It’s been smooth sailing for the most part. But this could make or break Donald.

Because he has been struck with the largest test of his presidency.

Growing Tensions Over Epstein Investigation Handling

The handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by President Donald Trump’s administration has sparked significant discontent among his MAGA supporters, with some drawing parallels to the political fallout from former President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal.

A Rasmussen Reports poll shared with the Washington Examiner reveals that 56% of respondents reject the FBI and Justice Department’s claim that Epstein, a convicted sex trafficker who died in 2019, did not maintain a “client list.”

Additionally, 47% believe Epstein was murdered in his Manhattan jail cell, compared to 31% who accept the official ruling of suicide. The Justice Department’s July 7, 2025, memo, which found no evidence of a client list or blackmail and reaffirmed Epstein’s suicide, has fueled skepticism among Trump’s base, who expected greater transparency based on campaign promises.

Mixed Messaging and Public Distrust

The administration’s conflicting communications have intensified public and supporter scrutiny.

While the Justice Department and FBI concluded their review with no new actionable evidence, a simultaneous court filing with Judicial Watch indicated the Epstein case remains open, with additional documents still being uncovered.

This contradiction prompted Rasmussen Reports to post on X, “Congratulations again to the PR geniuses at The Justice Department,” highlighting perceived inconsistencies.

Prominent conservative figures, including Charlie Kirk, Megyn Kelly, and Steve Bannon, have publicly urged Trump to fulfill his pledge for full disclosure, with some speculating about connections to high-profile Democrats.

The lack of clarity has contributed to a broader erosion of trust, with 68% of likely voters in the Rasmussen poll believing “dozens of powerful and wealthy offenders” should face justice, compared to only 16% who view the case as closed.

Political Repercussions and Declining Approval

The Epstein controversy has coincided with a dip in Trump’s approval ratings, which Rasmussen Reports notes have shifted from a positive balance at the start of July 2025 to 47% approval and 51% disapproval.

This decline follows a turbulent period marked by Trump’s tariff announcements, which negatively impacted the stock market, though he had previously enjoyed positive sentiment after strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and the passage of his “big, beautiful bill.”

Pollster Mark Mitchell described the situation as a potential “Waterloo moment,” warning, “If it keeps going, this is his Afghanistan.”

Trump has attempted to downplay the issue, stating at a July 8 Cabinet meeting, “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years,” and calling questions about it “a desecration” amid other national priorities like the Texas floods.

Despite these efforts, the ongoing debate, amplified by allies like Kelly, who noted on X that “huge swaths of the party” oppose Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling, suggests the issue continues to challenge Trump’s administration.

The Left is willing to stoop to any low. And it’s only getting worse.

Because a Democrat Congressman doxxed ICE agent and now they could end up behind bars.

ICE Defends Operation Amid Congressional Interference

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Democratic Congressman Salud Carbajal of participating in a “violent mob” that obstructed agents during a criminal search warrant execution at Glass House Farms in California.

ICE reported that the operation resulted in the arrest of 319 illegal immigrants and the rescue of 14 children from potential forced labor, exploitation, and trafficking.

The agency alleged that Carbajal not only joined protesters who hurled rocks at agents, injuring one, but also “doxed” an ICE employee by sharing their business card with the crowd.

ICE stated on social media, “May the congressman’s constituency always remember he chooses violence over the rule of law,” emphasizing their commitment to upholding immigration laws despite resistance.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem further noted that agents faced gunfire during the operation, underscoring the dangerous conditions ICE officers endure to protect communities.

Carbajal’s Account and Community Tensions

Congressman Carbajal offered a contrasting narrative, claiming he was at the marijuana farm to monitor “federal operations” after receiving a “flood of calls” about ICE’s “aggressive behavior.”

He criticized the agency for “using unnecessarily aggressive and militarized tactics against local farm workers and peaceful protesters,” calling the scene “appalling” and asserting, “This is not how we keep our communities safe.”

Carbajal, who identified himself as a member of Congress but was denied entry to the operation, shared an ICE press aide’s business card with a reporter, according to The Santa Barbara Independent.

He also alleged that ICE used smoke grenades and a flash grenade that injured a young girl.

In response to ICE’s accusations, Carbajal dismissed claims of “doxxing” and “violent mobs” as “a blatant attempt to distort what occurred,” arguing they were deflection tactics to avoid accountability.

