Schumer and Trump are at each other’s throats. And they aren’t pulling any punches.

Now Chuck Schumer threw a massive wrench in Trump’s plans that changes everything.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared Tuesday that he’s slamming the brakes on all Department of Justice political nominees, insisting on transparency from President Trump’s administration regarding a lavish jumbo jet gifted by Qatar’s royal family.

The Democrat labeled the deal a “serious national security concern” that demands immediate scrutiny.

“Reports of Qatar handing President Trump a $400 million private jet to serve as Air Force One reek of corruption so blatant it would make even the most seasoned autocrat blink,” Schumer charged on the Senate floor.

“This isn’t just an ethical lapse—it’s a potential threat to our nation’s security.”

Citing the “alarming” possibility of a Qatari-funded Air Force One and claims that Attorney General Pam Bondi personally greenlit the deal, Schumer announced, “Until we get clear answers, I’m putting a hold on every DOJ political nominee.”

A White House spokesperson fired back to Fox News Digital, accusing Schumer and his “soft-on-crime allies” of playing political games at the expense of critical DOJ appointments.

“Senator Schumer’s obstruction undermines President Trump’s mission to Make America Safe Again. Cryin’ Chuck needs to drop the theatrics, stop stalling the Senate, and put the safety and rights of Americans first,” the spokesperson said.

President Trump has justified accepting the Boeing 747-8 from Qatar’s royals as a stopgap measure, pointing to Boeing’s delays in delivering a new Air Force One fleet.

“Boeing’s taking forever to build a new Air Force One,” Trump remarked Monday. “Our current plane is 40 years old. Compared to what a modern equivalent should be, it’s not even in the same league.”

News broke Sunday that the Trump administration plans to use the $400 million jet temporarily, with ABC News reporting it will later be donated to Trump’s presidential library.

Schumer, in his Tuesday address, demanded that the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit reveal all actions by Qatari agents in the U.S. that might benefit Trump or his businesses.

“Under Attorney General Bondi, the DOJ has dropped the ball on FARA enforcement,” he said. “The public deserves to know about every deal involving President Trump, his family, or the Trump Organization—not just this jet, but all Middle East transactions.”

Schumer pressed further:

“President Trump calls this a ‘free jet.’ Is it fully equipped with security measures from day one? If so, who installed them, and how can we trust they’re secure? Why risk relying on a foreign government for such sensitive work? If not, what modifications are needed to make this plane safe, and will Qatar foot the bill, or will American taxpayers be stuck with the cost?”

He concluded by calling for Bondi to testify before Congress to clarify why the jet deal doesn’t violate the Constitution’s emoluments clause or ethics laws.

“Until the Attorney General justifies this questionable decision and we get full answers, I’ll block all DOJ political nominees,” Schumer vowed.

Psaki wishes she had her old job as press secretary back. Now it’s just embarrassing.

Now Jen Psaki humiliated MSNBC with a harebrained monologue.

Psaki’s Playful Jab at Trump’s Press Team

On Friday’s episode of MSNBC’s “The Briefing,” host Jen Psaki, a former White House press secretary, took a cheeky swipe at current press secretary Karoline Leavitt by staging her own mock White House briefing.

With a tongue-in-cheek setup, Psaki promised to tackle real press questions without the “MAGA spin” she sees dominating the current administration’s responses. “I have noticed the White House briefing room has taken a bit of a bizarro turn lately,” she quipped.

“And I figured, what the hell, it’s a Friday night. Why not dust off the cobwebs and field a few questions from the White House press briefing room today? Because it’s been a while.”

Using a faux briefing room backdrop, Psaki fielded actual questions from Friday’s real briefing, offering her unfiltered takes.

Her approach blended humor with pointed critique, aiming to contrast her straightforward style with what she views as the Trump team’s evasive tactics.

Eric Adams is visiting because he owes his current freedom to the guy sitting in the White House. Let’s stop pretending this is on the level, like where the relationship is between a president and a New York City mayor just coordinating city business in a normal course of events.

I mean, even the judge who allowed the case to be dropped said that it, quote, smacks of a bargain.

Digging into Trump’s Decisions: Adams and Hayden

Psaki didn’t hold back when addressing a question from the New York Post’s Steven Nelsen about New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ White House visit.

