The Left is having a rough go of it. And it’s only getting worse.

Now AOC and Ilhan Omar were dragged out of hiding for this utterly humiliating reason.

Progressive Democrats’ Response to Boulder Attack Raises Questions

In the wake of a horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, where an Egyptian national set fire to peaceful protesters demanding the return of Israeli hostages, progressive Democrats issued statements condemning the violence.

However, their responses come amid scrutiny of their past actions and the broader Democratic Party’s approach to issues like immigration and national security, which critics argue may have contributed to such incidents.

Selective Outrage or Genuine Condemnation?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a potential 2028 presidential contender, posted on X: “I am horrified by last night’s horrific attack in Boulder. My heart is with the victims and our Jewish communities across the country. Antisemitism is on the rise here at home, and we have a moral responsibility to confront and stop it everywhere it exists.”

Yet, critics point to her party’s lenient border policies as a potential factor in enabling such attacks.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who was removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2023 and faced a censure resolution in 2024 for alleged antisemitic remarks, stated, “I’m holding the victims and families in Boulder, Colorado in my heart. Violence against anyone is never acceptable.”

Similarly, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., censured in 2023 for anti-Israel comments, said, “The violent attack in Boulder is horrific. My heart goes out to all of the victims and their families.” Some question the sincerity of these statements, given their controversial histories.

Newer Democrats like Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, and Rep. Delia C. Ramirez, D-Ill., both elected in 2022, also decried the attack. Casar wrote, “I am horrified by the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado. My thoughts are with the victims, their families, and Jewish communities across the country.”

Ramirez added, “Yesterday’s antisemitic attack against those in Boulder, CO calling for the safe return of hostages is deplorable and heartbreaking,” while linking violence in Gaza to domestic incidents—a stance critics argue muddies the waters.

Political Context and Missed Opportunities

Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the first Gen-Z congressman, admitted regret for not supporting a 2023 resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses, stating, “I’m horrified to hear about the antisemitic attack in Boulder, just weeks after the shooting of two Israeli embassy officials in DC.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., called the attack “horrifying and unacceptable,” but pivoted to criticize President Trump’s deportation policies, saying, “Donald Trump wants to sow fear & chaos in our communities so we feel alone & defeated — but we won’t let him.”

Critics argue this deflects from the failures of Democratic policies, like lax vetting of immigrants, which allowed the attacker—a 45-year-old Egyptian whose visa expired in March—to remain in the country.

Meanwhile, Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., has remained silent on the attack, with her office offering no comment, raising questions about the consistency of the “Squad’s” response to antisemitism.

The Left requires absolute conformity. There is no room for differing opinions.

And now a Leading Democrat Senator caused a massive rift after breaking ranks with the Democrat Party.

Defying Party Norms with Bold Convictions

Sen. John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s Democratic trailblazer, continues to forge a distinctive path in the Senate by fearlessly challenging his party’s conventions.

In a recent Fox News forum moderated by Shannon Bream alongside Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, Fetterman highlighted his readiness to collaborate across the aisle on complex issues like Iran nuclear talks and rare earth minerals agreements with Ukraine.

He acknowledged the challenges of his approach, stating, “That’s part of the bipartisanship where, you know, it’s getting more and more kind of, punitive to just agree with some of these things in the middle of the party right now.”

His alignment with certain Trump policies and his subtle critique of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s approach to the government funding fight earlier this year emphasize his independent spirit.

Standing Firm on Israel and Border Security

Fetterman’s resolute positions on Israel and immigration distinguish him from many Democrats.

Condemning a recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, he criticized his party for faltering on antisemitism, asserting, “For me, that moral clarity, it’s really firmly on Israel. I refuse to allow to try to turn Israel into a pariah state, and that’s right in the middle of that.”

On immigration, he endorses substantial Republican-backed investments, including over $150 billion for Trump’s border wall, ICE, and new detention facilities.