Rising Challenges for ICE Operations

The incident reflects broader tensions as ICE intensifies efforts to meet President Trump’s mass deportation goals.

The agency reported a 700% increase in assaults on its officers, attributing this to escalating anti-ICE sentiment fueled by actions like those of Carbajal and other critics.

For instance, a New Jersey congresswoman was recently charged with assaulting an ICE employee during a detention center visit, and anti-ICE activists have increasingly attempted to disrupt arrests by spreading rumors and doxxing officers, who now conceal their identities with masks for safety.

Despite these challenges, ICE remains steadfast in its mission to combat illegal immigration and protect public safety, as evidenced by the Glass House Farms operation.

The Left likes to play the race card. But now they are the ones showing their true colors.

Because a high profile CNN guest devolved into a racist rant you don’t want to miss.

Heated Exchange on CNN’s NewsNight

During a Monday broadcast of CNN’s “NewsNight” with host Abby Phillip, a panel discussion took a contentious turn when Ana Navarro referenced a fellow panelist’s race in dismissing his critique.

The clash began when conservative commentator Brad Polumbo challenged Navarro’s claim that President Donald Trump’s second term constituted a “reign of terror,” calling her statement “hyperbolic.”

Navarro responded, “It might be hyperbolic for you as a white man, it’s certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino.”

Polumbo quickly countered, “Oh, okay, so we’re being racist now,” highlighting the racial framing of Navarro’s remark.

Navarro’s Defense and Panelist Pushback

Navarro attempted to deflect accusations of bias, insisting:

“No, I’m not being racist,” and clarifying, “I’m not dismissing your opinion. I’m telling you that what the Latino community, the brown community, in America — a lot of them disagree with you.”

Polumbo challenged her generalization, noting, “the Latino community was not a monolith.”

When Navarro asked if he felt insulted by her identifying him as a “white man,” Polumbo responded, “When you invoke it to dismiss my opinion.”

This back-and-forth highlighted Navarro’s reliance on broad community perspectives, which some view as sidestepping individual arguments in favor of group-based narratives.

The exchange grew heated as Navarro’s framing appeared to prioritize identity over substantive discussion, drawing criticism for escalating the debate unnecessarily.

Moderator Steps In to Diffuse Tension

Host Abby Phillip intervened to de-escalate, stating:

“I just want to make a point that, Brad, all she’s saying is that her view of the situation is different from yours. I don’t think that’s an insult.”

Phillip’s attempt to reframe Navarro’s comment as a difference in perspective aimed to steer the conversation back to civility.

However, Navarro’s initial dismissal of Polumbo’s opinion based on his race sparked a broader debate about the role of identity in political discourse.

WATCH:

Ana Navarro dismisses opinion of CNN panelist because he is a white man.

"It might be hyperbolic for you as a white man." pic.twitter.com/dVlVw6gTUb

— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) July 15, 2025

The Left likes to grandstand. But sometimes they are forced to sit down and shut up.

Now Tom Homan silenced a heckler in a heated exchange caught on camera.

Tom Homan’s Unwavering Defense of ICE

At the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, Border Czar Tom Homan delivered a powerful defense of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, standing firm against a disruptive protester.

When a heckler interrupted his speech, brandishing a doctored photo of Homan with gang signs and mockingly asking if he was an “MS-13 member,” Homan responded with characteristic grit:

“I got a question for you: Why don’t you come up here and hand me that picture, right? Bring it.”

As security escorted the protester out amid chants of “USA, USA” from the energized crowd, Homan called out the detractor’s cowardice, stating, “They got morons like this all over the country. This guy ain’t got the balls to be an ICE officer. He hasn’t got the balls to be a Border Patrol agent. This guy lives in his mother’s basement.”

Confronting Anti-ICE Protests with Courage

Homan didn’t hold back in addressing the anti-ICE protests outside the Tampa event, delivering a resolute message:

“You want some? Come get some. I’m tired of it. For the men and women of ICE, I deserve your respect. And Tom Homan isn’t going anywhere. Tom Homan isn’t shutting up.”

His defiance reflects his unwavering support for ICE agents facing a 700% surge in attacks over the past year, as reported in a recent Fox News interview.

Homan highlighted the dangerous consequences of inflammatory rhetoric, particularly from Democrats, noting, “The rhetoric against the men and women of ICE is skyrocketing, especially by members of Congress. We have senators, we have congresspeople that compare ICE to the Nazis, compare ICE to racists, and it just continues.”

