Mainstream outlets have it out for Trump. And now they’re done for.

Because Trump was handed a major victory that put the left-wing media on its heels.

ABC News and its lead anchor George Stephanopoulos have settled a defamation lawsuit brought by President-elect Donald Trump, agreeing to a $15 million payout.

The settlement, filed on Saturday, avoids a high-profile trial and requires ABC News to make a $15 million charitable contribution toward a “Presidential foundation and museum to be established by or for Plaintiff, as Presidents of the United States of America have established in the past.”

Additionally, the network must pay $1 million to cover Trump’s legal fees.

As part of the deal, Stephanopoulos and ABC News issued statements of “regret” in an editor’s note appended to a March 10, 2024, article. The note states:

“ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024.”

ABC News attempted to spin the outcome, with a spokesperson telling Fox News Digital, “We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing.”

The lawsuit stemmed from Stephanopoulos’ false statements during a heated interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., where he claimed that Trump had been found “liable for r*pe” in a civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll.

Stephanopoulos grilled Mace, saying, “Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for r*pe and for defaming the victim of that r*pe.” This assertion was repeated ten times during the interview, despite the jury’s actual finding that Trump was liable for “s*xual abuse,” a legally distinct term under New York law.

In a later ruling, Judge Lewis Kaplan acknowledged the jury’s decision, noting that while Carroll failed to prove r*pe under New York Penal Law, the word “r*pe” might still apply as commonly understood.

Nonetheless, Stephanopoulos’ repeated mischaracterization formed the basis of Trump’s defamation case.

Initially dismissive of the lawsuit, Stephanopoulos doubled down during an interview with Stephen Colbert, stating, “Trump sued me because I used the word ‘r*pe,’ even though a judge said that’s in fact what did happen. We filed a motion to dismiss.”

However, momentum shifted when U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid ordered both parties to sit for depositions, with a Dec. 24 deadline looming for a motion for summary judgment. Facing the prospect of a trial, ABC News ultimately agreed to settle.

Trump was represented by Florida attorneys Alejandro Brito and Richard Klugh. The settlement, filed in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court, is another victory in a growing list of legal wins for the president-elect and his legal team, led by senior adviser Boris Epshteyn.

These successes include Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to the 2020 election and Smith abandoning his appeal in the classified records case after a federal judge ruled his appointment unlawful.

In New York, Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump’s motion to dismiss charges from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case and removed sentencing from the schedule.

Trump isn’t stopping there. He’s pursuing a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News, alleging the network engaged in “deceptive conduct” to interfere with the election during an October interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The settlement with ABC News underscores Trump’s ability to hold media outlets accountable, turning baseless attacks into decisive victories as he moves closer to his return to the Oval Office.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Pelosi likes to style herself as a devout Catholic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And now this Catholic Archbishop eviscerated Nancy Pelosi with an unprecedented announcement.

In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Pelosi dismissed the Archbishop’s instruction, saying:

“I received Communion anyway. That’s his problem, not mine. My Catholic faith is, Christ is my savior. It has nothing to do with the bishops.”

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone addressed Nancy Pelosi’s recent remarks about continuing to receive Communion despite his directive that she abstain until repenting for her pro-abortion stance.

Archbishop Cordileone issued a response on December 10, urging prayers for Pelosi’s change of heart on the sanctity of life.

“First and foremost, I would like to renew my request for prayers for the Speaker’s conversion on the issue of human life in the womb, that it be consistent with the respect for human dignity she displays in so many other contexts.”

He also cited Ezekiel 3:20-21 as guiding his actions as a spiritual leader.

In the passage, the Lord warns Ezekiel that failing to admonish sinners puts their blood on his hands.

“As a pastor of souls, my overriding concern and chief responsibility is the salvation of souls,” Cordileone wrote.

“And as Ezekiel reminds us, for a pastor to fulfill his calling, he has the duty not only to teach, console, heal and forgive, but also, when necessary, to correct, admonish and call to conversion.”

The Archbishop extended an invitation for dialogue, emphasizing its power to foster understanding and reconciliation.

He wrote, “Such dialogue can dispel misperceptions and melt away hostilities, and build new bonds of friendship.”