“That’s a mistake that our party made, and that’s the border,” he said. “I absolutely support those kinds of investments to make our border secure as well.”

Fetterman also highlighted the Biden administration’s lenient border policies, stating, “We can all agree that’s wrong,” while affirming that his pro-immigration values remain steadfast despite clashing with his party’s base.

Embracing Leadership Amid Criticism

Fetterman’s bold bipartisanship has sparked scrutiny, with reports of erratic behavior, missed votes, and staff departures prompting the Philadelphia Inquirer to suggest he “step aside.”

Rejecting these as a “smear,” Fetterman linked the criticism to his stances on Israel, the border, and his cross-party efforts, saying, “It’s just part of a smear, and it’s just not accurate.” His commitment to principled leadership shone through when addressing the government funding showdown, where he opposed Schumer’s push for a shutdown.

“I refuse to ever shut our government down,” he said. “And when we have that opportunity in September to do that, I will still be there, and … I’ll take the beating, because that’s, I think, what defines leadership.”

Fetterman’s dedication to finding common ground, particularly on fiscal responsibility and border security, reflects his resolve to lead despite political pushback.

Joe Biden did plenty of damage to this country. But this may be the most egregious thing.

Now James Comer teed up a court showdown over this key Biden policy.

Unveiling the Autopen Controversy: A Challenge to Biden’s Legacy

The autopen scandal revolves around allegations that former President Joe Biden may not have personally signed key executive orders during his final days in office, with an autopen—a machine that replicates a signature—used instead, potentially without his full knowledge or authorization.

This raises questions about the legality and validity of those orders, particularly as they were designed to cement Biden’s policies and hinder the incoming Trump administration.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY), is investigating whether Biden was aware of or cognitively capable of authorizing the autopen’s use, or if aides acted independently, possibly under external influence.

The probe has sparked debate about the integrity of Biden’s late-term actions, with Comer suggesting that any misuse of the autopen could lead to the orders being struck down in court, easing the path for Trump’s agenda.

Autopen Allegations Threaten Biden’s Executive Orders

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), spearheading the House Oversight Committee’s probe, has cast doubt on the legitimacy of former President Joe Biden’s final executive orders, hinting that they could be invalidated if evidence shows Biden was unaware of their autopen signatures.

“If we uncover proof that Joe Biden was in the dark about these orders being signed in his name, they’re likely to be tossed out in court,” Comer declared on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.

The investigation zeros in on whether Biden, in his waning days as president, had the mental acuity to greenlight the use of an autopen—a device that can replicate a signature with proper authorization—or if his aides overstepped, potentially undermining the legal standing of those orders.

Biden’s Aides Under Scrutiny for Autopen Use

At the heart of the investigation are five former Biden aides, now facing intense scrutiny over their role in deploying the autopen for executive orders meant to “Trump-proof” the administration’s policies.

Comer’s committee is digging into whether these aides acted on Biden’s direct orders or if they were following someone else’s directives, raising concerns about unchecked power within the Biden White House.

“Each of these aides has lawyered up, and their attorneys are already engaging with us,” Comer noted, signaling that the probe is heating up.

He hasn’t ruled out issuing subpoenas for high-profile figures like Biden himself, former first lady Jill Biden, or former chief of staff Ron Klain to get answers, with an update on the investigation expected soon.

Record-Breaking Pardons Fuel the Controversy

A significant portion of Biden’s last-minute executive orders involved an unprecedented wave of clemency, with over 4,200 pardons, commutations, and clemencies issued in his final days—setting a presidential record.

These actions, Comer argues, were part of a broader effort to lock in Biden’s agenda and obstruct the incoming Trump administration.

“These orders were crafted to make it harder for Trump to execute his plans,” Comer said, emphasizing that any evidence of improper autopen use could render them legally vulnerable.

The scale of these pardons has only intensified the committee’s resolve to determine whether Biden was fully aware of the actions taken in his name, casting a shadow over his administration’s final chapter.

