The president and the media don’t have a great relationship. And it doesn’t look like anyone wants to make amends.

Because Trump shut down an interview after being asked one idiotic question.

Trump Doubles Down on Bold Canada Proposal

President Donald Trump is unwavering in his provocative call for Canada to join the United States as its 51st state, dismissing suggestions that he’s merely jesting.

In a candid exchange with Time magazine, Trump pushed back against a journalist’s skepticism: “You’ve talked about acquiring Greenland, taking control of the Panama Canal, making Canada the 51st state.

Maybe you’re trolling a little bit on that [last] one.” The president shot back, “Actually, no, I’m not.” His resolute stance underscores a vision that challenges conventional geopolitics, sparking debate about America’s role on the global stage.

Trump’s remarks, part of a wide-ranging Time interview, highlight his knack for bold ideas that disrupt the status quo. While local resistance in Canada dims prospects for immediate change, Trump’s persistence signals a strategic rethinking of U.S.-Canada relations, rooted in economic and security concerns.

Economic and Security Arguments Fuel the Debate

Delving into the rationale, Trump framed Canada’s integration as a solution to what he sees as an imbalanced relationship. “Canada is an interesting case. We lose $200 to $250 billion a year supporting Canada,” he told Time.

Recalling a conversation with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whom he dubbed “Governor Trudeau,” Trump recounted, “And I asked a man, who I called Governor Trudeau, I said, ‘Why? Why do we think we’re losing so much money supporting you? Do you think that’s right? Do you think that’s appropriate for another country to make it possible, for a country to sustain?’ and he was unable to give me an answer, but it costs us over $200 billion a year to take care of Canada?”

Trump argued that the U.S. subsidizes Canada’s military and economy while gaining little in return.

“We’re taking care of their military. We’re taking care of every aspect of their lives, and we don’t need them to make cars for us. In fact, we don’t want them to make cars for us. We want to make our own cars. We don’t need their lumber. We don’t need their energy. We don’t need anything from Canada. And I say the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a state.” His comments reflect a push for American self-reliance, a hallmark of his administration’s agenda.

Canadian Sentiment and a Generational Divide

Public opinion in Canada remains largely opposed to Trump’s proposal, though cracks in resistance are emerging, particularly among younger generations. Polls by Leger Marketing and Angus Reid Institute in December and January showed meager support—13% and 10%, respectively—for joining the U.S.

An Ipsos survey found 80% of Canadians would “never” vote to merge, but support rose to 30% when American citizenship and full asset conversion were offered.

Notably, among Canadians aged 18 to 34, 43% backed the idea under those conditions, hinting at a generational openness that could give Trump’s vision traction over time.

While Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has yet to face Trump’s annexation rhetoric directly, the president’s reduced mentions of the idea since Carney’s ascent suggest a tactical pause.

Still, Trump’s unapologetic clarity—“I’m really not trolling,” he told Time—ensures this audacious proposal will continue to stir conversation, challenging both nations to reconsider their shared future.

You don’t always get what you want. But some people have never been told “no” before.

And now Donald Trump blindsided Democrats with this brutal reality check.

Trump Champions Pragmatic Path to Peace

President Donald Trump is steering a bold course to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict, expressing openness to Russia retaining control of Crimea as part of a broader ceasefire agreement. In a sweeping interview with Time magazine, Trump emphasized a practical approach to resolving the war, noting Crimea’s long-standing ties to Russia.

“If Crimea will stay with Russia—we have to only talk about Crimea because that’s the one that always gets mentioned. Crimea will stay with Russia. And Zelensky understands that, and everybody understands that it’s been with them for a long time,” Trump said.

He added, “It’s been with them long before Trump came along. Again, this is Obama’s war. This is a war that should have never happened. I call it the war that should have never happened.”

Trump’s candid remarks, part of Time’s cover story on his first 100 days, reflect his determination to tackle global crises with clear-eyed realism. Named Time’s 2024 Person of the Year for his remarkable political resurgence and decisive electoral triumph over Kamala Harris, Trump is leveraging his mandate to push for peace where his predecessors faltered.

Obama’s Legacy Haunts Ukraine Crisis

The roots of the conflict trace back to 2014, when Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea during Barack Obama’s presidency amid Ukraine’s political turmoil. Obama’s failure to counter Russia’s move drew sharp criticism, with many arguing his dismissive stance on Moscow’s ambitions set the stage for today’s war.

