The media is used to lying. But they aren’t used to getting in trouble for it.

Now a major media outlet is forced to apologize to Melania Trump for an outrageous lie.

Daily Beast Retracts Article on Melania Trump and Epstein

On Thursday, July 31, 2025, The Daily Beast removed an article alleging that a modeling agent linked to Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania Trump to President Donald Trump.

The article, based on claims by author Michael Wolff on “The Daily Beast Podcast,” was replaced with an editor’s note stating, “After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump’s attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologizes part of any confusion or misunderstanding.”

The original headline, text, image, and URL were fully scrubbed from the outlet’s website, reflecting a swift response to legal concerns raised by Melania Trump’s team.

Wolff’s Claims and Journalistic Criticism

The retracted article stemmed from Wolff’s podcast interview on Saturday, where he claimed Melania was “very involved” in President Trump’s “relationship” with Epstein, alleging, “She’s introduced by a model agent, both of whom Trump and Epstein are involved with. She’s introduced to Trump that way. Epstein knows her well.”

Wolff, author of “Fire & Fury,” has faced significant skepticism for his reporting. In 2018, journalist Jeet Heer wrote in The New Republic that “Wolff is a shoddy, dishonest journalist” who “plays loose with the facts.”

Similarly, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman told CNN that Wolff “gets basic details wrong” and creates narratives that are “notionally true, conceptually true” but often factually inaccurate.

These criticisms highlight ongoing concerns about Wolff’s reliability, which likely contributed to The Daily Beast’s decision to retract the article.

Melania’s Account and Ongoing Epstein Scrutiny

In her 2024 memoir, Melania, the First Lady detailed meeting Donald Trump at a September 1998 Fashion Week party at the Kit Kat Klub in New York City, writing:

“I saw my friend wave at someone behind me. When I turned around, I noticed a man and an attractive blonde woman approaching us. ‘Hi. I’m Donald Trump,’ the man said when he reached my table.”

She described their conversation as captivating, noting, “From the moment our conversation began, I was captivated by his charm and easygoing nature,” and felt like “the center of his world.”

The Trump administration continues to face pressure from supporters to release additional documents related to Epstein’s federal child sex trafficking case.

Epstein, who died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial, remains a subject of public and political scrutiny.

The Joe Biden and Kamala Harris fallout reached a head in 2024. The fallout has been terrible for Democrats.

Because now a Washington, D.C. insider has leaked dirt the Biden team has on Kamala Harris.

According to journalist Mark Halperin, speaking on “The Morning Meeting” on Friday, aides to former President Joe Biden are prepared to disclose damaging information about former Vice President Kamala Harris if she criticizes him. On Thursday, Harris revealed plans for a September book detailing her 2024 presidential campaign, which she is already promoting. Halperin, reporting via his 2WAY platform, stated that Biden’s team made significant efforts to support Harris in her roles as vice president and presidential candidate but ultimately deemed her ineffective.

“I’m going to break a little news here, okay? We talk all the time about what did Kamala Harris know and when did she know it about his cognitive decline … if the Biden people decide that Kamala Harris is coming after Joe Biden, wait till you hear the Palinesque stories about how much they tried to help her be prepared to be vice president and be in a position to run — and how much they decided: not happening,” Halperin said. “She’s not up to this.”

He continued, “And if the Biden people feel threatened, you will hear stories about Kamala Harris as vice president that will not make her look good. Okay? So there’s a closeness to the couples — it’s not like they’re at war currently — but I’m telling you, if Joe Biden feels threatened, if his people feel threatened by her, this will escalate in a big way. And she will have a hard time defending against the stories if that dam bursts. They were extraordinary in trying to help her do the job of vice president. They gave her every opportunity. And they found in some instances that she had some issues.”

On July 21, 2024, Biden withdrew from his reelection bid and endorsed Harris the same day. In the November 2024 election, Harris lost all seven swing states and the popular vote to President Donald Trump.

In an October 2024 appearance on “The View,” Harris responded to co-host Sunny Hostin’s question about whether she would have taken a different approach from Biden during their four years in office, saying she would not have changed anything.

“There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of, and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact, the work we have done, for example, capping the cost of insulin at $35 a month for our seniors,” she said.

In another October 2024 interview with NBC News chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander, who asked what she “would have done differently,” Harris declined to critique Biden’s policies.

“I need to be very candid with you, even including Mike Pence, vice presidents are not critical of their presidents,” Harris told Alexander. “I think that really actually, in terms of the tradition of it and also just going forward, it does not make for a productive and important relationship… Going forward, there is no question that I’d bring my own experiences and my own life experiences.”

