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.
Another political storm is brewing in Washington as a Democratic lawmaker takes aim at a key Trump administration figure with serious accusations.
On December 11, 2025, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill) fired off a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, demanding a probe into Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over allegations of misconduct that could lead to impeachment or resignation.
This latest clash centers on Ramirez’s claims that Noem has mishandled her role at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), engaging in what the congresswoman calls lawbreaking, misuse of taxpayer money, and ethical lapses.
Ramirez didn’t mince words during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, directly confronting Noem with a laundry list of grievances and a stark warning about her future.
“Your options are limited. Either you’re going to resign, Trump’s going to fire you, or you will be impeached,” Ramirez declared, as reported from the hearing.
Well, that’s quite the ultimatum, but let’s unpack this—accusations of this magnitude demand hard evidence, and while Ramirez is passionate, conservatives might argue she’s playing a partisan card against a secretary pushing a tough, results-driven border policy.
Among the specific charges, Ramirez points to a $200 million DHS public relations campaign, alleging it involved vendors cozy with Noem and top department brass—a claim that, if true, raises eyebrows about stewardship of public funds.
She also criticized Noem’s approval of a partisan video aired in airports during a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, arguing it breaches the Hatch Act’s rules on political activity by federal officials.
Then there’s the $172 million purchase of two Gulfstream jets under Noem’s watch—Ramirez seems to think this is a luxury DHS can’t justify, though one might counter that secure transport for top officials isn’t exactly a frivolous expense in today’s climate.
Ramirez further alleges Noem has downplayed serious issues like the detention of U.S. citizens by ICE and misrepresented deportation outcomes, specifically citing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
She’s also up in arms about DHS tactics, claiming excessive force through chemical weapons in Chicago despite a federal court order barring such methods—a troubling accusation if substantiated, though context on enforcement challenges is often missing from these critiques.
On the flip side, Noem’s DHS has touted significant numbers, with 2.5 million unauthorized migrants reportedly leaving the U.S. since President Trump’s second inauguration, including 600,000 ICE deportations and nearly two million self-departures aided by tools like the CBP Home app.
President Trump, for his part, has stood firmly by Noem, praising her border leadership as “fantastic” and expressing that he’s “so happy with her."
While Ramirez pushes for accountability, it’s worth noting that impeachment moves against cabinet members, though uncommon, have spiked under this administration, with other Democrats targeting figures like HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
Ramirez, a vocal critic of Trump’s immigration stance, has a history of sharp rhetoric against DHS and ICE, and her latest move might be seen by conservatives as less about oversight and more about undermining a border security agenda many Americans support.
Erika Kirk, widow of the late conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, has had enough of the wild theories swirling around her husband’s tragic assassination.
In a powerful moment during a CBS News town hall, Erika Kirk publicly called out Candace Owens, a former Turning Point USA employee, for peddling unfounded conspiracy narratives about Charlie’s death and baseless financial accusations against the organization he founded.
Charlie Kirk, a titan of the conservative youth movement, founded Turning Point USA, a group dedicated to promoting traditional values on college campuses.
Tragically, Charlie was assassinated in September, leaving behind a legacy of bold ideas and a grieving widow, Erika, who now leads the organization.
The day after his death, Candace Owens, once considered a close friend with a bond described as sibling-like, posted a nearly 25-minute video honoring Charlie’s career and principles.
But in the months since, Owens has veered into troubling territory, spreading unverified claims about the circumstances of Charlie’s murder and alleging fraud within Turning Point USA’s finances.
Erika Kirk isn’t standing for it, and her frustration boiled over during the CBS News town hall, set to air Saturday at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
“Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop,” Erika declared, her words a raw plea to halt the damaging speculation (CBS News).
It’s a gut punch of a statement—three words carrying the weight of grief and exasperation, aimed squarely at shutting down narratives that tarnish her husband’s memory.
On top of the conspiracy theories, Owens’ financial accusations against Turning Point USA have been met with hard evidence to the contrary.
Last week, the Treasury Department sent Erika a letter confirming that none of the tax-exempt entities under her oversight are under IRS investigation, debunking the fraud claims outright.
A senior Treasury official didn’t mince words, stating, “The IRS is able to provide this type of information upon request by the taxpayer. And in this case, it’s hideous that malicious lies and smears obligated [Erika Kirk] to make the request” (CBS News).
