Trump and his team aren’t putting up with anybody’s games. Instead, they’re forging their own paths.

Now The Trump White House shocked the ‘woke’ Left with an unexpected reality check.

White House Stands Firm on Truth Over Trends

The Trump White House press team is taking a no-nonsense stance, declining to engage with reporters who flaunt pronouns in their email signatures.

Their reasoning? Those who reject “biological reality” can’t be relied upon to deliver straight-shooting stories. It’s a bold move that’s got the media buzzing—and some outlets squirming.

New York Times scribe Michael Grynbaum flagged three separate instances where press office staff, led by the sharp-tongued Karoline Leavitt, brushed off queries from pronoun-sporting journalists.

“As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios,” Leavitt told a Times reporter sniffing around a climate observatory story.

Press Office Doubles Down on Principle

The policy isn’t just talk—it’s action. Grynbaum dug deeper, citing a case where Katie Miller, a top adviser at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), stonewalled a reporter over records because of their pronoun display.

“As a matter of policy, I don’t respond to people who use pronouns in their signatures as it shows they ignore scientific realities and therefore ignore facts,” Miller said, doubling down with, “This applies to all reporters who have pronouns in their signature.”

Leavitt backed her up when pressed by Grynbaum, emailing, “Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story.”

White House comms chief Steven Cheung piled on with a zinger: “If The New York Times spent the same amount of time actually reporting the truth as they do being obsessed with pronouns, maybe they would be a half-decent publication.”

Media’s Pronoun Play Meets a Wall

The ripple effect’s hitting beyond the Times. Grynbaum noted other outlets facing the same cold shoulder when their reporters flash pronouns. Crooked Media’s Matt Berg even ran a little test, tossing pronouns into his signature to see if the White House would bite.

Spoiler: They didn’t. “I find it baffling that they care more about pronouns than giving journalists accurate information, but here we are,” Berg griped to the Times.

Meanwhile, the administration’s keeping its focus where it counts—rolling back gender identity fluff across government, from military bans to sports rules.

A Times spokesperson whined about “evading tough questions,” but Leavitt held the line, telling Fox News Digital, “Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story.”

Sounds like a press office that’s done playing games—and ready to back a leader who calls it like he sees it.

America is hanging on Trump’s every word. And this means more than most.

Because Donald Trump made an announcement about tariffs that you won’t want to miss.

Trump Touts Global Begging After Tariff Bombshell

President Trump crowed triumphantly on Tuesday, boasting that his audacious move to hammer roughly 90 nations with hefty tariffs—topping out at a jaw-dropping 104% on China—has world leaders groveling at his feet.

“I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass,” he proclaimed to a fired-up crowd at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner, mere hours before the tariffs kicked in.

With a smirk, he mimicked their pleas:

“They are dying to make a deal. ‘Please, please, Sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, sir!’” Keeping the names of the pleading nations under wraps, Trump painted a picture of a world bending to his will—a testament to his unrelenting trade strategy.

Slamming GOP Doubters With Swagger

Not one to let dissent slide, Trump turned his fire on so-called “rebel” Republicans who’ve dared to question his tariff blitz and push for Congress to wrestle back control.

“I see some rebel Republican, some guy who wants to grandstand, say, ‘I think that Congress should take over negotiations.’ Let me tell you, you don’t negotiate like I negotiate,” he snapped, oozing confidence.

“Oh that’s what I need, I need some guy telling me how to negotiate.” Brushing off the naysayers, he doubled down:

“I know what the hell I’m doing. I know what I’m doing, and you know what I’m doing too.” It’s classic Trump—unapologetic, brash, and certain his dealmaking chops are unmatched, a stance that’s got his base cheering while the establishment squirms.

Tariff Titan Punches Back at China

The tariffs, slamming both allies and foes, roared into effect just after midnight, piling onto an existing 10% levy from April 5.

China bore the brunt, slapped with a 104% total rate—stacking a fresh 50% retaliatory hit on top of a 34% reciprocal duty and a prior 20% fee—after Beijing fired back with its own 34% tariffs on U.S. goods.

“It was a mistake for China to retaliate,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared earlier Tuesday, setting the stage for Trump’s counterpunch.

“The president, when America is punched, he punches back harder. That’s why there will be 104% tariffs going into effect on China tonight at midnight.”

