This presidency is one for the history books. And not everyone is happy about that.

Because the Trump administration revoked the security clearance of activist ex-Biden official.

Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 Officials, Citing Intelligence Abuses

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former officials, including Maher Bitar, former National Security Council (NSC) senior director for intelligence programs under President Joe Biden, on August 21, 2025.

Gabbard cited “abuses of power” related to the Russia collusion investigation and other intelligence violations, including unauthorized leaks and tradecraft breaches, as the basis for the action, per a statement on X.

Bitar, now national security adviser to Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), previously served as a congressional aide during President Donald Trump’s 2020 impeachment proceedings.

The decision, directed by Trump, has sparked debate over accountability in the intelligence community, with supporters praising the move as a correction of past overreaches and critics arguing it risks politicizing national security.

Details of the Revocations

Bitar, who held top-secret clearance during his NSC tenure from January 2021 to January 2025, had access to sensitive intelligence, including covert operations and clandestine agent identities.

Gabbard stated that the revoked officials “politicized and manipulated intelligence” and “broke the sacred trust” of their oaths, emphasizing that security clearances are a privilege contingent on upholding public trust.

Other affected officials include former Principal Deputy DNI Stephanie O’Sullivan, former NSC spokeswoman Emily Horne, and Vinh X. Nguyen, a senior National Security Agency official, all linked to the Obama administration’s intelligence operations.

Critics, including Gabbard, argue these officials contributed to a discredited 2017 intelligence assessment alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election, based partly on a private dossier later found to contain unverified claims.

Context and Reactions

The revocations follow new intelligence disclosures under Trump’s second term, which allege efforts by some officials to falsely discredit him, including unmasking requests by former UN Ambassador Samantha Power and leaks attributed to Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee, per congressional documents.

A Schiff spokesman defended Bitar, calling him a “trusted and deeply experienced national security professional” with nearly 15 years of service, while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, referring to Gabbard’s X post.

Bitar’s past affiliations with Students for Justice in Palestine and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), criticized by Israel for ties to Hamas, have fueled controversy, with former Ambassador David Friedman and activist Laura Loomer questioning his suitability for sensitive roles.

America has been invaded by illegal immigrants. Now the gloves are off.

And the US military issued an unprecedented order for the southern border.

Pentagon Introduces Mexican Border Defense Medal to Honor Troops in Trump’s Crackdown on Illegal Immigration

The Pentagon has introduced the Mexican Border Defense Medal (MBDM) to recognize U.S. service members deployed to the southern border since January 20, 2025, as part of President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign to curb illegal immigration, according to an August 13 Pentagon memorandum confirmed by a U.S. defense official to Fox News Digital.

Replacing the Armed Forces Service Medal (AFSM), previously awarded for border support since 2018, the MBDM honors approximately 8,500 troops, including 1,500 National Guard members, assigned to Joint Task Force Southern Border for their role in securing the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal crossings have dropped to under 5,000 per month in 2025, per Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

Medal Eligibility and Task Force Operations

Eligibility for the MBDM requires service members to be permanently assigned, attached, or detailed to a unit supporting CBP within 100 nautical miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, or within 24 nautical miles of adjacent U.S. waters, for at least 30 consecutive or nonconsecutive days, per the Pentagon memo.

The task force, launched in March 2025, completed 3,500 patrols by July, enhancing detection, monitoring, and drug interdiction efforts, including a notable seizure of 1,296 pounds of cocaine by the USS Sampson and U.S. Coast Guard, per Defense World.

Four newly established national defense areas, covering 110,000 acres, grant troops authority to detain illegal trespassers, a power previously restricted under federal law, enabling swift handovers to CBP, as stated by Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot of U.S. Northern Command.

Service members previously awarded the AFSM for border duty may apply to exchange it for the MBDM but cannot hold both for the same period, ensuring the new medal distinctly honors Trump’s border security mission.