Cordileone expressed hope for discussions on both their areas of disagreement and alignment, stating:

“I ask this not only to dialogue in areas of disagreement, such as if and when it can ever be morally permissible to kill innocent human life, but also in other critical areas where our views on behalf of human life and dignity are aligned.”

Concluding his message, the Archbishop reiterated a cornerstone of Catholic faith: “This should not be a problem, as Catholics are not afraid of the truth.”

But no one should be surprised by her disregard for her own Church’s directions.

She also supports abortion up until the point of birth and LGBTQ marriage, two things the Catholic Church has spoken vehemently against.

At the end of the day, to her, she is her own authority.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

It’s hard to believe our politicians can be this dense. Unfortunately, it’s the truth.

And now Congress erupted in chaos for the the dumbest reason imaginable.

The House approved its annual defense bill on Wednesday, delivering a major pay raise for junior enlisted troops and targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at the Pentagon.

The bill passed with a 281-140 vote, revealing sharp partisan divides. Sixteen Republicans opposed the legislation, while only 81 Democrats supported it, with 124 voting no—a stark departure from past bipartisan consensus.

Key opposition from Democrats centered on a controversial provision restricting coverage for transgender treatments for minors.

The bill now heads to the Senate before landing on President Biden’s desk for signature.

The 1,800-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allocates $895.2 billion for defense and national security, a modest 1% increase over last year’s budget. The legislation, delayed more than two months into the fiscal year, outlines critical defense spending but fell short of the larger increases sought by defense hawks.

A central focus of this year’s bill is improving service members’ quality of life amid persistent recruitment struggles. Key measures include a historic 14.5% pay increase for junior enlisted troops, expanded child care access, and job support for military spouses. Additionally, all service members will see a 4.5% across-the-board pay raise starting January 1.

While typically bipartisan, this year’s NDAA has been contentious due to its focus on eliminating so-called “woke” policies. Democrats balked at provisions like the prohibition on Tricare covering transgender services for minors, a move House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., decried as harmful.

“Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong,” Smith said. “This provision injected a level of partisanship not traditionally seen in defense bills.”

The proposal aims to prevent medical interventions that could result in sterilization of minors. However, broader bans on gender transition surgeries for adults and mask mandates did not make it into the final bill.

Other provisions in the NDAA address pressing national security concerns. The bill authorizes deploying the National Guard to the southern border to aid in apprehending illegal immigrants and curbing drug trafficking.

It also includes a quirky directive for the Air Force to consider a pilot program allowing airmen and Space Force personnel to grow beards. The secretary of the Air Force must brief lawmakers on the feasibility of this initiative.

Democrats voiced frustration over omissions in the bill, including expanded access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for service members. Currently, military health care only covers IVF if infertility stems from service-related injuries or illness.

Meanwhile, the NDAA retains a Pentagon policy reimbursing service members for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions.

The bill places a hiring freeze on DEI-related positions pending an investigation into the Pentagon’s DEI programs and bans contracts with advertising companies that blacklist conservative news outlets.

Additionally, it guts funding for the Biden administration’s “Countering Extremist Activity Working Group” and prohibits climate change programs or climate-based guidance on weapons systems.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., highlighted $31 billion in savings achieved through cuts to “inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and bloated Pentagon bureaucracy.”

Despite its comprehensive scope, the compromise NDAA establishes policies for the nation’s largest government agency, but a separate defense spending bill is required to fund its initiatives.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The cracks in the Democrat Party are only getting bigger. And it’s no surprise why.

Now Senator John Fetterman blindsided Democrats with one surprising betrayal.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), known for frequently stepping away from the Left’s standard playbook, did so again recently by condemning leftists on social media who cheered the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Thompson was tragically shot and killed on December 4 near the entrance of the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan.

Following the arrest of a suspect in the case, some left-wing commentators celebrated the killing online.

“He’s the ahole that’s going to die in prison,” Fetterman remarked, addressing the toxic reaction.