He pointed to remarks from figures like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who called ICE agents “modern-day Gestapo,” and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who likened them to “secret police,” arguing such rhetoric fuels violence against officers upholding the law.

Championing Law Enforcement and National Security

Homan’s fiery speech at the summit reaffirmed his dedication to executing President Trump’s immigration policies, promising “the biggest deportation operation this country has ever seen.”

His resolve comes as ICE targets illegal immigrants, many suspected or convicted of violent crimes, amid a historic low in border crossings—down 89% from the 2021-2024 average, according to DHS statistics.

“The only thing that surprised me, you don’t have purple hair and a nose ring. Get out of here, you loser. And, hey, if you’re such a bada**, meet me off stage in 13 minutes and 50 seconds,” Homan taunted the heckler, adding, “I guarantee you he sits down to pee. Guaranteed.”

WATCH:

🚨 JUST IN: Tom Homan DEMOLISHES a heckler interrupting his speech at TPUSA

HOMAN: “This guy doesn't have the balls to be an ICE officer!"

"The ONLY thing that surprises me is that he doesn’t have purple hair and a nose ring"

"I GUARANTEE you this guy sits down to pee” 🤣🔥 pic.twitter.com/tEQEyGICS3

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 12, 2025

The Left still can’t believe Trump is in office. And they’re becoming completely unhinged.

Now a ex-CNN commentator pushed a wild election integrity conspiracy.

Questioning the Integrity of the 2024 Election

Former CNN commentator Angela Rye has raised bold concerns about President Donald Trump and the Republicans, alleging they stole the 2024 election and may attempt to manipulate the 2026 midterms.

On her “Native Land Pod” podcast, Rye expressed deep skepticism: “I think me and [Tiffany Cross] really might feel a way about telling y’all how many days are left till the midterms because I don’t really know this thing’s going to damn happen.”

She added, “Even if they are going to happen, are they going to cheat like they did, I still feel like they did, in the 2024 election? I don’t have data. I got a gut feeling, but I’m going to tell you about the Black woman and the Holy Ghost. We be spot on.”

While lacking concrete evidence, Rye’s remarks reflect a passionate defense of electoral fairness, suggesting Trump’s leadership has emboldened efforts to safeguard the democratic process.

Doubts Cast on Future Electoral Fairness

Rye’s co-host, former MSNBC host Tiffany Cross, echoed concerns about the state of democracy, questioning the likelihood of free and fair elections.

“Even if they did, okay it’s here now,” Cross stated.

“Like what, they’re not going to say ‘okay takesies backsies we stole it.’ Like they have already instituted this authoritarian regime, and I don’t know any post-industrialized country that has come this far into authoritarianism and turned around.”

Cross argued that systemic issues, particularly for Black Americans and women, have long undermined electoral integrity, stating, “So why we think all of a sudden we’re going to have free and fair elections in this country for midterms, which we’ve never really had, as Black folks know all too well and, as women know all too well.”

Her comments highlight a broader distrust in the system, while aligning with Trump’s narrative of exposing and confronting electoral vulnerabilities to ensure stronger protections.

Calls for Vigilance Amid Mixed Perspectives

While some liberal commentators, including Joy Reid, James Carville, Don Lemon, Charlemagne Tha God, and Kathy Griffin, have suggested the 2024 election was tampered with and the 2026 midterms could face similar risks, others urge continued engagement.

Former Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum defended the importance of maintaining faith in the electoral process, arguing for active participation despite past outcomes.

Reid, however, expressed skepticism on Wajahat Ali’s Substack:

“Whenever Democrats say to me, ‘this is the reason we have to coalesce for 2026,’ I always add to the end of their sentence, ‘Yeah, assuming we actually have free and fair elections.’ I think it’s insane, honestly, to just assume we’re going to have normal elections next year.”

Rarely to we get the intimate details from high-level officials. But that’s not the case this time.

Because a Supreme Court Justice revealed what keeps them up at night in fear.

Jackson’s Democracy Concerns Spark Controversy

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, speaking at an Indianapolis Bar Association event on Thursday, shifted from answering light-hearted questions about books and music to a grave concern, stating that “the state of our democracy” keeps her up at night.

The Biden-appointed justice, known for her frequent dissents, elaborated, “I’m really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government,” earning applause but no chance to clarify specific worries.

