The Trump White House is laying down the hammer. The corrupt D.C. swamp is facing the consequences.

Because President Trump’s just fired a Biden official who was caught red-handed committing crimes.

President Donald Trump is taking a sledgehammer to the entrenched corruption within America’s federal institutions, and his latest move against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is a prime example of his no-nonsense approach. On Monday night, Trump announced Cook’s immediate removal from the Fed’s board, citing allegations of mortgage fraud that cast a dark shadow over her integrity.

Last week, Trump called for Cook’s resignation after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte exposed her alleged misconduct. Pulte notified Attorney General Pam Bondi that Cook “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud.” Despite Trump’s demand, Cook defiantly refused to step down, forcing the president to take matters into his own hands.

In a letter posted to Truth Social, Trump laid out his case with clarity: “The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks. The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve.”

He went on to say, “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity. I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.” These words resonate with millions of Americans tired of elitists gaming the system while hardworking citizens foot the bill.

Pulte’s allegations against Cook are serious. He claims she listed two residences as her primary home, with the second designation made just weeks after securing a loan on her Michigan property. This kind of manipulation, known as occupancy fraud, can lead to lower interest rates and better loan terms—benefits that honest Americans are denied when officials exploit the system. Pulte’s focus on this issue isn’t new; he’s been relentless in exposing similar misconduct among other high-profile Democrats, including California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Trump administration’s push to clean up corruption extends far beyond the Federal Reserve. Since taking office, Trump has prioritized rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse across federal agencies. The White House has emphasized that “Since Day One, President Trump has prioritized eliminating waste and fraud in the Federal government, ensuring Federal spending aligns with American interests.” This commitment is evident in actions like the review of federal grant programs, which have long been criticized for funneling taxpayer dollars to politically connected insiders.

The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has also taken aim at corrupt Democratic officials. Schiff, who led the charge in Trump’s 2019 impeachment trial, is now under investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, with posts on X indicating that DOJ Special Attorney Ed Martin is probing whether Schiff lied about his primary residence to secure better loan terms. Similarly, Letitia James, who won a $355 million civil fraud judgment against Trump, faces scrutiny for her own property dealings. Grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are reportedly weighing indictments against both.

The Trump administration has made it clear that no one—regardless of political affiliation or status—can escape justice. Pulte himself stated on X, “If you commit mortgage fraud in America, we will come after you, no matter who you are.” This message resonates with a populist base fed up with a two-tiered justice system that lets elites skate while ordinary Americans face harsh penalties for minor infractions.

Trump’s battle with the Federal Reserve isn’t just about Cook. For months, he’s been vocal about his frustration with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, who has resisted calls to lower interest rates. Trump argues that high rates are strangling the economy, increasing borrowing costs on the nation’s $37 trillion debt, and making homeownership unattainable for many. Powell’s refusal to act, coupled with allegations of mismanaging a $2.5 billion Fed renovation project, has fueled Trump’s push to reform the central bank.

The Cook controversy highlights a deeper issue: the Federal Reserve’s independence, which some argue shields unaccountable bureaucrats. While Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren cry foul, claiming Trump’s actions are an “authoritarian power grab,” supporters see it as a necessary step to restore trust in institutions that have been hijacked by partisan operatives. Cook’s refusal to resign, despite serious allegations, only reinforces the perception that entrenched officials believe they’re untouchable.

The administration’s efforts aren’t limited to high-profile firings. Trump has targeted diversity-focused hires and programs, which many conservatives view as vehicles for cronyism and ideological agendas. Cook, the first Black woman on the Fed’s board, was a Biden appointee whose term was set to run until 2038. Her removal, while controversial, aligns with Trump’s mission to dismantle what he sees as a politicized federal bureaucracy.

Critics of Trump’s approach, like Sen. Chuck Schumer, have rallied behind Cook, with Schumer posting on X, “Trump is a liar. Lisa Cook—stand tough and don’t let Trump intimidate you.” But these defenses ring hollow to a populist audience that sees Democrats protecting their own while ignoring the economic struggles of everyday Americans. The U.S. Dollar Index dropped sharply after Trump’s announcement, a sign that markets are rattled—but supporters argue that short-term pain is worth the long-term gain of cleaning house.

Trump’s supporters see his actions as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to drain the swamp. The Federal Reserve, with its immense power over the economy, has long been a target for populist reformers who view it as an unaccountable institution serving elite interests. By targeting figures like Cook, Trump is sending a message: no one is above scrutiny, and the days of bureaucrats hiding behind their titles are over.

Cook’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, has vowed to fight her removal, arguing that Trump lacks the authority to fire her without proven cause. The Federal Reserve Act limits removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance,” and Cook’s allies insist she’s done nothing wrong. Yet, with the DOJ now probing her actions, the pressure is mounting. A court fight could set a precedent for how much power a president has over the Fed—a battle Trump seems ready to wage.

The lawfare in this country has gotten out of hand. Now it has reached a fever pitch.