Impact and Controversy

The MBDM, positioned after the Korea Defense Service Medal in precedence, reflects a historic shift in recognizing military contributions to border enforcement, drawing parallels to the 1917 Mexican Service Medal and 1918 Mexican Border Service Medal issued during the Pancho Villa Expedition.

Supporters, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, praise the medal as a fitting tribute to troops who’ve reduced illegal immigration by over 70% since January, per posts on X, easing pressure on local economies and public services.

Critics, however, argue the medal glorifies a militarized approach, with some X users calling it a “participation trophy” that distracts from broader immigration policy challenges.

The Pentagon’s $200 million reallocation to replace a 12-foot mesh barrier with a 30-foot permanent wall at the Barry M. Goldwater Range further cements Trump’s focus on fortifying the border, a move credited with contributing to a 1.4 million drop in the U.S. immigrant population by June 2025, per Pew Research Center data.

Trump is moving fast to reshape America. There are years of damage that need to be undone.

And now the first fruits of Donald Trump’s agenda are sweeter than you’d expect.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Yields Historic Drop in US Immigrant Population

President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policies have achieved a historic milestone, reducing the US immigrant population by 1.5 million in the first six months of 2025, from 53.3 million to 51.9 million, according to the Pew Research Center, marking the first decline in 50 years.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that 1.6 million undocumented migrants have voluntarily left the US since Trump’s inauguration, driven by tightened border security and robust enforcement. Illegal border crossings have plummeted to under 5,000 per month, with zero migrants released into the US, a stark contrast to the estimated 10 million illegal entries during the Biden administration, per DHS data.

Trump’s leadership has restored order, prioritizing American workers and public resources, though critics argue the measures disrupt communities and legal immigration pathways.

Enforcement Achievements and Economic Impact

The Trump administration’s efforts include a massive deportation push, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies arresting 359,000 undocumented migrants and deporting 332,000 in the first 200 days, as reported by DHS.

ICE, under Border Czar Tom Homan, targets 3,000 daily arrests, focusing on sanctuary cities like New York and Los Angeles, though meeting this quota consistently remains challenging. A record 60,000 immigrants are currently detained, with some opting for self-deportation via the CBP Home app.

The State Department revoked 6,000 student visas, citing crimes like assault or alleged terrorism support, though critics question the transparency of these revocations.

The immigrant workforce share dropped from 20% to 19%, reducing 750,000 immigrant workers, which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem credits for easing strain on public services and boosting local job markets.

Trump celebrated the negative net migration on Truth Social, calling it a victory for border security.

Context and Challenges

While the immigrant population remains high at 15.4% of the US total, surpassing historical peaks, the decline echoes the 1930s Great Depression exodus.

Supporters praise Trump’s policies for prioritizing national security and economic stability, but opponents, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that targeting non-criminals and revoking legal statuses risks due process and community cohesion.

Ongoing legal challenges and public protests highlight the contentious nature of these policies, yet the administration remains committed to its goal of deporting 1 million undocumented migrants annually, leveraging new funding and inter-agency support to expand detention capacity.

Biden’s administration was incredibly secret. And this proves it even more.

Because an ex-Biden advisor admitted a terrifying truth about Joe Biden’s time in office.

House Oversight Questions Biden’s Leadership as Spokesman Reveals Minimal Contact

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) described a “shocking” revelation on August 21, 2025, that former White House spokesman Ian Sams met President Joe Biden face-to-face only twice during his two-year tenure from mid-2022 to August 2024.

Comer, briefing reporters after Sams’ three-hour closed-door interview, called the testimony evidence of a cover-up surrounding Biden’s mental and physical capacity, raising concerns about who wielded executive authority during his presidency.

Sams, who left to advise Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign, also participated in one virtual meeting and a phone call with Biden, interactions Comer described as “very limited.”

Testimony and Oversight Probe

“This was a huge interview today, and I think it contradicts everything that the former Biden people are saying with respect to the president’s mental fitness,” Comer stated, noting that former special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents, spent more time with the president than Sams.