Her remarks prompted swift backlash on X, with critics questioning her impartiality, one user stating, “What keeps me up [at] night is knowing that we have unqualified Justices like Jackson on the SCOTUS.”

The comments fueled debate about her role on the high court, especially given her pattern of outspoken dissents that have drawn scrutiny from colleagues and the public alike.

Critics Challenge Jackson’s Judicial Approach

Jackson’s assertion that her role includes offering “a slightly different perspective, or a different take on something” intensified accusations of judicial activism.

One X user remarked, “She’s functionally an activist, not a judge,” while another called her dissents “pretty embarrassing,” comparing them to “a substack post” rather than legal rulings.

This week, Jackson stood alone in dissenting against an 8-1 Supreme Court order greenlighting President Donald Trump’s federal workforce cuts, a stance critics cite as evidence of her divergence from judicial consensus.

Her tendency to write separate dissents, even when not the lead dissenter, has positioned her as a polarizing figure, with detractors arguing her emotional rhetoric undermines the court’s commitment to constitutional fidelity.

Sharp Rebuke from Fellow Justices

Jackson’s dissent in a recent birthright citizenship case, where she warned that “our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” drew a pointed rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In the majority opinion, Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” adding that Jackson’s stance appeared to embrace an “imperial Judiciary.”

This criticism, coupled with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s rare disagreement with Jackson in the workforce reduction case, shows the tension within the court.

Critics on X seized on these rebukes, with one stating, “Her unprofessionalism is an embarrassment to the bench,” suggesting her approach risks eroding the court’s collegiality and credibility.

Public Outcry Questions Court Impartiality

The reaction on X amplified concerns about Jackson’s public comments, with one user asserting, “Impartial judges committed to faithful application of the law don’t make incendiary comments like this in public.”

Her remarks about democracy, combined with her history of dissenting in high-profile cases, have led some to argue she prioritizes personal views over legal restraint, potentially undermining public trust in the Supreme Court.

The mainstream media has historically run cover for the Left. But times are changing.

Now The Washington Post betrayed the Democrat Party by demanding this investigation.

Washington Post Urges Investigation into Biden’s Health

The Washington Post editorial board on Thursday called for a thorough congressional investigation into former President Joe Biden’s health during his term, asserting that Americans “deserve” clarity on his physical and mental capacity while in office.

The board highlighted concerns raised during a House Oversight Committee hearing where Biden’s personal physician, Kevin O’Connor, invoked the Fifth Amendment multiple times when questioned about his tenure.

The Post emphasized the need for transparency, stating, “Congress should thoroughly investigate whether Biden was physically and mentally capable of carrying out his duties — and not just to sate understandable public curiosity about the previous administration.”

The editorial urged lawmakers to prioritize factual inquiry over partisan agendas to ensure public trust in government leadership.

Oversight Hearing Sparks Partisan Divide

The House Oversight Committee is examining whether Biden’s top aides concealed evidence of his mental and physical decline, a claim the aides have denied.

Republicans pointed to O’Connor’s refusal to testify as evidence of a potential cover-up, while Democrats labeled the hearing as exaggerated and dismissed concerns about Biden’s health as overblown.

The Post’s editorial board criticized both perspectives, stating, “Biden’s case is only the latest evidence that lawmakers should take on the difficult but unavoidable topic of whether to set transparency rules on presidential health.”

Reports of Biden forgetting aides’ names, relying on teleprompters for minor events, needing scripted cabinet meetings, and struggling with long work hours “raise legitimate concerns that Biden’s health threatened national security and continuity of government,” the board noted, calling for reforms to address such issues systematically.

Balancing Privacy and Public Accountability

The Post acknowledged the complexity of O’Connor’s position, noting his “ethical and legal obligations to protect private patient information” and concerns that the Justice Department could use his testimony against him.

However, the board suggested he could clarify whether “he ever felt pressure to sanitize his annual public reports on Biden’s health” without breaching confidentiality.

The editorial stressed that both parties must move beyond political posturing—Democrats by recognizing the issue’s importance and Republicans by focusing on substantive information rather than partisan attacks.

The Post concluded, “Lawmakers have a responsibility to carefully examine the matter and use their findings to consider reforms that would preserve Americans’ confidence in their leaders.”

The Left can’t catch a break. And that trend isn’t going to change.

Now a Democrat Congressman revealed who is targeting him in a bombshell revelation.

