable, and while some might dismiss it as family pride, conservatives should still demand clarity on whether voices were indeed silenced. Fairness isn’t just a progressive talking point; it’s a principle.
Critics insist that renaming the Kennedy Center requires congressional approval, not just a board vote. This legal gray area could drag the issue into a prolonged fight, potentially wasting resources better spent on the arts themselves. From a populist lens, why should ordinary folks foot the bill for political theater?
The decision has split opinions down predictable lines, with Trump’s base celebrating a leader who, in their view, turned the center around. Meanwhile, opponents see it as an overreach, a cultural landmark being co-opted without due process. It’s a classic clash of values versus procedure, and both sides have points worth wrestling with.
Let’s not forget the earlier Republican push to name the opera house after Melania Trump, which fueled accusations of partisanship. That proposal didn’t stick, but it shows how long this renaming idea has been simmering among conservative lawmakers. It’s less about vanity and more about signaling who’s driving cultural renewal—or so the argument goes.
The renamed Trump-Kennedy Center aims to blend two legacies, as Daravi put it, reflecting “bipartisan support for America’s cultural center for generations to come.” It’s a lofty goal, but only if the process behind it holds up under scrutiny.
For now, the debate rages on, with valid concerns about muted voices and legal authority lingering. Conservatives can champion Trump’s contributions without ignoring the need for accountability—after all, rules matter, even when the outcome feels right.
As this story develops, one thing is clear: the Trump-Kennedy Center name isn’t just a label; it’s a lightning rod. Whether it stands the test of time or unravels under legal challenges, Americans deserve a front-row seat to the full truth. Let’s keep the spotlight on transparency, not just symbolism.
President Donald Trump just dropped a geopolitical bombshell by ordering a naval blockade near Venezuela, tightening the screws on a regime already gasping for economic air.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2025, Trump commanded U.S. forces to halt sanctioned oil tankers in Venezuelan waters, seized a key tanker named the Skipper, and escalated a decades-old feud over expropriated American oil assets, prompting Caracas to cry foul at the United Nations.
For American taxpayers, this move hits close to home with the potential for higher energy costs if global oil markets jitter from these disruptions. Venezuela’s oil, which accounts for 88% of its $24 billion export revenue, according to a recent New York Times report, is a linchpin for international supply chains. A prolonged standoff could mean financial strain for folks already squeezed at the pump.
Let’s rewind to the roots of this clash—back in 2007, under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela strong-armed U.S. giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips out of multibillion-dollar oil projects. Trump now demands the return of these “stolen” assets, framing it as a theft from the American people, though it’s corporate property at stake.
The blockade isn’t just symbolic; it’s a direct jab at Venezuela’s oil shipments to China, the regime’s last major buyer since Western markets largely pulled out. Cutting this lifeline threatens the hard currency Nicolás Maduro’s government desperately needs to prop itself up.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has beefed up its military muscle in Latin America, boasting 15% of its naval assets in the Southern Command theater—the biggest presence in decades. They’ve already struck at narco-traffickers in nearby waters, signaling they mean business.
Venezuela’s government didn’t mince words, blasting the blockade as an “irrational” and “grotesque threat” to steal their oil wealth. They raced to the U.N. Security Council with a formal complaint on the same day, hoping for international sympathy.
Trump, never one to shy away from bold declarations, took to Truth Social with a fiery message: “Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America.”
He continued, “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.” Talk about throwing down the gauntlet—Trump’s not just playing chess; he’s flipping the board.
Since the blockade kicked off, Venezuelan oil exports have tanked, with shipping lanes thrown into chaos by U.S. actions. This isn’t a minor hiccup—oil is the lifeblood of Maduro’s economy, and every delayed tanker is a gut punch to his regime’s coffers.
Analysts point out that Maduro’s options for pushback are slim without shooting himself in the foot. Targeting U.S. interests like Chevron, which still operates there under a special license, could backfire spectacularly on a cash-strapped government.