Trump, seizing on this, has framed the conflict as a preventable tragedy born of Democratic missteps. His administration is now working tirelessly to broker a ceasefire, aiming to halt a war that erupted in 2022 with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trump’s frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky surfaced this week after Zelensky rejected a U.S. proposal acknowledging Russian control over Crimea. Responding to a Wall Street Journal report on Zelensky’s Kyiv press conference, Trump took to Truth Social:

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.”

He warned, “It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire — He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country.”

Trump Urges Restraint Amid Escalating Tensions

As negotiations falter, Trump has balanced his push for peace with criticism of both sides. Following Russia’s deadly missile strikes on Kyiv, which killed twelve and injured 90, Trump called out Putin directly.

“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!” he posted on Truth Social. Zelensky, cutting short a South Africa trip to address the attacks, suggested Russia’s aggression was a tactic to pressure U.S. negotiators.

With Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump has signaled readiness to walk away from talks if Russia and Ukraine remain entrenched.

The ongoing deadlock, coupled with Zelensky’s resistance and Putin’s escalations, underscores the complexity of the crisis. Yet Trump’s unwavering focus on a deal—rooted in a clear-eyed view of historical realities like Crimea’s status—positions him as a leader determined to deliver stability where others have failed.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. But this administration is done putting up with it.

And now Marco Rubio laid down the law on the mainstream media for this major lie.

Rubio and Witkoff Slam Politico’s Sanctions Report as Baseless Fiction

In a fiery rebuttal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff have categorically denied a Politico report alleging they discussed easing sanctions on Russian energy assets. The duo labeled the anonymously sourced story “totally fictitious” and “fake crap,” igniting a broader clash with the outlet over its credibility.

“This is false,” Rubio and Witkoff declared in a joint White House statement.

“Neither of us have had any conversations about lifting sanctions on Russia as part of a peace deal with Ukraine. This is just totally fictitious and irresponsible reporting from Politico, a fifth-rate publication. If they have an ounce of journalistic integrity, they will fully retract this piece of fiction.”

The Politico article, published Thursday, cited “five people familiar with the discussions” claiming Witkoff was a “main proponent” of lifting sanctions, including those on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

It further suggested Rubio was at odds with such efforts, highlighting tensions between U.S. energy export advocates and those seeking better relations with Russia. A Politico spokesperson, however, stood firm, insisting the outlet’s reporting was accurate.

Political Allies Rally Against Politico’s Claims

The report drew swift condemnation from prominent figures. “There isn’t even a kernel of truth to this story – Politico was played by their ‘sources’ yet again,” Witkoff posted on X. “It’s embarrassing that they print this type of fake crap.”

Donald Trump Jr. echoed the sentiment, blasting the outlet on X: “More bulls— from the liars at Politico smearing Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff with pure fake news. How do they get away with continuing to run these fake stories????”

Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee took a pointed jab, writing, “I hope Politico has good defamation insurance coverage. Or maybe I don’t.”

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly piled on, calling Politico a “C-rated tabloid, fraught with poor sourcing and a TDS epidemic, pretending to be serious news.” She dismissed the story as one of “many pathetic tall tales” debunked by facts.

Energy and Peace Talks at a Crossroads

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of delicate U.S.-led negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where energy remains a pivotal issue.

Sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, first imposed under the Trump administration, were briefly lifted by President Joe Biden before being reinstated following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Recent proposals reportedly include U.S. control over Ukraine’s nuclear plants and natural gas pipelines to offset military aid costs.

Tensions in the talks have escalated. A U.S.-brokered truce preventing attacks on energy infrastructure recently collapsed, and Vice President JD Vance warned that the U.S. could abandon ceasefire efforts without a deal. President Trump, in a Truth Social post, criticized Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for rejecting Crimea’s annexation as part of a resolution. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,” Trump said.

As the White House navigates these high-stakes discussions, Rubio and Witkoff’s clash with Politico underscores the fraught intersection of diplomacy, energy policy, and media scrutiny. Fox News Digital’s request for White House comment went unanswered by publication time.

America has an identity crisis. And even many who say they serve our country are working against it.

Now a US Army mole is thrown behind bars for selling US secrets to this foreign enemy.

Former Army Analyst Sentenced for Leaking Secrets to China

A former U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Korbein Schultz, 25, of Wills Point, Texas, was sentenced to seven years in prison on Wednesday for passing sensitive military information to an individual he believed was linked to the Chinese government.

Schultz’s actions, which spanned from May 2022 to his arrest in March 2024, involved transmitting dozens of classified documents in exchange for approximately $42,000, despite clear signs that his contact was tied to Beijing.