Hur’s 2024 report concluded Biden deliberately retained sensitive files but declined charges, citing his “poor memory” and age.

A Biden White House colleague confirmed Sams’ limited access, noting his office was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, not the West Wing, and he typically reported to intermediaries like communications chief Anita Dunn.

Another aide remarked that Sams’ two meetings were “more than I thought,” suggesting Biden was heavily insulated by a small circle.

Alleged Inner Circle Control

Comer’s probe, the 11th interview in an investigation into alleged misuse of executive power, points to a “politburo” of aides—Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Bruce Reed, Jill Biden, and Hunter Biden—making key decisions, as detailed in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s book “Original Sin.”

Former chief of staff Ron Klain and aide Annie Tomasini were also influential, though Tomasini, Jill Biden’s aide Anthony Bernal, and physician Kevin O’Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Klain testified that even national security adviser Jake Sullivan doubted Biden’s political viability in 2024, while Reed attributed Biden’s poor June 2024 debate performance to a stutter.

Donilon and Ricchetti defended Biden’s capabilities, with Ricchetti claiming his communication skills improved over time.

Pardons and Executive Actions

Sams expressed surprise at Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden for tax and gun convictions, as well as pre-emptive clemency for family members, Comer noted.

The investigation also scrutinizes nearly 2,500 commutations for “nonviolent” drug offenders, with The Post identifying a dozen involving violent crimes, and late pardons approved by former chief of staff Jeff Zients without Biden’s full awareness, per The New York Times.

Comer alleged that Biden’s isolation, particularly in his final year, enabled aides to dominate decision-making, including autopen-signed executive orders. Three aides—Andrew Bates, Karine Jean-Pierre, and Zients—await questioning in September. Biden’s representatives did not respond to inquiries.

Donald Trump has been persecuted more than any president in recent history. But now his name is cleared.

Because a federal court gave Donald Trump a huge win that put the witch hunts to bed.

New York Appeals Court Overturns $515M Fraud Fine Against Trump, Upholds Liability

President Donald Trump secured a significant legal victory on August 21, 2025, when New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, overturned a $464 million fine—ballooning to $515 million with interest—imposed in a civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James.

The 323-page ruling, split among three opinions, deemed the penalty “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment, with Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton stating it violated constitutional limits on fines.

However, the court upheld findings that Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization engaged in fraud by inflating asset values, such as Trump’s Trump Tower triplex and Mar-a-Lago estate, to secure favorable loan and insurance terms from 2011 to 2021.

The case now heads to New York’s Court of Appeals, as no majority opinion allows for an automatic appeal.

Case Details and Ruling

The ruling maintains non-monetary sanctions, including a three-year ban on Trump holding corporate directorships in New York, a two-year ban for his sons, and oversight by an independent monitor for the Trump Organization, measures paused during the appeal after Trump posted a $175 million bond.

James, who campaigned on investigating Obama’s successor, alleged “staggering fraud,” citing examples like Trump’s triplex falsely reported as 30,000 square feet (actually 11,000) and Mar-a-Lago valued at $517 million despite a $27 million tax valuation as a social club.

Trump, denying wrongdoing, celebrated on Truth Social, calling it a “TOTAL VICTORY” and a “political witch hunt” by James, whom he accused of targeting him for political gain. James, claiming a partial win, vowed to appeal to the state’s highest court, emphasizing the upheld fraud findings.

Trial and Broader Context

The decision follows an 11-week trial in 2023-2024, where Judge Arthur Engoron ruled Trump’s actions “shock the conscience.”

Critics, including Justice David Friedman, argued James overstepped her authority under New York Executive Law § 63(12), with no direct victims harmed, as lenders like Deutsche Bank were repaid.

James countered that the fraud disrupted market integrity. The ruling coincides with Justice Department probes into James for alleged mortgage fraud and civil rights violations, led by Trump’s appointee Ed Martin, who recently appeared outside James’ Brooklyn home.