Torres Targeted for Pro-Israel Stance

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), a staunch supporter of Israel, confirmed on CNN Thursday that allies of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are targeting him for a primary challenge due to his vocal defense of the Jewish state.

During a discussion with host Abby Phillip, conservative commentator Scott Jennings pressed Torres, asking, “Are you being honest when you say you don’t know why they’re targeting you?” Torres admitted, “I think they’re targeting me because I’m pro-Israel,” a sentiment Jennings affirmed, stating, “That’s 100 percent correct.”

The threats, backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and other far-left groups supporting Mamdani’s recent primary win, highlight a divisive agenda that President Donald Trump has consistently opposed, emphasizing his unwavering support for Israel and allies like Torres who stand against antisemitism.

Mamdani’s Allies Fuel Democratic Discord

The controversy erupted after Phillip noted that Mamdani’s allies, including DSA leaders, have listed Torres, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), and other Democrats for potential primaries due to their pro-Israel positions.

Torres, responding to CNN’s Ana Navarro’s question about being labeled “establishment,” remarked, “For me, the lesson learned from Mamdani’s victory is that there is no Democratic establishment,” signaling the growing influence of radical factions.

Jennings praised Torres’ courage, stating, “He’s been courageous on this issue and he stood up to the wacko radicals in his party on this, and he deserves all the credit in the world for it.”

Mamdani’s platform, which critics link to anti-Israel rhetoric, risks alienating mainstream Democrats and bolstering Trump’s narrative of a unified America supporting key allies like Israel against divisive ideologies.

Torres’ Passionate Defense of Jewish Community

In a January 2024 speech at Central Synagogue in Manhattan, Torres condemned the celebration of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, massacre of 1,200 Israelis, stating:

“I found it utterly horrifying to see fellow Americans openly cheering and celebrating the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.”

He likened the reaction to historical atrocities, adding, “And for me, the aftermath of October 7 revealed the barbarity of the American heart that reminded me of an earlier and darker time in our nation’s history.”

Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Elie Wiesel, Torres criticized the “appalling silence and indifference and cowardice” of leaders, declaring, “October 7 has been an awakening for the Jewish community, but it must be a reckoning for all of America.”

The Democrat Party is fracturing. And now they’re turning on each other.

Because House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed a fellow Democrat for a shocking reason.

Escalating Tensions Within New York Democrats

The Democratic Party in New York City faces a growing rift as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Working Families Party threaten primaries against prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, following Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the June 2025 mayoral primary.

Jeffries’ team fired back, with senior adviser André Richardson labeling the DSA as “Team Gentrification” and warning, “If Team Gentrification wants a primary fight, our response will be forceful and unrelenting. We will teach them and all of their incumbents a painful lesson on June 23, 2026.”

This feud highlights the divisive tactics of far-left factions, whose aggressive posturing risks undermining Democratic unity and handing an advantage to President Donald Trump’s agenda as he advances policies prioritizing American strength and security.

Left-Wing Challenges Threaten Democratic Cohesion

The DSA’s push for primaries against Jeffries, Reps. Jerry Nadler, Yvette Clarke, and others stems from their claim that Jeffries’ leadership has created a “vacuum” filled by groups like the DSA, as stated by co-chair Gustavo Gordillo:

“His leadership has left a vacuum that organizations like DSA are filling.”

This rhetoric, coupled with Mamdani’s refusal to condemn “intifada” chants at past events, exposes a radical streak that alienates mainstream Democrats.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, who endorsed Andrew Cuomo for mayor, defended Jeffries, stating, “If you side against Jeffries, you’re doing the bidding of Donald Trump. You’re siding against the black political establishment in the US.”

Torres criticized the DSA’s “double standard” for pressuring Democrats to back Mamdani while failing to support Kamala Harris for president, revealing their inconsistent priorities that could weaken Democratic efforts to counter Trump’s legislative successes, like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Jeffries Stands Firm for American Priorities

As Mamdani faces Republican Curtis Sliwa, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Eric Adams in the November 2025 general election, his campaign’s pressure on Democrats to align with his far-left platform has sparked backlash.

Brooklyn Assemblywoman Phara Souffrant Forrest, a DSA member, taunted Jeffries on X, saying, “Weird threat to make since Hakeem already went after @JabariBrisport and I. How’d that go for him, again?” while citing her and Brisport’s 2022 primary wins.