Let’s not kid ourselves—Maduro’s fear of a U.S.-led ouster isn’t paranoia when you’ve got a naval armada breathing down your neck. But escalating this into a broader conflict might be the last thing his crumbling economy can afford.
From a conservative standpoint, Trump’s hardline stance is a refreshing rejection of the soft-glove diplomacy we’ve seen for too long with rogue regimes. It’s about time someone stood up for American interests, even if the “stolen” label on corporate assets feels like a rhetorical stretch.
Still, we must weigh the costs—disrupting global oil flow isn’t just a Venezuela problem; it’s a risk to American families already battling inflation. While Maduro’s mismanagement deserves no pity, let’s hope this blockade doesn’t boomerang into a bigger burden for our own economy.
Imagine a room full of eager conservative influencers, clutching binders labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1,” only to find recycled drivel inside.
This debacle, centered on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s mishandled release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents in February 2025, has sparked internal friction within the Trump administration and frustration among the president’s loyal base.
Let’s rewind to the buildup: Bondi hyped the impending release on Fox News, teasing major revelations about Epstein’s notorious activities with a dramatic flair.
On Feb. 27, 2025, at a White House event, influencers like Liz Wheeler and Rogan O’Handley (aka DC Draino) were handed these binders, expecting bombshells.
Instead, they got old contact lists with redacted addresses—hardly the earth-shattering disclosures promised to expose elite misconduct tied to Epstein, who died in custody in 2019.
The backlash was swift, as Trump’s supporters, hungry for transparency after years of promises, felt duped by what amounted to a paperweight of nothingness.
Enter White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who didn’t mince words in a Vanity Fair interview published on a recent Tuesday, critiquing Bondi’s grasp of the issue’s weight.
“I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Wiles said, pointing to Bondi’s failure to deliver for Trump’s core fans.
Her jab about “binders full of nothingness” stings with truth—why hype something so critical only to serve up stale crumbs?
Adding to the tension, a Justice Department memo from earlier in the summer revealed no incriminating “client list” exists, nor evidence to pursue uncharged parties.
Yet, with Trump signing the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, mandating the DOJ to release most remaining records within 30 days, the clock is ticking.
Behind the scenes, dozens of FBI agents in New York are sifting through files, though some skeptics murmur about efforts to shield certain names—a claim lacking hard proof.
Trump himself isn’t untouched by the Epstein saga, with his name appearing in records as a social acquaintance from the 1990s, though never linked to wrongdoing.
He’s openly admitted to flying on Epstein’s plane, as passenger manifests show, but a falling out ended their association long before the scandal’s full scope emerged.
“He’s in the file. And we know he’s in the file. And he’s not in the file doing anything awful,” Wiles noted, dispelling any shadow of impropriety with a blunt defense.
Curiously, in July 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in Florida, who’s serving 20 years for sex trafficking.
Maxwell’s subsequent transfer to a less restrictive Texas facility, without consulting Wiles or Trump, raised eyebrows and reportedly irked the president.
Meanwhile, Bondi took to X to defend Wiles, stressing unity with, “Any attempt to divide this administration will fail. We are family.” Nice sentiment, but the Epstein file flop still smarts for many who expected more.
In a decision that’s got the cannabis industry buzzing louder than a beehive, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, December 16, 2025, declined to take up a challenge to federal marijuana laws brought by four licensed companies.
This ruling, or lack thereof, leaves the $32 billion legal marijuana industry looking to the Trump White House for potential reform, especially on the hot-button issue of rescheduling cannabis.
Let’s rewind a bit to October 2023, when Verano Holding Corp. first took on the Justice Department with a lawsuit, setting the stage for this legal showdown.
Joined by Canna Provisions, a Massachusetts retailer, Gyasi Sellers of Treevit delivery service, and Wiseacre Farm, a cultivator, these companies aimed to challenge federal marijuana laws before the Supreme Court for the first time since 2005.
They argued that with over two dozen states now allowing adult-use marijuana, the old 2005 Gonzales vs. Raich ruling is as outdated as a flip phone, claiming the factual ground has shifted beneath it.
