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.

Donald Trump has always been good at making deals. Now he’s trying his hand at law.

And Trump’s genius move in court is putting Democrats on notice.

President-elect Donald Trump is fighting back against what his team calls politically motivated legal attacks, asking a Georgia appeals court to toss out the criminal racketeering case against him in Fulton County.

Trump’s legal team argues that the U.S. Constitution shields him from prosecution as he prepares to assume the presidency in January.

In a decisive five-page filing, Trump’s attorneys assert that a sitting president must be “completely immune” from criminal charges at both the state and federal levels, emphasizing that such prosecutions would obstruct the executive branch’s ability to govern effectively.

“Any ongoing criminal proceeding against a sitting president must be dismissed under the U.S. Constitution,” declared defense attorney Steve Sadow.

“The two federal criminal cases have already been dismissed by the [Department of Justice].”

Sadow referred to the cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith, who recently asked federal courts in Washington and Florida to drop charges against Trump relating to the 2020 election and classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s critics claimed these cases were legitimate, but their unraveling highlights what many of his supporters have always believed: they were politically motivated from the start.

Meanwhile, a New York judge indefinitely postponed sentencing in Trump’s conviction for alleged falsification of business records, leaving the Georgia case as the final hurdle in what Trump’s legal team hopes will be a clean sweep of these partisan-driven prosecutions.

The filing urges the court to act decisively:

“President Trump respectfully submits that upon reaching that decision, this court should dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction with directions to the trial court to immediately dismiss the indictment against President Trump.”

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis initiated the Georgia case, claiming Trump pressured Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find votes” to challenge Joe Biden’s controversial 2020 win in Georgia.

However, the case has been riddled with problems, including explosive allegations about Willis’s conduct.

The defense argued that Willis had a romantic relationship with lead investigator Nathan Wade, creating a financial conflict of interest.

Though Wade exited the case, the revelation cast a shadow over the investigation.

While the trial judge allowed Willis to remain, the defense appealed, leading to significant delays.

Trump’s resounding victory in last month’s election gives him the upper hand as president-elect, bolstering his argument that these cases were nothing more than politically driven attempts to block his return to the White House.

As his legal team works to dismantle the final case standing, Trump’s message remains clear: the American people rejected the weaponization of the justice system, and his presidency will ensure it never happens again.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Joe Biden has seen better days. Who knows how long he has left.

And now Biden passed out in a foreign meeting and now the White House is freaking out.

During a summit with African leaders in Lobito, Angola, President Joe Biden was caught on video appearing to rest his eyes, sparking a wave of commentary online.

The 82-year-old president, seated among African officials, was seen closing his eyes and briefly resting his head while Tanzanian Vice President Philip Mpango spoke.

The moment, lasting over a minute, drew widespread attention despite Biden being otherwise alert and delivering remarks before and after the incident.

The White House has not yet commented on the video.

Social media quickly lit up with reactions, with some speculating that Biden fell asleep during the meeting.

Outkick founder Clay Travis posted on X, “Joe Biden fell asleep during a meeting with African leaders today. He’s sharp as a tack though! Honestly, this feels intentional. Who puts an 82 year old on a plane for a THREE DAY trip to Africa?! Three days! So dumb.”

Jake Schneider, a former rapid response director for President Trump’s campaign, added, “Biden literally falls asleep during his own meeting in Africa. Who’s running the country?”

Denver-based radio host Ross Kaminsky echoed the criticism, calling the incident “embarrassing” for the nation.

“It’s incredible that our enemies haven’t challenged us more while we’re basically without a president,” Kaminsky wrote on X.

Despite the uproar, Biden used the summit to announce significant U.S. aid to address Africa’s humanitarian crises.

Earlier in the day, he pledged $1 billion in humanitarian aid to assist Africans displaced by extreme drought and food shortages.

“The United States continues to be the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid and development assistance. That’s going to increase, you know, that’s the right thing for the wealthiest nation in the world to do,” Biden stated.

“Today I’m announcing over $1 billion in new humanitarian support for Africans displaced from homes by historic droughts and food insecurity. We know African leaders and citizens are seeking more than just aid. You seek investment.”

Biden’s visit to Angola marks his first trip to Africa as president.

The timing, however, has raised questions as parts of the United States are still recovering from Hurricane Helene, which devastated North Carolina in late September.

Last month, the White House requested $98 billion in additional disaster relief funding to aid Helene-stricken communities, underscoring the administration’s challenges in balancing domestic and international crises.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Clintons and Bidens used to be close. But now there’s bad blood.

And Bill Clinton backstabbed Biden with one surprising attack.

During an interview on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton reflected on his decision to pardon his brother, Roger Clinton, while weighing in on President Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden.

Speaking at the *New York Times* DealBook Summit, Clinton shared his thoughts on the complexities of presidential pardons and the public scrutiny they attract.

“I think that the president did have reason to believe that the nature of the offenses involved were likely to produce far stronger adverse consequences for his son than they would for any normal person under the same circumstances,” Clinton stated, urging people to consider all the facts.