Harris has consistently denied any claims that Biden displayed cognitive decline during their tenure.

Tensions between the teams of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been documented in various reports, highlighting friction that predates Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. These accounts, drawn from multiple news outlets, reveal a complex relationship marked by differing priorities, communication breakdowns, and mutual frustrations.

One early source of strain emerged during Harris’s tenure as vice president, particularly in 2021, when she was tasked with addressing the root causes of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. A November 2021 CNN report detailed discontent within Harris’s team, with aides feeling she was given politically challenging assignments without adequate support from Biden’s inner circle. Some staffers described a lack of clear direction and resources, which they believed set Harris up for criticism.

Conversely, Biden’s team expressed concerns about Harris’s performance. A Politico article from July 2021 cited anonymous White House officials who described Harris as unprepared for high-stakes responsibilities and prone to defensiveness when offered guidance. These officials claimed her team’s high turnover—attributed to internal dysfunction—further strained coordination with Biden’s staff.

The border issue remained a point of contention. An Axios report in 2022 noted that Biden aides were frustrated by Harris’s reluctance to engage publicly on immigration, perceiving it as a refusal to share political risk. Harris’s defenders, however, argued that the administration failed to clarify her role, leaving her vulnerable to Republican attacks framing her as the “border czar.”

By 2023, tensions surfaced over campaign strategy as Biden prepared for his reelection bid. A Washington Post article reported that Harris’s team pushed for a more prominent role in the campaign, believing she could energize key demographics like young voters and minorities. Biden’s advisers, however, prioritized a cautious approach centered on the president, sidelining Harris from major decision-making, according to sources cited in the piece.

When Biden exited the race in July 2024, endorsing Harris, the transition exposed further rifts. A New York Times report from August 2024 described Biden aides feeling blindsided by Harris’s rapid consolidation of campaign infrastructure, with some believing she distanced herself from Biden’s record too quickly. Harris’s team countered that she needed to establish her own identity to compete against Trump.

A December 2024 Reuters article quoted former Biden staffers who blamed Harris’s campaign for failing to leverage Biden’s legislative accomplishments, like the Inflation Reduction Act. Harris’s allies, in turn, argued that Biden’s low approval ratings and perceived cognitive decline—despite Harris’s public denials—were liabilities she couldn’t overcome.

Kamala Harris has been making the news rounds. Everyone wants to know what she’s up to.

And a Fox News host got an eyebrow-raising response from a U.S. Senator when asked about Harris.

Democratic Senator Dodges Question on Harris’ 2028 Presidential Run

Recently, Delaware Senator Chris Coons avoided directly addressing a question from Fox News host Martha MacCallum about whether he would support former Vice President Kamala Harris if she chose to run for president in 2028. MacCallum pressed Coons on whether he would encourage Harris to seek the Democratic nomination again, but Coons shifted focus to immediate legislative priorities.

“Martha, 2028 is a long way off. And first we need to focus on the challenges right in front of us here in Congress,” Coons said. “Our president, Donald Trump, and his OMB [Office of Management and Budget] director are trying very hard to shut this government down, and on a bipartisan basis, those of us who are appropriators are trying to keep it open and trying to do our job and meet the needs of the American people — keeping costs down and keeping the national defense strong and investing in health care.”

He added, “And that’s in contrast with a president who wants to take away health care from millions of Americans. That’s the issue right in front of us. 2028 is literally years away.” Harris announced on Wednesday that she would not pursue the California governorship, despite earlier speculation about her political plans, which included either a gubernatorial bid or another presidential run in 2028. In her statement, Harris expressed enthusiasm for “helping elect Democrats” across the country and promised to share more about her future plans in the coming months.

Some California House Democrats, speaking anonymously to CNN, expressed skepticism about Harris running for governor. One lawmaker noted, “There’s no groundswell for her candidacy. In fact, I think it would only fire up Republicans and hurt our ability to win the four to five seats that we need to win to win the House and hold on to three seats that we just flipped in 2024.” The same Democrat remarked, “She comes in with baggage.”

Political analyst Mark Halperin, speaking on “The Morning Meeting” Monday, predicted that Harris might exit politics entirely. “I don’t think she’ll end up being a candidate for governor of California,” Halperin said. “And I think she’ll find it’s so hard raising money to run for president that she’s done with politics would be my guess.”

Harris’ electoral track record adds to the uncertainty. In the 2024 presidential election, she lost all seven swing states and the popular vote to Donald Trump. Her 2020 presidential campaign was similarly lackluster, earning only 844 votes in the Democratic primary and no delegates, according to historical election data.