China whined to the World Trade Organization on Wednesday, warning that the U.S. move “dangerously escalated” tensions and “threatened to further destabilize global trade,” but Trump’s camp sees it as proof he’s got Beijing on the ropes—a fighter who doesn’t flinch.

Biden has been out of the limelight for months now. But he’s been thrust right back into view.

Because secret documents expose the extent of Biden’s collusion with China.

In a series of clandestine meetings, Biden administration State Department officials engaged in hush-hush conversations with their Beijing counterparts regarding the notorious Chinese spy balloon that breached U.S. airspace back in 2023. Trump administration sources reveal that these talks delved into the potential fallout the balloon’s exposure could unleash on the delicate U.S.-China relationship.

The saga began when U.S. authorities clocked the intrusive spy balloon infiltrating American skies on January 28, 2023. A mere six days later, on February 4, an Air Force fighter jet blasted the Chinese intruder out of the sky off South Carolina’s coast, following the Pentagon’s belated statement on the incident two days prior.

Internal State Department documents, cited by two Trump administration officials to Fox News Digital, unveil that Biden officials huddled with Beijing on February 1, 2023, to grapple with the balloon conundrum and ponder the ramifications of spilling the beans to the public.

A leaked readout of a tête-à-tête between Blinken and a senior Chinese diplomat quotes Blinken warning that public revelation of the balloon’s presence could bear “profound implications for our relationship” with China, especially as efforts to steady bilateral ties with Beijing hung in the balance.

The same readout hinted that the balloon brouhaha threatened to throw a wrench in Blinken’s early February 2023 travel itinerary to China, a trip ultimately deferred to June.

Meanwhile, a former Biden official disclosed to Fox News Digital that the State Department hauled in senior Chinese diplomat Zhu Haiquan on February 1, 2023, to demand the balloon’s removal and threaten U.S. action if China didn’t comply.

“Former Secretary Blinken advocated strongly to tell the American people about China’s rogue balloon, which is exactly what happened,” a spokesperson for the ex-secretary asserted to Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

“He has a long history of being tough on China while actually delivering results.”

Concurrently, another top State Department official held covert talks with Chinese counterparts on February 1, 2023. According to a readout cited by Trump administration officials, this official cautioned that the longer the balloon lingered, the greater the risk of public exposure and the ensuing headaches in managing the crisis.

The Pentagon finally broke its silence on February 2, 2023, admitting the U.S. government had sniffed out a “high-altitude surveillance balloon.” Then-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Biden was briefed on January 31, 2023, but remained tight-lipped on why the administration dawdled until February 2 to go public.

Marco Rubio, then a Florida senator and now Secretary of State, relentlessly slammed the Biden administration’s sluggish disclosure and delayed takedown of the balloon.

Appearing on CNN with Jake Tapper, Rubio branded Biden’s initial inaction as the “beginning of dereliction of duty,” questioning, “Why didn’t the president go on television? He has the ability to convene the country in cameras and basically explain what we’re dealing with here.”

On February 4, 2023, an Air Force F-22 Raptor from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia obliterated the balloon off South Carolina’s coast with an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile.

The Pentagon conceded that while the balloon posed no military or physical threat, its airspace incursion trampled U.S. sovereignty, debunking China’s “weather balloon” excuse as hogwash.

“This was a PRC surveillance balloon,” a senior defense official told reporters. “This surveillance balloon purposely traversed the United States and Canada, and we are confident it was seeking to monitor sensitive military sites.”

Post-shootdown, the Pentagon revealed that similar Chinese balloons had buzzed U.S. airspace at least thrice during Trump’s first term. The senior defense official noted Biden greenlit the balloon’s demise “as soon as the mission could be accomplished without undue risk to us civilians under the balloon’s path,” citing debris concerns. In June 2023, the Pentagon backtracked, claiming the balloon likely didn’t snag any intel during its U.S. joyride.

Blinken now hobnobs as a speaker with CAA Speakers, alongside A-list celebs. A Biden spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Trump made a name for himself with firing people. Now he’s bringing that energy to Washington, D.C. once again.

And Donald Trump rattled Capitol Hill with this high-profile firing.

A Bold Shift in Military Leadership

The Trump administration has decisively removed a senior NATO official, Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, from her post, aligning with recommendations from a conservative research group focused on streamlining Pentagon priorities.

Chatfield, the sole woman on NATO’s military committee, was let go over the weekend with no official reason provided, according to various sources.

As one of the few female three-star Navy officers and the first woman to helm the Naval War College until 2023, her departure marks a significant moment in the administration’s ongoing recalibration of military leadership.