The world stage is a dangerous place. Political threats are backed up with force.

And now Trump was completely blindsided by a shocking betrayal by this foreign leader.

Ukraine’s Bold Drone Strike Catches Trump Admin Off Guard

Ukraine’s audacious drone strikes deep inside Russia, obliterating dozens of nuclear “doomsday” bombers and other aircraft, were executed without prior notice to the Trump administration, according to CBS and Axios.

The covert operation, planned for over a year, involved smuggling drones into Russia to target strategic assets like TU-95 “Bear” nuclear bombers and A-50 “Mainstay” jets, as reported by the Kyiv Independent.

While the attack showcased Ukraine’s tactical prowess, the lack of communication with the White House raises questions about coordination with President Trump, who has been tirelessly pushing for peace in the region.

The White House, focused on diplomacy, did not respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

Trump’s Push for Peace Amid Zelensky Tensions

President Trump, spotted enjoying a golf outing with Bryson DeChambeau in Virginia on Sunday, has been vocal about his strained relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Their public clash on February 28, where Trump bluntly stated Ukraine has “no cards” to play against Russia, underscores his frustration with Zelensky’s approach.

Trump’s candid social media posts have pointedly blamed both Zelensky and Putin for prolonging the war, emphasizing, “This isn’t my war. This is Biden’s war, Zelensky’s war, and Putin’s war. This isn’t Trump’s war.”

His focus on brokering a ceasefire—already accepted by Ukraine but not Russia—highlights his commitment to ending the conflict, even as Ukraine’s surprise attack might complicate his diplomatic efforts.

Trump’s Restraint Contrasts with Congressional Push for Sanctions

As Russia intensifies its brutal assaults on Ukrainian cities like Kyiv, Trump has publicly condemned Vladimir Putin’s “absolutely CRAZY” actions, warning that Putin is “playing with fire” by resisting peace talks.

Despite this, Trump’s measured approach—avoiding new sanctions during delicate negotiations—reflects his strategic focus on de-escalation.

Meanwhile, bipartisan voices in Congress, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, are pushing for tougher sanctions and more military aid to Ukraine, which has already received $66.9 billion in U.S. military support and over $175 billion in total aid since 2022.

Biden has been tucked away God knows where. But now he’s telling all.

And Joe Biden broke his silence to issue a direct and violent threat.

Dodging Serious Questions with Jokes

At a Memorial Day event in Delaware, Joe Biden sarcastically addressed accusations of cognitive decline raised in the book “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” released May 20, 2025, by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson.

“You can see that I’m mentally incompetent, I can’t walk,” Biden quipped to reporters, adding, “And I could beat the hell out of both of them,” seemingly targeting the authors.

The book alleges Biden struggled to form coherent sentences for campaign ads, relied on heavily scripted cabinet meetings, and that his team orchestrated a cover-up to conceal his deteriorating mental faculties.

These claims are bolstered by leaked audio from an October 2023 interview with former Special Counsel Robert Hur, where Biden slurred words and appeared to forget the year his son died, raising further doubts about his competence.

Biden’s Team Defends a Questionable Record

Biden’s camp has scrambled to counter the damaging narrative laid out in “Original Sin.” A spokesperson told Fox News Digital, “There is nothing in this book that shows Joe Biden failed to do his job, as the authors have alleged, nor did they prove their allegation that there was a cover up or conspiracy.”

They added, “Nowhere do they show that our national security was threatened or where the President wasn’t otherwise engaged in the important matters of the Presidency. In fact, Joe Biden was an effective President who led our country with empathy and skill.”

However, these defenses ring hollow against mounting evidence from multiple books this year detailing Biden’s mental struggles, which critics argue compromised his leadership and endangered national interests during his presidency.