The Democratic Party faces a daunting challenge as it looks toward the 2028 presidential election. With Harris’ future uncertain and her past campaigns showing limited voter appeal, the party must grapple with a thin bench of viable candidates. The absence of a clear frontrunner is compounded by the need to unify a diverse coalition while countering a resurgent Republican Party led by Trump’s enduring influence.

One potential contender, California Governor Gavin Newsom, has been a prominent figure in Democratic politics, but his high-profile policies, such as stringent environmental regulations and progressive social initiatives, may alienate moderate voters in swing states. Newsom’s national visibility, bolstered by frequent media appearances, gives him an edge, but his ability to appeal beyond California’s liberal base remains untested.

Other names, such as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, have surfaced as possibilities. Whitmer’s success in a battleground state and her ability to navigate contentious issues like abortion rights and economic recovery make her a compelling option. However, her relatively low national profile could hinder her ability to galvanize a Democratic base early in the primary process.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 primary standout, remains a potential candidate, but his tenure in the Biden administration has drawn mixed reviews. While his communication skills and youthful energy resonate with some voters, critics argue he lacks the executive experience needed to convince skeptics of his readiness for the presidency.

The Democratic Party’s challenge is further complicated by its need to address internal divisions. Progressive figures like Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could energize the party’s left wing but risk alienating centrists. Conversely, moderate candidates may struggle to inspire the grassroots enthusiasm necessary to compete in a crowded primary field.

Recent analyses from political outlets, such as a November 2024 Politico report, highlight the Democrats’ struggle to identify a candidate who can bridge these divides while appealing to a national electorate. The party’s losses in 2024, particularly in swing states, have truly shown the need for a candidate with broad appeal and a clear vision to counter Republican momentum.

Emerging leaders, such as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, have gained attention for their pragmatic governance and success in a key battleground state. Yet, like Whitmer, Shapiro faces the hurdle of building national name recognition. The party’s ability to cultivate and promote new talent in the coming years will be critical to its success.

The Democratic National Committee is already facing pressure to overhaul its primary process to avoid the pitfalls of past cycles, where crowded fields diluted voter support. A December 2024 analysis from The Hill noted that party strategists are debating whether to prioritize early debates or adjust delegate allocation to ensure a stronger nominee emerges by 2028.

The Democrats continue to receive bad news. The Party is in an existential crisis.

Especially after CNN learned about this Texas plan to cement Trump’s control over Congress.

CNN’s lead data analyst Harry Enten highlighted that Texas’ latest redistricting proposal could secure Republican control of the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. On July 15, President Donald Trump expressed to journalists his goal for a revised Texas congressional map that would enable Republicans to gain five additional House seats.

Texas Republicans unveiled a new map proposal on Wednesday designed to achieve this in 2026. During a segment on “CNN News Central,” Enten noted that these five seats could be pivotal in maintaining the GOP’s House majority, given the tight margins in recent elections.

“It could make a huge difference. This, in fact, could maintain control for the Republicans in the House of Representatives … Texas has 38 congressional districts,” Enten said. “Look at those that Trump won last year by at least 10 percentage points. Under the current lines, it’s 25. Under the proposed lines, it’s 30. That’s … five potential pickup opportunities for the Republican Party.”

“You might think five seats is just five seats, but keep in mind this — margin to spare for the House majority: in 2020, the Democrats had four seats; 2022, Republicans had four seats; this time around, two seats for Republicans out of the 2024 elections,” he added. “Five seats can make all the difference in the world. And that is why Republicans in Texas providing five pickup opportunities could, in fact, make the difference between Republicans losing control of the House of Representatives and maintaining control of the House of Representatives.”

Currently, Republicans hold an eight-seat majority in the House, accounting for vacancies left by the recent passing of three Democratic representatives.

Redistricting congressional boundaries outside the standard decennial cycle following a Census, known as mid-decade redistricting, is rare and often sparks controversy. A notable example occurred in Texas in 2003, when a mid-decade redistricting effort proceeded despite opposition from over 50 state Democratic legislators attempting to prevent a vote on the new map.

That 2003 map significantly favored Republicans, resulting in the GOP gaining five Texas House seats in the 2004 elections.

Why the 2026 Midterms Are Critical for the Trump Administration

The 2026 midterm elections will be a defining moment for the Trump administration, as they will determine whether Republicans can maintain control of Congress to advance the president’s legislative agenda. Historically, midterm elections often serve as a referendum on the sitting president, with the party in power typically losing seats. For Trump, securing a Republican-friendly Congress is essential to enact key policy priorities, such as immigration reform, tax cuts, and deregulation, which require legislative approval.