Reports indicate that Adm. Christopher Grady, acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Chatfield of the decision, stating the administration sought a new direction for the role.

Sources cited by the Associated Press suggest Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth finalized the call last week, though it remains uncertain if President Donald Trump directly weighed in. Reuters broke the story first, leaving observers to ponder whether this move ties into broader U.S. policy shifts regarding NATO.

Prioritizing Strength Over Symbolism

Trump and Hegseth have made no secret of their mission to root out what they see as distracting “woke” agendas from the military, emphasizing a return to core national security goals.

This vision has spurred the removal of leaders tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, alongside the scrapping of related programs and materials—like the U.S. Naval Academy’s recent purge of nearly 400 DEI-focused library books. Chatfield’s dismissal fits into this pattern, reflecting a leadership style that values results over representation.

Her inclusion on a list from the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) likely sealed her fate. In December, the conservative outfit urged Hegseth to oust 20 senior officers, including Chatfield, for their perceived overemphasis on DEI. The AAF flagged a 2015 speech where she lamented the House of Representatives being “80% males,” declaring “our diversity is our strength.”

They also criticized her use of a Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute slide claiming, “Investing in gender equality and women’s empowerment can unlock human potential on a transformational scale.” To the administration, such rhetoric may signal a misplaced focus at a time when military readiness demands undivided attention.

A Decorated Career Meets Political Crosswinds

Chatfield’s 38-year career is undeniably impressive—Navy helicopter pilot, commander of a joint reconstruction team in Afghanistan, and a key player on NATO’s military committee, advising the North Atlantic Council and Nuclear Planning Group.

Yet, her exit has sparked sharp rebukes from Democrats like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who called it “deeply disturbing” and accused Trump of undermining alliances. “Trump’s relentless attacks on our alliances and his careless dismissal of decorated military officials make us less safe and weaken our position across the world,” Warner posted on X.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island echoed the outrage, labeling the move “disgraceful” and praising Chatfield as “among the finest military officers our nation has to offer.” He highlighted her “unblemished” service and slammed Trump for sidelining talent, noting the president has axed 10 generals and admirals since taking office—including NSA head General Timothy Haugh and Navy Chief Admiral Lisa Franchetti.

“I cannot fathom how anyone could stand silently by while the President causes great harm to our military and our nation,” Reed said, pressing Republicans to demand answers from Trump and Hegseth. For an administration intent on projecting strength, these shake-ups signal a willingness to make tough calls, even if they ruffle feathers.

Trump is weeding out the Swamp. And they aren’t happy about it.

Now Homeland Security pulled out the lie detector test on these unelected bureaucrats.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is doubling down on its no-nonsense approach to ferreting out leakers, proudly standing by its use of lie-detector tests to safeguard sensitive information. Fox News Digital got the scoop on how DHS is tackling internal breaches with gusto, showing it’s ready to protect national interests at all costs.

“Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’ assistant secretary for public affairs, told Fox News Digital on Monday.

“We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment or status as a career civil servant – we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.”

Her words carry a clear message: no one’s off-limits when it comes to keeping the agency’s secrets safe.

This hardline stance comes into sharper focus after Politico dropped a report last Friday about FEMA Chief Cameron Hamilton facing a polygraph test in March.

The test followed a sit-down between DHS and Corey Lewandowski, a key advisor to President Donald Trump, who’s been vocal about shaking things up.

The meeting reportedly centered on Trump’s push to “eliminate” FEMA—an agency he’s slammed for dropping the ball on disaster relief.

Hamilton passed the test, proving he wasn’t the source of any leaks, but the incident underscores DHS’s determination to plug holes amid Trump’s bold agenda.

Polygraphs aren’t some shiny new toy for DHS—they’re a well-worn tool across agencies like the FBI, CIA, and ATF, used for everything from vetting new hires to sniffing out security risks.

The FBI, for instance, ramped up its use of lie detectors after the 2001 arrest of Robert Hanssen, a rogue agent caught spying for Russia.

The Pentagon, too, jumped on the bandwagon in March, launching a probe into leaks that might involve polygraphs for Defense Department staff, as Fox Digital previously noted. It’s a tried-and-true method, and DHS is leaning in hard.

McLaughlin’s been vocal about this mission before, taking to X in February to affirm DHS’s stance after chatter about polygraphing staff over immigration raid leaks. “The Department of Homeland Security is a national security agency,” she posted. “We can, should, and will polygraph personnel.”