Health Concerns Overshadow Memorial Day Tribute

Biden’s appearance at the Delaware Commission of Veteran Affairs’ Memorial Day event was meant to honor fallen service members, but his health and past performance took center stage. He revealed on May 18, 2025, an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer, stating, “My expectation is we’re going to be able to beat this,” while undergoing treatment with a pill.

During the event, he said, “We come together and remember the debt we owe to the American military,” and noted, “The military is a solid spine, the spine of our nation. Our troops, our veterans, our military families, and our Gold Star families in particular. Only around 1% of all Americans defend 99% of us — 1%. Just 1% of Americans risk the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them so much more than we can ever repay them.”

Yet, the gravity of his tribute was overshadowed by ongoing questions about his mental and physical capacity, fueled by reports that his administration may have hidden the extent of his decline.

Biden’s attempt to deflect serious allegations with humor and his team’s defensive posture do little to quell concerns about his mental fitness, casting a shadow over his Memorial Day tribute and raising questions about his legacy as president.

There is a paradigm shift underway. And it’s all coming to a head.

Now a China-America showdown is heating up after a desperate call for reinforcements.

Navigating a Stalled U.S.-China Trade Dialogue

Following a 90-day tariff truce agreed upon earlier this month in Switzerland, discussions for a lasting trade agreement between the U.S. and China have slowed.

“I would say that they are a bit stalled,” Bessent said during an interview with Fox News “Special Report” host Bret Baier.

He expressed optimism about future progress, noting, “I believe that we will be having more talks with them in the next few weeks, and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and party chair [Xi Jinping].”

Bessent emphasized the complexity of the negotiations, stating, “I think that, given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity – this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other.” He added, “They have a very good relationship, and I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known.”

The truce reduced U.S. tariffs on most Chinese goods from 145% to 30% and China’s tariffs from 125% to 10%, with a mechanism for continued talks toward a permanent deal, as confirmed by the White House.

Advancing Trade Agreements with Other Nations

While U.S.-China talks have slowed, Bessent highlighted significant progress in negotiations with other countries. “There are a couple of very large deals that are close. A couple of them are more complicated,” he told Baier.

He pointed to the European Union’s rapid response to President Trump’s recent tariff threats as a sign of momentum, noting, “And as we saw with the president’s threat of 50% tariffs last Friday, the EU came to the table very quickly over the weekend – so now we’ve got the EU in motion also.”

Bessent also mentioned an upcoming meeting, stating, “As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.”

These developments suggest the Trump administration is actively pursuing multiple trade agreements to strengthen global economic ties, even as challenges persist with China.

Overcoming Legal Hurdles in Tariff Policy

On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, the Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing a 10% flat duty on dozens of countries, alongside 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 20% on China, in response to illegal fentanyl trafficking.

However, a federal appeals court stayed the ruling on Thursday, allowing the White House to appeal. Bessent downplayed the impact of the legal dispute on ongoing trade negotiations, stating, “We’ve seen no change in [US trading partner] attitude in the past 48 hours.”

He emphasized continued engagement with international partners, particularly noting the scheduled Japanese delegation visit, signaling that trade discussions remain robust despite the court’s decision.

The Trump administration’s trade strategy continues to balance challenges with China, legal disputes, and promising negotiations with other global partners, aiming to reshape U.S. economic relationships.

The Left can’t catch a break. And it’s only getting worse.

Now an appeals court slapped Democrats with a devastating loss they never saw coming.

Trump’s Tariff Vision Faces Judicial Pushback

President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, aimed at leveling the playing field for American workers, hit a judicial roadblock when the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that he overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The court blocked 6.7 percentage points of the levies, including a 10% duty on dozens of countries, 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and 20% on China to combat illegal fentanyl trafficking, giving the White House 10 days to roll them back.