Democrats, including James’ attorney Abbe Lowell, call these investigations “political retribution,” while Trump’s team, including former lawyer Alina Habba, hailed the ruling as proof of a “legally baseless” case.

America makes up the vast majority of NATO’s forces. And now it’s decision time.

Because Russia launched a surprise attack that put NATO on the back foot.

NATO Deploys German Jets as Russia Targets Ukraine Near Romanian Border

Two German Eurofighter Typhoon jets were scrambled from Romania’s Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base overnight on August 19, 2025, to monitor Russian drone and missile attacks targeting Ukraine’s Odesa region, less than a mile from NATO’s border, according to Romania’s Ministry of National Defense.

The deployment, part of NATO’s Enhanced Air Policing mission, followed a large-scale Russian assault involving 93 drones and two ballistic missiles, with 62 drones and one missile intercepted by Ukraine’s air force, per official reports.

No Russian projectiles entered Romanian airspace, but the strikes underscore ongoing tensions near NATO’s eastern flank as diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war continue.

Russian Attack and NATO Response

Romania’s Defense Ministry stated that the German jets were deployed “to monitor the air situation” in Tulcea County, near Ukraine’s Danube River ports, which were hit by Russian drones targeting oil and port facilities in Izmail.

Oleg Kiper, head of Odesa’s regional administration, reported damage to infrastructure and one injury. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy highlighted the human toll, noting a family with children aged 5 months, 4, and 6 years was wounded in Sumy, and a Donetsk glide bomb strike damaged five apartment buildings, trapping three people.

“All of these are demonstrative strikes that only confirm the need to put pressure on Moscow, the need to impose new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy is fully effective,” Zelenskyy posted on X, thanking partners like the U.S. and Europe for support.

Diplomatic Context and NATO’s Role

The attack follows high-level talks, including an August 15 summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and an August 18 White House meeting with Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other NATO leaders.

Despite these efforts, Russia’s bombardment persists, with Ukraine reporting 20 locations hit overnight.

NATO’s virtual meeting on August 20 aims to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, amid concerns over prior Russian drone incursions into NATO airspace in Romania, Poland, and Lithuania.

Romania’s Defense Ministry emphasized that “close cooperation with our allies in the framework of enhanced Air Policing missions strengthens Romania’s defense capability,” noting no airspace violations occurred during the latest incident.

Strategic and Regional Implications

The strikes highlight the strategic importance of Ukraine’s Danube ports for grain exports, critical to its economy, and the risks to NATO neighbors. Social media on X reflects heightened concern, with users like @Daily_MailUS noting Russia’s “brutal response” to peace talks.

The Biden administration, in a July 2025 statement, reaffirmed U.S. support for Ukraine’s air defenses, citing $8 billion in aid since 2022. Critics on X, including @3Xtraders, argue that NATO’s restraint in direct engagement avoids escalation but leaves Ukraine vulnerable, while supporters of the air policing mission stress its role in deterring Russian aggression without provoking conflict.

Gabbard is rooting out the corruption in the nation’s capital. And there’s plenty to go around.

Now Tulsi Gabbard just laid down the law on these D.C. Swamp monsters.

Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 Intelligence Officials Over 2016 Russia Assessment

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced on August 18, 2025, the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former intelligence officials, citing their alleged politicization and manipulation of intelligence, particularly in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The move, detailed in an Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) memo obtained by The New York Post, targets individuals involved in the Obama-ordered assessment, which Gabbard claims was part of a “treasonous conspiracy” to undermine President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory.

Revocation Details

The ODNI memo states, “The President has directed that, effective immediately, the security clearances of the 37 individuals are revoked,” noting their failure to safeguard classified information, adhere to tradecraft standards, or avoid politicizing intelligence.

Affected officials include former Principal Deputy DNI Stephanie O’Sullivan and Vinh Nguyen, both linked to the 2017 ICA, which concluded Russia sought to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump.