With Republicans currently holding a slim eight-seat majority, the proposed map’s potential to add five GOP seats could prove decisive. Web sources indicate that narrow House majorities, as seen in 2020 (Democrats, four seats) and 2022 (Republicans, four seats), amplify the impact of even small shifts. A loss of control in the House could stall Trump’s agenda, as opposition from a Democratic majority would likely block Republican-backed bills.

Control of the Senate is equally critical. In 2026, one-third of Senate seats will be up for election, and Republicans will aim to either maintain or expand their current majority (depending on the 2024 outcome). A Republican Senate is vital for confirming Trump’s judicial and administrative nominees, including potential Supreme Court justices. Web analyses suggest that a divided Congress, with one chamber controlled by Democrats, could lead to gridlock, hampering the administration’s ability to pass legislation or secure appointments.

By redrawing district lines to favor Republicans, the state could offset potential losses elsewhere. However, mid-decade redistricting is contentious and may face legal challenges, as seen in 2003 when Texas Democrats briefly fled the state to block a similar effort. Web reports note that courts often scrutinize such maps for violations of voting rights laws, which could delay or alter the proposed changes.

Beyond Texas, national demographic trends and voter sentiment will shape the 2026 midterms. Data suggests that issues like inflation, border security, and cultural debates could drive Republican turnout, but a strong Democratic campaign focusing on reproductive rights or economic equity could counter this. Trump’s personal popularity will also play a role, as his polarizing style may energize both supporters and opponents.

The stakes for the Trump administration extend beyond domestic policy. A Republican Congress would facilitate foreign policy initiatives, such as trade agreements or sanctions, which require legislative backing. Conversely, a Democratic Congress could constrain Trump’s international agenda, as seen during his first term when opposition-led investigations limited his maneuverability.

Russia and America are butting heads. And it could get ugly fast.

Now Donald Trump shot a sobering warning to a Russian leader that shows he means business.

Trump’s Firm Response to Russian Rhetoric Signals Strong Leadership

President Donald Trump delivered a sharp rebuke to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s provocative warnings about escalating tensions with the United States, showcasing his no-nonsense approach to foreign policy. In a midnight post on TRUTH Social on Thursday, July 31, 2025, Trump dismissed Medvedev’s remarks, telling the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council to “watch his words.”

Addressing Medvedev’s comments on U.S.-India relations, Trump wrote, “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.” He emphasized the minimal trade ties between the U.S. and both nations, noting India’s high tariffs and Russia’s limited economic engagement with the U.S. “Let’s keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” Trump’s direct response underscores his commitment to defending U.S. interests while refusing to be intimidated by Russian posturing, particularly Medvedev’s reference to the Cold War-era “Dead Hand” nuclear retaliation system, which the former Russian leader invoked mockingly on Telegram.

Strategic Tariffs and Ultimatums Reshape Global Dynamics

Trump’s foreign policy has increasingly intertwined trade and geopolitics, a strategy evident in his recent actions toward Russia and its allies. During a Monday speech in Scotland, Trump issued a stern ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin, shortening a previous 50-day deadline to 10 or 12 days for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. Failure to comply, Trump warned, would result in intensified “sanctions, tariffs, and maybe secondary tariffs” on Moscow and countries purchasing Russian goods and energy.

This follows stalled negotiations with Putin, which Trump lamented have yielded little progress toward peace.

Medvedev, in an earlier X post, criticized Trump’s approach, warning, “Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10. He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!”

On Wednesday, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian imports, effective August 1, citing India’s “strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary” trade barriers and its heavy reliance on Russian oil and military equipment. While calling India a “friend,” Trump criticized its role as a major buyer of Russian energy, especially amid global calls for Russia to end its aggression in Ukraine. He also highlighted India’s membership in BRICS, a group he described as “anti-the United States” and a threat to the dollar’s global dominance.

At a press conference, Trump stated, “BRICS is basically a group of countries that are anti-the United States and India is a member of that, if you can believe it. It’s an attack on the dollar. And we’re not going to let anybody attack the dollar.”

Economic Wins Bolster Trump’s Global Trade Vision

Trump’s trade policies have sparked debate but also delivered tangible results, reinforcing his narrative of revitalizing the U.S. economy. On Thursday, he celebrated his reciprocal tariffs plan, which he said brought “billions” into the U.S. economy, writing on social media, “Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again.” He contrasted his approach with past administrations, claiming, “ONE YEAR AGO, AMERICA WAS A DEAD COUNTRY, NOW IT IS THE ‘HOTTEST’ COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!” The EU trade deal, announced with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, has been a cornerstone of this success, despite criticism from figures like Medvedev, who dismissed its framework.