“Congratulations if you want to celebrate that. A sewer is going to sewer. That’s what social media is about. And I don’t know why the media wants to turn that into a story, just with these trolls saying these kinds of things anonymously like that. I don’t know why that’s news. Remember, he has two children that are going to grow up without their father… It’s vile. And if you’ve gunned someone down that you don’t happen to agree with their views or the business that they’re in, hey, you know, I’m next, they’re next, he’s next, she’s next.”

Fetterman’s willingness to challenge leftist orthodoxy is nothing new. In May, during a commencement speech at Yeshiva University, he dramatically removed his Harvard University collar in protest.

Speaking as a Harvard alumnus and staunch supporter of Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre that left over 1,200 Israelis dead, Fetterman stated:

“I have been profoundly disappointed in the way — Harvard’s inability to stand up for the Jewish community after October 7. And for me personally, I do not fundamentally believe that it is right for me to wear this today.”

In April, he voiced strong support for law enforcement, denouncing squatter rights in comments to the New York Post.

Fetterman said:

“Squatters have no rights. How can you even pretend that this is anything other than you’re just breaking the law? … I am not woke. … It’s wild that if you go away on a long trip, for 30 days, and someone breaks into your home and suddenly they have rights. This is crazy. Like if somebody stole your car, and then they held it for 30 days, then somehow you now have some rights?”

However, Fetterman hasn’t always distanced himself from the Left.

Just before the November election, he lashed out at critics of the Democrats’ radical transgender agenda, labeling them “ahole[s].”

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on State of the Union, Fetterman criticized political ads from the Trump campaign targeting transgender issues. He said:

“If your political capital comes from picking on trans kids or gay kids or anything like that, that’s — you’re just bankrupt throughout all of this. … My version of being a being a man is, it’s like, hey, I like ribeyes, I like Motorhead, and I’m never going to pick on trans kids and gay kids or things. And it’s just sad that the other side chooses to kind of pick on members of those communities. And, again, it’s just — it’s just a warped version of — it doesn’t make you tough. It doesn’t make you a man to pick on trans or gay kids. … It just makes you an ahole.”

Fetterman’s complex political persona continues to baffle both allies and opponents, showcasing a mix of bold independence and staunch progressive advocacy depending on the issue.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Everyone is jumping ship. No one wants to be around when Trump comes back into his own.

And now major resignation news from the White House is dropping jaws

FBI Director Christopher Wray announced his plans to step down at the conclusion of the Biden administration, marking the end of a tenure that many conservatives viewed as emblematic of the Bureau’s politicization under Democrat leadership.

Fox News obtained exclusive information just before Wray’s announcement, revealing he would break the news during an FBI town hall in Washington, D.C., attended virtually by thousands of FBI employees nationwide.

“After weeks of careful thought, I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Wray said during the town hall.

“My goal is to keep the focus on our mission — the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day. In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”

Wray painted his decision as one rooted in service and integrity, emphasizing his love for the FBI and its mission.

However, critics have questioned his ability to steer the agency away from political bias during the Biden years, citing controversies ranging from the handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop investigation to accusations of selective enforcement on January 6 defendants.

“When you look at where the threats are headed, it’s clear that the importance of our work — keeping Americans safe and upholding the Constitution — will not change,” Wray said. “And what absolutely cannot, must not change is our commitment to doing the right thing, the right way, every time.”

Wray also touted the FBI’s adherence to its “core values” and “dedication to independence and objectivity,” though these claims may ring hollow to those who view the agency as having lost public trust under his leadership.

“Our adherence to our core values, our dedication to independence and objectivity and our defense of the rule of law — those fundamental aspects of who we are must never change.

That’s the real strength of the FBI — the importance of our mission, the quality of our people and their dedication to service over self.

“It’s an unshakeable foundation that’s stood the test of time and cannot be easily moved. And it — you, the men and women of the FBI — are why the bureau will endure and remain successful long into the future,” Wray said.

Wray, seven years into his 10-year term, was appointed by President Trump in 2017 following the dismissal of former Director James Comey. However, Wray’s leadership has often drawn criticism from conservatives for his perceived alignment with the deep-state status quo.

Now that President Trump has been re-elected, Wray faces an ultimatum: leave on his own terms or face replacement.