But both a lower federal court in Massachusetts and an appellate court swatted down their constitutional arguments, leaving them to pin their hopes on the highest court in the land.
On December 12, 2025, the justices huddled behind closed doors to mull over the petition in the case titled Canna Provisions et al v. Bondi, only to ultimately pass on hearing it four days later.
The companies threw everything at the wall, citing a 2021 comment from Justice Clarence Thomas hinting that federal marijuana law might not be “necessary or proper” in today’s context.
They even claimed the Constitution itself grants them a historic right to grow and sell marijuana, while alleging the Controlled Substances Act stomps on their Fifth Amendment due process protections.
Josh Schiller, a partner at Boies Schiller and an attorney for the plaintiffs, previously told MJBizDaily the case was an attempt to “shake the box a little bit” after federal reform stalled in Congress and beyond.
Well, if shaking the box means getting a cold shoulder from the Supreme Court, mission accomplished—but it’s hard to see this as anything but a missed opportunity to address a patchwork of laws that’s confusing at best and oppressive at worst.
Instead of tackling the progressive push to normalize what many still see as a gateway drug, the court’s silence leaves hardworking business owners in limbo, caught between state freedoms and federal overreach.
This legal dead end came just months after the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort, where health regulators admitted cannabis has accepted medical uses, prompting a Justice Department proposal to downgrade it to Schedule 3—a move that fizzled out before Trump’s inauguration.
Now, all eyes turn to the Trump White House, which is reportedly mulling over directives to reschedule marijuana and even cover certain CBD treatments under Medicare, though a much-anticipated executive order failed to drop on December 16, 2025.
Insiders familiar with Oval Office talks involving cannabis industry leaders, lawmakers, and Cabinet officials suggest an announcement might come as early as Wednesday, December 18, 2025—here’s hoping it’s more than just smoke and mirrors for an industry desperate for clarity.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is turning up the heat on Bill and Hillary Clinton over their ties to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
The crux of this saga is that the former president and former secretary of state have been subpoenaed to give depositions in a federal investigation into the nefarious activities of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, with Comer warning that ignoring the summons could lead to contempt of Congress charges.
Let’s rewind to August, when these subpoenas first landed on the Clintons’ doorstep, as reported by Breitbart News, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown.
Fast forward to July, when Breitbart News also noted Bill Clinton’s admission in his latest book, “Citizen: My Life After the White House,” that he took trips on Epstein’s infamous private plane, dubbed the Lolita Express, supposedly for his nonprofit work with the Clinton Global Initiative.
Adding fuel to the fire, records show Epstein made at least 17 visits to the White House shortly after Clinton’s 1993 inauguration—an eyebrow-raising statistic for anyone concerned about elite accountability.
By November, Comer had had enough, sending a stern letter to the Clintons’ attorney demanding their in-person appearance for depositions tied to this disturbing probe.
Yet, according to Comer, the Clintons have spent over four months dodging and delaying efforts to schedule their testimony—hardly the transparency one might expect from public figures of their stature.
“It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes,” Comer stated in a recent press release.
“Throughout that time, the former President and former Secretary of State have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the Committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,” he added, and frankly, it’s tough to argue with his frustration when accountability seems so elusive.
Comer isn’t alone in this fight; other heavyweights like former Attorney General William Barr, ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former FBI Director James Comey have also been subpoenaed in connection with the Epstein investigation.
Now, with depositions scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday following Comer’s Friday press release, the clock is ticking for the Clintons to show up or face serious consequences.
A spokesperson for Comer didn’t mince words, telling Fox News, “We communicated to the Clintons’ attorney today that they must appear next week or provide a date in early January to appear for their depositions or we will begin contempt of Congress proceedings.”
The same spokesperson drove the point home, adding, “They’ve been dragging their feet for over four months. Time’s up.”
If the Clintons fail to comply next week or lock in a date for early January, Comer has made it crystal clear that the Oversight Committee will initiate contempt proceedings—a move that could finally force some answers in this murky affair.