She suggested the meeting was less about routine city business and more about political favors, noting, “Let’s stop pretending this is on the level.” Psaki pointed to a judge’s remark that the dismissal of a case against Adams “smacks of a bargain,” implying a deeper connection to Trump’s influence.

She also tackled the abrupt firing of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, a Black woman appointed in 2016 with strong bipartisan Senate support. Psaki hinted at possible racial motivations, saying, “I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on why Trump and his administration decided to fire Carla Hayden.”

Displaying a photo of Hayden as a “visual aid,” she left the implication hanging, urging viewers to question the administration’s motives.

“The Briefing” Faces Viewership Rollercoaster

Psaki’s new show, “The Briefing,” claimed MSNBC’s prime 9 p.m. ET slot from Tuesday through Friday, debuting to 1.2 million viewers and 139,000 in the key 25-54 demographic.

However, the program’s second episode on Wednesday saw a sharp decline, dipping to just over one million total viewers and a mere 65,000 in the demo—a 53% drop. The 18-49 age group was hit even harder, plummeting 67% from 113,000 to 37,000 viewers.

Despite the rocky start, Psaki’s bold style and insider perspective continue to stir conversation, even as she navigates the challenges of retaining a prime-time audience.

The divide in America is getting larger. And now the fight is heating up.

Because Catholics took on a Democrat Governor for this egregious assault on the First Amendment

Catholic Clergy Condemn New Washington Law

On May 6, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of priests and deacons, publicly denounced a Washington state law, signed into effect on May 2 by Governor Bob Ferguson, that mandates priests to break the seal of confession when child s*x abuse is disclosed during the sacrament.

The confraternity labeled the legislation a direct assault on religious freedom, arguing that it unconstitutionally compels clergy to violate sacred Catholic doctrine.

The law, according to CatholicVote, explicitly strips legal protections for the confidentiality of the confessional in cases involving abuse, while leaving physician-patient and lawyer-client privileges untouched.

“Criminal prosecution must rely on constitutional methods to convict rather than violate the freedom of religion,” stated Rev. John Trigilio, President of the Confraternity, emphasizing the law’s threat to the First Amendment.

Balancing Child Protection and Sacramental Integrity

The Confraternity’s statement reaffirmed its dual commitment to safeguarding children and preserving the sanctity of the sacraments, asserting that these goals are not mutually exclusive.

Priests who refuse to disclose confessional content related to suspected child s*x abuse face imprisonment under the new law, as well as automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church for violating the seal.

“We encourage penitents to voluntarily report crimes to proper authorities, while maintaining the sacred and inviolable seal of confession,” the Confraternity declared.

“It is not a question of either/or, as if the state must choose between defending children or respecting religion. It has been and can continue to be both/and. Neither obligation should be in jeopardy.”

This stance underscores the group’s call for solutions that respect both legal accountability and religious principles.

Broader Opposition and Legal Scrutiny

Archbishop Paul D. Etienne of Seattle also condemned the law on May 4, invoking biblical precedent to underscore the Church’s position.

“After the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin: ‘We must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). This is our stance now in the face of this new law,” he wrote.

Etienne stressed that Catholic clergy are bound by Church law to uphold the confidentiality of confessions, assuring Catholics that their sacramental privacy remains “sacred, secure, confidential and protected.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into the law, citing potential violations of the First Amendment.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stated, “SB 5375 demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government.”

She further criticized the law for disproportionately targeting clergy, noting, “Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals.”

The DOJ expressed its intent to pursue the matter rigorously, expecting cooperation from Washington state.

American power is back. And there’s not stopping it this time.

Now the Pentagon ordered a massive change that is unsettling Trump’s enemies.

Swift Action to Strengthen Military Readiness

On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a decisive internal memo directing the Pentagon to begin removing transgender troops from military service, following a Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday that greenlit the Trump administration’s enforcement of the ban.

The directive mandates that approximately 1,000 transgender service members either voluntarily separate by June 6 for active-duty troops or July 7 for National Guard and Reserves, or face involuntary separation thereafter.

“On conclusion of the self-identification eligibility window, the Military Departments will initiate involuntary separation processes,” the memo states.