That same month, Secretary Kristi Noem laid down the law with an internal directive, mandating that polygraph questions zero in on unauthorized media or nonprofit contacts, per Bloomberg Government. It’s a sign DHS means business, especially with Trump’s team pushing for tighter control.

The stakes got real when Border Czar Tom Homan speculated in February that a leak had tipped off illegal immigrants about ICE raids in Colorado and California. That slip allegedly let Tren de Aragua gang members dodge arrest—a frustrating setback that only fuels DHS’s resolve.

The agency’s already got polygraphs baked into its hiring process for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, ensuring they’re fit to serve. “The federal government uses the polygraph exam to understand an applicants’ past behavior, personal connections and personal integrity,” DHS explains online. “Almost every Border Patrol Agent, Customs and Border Protection Officer, and Air and Marine Operations Agent who has joined CBP has taken, and passed, a Polygraph Exam.”

With Trump’s influence steering the ship, DHS isn’t just playing defense—it’s going on offense to lock down leaks and back up his vision. From FEMA critiques to border security, the agency’s signaling it’s all in on delivering results, polygraph in hand.

The Left doesn’t like being called out on their shenanigans. When they do, they lose their minds.

And now Jake Tapper had a deranged meltdown on CNN after a guest said this one sentence.

Tapper Pushes Back on Political Labels

In a lively Sunday exchange on CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper bristled at being pegged as a leftist while grilling Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about President Donald Trump’s bold tariff moves.

The conversation took a sharp turn when Tapper pressed Rollins on the timeline for the tariff shake-up.

“So how long do you anticipate this tariff chaos is going to be going on? Thirty days, 60 days, 90 days?” he asked, his tone suggesting skepticism about the administration’s game plan.

Rollins, unfazed, shot back with context. “I think it’s really important to realize that last Wednesday was when the president announced this new American order, the new American economic plan,” she said.

“We’re now two days in. You’ve got two days of data, everyone, especially on your side, on the left, is freaking out.”

Tapper didn’t miss a beat, cutting in with, “I’m not on the left,” sparking a chuckle from Rollins. “All right, Jake, thank you,” she replied, clearly enjoying the moment.

Tapper’s quick denial might raise eyebrows, especially among those who’ve watched him since he joined CNN in 2013. Conservatives have long called him out for what they see as a relentless edge against Republicans and Trump, though the network staunchly defends him as a straight shooter.

It’s a familiar dance—Tapper dodging labels while critics question whether his coverage leans harder one way than he lets on.

Trump’s Tariff Play Unfolds

The tariff plan at the heart of the debate is no small tweak. Trump’s administration has rolled out a 10% baseline tariff on all U.S. imports, effective as of Saturday, with tailored rates hitting countries that slap higher tariffs on American goods—set to kick in on April 9.

It’s a muscular move, one that’s already stirring the pot globally and giving talking heads plenty to chew on. Rollins framed it as a long-overdue reset, a chance to flex America’s economic might and put its interests first.

“This whole concept is about rebuilding an American economy around American goods, around American industry,” she explained, painting a picture of a nation tired of playing by others’ rules.

“We do already live under a tariff regime in this country, but it’s the tariff regime of China, of Mexico, of Brazil, of Australia, of countries that, Mexico won’t take our corn, Australia won’t take our beef. The country of Honduras takes more pork than the entire European Union does — American pork, I should say.” Her point? The old system’s been lopsided, and Trump’s flipping the script.

A Case for Change—and Results

Rollins didn’t stop at diagnostics; she doubled down on why this shift matters. “We already have 50 countries that have come to the table over the last few days, over the last weeks, that are willing and desperate to talk to us,” she said, hinting at early wins.

“We are the economic engine of the world, and it’s finally time that someone, President Trump, stood up for America.” Her optimism stood in stark contrast to the hand-wringing from some corners—perhaps the same ones Tapper’s network often amplifies—predicting “chaos” instead of opportunity.

For Rollins, it’s about time for a shake-up. “It was time for a change” in how America handles tariffs, she insisted, projecting confidence that Trump’s gambit would soon pay off with a “positive outcome.” While CNN might keep the spotlight on potential pitfalls, Rollins’ take suggests there’s more to the story—a narrative of American grit and leverage that’s already got the world knocking on the U.S.’s door. Whether that holds up, or it’s just Cabinet cheerleading, remains the million-dollar question.