That official’s comment stings, highlighting how baseless rumors can force a widow to defend her husband’s legacy while still mourning his loss.
The CBS News town hall, with an extended version airing on CBS News 24/7 on Sunday at multiple times and available on their YouTube channel, will dive deeper into Erika’s journey through faith, grief, and her vision for the American right.
Adding to the poignancy, Charlie’s posthumous book, “Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life,” was released just days before the town hall, a final testament to his enduring voice in conservative thought.
Tensions between the United States and Venezuela just hit a boiling point with the seizure of a massive oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast.
The incident, confirmed by President Trump, is the latest in a string of aggressive moves by the administration against Nicolás Maduro’s regime, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers worried about a slide toward military conflict.
Let’s rewind to the start of this high-stakes drama, where the U.S. executed a daring operation to seize what Trump called a “very large tanker” near Venezuelan waters. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to X to showcase a video of the operation, crediting the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Pentagon for carrying out the warrant. The claim? This vessel was hauling sanctioned oil tied to Venezuela and Iran, allegedly fueling illicit networks that support foreign terrorist groups.
But this isn’t a standalone stunt—since early September, the Trump administration has authorized 22 strikes on suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with a tragic toll of at least 87 lives lost. Last month, the State Department slapped the label of “foreign terrorist organization” on Cartel de los Soles, a drug network supposedly led by Maduro himself.
October brought another bombshell when Trump admitted he greenlit CIA operations inside Venezuela, while the Pentagon beefed up its presence in the U.S. Southern Command with warships, Marines, fighter jets, and spy planes. Two U.S. fighter jets even buzzed the Gulf of Venezuela as part of a broader pressure campaign. It’s clear the administration isn’t playing patty-cake with Maduro.
Yet, not everyone in Washington is cheering from the sidelines. Democratic senators like Chris Coons of Connecticut and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, alongside Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), voiced serious concerns on Wednesday about this tanker seizure and the looming specter of war. A poll showing most Americans oppose military action in Venezuela only adds fuel to their unease.
Sen. Rand Paul didn’t mince words, telling NewsNation’s Hannah Brandt, “It sounds a lot like the beginning of a war.” Well, Senator, if the shoe fits—escalating from sanctions to seizures and strikes does smell like a march toward conflict, and conservatives who value restraint over endless foreign entanglements might agree.
Paul wasn’t done, adding, “If you want war, the president should come to Congress, like the Constitution dictates, and he should ask Congress for a declaration of war.” That’s a fair jab at unchecked executive power—something even right-leaning folks can nod to when bureaucracy sidesteps accountability.
Meanwhile, some Republican senators seemed caught off guard by the tanker news. Josh Hawley of Missouri told NewsNation, “I will look into it,” while Roger Marshall of Kansas admitted it was “news to me,” though he did stress the need to push back on Venezuela and expressed concern about the drug cartel running the country. It’s a bit embarrassing when lawmakers are playing catch-up on a story this big.
The bipartisan pushback gained traction last week when Sen. Paul, joined by Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Adam Schiff of California, and Chuck Schumer of New York, filed a war powers resolution. Their goal? To stop the administration from dragging the U.S. into a Venezuelan conflict without congressional approval—a move that respects the Constitution over impulsive saber-rattling.
Let’s not ignore the bigger picture: the Trump administration’s focus on Maduro is rooted in real issues, from drug trafficking to sanctioned oil schemes that allegedly fund terrorism. But the question remains whether this aggressive posture risks more American lives and treasure in a region already steeped in chaos. Conservatives can support a strong stance without endorsing a blank check for war.
President Trump himself seems confident, telling Politico on Monday that “Maduro’s days are numbered.” That’s a bold prediction, but without a clear endgame, it’s hard not to wonder if we’re just poking a hornet’s nest.
The seizure of this tanker is a win for those who want to see the U.S. flex its muscle against rogue regimes, but it’s also a reminder of the fine line between strength and overreach. Lawmakers on both sides are right to demand oversight—blindly trusting any administration to navigate such waters is how we end up in quagmires.
So, where does this leave us? The U.S. has made its point loud and clear, but with public opinion wary of military action and Congress pushing back, the administration might need to rethink its next move. A conservative approach would prioritize national security without losing sight of the costs—both human and fiscal—of escalation.