Clinton acknowledged comparisons to his own controversial pardon of his half-brother Roger, who served time in prison during the 1980s for cocaine charges.

According to *The Washington Post*, Roger had already completed his sentence by the time Clinton granted the pardon. However, less than a month after being pardoned, Roger was arrested for drunk driving.

Addressing these comparisons, Clinton explained, *”Mr. Clinton said that he did not believe the two situations were analogous, even as he stressed that presidential pardons are often complicated and politically fraught,”* according to the *New York Times*.

“My brother did 14 months in the federal prison for something he did when he was 20,” Clinton clarified.

“I supported it, and he testified, told the truth about what he’d done when he had a drug problem and helped to bring down a larger enterprise. And they sentenced him, and then he served 14 months, and then he got out. The real question was, would he ever be able to vote again? Would he ever be able to have normal citizenship responsibilities?”

Clinton also criticized the broader pardon system, saying, “I’ve been sort of upset that there’s been no discussion about the larger problem, which is does the pardon system we have work?”

He highlighted the often burdensome process of applying for a pardon and the uneven outcomes for deserving cases.

Echoing sentiments from Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Clinton noted that while he understood Biden’s decision, many others serving excessive sentences were equally deserving of pardons.

Responding to a *Politico* critique suggesting that Biden’s pardon of Hunter undermines trust in the justice system and bolsters accusations of elitism,

Clinton responded bluntly: “We had a lot better record than the Republicans did, didn’t we? And what good did it do us? I mean, nobody believes anybody anymore.”

He added, “I personally believe that the president is almost certainly right that his son received completely different treatment than he would have if he hadn’t been the president’s son in this kind of case.”

Clinton admitted that politics inevitably influence presidential pardon decisions, remarking, “I wish he hadn’t said he wasn’t going to do it. I think it does weaken his case.”

Biden’s pardon of Hunter has sparked backlash from both Republicans and Democrats. Defending his decision, Biden accused the Justice Department of treating his son unfairly. “Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,” Biden wrote in a statement.

“From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.”

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Republicans can’t stop winning. It’s looking like it’s going to be a good four years under Trump.

And this massive federal court ruling throws Democrats’ plans directly in the trash.

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major decision on Friday, affirming that the U.S. government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants and override local attempts to obstruct federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating in their jurisdictions.

Judges Daniel Bress, Michael Hawkins, and Richard Clinton issued the ruling in a 29-page decision, upholding the district court’s summary judgment in the case.

According to The Center Square, the case stemmed from a 2019 executive order issued by King County Executive Dow Constantine in Washington. The order aimed to block ICE from utilizing a local Boeing airfield for deportation operations. The outlet explained:

Constantine’s order prohibited King County International Airport from supporting “the transportation and deportation of immigration detainees in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, either traveling within or arriving or departing the United States or its territories.”

The Boeing airfield, located near Seattle, a self-declared “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, is also close to ICE-Seattle’s operational hub. The Trump administration sued King County in 2019, arguing that Constantine’s order violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the administration cited the clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a “World War II-era Instrument of Transfer agreement,” which guaranteed federal access to the airfield.

The Trump administration prevailed in the initial lawsuit, prompting King County to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Instrument of Transfer agreement explicitly states:

“The United States of America . . . through any of its employees or agents shall at all times have the right to make nonexclusive use of the landing area of the airport at which any of the property transferred by this instrument is located or used, without charge.”

In his opinion, Judge Bress, joined by Judges Hawkins and Clinton, found that Constantine’s order interfered with the Instrument of Transfer clause by obstructing ICE operations at the airfield. The order imposed the following:

Among other things, King County officials shall “[t]ake appropriate actions, consistent with the County’s federal obligations, to minimize County cooperation with, facilitation of, and permission for, operations associated with transportation of immigration detainees.”

In addition, and importantly, County officials shall Ensure that all future leases, operating permits, and other authorizations for commercial activity at King County International Airport contain a prohibition against providing aeronautical or nonaeronautical services to enterprises engaged in the business of deporting immigration detainees (except for federal government aircraft), to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.

As a result, ICE contractors faced discrimination, forcing the agency to move its operations from King County to Yakima, Washington. This relocation introduced security risks and additional expenses.

The court ruled that the King County order “improperly regulated the way in which the federal government transported noncitizen detainees by preventing ICE from using private FBO contractors at Boeing Field, and on its face discriminated against the United States by singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment.”

The court also detailed how the order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine under the Supremacy Clause:

In recognition of the federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from “interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 596 U.S. at 838. It does so by proscribing “state laws that either ‘regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals’ (e.g., contractors).”

Judge Bress concluded, “We hold that the Executive Order violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine and that the anticommandeering and market participant doctrines do not apply.

King County’s Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO breached the Instrument of Transfer and violated the Supremacy Clause. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

It remains unclear if King County will escalate the case to the Supreme Court.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.