Harris has been quiet since being thrashed by Donald Trump. But now she’s back in the spotlight and not for good reason.

Because she resurfaced to make the most humiliatingly moronic statement.

In a stunning twist, former Vice President Kamala Harris was reportedly caught off guard by her 2024 election drubbing at the hands of President Donald Trump, having swallowed the hype that victory was in the bag, according to a revealing new book.

“She was completely shocked, and [Harris’ running mate] Tim Walz was shocked,” The Hill’s Amie Parnes dished on the podcast “Somebody’s Gotta Win with Tara Palmeri,” which dropped Thursday.

Parnes unpacked the juicy details from her latest book, FIGHT: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, co-written with NBC’s Jonathan Allen. The tome dives into the chaotic 2024 presidential race, spotlighting the upheaval after former President Biden bailed on his re-election bid, leaving Harris to helm the Democratic ticket amid a storm of uncertainty.

Painting a vivid picture of election night disarray, Parnes described Walz holed up in his hotel room, “stunned.”

“He has no words. And people are kind of explaining to him, same thing with her. And she’s like, are you sure? Have we done a recount? Should we do a recount?” Parnes recounted on the podcast, capturing the disbelief that gripped Harris and Walz as their dreams crumbled.

“They thought that they were going to win. And so, you know, when they come back now and say, ‘Oh no, we didn’t really have a chance.’ No, that’s not what they were thinking. They thought they were going to win,” she emphasized, dismantling any post-loss spin.

Parnes revealed that Harris campaign staffers felt “gaslit” by their higher-ups, who’d fed them rosy assurances that “things were looking good” for Harris—only to watch it all fall apart.

Harris herself “bought the hype” that she was outperforming reality, Parnes noted, pointing to a campaign intoxicated by its own buzz.

“Kamala Harris was looking at her crowd size, and they felt like the vibe was strong and people were saying, ‘Oh, we have more boots on the ground. We’re doing better in fundraising,’” Parnes explained. “And she bought all of that. She bought the hype, and so did a lot of people in the campaign.”

The book dishes that Harris later griped to pals, insisting she could’ve clinched it with more time—or if Biden hadn’t hogged the spotlight by running again.

“She could have won, she told friends, if only the election was later in the calendar — or she got in earlier. In other words, Joe Biden was to blame,” the authors penned, subtly framing Harris as quick to dodge accountability.

Some of Harris’ buddies agreed, whispering that Biden’s baggage and her late start doomed her shot—though not everyone was sold on the time excuse.

“That is f—ing bonkers,” one Harris confidant reportedly scoffed. “If Election Day was October first, we might have actually somehow pulled it off. Shorter was actually better, not longer.”

A Harris advisor cut deeper, arguing the real issue wasn’t the clock—it was her lack of heft.

“I don’t think we needed more time… We needed more substance. And she did not have more substance,” the advisor bluntly stated in the book, a quiet jab at Harris’ lightweight tenure.

Adding fuel to the fire, the book spills that former President Obama wasn’t sold on Harris either, dragging his feet on an endorsement because he doubted she could take down Trump.

“He didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats, and he worked really behind the scenes for a long time to try to have a mini-primary, or an open convention, or a mini-primary leading to an open convention, did not have faith in her ability to win the election,” co-author Jonathan Allen told MSNBC this week.

“As it turned out, she didn’t win, but he was really working against her,” Allen added, hinting at a party elite skeptical of Harris’ hype-driven rise.

The rot in the federal government runs deep. No one can escape its reach.

Now a top Democrat risked their life with a shocking confession about the deep state.

This week, Mayor Eric Adams boldly embraced the idea of a “deep state” lurking in the shadows—sounding a lot like President Trump and his MAGA crew.

“I don’t want to sound conspiracy theory, but there’s a permanent government,” Adams confessed to comedian Andrew Schulz on the “Flagrant Podcast” Wednesday.

“There are people that see presidents and mayors come and go. Their attitudes will wait you out.”

Adams’ self-proclaimed tin-foil-hat moment landed the same day a judge threw out the federal corruption case that’s been haunting him since September.

After Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho squashed the charges for good on Wednesday, Adams capped a triumphant speech outside Gracie Mansion by brandishing a copy of “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy,” penned by Trump ally and current FBI Director Kash Patel.

The Democratic mayor—who revealed Thursday he’s gunning for re-election as an independent come November—raved about the book in follow-up chats, claiming it blew the lid off what he insists went down in his own saga.