However, on Thursday, a full 11-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stay, preserving Trump’s tariffs pending a White House appeal.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro dismissed concerns about the pause, stating, “The pause will not affect the negotiations in any way if people out there in the world simply look at the court decision.” He emphasized Trump’s authority, noting, “The court was clear, as I said, that [the] President has broad authority to impose tariffs.” This resilience underscores Trump’s determination to maintain pressure on trading partners, reinforcing his America-first trade stance.

Defending Executive Power and Economic Strategy

The White House swiftly condemned the lower court’s ruling as an overreach, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt accusing the judges of “brazenly abus[ing] their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.”

She warned that the decision was “threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage” and affirmed that “the administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision.”

Leavitt called on the Supreme Court to intervene, stating, “Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.” White House spokesman Kush Desai echoed this sentiment, arguing that unfair trade practices have “decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.”

Trump’s team remains confident, with Navarro noting that countries are already responding, saying, “This morning, we were getting plenty of phone calls from countries saying, ‘We saw the rule,’ and so what we’re going to continue to [do is] negotiate in good faith.” This defiance highlights Trump’s unwavering commitment to using tariffs as a tool to restore economic strength.

Market Resilience and Alternative Paths Forward

Despite the judicial back-and-forth, Wall Street remained unfazed, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing 117 points, the Nasdaq gaining nearly 75 points, and the S&P 500 rising over 23 points on Thursday.

Analysts like Morgan Stanley’s Michael Zezas suggested Trump’s tariffs are far from defeated, noting, “The tariff levels that we had yesterday are probably going to be the tariff levels that we have tomorrow, because there are so many different authorities the administration can reach into to put it back together.” He added that Trump’s power to “raise and escalate — it might be a little bit slower moving, but it is still there.”

Goldman Sachs’ Alec Phillips called the ruling “a setback for the administration’s tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners,” predicting that “for now, we expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs.”

The administration signaled reluctance to pivot immediately to alternative methods, with National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett telling Fox Business Network, “There are different approaches that would take a couple of months, but we’re not planning to pursue those right now because we’re very, very confident that this really is incorrect.”

Despite warnings from economists about potential inflation—evidenced by price hikes like Samsung DU7200 TVs rising to $427 from $400 and Xbox Series X jumping to $600 from $500—Phillips noted that the tariffs’ projected $200 billion in annual revenue, close to the deficit increase from a recent Republican tax bill, remains viable.

Capital markets analyst Adam Kobeissi estimated that $10 billion in tariff revenue has been collected since Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement, underscoring the policy’s tangible impact.

The war in Ukraine is a meat grinder. And it’s only going to get worse if something doesn’t change.

Now Donald Trump handed Vladimir Putin a sobering ultimatum that left everyone holding their breath.

Trump’s Ultimatum to Putin

President Trump is applying intense pressure on Vladimir Putin to demonstrate genuine commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump issued a clear deadline, stating, “We’re going to find out whether or not he’s tapping us along or not, and if he is, we’ll respond a little bit differently, but it will take about a week and a half to two weeks.”

His skepticism about Putin’s intentions was evident when asked if he believed the Russian leader wanted peace, responding, “I can’t tell you that, but I’ll let you know in about two weeks.”

Trump’s frustration stems from recent Russian aggression, including a barrage of missile and drone attacks, which he condemned, saying, “When I see rockets being shot into cities, that’s no good. We aren’t going to allow it.”

This firm stance underscores Trump’s determination to hold Putin accountable, positioning him as a leader unwilling to tolerate delays or deception in the pursuit of peace.

Moscow’s Mixed Signals and Military Moves

Despite Trump’s efforts to broker a ceasefire, the Kremlin’s response has been evasive. On Thursday, spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin has no plans to speak with Trump, even as Russian forces captured three more villages in eastern Ukraine.

This battlefield push contrasts sharply with Putin’s claim last week that he’d agreed to work with Kyiv on a memorandum to establish a peace accord, including the timing of a ceasefire.