Because a Leftist Attorney General bragged about keeping Trump in court for this moronic reason.

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison’s Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Defending Trans Athletes in Girls’ Sports Draws Criticism and Legal Challenges

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has drawn significant attention and criticism for his April 2025 lawsuit against the Trump administration, aimed at protecting transgender athletes’ rights to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, in defiance of President Donald Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” executive order issued on February 5, 2025.

In an interview with Public Citizen on August 21, 2025, Ellison emphasized his commitment, stating, “We are fighting to protect transgender athletes… Donald Trump and [Attorney General] Pam Bondi were threatening to sue me, I sued them first!”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, argues that Trump’s executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution, Title IX, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act by threatening to withhold federal funding from schools that allow transgender girls to participate in sports aligned with their gender identity, per the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Legal and Policy Context

Ellison’s legal action, joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, challenges two Trump executive orders: the “Gender Ideology Order” of January 20, 2025, which recognizes only two sexes, and the “Sports Ban Order” of February 5, 2025, which bars transgender girls from girls’ sports, citing unfairness and safety concerns.

The lawsuit secured a preliminary injunction on February 28, 2025, blocking enforcement of the orders in Minnesota and the plaintiff states, per the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Ellison’s February 20, 2025, legal opinion declared that Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which has protected transgender rights since 1993, supersedes Trump’s orders, a stance reinforced by Governor Tim Walz’s 2023 legislation making Minnesota a refuge for transgender youth, per AP News.

However, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are investigating Minnesota’s defiance, with Attorney General Pam Bondi warning of potential lawsuits against Minnesota and California, per CNN.

Controversy and Public Reaction

The issue gained national prominence after a transgender softball pitcher led Champlin Park High School to a state championship in spring 2025, prompting a separate lawsuit against Ellison, the Minnesota State High School League, and three school districts by three female softball players.

One anonymous player told Fox News Digital that competing against the transgender athlete was “mentally challenging” and “unfair,” citing physical advantages and calling Ellison’s support for trans inclusion “disgusting and wrong.”

The lawsuit, which also names state education and human rights officials, reflects broader tensions, as Minnesota’s legislature failed to pass the Preserving Girls’ Sports Act in March 2025, which would have restricted girls’ sports to biological females, per Fox News.

Critics, including Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring), have called Ellison’s lawsuit a “waste of taxpayer money” that risks federal funding and undermines fairness in girls’ sports, per CBS Minnesota.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields labeled the lawsuit “creepy and anti-woman,” while former Minnesota Vikings player Jack Brewer criticized Ellison’s stance as disconnected from athletic realities, per Fox News.

Conversely, supporters like Gender Justice and state Rep. Leigh Finke, Minnesota’s first openly transgender legislator, argue that excluding trans athletes violates state law and harms vulnerable youth, with Dr. Kelsey Leonardsmith noting that transgender girls are underrepresented in sports, per The Washington Post.

The highest court in the land should be stable and fair. But not everyone agrees.

And now a Supreme Court Justice went off the rails to accuse her colleagues of a shocking crime.

Supreme Court Permits Trump Administration to Cancel $783M in NIH Grants, Prompting Fiery Dissent from Justice Jackson

The Supreme Court, in a pair of 5-4 rulings on August 21, 2025, allowed the Trump administration to proceed with terminating approximately $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, reversing a lower court’s order that had restored funding for over 1,700 research projects.

The decision, which permits the cancellation of grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and COVID-19 research, was met with a 21-page dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” designed to ensure “this administration always wins,” per Politico.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson—in dissenting against the grant cancellations, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s split vote upheld a lower court’s block on the NIH’s broader guidance for future terminations.

Case Background and Court Rulings

The case stemmed from the Trump administration’s February 2025 decision to halt NIH grants deemed misaligned with its priorities, following executive orders targeting DEI and related initiatives.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, had blocked the cuts in June, citing “palpable” racial discrimination and violations of administrative law, per PBS News.

The Supreme Court’s majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, ruled that challenges to the grant terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims due to their contractual nature, though Barrett joined the liberal justices and Roberts to maintain the lower court’s injunction against the NIH’s funding guidance.

Jackson argued the ruling creates a “futile, multivenue quest” for plaintiffs, risking the loss of critical research on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, and mental health, with potential consequences including the euthanasia of animal subjects and closure of community clinics, per Courthouse News Service.

Broader Implications and Reactions

The decision, part of the court’s emergency docket, reflects ongoing legal battles over the Trump administration’s policies, with 18 emergency appeals granted at least partially in its favor since January 2025, per The Hill.

Jackson’s dissent criticized the court’s “recent tendencies” to favor the administration, likening its approach to Calvinball—a game with no fixed rules—while Barrett defended the jurisdictional split, arguing that federal district courts lack authority over contract disputes, per Forbes.

The ruling is not final, with an appeal pending in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs, including 16 Democratic-led states and health organizations, warn of irreparable harm to scientific progress, per Newsweek.

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.