Other targeted individuals, such as Samantha Vinograd, Andrew P. Miller, Loren DeJonge Schulman, and Beth Sanner, held roles in the Obama or Biden administrations, with some signing statements critical of Trump, including a 2019 letter supporting his first impeachment inquiry.

Gabbard’s Claims and Declassified Documents

Gabbard, in a statement posted on X, emphasized, “Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the interests of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.”

She has prioritized depoliticizing the intelligence community, arguing that the 2017 ICA, ordered by President Barack Obama in December 2016, relied on flawed sources, including the debunked Steele dossier, and ignored evidence that Russia did not alter vote tallies. Declassified documents released by Gabbard in July 2025, including a 44-page House Intelligence Committee report from 2020, allege that Obama officials, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, manipulated the assessment to emphasize Russian support for Trump.

Context of the 2017 ICA

The 2017 ICA, produced by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS, concluded that Russia conducted an influence campaign to aid Trump’s election chances, a finding supported by a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report but contested by Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Ratcliffe’s recent review criticized the ICA’s “chaotic” and “atypical” process, suggesting political motives.

Gabbard’s declassified records highlight a December 2016 directive from Obama to investigate “Russia Election Meddling,” despite earlier assessments finding no evidence of vote tampering through cyberattacks.

Opposition and Concerns

Democrats and former intelligence officials have pushed back. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) called Gabbard’s accusations “baseless,” citing the Senate’s bipartisan confirmation of Russian interference. Susan Miller, a former CIA officer involved in the 2017 ICA, told NBC News that Gabbard’s claims misrepresent credible intelligence, stating, “We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the Russians’ specific goal was to get Trump elected.”

Obama’s spokesperson, Patrick Rodenbush, dismissed the allegations as “ridiculous” and a distraction, noting that no evidence suggests votes were altered. Concerns have been raised about Gabbard’s declassification process, with critics like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warning that unredacted releases could compromise sources and damage intelligence-sharing alliances.

American politicians can really be brainless sometimes. But this may take the cake.

Because the White House humiliated a leading Democrat for making the dumbest comment ever.

White House Dismisses Rep. McIver’s ‘Liberation Day’ Accusation as Political Stunt

The White House on August 18, 2025, sharply criticized Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) for claiming that President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Liberation Day” in reference to his Washington, D.C., crime crackdown is a coded endorsement of “white power.”

McIver, who faces federal charges from a June 2025 incident involving alleged assault and interference with immigration officers at a Newark, N.J., ICE facility, made the remarks on the “Defending Democracy with Marc Elias” podcast, accusing Trump of targeting cities led by Black mayors and sanctuary cities supporting immigration.

McIver’s Allegations

McIver expressed concerns over Trump’s decision to place Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department under Department of Justice control and deploy federal law enforcement and National Guard troops, warning it could “start a civil war” if applied to other Democrat-run cities.

“I think there’s an ultimate agenda of this administration to do these types of things,” she said, alleging Trump aims to provoke unrest: “Sic the military on the very people that they’re supposed to be protecting in these cities and then expect a certain response so that it can escalate — I truly believe that that’s what the president hopes for.”

She labeled Trump’s “Liberation Day” rhetoric as racist, stating, “When he says, ‘Oh,’ you know, ‘it’s Liberation Day,’ and all of these things, those are, you know, ways of him saying, ‘Oh, it’s white power.’ Those are racist remarks. His number one targets are cities that are led by black mayors.”

White House Response

The White House swiftly rebuked McIver’s claims. Spokesman Harrison Fields told The New York Post, “LaMonica McIver, whose claim to fame was assaulting federal agents, is an unserious person whose comments are nothing more than a political stunt, much like her attempted catfight in front of an ICE facility. Congress would be better off if she left, and the people of New Jersey would benefit greatly if she pursued her apparent passion for street fighting.”

The statement referenced McIver’s pending federal charges for three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officials during a May 9, 2025, confrontation at the Delaney Hall ICE detention center, to which she has pleaded not guilty.