This bold move, backed by the court’s decision, aims to ensure the military’s focus remains on readiness and national security, aligning with President Trump’s vision for a disciplined and effective fighting force.

Upholding Rigorous Standards

The Pentagon’s policy, echoing a February memo stalled by lawsuits, prioritizes mental and physical preparedness for military service.

The Thursday directive asserts, “Expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s s*x cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service.

Service by individuals with a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibiting symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is not in the best interest of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”

With about 4,240 service members—0.2% of the 2.1 million in uniform—diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the administration argues that such conditions detract from operational effectiveness.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell confirmed that the 1,000 self-identified transgender troops “will begin the voluntary separation process,” while medical record reviews will identify others, reinforcing standards that prioritize mission-critical capabilities.

Rejecting Wokeness for a Stronger Future

Hegseth celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling, which saw dissent from liberal justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor, by proclaiming on social media, “No More Trans @ DoD.”

At a U.S. Special Operations forces conference, he boldly declared, “We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind. No more pronouns, no more climate change obsessions, no more emergency vaccine mandates, no more dudes in dresses. We are done with that sh**.”

This stance marks a sharp departure from Biden-era policies, redirecting the Department of Defense toward traditional values and operational strength.

By streamlining personnel policies, the Trump administration aims to rebuild a military unburdened by ideological distractions, ensuring that America’s armed forces remain the world’s most formidable.

Biden isn’t done dragging Kamala down with him. Now he’s going national with his tell-all mentality.

And Joe Biden broke Kamala Harris’ brain after admitting one secret about her.

Biden Addresses Harris Campaign Narrative

In a candid Thursday interview on ABC’s The View, former President Joe Biden pushed back against claims that he pressured former Vice President Kamala Harris to avoid distancing herself from him during her 2024 presidential campaign. Co-host Sunny Hostin revisited a pivotal moment from Harris’ October 2024 appearance on the show, where Harris, when asked if she would have done anything differently from Biden, replied, “not a thing comes to mind.” Hostin noted that this response was “weaponized against her,” citing reports that Biden had privately insisted “there could be no daylight” between them. Biden firmly denied giving such advice, offering a nuanced defense of Harris’ campaign and their shared record.

“Well, look, first of all, I did not advise her to say that, number one. Like I said, I was vice president. I understand the role, number one,” Biden stated. He suggested Harris’ comment reflected pride in their administration’s successes, not an unwillingness to carve her own path. “I think she was talking about, she wouldn’t have changed the successes we had, not opposed to, we wouldn’t change anything at all. She has to be her own person, and she was. She was,” he added. Biden argued that Harris’ words were misconstrued, emphasizing her individuality and contributions to their joint achievements.

Tensions Over Loyalty and Legacy

Behind the scenes, a different dynamic reportedly unfolded. According to The Final Fight by reporters Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen, Biden publicly encouraged Harris to do what was necessary to win but privately stressed unity. The book claims Biden “would say publicly that Harris should do what she must to win.

But privately, including in conversations with her, he repeated an admonition: let there be no daylight between us.” On the day of a critical debate, Biden allegedly called Harris to deliver “an unusual kind of pep talk” and reinforce his expectation that she protect his legacy.

“Whether she won or lost the election, he thought, she would only harm him by publicly distancing herself from him — especially during a debate that would be watched by millions of Americans,” the authors wrote. This tension underscored Biden’s desire to preserve his record, even as Harris sought to establish her own identity.

The book’s portrayal paints a complex picture of Biden’s influence, suggesting he was reluctant to give Harris space to diverge from his policies. “To the extent that she wanted to forge her own path, Biden had no interest in giving her room to do so,” Parnes and Allen noted. This dynamic fueled criticism that Biden’s loyalty demands constrained Harris’ ability to differentiate herself, a challenge compounded by the compressed timeline of her campaign after Biden’s withdrawal.

Campaign Timeline and Broader Reflections

Hostin pressed Biden on whether he should have exited the presidential race earlier than July 21, 2024, to give Harris more time to campaign. With only August, September, October, and a few additional weeks to build her candidacy, Harris faced a roughly 90-day sprint.

Biden defended his decision, stating, “I say, number one, that there were still six full months, she was in every aspect, every decision I made, every decision we made, and I don’t think, I hope I don’t sound the wrong way. I don’t think anybody thought we’d be successful as we were.”