Trump’s insistence on linking trade deals to foreign policy alignment was evident when he warned Canada that its support for Palestinian statehood could jeopardize a potential trade agreement, stating, “That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them.”

Economic indicators support Trump’s claims of progress. Inflation has dropped from Biden-era peaks of 9.1% in 2022 to 3.2% in June 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while GDP grew 3% last quarter, per the Bureau of Economic Analysis. These figures bolster Trump’s argument that his tariff-driven strategy is strengthening the U.S. economy without triggering the inflation critics feared.

By imposing tariffs on nations like India and pressuring Russia through economic measures, Trump is reshaping global trade dynamics to prioritize American interests.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris failed big time in 2024. But she is keeping her options open.

And now Kamala Harris has finally announced her plans to run for office again.

Kamala Harris Declines 2026 California Gubernatorial Run

Kamala Harris, the former Vice President, confirmed on Wednesday that she will not seek the California governor’s seat in the 2026 election, putting an end to widespread speculation about her next political move.

Her decision follows a significant setback in the 2024 presidential election, where she was defeated by President Donald Trump. This loss has sparked discussions about her political trajectory and what role she might play in the Democratic Party moving forward.

“In recent months, I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their governor,” Harris stated, according to Politico. “I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for Governor in this election.”

“I have extraordinary admiration and respect for those who dedicate their lives to public service — service to their communities and to our nation,” she added. “At the same time, we must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis. As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking — committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”

While Harris did not clarify whether she plans to pursue the presidency in 2028, she emphasized her commitment to engaging with voters and supporting other Democratic candidates in the interim. The former vice president noted that she would provide “more details” about her future intentions in the months ahead, leaving open the possibility of other political endeavors.

Why Democrats Should Steer Clear of Kamala Harris for 2028

Kamala Harris’s decision to forego a gubernatorial run in California has shifted attention to her potential role in the 2028 presidential election. However, Democrats should approach her candidacy with caution, as her political track record and public perception present significant challenges that could hinder the party’s success.

Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign struggled to resonate with a broad electorate. Her inability to secure the presidency against Donald Trump highlighted weaknesses in her messaging and voter connection. Political analysts have noted that her campaign lacked a clear narrative, often failing to articulate a vision that distinguished her from other Democratic contenders or addressed the economic and social concerns of swing voters.

Public opinion polls from 2024 consistently showed Harris with underwhelming approval ratings. A Gallup poll from October 2024 indicated that her favorability hovered around 40%, a troubling figure for a candidate aiming to unify a fractured party. This lack of widespread appeal could make it difficult for her to galvanize the diverse coalition needed to win a national election.

Her tenure as vice president also drew criticism for a lack of clear accomplishments. Tasked with high-profile issues like immigration and voting rights, Harris faced scrutiny for limited progress. For instance, her role in addressing the root causes of migration from Central America yielded few tangible results, leading to perceptions of ineffectiveness that could haunt her in future campaigns.

Moreover, Harris’s prosecutorial background, while an asset in her early career, has become a liability among progressive Democrats. Her record as California’s attorney general, where she championed tough-on-crime policies, has been criticized by activists who view her as out of step with the party’s growing emphasis on criminal justice reform. This tension could alienate key segments of the Democratic base in 2028.

The Democratic Party is also undergoing a generational shift, with younger voters and emerging leaders pushing for fresh faces. Figures like Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer or Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman have gained traction for their ability to connect with working-class voters in battleground states. Harris, by contrast, struggles to shake the perception of being a Washington insider, which could clash with the party’s desire for a new direction.

Economic concerns further complicate Harris’s prospects. With inflation and cost-of-living issues dominating voter priorities, Democrats need a candidate who can credibly address pocketbook issues. Harris’s 2024 campaign was criticized for vague economic proposals, and without a stronger platform, she risks being outmaneuvered by opponents who can offer concrete solutions.

The Republican Party would likely capitalize on Harris’s vulnerabilities, as they did in 2024. GOP strategists successfully painted her as an out-of-touch elitist, a narrative that resonated in key swing states. If she runs in 2028, Democrats can expect a repeat of these attacks, which could prove difficult to counter given her existing public image challenges.

Harris’s communication style has also drawn scorn. While she can deliver compelling speeches, her off-the-cuff remarks have occasionally been seen as awkward or overly rehearsed, leading to viral moments that damaged her credibility. In a media-saturated campaign environment, these missteps could be magnified, undermining her ability to compete effectively.