Schultz pleaded guilty in August 2024 to charges including conspiracy to collect and transmit national defense information, unlawful export of controlled data to China, and accepting bribes.

Court documents reveal he provided his Chinese contact with critical materials, including his Army unit’s operational order for NATO deployment in Eastern Europe, lessons from the Russia-Ukraine conflict applicable to Taiwan’s defense, and technical manuals for the HH-60 helicopter, F-22A fighter aircraft, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile systems.

He also shared insights into Chinese military tactics, U.S. military exercises in South Korea and the Philippines, and details on U.S. satellite and missile defense systems like the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.

A Calculated Betrayal

The scheme began when Schultz, shortly after receiving his Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, was approached via a freelance work platform by an individual posing as a client from a geopolitical consulting firm.

This person, later identified as a Chinese national, initially requested analyses on U.S. military capabilities, focusing on Taiwan and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Over time, the demands grew more specific, targeting non-public, highly classified materials. The conspirator emphasized the need for “exclusiveness” and “CUI and better,” according to court documents.

Fully aware of the national security risks, Schultz accessed restricted U.S. government databases to download and send at least 92 sensitive documents.

He also attempted to recruit a fellow Army intelligence analyst, assigned to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, into the conspiracy. Discussions with his Chinese contact about recruiting others were deliberate, with plans to proceed in a “nice and slow fashion,” per court records.

Justice Department Vows Vigilance

Attorney General Pamela Bondi condemned Schultz’s actions, stating, “The Justice Department remains vigilant against China’s efforts to target our military and will ensure that those who leak military secrets spend years behind bars.”

FBI Director Kash Patel echoed this sentiment, noting that service members are a “prime target” for China. “This sentencing is a stark warning to those who betray our country: you will pay a steep price for it,” Patel said.

“The People’s Republic of China is relentless in its efforts to steal our national defense information, and service members are a prime target. The FBI and our partners will continue to root out espionage and hold those accountable who abandon their obligation to safeguard defense information from hostile foreign governments.”

The smoke and mirrors can’t hide what’s going on anymore. And the highest court in the land is going in for the kill.

Because this Supreme Court Justice slammed Democrats for one sickening act.

Supreme Court Scrutinizes Maryland School’s LGBTQ Book Policy

In a lively Supreme Court session this week, Justice Neil Gorsuch engaged in a spirited back-and-forth with Alan Schoenfeld, the attorney for Montgomery County Public Schools, over the use of a children’s book, Pride Puppy!, in a case that pits parental rights against school curriculum choices.

The dispute centers on whether parents should be allowed to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ-themed storybooks in public schools.

Pride Puppy!, a 32-page rhyming alphabet book, follows a family’s joyful day at a Pride parade, where their dog gets lost amid the festivities. Described by its publisher as “affirming and inclusive,” the book invites young readers to spot items corresponding to each letter of the alphabet while celebrating the vibrancy of the Pride community. It was once part of the district’s pre-kindergarten curriculum.

“And they’re being used in English language instruction at age 3?” Gorsuch asked.

“‘Pride Puppy!’ was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum,” replied Schoenfeld.

“That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things – and b*ndage – things like that,” Gorsuch responded.

“It’s not b*ndage. It’s a woman in a leather…”

A “s*x worker?” asked Gorsuch.

“No. That’s not correct. No,” replied Schoenfeld.

“Gosh, I read it…drag queen?” said Gorsuch.

Schoenfeld clarified that the leather was simply a woman in a leather jacket and noted that “one of the words is drag queen.”

Parental Rights vs. School Authority

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, brought by religious parents, argues that the school district’s refusal to allow opt-outs for certain LGBTQ-themed books violates the First Amendment. Eric Baxter, representing the parents, told the justices that the district’s policy forces young children to navigate moral messages that may conflict with their family’s beliefs.

Baxter highlighted inconsistencies in the district’s approach, noting that exemptions are granted for other religious objections, such as books depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. “When the books were first introduced in August of 2022, the board suggested they be used five times before the end of the year,” he said. “One of the schools, Sherwood School, in June for Pride Month said that they were going to read one book each day.”

Initially, the district permitted opt-outs for religious reasons but reversed this policy by March 2023, citing logistical challenges and concerns about absenteeism.

Other Books Fuel the Debate

Beyond Pride Puppy!, the court discussed other books at the heart of the controversy. Prince & Knight, a modern fairy tale for ages 4 to 8, tells of two men who fall in love after defeating a dragon and later wed. Another book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, explores a young girl’s perspective on her uncle’s decision to marry another man.