He highlighted Harris’ integral role in their administration, framing her campaign as an extension of their shared successes.

Reflecting on Harris’ election loss to President Trump, Biden pointed to systemic issues, asserting that “s*xism and racism” played a significant role.

He expressed little surprise at Trump’s victory, acknowledging the challenges Harris faced. Hostin echoed this perspective, stating, “As a country, it’s very difficult for people to believe that racism and misogyny, they’re just alive and well.”

She cited her own “lived experience” and a graph showing “a clear racial divide” in voter preferences, reinforcing the impact of these factors.

“I think that we don’t want to think that about ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, but it’s – my lived experience tells me that it does still exist, even if your lived experience doesn’t tell that it exists and, you know, the facts support that,” she added.

The discussion underscored the broader societal dynamics that shaped the election, leaving Biden and Hostin to grapple with the persistent barriers Harris encountered.

AG James has been persecuting Trump with the Democrats’ blessing for years. But the tables have turned.

But now Letitia James could end up behind bars after being charged with this disgusting crime.

Federal Probe Targets New York Attorney General

The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James, thrusting her into the spotlight amid allegations of financial misrepresentation. According to a source familiar with the matter, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has issued subpoenas probing claims that James falsely declared a single-family home in Virginia as her primary residence to secure more favorable loan terms.

The investigation also examines accusations that she misrepresented the number of livable units in a Brooklyn multifamily property to obtain better interest rates. This development, reported by Fox News, has ignited a firestorm of debate over political motives and legal accountability.

Allegations and Political Backlash

The probe stems from a criminal referral by William Pulte, the Trump administration’s Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, who urged the DOJ to investigate James for the alleged misrepresentations.

The timing of the investigation has raised eyebrows, coming shortly after President Trump publicly criticized James. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, swiftly condemned the probe as politically motivated.

“These baseless and long-discredited allegations, put to rest by my April 24 letter to the Department of Justice, are suddenly back in the news just days after President Trump publicly attacked Attorney General James,” Lowell stated. He framed the investigation as “the political retribution President Trump threatened to exact,” challenging assurances from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi that such actions would not occur under her leadership.

Lowell’s response to the DOJ, addressed to Bondi, accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the Justice Department for political gain. He highlighted the irony of Trump’s past complaints about a “politicized” DOJ, writing, “The stunning hypocrisy of President Trump’s complaint that the Justice Department had been ‘politicized’ and ‘weaponized’ against him is laid bare as he and others in his administration are now asking you to undertake the very same practice.”

Lowell’s letter also referenced Trump’s public calls for revenge and personal attacks on James, positioning the investigation as a retaliatory move.

James’ Legal Battles and Defense

James, a prominent figure among Democratic attorneys general, has been a vocal opponent of Trump’s policies, leading lawsuits to block several of his executive orders in the early months of his presidency. She also spearheaded a high-profile case against Trump and the Trump Organization, accusing the then-candidate of falsifying business records to secure favorable loan terms.

That case resulted in a judicial order for Trump to pay hundreds of millions, though he continues to appeal the ruling. The current allegations against James mirror those she prosecuted against Trump, adding a layer of complexity to the unfolding controversy.

In response to the accusations, Lowell offered a detailed defense. Regarding the Virginia property, he argued that James never intended to use it as her primary residence and that a power-of-attorney letter indicating otherwise was a mistake.

He pointed to other documents where James clarified to her lender that the home would not serve as her primary residence. On the Brooklyn property, Lowell dismissed claims of fraud, accusing Pulte of relying on an outdated 2001 certificate of occupancy while ignoring updated documentation that correctly listed the residence as a four-unit multifamily property.

“If prosecutors are genuinely interested in the truth, we are prepared to meet false claims with facts,” Lowell asserted, signaling James’ readiness to counter the allegations head-on.

The investigation into James underscores the fraught intersection of politics and justice, with both sides framing the probe as a test of fairness and accountability. As the legal battle unfolds, it promises to fuel further scrutiny of James’ actions and the broader dynamics of political retribution in the Trump era.

We may be closer to war than many thought. And it’s anybody’s guess when the first shot will be fired.

Now Iran is on lockdown after Trump made this one military threat.