The Democratic Party’s path to victory in 2028 depends on unifying its progressive and moderate wings while appealing to independents. Harris’s polarizing presence risks exacerbating internal divisions, particularly among progressives who view her as too centrist and moderates who question her electability. A less divisive candidate could better bridge these gaps.

Emerging demographic trends also suggest Democrats need a candidate who can energize young voters and communities of color. While Harris’s historic candidacy as a woman of color was a milestone, her 2024 campaign struggled to mobilize these groups at the levels seen in past Democratic victories, raising doubts about her ability to inspire turnout.

President Trump is losing patience. He’s demanding Russia back down.

But Putin instead flipped President Trump the middle finger in this new announcement.

Russia Stands Firm Against U.S. Pressure for Ukraine Ceasefire

Russian President Vladimir Putin is holding his ground against U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of economic penalties, including tariffs and sanctions, if a ceasefire in Ukraine is not achieved, according to a Wednesday report by Reuters.

The Kremlin emphasized that Russia remains resilient to U.S. economic measures, despite Trump’s announcement on Tuesday that he is drastically shortening the timeline for securing a ceasefire in Ukraine. Since taking office in January, Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Putin’s refusal to engage seriously in peace talks, Reuters noted.

“We have been living under a huge number of sanctions for quite a long time, our economy operates under a huge number of restrictions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters. “Therefore, of course, we have already developed a certain immunity in this regard, and we continue to note all statements that come from President Trump, from other international representatives on this matter.”

Initially, Trump set a 50-day deadline for negotiations on July 14, but he reduced this to just 10 or 12 days during his Tuesday remarks. Former President Joe Biden also targeted Russia’s oil sector with sanctions, but those measures fell short of significantly weakening the Russian economy.

“There’s no reason they’re waiting… it’s 50 days, I want to be generous, [but] we just don’t see any progress being made,” Trump told reporters Tuesday about the decision to expedite the deadline.

Alongside Trump’s threats of secondary tariffs and sanctions on countries trading with Russia, U.S. Congress is advancing bipartisan legislation to empower Trump to impose 500% tariffs on nations importing Russian uranium, gas, and oil.

In response to Putin’s delays, Trump authorized renewed weapons shipments to Ukraine through NATO on July 11 to pressure Moscow toward a peace agreement. Russia insists that any deal must acknowledge its control over occupied Ukrainian territories, a condition Kyiv has firmly rejected.

Trump Administration Seeks to End Russia-Ukraine War Through Economic Pressure

The Trump administration has intensified efforts to resolve the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict by leveraging economic measures aimed at pressuring Russia into agreeing to a ceasefire. Since taking office in January 2025, President Donald Trump has prioritized ending the war, viewing it as a critical foreign policy objective. His strategy centers on imposing stringent tariffs and sanctions to weaken Russia’s economy, which he believes will force Moscow to negotiate.

On Tuesday, Trump announced a significant escalation, shortening the timeline for Russia to engage in ceasefire talks from 50 days to as little as 10 or 12 days. This move reflects growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to advance peace negotiations. Trump’s approach builds on previous U.S. efforts, including sanctions on Russia’s energy sector under the Biden administration, though those measures failed to deliver a decisive economic blow.

The administration’s economic strategy includes threats of secondary tariffs and sanctions targeting countries that continue to trade with Russia. This tactic aims to isolate Russia economically by discouraging nations from purchasing its key exports, such as oil, gas, and uranium. Congressional support for this approach is evident in a bipartisan bill that would grant Trump authority to impose 500% tariffs on countries importing these Russian resources, a move designed to choke off Moscow’s revenue streams.

Russia, however, has shown resilience to such pressures. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov highlighted that the Russian economy has adapted to years of sanctions, developing what he described as “immunity” to external economic restrictions. This adaptability stems from Russia’s experience navigating sanctions since its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

In addition to economic measures, Trump has resumed weapons shipments to Ukraine via NATO, starting July 11, to bolster Kyiv’s position and pressure Russia into negotiations. This marks a shift from earlier U.S. policy, which had paused some military aid to encourage diplomacy. The weapons are intended to strengthen Ukraine’s leverage at the negotiating table, where Russia demands recognition of its control over annexed territories—a condition Ukraine categorically rejects.

The economic measures targeting Russia’s energy sector are particularly significant, as oil and gas exports account for a substantial portion of Moscow’s revenue. By threatening punitive tariffs, the Trump administration aims to disrupt this financial lifeline. However, Russia has diversified its trade partners in recent years, notably increasing exports to countries like China and India, which may blunt the impact of U.S.-led sanctions.