“Everybody should read the book,” Adams urged Schulz.

“Of course, of course, we like Kash. But is this like what people refer to? And I think this word has been used too much, but like the deep state or whatever it is,” Schulz prodded.

“It’s not used too much. It’s real, brother,” Adams shot back.

He barreled on, “(Patel) comes with this wealth of knowledge and the way he breaks it down, it’s just unbelievable what this deep state is about and why it’s so important for Americans that we cannot have a weaponizing of our prosecutorial powers.”

Adams has long argued that Southern District of New York prosecutors zeroed in on him after he called out former President Joe Biden’s handling of the migrant mess.

He admitted on the podcast that it’s a plight that hit home for Trump, who’s insisted his laundry list of legal woes stems from political payback.

“He didn’t have to come out on his campaign trail and say, this is wrong what they’re doing to Eric,” Adams said, appreciative of Trump’s support. “He did it at rallies.”

The feds kicked off their corruption dig into Adams back in 2021—before he even took the mayor’s seat and before waves of migrants flooded New York City.

The groundbreaking indictment painted Adams as pocketing bribes from Turkish nationals, disguised as swanky travel perks like flight upgrades.

While Adams spilled the beans about the deep state to Schulz, he didn’t totally let loose with the podcast star.

Schulz tossed out a playful jab, asking what’s the top “bodega boner pill.”

“If I answer that, I’ll be on the front page of The Post,” Adams quipped.

The Obamas, Bidens, and Clintons never seem to go away. They always rear their heads at some point.

And now Barack Obama emerged out of the shadows for this sinister purpose.

Obama Urges Sacrifice to Counter Trump’s Bold Moves

Former President Barack Obama addressed a crowd at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, on Thursday night, suggesting that resisting President Donald Trump’s decisive policies might require some tough sacrifices.

As reported by the Washington Post, Obama framed the Trump administration as a force unraveling the post-World War II international order—a charge that paints Trump as a fearless disruptor, shaking up a system some see as overdue for a refresh.

A Challenge to Step Up—Or Step Aside

Obama didn’t shy away from calling out Trump’s approach, labeling it “contrary to the basic compact we have as Americans.”

He urged students to dig deeper, saying, “It has been easy during most of our lifetimes to say you are a progressive, or say you are for social justice, or say you are for free speech, and not have to pay a price for it…And now we’re in one of those moments when…it’s not enough just to say you’re for something. You may actually have to do something and possibly sacrifice a little bit.”

For Trump supporters, this might sound like a desperate rallying cry against a president unafraid to put America’s interests front and center, even if it ruffles feathers.

He also called on law firms and universities to jump into the fray, arguing they’d push back hard if targeted.

“It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors,” Obama said, implying Trump’s getting a freer hand to lead than he ever did.

To those cheering Trump’s no-nonsense style, it’s a sign he’s breaking through the old guard’s resistance—and winning.

Guarding a Past Trump’s Ready to Reshape

Obama’s concern hit a high note as he warned, “All of you have grown up in an international order that was created by America after World War II. … This is an important moment because in the last two months, the U.S. government has been trying to destroy that order.”

He added, “Democracy is pretty recent in its vintage. An international order where you cooperate instead of fight is new. It’s fragile.”

He even voiced alarm over “a federal government that threatens universities if they don’t give up students who are exercising their right to free speech”—a jab at Trump’s tough stance that some see as a necessary push to restore order over chaos.

For Trump’s base, this “destruction” might just be the bold reset America’s been craving, not a loss to mourn.

The unrecorded speech left plenty of room for interpretation, but one thing’s clear: Obama’s framing Trump as a wrecking ball—and not everyone’s mad about it.

The courts are out to get Republicans. And they’re just getting started.

Now a federal judge handed Trump a devastating ruling he never expected.

A Bold Vision Meets Judicial Pushback

President Trump’s immigration stance, deeply rooted in his signature “America First” philosophy, took a hit this week when a federal judge stepped in to challenge it. Judge Edward Chen put a halt to the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to end a deportation amnesty for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

The decision, driven by Secretary Kristi Noem’s nod to Trump’s guiding principle, was labeled by Chen as showing illegal and racist “animus” toward immigrants—a claim that’s stirring debate about the balance between national priorities and judicial overreach.