As the justices weigh the balance between educational mandates and parental rights, the outcome of this case could reshape how schools handle sensitive curriculum materials. A ruling is anticipated by late June.

The Democrat Party is fracturing. There’s no telling where this all will end.

Now a former Biden official jumped ship to team up with the Trump administration.

Trump Administration’s Antisemitism Push Gains Support, Sparks Debate

Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent figure in combating antisemitism during the Biden administration, has expressed cautious optimism about the Trump administration’s efforts to address the issue.

Speaking to the New Yorker, Lipstadt, who recently returned to Emory University, highlighted the urgency of tackling antisemitism while raising concerns about the approach’s intensity and potential repercussions.

A Continued Fight Against Antisemitism

Lipstadt, who served as the Biden administration’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, welcomed the Trump administration’s focus on the issue.

“I’m pleased that they’re addressing it, because that’s what I did for the past three years, which was to really push the Biden Administration to seriously address it. So I am very, very pleased that it’s on their agenda,” she told the New Yorker. Her comments reflect a hope that the momentum she helped build will persist, even as she transitions back to academia at Emory University, as announced in December.

The Trump administration’s actions, particularly its scrutiny of universities, have resonated with some communities. “I also think there are many Jews, and some non-Jews, too, but many Jews who are disappointed by how universities have behaved since October 7th, and they see a strong – to use Passover terminology – a strong hand being used,” Lipstadt said.

She acknowledged the relief felt by many at this forceful stance but cautioned, “Now, whether that hand is being used properly or not raises certain questions about what’s happening,” adding, “a lot of people were relieved to see this forceful approach. I think, in many respects, it’s going too far.”

Universities Under Fire

Lipstadt pointed to a systemic failure among higher education institutions in addressing antisemitism, particularly since the events of October 7th. “Look, the universities failed to address this seriously. And by failing to address this seriously, they failed the Jewish students on campus.

They dismissed their grievances. They created an inhospitable atmosphere. We’re now seeing the fruits of that failure,” she told the New Yorker. She expressed concern that the current debate risks weaponizing antisemitism.

“What disturbs me so much is that the debate will now become over whether antisemitism is being used as a weapon to fight against people we don’t like. Antisemitism should not be a cudgel,” she noted.

Lipstadt emphasized that the focus should remain on combating antisemitism itself, not targeting institutions broadly.

“The fight should be against antisemitism and not against the institutions. The institutions opened the door. Most universities failed miserably to address this, and we’re seeing the consequences of that now,” she said. Her remarks underscore the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes student safety without escalating into broader conflicts.

Navigating a Complex Path Forward

As the Trump administration presses universities to act, Lipstadt’s insights highlight both the necessity and the challenges of addressing antisemitism effectively. Her call for a focused, non-partisan effort reflects a desire to protect Jewish students while avoiding the politicization of a critical issue.

The ongoing debate, she warns, will test whether these efforts can unify rather than divide, as campuses grapple with the consequences of past inaction and the implications of a newly assertive approach.

Rumors have been circulating for years. But now the evidence is in.

And a picture of Michelle Obama proves what everyone already knew.

Obamas Appear Together at DC Restaurant Amid Divorce Rumors

On April 19, 2025, former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama dined together at Osteria Mozza, a high-end Washington, DC, restaurant, marking a joint appearance at the same venue where Barack was spotted alone in January amid swirling divorce rumors.

The couple’s dinner at the upscale Italian eatery, known for its $175 dry-aged bistecca alla Fiorentina and “California-style” pasta, drew attention from diners who clapped and cheered as they descended a central stairway, per a clip posted on the Washingtonian Problems Instagram account on April 21, 2025. Barack Obama, 63, briefly waved to the crowd as they exited, a moment that contrasted with earlier speculation about their 30-year marriage.

Solo Visit Fueled Marriage Gossip

Barack Obama’s solo dinner at Osteria Mozza in January 2025, days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, intensified rumors of marital strife.

His casual entrance without Michelle, 61, who skipped both former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral and Trump’s inauguration, prompted widespread chatter on social media and in tabloids about the couple’s relationship.

That visit, which also drew a loud welcome from diners, came at a peak of speculation, with some questioning whether the Obamas were headed for a split. The couple’s recent joint appearance at the same restaurant appeared to counter those narratives, though it did little to fully quell ongoing public curiosity about their personal lives.