The bipartisan congressional bill targeting Russian energy imports signals strong domestic support for Trump’s strategy. If passed, the legislation would give the president unprecedented authority to penalize nations facilitating Russia’s energy trade, potentially reshaping global energy markets. Critics, however, warn that such measures could raise energy prices worldwide, impacting U.S. consumers and allies.

Despite the pressure, Putin’s insistence on territorial concessions complicates the path to peace. Russia’s demand for Ukraine to cede occupied regions, including parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, has been a non-starter for Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly vowed to reclaim all territories, viewing any concession as a betrayal of national sovereignty.

President Trump is a man on a mission. He has to undo all of the Biden admin’s disasters.

That’s why Donald Trump nuked Joe Biden’s legacy with this one swipe of the pen.

Trump Administration Reverses Biden-Era Energy Restrictions in Alaska

The Trump administration moved decisively on Monday to roll back three policies from the Biden era that had constrained energy development in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). The action signals a shift toward prioritizing resource extraction and economic growth in the region.

Under the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rescinded policies that limited energy resource development in the NPR-A. During his tenure, President Joe Biden implemented measures to curb Alaska’s energy sector, halting mining and oil and gas projects to focus on environmental conservation. In contrast, the Trump administration has sought to tap into Alaska’s abundant energy reserves to boost domestic production.

“Alaska’s resource potential has been held hostage for years by anti-development ideologues,” said DOI Secretary Doug Burgum. “The Trump administration is delivering certainty for industry, opportunity for Alaskans and real energy security for the American people. We are committed to putting development back at the center of land management where it belongs.”

The rescinded Biden policies included a directive to produce a report on “maximizing protection” in the NPR-A, a request for information, and a memorandum addressing “special areas” within the reserve. These reversals mark a new direction for the agency under Trump’s leadership, emphasizing energy development over restrictive conservation measures.

The DOI stated that the move eliminates “burdensome restrictions,” enabling Alaska to capitalize on its natural resources. This aligns with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office, which aimed to unleash Alaska’s energy potential and reduce regulatory barriers.

Biden’s policies had imposed significant limits on oil and gas activities across nearly half of the NPR-A, a 23-million-acre expanse on Alaska’s North Slope. Established by Congress in the 1970s to address the oil crisis, the reserve holds an estimated billions of barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Local communities, particularly native groups reliant on the energy sector, expressed frustration with Biden’s restrictions, which they viewed as detrimental to their economic stability. Community leaders have since praised Trump’s efforts to revitalize oil and gas development, noting its critical role in supporting Alaska’s economy.

Trump’s Energy Policies Gain Traction Amid Push for Resource Development

President Donald Trump’s energy policies, particularly his push to utilize all available energy sources, have resonated with a significant portion of the American public and key stakeholders in energy-producing regions. His administration’s focus on deregulation and maximizing domestic energy production, including oil, gas, coal, and renewables, has sparked widespread discussion about energy independence and economic growth.

In Alaska, Trump’s reversal of restrictive Biden-era policies has been met with enthusiasm from local leaders and industry advocates. The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a key area for oil and gas exploration, has become a focal point for Trump’s strategy to prioritize resource development. By removing barriers to drilling and mining, the administration aims to bolster local economies and reduce reliance on foreign energy.

Public sentiment, as reflected in various polls and online discussions, shows strong support for policies that promote energy independence. A 2024 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 62% of Americans favor expanding domestic oil and gas production to lower energy costs, aligning with Trump’s approach to leveraging all energy sources. This sentiment is particularly strong in energy-producing states like Alaska, Texas, and Wyoming, where local economies depend heavily on resource extraction.

Trump’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, which encourages the development of fossil fuels alongside renewables, has also gained traction among industry groups. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has praised the administration’s efforts to streamline permitting processes and reduce regulatory hurdles, arguing that these measures enhance energy security while fostering job creation. In 2025, the API reported that the oil and gas industry supported over 10 million jobs nationwide, underscoring the economic impact of such policies.

However, Trump’s energy agenda has faced criticism from environmental groups, who argue that deregulation could exacerbate climate change and harm ecosystems. Organizations like the Sierra Club have voiced concerns over expanded drilling in sensitive areas like the NPR-A, citing potential risks to wildlife and indigenous lands. Despite these objections, Trump’s policies remain popular among those prioritizing economic growth and energy affordability.

The administration’s emphasis on energy development extends beyond Alaska. In states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, Trump’s support for natural gas extraction through fracking has garnered significant backing from local communities and industry workers. A 2025 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted that natural gas production reached record highs in 2024, driven by relaxed regulations and increased investment under Trump’s leadership.