Defending the Heart of “America First”

The White House didn’t hesitate to fire back. Spokesman Kush Desai told The Washington Times, “President Trump’s commitment to putting Americans and America First has only to do with his love for our country and our citizens, not animus against anyone else.”

It’s a sentiment that resonates with those who see Trump’s policies as a refreshing focus on the homeland.

Meanwhile, Mike Davis, a key figure from Trump’s first term and founder of the Article III Project, took aim at Chen, asking, “After San Francisco Obama Judge Chen ruled it’s illegal for the president to put America first, which country is Judge Chen putting first?”

Davis didn’t stop there, calling Chen part of a “Democrat enclave” bent on “sabotaging the duly elected president’s constitutional duty to protect our homeland from foreign invasion.”

A Policy Battle with Deep Roots

At the core of the clash is Noem’s attempt to roll back a Biden-era extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans—a move that could’ve seen 350,000 face deportation this month without Chen’s intervention.

The judge, an Obama appointee in Northern California, argued Noem didn’t justify the shift adequately and pointed to “unconstitutional animus,” tying it to Trump’s colorful rhetoric.

From his first campaign in 2016, Trump’s “America First” mantra has been a rallying cry—later fueling groups like the America First Policy Institute and Stephen Miller’s America First Legal. This term, it’s the backbone of an agenda tackling immigration, trade, and global commitments with a no-nonsense edge.

Chen’s ruling leans heavily on Trump’s past words—like his alleged “s—-hole” comment from his first term, or campaign trail zingers about Haitian migrants eating dogs and Venezuelan “criminals” flooding the border. The judge even cited an Axios tally showing Trump mentioned Venezuelan “criminals” 70 times in 13 months before the election.

Critics like Ahilan Arulanantham of the National TPS Alliance cheered the decision, saying, “The government had every opportunity to defend any of those statements using evidence, but it failed to do so.”

He added, “If an employer made any one of these statements about people from some country and then fired its workers from that country, that would make for a very straightforward employment discrimination case.”

Yet for Trump’s supporters, this is less about prejudice and more about a leader unafraid to call it like he sees it.

Judge Chen, who’s tangled with “America First” before in a 2018 TPS case, once pressed government lawyers to define it—only to get no clear answer. To Trump, it’s simple: “I like the sound of the phrase.” And for a base tired of endless foreign entanglements, that’s more than enough.

The Left is eating their own. There’s no telling how far they’ll go.

And now a former Biden staffer ripped into Democrats for one despicable move.

Debate Prep Revelations Spark Outrage

A bombshell book about the 2024 presidential campaign has left former Biden campaign aide Ashley Allison reeling. On Wednesday, she candidly shared her sense of betrayal, saying she felt “lied to” after reading claims from ex-Biden White House chief of staff Ron Klain. According to Klain, former President Biden was visibly “exhausted” and “out of it” while gearing up for the pivotal June debate.

CNN host Abby Phillip pressed Allison, who contributed to the Biden-Harris 2020 effort, asking, “Do you feel lied to?” Allison didn’t mince words: “Yes. I think I hadn’t been around the president before that debate, and I worked for Joe Biden. And if the people around him knew that he was not capable, it is unacceptable to me that they allowed him to go onto that stage. I deserve better as a voter, not even as a Democrat, as a voter and as an American, I do.”

Insider Accounts Paint a Troubling Picture

The allegations stem from Chris Whipple’s latest book, with excerpts published by The Guardian revealing Klain’s stark observations. He described Biden as “fatigued, befuddled, and disengaged” during debate prep, admitting to Whipple that he was “startled” by the former president’s exhaustion.

Klain reportedly noted Biden seemed “out of it,” a far cry from the sharp leader expected in such a high-stakes moment.

The account has fueled a firestorm of reactions, raising questions about what Biden’s inner circle knew—and when. Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton didn’t hold back, labeling it a blatant “cover-up” that obscured the truth from the public.

Allies Grapple with Biden’s Debate Fallout

On CNN, Phillip turned to “The View” co-host Ana Navarro, a longtime Biden ally, for her take. Highlighting a bizarre detail from the book, Phillip noted, “Ana, I know that Joe Biden is a friend.

But in this excerpt, the part about the pool, he went off – this is in the middle of the debate prep – went off to the pool, and he took a nap. And that was before the biggest debate of this campaign. That’s not even the governance of the country.”