Context of the Charges

McIver’s accusations stem from Trump’s August 11 announcement to federalize D.C. police operations under Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing rising crime rates. The move, dubbed “Liberation Day,” has drawn criticism from Democrats, who argue it oversteps local authority.

McIver further claimed Trump’s policies target “sanctuary cities that, you know, support immigration,” asserting, “The push to clean up DC and end sanctuary city policies show us each and every day how much of a bigot he is.” Her comments echo broader Democratic concerns about Trump’s immigration crackdown, though critics on X note that California Gov. Gavin Newsom also used “Liberation Day” in a separate context, undermining her claim of its racial coding.

Newark Incident and Legal Battle

The Newark incident involved McIver, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, and other Democratic lawmakers protesting conditions at the Delaney Hall facility. Federal prosecutors allege McIver forcibly interfered with Baraka’s arrest, though charges against Baraka were dropped. McIver’s attorney, Paul Fishman, called the charges “spectacularly inappropriate,” citing her congressional right to conduct oversight under a 2020 DHS appropriations bill.

Social media reactions on X are polarized, with some users supporting McIver’s oversight role and others backing the White House’s dismissal of her as “unserious.” McIver’s office did not respond to inquiries.

Trump doesn’t slow down. But this changes everything.

Because he received a test result the put jaws on the floor.

Trump’s Approval Rating Rises to 54% After Putin Summit, Poll Shows

A new InsiderAdvantage survey conducted August 15-17, 2025, reveals a surge in President Donald Trump’s approval rating to 54%, with 44% disapproving, following his August 15 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.

The poll, conducted at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, shows Trump gaining majority support across all age groups except those over 65, where approval stands at 40% compared to 57% for both the 18-39 and 39-64 demographics. The results mark a significant uptick from InsiderAdvantage’s July poll, which reported a 50% approval and 48% disapproval rating.

Broadening Support Across Demographics

The survey, noted for its least-biased rating by Media Bias and ranked among the top ten polling services for general elections from 2014-2022 by RealClearPolitics, also indicates improved support among Black and Hispanic respondents. Polling analyst Matt Towery highlighted that Trump’s approval has risen among these groups, with white voters reaching a near-record 64% approval.

“Donald Trump now has an advantage among every age group other than the most senior of voters. He has improved his numbers among African-Americans and Hispanic-Latinos,” Towery said in his analysis.

Alaska Summit Drives Approval Gains

The boost follows Trump’s high-profile meeting with Putin, aimed at brokering a peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022. Speaking to reporters after the three-hour summit, Trump described it as “extremely productive,” stating, “We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

Despite no ceasefire agreement, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff revealed a key concession on CNN’s “State of the Union” on August 17, noting, “We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,” marking a first in Russian willingness to consider such terms.

Contrasting Polls and White House Talks

The poll contrasts with other recent surveys, such as a Pew Research Center poll from early August showing 38% approval and 60% disapproval for Trump. The Alaska summit’s visibility, coupled with Trump’s subsequent White House meeting on August 18 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders—including French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer—appears to have bolstered public perception.

Unlike Zelenskyy’s tense February 2025 Oval Office visit, Monday’s discussions were described as productive, with Zelenskyy expressing support for a potential trilateral meeting with Trump and Putin.

Public and Political Reactions

Public reactions on X reflect mixed sentiments, with some users praising Trump’s diplomatic efforts as a step toward peace, while others question the lack of a concrete ceasefire.

The InsiderAdvantage poll, with a margin of error of ±3.09%, underscores a shifting public mood as Trump navigates complex international negotiations ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Schiff has been a thorn in the president’s side for years. Now he’s about to get his just desserts.

Because Trump administration teased evidence that could bring down Adam Schiff.