Internationally, Trump’s energy policies have also drawn attention. By promoting exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), the administration has positioned the United States as a major player in global energy markets. In 2024, the U.S. became the world’s largest LNG exporter, surpassing Qatar and Australia, according to Bloomberg. This achievement has bolstered Trump’s argument that unrestricted energy development strengthens both national security and global influence.

Trump hasn’t even been in office for a year and people are talking. It’s anyone’s guess who will be the 2028 favorite.

But now a Major Republican threw his support behind this 2028 candidate for president.

Rubio Backs Vance for 2028 GOP Nomination

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed speculation about running for president in 2028, instead endorsing Vice President JD Vance as a potential Republican nominee.

In an interview with Lara Trump on Fox News’ “My View with Lara Trump,” Rubio stated, “I think JD Vance would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that.”

Highlighting their close relationship, Rubio described Vance as one of his “closest friends in politics.”

His endorsement underscores confidence in Vance’s leadership and aligns with President Donald Trump’s vision for the Republican Party’s future, reflecting Rubio’s commitment to supporting the administration’s agenda while serving as the nation’s top diplomat.

Rubio Content with Cabinet Role

Appointed by President Trump as Secretary of State after the 2024 election victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, Rubio expressed satisfaction with his current role, saying, “I want to do this job as long as the president allows me to.”

A former Florida senator, Rubio was among the first confirmed to Trump’s Cabinet, bringing his foreign policy experience to the administration.

He emphasized his desire to make a lasting impact, stating:

“I believe that if I am able to be here, through the duration of this presidency, and we get things done at the pace that we’ve been doing the last six months, I’ll be able to look back at my time in public service and say I made a difference, I had an impact, and I served my country in a very positive way.”

Vance’s Rising Profile in Trump Administration

Rubio’s praise for Vice President Vance, who has emerged as a key figure in Trump’s second term, reflects the administration’s cohesive leadership.

Rubio commended Vance’s performance, noting, “And I would be satisfied with that as the apex of my career.”

His endorsement positions Vance as a strong contender for 2028, building on the momentum of Trump’s 2024 campaign, which resonated with voters through policies like the “Liberation Day” tariffs and domestic economic reforms.

Politicians really just want to sit around and collect their paycheck. But sometimes they have to do things they aren’t happy about.

And now a GOP Congressman threatened to force a vote that is turning heads.

Massie Pushes for Epstein Files Release Vote

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced plans to force a House vote after the August recess to unseal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking case, leveraging bipartisan support to ensure transparency.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Massie declared, “Well, I think we should get a lot more than just the book. Let’s get the financial records of the estate, follow the money, as they say up here. We should look at the plea-bargain, open that up, see what was the deal, what was the deal that was cut.”

He emphasized the need for a comprehensive release, including Epstein’s estate financials and the 2008 plea deal, to uncover details about the financier’s operations.

Massie’s initiative, backed by President Donald Trump’s call for openness, reflects a growing demand to address lingering questions about Epstein’s case, which continues to captivate public attention.

Bipartisan Discharge Petition Gains Traction

Massie, alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), is utilizing a discharge petition to bypass House leadership and bring the Epstein files release to a floor vote, requiring 218 signatures.

He noted, “Ro Khanna and I are using a procedure called a discharge petition whereby if we get 218 votes, and we’re well on our way to that, 218 signatures, then we can force the vote.”

With 12 Republican co-sponsors and potential Democratic support, Massie stated, “If every Democrat signs this, I have 12 Republican co-sponsors and I only need six to sign it.”

Host Jonathan Karl raised concerns about challenging Speaker Mike Johnson’s control, to which Massie responded, “I think the pressure will build over August recess. I don’t think it will dissipate like the speaker hopes that it will.”

The petition’s momentum underscores Trump’s influence in pushing for accountability, aligning with his commitment to transparency.

Public Pressure and Legislative Strategy

Massie predicted that public and political pressure will intensify, ensuring the vote proceeds, stating:

“If merely just half the people who have co-sponsored this legislation follow through and sign it, then it’s going to come to the floor for a vote.”

The Epstein case, marked by his 2008 lenient plea deal and 2019 death ruled a suicide, has fueled speculation about connections to influential figures. Massie’s call for financial records and plea deal details aims to “follow the money” and reveal any hidden agreements.

Supported by Trump, who has endorsed releasing related grand jury testimony, Massie’s effort highlights a rare bipartisan push to address a high-profile controversy, with the discharge petition serving as a strategic tool to overcome potential resistance from House leadership and deliver answers to the American public.