Trump’s Bold Stance on Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

President Donald Trump issued a stark ultimatum to Iran on Wednesday, vowing to halt its nuclear program by any means necessary. In a candid conversation with syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump expressed a preference for diplomacy but did not shy away from harsher measures. “I would much prefer a strong, verified deal,” he said, outlining his hope for a revised nuclear agreement with Tehran.

However, he quickly added a more forceful alternative: “Well, we could actually blow ’em up. Blow ’em up, or just de-nuke ’em.” Trump’s blunt rhetoric underscored the high stakes of the ongoing standoff, as he described the options for handling Iran’s atomic sites: “But there are only two alternatives, blow ’em up nicely or blow ’em up viciously.”

The president’s remarks come amid a renewed push to curb Iran’s nuclear capabilities during his second term. Having withdrawn the U.S. from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Trump is now navigating a delicate diplomatic path.

Three rounds of negotiations, facilitated by Oman’s government and led by Trump’s special Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, have already taken place, though a fourth session planned for Rome was recently canceled due to “logistical reasons.”

Diplomatic Push Meets Firm Demands

Trump’s approach blends diplomacy with unwavering demands, as he made clear in an NBC News “Meet The Press” interview on Sunday. He insisted on nothing less than the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, warning that failure to achieve this would mean “the world will be destroyed.”

His zero-tolerance stance reflects deep skepticism about Iran’s intentions, despite Tehran’s claims that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes. “You know, civilian energy often leads to military wars,” Trump remarked, dismissing Iran’s narrative. “And we don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon.”

The U.S. and its allies have long questioned Iran’s assertions, viewing its nuclear advancements as a potential pathway to weaponization.

Trump’s comments signal a refusal to accept ambiguity, positioning complete denuclearization as the only acceptable outcome. This hardline posture sets the tone for ongoing negotiations, with the administration signaling both openness to dialogue and readiness to escalate if necessary.

A Broader Vision for Stability

Vice President JD Vance reinforced the administration’s dual-track approach during remarks at the Munich Leaders Conference on Wednesday. He highlighted the potential for a deal that could integrate Iran into the global economy while ensuring its nuclear ambitions are permanently curtailed.

“There is a deal here that would really bring Iran into the global economy,” Vance said, noting that such an outcome “would be really good for the Iranian people, but would result in the complete cessation of any chance that they can get a nuclear weapon. That’s what we’re negotiating towards.”

Vance framed the diplomatic effort as “Option A,” a pathway that benefits Iran’s populace and even some of its leaders.

However, he was clear about the consequences of failure: “As the President has said, that’s Option A and Option B — if Option A is very good for the Iranian people and even, you know, some of the folks, the leadership in Iran — option B is very bad. It’s very bad for everybody, and it’s not what we want, but it’s better than option C, which is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.”

He emphasized that allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon is “completely off the table for the American administration. No ifs, ands, or buts.” This resolute stance reflects a broader strategy to balance incentives with the threat of severe repercussions, aiming to secure both regional stability and global security.

Obama has been working in the shadows for years. But this could end all of that.

Because RFK Jr. unveiled a shocking truth about Barack Obama that will drop your jaw.

New Call for Justice in RFK Assassination

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has reignited a decades-old quest for truth by urging the Obama administration to investigate an audio recording that allegedly captured the 1968 assassination of his father.

The recording, Kennedy Jr. claims, contains evidence of more gunshots than the convicted assassin’s weapon could have fired. This plea was detailed in a September 2012 letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, which surfaced among a vast collection of documents released by the National Archives on Wednesday.

The newly disclosed documents provide a window into the federal probe of Robert F. Kennedy’s tragic death at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Kennedy Jr., now a Trump administration official, sought to challenge the official narrative surrounding the June 6, 1968, killing.

His request for “a new investigation” underscores lingering doubts about the circumstances of his father’s murder, a case that has long fueled speculation and debate.

Key Evidence and Allies

Kennedy Jr.’s push for answers was bolstered by Paul Schrade, a former United Auto Workers vice president who was wounded in the attack. “He was standing beside my father when Daddy was killed and Paul was himself wounded by a bullet,” Kennedy Jr. wrote in his letter to Holder, emphasizing Schrade’s personal stake in the case.