Michelle Obama Responds to Speculation

In an April 2025 interview on Sophia Bush’s “Work in Progress” podcast, Michelle Obama addressed the divorce rumors, attributing them to her decisions to decline high-profile event invitations. “The interesting thing is that, when I say ‘no,’ for the most part people are like, ‘I get it, and I’m OK,’” she said, adding:

“And that’s the thing that we as women struggle with — disappointing people. So much so that people, they couldn’t even fathom that I was making a choice for myself, that they had to assume that my husband and I are divorcing.” Her comments framed her absences as personal choices, though they did not directly address the public’s perception of tension in the marriage.

Public Reaction Draws Attention

The crowd’s enthusiastic response at Osteria Mozza, with diners applauding the Obamas’ entrance, highlighted their continued visibility in public life. The Instagram video captured the moment, showing Barack acknowledging the crowd as they left the restaurant.

This reaction, similar to the one during his January solo visit, underscores the couple’s ability to command attention, whether together or apart. However, the warm reception also amplified scrutiny of their appearance, as observers noted the deliberate choice to dine at a location previously tied to divorce rumors, raising questions about the intent behind the outing.

Appearance Stirs Ongoing Debate

The Obamas’ decision to dine at Osteria Mozza together, revisiting a restaurant linked to one of the most intense periods of divorce speculation, has kept their personal lives in the spotlight. While their joint presence contrasted with Barack’s earlier solo outing, it has not fully silenced questions about their marriage.

Michelle’s podcast remarks aimed to reframe her absences as independent decisions, but the couple’s high-profile dinner has fueled further discussion about whether the appearance was a calculated move to address gossip. As the Obamas remain prominent figures, their actions—whether dining together or skipping events—continue to spark public debate about their relationship and motivations.

The Left’s crimes are getting exposed. And there’s nowhere left to hide.

Now the House GOP moved to put one top Democrat behind bars for a terrible crime.

House Republicans Push for Cuomo Prosecution Over Nursing Home Cover-Up

House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), have renewed their call for Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for allegedly making “criminally false statements” to Congress.

The accusations stem from a July 6, 2020, New York State Department of Health report that undercounted nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic by 46%.

Comer, in a statement, described Cuomo as “a man with a history of corruption and deceit, now caught red-handed lying to Congress during the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into the COVID-19 nursing home tragedy in New York.”

The referral, originally sent to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in October 2024 and ignored by the Biden administration, alleges Cuomo deliberately misled lawmakers to shield himself from accountability for the deaths of thousands of elderly New Yorkers.

Evidence Contradicts Cuomo’s Testimony

During a June 11, 2024, transcribed interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Cuomo claimed he had no role in drafting, reviewing, or discussing the July 2020 report, stating, “I did not. Maybe it was in the inbox, but I did not,” and later adding he did not “recall” seeing it before its release. However, emails and documents obtained by the subcommittee reveal Cuomo’s direct involvement, including handwritten edits on report drafts.

Former staffer Farrah Kennedy confirmed to the Moseley in October 2024 that she frequently deciphered Cuomo’s handwriting, identifying his notes on the report.

These edits included a claim that “the disease was already in the nursing homes” by the time the mandate was rescinded and a marginal note citing 6,600 deaths, despite over 9,000 actual fatalities when including hospital deaths. The final report listed only 6,432 deaths, a 46% undercount.

Controversial Nursing Home Policy Fuels Outrage

The controversy centers on a March 25, 2020, Cuomo administration directive that required nursing homes to admit or readmit COVID-positive patients, a policy critics, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), called “deadly.”

By May 10, 2020, when Cuomo revoked the order, thousands of infected patients had entered nursing homes, contributing to approximately 15,000 deaths among long-term care residents, far exceeding initial reports. A January 2021 report by New York Attorney General Letitia James found the state underreported nursing home deaths by up to 50%, excluding deaths after hospital transfers.

Comer accused Cuomo of a “calculated cover-up” to deflect blame, noting that the July 2020 report falsely attributed excess deaths to nursing home staff rather than the state’s policy. “This wasn’t a slip-up—it was a calculated cover-up by a man seeking to shield himself from responsibility for the devastating loss of life,” Comer said.

Cuomo’s Defense and Counteraccusations

Cuomo’s team has vehemently denied the allegations, with spokesman Rich Azzopardi calling the referral “a meritless press release” and “transparent election interference.” On October 30, 2024, Cuomo’s attorneys filed their own referral against former subcommittee chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), accusing him of abusing power and colluding with private litigants, including the husband of Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean, a vocal critic of Cuomo’s policies.