Russia insists it is drafting its version of the memorandum but offered no timeline, raising doubts about its sincerity.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry spokesman, Heorhii Tykhyi, criticized this delay on X, writing, “The Russians’ fear of sending their ‘memorandum’ to Ukraine suggests that it is likely filled with unrealistic ultimatums, and they are afraid of revealing that they are stalling the peace process.”

Trump’s growing impatience with Putin, whom he recently accused of having “gone absolutely CRAZY” and “playing with fire” by refusing to engage in peace talks, highlights the Kremlin’s apparent reluctance to match Trump’s diplomatic urgency with concrete action.

A Test of Trump’s Diplomatic Resolve

Trump’s recent interactions with Putin reveal both his optimism for a deal and his readiness to confront obstruction.

After a two-hour conversation with the Russian leader last week, Trump believed he had secured an agreement to kickstart ceasefire negotiations immediately, only to be met with Russia’s most severe military assault on Ukraine to date.

This betrayal prompted Trump to express that he was “very disappointed” with Moscow’s actions, reinforcing his earlier warning that Putin was “playing with fire” by stonewalling peace efforts.

Trump’s approach blends tough rhetoric with a commitment to diplomacy, aiming to prevent further escalation while keeping pressure on Russia.

His proactive stance contrasts with the Kremlin’s vague promises and Ukraine’s concerns about unrealistic demands in the memorandum.

As Trump awaits Russia’s next move within his tight timeline, his leadership in navigating this crisis could prove pivotal in determining whether diplomacy prevails or the conflict deepens.

Musk has been at Trump’s side for months. But now there’s a rift.

And Elon Musk broke with Trump on a major issue that changes everything.

Musk Slams Trump’s Spending Bill as Deficit Balloons

Elon Musk, appointed by President Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), sharply criticized a sprawling spending bill for undermining his team’s efforts to slash federal waste. In a CBS interview, Musk expressed his frustration, saying, “I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit … and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”

His remarks highlight a growing rift within the GOP over fiscal discipline, as the bill’s massive additions to the national debt clash with DOGE’s mission to streamline government operations.

Musk also questioned the bill’s characterization, adding, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. I don’t know if it can be both.”

This critique echoes the concerns of fiscal hawks like Sens. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, who have slammed the bill’s spending levels as it faces Senate scrutiny. The House, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, passed the measure despite warnings that its minimal cuts fail to offset the trillions it will pile onto the national debt.

DOGE’s Mission Faces Political Headwinds

Musk’s role at DOGE, tasked with eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, has thrust him into a contentious political arena, amplifying his status as a divisive figure.

His $250 million donation to Trump’s 2024 campaign has drawn sharp Democratic pushback, complicating his efficiency efforts and impacting Tesla, which saw declining sales despite his popularity among conservatives.

The spending bill’s extravagance, coupled with resistance from entrenched bureaucrats, frustrates Musk’s vision for a leaner government, exposing the challenges of translating his business acumen into political reform.

Adding to his woes, Musk suffered a high-profile defeat in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, where Democrats framed the contest as a referendum on the world’s richest man. This setback underscores the political risks of his deep involvement in GOP initiatives, as his high-profile role at DOGE makes him a lightning rod for criticism.

The interplay between his DOGE mission and these political realities highlights the uphill battle he faces in reshaping federal governance.

Musk Signals Retreat from Political Arena

At the recent Qatar Economic Forum, Musk indicated a step back from his intense political engagement, stating, “I think I’ve done enough.” His decision to “do a lot less” in political spending follows the Wisconsin loss and ongoing frustrations with the DOGE initiative’s slow progress against bureaucratic resistance.

This shift raises questions about his future influence within Trump’s administration, as he appears to recalibrate his focus amid mounting challenges.

As the Senate debates the spending bill, Musk’s vocal disapproval underscores a broader GOP struggle to balance fiscal responsibility with political realities.

His reduced political involvement could weaken the push for efficiency reforms, leaving fiscal conservatives to confront the deficit without his full support.