Schrade, alongside a team of prominent attorneys, including former U.S. Attorney Rob Bonner, argued that the audio evidence is compelling enough to warrant a fresh investigation. “Paul and his team of nationally prominent attorneys strongly believe this new evidence is conclusive and requires a new investigation. I agree and support his request for a new investigation,” Kennedy Jr. affirmed.

Details of the Disputed Audio

The audio in question, recorded by a journalist at the scene, is central to Schrade’s claims. He contends it reveals “two gunmen fired at least 13 shots from two different .22 caliber revolvers and from opposing directions.”

This stands in contrast to the official account, which holds that Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted assassin, acted alone using an eight-shot .22 caliber Iver Johnson revolver. Schrade insists Sirhan had no opportunity to reload during the chaotic incident, raising questions about the possibility of a second shooter.

The released records show that Kennedy Jr.’s request prompted action from the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, which launched an inquiry into the audio evidence. The tape was sent to the FBI’s Digital Evidence Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, for detailed analysis. However, the results were inconclusive.

“The designated area recorded on specimen Q1 was of insufficient quality to definitively classify the impulse events as gunshots,” the FBI’s May 13, 2013, report noted. The report further stated that investigators could not “confirm the number of gunshots or determine the identification of specific weapon(s)” based on the recording.

Broader Context of Declassification

The release of these documents stems from President Trump’s Jan. 23 executive order, which called for the declassification of records related to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

This move has reignited public interest in these pivotal moments in American history, offering researchers and advocates new material to explore. For Kennedy Jr. and Schrade, the files represent a chance to revisit a case that has haunted their lives and the nation’s conscience for over half a century.

Vance has been making his rounds around the world. Now he’s ready to tell all.

And JD Vance spilled a devastating secret that proves what we all already knew.

Forging a Path to Lasting Peace

Vice President JD Vance, embodying the Trump administration’s bold leadership, has outlined a pragmatic strategy to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict, emphasizing diplomacy to secure a durable peace.

Speaking at the Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, Vance acknowledged Russia’s stringent demands but expressed confidence that both nations could find common ground under Trump’s guidance.

“The step that we would like to make right now, is we would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another,” Vance said here Wednesday at the Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington.

“We think that if cool heads prevail here, we can bring this thing to a durable peace that will be economically beneficial for both Ukrainians and the Russians,” Vance added during a discussion with Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, president of the Foundation Council of the Munich Security Conference and former German ambassador to the U.S.

Advancing Trump’s Long-Term Strategy

Russia’s conditions include blocking Ukraine’s NATO membership, barring foreign peacekeepers post-conflict, and adjusting Ukraine’s borders. While Ukraine supports a 30-day ceasefire, Russia has rejected it.

Vance underscored the Trump administration’s focus on comprehensive, long-term solutions, reflecting President Trump’s commitment to results over fleeting gestures.

“We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire, and more on what the long-term settlement look like, and we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball,” Vance said.

True to Trump’s “America First” doctrine, Vance urged European nations to boost defense spending and take charge of their security.

Echoing his February remarks at the Munich Security Conference, he called on Europe to “step up in a big way to provide for its own defense,” warning that internal challenges like censorship and illegal immigration outweigh external threats from Russia or China.

Some European leaders, including German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, pushed back, misinterpreting Trump’s call for strength as a critique of their governance.

Strengthening NATO Through Trump’s Leadership

The discussion comes as Ischinger warned that European-led peacekeeping in Ukraine without U.S. involvement could destabilize NATO. He cautioned that if the U.K. and France deploy peacekeepers, Russia might escalate tensions, leaving European forces vulnerable.

“And therefore the Europeans in Ukraine would possibly be shot at, and would need to reply, to engage without the United States on their side,” Ischinger said. “Quite frankly, that would be the end of NATO as we know it.”

Vance’s advocacy for a negotiated peace and European self-reliance highlights the Trump administration’s resolve to fortify global alliances while prioritizing American interests.

Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. is steering the Ukraine-Russia conflict toward a resolution that strengthens stability and reasserts NATO’s unity.

Trump has always had plenty of tricks up his sleeve. But this came straight out of left field.

Now President Trump flipped the script in a way that left Democrats dumbfounded.