Trump has already announced his nomination of Kash Patel, a trusted ally and vocal critic of the FBI’s handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to take the helm. Patel’s confirmation would mark a pivotal shift for the Bureau.

Wray is expected to step down in January, just ahead of Trump’s inauguration. Deputy Director Paul Abbate, a longtime Bureau insider, will serve as acting director until Patel’s confirmation.

Abbate, who reportedly planned to retire in the new year, is unlikely to hold the post for long.

As Wray prepares to exit, many Republicans are eager to see a new FBI leadership dedicated to restoring public trust, rooting out partisanship, and ensuring equal application of the law — a stark departure from the agency’s direction during Wray’s tenure.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Left is bleeding support. Even their own members are jumping ship.

And now this Democrat dropped jaws by suddenly switching parties.

House Speaker Daniel “Danny” Perez, R-Miami, celebrated the newest addition to the Republican supermajority on Monday as Rep. Susan Valdes, R-Tampa, announced her abrupt switch from the Democratic Party to the GOP.

“I’m thrilled to welcome @SusanLValdesFL to the House Republican supermajority,” Perez shared on social media, signaling a significant political shakeup in Florida’s state legislature.

The timing of Valdes’ defection has raised eyebrows, as she was just reelected last month as a Democrat in House District 64, which spans part of Hillsborough County. In that race, Valdes defeated Republican challenger Maura Cruz Lanz by five points.

She also bested Cruz Lanz as a Democrat in 2022 by seven points. However, with term limits preventing her from seeking reelection in her current seat, Valdes’ move appears to be a pivot for her political future.

Valdes’ decision follows her failed bid to lead the Hillsborough County Democratic Party, where she lost to progressive candidate Vanessa Lester.

This loss may have marked a turning point for Valdes, who described her reasons for the party switch in a statement.

“Effective immediately, I will change my registration from a Democrat to Republican and will join the Republican Conference in the Florida House of Representatives,” Valdes announced.

“Our Speaker, Rep. Daniel Perez, has laid out a vision for the House that focuses on empowering House members to work on real problems facing our communities.”

Hillsborough County’s political landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years.

hile Democrats still outnumber Republicans by approximately 3,300 registered voters, Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Hillsborough County by nearly 21,000 votes in the 2024 presidential election, a stark reversal from Joe Biden’s seven-point win in 2020.

Valdes framed her move as a step toward achieving tangible results for her constituents.

“I want to be part of solving problems for West Tampa. I’m tired of being the party of protesting when I got into politics to be part of the party of progress,” she explained.

“I know that I won’t agree with my fellow Republican House members on every issue, but I know that in their caucus, I will be welcomed and treated with respect.”

Governor Ron DeSantis also welcomed Valdes to the Republican fold, echoing Perez’s enthusiasm. Valdes affirmed her commitment to her community, stating, “I love my community, and I will continue to fight every day to benefit the people of West Tampa, Hillsborough County, and the state of Florida. And in my heart, I know the best way to do that is to stand with Speaker Perez and join the Republican supermajority in the Florida House of Representatives.”

Valdes’ decision solidifies the GOP’s dominance in the Florida House, expanding their supermajority to 86 seats out of 120, while reducing the Democratic caucus to just 34 members.

Democratic House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, also representing Tampa, expressed disappointment over Valdes’ departure. “I was surprised and disappointed today at the announcement by Representative Susan Valdes that she would be leaving the Democratic Caucus to join the Republican Caucus,” Driskell said.

“Rep. Valdes was elected by her constituents as a Democrat to fight for our shared values here in Tallahassee and has consistently and publicly shared that she feels the Republican Party does not adequately represent her constituents or beliefs. It is sad she has elevated her own aspirations above the needs of her district.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The radical Left are trying to Trump-proof the next four years. But they aren’t getting away with it that easily.

And now Republicans are furious after the White House made this shocking announcement.

The House is poised to vote Wednesday on a bill that would significantly expand the number of district court judges, but the measure faces a potential veto from President Biden, turning what was once a bipartisan effort into a contentious political battle.