The evolving dynamic suggests Musk’s high-stakes foray into politics may be cooling, potentially reshaping his role in Trump’s agenda and the broader fight against government waste.

The Bidens aren’t out of the woods yet. And this could mean jail time.

Now Hunter Biden is shaking in fear over a massive FBI investigation.

FBI Reopens Probe into White House Cocaine Incident

The FBI is revisiting the mysterious discovery of cocaine in the Biden administration’s White House in 2023, according to Deputy Director Dan Bongino.

In a recent X post, Bongino announced, “Shortly after swearing in, the Director and I evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that, understandably, have garnered public interest.

We made the decision to either re-open, or push additional resources and investigative attention, to these cases.”

He listed the White House cocaine case alongside the DC pipe bombing and the Supreme Court Dobbs leak as priorities, adding, “I receive requested briefings on these cases weekly and we are making progress. If you have any investigative tips on these matters that may assist us, then please contact the FBI.”

The renewed scrutiny raises questions about the Biden administration’s oversight, with the unresolved case fueling speculation and casting a shadow over its credibility.

Trump Points Finger at Biden Family

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump reignited controversy by suggesting that either former President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter, was responsible for the cocaine found at the White House. In an interview with The Spectator’s Ben Domenech, who asked, “So … who actually left the cocaine in the White House?” Trump replied, “Well, either Joe or Hunter. Could be Joe, too.”

The cocaine was discovered on July 2, 2023, in a storage locker near the West Wing entrance.

Trump further criticized the investigation, stating, “That was such a terrible thing because, you know, those bins are very loaded up with … they’re not clean, and they have hundreds and even thousands of fingerprints. And when they went to look at it, it was absolutely stone cold, wiped dry. You know that, right?” His comments amplify doubts about the initial probe’s thoroughness, pointing to potential lapses under Biden’s watch.

Investigation Stalled, Questions Linger

The Secret Service’s 2023 investigation into the cocaine discovery yielded no definitive answers.

According to their statement, “On July 12, the Secret Service received the FBI’s laboratory results, which did not develop latent fingerprints and insufficient DNA was present for investigative comparisons. Therefore, the Secret Service is not able to compare evidence against the known pool of individuals. The FBI’s evaluation of the substance also confirmed that it was cocaine.”

At the time, the Biden family, including Joe and Hunter, was at Camp David, not the White House.

Hunter Biden’s well-documented struggles with substance abuse, detailed in his 2021 memoir “Beautiful Things” where he described an hourly need for crack cocaine, have fueled speculation, though he testified in federal court in 2023 that he has been sober since 2019.

The FBI’s decision to reopen the case suggests lingering concerns about accountability, with the Biden administration’s failure to resolve the incident leaving room for ongoing public skepticism.

The Left is falling apart. And plenty in the leadership are jumping ship while they can.

Now this Democrat Senator lit up his own party in a shocking act of betrayal.

Bennet Slams Democratic Party’s Tarnished Reputation

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., didn’t hold back his frustration with the Democratic Party on Sunday, blasting its crumbling national image after losing to President Donald Trump in two consecutive elections.

In a candid interview with CNN host Jake Tapper, Bennet declared, “I don’t think nationally, the Democratic brand helps very much anywhere. If it did, we wouldn’t have lost to Donald Trump twice.”

His sharp critique reflects a party grappling with its own failures, as its damaged reputation now threatens to drag down even its most loyal figures, including Bennet himself.

Bennet’s exasperation extended to the party’s base, as he acknowledged the anger among his supporters.

“I know a lot of supporters of mine and friends of mine are furious at Donald Trump. I am… Furious at people they think aren’t standing up enough to Donald Trump. I am,” he said.

Yet, he quickly pivoted to his deeper frustration with his own party, adding, “But I’m also furious that the Democratic Party that has lost twice to Trump.” This admission underscores the internal turmoil within the Democratic ranks, with Bennet caught between opposing Trump and navigating a party brand that’s become a liability.