Halting Risky Overseas Virus Research

President Donald Trump took decisive action on Monday, signing an executive order to end federal funding for gain-of-function research in high-risk nations like China, where Covid-19 is widely believed to have emerged.

The directive zeroes in on “countries of concern,” such as Iran, and others with lax oversight of biological experiments, according to a White House fact sheet. By targeting research that modifies viruses to become more infectious or deadly, the order aims to prevent another catastrophic pandemic.

“It can leak out, like from Wuhan. . . . I think I said that right from Day One,” Trump declared in the Oval Office, reaffirming his long-held stance. “I’ve never changed that opinion.”

Targeting Wuhan’s Legacy and Lab Leaks

The executive order specifically cites the bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded through EcoHealth Alliance, as a driving force behind this policy shift. The White House emphasizes the need to shield Americans from lab leaks, like the one researchers suspect sparked the 1977 Russian flu.

Trump was joined by key allies, including NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, coauthor of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdowns, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal critic of Covid-19 vaccines and restrictions.

“There’s no laboratory that’s immune from leaks — and this is going to prevent those kinds of inadvertent leaks from happening in the future and endangering humanity,” Kennedy stated, noting the $25 trillion global cost and 20 million lives lost to Covid-19.

Strengthening Oversight and Accountability

The order introduces robust enforcement and reporting mechanisms to tighten biosafety and biosecurity standards, aiming to “discourage subjective interpretation of policies that researchers have used in the past,” per the White House.

This move follows assessments by the FBI, Department of Energy, and CIA, which concluded the Covid-19 pandemic likely stemmed from a Wuhan lab leak, with the CIA endorsing this theory shortly after Trump’s January inauguration.

In contrast, former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins pushed a zoonotic origin in 2020, a stance later undermined as they admitted the lab leak theory’s plausibility during congressional probes led by Representative James Comer (R., Ky.).

Congressional Backing and Public Protection

Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, hailed Trump’s action, which bans taxpayer-funded gain-of-function research across the government. “Every American should be outraged that their hard-earned tax dollars were used by mad scientists to engineer more deadly and transmissible coronaviruses,” Comer said, praising the administration’s focus on public health and safety.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, under Comer’s leadership, conducted a two-year investigation, securing testimony from Fauci and Collins that debunked earlier dismissals of the lab leak hypothesis.

Trump, visibly moved after Kennedy’s remarks, said he was “very honored” to sign the order, framing it as a critical step to prevent future pandemics and protect Americans from reckless science abroad.

America’s enemies are hard at work. They won’t sleep until we’re on our knees.

Now this foreign government was caught red-handed funneling terrorists into America.

Maduro’s Role in Fueling Tren de Aragua’s U.S. Infiltration

A recent intelligence assessment exposes how Venezuelan officials under Nicolas Maduro have “facilitated” the illegal migration of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a ruthless criminal gang, into the United States, aligning with Maduro’s apparent aim to “destabilize governments and undermine public safety.”

The April memo from the National Intelligence Council, released by the ODNI, reveals a troubling permissiveness, noting that “the Maduro regime probably is not systematically directing Venezuelan outflows, such as to sow chaos in receiving countries.”

This softens an earlier FBI claim that Maduro directly orchestrates TdA’s U.S. operations, suggesting a more opportunistic chaos.

Over 600 Venezuelan migrants with likely TdA ties, crossing illegally during Joe Biden’s presidency, have been flagged by the Department of Homeland Security.

TdA’s Crimes Enabled by Venezuela’s Sanctuary

The Maduro regime’s complicity is stark, providing TdA a safe haven that “aiding and abetting their crimes and terrorist activities against the United States by enabling them to thrive.”

The gang’s brutality surfaced in heinous acts like the June 2024 r*pe and murder of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray in Texas by two TdA illegal aliens, and an August 2024 armed takeover of a Colorado apartment complex caught on video.

The intelligence report cites unverified claims that Maduro allies, including Diosdado Cabello and Iris Varela, “have cooperated with TDA by providing financial or materiel support.”

Local officials, including military personnel, allegedly tip off TdA about raids or patrols, as seen in a 2023 prison operation, highlighting a corrupt ecosystem where “mid- to low-level Venezuelan officials probably profit from TDA’s illicit activities.”