“This interrogation far exceeded the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction and appears to have been an improper effort to advantage the interests of private litigants against Governor Cuomo,” wrote attorney Sarah A. Sulkowski to Garland. Azzopardi dismissed the GOP’s evidence, stating, “This is a joke—the Governor said he didn’t recall because he didn’t recall,” and argued the referral was a politically motivated attack, likening it to others against figures like Hillary Clinton and Anthony Fauci.

Political Stakes and Legal Implications

The renewed referral, now directed to Attorney General Pam Bondi under the Trump administration, alleges three counts of false statements, each carrying a potential five-year prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Comer vowed full cooperation with any DOJ probe, stating, “Cuomo must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” The push comes as Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 amid unrelated sexual harassment allegations, campaigns for New York City mayor, making the timing politically charged.

Emails from aides, including a June 7, 2020, chain likely dictated by Cuomo warning of a “great debacle in the history books,” and testimony from former staff like Melissa DeRosa and Jim Malatras, further implicate Cuomo. The House probe aligns with a 2021 New York State Assembly Judiciary Committee report that found evidence of Cuomo meddling in the report to “combat criticism.” As the DOJ considers action, the case could significantly impact Cuomo’s political future and the broader reckoning over New York’s pandemic response.

The Courts have been notoriously hostile to Trump. But all of that could change.

Because Supreme Court teed up a landmark decision that could change everything.

Supreme Court to Weigh Parental Rights in LGBTQ Curriculum Dispute

On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that pits parental religious freedoms against school policies mandating exposure to LGBTQ-themed books.

Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, are challenging the local school district’s decision to prohibit opt-outs from lessons featuring books with LGBTQ storylines, claiming the policy infringes on their First Amendment rights. The case, which has drawn national attention, underscores a broader clash between public education’s inclusivity efforts and the rights of parents to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing.

Montgomery County’s Policy Sparks Controversy

The dispute began in November 2022 when Montgomery County Public Schools introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books as part of its “inclusivity” initiative. According to Becket, the religious freedom legal group representing the parents, these books “champion pride parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for children.”

Initially, parents were allowed to opt their children out of these lessons, but in March 2023, the school district reversed course, eliminating the opt-out option and ceasing notifications about when the books would be used.

This shift prompted outrage from parents like Grace Morrison, a mother of seven, who told Fox News Digital, “We felt as parents that we would present these things to our children like we always have, when they’re ready to receive them.” Morrison, whose youngest child has Down’s Syndrome, added that the books’ themes, including gender ideology, could confuse her daughter and conflict with their family’s faith.

Religious Freedom at the Heart of the Case

The plaintiffs, representing Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox families, argue that the school’s policy violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. Becket attorney William Haun told Fox News Digital that the case hinges on the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which he says protects parents’ authority to opt their children out of instruction that undermines their religious values, even in public schools.

The parents contend that the books’ content contradicts their faith-based beliefs about gender and s*xuality, and the lack of an opt-out forces their children to engage with material they find objectionable. Montgomery County’s school board is among the few nationwide to explicitly ban both opt-outs and prior notifications for lessons on s*xuality and gender, making this case a potential precedent-setter.

Legal Journey and Broader Implications

The parents’ challenge faced a setback in May 2024 when a federal appeals court ruled that Montgomery County schools could mandate the use of LGBTQ-inclusive books without offering opt-outs.

Undeterred, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in January 2025 to hear the case. The upcoming arguments will explore whether schools can compel students to engage with materials that conflict with their families’ religious convictions, or if parents retain the right to exempt their children from such instruction.

Morrison emphasized the personal stakes, noting that for her daughter with special needs, the material is “even more difficult for her to understand.” The diverse religious backgrounds of the plaintiffs highlight the case’s potential to resonate with families across various faith communities.

National Debate Over Education and Parental Rights

Mahmoud v. Taylor arrives at a time of heightened tension over the role of public schools in addressing issues of gender and s*xuality. As school districts nationwide adopt inclusive curricula, some parents argue that such policies sideline their values and erode their authority. Montgomery County’s stance has drawn particular scrutiny for its uncompromising approach, with Becket noting that few other districts impose similar bans on opt-outs.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by mid-2025, could clarify the balance between fostering inclusive education and safeguarding religious liberties, potentially reshaping how schools navigate these contentious issues. For parents like Morrison, the case is about ensuring their children’s education aligns with their family’s deeply held beliefs.

The Vice President has been working hard for months. But no one was expecting this to happen.

Now he’s made a tragic announcement that is sending shockwaves around the world.