The legislation, introduced by Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, is known as the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act, or JUDGES Act. The bill, which sailed through the Senate with unanimous approval earlier this year, proposes adding 63 permanent district court judgeships and three temporary positions over the next decade.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana championed the bill during his weekly press conference, highlighting the dire need to alleviate the overwhelming caseload burdening the federal judiciary.

“More judges means more Americans can access equal and impartial justice without waiting years to get it,” Johnson said. “I’m excited to see this bill pass. I used to be a federal court litigator, and I can tell you, it’s desperately needed.”

Indeed, the creation of new judgeships has been overdue. Congress hasn’t added any new district court positions in over two decades and hasn’t undertaken an expansion on the scale proposed by the JUDGES Act in more than 30 years.

In that time, district court filings have surged by 30%, and as of last spring, nearly 700,000 cases were pending across the nation’s 94 district courts, which currently operate with 677 judgeships, including 10 temporary posts.

The bill’s rollout staggers the appointment of judges over several years, with President-elect Donald Trump set to nominate 22 new district court judges during his upcoming term.

This allocation has sparked a partisan clash, with Democrats accusing Republicans of timing the bill to benefit their party’s incoming administration.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted House Republicans for delaying the bill’s vote until after Election Day, undermining what he described as the bipartisan agreement behind the legislation.

“The Senate did its part and passed the bill last summer, but House Republican leadership was unwilling to take a chance on their own candidate and refused to bring the bill to the floor until now, after the election,” Nadler said during a House Rules Committee meeting.

“Thus, the agreement central to the JUDGES Act—that the opportunity to appoint new judges be given to an unknown future president—is now broken.”

The White House echoed Nadler’s concerns in a veto threat issued by the Office of Management and Budget, accusing Republicans of ulterior motives.

The administration’s statement suggested the timing was intended to allow Trump to fill newly created judgeships while bypassing broader concerns about judicial efficiency and fairness.

“Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated,” the statement read.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky dismissed the White House’s position, arguing that a veto would be purely partisan.

“It’s almost inconceivable that a lame-duck president could consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite,” McConnell said.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio also dismissed Biden’s veto threat, pointing out that half of the appointments Trump would make are in states with two Democratic senators, ensuring bipartisan input in the selection process.

States like Delaware, California, and New Jersey would gain new judgeships in the coming years if the bill passes. “I don’t know what could be more fair,” Jordan said.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Our founders made the branches of government as a system of checks and balances. Not everyone is happy about that.

And now a Democrat Senator declared all out war on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., are spearheading a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on future Supreme Court justices, aiming to address concerns over lifetime appointments and their impact on public trust.

Currently, Supreme Court justices enjoy lifetime tenure as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which states they “… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …”

The proposed amendment would limit future justices to 18-year terms, with new terms starting every two years.

However, this change would only apply to justices appointed after the amendment’s ratification. Current justices would retain the option to serve as long as they choose.

“The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting Justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current Justices retire,” Manchin’s press release explains.

“During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current Justice leaves the bench. Once a current Justice retires, the newly appointed Justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of Justices on the Court.”

Manchin, who has represented West Virginia in the Senate since 2010 and recently announced he would not seek re-election, is set to conclude his term in less than a month.

“I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court.

“The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land,” Manchin said in the press release.”

“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine Justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the Court, allowing the President to appoint a new Justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system.”

A key feature of the amendment would codify the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, a figure established by the Judiciary Act of 1869 but not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court’s website, that number has remained unchanged since then.

Currently, three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, while only one was appointed by President Joe Biden.

Welch echoed Manchin’s sentiments, emphasizing the need for reform to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation’s most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary. Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans,” Welch said in the press release.

“I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden is doing everything he can to hand Donald Trump a mess. But this takes the cake.

Because Joe Biden declared war on this foreign nation and now the world is on fire.

In the wake of the Assad regime’s collapse in Syria over the weekend, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) revealed that American forces carried out “precision airstrikes targeting known ISIS camps and operatives” in central Syria on Sunday.

CENTCOM detailed its operation as an effort to prevent ISIS from exploiting Syria’s chaotic situation.