A Complex Web of Cooperation and Negligence

While the Maduro regime’s ties to TdA involve “an uneasy mix of cooperation and confrontation rather than top-down directives,” the government’s inaction fosters chaos.

“Maduro regime leadership probably sometimes tolerates TDA’s presence in Venezuela, and some government officials may cooperate with TDA for financial gain,” the report notes, warning that “sources could also be motivated to fabricate information.”

Venezuela’s overstretched security forces, lacking territorial control, often opt for uneasy alliances with armed groups like TdA to maintain influence, as “combatting such groups often results in personnel losses.”

Maduro’s refusal to curb migration, which has plummeted 80% since January, underscores his strategy: dissidents leave, remittances flow, and the U.S. grapples with the fallout.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized, “Whether TdA exclusively murders, smuggles drugs, and traffics illegal immigrants over our borders on the orders of Venezuelan leaders, or freelances for self-enrichment is beside the point,” pointing to Maduro’s role in fostering TdA’s growth to harm U.S. interests, a factor in the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations.

The world is watching with bated breath. Who knows how this will all end up?

Because Vladimir Putin made a nuclear threat that put the Pentagon on total lockdown.

Putin’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling Escalates Tensions

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a chilling warning on state television Sunday, expressing hope that Russia would not need to resort to nuclear weapons against Ukraine while refusing to rule out their use.

The provocative remarks, made amid Moscow’s ongoing war that began in 2022, underscore the Kremlin’s aggressive posture and highlight the urgency of President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker peace. Putin’s comments came in response to questions about Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, particularly following attacks on Kursk that prompted him to lower the threshold for nuclear deployment last year.

“They wanted to provoke us so that we made mistakes,” Putin said, according to a translation. “There has been no need to use those weapons … and I hope they will not be required. We have enough strength and means to bring what was started in 2022 to a logical conclusion with the outcome Russia requires.”

Ukrainian Ambassador to the US Oksana Markarova condemned Putin’s rhetoric, urging the international community to take his threats seriously. “At this point, it doesn’t matter how we interpret what he says,” Markarova told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“We just have to believe what he says and understand what he says. He is a threat, not only to Ukraine but also to anyone who believes that nations should live peacefully.”

Trump’s Bold Diplomacy Faces Obstacles

President Trump has championed a diplomatic resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, seeking to avert further escalation and stabilize the region. His efforts, however, face significant challenges, as he acknowledged in a candid interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” aired Sunday. Reflecting on the deep animosity between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a swift agreement. “Maybe it’s not possible to do,” Trump told NBC.

“There’s tremendous hatred, just so you understand, Kristen. We’re talking tremendous hatred between these two men [Putin and Zelensky] and between, you know, some of the soldiers, frankly. Between the generals.”

Trump’s frustration stems from Russia’s rejection of a comprehensive cease-fire and its intensified attacks on Ukrainian civilians, which drew sharp rebuke from the president. Despite a Russian proposal for a limited pause in strikes on energy infrastructure and a temporary cease-fire from May 8 to 10 to commemorate the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, progress remains elusive.

Trump’s proactive approach, including a recent $50 million weapons package to Ukraine and a new mineral rights agreement, demonstrates his commitment to supporting Ukraine while pursuing a negotiated end to the conflict.

Russia’s Territorial Ambitions Meet Trump’s Resolve

Putin’s claim that reconciliation with Ukraine is “inevitable” contrasts with Russia’s ongoing struggle to secure control over the annexed territories of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, none of which Moscow fully dominates.

The Kremlin’s ambitions, rooted in its 2014 annexation of Crimea, face fierce Ukrainian resistance and international condemnation. Trump’s administration has responded with a balanced strategy, combining military aid with diplomatic pressure to counter Russia’s aggression and protect global stability.

The president’s earlier clash with Zelensky in February, where he accused the Ukrainian leader of risking World War III, reflects Trump’s no-nonsense approach to leadership in this crisis.

By prioritizing peace talks while maintaining support for Ukraine, Trump aims to outmaneuver Putin’s belligerence and restore order to a volatile region. His efforts stand as a testament to his vision of a strong, secure world order, undeterred by the complexities of entrenched hatred and territorial disputes.