Trump DOJ Official Signals Expanded Probes into Sen. Schiff and Jan. 6 Committee Members

Ed Martin, head of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, suggested on August 17, 2025, that additional investigative actions may soon target Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and unpardonned members of the dissolved House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Speaking on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Martin referenced an ongoing criminal probe into Schiff for alleged mortgage fraud and hinted at further inquiries, stating, “There’s a referral from Bill Pulte about mortgage fraud about Adam Schiff. That’s publicly discussed. His own lawyers have been out there. Now there’s more on Adam Schiff.”

Mortgage Fraud Allegations Against Schiff

The mortgage fraud allegations, initiated by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte in May 2025, accuse Schiff of falsifying bank documents and property records between 2003 and 2019 to secure favorable loan terms.

Pulte claimed Schiff listed a Maryland home as his primary residence in multiple refinancing filings while serving as a California congressman, and similarly designated a Burbank, California, condo as his primary residence, potentially exploiting exemptions meant for primary homeowners. Schiff’s attorney, Preet Bharara, dismissed the allegations as “transparently false, stale, and long debunked,” per a statement reported by NBC News.

Separate Accusations of Classified Leaks

Separately, Schiff faces accusations from a former House Intelligence Committee staffer, who claimed in FBI interviews from 2017 to 2023 that Schiff approved leaks of classified information during the 2017 Russia investigation to damage then-President Donald Trump.

An FBI memo obtained by The Post noted that Schiff may be protected by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, and prior DOJ investigations questioned the accuser’s credibility, finding “little support” for the claims. Martin did not clarify whether these allegations are part of the “more” he referenced, stating only, “All we’re going to do, again, is get to the facts of this and use all the tools that we have in our system.”

Parallel Probe into Letitia James

Martin also pointed to a parallel probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud involving a Norfolk, Virginia, property and her Brooklyn brownstone. Pulte’s referral, reported by Fox News, alleges James misrepresented her primary residence to obtain favorable loan terms, mirroring accusations against Schiff. Martin was spotted in Brooklyn last week inspecting James’ property, signaling active DOJ engagement.

Jan. 6 Committee Under Scrutiny

Turning to the Jan. 6 Committee, Martin indicated that unpardonned members and staff could face scrutiny, despite former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons for the panel in late 2024. “We’re all in that too,” Martin said.

“A lot of people did not get a pardon that were involved in the select committee, and they ought to be keeping an eye on their mailbox, because there’s a lot to be asked about.” He credited Attorney General Pam Bondi for empowering his team, noting she “let us loose on” issues of alleged government weaponization. Martin did not name specific individuals but suggested the inquiries could extend to those involved in the committee’s 18-month investigation, which produced an 845-page report and recommended charges against Trump.

Broader Context and Public Reaction

The remarks come amid a broader Trump administration effort to address perceived political adversaries, with Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney and conservative activist, appointed by Bondi to lead these probes. Social media posts on X reflect polarized reactions, with some users praising the investigations as accountability measures, while others, including Schiff’s supporters, label them as politically motivated “lawfare.” The DOJ’s next steps remain undisclosed, but Martin’s comments suggest an intensifying focus on Schiff and Jan. 6 Committee affiliates as the administration pursues its agenda.

The mainstream media has always had it out for Donald Trump. But now it’s asking for treason.

Because they called for troops to disobey Donald Trump’s direct orders.

Trump’s National Guard Deployment in D.C. Sparks Debate Over Military Role

President Donald Trump’s deployment of 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to address crime and public safety concerns has ignited a debate about the military’s role in domestic affairs.

In a New York Times op-ed published on August 13, 2025, former Obama administration officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson expressed concerns about the deployment, arguing it reflects a troubling shift in civil-military dynamics.

However, the administration’s actions, grounded in legal authority, aim to restore order in the nation’s capital.

Former Obama Officials Critique Trump’s Strategy

In their op-ed, titled “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong,” Simon and Stevenson, both former National Security Council members under President Obama, argue that the military’s compliance with Trump’s orders signals a weakening of its role as an independent constitutional safeguard.

They claim the deployment, which they describe as based on “the pretext of an illusory crime wave,” is a test case for militarizing domestic law enforcement, following similar actions in California to support deportation efforts.