Yet, DNC member Robert Zimmerman condemned the DSA’s actions as “dangerously counterproductive and hypocritical,” arguing, “The choice is clear: Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker or Donald Trump continuing to rule without any checks or balances on his power.”

America has power no one has ever seen before. And we’re not afraid to use it.

And now Trump slapped an existential threat on this foreign leader’s desk.

Bold Diplomacy for Global Stability

A new book, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, published Tuesday, reveals President Donald Trump’s assertive approach to foreign policy during his 2024 campaign.

According to the book, Trump told donors he issued stark warnings to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping against military aggression.

“I was with Putin and I told him, ‘Vladimir, if you do it, we’re going to bomb the s— out of Moscow,’” Trump declared, per an audio recording shared with CNN.

He added a similar warning to Xi:

“If you go into Taiwan, I’m going to bomb the s— out of Beijing.” These bold statements underscore Trump’s commitment to deterring global threats through strength, a cornerstone of his America First agenda that resonated with voters in his 2024 election victory.

Restoring American Leadership

The book, authored by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager, and Isaac Arnsdorf, highlights Trump’s leadership in preventing foreign conflicts during his first term, contrasting it with the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine under President Joe Biden.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly reinforced this, stating:

“As President Trump has said time and again, Russia never dared invade Ukraine when he was in office. It happened only when Biden was in office.” She emphasized, “Thanks to this President’s leadership, America is once again the leader of the free world, and peace through strength is restored.”

Trump’s decisive rhetoric, as detailed in the book, reflects his strategy of projecting power to maintain global stability, a key factor in his 2024 mandate to prioritize American interests.

Confronting Ongoing Challenges

Trump’s frustration with Putin has grown as he works to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. During a Tuesday Cabinet meeting, he expressed exasperation, saying:

“We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

The President is considering new sanctions on Russia to pressure Putin into negotiations, showcasing his proactive stance on resolving international conflicts.

While the White House did not confirm the audio’s authenticity, the book’s account aligns with Trump’s track record of tough diplomacy, which continues to shape his administration’s efforts to secure peace and protect American sovereignty.

The rot runs deep in Washington, D.C. But it’s worse than many thought.

And now we know taxpayer dollars are being funneled for a sinister purpose you won’t believe.

Exposing Media Bias at PBS

A revealing study by the Media Research Center (MRC), released Tuesday, uncovered a stark 93% negative bias against Republicans and the Trump administration on the taxpayer-funded PBS program “Washington Week with The Atlantic” over the past three months.

Despite its claim of delivering “objective” political coverage, the program consistently skewed its narrative, dedicating 83 minutes to discussing Republicans—primarily President Trump and his administration—with 77 minutes of negative commentary and just six minutes positive.

The study, analyzing 13 episodes from April to June 2025, highlights a troubling departure from the balanced reporting PBS is mandated to provide, raising questions about the use of the $445 million in annual taxpayer funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Undermining Trump’s Achievements

The MRC report exposes how even President Trump’s clear successes, like the decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear program, were met with 82% unfavorable coverage on the program.

Trump’s immigration policies, a cornerstone of his administration’s border security advancements, faced unrelenting 100% negative coverage, ignoring significant progress in this area.

Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg set an anti-Trump tone from the start, with introductions like:

“Most presidents wait until they leave the White House to cash in. President Trump takes a different approach. Crypto deals, hotels, golf courses, 747s, everything is on the table.”

The panel, dominated by left-leaning outlets like The New York Times, which sent six reporters, included only one representative from a non-liberal outlet, The Dispatch, who echoed the harsh anti-Trump sentiment, further skewing the discourse.

Failing the Taxpayer Mandate

PBS’s congressional charter demands “strict adherence to objectivity and balance,” yet the MRC study argues this standard is grossly unmet.

Inflammatory remarks from panelists, such as PBS News Hour’s Laura Barron-Lopez claiming the administration “repeatedly emboldened extremists and used hate speech to talk about their political enemies” and that “normalizing the populace to political violence is a trait of authoritarianism,” underscore the program’s bias.

While Republican topics were heavily scrutinized, Democratic coverage was nearly nonexistent, with only 61 seconds outside a May 23 special episode on the Biden campaign exposé “Original Sin,” which detailed the cover-up of President Biden’s cognitive decline.

This imbalance betrays the trust of American taxpayers, who fund PBS regardless of political affiliation, and calls for greater accountability to ensure fair and balanced reporting.