She continued, “So Joe Biden, maybe he has the best intentions. I’m sure that you believe that. But the right decision, it seems pretty unequivocally, is that he should not have run for reelection.” Navarro, who’d been texting with Klain, pushed back, saying his words were misconstrued.

She insisted something odd occurred around the debate, recalling, “I’ve known Joe Biden for over 25 years. Certainly, the Joe Biden today is not the Joe Biden of five years ago, 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 25 years ago. It’s not. But also, I will tell you, and I think that comes out also in the book and the excerpt that I read, something clearly happened that day, around those days, that was not the case the day after.”

Navarro added, “I saw Joe Biden, 24 hours after that debate, here in New York. He was a completely different person.”

She later reflected, “I saw Joe Biden when he came to ‘The View’ after he dropped out, and he was a completely different person than what we saw at that debate. What happened around those days, I don’t know. And can I tell you something? I don’t care, because I want to talk about the future and how we fight Donald Trump and how we get rid of Donald Trump.”

Meanwhile, Allison doubled down, declaring, “What we are hearing right now is unacceptable to me, and I am a Democrat. That night of the debate was terrifying for many, many, it was scary.

It hurt my heart, but it was very clear that that might not have been the first time. And I find that unacceptable. I would find that unacceptable in a Trump Administration, in an Obama Administration, in a Bush administration and in a Biden administration.”

The truth will set you free. But not everyone is happy about it.

And now a whistleblower is set to expose a major cover-up in front of Congress.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., dropped a bombshell Thursday on Fox News, revealing that Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former insider, is set to spill the beans next week before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee.

She’ll unpack the social media titan’s murky internal culture and its questionable overseas dealings—the very issues that got her explosive memoir yanked from shelves earlier this year.

In a fiery statement to Fox News Digital, Hawley didn’t hold back, branding Meta “an amoral and corrupt company that crafted a custom censorship system for Communist China.” He also slammed their efforts to gag a truth-teller.

“Sarah Wynn-Williams alleges that Facebook is an amoral and corrupt company that crafted a custom censorship system for Communist China,” Hawley told Fox News Digital.

“Is it a surprise to anyone that Meta secured a gag order against her? Censorship is what Big Tech does best, and since Facebook is trying to quash her story, my subcommittee is going to officially investigate it,” he vowed, signaling a no-nonsense probe.

Her shelved memoir, Careless People, aimed to expose what Wynn-Williams calls Facebook’s cozy ties with regimes like China’s Communist Party, including “plans to build censorship tools, punish dissidents, and make American user data available to the CCP.”

Hawley, a key player on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, personally invited Wynn-Williams to testify after Meta killed her book. On X, he promised she’d go “in public, under oath” to lay out the “explosive” details that never saw daylight.

Insiders told Fox News Digital the hearing is a workaround to air her claims while dodging the arbitration chokehold Meta slapped on her.

The scoop, first broken to Fox News Digital, follows Meta’s move earlier this year to block Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism—a six-year insider’s account that had buzzed as one of 2024’s most anticipated reads, racking up early praise from the New York Times and beyond. It even hit pre-sale on Amazon before Meta pulled the plug.

The book promised a raw look at Meta’s internal rot—alleged harassment reaching the top brass—and its dealings with shady regimes.

But in March, Meta flexed its legal muscle, winning an arbitration fight to bury it, citing Wynn-Williams’ nondisclosure agreements. They’ve since painted her as a “disgruntled employee.”

Meta’s Dani Lever shot back to Fox News Digital, insisting, “We do not operate our services in China today,” echoing Mark Zuckerberg’s 2019 pivot away from expansion there. Lever admitted past interest was no secret—part of Facebook’s old “connect the world” spiel—but said it’s ancient history.

Still, Hawley and GOP panel allies aren’t buying it. Just a day before, they kicked off an investigation into Meta’s China ties, zeroing in on AI tools possibly handed to the CCP. They’ve demanded Meta cough up “records and communications pertaining to Meta’s operations within China, including the potential use of AI models developed by or in collaboration with the CCP.”

Senate Republicans aren’t letting Meta’s muzzle slow them down. Citing internal docs, they claim Facebook’s playbook “reportedly included more engagement with the CCP, and later included plans to partner with a Chinese company to build censorship tools and provide the CCP with user data.”

Worse, they say, “Facebook’s censorship efforts on behalf of the CCP allegedly extended to dissidents outside of China, including in the United States.”

Next week’s testimony could light a fuse under Meta’s carefully curated image—and Hawley’s ready to strike the match.