They express concern that Trump’s personnel changes, such as promoting loyalists like former National Guard Lt. Gen. Dan Caine and dismissing top Judge Advocates General, prioritize loyalty over legality, potentially eroding military professionalism.

The authors draw historical parallels, comparing the deployment to the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942, suggesting that military culture favors compliance with civilian orders, even when morally or legally questionable.

They warn that Trump’s policies, including redesignating National Guard duties to allow direct interaction with ICE detainees, could fuse military and homeland security functions, risking clashes with citizens and normalizing executive overreach.

They pin their hopes on judicial intervention, citing California’s legal challenge and expressing skepticism about the Supreme Court’s willingness to curb presidential power, while acknowledging that military officers are unlikely to defy lawful orders.

Trump’s Legal and Strategic Approach to Public Safety

The Trump administration’s deployment, authorized under Section 740 of the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act, shows the length the president is willing to go to address safety challenges in Washington, D.C., a city with a unique federal status.

Trump’s executive order, issued on August 11, cited crime as a public safety emergency, justifying the temporary federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the deployment of National Guard troops. The administration points to incidents like the August 3 assault on Edward Coristine, a Department of Government Efficiency staffer, during

Clinton and Trump have never liked each other. That’s why no one can believe this happening.

Because Hillary Clinton made jaws drop after giving Donald Trump a massive compliment.

Clinton’s Surprising Nobel Peace Prize Endorsement for Trump Amid Ukraine Talks

In an unexpected turn, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a long-standing critic of President Donald Trump, stated she would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if he successfully negotiates an end to the Russia-Ukraine war without territorial concessions to Russia. The remarks, made on the August 15, 2025, episode of the “Raging Moderates” podcast, come as Trump engages in high-stakes talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, aiming to resolve the three-year conflict.

Clinton’s Conditional Support for Trump’s Peace Efforts

During the podcast with host Jessica Tarlov, Clinton outlined her criteria for supporting Trump’s nomination: “Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, could really stand up to Putin — something we haven’t seen, but maybe this is the opportunity — if President Trump were the architect of that, I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.”

She emphasized her goal of preventing “capitulation to Putin,” aligning her support with a resolution that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Clinton’s offer is notable given her history of sharp criticism of Trump, including her 2016 campaign remarks labeling his supporters a “basket of deplorables” and questioning his fitness for office, citing his praise for Putin and temperament.

As recently as February 2025, she described his administration as “dumb” and “feeble” in a New York Times op-ed, and in October 2024, called him “more unhinged” than during their 2016 race.

Trump’s Diplomatic Push and Global Context

Trump’s summit with Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on August 15, 2025, marks his first face-to-face meeting with the Russian leader since his first term. Trump expressed optimism about the talks, estimating a 25% chance of failure and telling reporters on Air Force One that he would let Ukraine decide on territorial swaps, per Al Jazeera.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, absent from the summit, has firmly opposed ceding land to Moscow.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a long-standing aspiration for Trump, who has criticized former President Barack Obama’s 2009 award and received nominations from leaders in Pakistan, Israel, Cambodia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan for his mediation in various conflicts, including the Abraham Accords and ceasefires between India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran.

However, a prior nomination by Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko was withdrawn in June 2025 due to stalled peace talks and perceived leniency toward Russia.

Broader Implications and Public Reaction

Clinton’s remarks reflect a pragmatic acknowledgment of the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough, despite her past critiques of Trump’s foreign policy.

Posts on X highlight mixed sentiments, with some praising Trump’s deal-making potential and others questioning Clinton’s motives, suggesting her endorsement may be an attempt to reframe her legacy. The talks’ outcome remains uncertain, with Politico reporting that Russia and Ukraine are “nowhere close” to an agreement.

The summit and Clinton’s statement have drawn global attention, as a successful deal could reshape perceptions of Trump’s foreign policy and bolster his administration’s focus on assertive diplomacy.