“The strikes against the ISIS leaders, operatives, and camps were conducted as part of the ongoing mission to disrupt, degrade, and defeat ISIS, in order to prevent the terrorist group from conducting external operations and to ensure that ISIS does not seek to take advantage of the current situation to reconstitute in central Syria,” the statement read.

The operation involved a massive show of strength, hitting over 75 targets using advanced assets like B-52s, F-15s, and A-10s.

While CENTCOM claimed no civilian casualties and emphasized ongoing efforts with regional partners, the timing and effectiveness of the strikes raise questions about the Biden administration’s response to an escalating crisis.

General Michael Erik Kurilla warned:

“There should be no doubt — we will not allow ISIS to reconstitute and take advantage of the current situation in Syria. All organizations in Syria should know that we will hold them accountable if they partner with or support ISIS in any way.”

Meanwhile, reports surfaced that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad had fled to Russia with his family, securing asylum in Moscow as rebel forces stormed Damascus.

This dramatic turn of events marks a significant failure for Biden, whose foreign policy decisions continue to embolden adversaries while leaving Americans skeptical about his leadership.

In public remarks, President Joe Biden highlighted the airstrikes, stating his administration’s resolve to prevent ISIS from regaining strength.

“We’re clear-eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to re-establish its capabilities and to create a safe haven,” Biden said.

“We will not let that happen.”

But after years of Biden’s missteps in the Middle East, many wonder whether his words carry weight or are just more empty promises.

In contrast, President-elect Donald Trump, poised to take office in just over five weeks, offered a refreshingly bold perspective.

Posting on X, Trump called Syria a “mess” and firmly stated that the United States should “NOT GET INVOLVED!”

Trump’s clear stance reflects his America First philosophy and signals a dramatic shift from Biden’s muddled, interventionist approach.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The boys are back in town. And they’re taking no prisoners.

And now Donald Trump completely humiliated a top Leftist world leader.

Canada’s Prime Minister has earned a tongue-in-cheek new title — “Governor” Justin Trudeau — courtesy of President-elect Donald Trump, who once again demonstrated his knack for boldness and humor during a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

“It was a pleasure to have dinner the other night with Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social early Tuesday.

“I look forward to seeing the Governor again soon so that we may continue our in-depth talks on Tariffs and Trade, the results of which will be truly spectacular for all!”

The remark, paired with Mr. Trump’s characteristic flair, came as part of a larger conversation about his no-nonsense approach to trade and tariffs.

Mr. Trump reportedly joked about annexing Canada as a U.S. state if it couldn’t manage the pressure of his proposed tariffs.

This lighthearted jab underscores his America First stance, aimed at leveling the playing field for American workers and industries.

Trump has proposed a tough line on trade, threatening a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico if they fail to address illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Critics may balk at his bold moves, but his strategy remains clear: protect American jobs, incentivize domestic production, and fund critical domestic programs.

While opponents often misunderstand tariffs, Mr. Trump frames them as a powerful tool to recalibrate America’s trade relationships, long tilted in favor of other countries.

“If we’re going to subsidize them, let them become a state. We’re subsidizing Mexico, and we’re subsidizing Canada,” he said recently on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Reports suggest that during the dinner, Mr. Trudeau expressed concern about the impact of U.S. tariffs on Canada’s economy, prompting Mr. Trump’s witty remark about statehood.

But behind the humor lies a serious critique of one-sided trade relationships that have left the U.S. footing the bill while other nations reap the benefits.

Whether the president-elect’s proposed tariffs are a negotiating tactic or a policy-in-waiting, one thing is certain: Donald Trump’s trade philosophy is unapologetically pro-American.

His vision seeks to put the U.S. back in the driver’s seat, leaving behind decades of weak leadership epitomized by globalists who let American industries falter.

Trudeau’s new “title” may be a joke, but Trump’s determination to secure fair trade for the U.S. is anything but.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Supreme Court has come under attack in recent years. But now it’s coming from within.

And Supreme Court Justice shocked all after turning on the Court.