Vance Shares Heartfelt Tribute to Pope Francis

U.S. Vice President JD Vance expressed profound grief over the death of Pope Francis, who passed away at 88 on April 21, 2025, just hours after their brief Easter Sunday meeting at the Vatican. In an emotional post on X, Vance extended his condolences to the global Christian community, writing, “I just learned of the passing of Pope Francis.

My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him.” He reflected on the pontiff’s frail condition during their encounter, noting, “I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill.”

Vance highlighted a sermon Francis delivered in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, sharing a link and calling it “really quite beautiful,” while concluding, “May God rest his soul.”

Brief Vatican Meeting Amid Frail Health

The meeting between Vance, a Catholic convert since 2019, and Pope Francis was described by the Vatican as a short exchange of Easter greetings at the Casa Santa Marta, lasting only a few minutes. Francis, visibly weakened by a 38-day hospitalization for double pneumonia, still managed to engage with Vance, gifting him three large chocolate Easter eggs for his children, along with a Vatican tie and rosaries.

Vance expressed concern for the pope’s health, saying, “I know you have not been feeling great, but it’s good to see you in better health,” and added, “I pray for you every day. God bless you.” The encounter, though fleeting, marked a moment of personal connection despite their differing views on key issues.

Tensions Over Immigration Policies

The backdrop to their meeting was a history of public disagreement, particularly over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which Vance has supported. Pope Francis had been a vocal critic, most notably in a February 2025 letter to U.S. bishops, where he described mass deportations as a “major crisis.”

He wrote, “The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.”

This stance likely influenced the brevity of their meeting, with Vance spending more time discussing religious freedom and global conflicts with Vatican officials like Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Archbishop Paul Gallagher.

A Gesture of Goodwill Amid Divide

Despite their ideological differences, the Easter Sunday exchange was marked by mutual respect. The chocolate eggs and other gifts from Francis underscored his characteristic warmth, even toward political figures with opposing views. Vance’s tribute on X focused on the pope’s spiritual legacy, emphasizing his ability to inspire millions through sermons like the one from 2020.

The vice president’s choice to highlight this moment, rather than their policy disputes, suggests an effort to honor Francis’s broader impact as a religious leader. The meeting also included an “exchange of opinions” on migration with Vatican officials, hinting at ongoing diplomatic efforts to navigate these tensions.

Pope Francis’s Legacy and Vance’s Reflection

Pope Francis’s death, following a prolonged battle with double pneumonia, marks the end of a papacy defined by compassion for the marginalized and outspoken advocacy on global issues like poverty and migration. Vance’s tribute aligns with the sentiments of millions mourning the pontiff, reflecting on his ability to connect with people across divides.

By sharing the COVID-era homily, Vance underscored Francis’s gift for offering hope during crises, a quality that resonated even with those who disagreed with his political stances. As the Catholic Church prepares for a conclave to elect a new pope, Vance’s words serve as a reminder of Francis’s enduring influence on faith and global discourse.

The Democrats can’t get their footing. They keep getting hit upside the head by reality.

And now the U.S. Supreme Court has smacked the Democrat party with a devastating loss in dramatic fashion.

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Admin’s Tough Immigration Stance

In a decisive move that strengthens the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Wednesday rejected an emergency appeal from four Mexican nationals facing deportation. The petitioners, a family from Guerrero, Mexico, sought to block their removal, claiming they faced threats from the Los Rojos drug cartel. Kagan’s swift denial of their request without comment sends a clear message: the United States will not waver in upholding its sovereignty and protecting its borders.

The family—Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons—was ordered to report to immigration officials on Thursday. Their legal team argued that returning to Mexico would expose them to cartel violence, citing a 2021 incident where cartel members demanded they abandon their home within 24 hours or face death. Despite these claims, Kagan, acting as the justice overseeing the Ninth Circuit, dismissed the appeal without referring it to the full court, reinforcing the administration’s stance that immigration laws must be enforced consistently.

The Trump administration has long prioritized border security, emphasizing that illegal entry into the United States cannot be rewarded with leniency. The family’s asylum claims were rejected by an immigration judge, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals in November 2023 and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2025. A temporary stay of removal was lifted on April 7, paving the way for their deportation. This chain of rulings demonstrates the judiciary’s alignment with the administration’s firm immigration policies.

According to the family’s court filing, they fled Mexico after enduring threats from the Los Rojos cartel, which also targeted extended family members with beatings and intimidation for refusing to comply with extortion demands. While these details paint a grim picture, the Trump administration argues that the U.S. cannot serve as a sanctuary for every individual facing hardship abroad. The government’s position is clear: lawful processes must govern immigration, and those who enter illegally must face the consequences.