Democrats’ Failure to Address Voter Concerns

Bennet sharply criticized the Democratic Party’s inability to connect with voters on critical issues like the economy and education, which he believes fueled its electoral defeats.

He told Tapper, “I think they’re sick of a Democratic Party who hasn’t been able to show how we’re going to address an economy where the middle class continues to shrink and where, over the last 20 years, we’ve actually lost ground in terms of, you know, the achievement of our kids in school. We need to address those things.”

His words point to a party out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans, particularly as the middle class continues to erode under policies Democrats have failed to counter effectively.

A September 2024 study by the Center on Reinventing Public Education reinforces Bennet’s concerns, revealing that students’ math and reading scores still lag behind pre-COVID levels. This educational decline, coupled with economic stagnation, highlights the Democrats’ failure to deliver tangible results.

For Bennet, who is eyeing a gubernatorial run, the party’s inability to address these core issues poses a significant hurdle, as voters increasingly view the Democratic brand with skepticism.

Navigating Trump’s Appeal and Party Reform

Despite his fierce opposition to Trump, whom he claimed “would not be hired for any job in his state” due to “the insanity that Trump represents and the chaos that he represents,” Bennet acknowledged the reasons behind Trump’s victories.

He explained, “But, we should understand that there were a lot of people that voted for him for a reason, and that’s because they wanted to blow up Washington, D.C. They’re not surprised by his corruption, that’s sort of a ratification of who he is.”

This recognition of Trump’s disruptive appeal reveals a rare moment of clarity from Bennet, who sees the voters’ frustration with a dysfunctional political system.

Bennet stressed the need for Democrats to offer a better alternative, saying, “And we need to show people something different.”

Yet, his party’s track record of failing to deliver on this promise leaves him in a precarious position. As he campaigns for Colorado governor in 2026 to succeed term-limited Gov. Jared Polis, Bennet must distance himself from the Democratic Party’s self-inflicted wounds while crafting a vision that resonates with a disillusioned electorate.

The party’s repeated losses and inability to counter Trump’s outsider allure make this an uphill battle, casting doubt on whether Bennet can escape the shadow of a faltering Democratic brand.

The weaponization of the justice system is nothing new. But this takes it too far.

Because a lawsuit against this top Republican sent Washington, D.C. into an uproar.

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Move to Restrict Harvard’s Foreign Student Enrollment

On Friday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting the Trump administration’s effort to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.

The decision marks a significant development in an ongoing dispute between the administration and the university over campus conduct and federal oversight.

The judge’s order prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from stripping Harvard of its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which allows U.S. institutions to host visa-holding international students.

Hours before the ruling, Harvard filed a lawsuit accusing the administration of a “campaign of retribution” for the university’s exercise of its First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit argues, “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”

Administration’s Actions and Justification

The DHS announced the revocation of Harvard’s visa program certification less than a day earlier, citing “pro-terrorist conduct” on campus.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated, “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”

She further remarked, “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

The decision would have barred Harvard from admitting new foreign students and required current ones to transfer or lose their legal status in the U.S. before the upcoming academic year.

Harvard’s Legal and Institutional Response

Harvard’s lawsuit contends that the administration’s actions constitute “clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students.”

In a statement to National Review, the university called the decision “unlawful,” emphasizing, “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably.”

The dispute originated when Noem, on April 16, demanded records of foreign students’ “criminality and misconduct,” including protest footage and five years of disciplinary records. Harvard’s refusal to comply led to the visa program termination threat. A letter from Noem, obtained by Fox News, gave Harvard 72 hours to provide the requested information to reinstate its certification.

This legal battle follows other tensions, including the administration’s recent termination of $2.7 million in DHS grants to Harvard, and is the second lawsuit filed by the university against the administration in two weeks.