The Supreme Court opted Monday not to take up a case challenging the affirmative action policy at three prominent Boston schools, but several justices signaled that the issue is far from resolved and will require the Court’s attention in the future.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed concern, noting that this is the second instance in recent months where the Court has declined to hear a case involving high schools pushing the boundaries of affirmative action policies in light of last year’s landmark decision striking down race-based admissions practices.

The case stemmed from Boston’s decision to overhaul its admissions rules for the 2021-2022 school year.

The new approach aimed to boost Black and Hispanic enrollment at three elite high schools by shifting from a primarily grade and exam-based system to one prioritizing students from lower-income neighborhoods.

However, the policy’s development was clouded by controversial remarks from Boston officials, who derided “White racists,” mocked Asian American names, and explicitly stated their goal of increasing Black and Latino representation in the schools.

Justice Alito said such comments revealed a troubling bias.

“As the Committee members made ’explicit,’ they worked to decrease the number of white and Asian students at the exam schools in service of ’racial equity,’” he wrote. “That is racial balancing by another name and is undoubtedly unconstitutional.”

For the Supreme Court to take up a case, four justices must agree to hear it.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Alito in favoring a review. Meanwhile, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised concerns about Boston’s actions but argued the case wasn’t ready for Supreme Court consideration, as the city has since replaced the disputed policy.

However, Gorsuch cautioned lower courts against interpreting the refusal to hear the case as an endorsement of Boston’s geography-based admissions rules and encouraged scrutiny of the issues Alito highlighted.

Boston is one of many jurisdictions grappling with how to achieve diversity in selective schools following last year’s Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions.

That 6-3 ruling struck down race-based policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, with the Court declaring such preferences unconstitutional after exceeding their constitutional limits.

In response, several public school systems have turned to geography-based admissions policies to foster diversity.

Among them is Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Virginia, whose policy also faced a legal challenge that the Supreme Court declined to hear earlier this year.

Justice Alito warned that the Court’s reluctance to intervene now does not signal approval.

“We have now twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of Students for Fair Admissions,” he wrote.

“I would reject root and branch this dangerously distorted view of disparate impact.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Vice President Harris can’t escape the embarrassment. And it’s only getting worse.

And now Kamala Harris was just humiliated by Jill Biden in a spectacular way.

President Biden, who’s stumbling through his lame-duck tenure, and first lady Jill Biden blatantly snubbed a beaming Vice President Kamala Harris at the Kennedy Center Honors.

Harris, clapping enthusiastically for the couple, was left ignored as the Bidens basked in a standing ovation, as awkward footage reveals.

Despite standing right next to Harris and her husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, the Bidens avoided so much as a glance toward their vice president during the 47th annual event.

The frosty interaction was impossible to miss.

Clips of the cold-shoulder moment quickly lit up X (formerly Twitter), with viewers pointing out the Bidens’ deliberate avoidance.

“Jill and Joe Biden are refusing to even look at Kamala Harris tonight,” the popular X account End Wokeness noted in a post alongside the video, which garnered more than 780,000 views by early Monday.

Jill and Joe Biden are refusing to even look at Kamala Harris tonight 😬 pic.twitter.com/qL6jftoLsu

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 9, 2024

Social media users had a field day, mocking the strained interaction. Many cracked jokes about the Bidens’ demeanor, with some suggesting they “must have voted for President Trump,” a sly nod to his decisive victory over the Democrats in last month’s election.

Critics also speculated on the apparent fractures within the party. “What happened to the joy?” one user asked, highlighting the Democrats’ seemingly defeated and divided state.

Another commentator speculated on the cause of the tension:

“Can you blame them[?] Best case scenario she convinced him she would win, worst case the[y] ousted him so she could run. Either way, they probably feel robbed.”

One observer simply summed up the night: “I love how awkward it is for them.”

The uncomfortable moment unfolded during Sunday night’s Kennedy Center Honors, a ceremony that typically celebrates unity and achievement.

Hosted by Queen Latifah, this year’s event honored artists such as members of the Grateful Dead, Bonnie Raitt, and Francis Ford Coppola at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC.

But the Bidens’ glaring snub of their vice president overshadowed the celebrations.

Despite reports that Kamala may try another run for president in 2028, it seems certain that her aspirations are dead in the water.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.