The petitioners’ attorney, LeRoy George Siddell, argued in the filing, “Petitioners face imminent removal and have been directed to report to immigration office on 4/17/2025, despite credible and detailed testimony and documentary evidence showing they are targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands.” Yet, the administration contends that such claims, while serious, do not automatically grant the right to remain in the U.S. The immigration system, under Trump’s leadership, prioritizes national security and the rule of law over emotional appeals.

Liberal Justice Kagan Breaks From The Left To Give Trump Major Win

Kagan’s decision to act alone, without involving her colleagues, just goes to show the strength of the legal framework supporting the administration’s policies. As the justice assigned to handle emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit, she had the authority to make a unilateral ruling. Her choice to do so without further deliberation signals confidence in the lower courts’ rulings and the immigration authorities’ processes. This move aligns with the Trump administration’s push for a judiciary that respects the executive branch’s authority on immigration matters.

The Department of Justice, which did not respond to the application before Kagan’s ruling, has consistently supported the administration’s efforts to streamline deportations and deter illegal immigration. The DOJ’s silence in this case speaks volumes, suggesting that the government views the matter as a straightforward application of existing law. The Trump administration has worked to restore order to an immigration system it views as previously plagued by loopholes and leniency, and Kagan’s ruling advances that mission.

As of Thursday morning, the family was required to report to U.S. immigration authorities, with their fate hanging in the balance. The Trump administration’s supporters see this as a necessary step in maintaining the integrity of the nation’s borders. Critics may argue that the decision lacks compassion, but the administration counters that compassion cannot come at the expense of law and order. The U.S. immigration system, under Trump’s guidance, is designed to protect American citizens first while ensuring that legal pathways to entry are respected.

This case is emblematic of the broader immigration challenges the Trump administration has tackled since taking office. From strengthening border enforcement to reforming asylum policies, the administration has sought to create a system that deters illegal crossings and prioritizes those who follow legal processes. Kagan’s ruling is a victory for those who believe that immigration laws must be enforced without exception, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to its America First agenda.

In the eyes of the Trump administration and its supporters, Justice Kagan’s decision is a step toward reclaiming control over the nation’s borders and ensuring that the United States remains a nation of laws. As the administration continues to push for stricter immigration measures, this ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the will of the American people. The fight for secure borders and lawful immigration, as championed by President Trump, moves forward with unwavering resolve.

Prudent Politics will bring you any further updates in major immigration litigation.

Politicians thrive on public opinion. But when it turns against them, it’s over.

Now an unsettling photo of this Democrat Senator could completely destroy his career.

High-Stakes Diplomatic Encounter in El Salvador

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) finally met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant deported from the U.S. to a mega-prison in El Salvador, after persistent efforts to verify his well-being.

The meeting, which took place on Thursday, was publicized by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, who shared images of Van Hollen, Abrego Garcia, and another individual conversing over drinks.

In a sarcastic post on X, Bukele mocked claims of Abrego Garcia’s mistreatment, stating, “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the ‘death camps’ & ‘torture’, now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!” Van Hollen shared his own photo of the encounter, confirming the meeting and noting, “I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar.

Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return.”

Tensions Over Deportation and Due Process

Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador earlier this week was driven by his determination to check on Abrego Garcia, whom he described as a “constituent” subjected to an “abduction and unlawful deportation.”

The 29-year-old, who had been living in Maryland after receiving permission to stay in the U.S. in 2019, was deported last month amid the Trump administration’s intensified immigration crackdown. Van Hollen faced obstacles, including a denied request to visit Abrego Garcia and being blocked by soldiers at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).

Undeterred, he vowed to “keep at this” to ensure Abrego Garcia’s “rights to due process.”

The case has sparked a legal battle, with a recent Supreme Court ruling mandating that the government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, though not necessarily ensure it.

A U.S. appeals court panel reinforced this, stating, “The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.”

Allegations and International Standoff

The Trump administration has labeled Abrego Garcia a member of the MS-13 gang, designated as a foreign terror organization, and released documents to support this claim, though his attorneys deny the affiliation.

The deportation, initially called an “administrative error” in court, was later attributed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to a “saboteur” in the Justice Department.

Further scrutiny revealed a restraining order accusing Abrego Garcia of domestic violence against his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, though she now says they resolved the issue. During a White House meeting, Bukele firmly rejected calls to return Abrego Garcia, declaring, “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” and adding, “I don’t have the power to return him.”

After the Van Hollen meeting, Bukele posted on X, “Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody,” signaling an ongoing international impasse.